Should term limits be instituted for members of Congress? Explain
valepbf
WeThePeople.pdf
T he
11 6t
h Co
ng re
ss , J
an ua
ry 3
, 2 01
9– Ja
nu ar
y 3,
2 02
1 U
ni te
d S ta
te s
H ou
se o
f R
ep re
se nt
at iv
es D
em oc
ra ts
: 2 3 3
R ep
ub lic
an s:
1 9 9
U nd
ec id
ed : 3
2 0 1 8 E
le ct
io n
R es
ul ts
: D em
oc ra
ts g
ai ne
d co
nt ro
l o f t
he H
ou se
*
D em
oc ra
t
R ep
ub lic
an
U nd
ec id
ed
wtp12e_ptr_Endpapers-front.indd 2 11/29/18 11:52 AM
N V
C A
O RW
A
M T
ID
U T
A Z
A K
H I
N M
T X
O K
K S
N E
M N
IA
M O A R
G A
S C
N C
A LT N
K Y
O H
M E
M D
D EN J
N H M A
R I
C T
V T
P A
N Y
V A
W V
F L
M S
L A
W I
IL IN
M I
S DN D
C O
W Y
U ni
te d
S ta
te s
S en
at e
D em
oc ra
ts : 4
5
R ep
ub lic
an s:
5 3
In
de pe
nd en
ts : 2
20 18
E le
ct io
n R
es ul
ts : R
ep ub
lic an
s re
ta in
ed c
on tr ol
o f t
he S
en at
e*
2 D
em oc
ra ts
2 R
ep ub
lic an
s
1 D
em oc
ra t
an d
1 R
ep ub
lic an
1 In
de pe
nd en
t an
d 1 D
em oc
ra t
1 In
de pe
nd en
t an
d 1 R
ep ub
lic an
* D
at a
ar e
ba se
d on
e le
ct io
n re
su lts
a s
of N
ov em
be r
2 8 , 2
0 1 8 . S
ev er
al r
ac es
r em
ai ne
d un
de ci
de d
pe nd
in g
re co
un ts
a nd
r un
of f e
le ct
io ns
.
wtp12e_ptr_Endpapers-front.indd 3 11/29/18 11:52 AM
An Introduction to American Politics
We the People
121212 edition
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 1 27/11/18 10:26 AM
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 2 27/11/18 10:26 AM
121212 edition
★ BENJAMIN GINSBERG THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
★ THEODORE J. LOWI LATE OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY
★ MARGARET WEIR BROWN UNIVERSITY
★ CAROLINE J. TOLBERT UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
★ ANDREA L. CAMPBELL MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
n W. W. NORTON & COMPANY NEW YORK LONDON
We the People An Introduction to American Politics
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 3 27/11/18 10:26 AM
W. W. Norton & Company has been independent since its founding in 1923, when William Warder Norton and Mary D. Herter Norton first published lectures deliv- ered at the People’s Institute, the adult education division of New York City’s Cooper Union. The firm soon expanded its program beyond the Institute, publishing books by celebrated academics from America and abroad. By mid-century, the two major pillars of Norton’s publishing program—trade books and college texts—were firmly estab- lished. In the 1950s, the Norton family transferred control of the company to its employees, and today—with a staff of four hundred and a comparable number of trade, college, and professional titles published each year—W. W. Norton & Company stands as the largest and oldest publishing house owned wholly by its employees.
Copyright © 2019, 2017, 2015, 2013, 2011, 2009, 2007, 2005, 2003, 2001, 1999, 1997 by W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
All rights reserved Printed in Canada
Marketing Manager, Political Science: Erin Brown Art Director: Rubina Yeh Text Design: Jen Montgomery Photo Editor: Stephanie Romeo Photo Researcher: Elyse Rieder Director of College Permissions: Megan Schindel Permissions Associate: Elizabeth Trammell Information G raphics: Kiss M e I’ m P olish LL C, New York Composition: Graphic World, Inc. Manufacturing: TransContinental
Editor: Peter Lesser Project Editor: Christine D’Antonio Assistant Editor: Anna Olcott Manuscript Editor: Lynne Cannon Managing Editor, College: Marian Johnson Managing Editor, College Digital Media: Kim Yi Production Manager, College: Ashley Horna Media Editor: Spencer Richardson-Jones Associate Media Editor: Michael Jaoui Media Editorial Assistant: Tricia Vuong Ebook Production Manager: Danielle Lehmann
Permission to use copyrighted material is included in the credits section of this book, which begins on page A83.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Ginsberg, Benjamin, author. Title: We the people : an introduction to American politics / Benjamin Ginsberg, The Johns Hopkins University, Theodore J. Lowi, Cornell University, Margaret Weir, Brown University, Caroline J. Tolbert, University of Iowa, Andrea L. Campbell, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Description: Twelfth Edition. | New York : W.W. Norton & Company, [2018] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018046033 | ISBN 9780393644326 (hardcover) Subjects: LCSH: United States--Politics and government--Textbooks. Classification: LCC JK276 .G55 2018 | DDC 320.473--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc .gov/2018046033
W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110 wwnorton.com
W. W. Norton & Company Ltd., 15 Carlisle Street, London W1D 3BS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 4 27/11/18 10:26 AM
To: Sandy, Cindy, and Alex Ginsberg David, Jackie, Eveline, and Ed Dowling Dave, Marcella, Logan, and Kennah Campbell
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 5 27/11/18 10:26 AM
vi
Contents
Preface xx Acknowledgments xxii
PART I FOUNDATIONS
1 ★ American Political Culture 2
Government 5 Is Government Needed? 5 Forms of Government 5 Limiting Government 8 Access to Government: The Expansion of Participation 8 Influencing the Government through Participation: Politics 9
Citizenship: Participation, Knowledge, and Efficiency 10
Who Are Americans? 13 Immigration and Ethnic Diversity 14
WHO ARE AMERICANS? An Increasingly Diverse Nation 15 Immigration and Race 16 Twenty-First-Century Americans 17
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Global Diversity 19
American Political Culture 22 Liberty 23 Equality 25 Democracy 28
What Americans Think about Government 29 Conservative in Theory, Liberal in Practice 30 Trust in Government 31
American Political Culture: What Do We Want? 33 WHO PARTICIPATES? Who Voted in 2016? 35
Study Guide 36 For Further Reading 38 Recommended Websites 39
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 6 27/11/18 10:26 AM
viiCONTENTS
2 ★ The Founding and the Constitution 40
The First Founding: Interests and Conflicts 43 British Taxes and Colonial Interests 43 Political Strife and the Radicalization of the Colonists 44 The Declaration of Independence 45 The Articles of Confederation 46
The Second Founding: From Compromise to Constitution 47 The Annapolis Convention 48 Shays’s Rebellion 48 The Constitutional Convention 49
WHO ARE AMERICANS? Who Benefits from the Great Compromise? 51
The Constitution 53 The Legislative Branch 55 The Executive Branch 56 The Judicial Branch 56 National Unity and Power 57 Amending and Ratifying the Constitution 58 Constitutional Limits on the National Government’s Power 58
The Fight for Ratification 60 AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Comparing Systems of Government 61
Federalists versus Antifederalists 62 Reflections on the Founding 64
The Citizen’s Role and the Changing Constitution 65 Amendments: Many Are Called; Few Are Chosen 65 Which Were Chosen? An Analysis of the 27 66 The Supreme Court and Constitutional Change 68
The Constitution: What Do We Want? 70 WHO PARTICIPATES? Who Gained the Right to Vote through Amendments? 71
Study Guide 72 For Further Reading 74 Recommended Websites 75
3 ★ Federalism 76
Federalism in the Constitution 79 The Powers of the National Government 79 The Powers of State Government 81 States’ Obligations to One Another 82 Local Government and the Constitution 84 Federalism in Practice 84
The Traditional System of Federalism 84 Restraining National Power with Dual Federalism 85 Federalism and the Slow Growth of the National Government’s Power 87
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 7 27/11/18 10:26 AM
viii CONTENTS
Federalism in the Modern Era 89 The New Deal and World War II: New Roles for Government 89 From Layer Cake to Marble Cake: Cooperative Federalism and the Use of Categorical Grants 89 National Standards, Regulation, and Preemption 93
Evolving Role of the States 94 States’ Rights 94 Devolution 96
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Cooperative Federalism: Competition or a Check on Power? 97
Devolution: For Whose Benefit? 100
The Politics of Federalism Today 102 Expediency versus Ideology in Federalism 102
WHO ARE AMERICANS? Who Benefits from Federal Spending? 103 Polarization and National Gridlock: States Step In 105 State-Federal Tug of War 105 State Preemption of Local Government Policy 107
Federalism: What Do We Want? 108
WHO PARTICIPATES? Who Participates in State and Local Politics? 109 Study Guide 110 For Further Reading 113 Recommended Websites 113
4 ★ Civil Liberties 114
Civil Liberties and the Constitution 117 A Brief History of the Bill of Rights 117 Nationalizing the Bill of Rights 118
The First Amendment and Freedom of Religion 123 Separation between Church and State 123 Free Exercise of Religion 125
The First Amendment and Freedom of Speech and of the Press 127
Political Speech 127 Fighting Words and Hate Speech 129 Student Speech 130 Commercial Speech 131 Symbolic Speech, Speech Plus, and the Rights of Assembly and Petition 132 Freedom of the Press 133
The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms 136
Rights of the Criminally Accused 138 The Fourth Amendment and Searches and Seizures 139 The Fifth Amendment 141 The Sixth Amendment and the Right to Counsel 144 The Eighth Amendment and Cruel and Unusual Punishment 144
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 8 27/11/18 10:26 AM
ix
The Right to Privacy 146 Birth Control 146
WHO ARE AMERICANS? Who Is in Prison? 147 Abortion 148 Sexual Orientation 149 The Right to Die 149
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Civil Liberties around the World 150
Civil Liberties: What Do We Want? 151 WHO PARTICIPATES? Religious Affiliation and Freedom of Religion 153
Study Guide 154 For Further Reading 157 Recommended Websites 157
5 ★ Civil Rights 158
The Struggle for Civil Rights 161 Slavery and the Abolitionist Movement 161 The Women’s Rights Movement 162 The Civil War Amendments to the Constitution 163 Civil Rights and the Supreme Court: “Separate but Equal” 164 Organizing for Equality 165 Litigating for Equality after World War II 166 Civil Rights after Brown v. Board of Education 167 The Civil Rights Acts 170
Extending Civil Rights 179 Levels of Scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause 179 Women and Gender Discrimination 180 Latinos 184
WHO ARE AMERICANS? Have Women Achieved Equal Rights? 185 Asian Americans 189 Native Americans 191 Disabled Americans 191 LGBTQ Americans 192 Do the Poor Have Civil Rights? 193
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Women’s Rights 194
Affirmative Action 195 The Supreme Court and the Burden of Proof 195
Civil Rights: What Do We Want? 197 WHO PARTICIPATES? Who Has Fought for Their Rights? 199
Study Guide 200 For Further Reading 202 Recommended Websites 203
CONTENTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 9 27/11/18 10:26 AM
x CONTENTS
PART II POLITICS
6 ★ Public Opinion 204
Defining Public Opinion 207 Political Values 209 Political Ideology 211
How We Form Political Opinions 216 Political Socialization 216 Social Groups and Public Opinion 218
Political Knowledge and Changes in Public Opinion 225 Stability and Change of Public Opinion 225 Political Knowledge 228
WHO ARE AMERICANS? Where Does Income Inequality Stem From? 231
The Media, Government, and Public Opinion 232 Political Leaders 232 Interest Groups 233 The Mass Media 234
Public Opinion and Government Policy 234 Government Responsiveness to Public Opinion 235 Does Everyone’s Opinion Count Equally? 236
Measuring Public Opinion 237 Measuring Public Opinion from Surveys 237
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Confidence in Democratic Institutions 238 When Polls Are Wrong 242 Big Data, Polling Aggregators, and Measuring Public Opinion 245
Public Opinion and Democracy: What Do We Want? 247 WHO PARTICIPATES? Who Expresses Their Political Opinions? 249
Study Guide 250 For Further Reading 253 Recommended Websites 253
7 ★ The Media 254
The Media in American Democracy 257 Journalism 258 The Profit Motive 259 Mass Media Ownership 260
The Media Today 261 Newspapers 263 Broadcast Media 265 Radio 265 Digital Media 267 Citizen Journalism 271 Nonprofit Journalism 272 Benefits of Online News 273
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 10 27/11/18 10:26 AM
xiCONTENTS
PART II POLITICS
6 ★ Public Opinion 204
Defining Public Opinion 207 Political Values 209 Political Ideology 211
How We Form Political Opinions 216 Political Socialization 216 Social Groups and Public Opinion 218
Political Knowledge and Changes in Public Opinion 225 Stability and Change of Public Opinion 225 Political Knowledge 228
WHO ARE AMERICANS? Where Does Income Inequality Stem From? 231
The Media, Government, and Public Opinion 232 Political Leaders 232 Interest Groups 233 The Mass Media 234
Public Opinion and Government Policy 234 Government Responsiveness to Public Opinion 235 Does Everyone’s Opinion Count Equally? 236
Measuring Public Opinion 237 Measuring Public Opinion from Surveys 237
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Confidence in Democratic Institutions 238 When Polls Are Wrong 242 Big Data, Polling Aggregators, and Measuring Public Opinion 245
Public Opinion and Democracy: What Do We Want? 247 WHO PARTICIPATES? Who Expresses Their Political Opinions? 249
Study Guide 250 For Further Reading 253 Recommended Websites 253
7 ★ The Media 254
The Media in American Democracy 257 Journalism 258 The Profit Motive 259 Mass Media Ownership 260
The Media Today 261 Newspapers 263 Broadcast Media 265 Radio 265 Digital Media 267 Citizen Journalism 271 Nonprofit Journalism 272 Benefits of Online News 273
Concerns about Online News 274 Do Americans Trust the Media Today? 276
Media Influence 277 How the Media Influence Politics 278
WHO ARE AMERICANS? Where Do Americans Get Their News? 279
News Coverage 283 Media Leaks 283 Adversarial Journalism 284
Regulation of the Media 285 AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE The Internet and Global Democracy 287
The Media and Democracy: What Do We Want? 288 WHO PARTICIPATES? Civic Engagement in the Digital Age 289
Study Guide 290 For Further Reading 292 Recommended Websites 293
8 ★ Political Participation and Voting 294
Forms of Political Participation 297 Traditional Political Participation 297 Digital Political Participation 303
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Voter Turnout in Comparison 305 The Dark Side of Digital Politics: Russian Voter Suppression and Mobilization 308 Summing Up Digital Participation 309
Who Participates? 310 Socioeconomic Status 310 Age and Participation 312 African Americans 313 Latinos 314 Asian Americans 316 Gender and Participation 316 Religious Identity 318
Political Environment and Voter Mobilization 319 Mobilization 319 Data Analytics and Voter Mobilization 321 Electoral Competition 321 Ballot Measures 322
State Electoral Laws and Participation 323 Registration Requirements 323
WHO ARE AMERICANS? Which States Make Voting Easier? 325 Voting Rights of Felons 326 Voting and Registration Reforms 327
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 11 27/11/18 10:26 AM
xii
Political Participation: What Do We Want? 328 WHO PARTICIPATES? Who Participated in the 2016 Presidential Election? 329
Study Guide 330 For Further Reading 332 Recommended Websites 333
9 ★ Political Parties 334
What Are Political Parties? 337 How Do Political Parties Form and Change? 339 The United States’ Two-Party System 339 What Political Parties Do 340
Parties, Voter Mobilization, and Elections 340 AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Two-Party Systems and Multi-Party Systems 341
Recruiting Candidates 342 Party Nominations and Primaries 342 General Election and Mobilizing Voters 343
Parties as Organizations 344 National Convention 345 National Committees 346 Congressional, State, and Local Campaign Committees 347
Parties in Government 348 Parties and Policy 348 Partisanship and Government Shutdowns 350 Factions within the Parties 350 Parties in Congress 351
Party Identification 352 Who Are Republicans and Democrats? 353 Recent Trends in Party Affiliation 358
WHO ARE AMERICANS? Who Identifies with Which Party? 359
Party Systems 360 The First Party System: Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans 360 The Second Party System: Democrats and Whigs 361 The Civil War and Post–Civil War Party System 362 The System of 1896: Populism and Republican Responses 362 The New Deal Party System: Government Helps the Working Class 363 The Contemporary American Party System 364 Party Polarization 365 Third Parties 368
Political Parties: What Do We Want? 371 WHO PARTICIPATES? Who Votes in Primaries and Caucuses? 373
Study Guide 374 For Further Reading 377 Recommended Websites 377
CONTENTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 12 27/11/18 10:26 AM
xiii
10 ★ Campaigns and Elections 378
Elections in America 381 The Basic Rules of the Game for U.S. Elections 381 What It Takes to Win—Winner Take All 382 The Ballot 383 Legislative Elections and Electoral Districts 384 Presidential Elections 386 Direct-Democracy Elections 392
Election Campaigns 393 Campaign Consultants 393 Fundraising 394 Campaign Strategy 395
Money and Politics 400 The Courts and Campaign Spending 401 Sources of Campaign Funds 402
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Campaign Laws in Comparison 403
How Voters Decide 406 Partisan Loyalty 406 Issues and Policy Preferences 407 Candidate Characteristics 408
The 2016 and 2018 Elections 409 The 2016 Presidential Nomination 409 The General Election 410 Understanding the 2016 Results 413
WHO ARE AMERICANS? Who Supported Trump in 2016? 415 The 2018 Election: A Blue Wave Meets a Red Wall 417 The 2018 Election and America’s Future 421
Campaigns and Elections: What Do We Want? 422 WHO PARTICIPATES? Who Donates to Political Campaigns? 423
Study Guide 424 For Further Reading 427 Recommended Websites 427
11 ★ Groups and Interests 428
Defining Interest Groups 431 Common Types of Interest Groups 433
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Civil Society around the World 436 What Interests Are Not Represented? 437
How Groups Organize 439 The “Free-Rider” Problem 441 Why Join Groups? 441 Digital Communication and Interest Groups 443 Approaches to Interest Group Membership: Two Case Studies 444
The Growth of Interest and Advocacy Groups 446 The Expansion of Government 446 Growth of Public Interest Groups in the 1960s and ’70s 447
CONTENTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 13 27/11/18 10:26 AM
xiv
Interest Group Strategies 447 Direct Lobbying 449 Regulating Lobbying 452 Using the Courts 453 Mobilizing Public Opinion 454 Using Electoral Politics 456
WHO ARE AMERICANS? Who Is Represented by PACs? 457
Interest Groups: What Do We Want? 460 WHO PARTICIPATES? How Much Do Major Groups Spend? 461
Study Guide 462 For Further Reading 464 Recommended Websites 465
PART III INSTITUTIONS
12 ★ Congress 466
Congress: Representing the American People 469 House and Senate: Differences in Representation 469 Trustee versus Delegate Representation 470 Sociological versus Agency Representation 471
WHO ARE AMERICANS? Who Are the Members of Congress? 473 The Electoral Connection 475 Direct Patronage 480
The Organization of Congress 482 Party Leadership in the House 482 Party Leadership in the Senate 483 The Committee System 483 The Staff System: Staffers and Agencies 487
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Women’s Parliamentary Representation Worldwide 488
Informal Organization: The Caucuses 489
Rules of Lawmaking: How a Bill Becomes a Law 489 Committee Deliberation 489 Debate 491 Conference Committee: Reconciling House and Senate Versions of Legislation 493 Presidential Action 494
How Congress Decides 494 Constituency 494 Interest Groups 495 Party 496 When Congress Can’t Decide 500
Beyond Legislation: Other Congressional Powers 502 Oversight 502 Advice and Consent: Special Senate Powers 503 Impeachment 504
CONTENTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 14 27/11/18 10:26 AM
xv
Congress: What Do We Want? 505 WHO PARTICIPATES? Who Elects Congress? 507
Study Guide 508 For Further Reading 511 Recommended Websites 511
13 ★ The Presidency 512
The Constitutional Powers of the Presidency 515 Expressed Powers 516 Implied Powers 522 Delegated Powers 523
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Executive Branches in Comparison 524 Inherent Powers 525
WHO ARE AMERICANS? Who Are America’s Presidents? 527
The Presidency as an Institution 529 The Cabinet 530 The White House Staff 530 The Executive Office of the President 530 The Vice Presidency 531 The First Spouse 532
The Contemporary Bases of Presidential Power 533 Going Public 534 The Administrative Strategy 536 The Limits of Presidential Power: Checks and Balances 542
Presidential Power: What Do We Want? 543 WHO PARTICIPATES? Who Voted for Donald Trump in 2016? 545
Study Guide 546 For Further Reading 548 Recommended Websites 549
14 ★ Bureaucracy in a Democracy 550
Bureaucracy and Bureaucrats 553 What Bureaucrats Do 553 Who Are Beaurocrats? 556
WHO ARE AMERICANS? Who Are “Bureaucrats”? 557 The Organization of the Executive Branch 559
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Bureaucracy in Comparison 562
Goals of the Federal Bureaucracy 563 Promoting Public Well-Being 563 Providing National Security 565 Maintaining a Strong Economy 571
Can the Bureaucracy Be Reformed? 573 Eliminating Programs and Agencies 575 Devolution 576 Privatization and Contracting Out 577
CONTENTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 15 27/11/18 10:26 AM
xvi
Managing the Bureaucracy 579 The President as Chief Executive 580 Congressional Oversight 581
Bureaucracy: What Do We Want? 583 WHO PARTICIPATES? Waiting for a Veterans Affairs Health Care Appointment 585
Study Guide 586 For Further Reading 588 Recommended Websites 589
15 ★ The Federal Courts 590
The Legal System 593 Cases and the Law 593 Types of Courts 594
Federal Courts 598 Federal Trial Courts 599 Federal Appellate Courts 599 The Supreme Court 599 How Judges Are Appointed 600
WHO ARE AMERICANS? Who Are Federal Judges? 603
The Power of the Supreme Court: Judicial Review 604 Judicial Review of Acts of Congress 604 Judicial Review of State Actions 605
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Term Limits for High Court Justices 606 Judicial Review of Federal Agency Actions 607 Judicial Review and Presidential Power 608 Judicial Review and Lawmaking 609
The Supreme Court in Action 610 Controlling the Flow of Cases 612 Lobbying for Access: Interests and the Court 614 The Supreme Court’s Procedures 614
Explaining Supreme Court Decisions 618 Influences on Supreme Court Decision-Making 618 Judicial Power and Politics 621
The Federal Judiciary: What Do We Want? 624 WHO PARTICIPATES? Influencing the Supreme Court? 625
Study Guide 626 For Further Reading 628 Recommended Websites 629
CONTENTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 16 27/11/18 10:26 AM
xvii
PART IV POLICY
16 ★ Government and the Economy 630
The Goals of Economic Policy 633 Promoting Stable Markets 633 Promoting Economic Prosperity 634 Promoting Business Development 637 Protecting Employees and Consumers 639
The Politics of Economic Policy Making 641 How Much Should the Government Intervene in the Economy? 642 Organized Interests and the Politics of Economic Policy 646
WHO ARE AMERICANS? Who Earns the Minimum Wage? 647 Politics and the Great Recession of 2008 648
The Tools of Economic Policy 649 Monetary Policies 649 Fiscal Policies 652
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Tax Rates around the World 654 Regulation and Antitrust Policy 659 Subsidies and Contracting 661
The Environment and the Economy 663 The Debate on Climate Change 664 Environmental Policies 665
Economic Policy: What Do We Want? 668 WHO PARTICIPATES? Who Pays Taxes? 669
Study Guide 670 For Further Reading 672 Recommended Websites 673
17 ★ Social Policy 674
The Welfare State 677 The History of the Social Welfare System 677 Foundations of the Welfare State 679 How Do We Pay for the Welfare State? 683
Opening Opportunity 689 Education Policies 689
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE U.S. Health Care: High Cost, Poor Outcomes 691 Health Policies 694 Housing Policies 698
Who Gets What from Social Policy? 700 The Elderly 700
WHO ARE AMERICANS? Who Benefits from Social Programs? 701 The Middle and Upper Classes 702 The Working Poor 702 The Nonworking Poor 703
CONTENTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 17 27/11/18 10:26 AM
xviii
Minorities, Women, and Children 704 The Policymaking Process 706
Social Policy: What Do We Want? 707 WHO PARTICIPATES? Growing Student Debt Burden 709
Study Guide 710 For Further Reading 712 Recommended Websites 713
18 ★ Foreign Policy and Democracy 714
The Goals of Foreign Policy 717 Security 717 Economic Prosperity 720 Human Rights 721
Who Makes American Foreign Policy? 722 Presidents and the Executive Branch 722
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Building Influence through International Connections 723
Congress 730 Interest Groups 732
The Instruments of Modern American Foreign Policy 733 Diplomacy 734 The United Nations 734 The International Monetary Structure 735 Economic Aid and Sanctions 736 Collective Security 737 Military Force 738
WHO ARE AMERICANS? Who Serves in the U.S. Military? 739 Soft Power 740 Arbitration 740
Current Foreign Policy Issues Facing the United States 741 A Powerful China and a Resurgent Russia 741 Nuclear Proliferation in Iran and North Korea 743 Trade Policy 744 Global Environmental Policy 745
Foreign Policy: What Do We Want? 745 WHO PARTICIPATES? Public Opinion on Security Issues 747
Study Guide 748 For Further Reading 750 Recommended Websites 751
CONTENTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 18 27/11/18 10:26 AM
xix
Appendix
The Declaration of Independence A1
The Articles of Confederation A5
The Constitution of the United States of America A9
Amendments to the Constitution A15
The Federalist Papers A21
The Anti-Federalist Papers A27
Presidents and Vice Presidents A33
Endnotes A35 Answer Key A81 Credits A83 Glossary/Index A87
CONTENTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 19 27/11/18 10:26 AM
xx
This book has been and continues to be dedicated to dev eloping a satisfactor y response to the question more and more Americans are asking: Why should we be engaged with government and politics? Through the first eleven editions, we sought to answ er this question b y making the text dir ectly relevant to the liv es of the students who would be r eading it. As a r esult, we tried to make politics inter esting by demonstrating that students’ interests are at stake and that they ther efore need to take a personal, even selfish, interest in the outcomes of go vernment. At the same time, w e realized that students needed guidance in ho w to become politically engaged. B eyond providing students with a cor e of political kno wledge, we needed to sho w them ho w they could apply that kno wledge as par ticipants in the political pr ocess. The “Who Participates?” and “What You Can Do” sections in each chapter help achieve that goal.
As events from the last sev eral years have reminded us, “ what government does” inevitably raises questions about political par ticipation and political equality . The size and composition of the electorate, for example, affect who is elected to public office and what policy dir ections the go vernment will pursue. H ence, the issue of v oter ID laws became important in the 2016 election, with some arguing that these laws reduce voter fraud and others contending that they decrease participation by poor and minority voters. Charges of Russian meddling in the 2016 election have raised questions about the integ- rity of the voting process. Fierce debates about the policies of the Trump administration have heightened students’ interest in politics. Other recent events have underscored how Americans from different backgrounds experience politics. Arguments about immigra - tion became contentious during the 2016 election as the nation once again debated the question of who is entitled to be an American and have a voice in determining what the government does. And charges that the police often use excessive violence against mem- bers of minority groups have raised questions about whether the government treats all Americans equally. Reflecting all of these trends, this new Twelfth Edition shows more than any other book on the mar ket (1) ho w students ar e connected to go vernment, (2) why students should think critically about go vernment and politics, and (3) ho w Americans from different backgrounds experience and shape politics.
To help us explor e these themes, P rofessor Andrea Campbell has joined us as the most recent in a group of distinguished coauthors. Professor Campbell’s scholarly work focuses on the ways in which government and politics affect the lives of ordinary citi- zens. Among her contributions ar e new chapter intr oductions that focus on stories of individuals and how government has affected them. Many Americans, par ticularly the young, can have difficulty seeing the role of government in their everyday lives. Indeed, that’s a chief explanation of low voter participation among younger citizens. The new chapter openers profile various individuals and illustrate their interactions with gov- ernment, from a r ock band that gets its contr oversial name appr oved by the Supreme
Preface
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 20 27/11/18 10:26 AM
xxi
Court (Chapter 4), to a young mother who realizes the tap water in her Flint, Michigan, home is poisoning her childr en after local officials switched the source (Chapter 14), to teenagers protesting the end of net neutrality and the internet as they hav e known it (Chapter 7). The goal of these stories is to show students in a vivid way how government and politics mean something to their daily lives.
Several other elements of the book also help show students why politics and govern- ment should matter to them. These include:
• A twenty-first-century perspective on demographic change moves beyond the book’s strong coverage of traditional civil rights content with expanded coverage of contemporary group politics.
• “Who Are Americans?” infographics—many new and updated for the twelfth edition—ask students to think critically about how Americans from different backgrounds experience politics. These sections use bold, engaging graphics to present a statistical snapshot of the nation related to each chapter’s topic. Critical-thinking questions are included in each infographic.
• “Who Participates?” infographics at the end of every chapter show students how different groups of Americans participate in key aspects of politics and government. Each concludes with a “What You Can Do” section that provides students with specific, realistic steps they can take to act on what they’ve learned and get involved in politics. The InQuizitive course includes accompanying exercises that encourage students to engage with these features.
• “America Side by Side” boxes in every chapter use data figures and tables to provide a comparative perspective. By comparing political institutions and behavior across countries, students gain a better understanding of how specific features of the American system shape politics.
• Up-to-date coverage, with more than 20 pages and numerous graphics on the 2016 and 2018 elections, including a 12-page section devoted to analysis of these momentous elections in Chapter 10, as well as updated data, examples, and other information throughout the book.
• “For Critical Analysis” questions are incorporated throughout the text. “For Critical Analysis” questions in the margins of every chapter prompt students’ own critical thinking about the material in the chapter, encouraging them to engage with the topic.
• “What Do We Want” chapter conclusions step back and provide perspective on how the chapter content connects to fundamental questions about the American political system. The conclusions also reprise the important point made in the personal profiles that begin each chapter that government matters to the lives of individuals.
• This Twelfth Edition is accompanied by InQuizitive, Norton’s award-winning formative, adaptive online quizzing program. The InQuizitive course for We the People guides students through questions organized around the text’s chapter learning objectives to ensure mastery of the core information and to help with assessment. More information and a demonstration are available at digital. wwnorton.com/wethepeople12.
We note with regret the passing of Theodore Lowi as well as Margaret Weir’s decision to step do wn from the book. We miss them but continue to hear their v oices and to bene fit from their wisdom in the pages of our book We also continue to hope that our book will itself be accepted as a form of enlightened political action. This Twelfth Edition is another chance. It is an advancement toward our goal. We promise to keep trying.
PREFACE
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 21 27/11/18 10:26 AM
xxii
Acknowledgements
We are pleased to acknowledge the many colleagues who had an active role in criticism and preparation of the manuscript. Our thanks go to:
First Edition Reviewers
Sarah Binder, Brookings Institution Kathleen Gille, Office of Representative David Bonior Rodney Hero, University of Colorado at Boulder Robert Katzmann, Brookings Institution Kathleen Knight, University of Houston Robin Kolodny, Temple University Nancy Kral, Tomball College Robert C. Lieberman, Columbia University David A. Marcum, University of Wyoming Laura R. Winsky Mattei, State University of New York at Buffalo Marilyn S. Mertens, Midwestern State University Barbara Suhay, Henry Ford Community College Carolyn Wong, Stanford University Julian Zelizer, State University of New York at Albany
Second Edition Reviewers
Lydia Andrade, University of North Texas John Coleman, University of Wisconsin at Madison Daphne Eastman, Odessa College Otto Feinstein, Wayne State University Elizabeth Flores, Delmar College James Gimpel, University of Maryland at College Park Jill Glaathar, Southwest Missouri State University Shaun Herness, University of Florida William Lyons, University of Tennessee at Knoxville Andrew Polsky, Hunter College, CUNY Grant Reeher, Syracuse University Richard Rich, Virginia Polytechnic Bartholomew Sparrow, University of Texas at Austin
Third Edition Reviewers
Bruce R. Drury, Lamar University Andrew I. E. Ewoh, Prairie View A&M University Amy Jasperson, University of Texas at San Antonio Loch Johnson, University of Georgia
Mark Kann, University of Southern California Robert L. Perry, University of Texas of the Permian Basin Wayne Pryor, Brazosport College Elizabeth A. Rexford, Wharton County Junior College Andrea Simpson, University of Washington Brian Smentkowski, Southeast Missouri State University Nelson Wikstrom, Virginia Commonwealth University
Fourth Edition Reviewers
M. E. Banks, Virginia Commonwealth University Lynn Brink, North Lake College Mark Cichock, University of Texas at Arlington Del Fields, St. Petersburg College Nancy Kinney, Washtenaw Community College William Klein, St. Petersburg College Dana Morales, Montgomery College Christopher Muste, Louisiana State University Larry Norris, South Plains College David Rankin, State University of New York at Fredonia Paul Roesler, St. Charles Community College J. Philip Rogers, San Antonio College Greg Shaw, Illinois Wesleyan University Tracy Skopek, Stephen F. Austin State University Don Smith, University of North Texas Terri Wright, Cal State, Fullerton
Fifth Edition Reviewers
Annie Benifield, Tomball College Denise Dutton, Southwest Missouri State University Rick Kurtz, Central Michigan University Kelly McDaniel, Three Rivers Community College Eric Plutzer, Pennsylvania State University Daniel Smith, Northwest Missouri State University Dara Strolovitch, University of Minnesota Dennis Toombs, San Jacinto College–North Stacy Ulbig, Southwest Missouri State University
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 22 27/11/18 10:26 AM
xxiii
Gary Church, Mountain View College Adrian Stefan Clark, Del Mar College Annie Cole, Los Angeles City College Greg Combs, University of Texas at Dallas Cassandra Cookson, Lee College Brian Cravens, Blinn College John Crosby, California State University–Chico Scott Crosby, Valencia Community College Courtenay Daum, Colorado State University, Fort Collins Peter Doas, University of Texas–Pan American John Domino, Sam Houston State University Doug Dow, University of Texas–Dallas Jeremy Duff, Midwestern State University Heather Evans, Sam Houston State University Hyacinth Ezeamii, Albany State University Bob Fitrakis, Columbus State Community College Brian Fletcher, Truckee Meadows Community College Paul Foote, Eastern Kentucky University Frank Garrahan, Austin Community College Jimmy Gleason, Purdue University Steven Greene, North Carolina State University Jeannie Grussendorf, Georgia State University M. Ahad Hayaud-Din, Brookhaven College Alexander Hogan, Lone Star College–CyFair Glen Hunt, Austin Community College Mark Jendrysik, University of North Dakota Krista Jenkins, Fairleigh Dickinson University Carlos Juárez, Hawaii Pacific University Melinda Kovas, Sam Houston State University Boyd Lanier, Lamar University Jeff Lazarus, Georgia State University Jeffrey Lee, Blinn College Alan Lehmann, Blinn College Julie Lester, Macon State College Steven Lichtman, Shippensburg University Fred Lokken, Truckee Meadows Community College Shari MacLachlan, Palm Beach Community College Guy Martin, Winston-Salem State University Fred Monardi, College of Southern Nevada Vincent Moscardelli, University of Connecticut Jason Mycoff, University of Delaware Sugmaran Narayanan, Midwestern State University Anthony Nownes, University of Tennessee, Knoxville Elizabeth Oldmixon, University of North Texas John Osterman, San Jacinto College–Central Mark Peplowski, College of Southern Nevada Maria Victoria Perez-Rios, John Jay College, CUNY Sara Rinfret, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay Andre Robinson, Pulaski Technical College Susan Roomberg, University of Texas at San Antonio Ryan Rynbrandt, Collin County Community College Mario Salas, Northwest Vista College Michael Sanchez, San Antonio College Mary Schander, Pasadena City College Laura Schneider, Grand Valley State University
Sixth Edition Reviewers
Janet Adamski, University of Mary Hardin–Baylor Greg Andrews, St. Petersburg College Louis Bolce, Baruch College Darin Combs, Tulsa Community College Sean Conroy, University of New Orleans Paul Cooke, Cy Fair College Vida Davoudi, Kingwood College Robert DiClerico, West Virginia University Corey Ditslear, University of North Texas Kathy Dolan, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Randy Glean, Midwestern State University Nancy Kral, Tomball College Mark Logas, Valencia Community College Scott MacDougall, Diablo Valley College David Mann, College of Charleston Christopher Muste, University of Montana Richard Pacelle, Georgia Southern University Sarah Poggione, Florida International University Richard Rich, Virginia Tech Thomas Schmeling, Rhode Island College Scott Spitzer, California State University–Fullerton Robert Wood, University of North Dakota
Seventh Edition Reviewers
Molly Andolina, DePaul University Nancy Bednar, Antelope Valley College Paul Blakelock, Kingwood College Amy Brandon, San Jacinto College Jim Cauthen, John Jay College, CUNY Kevin Davis, North Central Texas College Louis DeSipio, University of California–Irvine Brandon Franke, Blinn College Steve Garrison, Midwestern State University Joseph Howard, University of Central Arkansas Aaron Knight, Houston Community College Paul Labedz, Valencia Community College Elise Langan, John Jay College, CUNY Mark Logas, Valencia Community College Eric Miller, Blinn College Anthony O’Regan, Los Angeles Valley College David Putz, Kingwood College Chis Soper, Pepperdine University Kevin Wagner, Florida Atlantic University Laura Wood, Tarrant County College
Eighth Edition Reviewers
Brian Arbour, John Jay College, CUNY Ellen Baik, University of Texas–Pan American David Birch, Lone Star College–Tomball Bill Carroll, Sam Houston State University Ed Chervenak, University of New Orleans
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 23 27/11/18 10:26 AM
xxiv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Subash Shah, Winston-Salem State University Mark Shomaker, Blinn College Roy Slater, St. Petersburg College Debra St. John, Collin College Eric Whitaker, Western Washington University Clay Wiegand, Cisco College Walter Wilson, University of Texas at San Antonio Kevan Yenerall, Clarion University Rogerio Zapata, South Texas College
Ninth Edition Reviewers
Amy Acord, Lone Star College–CyFair Milan Andrejevich, Ivy Tech Community College Steve Anthony, Georgia State University Phillip Ardoin, Appalachian State University Gregory Arey, Cape Fear Community College Joan Babcock, Northwest Vista College Evelyn Ballard, Houston Community College Robert Ballinger, South Texas College Mary Barnes-Tilley, Blinn College Robert Bartels, Evangel University Nancy Bednar, Antelope Valley College Annie Benifield, Lone Star College–Tomball Donna Bennett, Trinity Valley Community College Amy Brandon, El Paso Community College Mark Brewer, The University of Maine Gary Brown, Lone Star College–Montgomery Joe Campbell, Johnson County Community College Dewey Clayton, University of Louisville Jeff Colbert, Elon University Amanda Cook-Fesperman, Illinois Valley Community College Kevin Corder, Western Michigan University Kevin Davis, North Central Texas College Paul Davis, Truckee Meadows Community College Terri Davis, Lamar University Jennifer De Maio, California State University, Northridge Christopher Durso, Valencia College Ryan Emenaker, College of the Redwoods Leslie Feldman, Hofstra University Glen Findley, Odessa College Michael Gattis, Gulf Coast State College Donna Godwin, Trinity Valley Community College Precious Hall, Truckee Meadows Community College Sally Hansen, Daytona State College Tiffany Harper, Collin College Todd Hartman, Appalachian State University Virginia Haysley, Lone Star College–Tomball David Head, John Tyler Community College Rick Henderson, Texas State University–San Marcos Richard Herrera, Arizona State University Thaddaus Hill, Blinn College Steven Holmes, Bakersfield College Kevin Holton, South Texas College Robin Jacobson, University of Puget Sound
Joseph Jozwiak, Texas A&M–Corpus Christi Casey Klofstad, University of Miami Samuel Lingrosso, Los Angeles Valley College Mark Logas, Valencia College Christopher Marshall, South Texas College Larry McElvain, South Texas College Elizabeth McLane, Wharton County Junior College Eddie Meaders, University of North Texas Rob Mellen, Mississippi State University Jalal Nejad, Northwest Vista College Adam Newmark, Appalachian State University Stephen Nicholson, University of California, Merced Cissie Owen, Lamar University Suzanne Preston, St. Petersburg College David Putz, Lone Star College–Kingwood Auksuole Rubavichute, Mountain View College Ronnee Schreiber, San Diego State University Ronald Schurin, University of Connecticut Jason Seitz, Georgia Perimeter College Jennifer Seitz, Georgia Perimeter College Shannon Sinegal, The University of New Orleans John Sides, George Washington University Thomas Sowers, Lamar University Jim Startin, University of Texas at San Antonio Robert Sterken, University of Texas at Tyler Bobby Summers, Harper College John Theis, Lone Star College–Kingwood John Todd, University of North Texas Delaina Toothman, The University of Maine David Trussell, Cisco College Ronald Vardy, University of Houston Linda Veazey, Midwestern State University John Vento, Antelope Valley Community College Clif Wilkinson, Georgia College John Wood, Rose State College Michael Young, Trinity Valley Community College Tyler Young, Collin College
Tenth Edition Reviewers
Stephen P. Amberg, University of Texas at San Antonio Juan F. Arzola, College of the Sequoias Thomas J. Baldino, Wilkes University Christina Bejarano, University of Kansas Paul T. Bellinger, Jr., University of Missouri Melanie J. Blumberg, California University of Pennsylvania Matthew T. Bradley, Indiana University Kokomo Jeffrey W. Christiansen, Seminole State College McKinzie Craig, Marietta College Christopher Cronin, Methodist University Jenna Duke, Lehigh Carbon Community College Francisco Durand, University of Texas at San Antonio Carrie Eaves, Elon University Paul M. Flor, El Camino College Compton Center Adam Fuller, Youngstown State University
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 24 27/11/18 10:26 AM
xxvACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Christi Gramling, Charleston Southern University Sally Hansen, Daytona State College Mary Jane Hatton, Hawaii Pacific University David Helpap, University of Wisconsin–Green Bay Theresa L. Hutchins, Georgia Highlands College Cryshanna A. Jackson Leftwich, Youngstown
State University Ashlyn Kuersten, Western Michigan University Kara Lindaman, Winona State University Timothy Lynch, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Larry McElvain, South Texas College Corinna R. McKoy, Ventura College Eddie L. Meaders, University of North Texas Don D. Mirjanian, College of Southern Nevada R. Shea Mize, Georgia Highlands College Nicholas Morgan, Collin College Matthew Murray, Dutchess Community College Harold “Trey” Orndorff III, Daytona State College Randall Parish, University of North Georgia Michelle Pautz, University of Dayton Michael Pickering, University of New Orleans Donald Ranish, Antelope Valley College Glenn W. Richardson, Jr., Kutztown University of Pennsylvania Jason Robles, Colorado State University Ionas Aurelian Rus, University of Cincinnati–Blue Ash Robert Sahr, Oregon State University Kelly B. Shaw, Iowa State University Captain Michael Slattery, Campbell University Michael Smith, Sam Houston State University Maryam T. Stevenson, University of Indianapolis Elizabeth Trentanelli, Gulf Coast State College Ronald W. Vardy, University of Houston Timothy Weaver, University of Louisville Christina Wolbrecht, University of Notre Dame
Eleventh Edition Reviewers
Maria J. Albo, University of North Georgia Andrea Aleman, University of Texas at San Antonio Juan Arzola, College of the Sequoias Ross K. Baker, Rutgers University Daniel Birdsong, University of Dayton Phil Branyon, University of North Georgia Sheryl Edwards, University of Michigan–Dearborn Lauren Elliott-Dorans, University of Toledo Heather Evans, Sam Houston State University William Feagin, Jr., Wharton County Junior College Glen Findley, Odessa College Heather Frederick, Slipper Rock University Jason Ghibesi, Ocean County College Patrick Gilbert, Lone Star–Tomball Steven Horn, Everett Community College Demetra Kasimis, California State University, Long Beach
Eric T. Kasper, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire Mary Linder, Grayson County College Phil McCall, Portland State University Carolyn Myers, Southwestern Illinois College–Belleville Gerhard Peters, Citrus College Michael A. Powell, Frederick Community College Allen K. Settle, California Polytechnic State University Laurie Sprankle, Community College of Allegheny County Ryan Lee Teten, University of Louisiana at Lafayette Justin Vaughn, Boise State University John Vento, Antelope Valley College Aaron Weinschenk, University of Wisconsin–Green Bay Tyler Young, Collin College
Twelfth Edition Reviewers
Craig Albert, Augusta University Alexa Bankert, University of Georgia Nathan Barrick, University of South Florida Jeff Birdsong, Northeastern Oklahoma A&M College Sara Butler, College of the Desert Cory Colby, Lone Star College Anthony Daniels, University of Toledo Dennis Falcon, Cerritos College Kathleen Ferraiolo, James Madison University Patrick Gilbert, Lone Star College, Tomball Matthew Green, Catholic University of America Matt Guardino, Providence College Barbara Headrick, Minnesota State University, Moorhead Justin Hoggard, Three Rivers Community College John Patrick Ifedi, Howard University Cryshanna Jackson Leftwich, Youngstown State University Douglas Kriner, Boston University Thom Kuehls, Weber State University Jennifer Lawless, American University LaDella Levy, College of Southern Nevada Timothy Lim, California State University, Los Angeles Sam Lingrosso, Los Angeles Valley College Mandy May, College of Southern Maryland Suzanne Mettler, Cornell University Michael Miller, Barnard College Joseph Njoroge, Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College Michael Petri, Santa Ana College Christopher Poulios, Nassau Community College Andrew Rudalevige, Bowdoin College Amanda Sanford, Louisiana Tech University Elizabeth Saunders, George Washington University Kathleen Searles, Louisiana State University Matthew Snyder, Delgado Community College Steven Sylvester, Utah Valley University Linda Trautman, Ohio University Lancaster Donald Williams, Western New England University Peter Yacobucci, Buffalo State College
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 25 27/11/18 10:26 AM
xxvi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are also grateful to Melissa Michelson, of Menlo College, who contributed to the “Who Are Americans?” and “ Who Participates?” infographics for this edition; H olley Hansen, of Oklahoma State University, who contributed to the “America Side by Side” boxes.
Perhaps above all, w e thank those at W. W. Norton. For its first five editions, editor Steve Dunn helped us shape the book in countless ways. Lisa M cKay contributed smar t ideas and a keen editorial ey e to the Tenth Edition. Ann Shin carried on the Norton tradi- tion of splendid editorial wor k on the S ixth through Ninth Editions and on the E leventh Edition. Peter Lesser brought intelligence, dedication, and keen insight to the dev elopment of this Twelfth E dition. F or our I nQuizitive course, Coursepack, and other instr uctor resources, S pencer Richar dson-Jones has been an energetic and visionar y editor . Ashley Horna, M ichael J aoui, Tricia Vuong, and Anna O lcott also kept the pr oduction of the Twelfth E dition and its accompanying r esources coher ent and in focus. L ynne Cannon copyedited the manuscript, and our superb pr oject editor Christine D’Antonio dev oted countless hours to keeping on top of myriad details. We thank Elyse Rieder for finding new photos and our photo editor Stephanie Romeo for managing the image program. Finally, we thank Roby Harrington, the head of Norton’s college department.
Benjamin Ginsberg Caroline J. Tolbert Andrea Campbell
October 2018
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 26 27/11/18 10:26 AM
An Introduction to American Politics
We the People
121212 edition
wtp12e_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 1 27/11/18 10:26 AM
American Political Culture
010101 chapter
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS Meet two of the nation’s young- est elected officials. Saira Blair became the young-
est member of West Virginia’s House of Delegates
when she won election as an 18-year-old college
freshman. The day after her victory party in Novem-
ber 2014, she was back in class at West Virginia
University. In May 2017, Prairie View A&M senior
Kendric D. Jones similarly achieved electoral victory,
becoming the youngest city council member in the
state of Texas. What got Blair and Jones involved
in politics? Both had sources of political inspira-
tion. Blair followed in the footsteps of her father, a
West Virginia state senator, who she had accompa-
nied at political events since childhood. Jones was
inspired by the long history of activism at Prairie
View, which was founded in 1876 during Reconstruc-
tion by some of the first African American members
of the Texas state legislature. A further spur to action
was President Obama’s call in his 2017 farewell
address to “grab a clipboard, get some signatures,
and run for office yourself.” Both also had strong
commitments to issues. Saira Blair believes in limited
government, lower taxes, and Second Amendment
gun rights. Kendric Jones has a long history of work-
ing in the community, serving in student government,
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 2 27/11/18 12:03 PM
While Americans share a belief in the values of liberty, equality, and democracy, debates rage about how to live up to those values. To advocate for their beliefs, Republican Saira Blair (left) and Democrat Kendric Jones (right)—both college students—ran for office and won. What is the citizen’s role in America’s democratic system?
and founding a mentoring program for middle-school
boys. Many Prairie View students also have concerns
about police relations. Sandra Bland, the 28-year-old
who hanged herself in jail after being arrested in a
traffic stop, was an alumna of Prairie View.
Both Blair and Jones also believe deeply in
political participation, especially that of young peo-
ple. As Jones said, “The students of Prairie View
A&M University’s voices have not been heard. Since
I have been here, the city has been stagnant and
has not made any progression—outside of the uni-
versity. I feel as though a young, innovative mind can
push this city forward.” After participating in a mock
government program in high school, Blair saw that
young people were just as capable as lawmak-
ers decades older: “When I saw how capable the
students were of creating . . . legislation and really
getting work done, it really made me realize that we
really didn’t need to wait.”1
Saira Blair’s and Kendric Jones’s experiences
show that citizens are at the center of democratic
government. They ran for office because they care
about public issues and want to have a hand in shap-
ing policy outcomes. What are you passionate about?
How does government affect your everyday life and
that of your family, friends, and community? And how
3
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 3 27/11/18 12:03 PM
are differences in political views adjudicated in the political realm? There
are some core values that Americans hold dear, including liberty, equality,
and democracy. But there are also disagreements about what those values
mean and what the role of government should be. Not everyone has to run for
political office as Blair and Jones did. But all of us are affected by government
in ways small and large every day. The purpose of this book is to show what
government does, how, and why—and what you can do about it.
★ Define government and forms of government (pp. 5–10)
★ Describe the role of the citizen in politics (pp. 10–13)
★ Show how the social composition of the American population has changed over time (pp. 13–22)
★ Analyze whether the U.S. system of government upholds American political values (pp. 22–29)
★ Explore Americans’ attitudes toward government (pp. 29–33)
CHAPTER GOALS
4 CHAPTER 1 AMeR IcAN POl I T IcAl cUlTURe
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 4 27/11/18 12:03 PM
Government Government is the term generally used to describe the formal institutions through which a land and its people are ruled. A government may be as
simple as a to wn meeting in which community members make policy and deter - mine budgets together or as complex as the v ast establishments found in many large countries today, with their extensiv e procedures, laws, and bur eaucracies. In the history of civilization, go vernments have not been difficult to establish. There have been thousands of them. The hard par t is establishing a go vernment that lasts. Even more difficult is developing a stable go vernment that is tr ue to the key American political values of liberty, equality, and democracy.
Most Americans find it easy to affirm these three values in principle. In practice, however, these values mean different things to different people, and they often seem to conflict. This is where politics comes in. Politics r efers to conflicts and strug- gles over the leadership , structure, and policies of go vernments. As w e will see in this chapter and thr oughout this book, much political conflict concerns policies and practices that seem to affirm one of the key American political values but may contradict another.
IS GOVERNMENT NEEDED?
Americans have always harbored some suspicion of government and have won- dered how extensive a role it should play in their liv es. Thomas Jefferson famously observed that the best go vernment was one that “ governed least.” Indeed, a desir e for limited government has also been a central feature of American political culture and history since the nation’s founding. Generally speaking, a government is needed to provide those services, sometimes called “public goods,” that all citizens need but are not likely to be able to pr ovide adequately for themselves. These might include defense against for eign aggression, maintenance of public or der, a stable curr ency, enforcement of contractual obligations and property rights, and a guarantee of some measure of social justice. These are goods that benefit everyone but that no individual or group on its own can afford to supply. Government, with its powers to tax and regulate, is typically viewed as the best way to provide public goods. However, there is often disagreement about which public goods ar e essential and how they should be pr ovided. The precise extent to which go vernment inv olvement in American society is needed has been debated throughout the nation’s history and will continue to be a central focus of political contention.
Much of what citizens have come to depend on and take for granted as somehow part of the natural envir onment is in fact cr eated by government. Take the example of a typical college student ’s day, throughout which that student r elies on a host of services and activities organiz ed by national, state, and local go vernment agencies. The extent of this dependence on government is illustrated by Table 1.1 on page 6.
FORMS OF GOVERNMENT
Governments v ary in their str ucture, their siz e, and the way they operate. Two questions are of special importance in determining how governments differ: Who governs? And how much government control is permitted?
Define government and forms of government
government institutions and procedures through which a territory and its people are ruled
politics conflict over the leadership, structure, and policies of governments
5GOVeRNMeNT
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 5 27/11/18 12:03 PM
TIME OF DAY SCHEDULE
7:00 a.m. Wake up. Standard time set by the national government.
7:10 a.m. Shower. Water courtesy of local government, either a public entity or a regulated private company. Brush your teeth with toothpaste whose cavity-fighting claims have been verified by a federal agency. Dry your hair with an electric dryer manufactured according to federal government agency guidelines.
7:30 a.m. Have a bowl of cereal with milk for breakfast. “Nutrition Facts” on food labels are a federal requirement, pasteurization of milk required by state law, freshness dating on milk based on state and federal standards, recycling the empty cereal box and milk carton enabled by state or local laws.
8:30 a.m. Drive or take public transportation to campus. Air bags and seat belts required by federal and state laws. Roads and bridges paid for by state and local governments, speed and traffic laws set by state and local governments, public transportation subsidized by all levels of government.
8:45 a.m. Arrive on campus of large public university. Buildings are 70 percent financed by state taxpayers.
9:00 a.m. First class: chemistry 101. Tuition partially paid by a federal loan (more than half the cost of university instruction is paid for by taxpayers), chemistry lab paid for with grants from the National Science Foundation (a federal agency) and smaller grants from business corporations made possible by federal income tax deductions for charitable contributions.
Noon eat lunch. college cafeteria financed by state dormitory authority on land grant from federal Department of Agriculture.
12:47 p.m. Felt an earthquake! check the U.S. Geological Survey at www.usgs.gov to see that it was a 3.9 on the Richter scale.
2:00 p.m. Second class: American Government 101 (your favorite class!). You may be taking this class because it is required by the state legislature or because it fulfills a university requirement.
4:00 p.m. Third class: computer Science 101. Free computers, software, and internet access courtesy of state subsidies plus grants and discounts from Apple and Microsoft, the costs of which are deducted from their corporate income taxes; internet built in part by federal government. Duplication of software prohibited by federal copyright laws.
6:00 p.m. eat dinner: hamburger and french fries. Meat inspected for bacteria by federal agencies.
7:00 p.m. Work at part-time job at the campus library. Minimum wage set by federal, state, or local government; books and journals in library paid for by state taxpayers.
8:15 p.m. Go online to check the status of your application for a federal student loan (FAFSA) on the Department of education’s website at studentaid.ed.gov.
10:00 p.m. Go home. Street lighting paid for by county and city governments, police patrols by city government.
10:15 p.m. Watch TV. Networks regulated by federal government, cable public-access channels required by city law. Weather forecast provided to broadcasters by a federal agency.
10:45 p.m. To complete your economics homework, visit the Bureau of labor Statistics at www.bls.gov to look up unemployment levels since 1972.
Midnight Put out the trash before going to bed. Trash collected by city sanitation department, financed by user charges.
TABLE 1.1
The Presence of Government in the Daily Life of a Student at “State University”
6 CHAPTER 1 AMeR IcAN POl I T IcAl cUlTURe
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 6 27/11/18 12:03 PM
Some nations are governed by a single individual—a king or dictator, for exam- ple. This state of affairs is called autocracy. Where a small group—perhaps landown- ers, military officers, or the wealthy—controls most of the governing decisions, that government is said to be an oligarchy. If citizens are vested with the po wer to r ule themselves, that government is a democracy.
Governments also vary considerably in terms of how they govern. In the United States and a small number of other nations, governments are limited as to what they are permitted to contr ol (substantive limits) and how they go about it (pr ocedural limits). Governments that are limited in this way are called constitutional governments, or liberal governments. In other nations, including some in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, the law imposes fe w real limits. The government, however, is nev ertheless kept in check by other political and social institutions that it is unable to control and must come to terms with—such as autonomous territories, an organized religion, organized business groups, or organized labor unions. Such governments are gener- ally called authoritarian. In a third group of nations, including the Soviet Union under Joseph S talin, Nazi G ermany, perhaps prewar Japan and I taly, and N orth Korea today, governments not only are free of legal limits but also seek to eliminate those organized social groups that might challenge or limit their authority. These govern- ments typically attempt to dominate or control every sphere of political, economic, and social life and, as a result, are called totalitarian (see Figure 1.1).
Americans have the good for tune to liv e in a nation in which limits ar e placed on what governments can do and ho w they can do it. M any of the world ’s people do not. B y one measur e, just 40 per cent of the global population (those living in 86 countries) enjoy sufficient levels of political and personal fr eedom to be classi - fied as living in a constitutional democracy.2 And constitutional democracies w ere unheard of before the modern era. Prior to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, governments seldom sought—and rar ely received—the support of their subjects. The available evidence strongly suggests that ordinary people often had little love for the government or for the social order. After all, they had no stake in it.3
Beginning in the seventeenth century, in a handful of Western nations, two important changes began to take place in the character and conduct of government. First, go vernments began to ackno wledge formal limits on their po wer. S econd, a small number of go vernments began to pr ovide ordinary citizens with a formal
autocracy a form of government in which a single individual—a king, queen, or dictator—rules
oligarchy a form of government in which a small group—landowners, military officers, or wealthy merchants—controls most of the governing decisions
democracy a system of rule that permits citizens to play a significant part in the governmental process, usually through the election of key public officials
constitutional government a system of rule in which formal and effective limits are placed on the powers of the government
authoritarian government a system of rule in which the government recognizes no formal limits but may nevertheless be restrained by the power of other social institutions
totalitarian government a system of rule in which the government recognizes no formal limits on its power and seeks to absorb or eliminate other social institutions that might challenge it
FIGURE 1.1
Forms of Government
One person
Small group (e.g., landowners, military of�cers, or wealthy merchants)
Many people
Who governs Type of government
Type of governmentLimits on government
Constitutional
Authoritarian
Totalitarian
Autocracy
Oligarchy
Democracy
Codi�ed, legal substantive and procedural limits on what government can or cannot do
Few legal limits; some limits imposed by social groups
No limits
7GOVeRNMeNT
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 7 27/11/18 12:03 PM
voice in public affairs—through the v ote. Obviously, the desirability of limits on government and the expansion of popular influence were at the heart of the Ameri- can Revolution in 1776. “N o taxation without r epresentation,” as w e shall see in Chapter 2, was fiercely asserted from the beginning of the R evolution through the Founding in 1789. But even before the Revolution, a tradition of limiting go vern- ment and expanding participation in the political process had developed throughout western Europe.
LIMITING GOVERNMENT
The key force behind the imposition of limits on government power was a new social class, the bourgeoisie, which became an important political for ce in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Bourgeois is a French word for “freeman of the city,” or bourg. B eing par t of the bourgeoisie later became associated with being “ middle class” and with inv olvement in commer ce or industr y. In order to gain a shar e of control of government, joining or even displacing the kings, aristocrats, and gentry who had dominated go vernment for centuries, the bourgeoisie sought to change existing institutions—especially parliaments—into instr uments of r eal political participation. Parliaments had existed for centuries but w ere generally aristocratic institutions. The bourgeoisie embraced parliaments as means by which they could exert the w eight of their superior numbers and gr owing economic adv antage over their aristocratic rivals. At the same time, the bourgeoisie sought to place r estraints on the capacity of governments to threaten these economic and political interests by placing formal or constitutional limits on governmental power.
Although motivated primarily by the need to protect and defend their own inter- ests, the bourgeoisie advanced many of the principles that would define the central underpinnings of individual liberty for all citizens—freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of conscience, and freedom from arbitrary search and seizur e. The work of political theorists such as J ohn Locke (1632–1704) and, later , John Stuart Mill (1806–73) helped shape these evolving ideas about liberty and political rights. However, it is important to note that the bourgeoisie generally did not favor democracy as we know it. They were advocates of electoral and representative insti- tutions, but they favored property requirements and other restrictions so as to limit participation to the middle and upper classes. Yet once these institutions of politics and the protection of the right to engage in politics were established, it was difficult to limit them to the bourgeoisie.
ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT: THE EXPANSION OF PARTICIPATION
The expansion of participation fr om the bourgeoisie to ev er-larger segments of society took two paths. In some nations, popular participation was expanded by the Crown or the aristocracy, which ironically saw common people as potential political allies against the bourgeoisie. Thus, in nineteenth-century Prussia, for example, it was the emperor and his great minister Otto von Bismarck who expanded popular participation in order to build political support among the lower orders.
In other nations, par ticipation expanded because competing segments of the bourgeoisie sought to gain political advantage by reaching out to and mobilizing the support of working- and lower-class groups that craved the opportunity to take part in politics—“lining up the unwashed,” as one American historian put it.4 To be sure,
America’s Founders were influenced by the English thinker John Locke (1632–1704). Locke argued that governments need the consent of the people.
John Stuart Mill (1806–73) presented a ringing defense of individual freedom in his famous treatise On Liberty. Mill’s work influenced Americans’ evolving ideas about the relationship between government and the individual.
8 CHAPTER 1 AMeR IcAN POl I T IcAl cUlTURe
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 8 27/11/18 12:03 PM
excluded groups often agitated for greater participation. But seldom was such agita- tion by itself enough to secure the right to participate. Usually, expansion of voting rights resulted from a combination of pressure from below and help from above.
The gradual expansion of voting rights by groups hoping to derive some political advantage has been typical of American history. After the Civil War, one of the chief reasons that R epublicans moved to enfranchise ne wly freed slaves was to use the support of the former slaves to maintain Republican control over the defeated south- ern states. Similarly, in the early twentieth century, upper-middle-class Progressives advocated women’s suffrage because they believed that women were likely to support the reforms espoused by the Progressive movement.
INFLUENCING THE GOVERNMENT THROUGH PARTICIPATION: POLITICS
Expansion of participation means that more and more people have a legal right to take part in politics. Politics is an important term. In its broadest sense, it refers to conflicts over the character, membership, and policies of any organization to which people belong. As Harold Lasswell, a famous political scientist, once put it, politics is the struggle over “who gets what, when, ho w.”5 Although politics is a phenome- non that can be found in any organization, our concern in this book is narr ower. Here, politics will be used to r efer only to conflicts and struggles over the leader - ship, structure, and policies of governments. The goal of politics, as we define it, is to have a share or a say in the composition of the government’s leadership, how the government is organized, or what its policies are going to be. Having a share is called having power or influence.
Participation in politics can take many forms, including blogging and posting opinion pieces online, sending emails to go vernment officials, voting, lobb ying legislators on behalf of par ticular programs, and par ticipating in pr otest marches and ev en violent demonstrations. A system of go vernment that giv es citiz ens a regular oppor tunity to elect the top go vernment officials is usually called a representative democracy, or republic. A system that permits citiz ens to v ote directly on laws and policies is often called a direct democracy. A t the national lev el, the United States is a r epresentative democracy in which citiz ens select go vernment officials but do not vote on legislation. Some states and cities, ho wever, have pro- visions for direct legislation through popular initiatives and ballot referenda. These procedures allo w citiz ens to collect petitions r equiring an issue to be br ought directly to the v oters for a decision. I n 2018, 169 initiativ es appear ed on state ballots, often dealing with hot-button issues. Five states considered measures legali- zing medical or recreational marijuana. Eight states considered restrictions on taxes, 3 considered initiatives on abortion access and funding, and 21 voted on elections policies such as redistricting, voting requirements, and campaign finance. In 2017 voters in Maine decided to expand M edicaid under the Affordable Care Act after the governor had v etoed expansion multiple times, becoming the first state to decide the issue by direct democracy.6
Groups and organiz ed inter ests also par ticipate in politics. Their political activities include providing funds for candidates, lobbying, and trying to influence public opinion. The pattern of struggles among interests is called group politics, or pluralism. Americans have always been ambivalent about pluralist politics. O n the one hand, the right of groups to press their views and compete for influence in the government is the essence of liber ty. On the other hand, Americans often fear that
power influence over a government’s leadership, organization, or policies
representative democracy (republic) a system of government in which the populace selects representatives, who play a significant role in governmental decision-making
direct democracy a system of rule that permits citizens to vote directly on laws and policies
pluralism the theory that all interests are and should be free to compete for influence in the government; the outcome of this competition is compromise and moderation
9GOVeRNMeNT
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 9 27/11/18 12:03 PM
organized groups may sometimes exert too much influence, advancing special interests at the expense of larger public interests. (We return to this problem in Chapter 11.)
Sometimes, of course, politics does not take place through formal channels at all but instead involves direct action. Direct action politics can include either violent politics or civil disobedience, both of which attempt to shock r ulers into behaving more responsibly. Direct action can also be a form of r evolutionary politics, which rejects the system entirely and attempts to replace it with a new ruling group and a new set of r ules. In recent years in the U nited States, groups ranging from animal rights activists to right-to-life advocates to the Tea Party to Black Lives Matter pro- testers have used direct action to underline their demands. Many forms of peaceful direct political action are protected by the U.S. Constitution. The country’s Found- ers knew that the right to protest is essential to the maintenance of political freedom, even where the ballot box is available.
Citizenship: Participation, Knowledge, and Efficacy
Citizen participation is the hall- mark of the democratic form of government. “G overnment b y the people” depends on liv ely citiz en
involvement in public discussion, debate, and activity designed to impr ove the welfare of one’s community. The very legitimacy of democratic government depends on political participation, which takes a v ariety of forms, from the conventional— voting, contacting elected officials, working on a campaign, making political donations, attending political meetings—to the unconv entional—protesting, boycotting, and signing petitions.
One key ingredient for political par ticipation is political knowledge and informa- tion. Democracy functions best when citizens are informed and have the knowledge
Describe the role of the citizen in politics
political knowledge possessing information about the formal institutions of government, political actors, and political issues
Politics sometimes involves direct action. People often hold public rallies or protests to draw attention to issues. These concerns can range from inequality in police practices (left), animal rights (center), taxes and government spending (right).
10 CHAPTER 1 AMeR IcAN POl I T IcAl cUlTURe
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 10 27/11/18 12:03 PM
needed to participate in political debate. Indeed, our definition of citizenship derives from the ideal put for th by the ancient G reeks: enlightened political engagement. 7 Political knowledge means more than having a few opinions to offer a pollster or to guide your decisions in a voting booth. It is important to know the rules and strat- egies that govern political institutions and the principles on which they ar e based, and to know them in ways that relate to your own interests. If your street is rendered impassable by snow, what can you do? Is snow removal the responsibility of the fed- eral government? Is it a state or municipal responsibility? Knowing that you have a stake in a clear road does not help much if you do not know that snow removal is a city or a county responsibility and if you cannot identify the municipal agency that deals with the problem. Americans are fond of complaining that government is not responsive to their needs, but in some cases, it is possible that citizens simply lack the information they need to present their problems to the appropriate government officials.
Without political knowledge, citizens cannot be aware of their stakes in political disputes. F or example, during the debate in 2017 about whether to r epeal the Obama health care reform, one-third of Americans did not know that “Obamacare” and the “Affordable Care Act” are the same thing.8 That meant that some Americans who had enr olled in “O bamacare” did not r ealize their access to health insurance would be affected if the ACA were repealed. Citizens need knowledge in order to assess their interests and to know when to act on them.
The internet can greatly facilitate acquisition of knowledge about politics. A 2015 Pew survey found that over the previous year, 65 percent of Americans had used the internet to find data or information about government, including visiting a local, state, or federal government website.9 Such digital citizenship—the ability to par tici- pate in society online—benefits individuals and provides advantages to society as a whole. D igital citizens are more likely to be inter ested in politics and to discuss politics with friends, family, and coworkers than individuals who do not use online political information. They are also more likely to vote and participate in other ways in elections. A lingering concern is that lower-income and less-educated Americans,
citizenship informed and active membership in a political community
digital citizenship using the internet, social media, and other information technology to engage in society and government
11c IT I zeNSH IP : PART Ic IPAT ION , KNOWleDGe , AND eFF IcAcY
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 11 27/11/18 12:03 PM
rural residents, racial and ethnic minorities, and the elderly are all less likely to have internet access. This digital divide (which we discuss fur ther in Chapters 7 and 8) exacerbates inequalities in political participation.
Even though the internet has made it easier than ever to learn about politics, the state of political knowledge in the United States today is spotty. Most Americans know little about curr ent issues or debates, or even the basics of how government works. For example, in 2017 only 26 per cent of those sur veyed could identify all three branches of the federal go vernment and only 54 per cent knew that Congress has the power to declare war. During the summer before the 2016 presidential elec- tion, just 22 per cent of the public could identify the D emocratic vice-presidential candidate and 37 percent could identify the Republican vice-presidential candidate. On the other hand, more than three-quarters of those surveyed knew that Congress has the power to raise tax es and cannot establish an official religion for the nation (see Table 1.2). Those of you who make the effort to become more knowledgeable will be much better pr epared to influence the political system regarding the issues and concerns that you care most about.
Another ingredient in political par ticipation is political efficacy, the belief that ordinary citiz ens can affect what government does. The feeling that you can’t affect government decisions can lead to apathy, declining political participation, and withdrawal fr om political life. Why bother to par ticipate if y ou believe it makes no difference? Americans ’ sense of political efficacy has declined over time. In 1960, only 25 percent felt shut out of government. In 2015, 74 percent of Americans said that elected officials don’t care what people like them think. 10
political efficacy the ability to influence government and politics
RESPONDENTS WHO PERCENTAGE
could identify all three branches of government 26
Knew congress has the power to declare war 54
Knew congress has the power to raise taxes 83
Knew congress cannot establish an official religion of the United States
77
could not name any of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment 37
In 2016, could name the Republican vice-presidential candidate (Mike Pence).
37
In 2016, could name the Democratic vice-presidential candidate (Tim Kaine)
22
SOURCES: Annenberg Constitution Day Civics Survey, July 14–18, 2016, cdn.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/ wp-content/uploads/Constitution_Day_2016_Civics_Appendix.pdf; and Annenberg Constitution Day Civics Survey, August 9–13, 2017, www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/americans-are-poorly-informed-about-basic-constitutional -provisions/ (accessed 2/17/18).
TABLE 1.2
What Americans Know about Government
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Many studies seem to show that most Americans know very little about government and politics. Can we have democratic government without knowledgeable and aware citizens?
12 CHAPTER 1 AMeR IcAN POl I T IcAl cUlTURe
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 12 27/11/18 12:03 PM
Accompanying this sense that or dinary people are not heard is a gr owing belief that government is not r un for the benefit of all. In 2015, 76 per cent of the public disagreed with the idea that the “ government is really run for the benefit of all the people.”11
This widely felt loss of political efficacy is bad news for American democracy: the belief that y ou can be effective is the first step needed to influence govern- ment. Not every effort of ordinary citizens to influence government will succeed, but without any such efforts, government decisions will be made b y a smaller and smaller circle of powerful people. Such loss of broad popular influence over government actions undermines the key featur e of American democracy— government by the people.
There are ways that individuals can build their sense of political efficacy. Research shows that the relationship between efficacy and participation is two-way: a feeling that one can make a difference leads to participation, but in addition, joining in can increase one’s efficacy. Most people do not want to be politically active every day of their lives, but it is essential to American political ideals that all citizens be informed and able to act.
Who Are Americans? While American democracy aims to give the people a v oice in go vern- ment, the meaning of “ we the peo- ple” has changed o ver time. Who are Americans? Through the course
of American history, politicians, religious leaders, prominent scholars, and ordinary Americans have puzzled over and fought about the answer to this fundamental ques- tion. Since the Founding, the American population has grown from 3.9 million in 1790, the year of the first official census, to 327 million in 2018.12 As the American population has grown, it has become more diverse on nearly every dimension imag- inable.13 (See the “Who Are Americans?” feature on p. 15.)
At the time of the F ounding, when the U nited S tates consisted of 13 states along the Eastern Seaboard, 81 percent of Americans counted by the census traced their roots to Europe, mostly England and northern Europe; and nearly 20 percent were of African origin, the v ast majority of whom w ere slaves.14 Only 1.5 per cent of the black population was fr ee. There was also an unkno wn number of N ative Americans, the original inhabitants of the land, not counted b y the census because the government did not consider them Americans. The first estimates of Native Americans and Hispanics in the mid -1800s showed that each gr oup made up less than 1 percent of the total population.15
Fast-forward to 1900. The country now stretched across the continent, and waves of immigrants, mainly from Europe, boosted the population to 76 million. In 1900 the United States was predominantly composed of whites of European ancestry, but this number now included many from southern and eastern as well as northern Europe; the black population stood at 12 percent. Residents who traced their origin to Latin America or Asia each accounted for less than 1 percent of the entire popu- lation.16 The large number of new immigrants was reflected in the high proportion of foreign-born people in the United States: the foreign-born population reached its height at 14.7 percent in 1910.17
Show how the social composition of the American population has changed over time
13WHO ARe AMeR IcANS?
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 13 27/11/18 12:03 PM
IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY
As the E uropean-origin population gr ew more diverse, anxiety about Americans ’ ethnic identity mounted. The growing numbers of immigrants fr om southern and eastern Europe who were crowding into American cities spurred heated debates about how long those with United Kingdom and northern European ancestry could dominate. Much as today, politicians and scholars argued about whether the country could absorb such large numbers of immigrants. Concerns ranged fr om whether their political and social values were compatible with American democracy to whether they would learn English to alarm about the diseases they might bring into the United States.
Those worried about new immigrants noted their different religious affiliations as well. The first immigrants to the United States were overwhelmingly Protestant, many of them fleeing religious persecution. The arrival of G ermans and I rish in the mid-1800s began to shift that balance with incr easing numbers of Catholics. Even so, in 1900 four out of five Americans w ere still P rotestants. The large-scale immigration of the early tw entieth century threatened to reduce the proportion of Protestants significantly. Many of the eastern E uropean immigrants pouring into the countr y, especially those fr om R ussia, w ere J ewish; the southern E uropeans, especially the Italians, were Catholic. A more religiously diverse country challenged the implicit Protestantism embedded in many aspects of American public life. For example, r eligious diversity introduced new conflicts into public schooling as Catholics sought public funding for parochial schools and dissident Protestant sects lobbied to eliminate Bible reading and prayer in the schools.
Anxieties about immigration spar ked intense debate. S hould the numbers of immigrants entering the countr y be limited? S hould restrictions be placed on the types of immigrants to be granted entr y? After World War I, Congr ess responded to the fears swirling ar ound immigration with ne w laws that sharply limited the number who could enter the countr y each year. It also established a ne w National Origins quota system, based on the nation’s population in 1890, before the wave of immigrants from eastern and southern Europe arrived.18 Supporters of ethnic quotas
Native American societies, with their own forms of government, existed for thousands of years before the first European settlers arrived. By the time this photo of Red Cloud and other Sioux warriors was taken, around 1870, Native Americans made up about 1 percent of the American population.
14 CHAPTER 1 AMeR IcAN POl I T IcAl cUlTURe
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 14 27/11/18 12:03 PM
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011–2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, https://fact�nder.census.gov (accessed 8/27/16).
The 1790 census does not accurately re�ect the population because it only counted blacks and whites. It did not include Native Americans or other groups. The 1900 census did not count Hispanic Americans.
*
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS 1. In 2015, the U.S. Census
Bureau estimated that the population of the South and the West continued to grow more rapidly than the Northeast and Midwest. What are some of the political implications of this trend?
2. Today, Americans over age 37 outnumber Americans under 37—and older adults are more likely to participate in the political process. What do you think this means for the kinds of issues and policies
taken up by the government?
Race
323,127,513TOTAL POPULATION =
Geography
26%
34%
26%
14%
44%
38%
14%
4%
Age
White Black Hispanic Asian Native American Other 2 or more races
62%
12%
17%
5%
1%
0.4%
2%
White Black Other
88%
12%
1%
75,994,575
Northeast South
18%
38% Midwest West
21%
24% Northeast South
28%
32% Midwest West
35%
5% South 50%
3,929,214
Northeast 50%
18%
24% 21%
38%
28%
5% 35%
32% 50%
50%
White Black
81%
19%
1790
1900*
1900
1900
2015
2015
2015
1790*
0 – 19 20 – 44 45 – 64 65 +
0 – 19 20 – 44 45 – 64 65 +
= 1 million people
Since the Founding, the American people have become increasingly diverse. This diversity and the changes in the population have frequently raised challenging questions in American politics.
An Increasingly Diverse Nation
WHO ARE AMERICANS?
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 15 27/11/18 12:03 PM
hoped to turn back the clock and r evert to an earlier America in which nor thern Europeans dominated. The new system set up a hierar chy of admissions: nor thern European countries received generous quotas for ne w immigrants, whereas eastern and southern European countries were granted very small quotas. These restric- tions ratcheted down the numbers of immigrants so that by 1970 the foreign-born population in the United States reached an all-time low of 5 percent.
IMMIGRATION AND RACE
Official efforts to use racial and ethnic criteria to restrict the American popula- tion were not ne w but had been used to draw boundaries ar ound the American community from the start. The very first census, as just mentioned, did not count Native Americans; in fact, no N ative Americans became citiz ens until 1924. Although the Constitution infamously declar ed that each slav e would count as three-fifths of a person for purposes of apportioning r epresentation among the states, most people of African descent were not officially citizens until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution conferred citizenship on the freed slaves (see Chapter 2).
Over half a century earlier, the federal government had sought to limit the non- white population with a 1790 law stipulating that only free whites could become naturalized citizens. Not until 1870 did Congr ess lift the ban on the naturaliza - tion of nonwhites. In addition to the restrictions on blacks and Native Americans, restrictions applied to Asians. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 outlawed the entry of Chinese labor ers to the U nited States. These provisions were not lifted until 1943, when China became America ’s ally during World War II. Additional barriers enacted after World War I meant that vir tually no Asians enter ed the country as immigrants until the 1940s. People of Hispanic origin do not fit simply into the American system of racial classification. In 1930, for example, the census counted people of Mexican origin as nonwhite but reversed this decision a decade later—after protests by the Mexican-origin population and the M exican govern- ment. Only in 1970 did the census officially begin counting persons of Hispanic origin, noting that they could be any race. 19 As this history suggests, American citizenship has always been tied to “ whiteness” even as the meaning of “ white” shifted over time.
In the 1900s many immigrants entered the United States through New York’s Ellis Island, where they were checked for disease before being admitted. Today, individuals hoping to immigrate to the United States often apply for a visa at the U.S. consulate in their home coun- try before traveling to the United States, where the U.S. Customs and Border Protection checks their identity and legal status.
16 CHAPTER 1 AMeR IcAN POl I T IcAl cUlTURe
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 16 27/11/18 12:03 PM
TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY AMERICANS
Race and Ethnicity By the year 2000 immigration had profoundly transformed the nation’s racial and ethnic profile once again. The primary cause was Congress’s deci- sion in 1965 to lift the tight restrictions of the 1920s, allowing for much-expanded immigration from Asia and Latin America (see Figure 1.2). One consequence of the shift has been the gr owth in the H ispanic, or Latino, population. Census figures for 2016 show that Hispanics, who can be of any race, constitute 17.8 per cent of the population. The black, or African American, population is 12.7 percent of the total population, while Asians make up 5.4 percent. Non-Hispanic white Americans account for 61 percent of the population—their lowest shar e ever. Moreover, 3.2 percent of the population now identifies itself as of “two or more races,” a new
FIGURE 1.2
Immigration by Continent of Origin Where did most immigrants come from at the start of the twentieth century? How does that compare with immigration in the twenty-first century?
*Less than 1 percent not shown.
SOURCE: Department of Homeland Security 2016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics Table 2, November 2017, www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2016 (accessed 2/16/18). Figure shows those who have obtained “lawful permanent resident status” by continent of origin.
PERCENTAGE OF IMMIGRANTS*
10
0 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100%
Europe Asia Americas Africa Oceania Not speci�ed
17WHO ARe AMeR IcANS?
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 17 27/11/18 12:03 PM
category that the census added in 2000. 20 Although it is only a small percentage of the population, the multiracial category points toward a future in which the traditional labels of racial identifica- tion may be blurring, mar king a major shift in the long -standing American tradition of strict racial categorization. The blurring of racial categories poses challenges to a host of policies—many of them put in place to r emedy past discrimination—that r ely on racial counts of the population.
Large-scale immigration means that many more r esidents ar e foreign-born. In 2016, 13.5 per cent of the population was born outside the United States, a figure comparable to foreign-born rates at the turn of the pr evious centur y.21 About half of the for eign- born came fr om Latin America and the Caribbean—almost 1 in 10 from the Caribbean, just over one-third from Central America (including Mexico), and 1 in 15 from South America.22 Those born in Asia constituted the next -largest group, making up 31 per cent of foreign-born residents.23 In sharp contrast to the immigration patterns of a century earlier, fewer immigrants came from Europe. By 2016 just 10.9 percent of those born outside the U nited States came from Europe.24
One contemporary feature of American society is the large num- ber of immigrants who live in the country without legal authoriza- tion. Estimates put the number of undocumented immigrants at 11.4 million, the majority of whom ar e from Mexico and Central America.25 The large unauthorized population became a flashpoint for controversy as states and cities passed a v ariety of conflicting laws regarding illegal immigrants ’ access to public ser vices. Some
states have offered driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants, while others have sought to bar them fr om public ser vices, such as education and emergency health care, both of which ar e constitutionally guaranteed to unauthoriz ed immigrants.26 In 1982 the S upreme Cour t ensured access to education when it r uled in Plyler v. Doe that Texas could not deny funding for undocumented students. 27 In 1986, Congress guaranteed emergency medical car e to all people r egardless of immigra - tion status when it passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA).
Religion The new patterns of immigration combined with differences in birth rates and underlying social changes to alter the r eligious affiliations of Americans. In 1900, 80 per cent of the American adult population was P rotestant; by 2016 only 44 per cent of Americans identified themselves as P rotestants.28 Catholics made up 20 per cent of the population, and J ews accounted for 2 per cent. A small Muslim population had also grown, with nearly 1 percent of the population. One of the most important shifts in religious affiliation during the latter half of the twen- tieth century was the percentage of people who professed no organized religion: in 2017, 23 per cent of the population was not affiliated with an organized church. These changes suggest an important shift in American r eligious identity. Although the United States thinks of itself as a “J udeo-Christian” nation—and indeed was 95 percent Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish from 1900 to 1968—by 2016 this num- ber had fallen to under 70 percent of the adult population.29
Immigration remains a contro- versial issue in the United States. While many believe we should do more to protect our borders, others call for comprehensive immigration reform, including an easier pathway to citizenship for the country’s nearly 12 million undocumented immigrants.
18 CHAPTER 1 AMeR IcAN POl I T IcAl cUlTURe
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 18 27/11/18 12:03 PM
The United States has become an increasingly diverse country over time particularly in regard to its racial and ethnic makeup. How does the racial and ethnic diversity of the United States compare to that of other countries around the world?
As a “nation of immigrants,” the United States is more diverse than many Western countries, but some former colonies are even more diverse than the United States. Racial and ethnic diversity stem not only from immigration but also geography, historical legacies, and whether the government has favored certain groups over others. Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa were colonized by multiple empires, whose governments often drew borders that encompassed multiple ethnic groups in the region. State-building and nationalism are also very new to these regions, meaning that local identities remain stronger than national ones.
In contrast many western european and Asian countries have histories of past conflict and strong state-building efforts, resulting in less diversity either by eliminating rival groups or forcibly assimilating them. For example, Japan’s geographic isolation has created a racially homogeneous society, which was reinforced by the government’s use of isolationism as a means to consolidate power.a Modern policies limiting immigration continue these historic trends. To take another example, France has historically pursued both political and cultural assimilation, using its schools as tools to socialize its citizens into a common “republican” identity. More recent waves of immigrants, however, have highlighted potential problems with this policy.b
How might the degree of diversity shape political values in specific countries? What types of values and policies would we expect to see in countries with a high degree of diversity versus those with less diversity?
Global Diversity
aBenedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 2006), 94–99. bJohn R. Bowen, Why the French Don’t Like Headscarves: Islam, the State, and Public Space (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007).
Most diverse
No data available
Most homogeneous
RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY
SOURCE: Alberto Alesina, Arnaud Devleeschauwer, William Easterly, Sergio Kurlat, and Romain Wacziarg, “Fractionalization,” Journal of Economic Growth, 8 (2003): 155–94.
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 19 27/11/18 12:03 PM
Age As America grew and its population expanded and diversified, the country’s age profile shifted with it. In 1900 only 4 per cent of the population was o ver age 65. As life expectancy increased, the number of older Americans grew with it: by 2016, 15.2 percent of the population was o ver 65. Over the same period, the per centage of children under the age of 18 fell, from 40.5 percent of the American population in 1900 to 22.8 percent in 2016.30 Even though the population is aging, Americans tend to be y ounger than citizens of many industrializ ed countries, mainly because of the large immigrant population in the United States. The share of the population aged 65 and over is 20 per cent in the European Union and 27 per cent in Japan.31 But an aging population poses challenges to the United States as well. As the elderly population grows and the wor king-age population shrinks, questions arise about how we will fund programs for the elderly such as Social Security.
Geography Ov er the nation ’s histor y, Americans hav e changed in other ways, moving from mostly rural settings and small towns to large urban areas. Before 1920 less than half the population liv ed in urban ar eas; today 82 per cent of Americans do.32 Critics charge that the American political system—created when America was a largely rural society—underrepresents urban areas. The constitution- al provision allocating each state two senators, for example, overrepresents sparsely populated rural states and underrepresents urban states, where the population is far more concentrated. In addition to becoming more urban over time, the American population has shifted regionally. During the past 50 years especially, many Ameri- cans left the N ortheast and M idwest and mo ved to the S outh and S outhwest. As congressional seats hav e been r eapportioned to r eflect the population shift, many problems that particularly plague the Midwest and Northeast, such as the decline in manufacturing jobs, receive less attention in national politics.
Socioeconomic Status Americans hav e fallen into div erse economic gr oups throughout American history. For much of American history most people were rela- tively poor working people, many of them farmers. A small wealthy elite, however, grew larger in the 1890s, in a period called “the gilded age.” The top 1 percent and the top 10 percent of earners accounted for a growing share of the national income. By 1928 nearly one-quarter of the total annual income w ent to the top 1 per cent of earners; the top 10 percent took home 46 percent of total annual income. After the New Deal in the 1930s, a large middle class took shape and the shar e going to those at the top dr opped sharply. By 1976 the top 1 per cent took home only 9 percent of the national annual income. S ince then, however, economic inequal- ity has once again widened as a tiny group of super-rich has emerged. By 2015 the top 1 percent earned 20.3 percent of annual income and the top 10 per cent took home 48.8 percent of the total national income.33 At the same time, the incomes of the broad middle class have largely stagnated.34 And 12.7 percent of the population remains below the official poverty line.35 As the middle class has frayed around the edges, the numbers of poor and near poor hav e swelled to nearly one-third of the population.36 (See Figure 1.3.)
Population and Politics The shifting contours of the American people have regu- larly raised challenging questions about our politics and go verning arrangements. Population growth and shifts hav e spurred politically charged debates about ho w the population should be apportioned among congressional districts and how those
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS What trend in America’s changing population has had the biggest influence on politics? Increasing racial and ethnic diversity? Aging? Increasing urbanization? Increased economic inequality? Why?
20 CHAPTER 1 AMeR IcAN POl I T IcAl cUlTURe
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 20 27/11/18 12:03 PM
FIGURE 1.3
Income in the United States The top graph shows that while the income of most Americans has risen only slightly since 1975, the income of the richest Americans (the top 5 percent) has increased dramatically. The lower graph shows the portion of all income in the United States that goes to each group, with an increasing share going to the richest Americans in recent years. What are some of the ways that this shift might matter for American politics? Does the growing economic gap between the richest groups and most other Americans conflict with the political value of equality?
*Dollar values are given in constant 2016 dollars, which are adjusted for inflation so that we can compare a person’s income in 1975 with a person’s income today.
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016” Table A-2, www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/ publications/2017/demo/P60-259.pdf (accessed 4/16/18).
Lowest fifth
Fourth fifth
Second fifth
Highest fifth
Third fifth
Top 5 percent
Lowest fifth
Fourth fifth
Second fifth
Highest fifth
Third fifth
Top 5 percent
HOUSEHOLD INCOME (IN DOLLARS)*
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2015201020052000
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2015201020052000
$400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
SHARE OF TOTAL INCOME 100%
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
The top 40 percent of the population has 70 percent of the total income.
21WHO ARe AMeR IcANS?
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 21 27/11/18 12:03 PM
districts should be drawn. These conflicts have major implications for the represen- tation of different regions of the country—for the balance of representation between urban and r ural ar eas. The representation of v arious demographic and political groups may also be affected, as there is substantial evidence of gr owing geographic sorting of citiz ens b y education, income, marriage rates, and par ty v oting.37 In addition, immigration and the cultural and r eligious changes it entails spar ks pas- sionate debate today as w ell, just as it did 100 y ears ago. The different languages and customs that immigrants bring to the U nited States trigger fears among some that the countr y is changing in ways that may undermine American v alues and alter fundamental identities. The large number of unauthorized immigrants in the country today makes these anxieties even more acute. Yet a changing population has been one of the constants of American histor y. Indeed, each generation has con - fronted the myriad political challenges associated with answering the question anew, “Who are Americans?”
American Political Culture Underlying and framing political life in the U nited States ar e agr ee- ments on basic political v alues but disagreements over the ends or goals of go vernment. M ost Americans
affirm the values of liberty, equality, and democracy. Values shape citizens’ views of the world and define their sense of what is right and wrong, just and unjust, possible and impossible. I f Americans shar ed no v alues, they would hav e difficulty com- municating, much less agreeing on a common system of government and politics. However, sharing broad values does not guarantee political consensus. We can agree on principles but disagr ee over their application or ho w they ar e to be balanced.
Analyze whether the U.S. system of government upholds American political values
America continues to become more racially and ethnically diverse. These changes have sparked controversy over political issues. Here, Gregg Cummings, a Tea Party conservative from Iowa supporting strong immigration policy, stands outside of the Supreme Court next to Janet Murgu’a, the head of the National Council of La Raza, a large Latino rights advocacy organization.
22 CHAPTER 1 AMeR IcAN POl I T IcAl cUlTURe
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 22 27/11/18 12:03 PM
Much of the debate o ver the r ole of go vernment has been o ver what go vernment should do and how far it should go to reduce the inequalities within our society and political system while still preserving essential liberties.
Even though Americans have disagreed over the meaning of such political ideals as equality, they still agree on the importance of those ideals. The values, beliefs, and attitudes that form our political culture and hold together the United States and its people date back to the time of the founding of the Union.
The essential documents of the American Founding—the D eclaration of Independence and the Constitution—enunciated a set of political principles about the purposes of the new republic. In contrast with many other democracies, in the United States these political ideals did not just r emain words on dusty documents. Americans actively embraced the principles of the Founders and made them central to the national identity . Let us look mor e closely at thr ee of these ideals: liber ty, equality, and democracy.
LIBERTY
No ideal is mor e central to American v alues than liber ty. The Declaration of Independence defined three inalienable rights: “Life, Liber ty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The preamble to the Constitution likewise identified the need to secure “the Blessings of Liberty” as one of the key reasons for drawing up the Constitution. For Americans, liberty means both personal fr eedom and economic fr eedom. Both are closely linked to the idea of limited government.
The Constitution’s first 10 amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, above all pr eserve individual personal liber ties and rights. I n fact, the wor d liberty has come to mean many of the fr eedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights: freedom of speech and writing, the right to assemble fr eely, and the right to practice r eli- gious beliefs without interference from the government. Over the course of Ameri- can history, the scope of personal liberties has expanded as laws have become more tolerant and as individuals have successfully used the courts to challenge restrictions on their individual freedoms. Far fewer restrictions exist today on the press, political speech, and individual moral behavior than in the early years of the nation. Even so, conflicts persist over how personal liberties should be extended and when personal liberties violate community norms. F or example, a number of cities hav e recently passed “sit-lie” ordinances, which limit the freedom of individuals to sit or lie down on sidewalks. Designed to limit the presence of the homeless and make city str eets more attractive to pedestrians, the ordinances have also been denounced as infringe- ments on individual liberties.
The central historical conflict regarding liberty in the United States was about the enslavement of blacks. The facts of slavery and the differential treatment of the races have cast a long shado w over all of American histor y. In fact, scholars today note that the American definition of freedom has been formed in relation to the concept of slavery. The right to control one’s labor and the right to r eceive rewards for that labor have been central elements of our definition of freedom precisely because these freedoms were denied to slaves.38
In addition to personal freedom, the American concept of liberty means economic freedom. Since the Founding, economic freedom has been linked to capitalism, free markets, and the pr otection of priv ate property. Free competition, unfetter ed movement of goods, and the right to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor are all essential aspects of economic freedom and American capitalism.39 In the first century of the
political culture broadly shared values, beliefs, and attitudes about how the government should function; American political culture emphasizes the values of liberty, equality, and democracy
liberty freedom from governmental control
limited government a principle of constitutional government; a government whose powers are defined and limited by a constitution
Patrick Henry’s famous “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech demanded freedom at any cost and has resonated with Americans throughout the nation’s history.
23AMeR IcAN POl I T IcAl cUlTURe
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 23 27/11/18 12:03 PM
Republic, support for capitalism often meant support for the doctrine of laissez-faire (literally, “leave alone” in French). Laissez-faire capitalism allowed very little room for the national government to regulate trade or restrict the use of private property, even in the public interest. Americans still strongly support capitalism and economic lib- erty, but they now also endorse some restrictions on economic freedoms to protect the public. Today, federal and state governments deploy a wide array of regulations in the name of public protection. These include health and safety laws, environmen- tal rules, and workplace regulations.
Not surprisingly, fierce disagr eements often er upt over what the pr oper scope of government regulation should be. What some people r egard as pr otecting the public, others see as an infringement on their o wn freedom to run their businesses and use their property as they see fit. For example, many business leaders opposed the Affordable Care Act, the health care reform legislation informally known as Obamacare, because it required businesses with over 50 employees to provide health coverage for their emplo yees and establishes standar ds about which health ser vices should be covered by the insurance. In addition, the law required that insurers pay for access to contraceptiv e care. From the perspectiv e of the law ’s supporters, this provision simply ensured that women have access to basic health car e. Many busi- nesses, however, opposed the law as unwanted go vernment intr usion. And some businesses strongly denounced the requirement to cover contraception, in par ticu- lar, as a violation of their fundamental liberties to run their businesses as they see fit. In fact, in 2014 a company called Hobby Lobby successfully challenged this provi- sion of the act when the Supreme Court ruled that family firms could be exempted on the basis of religious objections.40
Concerns about liber ty have also arisen in r elation to the go vernment’s efforts to combat terr orism and pr otect the nation’s security. These concerns escalated in 2013 when Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, leaked top-secret documents from the NSA to the press. The NSA is the agency charged with protecting the United States by monitoring electronic data flows— including radio, email, and cellular telephone calls—for foreign threats. The leaked documents revealed that the American go vernment was listening in on the priv ate communications of for eign go vernments, including many American allies, such as Germany and B razil. The leaks also revealed information about domestic sur - veillance: the NSA had access to Americans ’ Facebook, Google, Apple, and Yahoo! accounts, among many other electronic data sources. It was using these “metadata” to track the connections among people, searching for suspicious ties. The revelation that the NSA had been collecting this information for three years without public knowledge set off a storm of controversy since the NSA is supposed to monitor foreign communications, not track Americans. The controversy reinforced the tech companies’ commitment to privacy. In 2016, Apple refused an FBI order to unlock the iPhone used by a terrorist who killed 14 people in S an Bernardino, California. The FBI dropped the case after it was able to open the phone without Apple’s help. However, a new court order to Apple related to an iPhone used in a drug conspiracy case made it clear that the tension between privacy and security will continue.41
Concerns about terrorism leave us with an extraor dinary dilemma. On the one hand, w e tr easure liber ty; but on the other hand, w e r ecognize that the liv es of thousands of Americans have already been lost and countless others ar e threatened by terrorism. Can we reconcile liberty and security? Liberty and order? In previous national emergencies, Americans accepted r estrictions on liber ty with the under - standing that these would be temporary. But because the threat of terrorism has no
laissez-faire capitalism an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately owned and operated for profit with minimal or no government interference
24 CHAPTER 1 AMeR IcAN POl I T IcAl cUlTURe
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 24 27/11/18 12:03 PM
clear end point, doubts have grown about whether special government powers that infringe on liberties should be continued.
EQUALITY
The Declaration of I ndependence declares as its first “self-evident” truth that “ all men ar e cr eated equal.” As central as it is to the American political cr eed, how- ever, equality has been an even less well-defined ideal than liberty because people interpret “equality” in different ways. Few Americans have wholeheartedly embraced the ideal of full equality of results, but most Americans share the ideal of equality of opportunity—that is, the notion that each person should be giv en a fair chance to go as far as his or her talents will allo w. Yet it is hard for Americans to reach agree- ment on what constitutes equality of oppor tunity. Must a group’s past inequalities be remedied in order to ensure equal opportunity in the present? Should inequalities in the legal, political, and economic spheres be given the same weight? In contrast to liberty, which requires limits on the role of government, equality implies an obliga- tion of the government to the people.42
Americans do make clear distinctions between political equality and social or economic equality. Political equality means that members of the American politi - cal community have the right to par ticipate in politics on equal terms. B eginning from a very restricted definition of political community, which originally included only propertied white men, the United States has moved much closer to an ideal of political equality that can be summed up as “one person, one vote.” Broad support for the ideal of political equality has helped expand the American political com - munity and extend to all the right to par ticipate. Although considerable conflict remains over whether the political system makes participation in it harder for some people and easier for others and whether the role of money in politics has drowned out the public voice, Americans agree that all citizens should have an equal right to participate and that government should enforce that right.
In par t because Americans believ e that individuals ar e free to wor k as har d as they choose, they have always been less concerned about social or economic inequal- ity. Many Americans regard economic differences as the consequence of individual choices, vir tues, or failur es. Because of this, Americans tend to be less suppor tive than most Europeans of government action to ensure economic equality. Yet when
equality of opportunity a widely shared American ideal that all people should have the freedom to use whatever talents and wealth they have to reach their fullest potential
political equality the right to participate in politics equally, based on the principle of “one person, one vote”
Americans struggle to define how equality of opportunity can be provided at the same time as individual liberty. One area of debate is in education. Does the fact that New York (left) spends on average $21,206 per student each year while Utah (right) spends on average $6,575 per student, mean that there is not an equality of opportunity for schoolchildren? (Data from www.census.gov.)
25AMeR IcAN POl I T IcAl cUlTURe
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 25 27/11/18 12:03 PM
major economic for ces, such as the G reat D epression of the 1930s, affect many people or when systematic barriers appear to block equality of oppor tunity, Ameri- cans support government action to promote equality. Even then, however, they have endorsed only a limited government role designed to help people get back on their feet or to open up opportunity.
Because equality is such an elusive concept, many conflicts have arisen over what it should mean in practice. Americans have engaged in three kinds of controversies about the public role in addressing inequality. The first is determining what consti- tutes equality of access to public institutions. I n 1896 the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that “separate but equal” accommodation for blacks and whites was constitutional.43 In 1954, in a major legal victory for the civil rights movement, the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine (see Chapter 5).44 Today, new questions have been raised about what constitutes equal access to public institutions. S ome argue that the unequal financing of public schools in cities, suburbs, and rural districts is a violation of the right to equal education. To date, these claims have not been supported by the federal courts, which have rejected the notion that the unequal economic impacts of public policy outcomes are a constitutional matter, leaving the issue to the states. 45 Lawsuits arguing a right to “economic equal protection” stalled in 1973 when the Supreme Court ruled that a Texas school-financing law did not violate the Consti- tution even though the law affected rich and poor students differently.46
A second debate concerns the public role in ensuring equality of opportunity in private life. Although Americans generally agr ee that discrimination should not be tolerated, people disagree over what should be done to ensure equality of opportu- nity (see Table 1.3).47 Controversies about affirmative action programs reflect these disputes. Supporters of affirmative action claim that such programs are necessary to compensate for past discrimination in order to establish true equality of opportunity today. Opponents maintain that affirmative action amounts to r everse discrimina- tion and that a society that espouses tr ue equality should not ackno wledge gender or racial differences. The question of the public responsibility for private inequalities is central to gender issues. The traditional view, still held b y many today, takes for
The Fight for $15—a nationwide effort to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour—first gained traction in 2013, increasing public awareness of income inequality in the United States. In November 2015 fast food workers in hundreds of cities around the country went on strike to rally for higher pay and the right to unionize.
26 CHAPTER 1 AMeR IcAN POl I T IcAl cUlTURe
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 26 27/11/18 12:03 PM
granted that women should bear special responsibilities in the family. In this per- spective, the challenges women face in the labor force due to family responsibilities fall outside the range of public concern. I n the past 30 years especially, these tradi- tional views have come under fire as advocates for women have argued that private inequalities are a topic of public concern.48
A third debate about equality concerns differences in income and wealth. Unlike in other countries, income inequality has not been an enduring topic of political controversy in the United States, which currently has the largest gap in income and wealth between rich and poor citiz ens of any dev eloped nation. Americans hav e generally tolerated great differences among rich and poor citizens, in part because of a pervasive belief that mobility is possible and that economic success is the product of individual effort.49 This tolerance for inequality is reflected in America’s tax code, which is mor e adv antageous to w ealthy taxpay ers than that of almost any other Western nation.
Americans believe in some forms of equality more than others. How do these survey results reflect disagreement about what equality means in practice?
STATEMENT PERCENTAGE WHO AGREE
It is very important that women have the same rights as men in our country.
91
Our society should do what is necessary to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed.
86
Our country should have laws that protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people against discrimination in jobs, public accommodations, and housing.
69
It should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to get married. 62
The fact that some are rich and some are poor is an acceptable part of the economic system.
52
Our country needs to continue making changes to give blacks equal rights with whites (according to whites).
54
Our country needs to continue making changes to give blacks equal rights with whites (according to blacks).
88
The country hasn’t gone far enough when it comes to gender equality (according to women).
57
The country hasn’t gone far enough when it comes to gender equality (according to men).
42
SOURCE: Pew Research Center, www.pewresearch.org/. See endnote 47 for specific reports.
TABLE 1.3
Equality and Public Opinion
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Economic inequality among Americans has been widening since at least the 1970s. Many politicians and news commentators say that inequality is threatening the middle class. Is there any evidence that the American public is worried about the growth in inequality?
27AMeR IcAN POl I T IcAl cUlTURe
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 27 27/11/18 12:03 PM
Since the Great Recession, however, income inequality has risen on the political agenda. During the 2016 presidential race, Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders discussed economic inequality , as did R epublican candidates such as D onald Trump and M arco Rubio, although their pr oposed solutions dif - fered. Public opinion polls revealed concerns about inequality as well. In 2015 two- thirds of Americans said the distribution of wealth and money is not fair and should be more evenly distributed; in 2017, 63 per cent of Americans said upper -income people pay too little in taxes, and 67 percent said corporations pay too little.50 None- theless, the tax bill passed by the Republican-led Congress and signed by President Trump at the end of 2017 lo wered taxes on corporations and w ealthy households, raising concerns among some critics about lack of responsiveness to public opinion.
DEMOCRACY
The essence of democracy is the participation of the people in choosing their rulers and the people’s ability to influence what those rulers do. In a democracy, political power ultimately comes from the people. The idea of placing power in the hands of the people is known as popular sovereignty. In the United States, popular sovereignty and political equality make politicians accountable to the people. I deally, demo- cracy envisions an engaged citiz enry prepared to ex ercise its po wer over rulers. As we noted earlier, the United States is a representative democracy, meaning that the people do not r ule directly but instead ex ercise power through elected r epresenta- tives. Forms of participation in a democracy vary greatly, but voting is a key element of the representative democracy that the American Founders established.
American democracy r ests on the principle of majority rule with minority rights. Majority rule means that the wishes of the majority determine what go vernment does. The House of Representatives—a large body elected directly by the people— was designed in par ticular to ensur e majority r ule. But the F ounders feared that popular majorities could turn government into a “tyranny of the majority” in which individual liberties would be violated. Concern for individual rights has thus been a part of American democracy fr om the beginning. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and enfor ced through the courts provide an important check on the power of the majority.
Despite Americans’ deep attachment to the ideal of democracy, many questions can be raised about our practice of democracy. The first is the restricted definition of the political community during much of American history. Property restrictions on the right to vote were eliminated by 1828; in 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution granted African Americans the v ote, although later ex clusionary practices denied them that right; in 1920 the N ineteenth Amendment guaranteed women the right to vote; and in 1965 the Voting Rights Act finally secured the right of African Americans to vote. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment, ratified in 1971 dur- ing the Vietnam War, gave 18- to 20-year-olds the right to vote.
Just securing the right to vote does not end concerns about democracy, however. The organization of electoral institutions can have a significant impact on access to elections and on who can get elected. During the first two decades of the twen- tieth century, states and cities enacted many reforms, including strict registration requirements and scheduling of elections, that made it har der to v ote. The aim was to rid politics of corr uption, but the consequence was to r educe participation. More r ecently, v oter ID laws r equiring go vernment identification to register or to vote have been enacted for similar reasons and with similar consequences. Other
popular sovereignty a principle of democracy in which political authority rests ultimately in the hands of the people
majority rule, minority rights the democratic principle that a government follows the preferences of the majority of voters but protects the interests of the minority
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS In the United States, do citizens make the decisions of government, or do they merely influence them?
28 CHAPTER 1 AMeR IcAN POl I T IcAl cUlTURe
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 28 27/11/18 12:03 PM
institutional decisions affect which candidates stand the best chance of getting elected (see Chapter 10).
A fur ther consideration about democracy concerns the r elationship betw een economic power and political power. Money has always played an important role in elections and go verning in the U nited S tates. M any argue that the per vasive influence of money in American electoral campaigns and lobbying activities today undermines democracy. With the decline of locally based political parties that depend on party loyalists to turn out the v ote and the rise of political action com - mittees, political consultants, and expensiv e media campaigns, money has become the central fact of life in American politics. M oney often determines who r uns for office; it can exert a heavy influence on who wins; and some argue that it affects what politicians do once they are in office.51
Low turnout for elections and a per vasive sense of apathy and cynicism characterized American politics for much of the past half-century. The widespread interest in the 2008 election and the near -record levels of v oter turnout, which, at 61.6 per cent, was the highest turnout since 1968, r eversed this tr end.52 Nine million v oters r egistered and v oted for the first time in 2008, including near- record numbers of voters under the age of 24.53 Despite strong engagement in the presidential primaries and in the general election campaigns, lower turnout in the 2012 and 2016 elections suggested that public disengagement remains a challenge for American democracy.
What Americans Think about Government
Since the U nited S tates was estab - lished as a nation, Americans hav e been reluctant to grant government too much po wer, and they hav e
often been suspicious of politicians. B ut o ver the course of the nation ’s histor y, Americans have also turned to government for assistance in times of need and have strongly suppor ted the go vernment in periods of war . In 1933 the po wer of the
Explore Americans’ attitudes toward government
While levels of participation in politics are relatively low for young Americans, the presidential primary campaigns of 2008 and 2016 saw the highest levels of youth turnout—to volunteer and to vote— in decades. What factors might have energized young people to become involved in these particular campaigns?
29WHAT AMeR IcANS TH INK ABOUT GOVeRNMeNT
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 29 27/11/18 12:03 PM
government began to expand to meet the crises cr eated by the stock mar ket crash of 1929, the G reat Depression, and the r un on banks of 1933. Congr ess passed legislation that br ought the go vernment into the businesses of home mor tgages, farm mor tgages, cr edit, and r elief of personal distr ess. M ore r ecently, when the economy threatened to fall into a deep r ecession in 2008 and 2009, the federal government took action to shor e up the financial system, oversee the restructuring of the ailing auto companies, and inject hundr eds of billions of dollars into the faltering economy. In 2017 federal go vernment funds helped fight wildfires in the American West and provide hurricane relief in Texas and Florida. Today the national government is enormous, with programs and policies reaching into every corner of American life. I t oversees the nation’s economy, it is the nation ’s largest emplo yer, it provides citizens with a host of services, it controls the world’s most formidable military, and it regulates a wide range of social and commercial activities. Americans use government services, benefits, and infrastructure every day and ar e simultane- ously skeptical about the r ole of go vernment in society . We might consider these contradictory feelings and low government trust additional aspects of contemporary American political culture.
CONSERVATIVE IN THEORY, LIBERAL IN PRACTICE
The Constitution lays out a system of limited government, which largely r eflects the preferences of the majority of Americans. When asked questions about the role of government in general, the majority of Americans give answers on the conserva- tive side of the political spectrum. More Americans consider themselves politically conservative than liberal (36 versus 26 percent in 2017; 40–21 in 2009).54 In 2017, 55 percent of Americans said “ the federal government has too much po wer,” and 56 percent said that the “ government is almost always wasteful and inefficient.”55
The federal government maintains a large number of websites that provide useful information to citizens on such topics as loans for education, civil service job applica- tions, the inflation rate, and how the weather will affect farming. These sites are just one way in which the government serves its citizens.
30 CHAPTER 1 AMeR IcAN POl I T IcAl cUlTURe
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 30 27/11/18 12:03 PM
At the same time, ho wever, when asked about specific government pr ograms, majorities offer strong support. In 2017, 86 percent of Republicans and 95 percent of Democrats wanted federal spending on S ocial Security to be kept the same or increased; 91 percent of Republicans and 92 percent of Democrats wanted spend- ing on highways, bridges, and r oads to be the same or higher; and 61 per cent of Republicans and 93 per cent of D emocrats wanted spending on economic assis - tance to needy people kept the same or incr eased.56 Thus many Americans pre- fer small go vernment in the abstract, but v ery much like what go vernment does in some specific issue areas. They are simultaneously “abstract conservatives” and “operational liberals. ”57 That both sentiments are pr evalent in American public opinion helps explain why there can be calls both for more government action and for less, depending on the situation.
TRUST IN GOVERNMENT
Another characteristic of contemporary political culture is low trust in government. Ironically, even as popular dependence on the government has grown, the American public’s vie w of go vernment has turned sour . I n the early 1960s thr ee-quarters of Americans said they tr usted government most of the time or always. B y 2017 only 18 percent of Americans expressed such trust in government58 (see Figure 1.4). Different groups vary somewhat in their levels of trust: African Americans and Latinos express slightly more confidence in the federal government than do whites. But even among the most supportive groups, considerably more than half only trust the go vernment some of the time. 59 These developments ar e impor tant because politically engaged citiz ens and public confidence in government are vital for the health of a democracy.
Trust spiked higher after the September 11 terrorist attacks, but fell to pre-attack levels within three years, and the trend has continued its do wnward path. Distrust of government greatly influenced the primary elections in 2015 and 2016, when a
With a few upticks, trust in govern- ment has been on the decline since the 1960s. What factors might reverse the trend? Have high-profile populist presidential candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders helped to raise or lower trust in government?
31WHAT AMeR IcANS TH INK ABOUT GOVeRNMeNT
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 31 27/11/18 12:03 PM
number of “ outsider” candidates, critical of go vernment, attracted wide suppor t. This trend was especially pr onounced in the R epublican primaries, in which can - didates known for their strong anti-government rhetoric, such as Ted Cruz, and candidates with no go vernment experience, notably D onald Trump, unexpectedly attracted wide support. Among Democratic primary voters, strong support for Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist, also indicated a desir e to depar t from busi- ness as usual in Washington. Sanders vigorously faulted the government for failing to take more forceful action against corporate misconduct and growing inequality.
Does it matter if Americans tr ust their go vernment? F or the most par t, the answer is yes. As we have seen, most Americans rely on government for a wide range of ser vices and laws that they simply take for granted. B ut long-term distrust in government can result in public r efusal to pay the tax es necessary to suppor t such
FIGURE 1.4
Public Trust in Government, 1958–2017 Since the 1960s, general levels of public trust in government have declined. What factors might help to account for changes in the public’s trust in government? Why has confidence in government dropped again since September 11, 2001?
SOURCE: The American National Election Studies, 1958–2004; Pew Research Center, www.people-press.org/ 2017/05/03/public-trust-in-government-1958-2017/ (accessed 12/27/17). The Pew data after 2004 represent a “three survey moving average.”
80%
70
60
50
1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016
30
20
10
0
40
PERCENTAGE TRUSTING THE GOVERNMENT TO “DO THE RIGHT THING” “MOST OF THE TIME” OR “ALWAYS”
By 1980, trust in government had dropped to about the 25 percent level.
The government’s response to the September 11 terrorist attacks helped lift popular trust above the 50 percent level for the “rst time in decades.
In 2015, only 19 percent of Americans trusted the government.
32 CHAPTER 1 AMeR IcAN POl I T IcAl cUlTURe
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 32 27/11/18 12:03 PM
widely approved public activities. Lo w levels of confidence may also make it diffi- cult for government to attract talented and effective workers to public service.60 The weakening of government as a result of prolonged levels of distrust may ultimately harm the U nited States’ capacity to defend its national inter est in the world eco- nomy and may jeopar dize its national security . Likewise, a w eak government can do little to assist citizens who need help in weathering periods of sharp economic or technological change.
American Political Culture WHAT DO WE WANT? Americans express mixed views about government. Almost everyone complains about
government at one time or another, but in the past three decades, general trust in
government has declined significantly. Despite mounting distrust, when asked about
particular government activities or programs, a majority of Americans are more than
likely to support the activities that government undertakes. These conflicting views
reflect the tensions in American political culture: there is no perfect balance between
liberty, equality, and democracy. In recent years, finding the right mix of government
actions to achieve these different goals has become especially troublesome. Some
charge that government initiatives designed to promote equality infringe on individual
liberty, while others point to the need for government to take action in the face of grow-
ing inequality. Sharp political debate over competing goals alienates many citizens,
who react by withdrawing from politics. Yet, in contrast to totalitarian and authoritarian
forms of government, democracy rests on the principle of popular sovereignty. No true
democracy can function properly without knowledgeable and engaged citizens. The
“Who Participates?” feature on page 35 shows which Americans voted in the 2016
presidential election.
The remarkable diversity of the American people represents a great strength for
American democracy as well as a formidable challenge. The shifting religious, racial
and ethnic, and immigration status of Americans throughout history has always pro-
voked fears about whether American values could withstand such dramatic shifts.
Demographic changes will continue to raise thorny new questions in the coming
decades. For example, as the American population grows older, programs for the
elderly are expected to take up an increasing share of the federal budget. Yet to be
successful, a nation must invest in its young people. And, as any college student
knows, the cost of college has risen in recent years. Many students drop out as they
discover that the cost of college is too high. Or they graduate and find themselves
saddled with loans that will take decades to pay back. Yet, in a world of ever-sharper
economic competition, higher education has become increasingly important for indi-
viduals seeking economic security. Moreover, an educated population is critical to the
future prosperity of the country as a whole. Are there ways to support the elderly and
the young at the same time? Is it fair to cut back assistance to the elderly, who have
worked a lifetime for their benefits? If we decrease assistance to the elderly, will they
stay in the labor market and make the job hunt for young people even more difficult?
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS What recent events have affected Americans’ trust in government? What might it take to restore Americans’ trust in the federal government?
33AMeR IcAN POl I T IcAl cUlTURe : WHAT DO We WANT?
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 33 27/11/18 12:03 PM
As these trade-offs suggest, there are no easy answers to the demographic changes
that will unfold in the coming years. Undoubtedly, these questions will provoke heated
political conflict as politicians and interest groups propose different strategies for sup-
porting the young in an aging country. Informed participation of the American public,
especially the participation of young people, is the only way to ensure that the steps
taken to address these challenges best reflect the will of the people. The young politi-
cians mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, Saira Blair and Kendric Jones, have
become engaged in a particularly deep way, by running for office. But there are many
ways to become informed and involved, and the goal of this book is to show you how
and why it matters.
34 CHAPTER 1 AMeR IcAN POl I T IcAl cUlTURe
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 34 27/11/18 12:03 PM
Vote
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
Cast your vote on Election Day. Consider encouraging others to vote too. Research shows that people are more likely to turn out to vote if a friend or family member asks them to.
Find out what’s on the ballot in upcoming elections in your state and district by entering your address at www.vote411.org (a website from the League of Women Voters).
Register to vote. See page 329.
*Highest level attained
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey November 2016, census.gov (accessed 11/20/17).
Age Income
Education*
Race / Ethnicity Sex
18−29 30−44 45−64 65+ <$50,000 $50,000− $99,999
$100,000+
College graduate
Postgraduate study
Some high school
Some collegeHigh school graduate
White BlackHispanic Asian Male Female
46% 59% 67%
71% 55%
69% 78%
59% 63%65% 59% 48% 49%
35%
63% 74% 80%
52%
Who Voted in 2016?
WHO PARTICIPATES?
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 35 27/11/18 12:03 PM
access and digital literacy are increasingly important for full participation in American politics.
Key Terms political knowledge (p. 10)
citizenship (p. 11)
digital citizenship (p. 11)
political efficacy (p. 12)
citizenship requires political knowledge. When citizens know about politics, they are better able to understand their interests and to identify the best way to act on those interests. Most Americans, however, do not know much about politics. While the internet has made it easier to learn about and participate in politics, many Americans still do not go online to find information about government. Internet
Citizenship: Participation, Knowledge, and Efficacy
Practice Quiz
1. Services that citizens need but are unlikely to provide for themselves, such as national defense, mainte- nance of public order, and a stable currency, are called a) laissez-faire goods. b) pluralist goods. c) provisional goods. d) public goods. e) private goods.
2. What is the basic difference between an autocracy and an oligarchy? a) the extent to which average citizens have a say in
government affairs b) the means of collecting taxes and conscripting soldiers c) the number of people who control governing decisions d) the size and political influence of the military e) there are no differences between autocracies and
oligarchies
3. A government that is formally limited in what it can control and how it controls it is known as a) a totalitarian government. b) a authoritarian government. c) a constitutional government. d) a autocracy. e) a oligarchy.
4. A system of government that allows citizens to vote directly on the law through popular initiatives and ballot referendums is called a a) republic b) representative democracy c) direct democracy d) pluralism e) laissez-faire capitalism
Government is needed to provide those services, some- times called “public goods,” that citizens need but are not likely to be able to provide adequately for themselves. There are many different kinds of government. Prior to the modern era, governments accepted almost no limits on their behavior and provided citizens with few opportunities to participate in public affairs. Today, numerous countries, including the United States, are constitutional democracies. America’s democracy provides citizens with the chance to elect top officials at all levels of government and even allows them to vote directly on laws in many states and localities.
Key Terms government (p. 5)
politics (p. 5)
autocracy (p. 7)
oligarchy (p. 7)
democracy (p. 7)
constitutional government (p. 7)
authoritarian government (p. 7)
totalitarian government (p. 7)
power (p. 9)
representative democracy (republic) (p. 9)
direct democracy (p. 9)
pluralism (p. 9)
Government
Define government and forms of government (pp. 5–10)
Describe the role of the citizen in politics (pp. 10–13)
CHAPTER 1 STUDY GU IDe36
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 36 27/11/18 12:03 PM
laissez-faire capitalism (p. 24)
equality of opportunity (p. 25)
political equality (p. 25)
popular sovereignty (p. 28)
majority rule, minority rights (p. 28)
Practice Quiz
9. “life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” are the three inalienable rights mentioned in a) the constitution. b) the Declaration of Independence. c) the Bill of Rights. d) the Articles of confederation. e) the Pledge of Allegiance.
c) approximately 10 percent of the U.S. population. d) approximately 15 percent of the U.S. population. e) more than 20 percent of the U.S. population.
8. Which of the following statements best describes the history of income inequality in the United States? a) The top 1 percent has never earned more than
10 percent of the nation’s annual income. b) The top 1 percent has never earned less than
10 percent of the nation’s annual income. c) Income inequality has remained fairly constant
since the late 1970s. d) Income inequality has increased considerably since
the late 1970s. e) Income inequality has decreased considerably since
the late 1970s.
6. Political efficacy is the belief that a) government is wasteful and corrupt. b) government operates efficiently. c) government has grown too large. d) government cannot be trusted. e) ordinary citizens can influence what
government does.
Practice Quiz
5. What is digital citizenship? a) a new government initiative to expand online voter
registration b) the ability to vote online c) an online certification program that allows
immigrants to become American citizens d) the ability to participate in society online e) a new government initiative to provide daily
legislative updates online
Most Americans express strong support for liberty, equality, and democracy. Agreement on these basic values does not mean, however, that political debate in the United States is without conflict. Questions about how to apply and balance the different elements of American political culture have motivated disagreements throughout the country’s history.
Key Terms political culture (p. 23)
liberty (p. 23)
limited government (p. 23)
The United States is defined, in part, by its ever-growing and changing population. During the last 200 years, America has become more racially, ethnically, geographically, and religiously diverse. Immigration has been an important reason for the country’s shifting demographics, and it has frequently sparked intense debate about the nature of American identity and American democracy.
Practice Quiz
7. In 1910 residents who traced their origin to latin America or Asia each accounted for a) less than 1 percent of the U.S. population. b) approximately 5 percent of the U.S. population.
American Political Culture
Who Are Americans?
Analyze whether the U.S. system of government upholds American political values (pp. 22–29)
Show how the social composition of the American population has changed over time (pp. 13–22)
STUDY GU IDE 37
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 37 27/11/18 12:03 PM
Fischer, claude S., and Michael Hout. A Century of Differ- ence: How America Changed in the Last One Hundred Years. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2006.
Hetherington, Marc J., and Thomas J. Rudolph. Why Washing- ton Won’t Work: Polarization, Political Trust, and the Governing Crisis. chicago: University of chicago Press, 2015.
Dahl, Robert. How Democratic Is the American Constitution? New Haven, cT: Yale University Press, 2002.
Dalton, Russell. The Good Citizen: How a Younger Generation Is Reshaping American Politics, 2nd ed. Washington, Dc: cQ Press, 2015.
Delli carpini, Michael X., and Scott Keeter. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, cT: Yale University Press, 1996.
12. Which of the following is not part of American political culture? a) belief in equality of results b) belief in democracy c) belief in personal freedom d) belief in economic freedom e) belief in equality of opportunity
13. Which of the following restrictions on voting have been repealed over the last 200 years in the United States? a) property, gender, and race b) gender only c) race only d) property only e) race and gender only
10. Which of the following is not related to the American conception of liberty? a) freedom of speech b) economic freedom c) freedom of religion d) freedom of assembly e) All of the above are related to the American
conception of liberty.
11. The principle of political equality can be best summed up as a) “equality of results.” b) “equality of opportunity.” c) “one person, one vote.” d) “equality between the sexes.” e) “leave everyone alone.”
For Further Reading
b) The majority of Americans prefer large government in the abstract and are very supportive of most specific government programs.
c) The majority of Americans prefer large government in the abstract but are very opposed to most specific government programs.
d) The majority of Americans prefer small government in the abstract but are very supportive most specific government programs.
e) The majority of Americans prefer small government in the abstract and are very opposed to most specific government programs.
15. Americans’ trust in their government a) rose significantly between 1964 and 1980. b) increased immediately following September 11,
2001, but declined shortly thereafter. c) declined immediately after the September 11
attacks but has risen dramatically since 2004. d) reached its highest point ever in the fall of 2011. e) has remained the same over the last 50 years.
While Americans have always been hesitant about granting government too much power, they have frequently relied on it during times of national crisis and have become increas- ingly dependent on it to provide important services. Over the last few decades, Americans’ trust in government has declined significantly. low levels of trust and efficacy may threaten American democracy by weakening the govern- ment and reducing the public’s willingness to participate in political life.
Practice Quiz
14. What does it mean to say that Americans are “abstract conservatives” and “operational liberals”? a) The majority of Americans have no opinions
about government in general or about the specific programs government implements.
What Americans Think about Government
Explore Americans’ attitudes toward government (pp. 29–33)
CHAPTER 1 STUDY GU IDe38
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 38 27/11/18 12:03 PM
American Democracy Project www.aascu.org/programs/adp
This is an effort by the American Association of State colleges and Universities to increase political engagement among college students. See what opportunities are available for you to become politically active.
Americans for Informed Democracy www.aidemocracy.org
A nonpartisan organization that promotes democracy and seeks to build a new generation of globally conscious leaders. Find out how you can be politically active and coordinate a town hall meeting on campus, attend a leadership retreat, or publish your opinions on democracy.
DiversityInc http://diversityinc.com
This site is dedicated to the promotion of American diversity and education. Here you can read about the issues that directly affect American minorities.
Future of Freedom Foundation www.fff.org
This organization promotes individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government. Find out how some people are trying to protect freedom in the United States.
Hibbing, John R., and elizabeth Theiss-Morse. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Belief about How Government Should Work. New York: cambridge University Press, 2002.
Hochschild, Jennifer l. Facing Up to the American Dream: Race, Class, and the Soul of the Nation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995.
Huntington, Samuel. Who Are We? The Challenges to Ameri ca’s National Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004.
lasswell, Harold. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. New York: Meridian Books, 1958.
Mccarty, Nolan, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.
Recommended Websites Mobilize.org http://mobilize.org
This all-partisan network is dedicated to educating, empowering, and energizing young people. Find out how politics affects America’s youth and what they are doing about it by being engaged and active.
Pew Research Center, U.S. Politics and Policy www.people-press.org
A nonpartisan “fact tank” that provides public opinion data about a wide range of topics related to American government and society. This site covers current issues as well as provides analyses of change over time in American politics and demographics.
The Youth Participatory Politics Research Network http://ypp.dmlcentral.net
A network of researchers and writers supported by the MacArthur Foundation. The network conducts studies of youth participation and contains short videos, blogs, and links to other resources about youth participation. The website provides many resources for understanding the impact of digital media on youth engagement in politics.
U.S. Census Bureau www.census.gov
The website for the census Bureau offers a statistical look at our country’s population and economy. check out some of the statistics to get a better idea of American diversity.
Mettler, Suzanne. The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine American Democracy. chicago: University of chicago Press, 2011.
Page, Benjamin I., and lawrence R. Jacobs. Class War? What Americans Really Think about Economic Inequality. chicago: University of chicago Press, 2009.
Putnam, Robert. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Translated by Phillips Bradley. New York: Knopf, Vintage Books, 1945. First published 1835.
Winters, Jeffrey A. Oligarchy. New York: cambridge University Press, 2011.
STUDY GU IDE 39
wtp12e_ptr_ch01_002-039.indd 39 27/11/18 12:03 PM
The Founding and the Constitution
020202 chapter
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS Often we are barely aware of the many ways the U.S. Constitution shapes Americans’
lives every day, but at some moments, its features
leap dramatically into view, highlighting the framers’
views about the nature of government. One of their
worries was the concentration of government powers
and the possible infringement of individual liberties.
One solution was to divide the executive, legislative,
and judicial powers of government across different
institutions with separate powers, each checking
the other. Governmental power was further divided
across the levels of government in the federal sys-
tem, between the national and state governments.
Sometimes, this constitutional system and its effect
on average Americans come vividly to life.
Jim Obergefell was a real estate agent and IT
consultant in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1992 when he met
and fell in love with John Arthur.1 Although their rela-
tionship would last for decades, they were unable to
marry. In 1996, Congress passed and President Bill
Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA),
a federal law defining marriage as between one man
and one woman. States could still permit same-sex
marriage, but the marriages would not be recognized
for federal purposes such as filing taxes or earning
Social Security survivor benefits. The law also permit-
ted states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 40 27/11/18 2:00 PM
From America’s founding to today, debates over the role of the government in citizens’ lives have persisted. After the historic decision to rule same-sex marriage a right guaranteed by the Constitution, Jim Obergefell holds a photo of his late husband on the steps of the Supreme Court to celebrate his bittersweet victory.
performed in other states. Then the state of Ohio
enacted its own DOMA in 2004, which prohibited
same-sex marriage and refused to recognize those
performed elsewhere.
Thus Obergefell and Arthur were unable to marry
due to the actions of two branches of the federal
government—the executive and legislative—and their
state. The issue became more acute when Arthur
was diagnosed with ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s disease—
a progressive debilitating disease. Obergefell served
as Arthur’s primary caregiver, and the couple traveled
to Maryland in 2013 and wed on the airport tarmac.
Then they filed a lawsuit with the state of Ohio for
Obergefell to be recognized as the surviving spouse
on Arthur’s imminent death certificate. “We decided
to stand up for our marriage and to no longer
accept being treated as second-class citizens.”2
Arthur passed away three months later.
The case made it to the Supreme Court, the top of
the judicial branch of government. In 2015 the high
court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the fundamen-
tal right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples
by the due process and equal protection clauses of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The ruling secured a right to marry on the same terms
and conditions as opposite-sex couples nationwide.3
Thus the Court secured a civil right that the executive
and legislative branches and a number of states had
41
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 41 27/11/18 2:00 PM
denied. Obergefell said, “Some have called me a hero; I’m not comfortable with
that term, and I doubt I ever will be. But I can now accept it from others because
I see what this fight means to them.”4
The U.S. Constitution lays out the purpose of government: to promote
justice, to maintain peace at home, to defend the nation from foreign foes, to
provide for the welfare of the citizenry, and, above all, to secure the “bless-
ings of liberty” for Americans. It also spells out a plan for achieving these
objectives, including provisions for the exercise of legislative, executive, and
judicial powers and a recipe for the division of powers among the federal
government’s branches and between the national and state governments.
Jim Obergefell’s quest to marry the love of his life intersected with all three
branches and both levels of government.
His story also shows that although many Americans believe strongly in the
long-standing values of liberty, equality, and democracy, how those values are
defined and implemented by the political institutions that the Constitution
created are a source of considerable controversy. The framers believed that a
good constitution created a government with the capacity to act forcefully. But
they also believed that government should be compelled to take a variety of
interests and viewpoints into account when it formulates policies. Sometimes
the deliberation and compromise encouraged by the constitutional arrange-
ments of “separated institutions sharing powers” can result in policymaking
that is slow or even gridlocked.5 Public policy is always a product of political
bargaining. But so was the Constitution itself. As this chapter will show, the
Constitution reflects high principle as well as political self-interest and defines
the relationship between American citizens and their government.
★ Describe the events that led to the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation (pp. 43–46)
★ Analyze the reasons many Americans thought a new Constitution was needed, and assess the obstacles to a new Constitution (pp. 47–53)
★ Explain how the Constitution attempted to improve America’s governance, and outline the major institutions established by the Constitution (pp. 53–60)
★ Present the controversies involved in the struggle for ratification (pp. 60–65)
★ Trace how the Constitution has changed over time through the amendment process (pp. 65–69)
CHAPTER GOALS
42 CHAPTER 2 THe FOUnD InG AnD THe COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 42 27/11/18 2:00 PM
The First Founding: Interests and Conflicts
Competing ideals and principles often reflect competing interests, and so it was in R evolutionary America. The American Revolution and the American Constitution w ere out -
growths and expressions of a str uggle among economic and political for ces within the colonies. Five sectors of society had interests that were important in colonial politics: (1) N ew E ngland mer chants; (2) southern planters; (3) “ royalists”— holders of royal lands, offices, and patents (licenses to engage in a profession or business activity); (4) shopkeepers, artisans, and laborers; and (5) small farmers. Throughout the eighteenth century, these groups were in conflict over issues of taxation, trade, and commerce. For the most part, however, the southern plant- ers, the N ew E ngland mer chants, and the r oyal office and patent holders— groups that together made up the colonial elite—were able to maintain a political alliance that held in check the mor e radical for ces r epresenting shopkeepers, laborers, and small farmers. After 1760, ho wever, b y seriously thr eatening the interests of New England merchants and southern planters, B ritish tax and trade policies split the colonial elite, permitting radical for ces to expand their political influence and seting in motion a chain of events that culminated in the American Revolution.6
BRITISH TAXES AND COLONIAL INTERESTS
During the first half of the eighteenth century, Britain ruled its American colonies with a light hand. Evidence of British rule was hardly to be found outside the larg- est towns, and the enterprising colonists had found ways of ev ading most of the taxes levied b y the distant B ritish r egime. Beginning in the 1760s, ho wever, the debts and other financial problems confronting the British government forced it to search for new revenue sources. This search rather quickly led to the Crown’s North American colonies, which, on the whole, paid r emarkably little in tax es to their parent country. The British government reasoned that a sizable fraction of its debt was, in fact, attributable to the expenses it had incurred in defense of the colonies during the French and Indian War, which ended in 1763, driving France from North America. The British also considered the cost of the continuing pr otection that B ritish forces were giving the colonists from Indian attacks and that the British navy was pr oviding for colonial shipping. Thus, during the 1760s, Britain sought to impose ne w, though relatively modest, taxes on the colonists.
Like most go vernments of the period, the B ritish regime had limited ways in which to collect revenues. The income tax, which in the twentieth century became the single most impor tant source of go vernmental revenues, had not yet been developed. In the mid-eighteenth century, governments r elied mainly on tariffs, duties, and other
Describe the events that led to the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation
British colonists in America shipped many goods back to England, such as furs obtained by trading with Native Americans. The British gov- ernment claimed that the colonists should pay more in taxes in light of the protection their shipments received from the British navy and the expenses Britain incurred defending the colonies.
43THe F IrST FOUnD InG : InTereSTS AnD COnFL ICTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 43 27/11/18 2:00 PM
taxes on commerce; and it was to such taxes, and to the Stamp Act, that the British turned during the 1760s.
The Stamp Act, and other tax es on commer ce such as the S ugar Act of 1764, which tax ed sugar , molasses, and other commodities, most heavily affected the two groups in colonial society whose commercial interests and activities were most extensive—the New England merchants and the southern planters. U nited under the famous slogan “No taxation without representation,” the merchants and plant- ers sought to organize opposition to these new taxes. In the course of the struggle against British tax measures, the planters and mer chants broke with their royalist allies and turned to their former adversaries—the shopkeepers, small farmers, labor- ers, and artisans—for help. With the assistance of these groups, the merchants and planters organized demonstrations and a bo ycott of B ritish goods that ultimately forced the Crown to rescind most of its hated new taxes.
From the perspective of the merchants and planters, this was a victorious conclusion to their struggle with the mother country. In contrast to the shopkeepers, small farmers, laborers, and artisans whom they had helped mobilize initially, merchants and plant- ers were now anxious to end the unr est they had helped ar ouse; and they suppor ted the British government’s efforts to restore order. Indeed, most respectable Bostonians supported the actions of the B ritish soldiers inv olved in the Boston M assacre—the 1770 killing of five colonists by British soldiers who were attempting to repel an angry mob gathered outside the Town House, the seat of the colonial go vernment. In their subsequent trial, the soldiers were defended by John Adams, a pillar of Boston society and a futur e president of the U nited States. Adams asserted that the soldiers ’ actions were entirely justified, provoked by “a motley rabble of saucy boys, negroes and mulat- toes, Irish teagues and outlandish Jack tars.” All but two of the soldiers were acquitted.7
Despite the efforts of the British government and the elite members of colonial society, it pr oved difficult to bring an end to the political strife. The more radical forces continued to agitate for political and social change. These radicals, whose leaders included Samuel Adams, a cousin of John Adams, asserted that British power supported an unjust political and social structure within the colonies and began to advocate an end to British rule.8
POLITICAL STRIFE AND THE RADICALIZATION OF THE COLONISTS
The political strife within the colonies was the background for the ev ents of 1773–74. I n 1773 the British go vernment granted the politically powerful East India Company a monopoly on the export of tea from Britain, eliminating a lucrative form of trade for colonial merchants. To add to the injury, the East India Company sought to sell the tea directly in the colonies instead of working through the colonial merchants. Tea was an extremely important commodity during the 1770s, and these British actions posed a serious threat to the New England merchants. Together with their southern allies, the merchants once again called on their radical adv ersaries for support. The most dramatic result was the Boston Tea Party. In three other colonies, antitax Americans succeeded in blocking the unloading of taxed tea, which then had to be r eturned to B ritain. The royal governor of M assachusetts, ho wever, r efused to allow three shiploads of unsold tea to leav e Boston Harbor. Anti-British radicals seized this opportunity: on the night of December 16, 1773, a group led by Samuel Adams, some of them hastily “ disguised” as M ohawk I ndians, boar ded the thr ee vessels and threw the entire cargo of 342 chests of tea into the harbor.
44 CHAPTER 2 THe FOUnD InG AnD THe COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 44 27/11/18 2:00 PM
This event was of decisiv e importance in American histor y. The merchants had hoped to for ce the B ritish government to r escind the Tea Act, but they did not support any further demands and did not seek independence from Britain. Samuel Adams and the other radicals, however, did hope to provoke the British government to take actions that would alienate its colonial suppor ters and pav e the way for a rebellion. This was precisely the purpose of the Boston Tea Party, and it succeeded. By dumping the East I ndia Company ’s tea into Boston H arbor, A dams and his followers goaded the B ritish into enacting a number of harsh r eprisals, including closing the por t of Boston to commer ce, changing the pr ovincial government of Massachusetts, providing for the removal of accused persons to Britain for trial, and, most important, restricting movement to the West—further alienating the south - ern planters, who depended on access to ne w western lands. These acts of retalia- tion confirmed the worst criticisms of British rule and helped radicalize Americans. Radicals such as Samuel Adams had been agitating for more violent measures against the British for some time, but ultimately they needed Britain’s political repression to create widespread support for independence.
Thus, the Boston Tea Party set in motion a cy cle of pr ovocation and r etalia- tion that in 1774 resulted in the convening of the First Continental Congress—an assembly of delegates from all parts of the country—that called for a total boycott of B ritish goods and, under the pr odding of the radicals, began to consider the possibility of independence from British rule. The eventual result was the Declara- tion of Independence.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
In 1776, mor e than a y ear after open war fare had commenced in M assachusetts, the S econd Continental Congr ess appointed a committee consisting of Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, B enjamin F ranklin of P ennsylvania, R oger S herman of Connecticut, John Adams of M assachusetts, and R obert Livingston of N ew York to draft a statement of American independence from British rule. The Declaration
The British helped radicalize colo- nists through bad policy decisions in the years before the Revolution. For example, Britain gave the ailing East India Company a monopoly on the tea trade in the American colonies. Colonists feared that the monopoly would hurt colonial merchants’ business and protested by throwing East India Company tea into Boston Harbor in 1773.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Conflicts over taxes did not end with the American Revolution. Why is tax policy almost always controversial? What differences and similarities are there between the debates over taxes in the 1760s and today?
45THe F IrST FOUnD InG : InTereSTS AnD COnFL ICTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 45 27/11/18 2:00 PM
of Independence, written b y Jefferson and adopted by the S econd Continental Congress, was an extraor dinary document both phil - osophically and politically. Philosophically, the Declaration was remarkable for its asser tion that cer tain rights—the “ unalienable rights” that include life, liber ty, and the pursuit of happiness— could not be abridged b y governments. In the world of 1776, in which some kings still claimed to r ule by divine right, this was a dramatic statement. This philosophical view was heavily influenced by the works of the philosopher John Locke, one of England’s fore- most liberal theorists of the sev enteenth centur y. I n his tr eatises on government, widely r ead by educated colonists, Locke asser ted that all individuals w ere equal and possessed a natural right to defend their own lives, liberties, and possessions. Individuals created governments to help them protect these rights, and if a government failed in its duties, the citiz enry had the right to alter or abolish it. Politically, the D eclaration was r emarkable because, despite the differences of inter est that divided the colonists along economic, regional, and philosophical lines, it focused on griev ances, aspira - tions, and principles that might unify the v arious colonial gr oups. The Declaration was an attempt to identify and ar ticulate a history and set of principles that might help forge national unity.9
THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION
Having declared their independence, the colonies needed to estab - lish a governmental structure. In November 1777 the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation—the United S tates’
first written constitution. Although it was not ratified by all the states until 1781, it was the country’s operative constitution until the final months of 1788.
The first goal of the Articles was to limit the powers of the central government. The relationship betw een the national go vernment and the states was called a confederation; as provided under Article II, “each state retains its sovereignty, free- dom, and independence.” The central government was giv en no pr esident or any other presiding officer. The entire national go vernment was vested in a Congr ess, with execution of its fe w laws to be left to the individual states. And the Ar ticles gave Congress very little po wer. Its members w ere not much mor e than delegates or messengers fr om the state legislatur es: their salaries were paid out of the state treasuries; they were subject to immediate recall by state authorities; and each state, regardless of its siz e, had only one v ote. All 13 states had to agr ee to any amend - ments to the Articles of Confederation after it was ratified.
Under the Ar ticles of Confederation, Congr ess was giv en the po wer to declar e war and make peace, to make tr eaties and alliances, to coin or borr ow money, and to regulate trade with the Native Americans. It could also appoint the senior officers of the U.S. Army , but the national go vernment had no army for those officers to command because the nation’s armed forces were composed of the state militias. Moreover, the central government could not prevent one state from discriminating against other states in the competition for for eign commerce. These extreme limits on the po wer of the national go vernment made the Ar ticles of Confederation hopelessly impractical.10
The Declaration of Independence held that government could not curtail certain rights and helped to inspire national unity. Every year, Americans celebrate the signing of the Declaration on the Fourth of July.
Articles of Confederation America’s first written constitution; served as the basis for America’s national government until 1789
confederation a system of government in which states retain sovereign authority except for the powers expressly delegated to the national government
46 CHAPTER 2 THe FOUnD InG AnD THe COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 46 27/11/18 2:00 PM
The Second Founding: From Compromise to Constitution
The Declaration of I ndependence and the Ar ticles of Confederation were not sufficient to hold the new nation together as an independent and effective nation-state. A series of dev elopments follo wing the
armistice with the British in 1783 highlighted the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation.
First, many of the new country’s leaders worried that the Articles of Confedera- tion would not allo w the U nited States to conduct its for eign affairs successfully, as the federal government was unable to enfor ce existing treaties and there was no national military. Furthermore, competition among the states for foreign commerce allowed the European powers to play the states off one another, which created con- fusion on both sides of the A tlantic. At one point during the winter of 1786–87, John Adams of M assachusetts, a leader in the independence str uggle, was sent to negotiate a new treaty with the British, one that would cover disputes left over from the war. The British government responded that since the U nited States under the Articles of Confederation was unable to enfor ce existing tr eaties, it would negoti - ate with each of the 13 states separately . At the same time, the U nited States faced a threat from Spain, which still held vast territories in North and South America. Without a national military, the nation’s borders were difficult to protect against this potentially hostile foreign power.
Second, the Ar ticles of Confederation allo wed for only a w eak federal go vern- ment, with state go vernments retaining most of the po wers of go vernment. This situation became alarming to w ell-to-do Americans, in par ticular N ew E ngland merchants and southern planters, when “radical” forces began to ex ert consider - able influence in a number of state governments. As a result of the Revolution, one key segment of the colonial elite—the r oyal land, office, and patent holders—was stripped of its economic and political privileges. And although the pr erevolution- ary elite was w eakened, the pr erevolutionary radicals w ere better organiz ed than ever and now controlled such states as Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, where they pursued economic and political policies that str uck terror in the hear ts of the pr e- revolutionary political establishment. In Rhode Island, for example, between 1783 and 1785, a legislature dominated by representatives of small farmers, artisans, and shopkeepers had instituted economic policies, including drastic curr ency inflation, that frightened business and pr operty owners throughout the countr y. Of course, the central government under the Articles of Confederation was powerless to inter- vene. Similarly, the Pennsylvania government engaged in land redistribution, to the chagrin of property owners.
However, the Articles of Confederation were by no means a complete failure. The Congress of the Confederation agreed upon two laws that helped to shape American history. These were the Land O rdinance of 1785 and the N orthwest O rdinance of 1787. The Land O rdinance established the principles of land sur veying and landownership that go verned America ’s w estward expansion. U nder the N orth- west Ordinance, the individual states agreed to surrender their western land claims, which opened the way for the admission of new states to the Union.
Analyze the reasons many Americans thought a new Constitution was needed, and assess the obstacles to a new Constitution
47THe SeCOnD FOUnD InG : FrOM COMPrOMISe TO COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 47 27/11/18 2:00 PM
These legislative successes w ere not adequate to sustain the fledgling federal government, however. During the 1780s, the political and economic position of the new American states deteriorated. Europe’s great powers—Britain, France, and Spain—hurt colonial commerce by adopting policies that excluded American trade. At the same time, political unrest within the 13 new states further undermined trade and investment. Something had to be done.
THE ANNAPOLIS CONVENTION
The continuation of international weakness and domestic economic turmoil led many Americans to consider whether their ne wly adopted form of go vernment might not already require revision. In the fall of 1786, many state leaders accepted an invitation from the Virginia legislature for a confer ence of representatives of all the states, to be held in Annapolis, M aryland. Delegates from only five states actu- ally attended, so nothing substantiv e could be accomplished. S till, this conference was the first step toward what is now known as the second founding. The one posi- tive result that came out of the Annapolis Convention was a carefully worded resolu- tion calling on the Congr ess to send commissioners to P hiladelphia at a later time “to devise such fur ther provisions as shall appear to them necessar y to r ender the Constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union.”11 But the resolution did not necessarily imply any desire to do more than improve and reform the Articles of Confederation.
SHAYS’S REBELLION
It is quite possible that the Constitutional Conv ention of 1787 in P hiladelphia would never have taken place at all except for a single event that occurred during the winter following the Annapolis Convention: Shays’s Rebellion.
Daniel Shays, a former army captain, led a mob of farmers in a r ebellion against the government of Massachusetts. The purpose of the rebellion was to prevent foreclo- sures on their debt-ridden land by keeping the county courts of western Massachusetts
from sitting until after the next election. A militia for ce organized by the Governor of Massachusetts and privately funded by a group of prominent merchants dispersed the mob, but for several days in February 1787, Shays and his follo wers terrified the state government by attempting to captur e the federal arsenal at S pringfield, provoking an appeal to the Congr ess to help restore order. Within a few days, the state government regained control and captured 14 of the rebels. Later that year, a newly elected Massachusetts legislature granted some of the farmers’ demands.
The effects of the incident lingered and spr ead. George Washington summed it up: “I am mor tified beyond expression that in the moment of our acknowledged independence we should by our conduct verify the predictions of our transatlantic foe, and r ender ourselves ridiculous and contemptible in the eyes of all Europe.”12
The Congress under the Confederation had been unable to act deci - sively in a time of crisis. This provided critics of the Articles of Confed- eration with pr ecisely the evidence they needed to push the Annapolis resolution through the Congress. Thus, the states were asked to send representatives to Philadelphia to discuss constitutional revision. Seventy- four delegates w ere chosen. O f these, 55 would actually attend the
Daniel Shays’s rebellion proved the Articles of Confederation were too weak to protect the fledgling nation.
48 CHAPTER 2 THe FOUnD InG AnD THe COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 48 27/11/18 2:00 PM
convention, representing every state except Rhode Island, and 39 would eventually sign the newly drafted Constitution.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
The delegates who convened in Philadelphia in May 1787 had political strife, inter- national embarrassment, national weakness, and local rebellion fixed in their minds. Recognizing that these issues were symptoms of fundamental flaws in the Articles of Confederation, the delegates soon abandoned the plan to r evise the Articles and committed themselves to a second founding—a second, and ultimately successful, attempt to cr eate a legitimate and effective national system of government. This effort would occupy the convention for the next five months.
A Marriage of Interest and Principle For years, scholars have disagreed about the motives of the F ounders in P hiladelphia. Among the most contr oversial views of the framers’ motives is the “economic interpretation” put forward by the historian Charles Beard and his disciples.13 According to Beard’s account, America’s Founders were a collection of securities speculators and property owners whose only aim was personal enrichment. From this perspective, the Constitution’s lofty principles were little more than sophisticated masks behind which the most v enal interests sought to enrich themselves.
Of course, the opposite vie w is that the framers of the Constitution were con- cerned with philosophical and ethical principles—that, indeed, they sought to devise a system of go vernment consistent with the dominant philosophical and moral principles of the day. But in fact these two views belong together: the Found- ers’ interests were reinforced by their principles. The convention that drafted the American Constitution was chiefly organized by the New England merchants and southern planters. Although the delegates representing these groups did not all hope to profit personally from an increase in the value of their securities, as Beard would
The Constitutional Convention took place from May to September 1787 at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, where the Declaration of Independ- ence had been signed 11 years prior. In order to keep their delibera- tions secret, the delegates voted to keep the hall’s windows shut throughout the hot summer.
49THe SeCOnD FOUnD InG : FrOM COMPrOMISe TO COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 49 27/11/18 2:00 PM
have it, they did hope to benefit in the broadest political and economic sense by breaking the po wer of their radical foes and establishing a system of go vernment more compatible with their long-term economic and political interests. Thus, the framers sought to cr eate a ne w government capable of pr omoting commerce and protecting property from radical state legislatures and populist forces hostile to the interests of the commercial and propertied classes.
The Great Compromise The proponents of a ne w go vernment fired their opening shot on M ay 29, 1787, when E dmund Randolph of Virginia offered a r esolution that pr oposed corr ections and enlargements in the Ar ticles of Confederation. The proposal, which sho wed the str ong influence of James Madison, was not a simple motion. Rather, it provided for virtually every aspect of a new government.
The portion of Randolph ’s motion that became most contr oversial was called the Virginia Plan. This plan provided for a system of r epresentation in the national legislature based on the population of each state or the pr oportion of each state ’s revenue contribution to the national government, or both. (Randolph also pro- posed a second chamber of the legislature, to be elected by the members of the first chamber.) Since the states v aried enormously in siz e and wealth, the Virginia Plan was thought to be heavily biased in favor of the large states.
While the convention was debating the Virginia Plan, opposition to it began to mount as mor e delegates arriv ed in P hiladelphia. William Paterson of N ew Jersey introduced a r esolution kno wn as the New Jersey Plan. I ts main pr oponents w ere delegates from the less populous states, including Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, and New York, who asserted that the more populous states—Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Massachusetts, and Georgia—would dominate the new government if r epresentation were to be determined b y population. The smaller states argued that each state should be equally r epresented in the ne w regime r egardless of the state’s population.
The issue of representation threatened to wr eck the entir e constitutional enter - prise. Delegates conferred, factions maneuvered, and tempers flared. James Wilson of Pennsylvania told the small-state delegates that if they wanted to disr upt the union, they should go ahead. The separation, he said, could “never happen on better grounds.” Small-state delegates were equally blunt. G unning Bedford of Delaware declared that the small states might, if forced, look elsewhere for friends. “The large states,” he said, “dare not dissolve the confederation. I f they do the small ones will find some foreign ally of mor e honor and good faith, who will take them b y the hand and do them justice. ” These sentiments were widely shar ed. The union, as Luther Martin of Maryland put it, was “on the verge of dissolution, scarcely held together by the strength of a hair.”14
The outcome of this debate was the Connecticut Compromise, also kno wn as the Great Compromise. Under the terms of this compr omise, in the first chamber of Congress—the House of R epresentatives—the representatives would be appor - tioned according to the population in each state. This, of course, was what delegates from the large states had sought. But in the second branch—the Senate—each state would have equal r epresentation regardless of its siz e; this pr ovision addressed the concerns of small states. This compromise was not immediately satisfactor y to all the delegates. Indeed, two of the most vocal members of the small-state faction, John Lansing and R obert Yates of N ew York, were so anger ed by the concession that their colleagues had made to the large-state forces that they stormed out of the
Virginia Plan a framework for the Constitution, introduced by edmund randolph, that called for representation in the national legislature based on the population of each state
New Jersey Plan a framework for the Constitution, introduced by William Paterson, that called for equal state representation in the national legislature regardless of population
Great Compromise the agreement reached at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that gave each state an equal number of senators regardless of its population but linked representation in the House of representatives to population
50 CHAPTER 2 THe FOUnD InG AnD THe COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 50 27/11/18 2:00 PM
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, www.census.gov (accessed 8/16/12); U.S. House of Representatives, www.history.house.gov/Institution/Apportionment/Apportionment (accessed 4/11/14).
Virginia 747,610 Pennsylvania 433,373 North Carolina 393,751 Massachusetts 378,787 New York 340,120 Maryland 319,728 South Carolina 249,073 Connecticut 237,946 New Jersey 184,139 New Hampshire 141,885 Georgia 82,548 Rhode Island 68,825 Delaware 59,096
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
* These numbers represent the total number of persons in each state according to the 1790 census (including free
Congress, the framers calculated the number of representatives per state in 1787 based on population estimates,
does not match perfectly with the total population counts reported here.
State Populations, 1790*
Representation in the First Congress
MDVA
NY
SC
GA
NC
PA
DE
NJ
RI CT
MA NH
House of Representatives seat
Senate seat
PA
MA
NY
MD
NC SC
CT
NJ
GA
NH
DE
VA RI
Who Benefits from the Great Compromise?
The Great Compromise attempted to balance power between large and small states in the new Congress. The �gure shows the difference in representation for states in the House and Senate in the �rst Congress (1789–91). In the Senate each state has equal representation, which in the �rst Congress meant each had 1/13 of all seats. In the House the number of seats apportioned to each state is based on population; thus, the larger states have more representation.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS 1. At the Constitutional Convention,
large states supported the Virginia Plan, which would have made the whole Congress look like the House. Small states supported the New Jersey Plan, which would have made the whole Congress look like the Senate. How would each group have bene�ted from its favored plans?
2. What are the advantages of equal representation by states? What are the drawbacks? In your opinion, do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
WHO ARE AMERICANS?
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 51 27/11/18 2:00 PM
convention. In the end, however, most of the delegates preferred compromise to the breakup of the Union, and the plan was accepted.
The Question of Slavery: The Three-Fifths Compromise Many of the conflicts that emerged during the Constitutional Conv ention were reflections of the funda- mental differences between the slave and the nonslave states—differences that pitted the southern planters against the New England merchants and would almost destroy the Republic in later years. Even in the midst of debate over large versus small states, James Madison observed that “the great danger” lay in the opposition of “southern and northern interests.”15 More than 90 per cent of the countr y’s slaves resided in five states—Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia— where they accounted for 30 percent of the total population. In some places, slaves outnumbered nonslaves by as many as 10 to 1. Were they to be counted in as par t of a state ’s population ev en though they had no rights, ther eby giving slav e states increased r epresentation in the H ouse? I f the Constitution w ere to embody any principle of national supremacy, some basic decisions would have to be made about the place of slav ery in the general scheme. M adison hit on this point on sev eral occasions as different aspects of the Constitution were being discussed. For example, he observed,
It seemed now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lay, not between the large and small but between the northern and southern states. The institution of slavery and its consequences formed the line of discrimination. There were five states on the S outh, eight on the northern side of this line. Should a proportional representation take place it was true, the nor thern side would still outnumber the other: but not in the same degr ee, at this time; and every day would tend towards an equilibrium.16
Whatever they thought of the institution of slavery, most delegates from the north- ern states opposed counting slav es in the distribution of congr essional seats. J ames
Despite the Founders’ emphasis on liberty, the new Constitution allowed slavery, counting three-fifths of all slaves in apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. In this 1792 painting, Liberty Displaying the Arts and Sciences, the books, instruments, and classical columns at the left contrast with the kneel- ing slaves at the right—illustrating the divide between America’s rhetoric of liberty and equality and the reality of slavery.
52 CHAPTER 2 THe FOUnD InG AnD THe COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 52 27/11/18 2:00 PM
Wilson of Pennsylvania, for example, argued that if slaves were citizens, they should be treated and counted like other citizens. If, on the other hand, they were property, then why should not other forms of property be counted toward the apportionment of representatives? But southern delegates made it clear that they would never agree to the new government if the northerners refused to give in; William R. Davie of North Carolina, for example, heatedly asser ted that the people of N orth Carolina would never enter the Union if slaves were not counted as par t of the basis for r epresenta- tion. Without such agreement, he asserted ominously, “the business was at an end.”
Northerners and southerners ev entually r eached agr eement thr ough the Three- Fifths Compromise. The seats in the House of Representatives would be appor tioned according to a “population” in which only thr ee-fifths of slaves would be counted. The slaves would not be allo wed to vote, of course, but the number of r epresenta- tives would be apportioned accordingly.
The issue of slavery was the most difficult one faced by the framers, and it nearly destroyed the Union. Although some delegates believed slavery to be morally wrong, an evil and oppr essive institution that made a mocker y of the ideals and v alues espoused in the Constitution, morality was not the issue that caused the framers to support or oppose the Three-Fifths Compromise. Indeed, northerners even agreed to permit a continuation of the odious slave trade in order to keep the South in the Union. But in due course, the disparate interests of the North and the South could no longer be reconciled, and a bloody civil war was the result.
The Constitution The political significance of the Great Compromise and the Three- Fifths Compromise was to reinforce the unity of the mer cantile and planter forces that sought to cr eate a new government. The Great Com- promise reassured those in both
groups who fear ed that a ne w governmental framework would r educe the impor - tance of their own local or regional influence. The Three-Fifths Compromise tempo- rarily defused the rivalry between the merchants and planters. Their unity secured, members of the alliance suppor ting the establishment of a ne w go vernment moved to fashion a constitutional frame work consistent with their economic and political interests.
In particular, the framers sought a new government that, first, would be strong enough to pr omote commerce and pr otect property from radical state legislatur es such as Rhode I sland’s. This became the constitutional basis for national control over commerce and finance and for the establishment of national judicial supremacy and the effort to construct a strong presidency. (See Table 2.1 for a comparison of the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.)
Second, the framers sought to prevent what they saw as the threat posed by the “excessive democracy” of the state and national governments under the Articles of Confederation. This led to such constitutional principles as a bicameral legisla- ture, checks and balances, staggered terms in office, and indirect election (selection of the president by an electoral college rather than dir ectly by voters and election of senators by state legislatures).
Three-Fifths Compromise the agreement reached at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that stipulated that for purposes of the apportionment of congressional seats only three- fifths of slaves would be counted
Explain how the Constitution attempted to improve America’s governance, and outline the major institutions established by the Constitution
bicameral having a legislative assembly composed of two chambers or houses; distinguished from unicameral
checks and balances mechanisms through which each branch of government is able to participate in and influence the activities of the other branches; major examples include the presidential veto power over congressional legislation, the power of the Senate to approve presidential appointments, and judicial review of congressional enactments
53THe COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 53 27/11/18 2:00 PM
MAJOR PROVISIONS ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION CONSTITUTION
executive branch none President of the United States
Judiciary no federal court system. Judiciary exists only at state level.
Federal judiciary headed by Supreme Court
Legislature Unicameral legislature with equal representation for each state. Delegates to the Congress of the Confederation were appointed by the states.
Bicameral legislature consisting of Senate and House of representatives. each state is represented by two senators, while apportionment in the House is based on each state’s population. Senators are chosen by the state legislatures (changed to direct popular election in 1913) for six-year terms and members of the House by popular election for two-year terms.
Fiscal and economic powers
The national government is dependent upon the states to collect taxes. The states are free to coin their own money and print paper money. The states are free to sign commercial treaties with foreign governments.
Congress given the power to levy taxes, coin money, and regulate international and interstate commerce. States prohibited from coining money or entering into treaties with other nations.
Military The national government is dependent upon state militias and cannot form an army during peacetime.
The national government is authorized to maintain an army and navy.
Legal supremacy State constitutions and state law are supreme.
national Constitution and national law are supreme.
Constitutional amendment
Must be agreed upon by all states. Must be agreed upon by three-fourths of the states.
TABLE 2.1
Comparing the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution
Third, the framers, lacking the po wer to for ce the states or the public at large to accept the new form of go vernment, sought to identify principles that would help secure support. This became the basis of the constitutional provision for direct popular election of r epresentatives and, subsequently, for the addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.
Finally, the framers wanted to be certain that the government they created did not pose an ev en greater threat to its citiz ens’ liberties and pr operty rights than did the radical state legislatur es they fear ed and despised. To pr event the ne w government from abusing its po wer, the framers incorporated principles such as the separation of powers and federalism into the Constitution. In Table 2.1, we assess the major provisions of the Constitution’s seven articles to see how each relates to these objectives.
If the Declaration of Independence drew its philosophical inspiration from John Locke, the Constitution dr ew upon the thought of the F rench political philoso - pher Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu (1689–1755). In Montesquieu’s view,
Bill of Rights the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791; they ensure certain rights and liberties to the people
separation of powers the division of governmental power among several institutions that must cooperate in decision making
federalism a system of government in which power is divided, by a constitution, between a central government and regional governments
54 CHAPTER 2 THe FOUnD InG AnD THe COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 54 27/11/18 2:00 PM
the powers of go vernment must be divided in or der to pr event any one gr oup or institution from exercising tyrannical control over the nation. Montesquieu recom- mended a tripar tite division, placing the ex ecutive, legislative, and judicial po wers in different governmental bodies. He claimed that such a tripartite division had worked very well in the Roman Republic and in Britain. The delegates to America’s Constitutional Convention referred frequently to Montesquieu’s writings in devis - ing America’s new governmental structure.
THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
In Article I, Sections 1–7, the Constitution provides for a Congress consisting of two chambers: a House of Representatives and a Senate. Members of the House of R epresentatives w ere giv en two-y ear terms in office and were to be elected directly by the people. Members of the Senate were to be appointed by the state legislatures (this was changed in 1913 b y the S eventeenth Amendment, which instituted direct election of senators) for six-y ear terms. These terms were stag- gered so that the appointments of one-thir d of the senators would expir e every two years. The Constitution assigned somewhat different tasks to the House and Senate. Though the approval of each body is required for the enactment of a law, the Senate alone is giv en the po wer to ratify tr eaties and appr ove pr esidential appointments. The House, on the other hand, is given the sole power to originate revenue bills.
The character of the legislative branch was r elated to the framers ’ major goals. The House of Representatives was designed to be dir ectly responsible to the peo - ple in or der to encourage popular consent for the ne w Constitution and to help enhance the po wer of the ne w government. At the same time, to guar d against “excessive democracy,” the power of the House of Representatives was checked by the Senate, whose members were to be appointed by the states for long terms rather than elected dir ectly by the people. The purpose of this provision, according to Alexander Hamilton, was to av oid “an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to ev ery transient impulse which the people may r eceive.”17 Staggered terms of service in the Senate, moreover, were intended to make that body even more resistant to popular pressure. Since only one-third of the senators would be selected at any given time, the composition of the institution would be protected from changes in popular preferences transmitted by the state legislatures. Thus, the structure of the legislative branch was designed to contribute to govern- mental power, to pr omote popular consent for the ne w government, and at the same time to place limits on the popular political currents that many of the framers saw as a radical threat to the economic and social order.
The issues of power and consent ar e important throughout the Constitution. Section 8 of Ar ticle I specifically lists the powers of Congress, which include the authority to collect taxes, borrow money, regulate commer ce, declare war, and maintain an army and navy . B y granting Congr ess these po wers, the framers indicated very clearly that they intended the ne w government to be far mor e in- fluential than its predecessor. At the same time, by defining the new government’s most important powers as belonging to Congress, the framers sought to promote popular acceptance of this critical change b y reassuring citizens that their vie ws would be fully represented whenever the government exercised its new powers.
As a further guarantee to the people that the new government would pose no threat to them, the Constitution implies that any po wers not listed w ere not
55THe COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 55 27/11/18 2:00 PM
granted at all. This is what Chief Justice J ohn M arshall named the doctrine of expressed powers: the Constitution grants only those powers specifically expressed in its text. But the framers intended to create an active and powerful government, so they also included the necessary and proper clause, sometimes known as the elastic clause, which declares that Congress could write laws needed to carry out its expressed pow- ers. This clause indicates that the expressed powers could be broadly interpreted and were meant to be a sour ce of strength to the national go vernment, not a limitation on it. In response to the charge that they intended to give the national government too much power, the framers included language in the Tenth Amendment stipulating that powers not specifically granted by the Constitution to the federal government were reserved to the states or to the people. As we will see in Chapter 3, the resulting tension between the elastic clause and the Tenth Amendment has been at the heart of constitutional struggles between federal and state powers.
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
The Articles of Confederation had not pr ovided for an ex ecutive branch, and the framers viewed this omission as a sour ce of weakness. Accordingly, the Constitu - tion provides for the establishment of the presidency in Article II. As Alexander Hamilton commented, the pr esidential ar ticle aims to ward “ energy in the Executive.”18 It does so in an effort to overcome the natural tendency toward stale- mate that was built into the bicameral legislature and into the separation of pow- ers among the thr ee branches. The Constitution affords the pr esident a measur e of independence fr om the people and fr om the other branches of go vernment— particularly the Congress.
In line with the framers ’ goal of incr eased power to the national go vernment, the president is granted the unconditional power to accept ambassadors from other countries—this amounts to the power to “recognize” other countries—as well as the power to negotiate tr eaties, although their acceptance r equires the approval of the Senate by a two-thirds vote. The president is also giv en the unconditional right to grant reprieves and par dons, except in cases of impeachment, and the po wers to appoint major depar tmental personnel, to conv ene Congr ess in special session, and to v eto congressional enactments. The veto power is formidable, but it is not absolute since Congress can override it by a two-thirds vote, reflecting the framers’ concern with checks and balances.
The framers hoped to create a pr esidency that would make the federal go v- ernment rather than the states the agency capable of timely and decisiv e action to deal with public issues and pr oblems—hence the “ energy” that H amilton hoped to impar t to the ex ecutive branch. At the same time, ho wever, the fram- ers sought to help the pr esidency withstand excessively democratic pressures by creating a system of indir ect rather than direct election through a separate elec - toral college.
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH
In establishing the judicial branch in Article III, the Constitution reflects the fram- ers’ pr eoccupations with nationalizing go vernmental po wer and checking radical democratic impulses while pr eventing the ne w national go vernment itself fr om interfering with liberty and property.
expressed powers specific powers granted by the Constitution to Congress (Article I, Section 8) and to the president (Article II)
elastic clause The concluding paragraph of Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution (also known as the “necessary and proper clause”), which provides Congress with the authority to make all laws “necessary and proper” to carry out its enumerated powers
56 CHAPTER 2 THe FOUnD InG AnD THe COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 56 27/11/18 2:00 PM
Under the pr ovisions of Article III, the framers created a court that was literally a supreme court of the United States and not merely the highest court of the national go vernment alone. The most important expression of this intention is granting the S upreme Court the po wer to r esolve any conflicts that might emerge between federal and state laws. I n particular, the S upreme Cour t is giv en the right to determine whether a po wer is ex clusive to the national go v- ernment, concurr ent with the states, or ex clusive to the states. In addition, the Supreme Court is assigned jurisdiction o ver contr oversies betw een citiz ens of different states. The long-term significance of this provision was that as the countr y developed a national economy, it came to r ely increasingly on the federal judiciary, rather than on the state cour ts, for the resolution of disputes.
Federal judges ar e giv en lifetime appointments to pr otect them fr om popular politics and from interference by the other branches. This, however, does not mean that the judiciary remains totally impartial to political considerations or to the other branches, for the pr esident is to appoint the judges and the S enate to approve the appointments. Congress also has the power to create inferior (lower) courts, change the jurisdiction of the federal courts, add or subtract federal judges, and even change the size of the Supreme Court.
No explicit mention is made in the Constitution of judicial review—the power of the courts to render the final decision when there is a conflict of interpretation of the Constitution or of laws betw een the cour ts and Congr ess, the cour ts and the executive branch, or the courts and the states. The Supreme Court eventually assumed the power of judicial r eview. Its assumption of this po wer, as we shall see in Chapter 15, was based not on the Constitution itself but on the politics of later decades and the membership of the Court.
NATIONAL UNITY AND POWER
Various provisions in the Constitution addressed the framers’ concern with national unity and power, including Ar ticle IV’s provisions for comity (r eciprocity) among states and among citizens of all states. Each state is pr ohibited from discriminating against the citizens of other states in favor of its own citizens. The Supreme Court is charged with deciding in each case whether a state had discriminated against goods or people from another state. The Constitution restricts the power of the states in favor of ensuring enough po wer to the national go vernment to give the countr y a free-flowing national economy.
The framers’ concern with national supr emacy was also expr essed in Article VI, in the supremacy clause, which provides that national laws and tr eaties “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” This means that all laws made under the “Authority of the United States” would be superior to all laws adopted by any state or any other subdivision and that the states would be expected to respect all treaties made under that authority. The supremacy clause also binds the officials of all governments— state and local as w ell as federal—to take an oath of office to support the national
judicial review the power of the courts to review and, if necessary, declare actions of the legislative and executive branches invalid or unconstitutional; the Supreme Court asserted this power in Marbury v. Madison (1803)
supremacy clause Article VI of the Constitution, which states that laws passed by the national government and all treaties are the supreme law of the land and superior to all laws adopted by any state or any subdivision
Article I of the Constitution estab- lishes the structure of Congress and lists certain specific powers of Congress. The language of the Constitution reflects the framers’ desire to create government that was powerful enough to be effective but not so powerful that it would threaten individual liberty.
57THe COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 57 27/11/18 2:00 PM
Constitution. This means that every action taken b y the U.S. Congr ess has to be applied within each state as though the action were in fact state law.
AMENDING AND RATIFYING THE CONSTITUTION
The Constitution establishes procedures for its own revision in Article V. Its provi- sions are so difficult that, as we shall see below, Americans have successfully availed themselves of the amending pr ocess only 17 times since 1791, when the first 10 amendments were adopted. The rules for the ratification of the Constitution are set forth in Article VII. Nine of the 13 states would have to ratify, or agree to, the terms in order for the Constitution to be formally adopted. E ven if all the states did not ratify the Constitution it would take effect for those that did once the threshold of nine had been crossed.
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT’S POWER
Although the framers sought to cr eate a po werful national go vernment, they also wanted to guar d against possible misuse of that po wer. To that end, the framers incorporated two key principles into the Constitution—federalism and the separation of powers. A third set of limitations, in the form of the Bill of Rights, was added to the Constitution in the form of 10 amendments pr oposed by the first Congress and ratified by the states. Most of the framers had thought a Bill of Rights to be unnecessar y but accepted the idea during the ratification debates that took place when the ne w constitution was submitted to the states for approval.
The Separation of Powers No principle of politics was mor e widely shar ed at the time of the 1787 F ounding than the principle that po wer must be used to balance power. As noted earlier, the French political theorist Montesquieu believed that this balance was an indispensable defense against tyranny . His writings, espe - cially his major work, The Spirit of the Laws , “were taken as political gospel ” at the Philadelphia Convention.19 Although the principle of the separation of po wers is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the entire structure of the national govern- ment was built pr ecisely on Ar ticle I, the legislatur e; Article II, the ex ecutive; and Article III, the judiciary (see Figure 2.1).
However, separation of powers is nothing but mere words on parchment with- out a method to maintain that separation. The method became known b y the popular label “ checks and balances ” (see F igure 2.2). Each branch is giv en not only its own powers but also some power over the other two branches. Among the most familiar checks and balances are the president’s veto power over Congress and Congress’s power over the pr esident through its contr ol of appointments to high executive posts and to the judiciar y. Congress also has po wer over the pr esident with its contr ol of appr opriations (the spending of go vernment money) and (b y the Senate) the right of approval of treaties. The judiciary has the power of judicial review over the other two branches.
Another impor tant featur e of the separation of po wers is the principle of giving each of the branches a distinctly different constituency . Theorists such as Montesquieu called this a “ mixed r egime,” with the pr esident chosen, indi - rectly, by electors; the H ouse, by popular v ote; the S enate (originally), b y state
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS How does the separation of powers limit the national government’s power? What are the consequences for the ability of the federal government to govern?
58 CHAPTER 2 THe FOUnD InG AnD THe COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 58 27/11/18 2:00 PM
legislatures; and the judiciary, by presidential appointment. By these means, the occupants of each branch would tend to dev elop very different outlooks on how to govern, different definitions of the public interest, and different alliances with private interests.
Federalism Compar ed with the confederation principle of the Ar ticles of Confederation, federalism was a step to ward gr eater centralization of po wer. The delegates agreed that they needed to place more power at the national level, without completely undermining the power of the state governments. Thus, they devised a system of two so vereigns—the states and the nation—with the hope that competition between the two would be an effective limitation on the power of both.
The Bill of Rights Late in the Philadelphia Convention, a motion was made to include a list of citizens’ rights in the Constitution. After a brief debate in which hardly a word was said in its fav or and only one speech was made against it, the motion was almost unanimously turned down. Most delegates sincerely believed that since the federal go vernment was alr eady limited to its expr essed powers, further protection of citizens was not needed. The delegates argued that the states should adopt bills of rights because their gr eater powers needed gr eater limita - tions. But almost immediately after the Constitution was ratified, a movement arose to adopt a national bill of rights. This is why the Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791, comprises the first 10 amendments to the Constitution rather than being part of the body of it. ( We will hav e a good deal mor e to say about the B ill of Rights in Chapter 4.)
FIGURE 2.1
The Separation of Powers
Enforces laws
Commander in chief of armed forces
Makes foreign treaties
Proposes laws
Appoints Supreme Court justices and federal
court judges
Pardons those convicted in federal court
Passes federal laws
Controls federal appropriations
Approves treaties and presidential
appointments
Regulates interstate commerce
Establishes lower court system
Decides constitutionality of laws
Reviews lower court decisions
Decides cases involving disputes between states
EXECUTIVELEGISLATIVE JUDICIAL
59THe COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 59 27/11/18 2:00 PM
The Fight for Ratification The first hurdle faced b y the pr o- posed Constitution was ratification by state conv entions of delegates elected by the people of each state.
This struggle for ratification was carried out in 13 separate campaigns. Each involved different people, moved at a different pace, and was influenced by local and national considerations. Two sides faced off throughout the states, ho wever, calling themselv es Federalists and Antifederalists (see Table 2.2). The Federalists (who mor e accurately should hav e called themselv es “N ationalists,” but who
Present the controversies involved in the struggle for ratification
FIGURE 2.2
Checks and Balances
EXECUTIVE
LEGISLATIVE
JUDICIAL
Legislative over Judicial Can change size of federal court
system and the number of Supreme Court justices
Can propose constitutional amendments
Can reject Supreme Court nominees
Can impeach and remove federal judges
Legislative over Executive Can override presidential veto
Can impeach and remove president
Can reject president’s appointments and refuse to ratify treaties
Can conduct investigations into president’s actions
Can refuse to pass laws or to provide funding that president
requests
Judicial over Executive Can declare executive actions
unconstitutional
Power to issue warrants
Chief justice presides over impeachment of president
Judicial over Legislative
Can declare laws unconstitutional
Chief justice presides over Senate during hearing to impeach
the president
Executive over Legislative Can veto acts of Congress
Can call Congress into a special session
Carries out, and thereby interprets, laws passed by Congress
Vice president casts tie-breaking vote in the Senate
Executive over Judicial Nominates Supreme Court
justices
Nominates federal judges
Can pardon those convicted in federal court
Can refuse to enforce Court decisions
Federalists those who favored a strong national government and supported the Constitution proposed at the American Constitutional Convention of 1787
Antifederalists those who favored strong state governments and a weak national government and who were opponents of the Constitution proposed at the American Constitutional Convention of 1787
60 CHAPTER 2 THe FOUnD InG AnD THe COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 60 27/11/18 2:00 PM
Comparing Systems of Government All democracies possess some form of an executive, a legislature, and a judiciary; however, the amount of power that each branch has varies. In the United States, the Founding Fathers sought to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful by creating the system of checks and balances, as described in this chapter and outlined in Figure 2.2. Fearing monarchic dominance, the writers of the U.S. Constitution preferred limited government power in all branches rather than risk an overly powerful central government. In contrast, France’s Fifth republic has an extremely powerful president, so much so that the office has sometimes been referred to as the “republican monarchy.”a Written during a period of intense upheaval and political violence, France’s 1958 constitution created a strong executive who could act decisively (if not always democratically) in the midst of crisis.
However, what is “on paper” in a constitution does not always define the true balance of power in daily political life. Through usage and reinterpretation, constitutional provisions may take new shape over time. For example, as written in the U.S. Constitution (and shown below), the presidency is less powerful than Congress. Over time, however, presidential power has grown as Congress has delegated significant powers, such as the war power, to the president, even constitutions that are less open to interpretation, such as India’s 146,385-word constitution, have seen significant shifts in power over time. India’s past prime ministers, especially when faced with a crisis, have sometimes reinterpreted their constitutional powers in ways that have benefited the power of their office.
COUNTRY WRITTEN CONSTITUTION?
FEDERAL OR UNITARY SYSTEM
STRENGTH OF EXECUTIVE
STRENGTH OF LEGISLATURE
JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
BRAZIL Yes Federal High Medium High
FRANCE Yes Unitary High Low Low
INDIA Yes Federal Medium Low Medium
ISRAEL no Unitary Low Low Medium
SOUTH AFRICA
Yes Unitary Medium Low High
TUNISIA Yes Unitary High Medium Low
UNITED STATES
Yes Federal High* Medium High*
UNITED KINGDOM
no Unitary Low Low Medium
* Although the Comparative Constitutions Project classifies the formal powers of both the American presidency and the judicial branch, as originally provided for in the Constitution, as relatively weak, we have classified both here as strong, based on the greater powers that have developed over time.
SOURCE: Comparative Constitutions Project, “CCP Rankings,” http://comparativeconstitutionsproject.org/ccp-rankings/ (accessed 4/6/18).
a Catherine Field, “France’s ‘Republican Monarchy’: When the President Is Treated Like a King,” New York Times, September 1, 2004, www.nytimes.com/2004/09/01/opinion/ frances-republican-monarchy-when-the-president-is-treated-like-a.html (accessed 4/6/18).
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 61 27/11/18 2:00 PM
FEDERALISTS ANTIFEDERALISTS
Who were they? Property owners, creditors, merchants Small farmers, frontiersmen, debtors, shopkeepers, some state government officials
What did they believe? Believed that elites were most fit to govern; feared “excessive democracy”
Believed that government should be closer to the people; feared concentration of power in hands of the elites
What system of government did they favor?
Favored strong national government; believed in “filtration” so that only elites would obtain governmental power
Favored retention of power by state governments and protection of individual rights
Who were their leaders? Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, George Washington
Patrick Henry, George Mason, elbridge Gerry, George Clinton
TABLE 2.2
Federalists versus Antifederalists
took their name to appear to follow in the revolutionary tradition) supported the Constitution and pr eferred a str ong national go vernment. The Antifederalists opposed the Constitution and pr eferred a federal system of go vernment that was decentraliz ed; they took their name b y default, in r eaction to their better- organized opponents. The Federalists w ere united in their suppor t of the Constitution, whereas the Antifederalists w ere divided o ver possible alternativ es to the Constitution.
During the struggle over ratification of the Constitution, Americans argued about great political issues and principles. How much power should the national govern- ment be giv en? What safeguards would most likely pr event the abuse of po wer? What institutional arrangements could best ensur e adequate r epresentation for all Americans? Was tyranny of the many to be feared more than tyranny of the few?
FEDERALISTS VERSUS ANTIFEDERALISTS
During the ratification struggle, thousands of essays, speeches, pamphlets, and let - ters were presented in support of and in opposition to the pr oposed Constitution. The best-known pieces suppor ting ratification were the 85 essays written betw een the fall of 1787 and the spring of 1788 under the name of “Publius,” by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. These Federalist Papers, as they are collec- tively known today, defended the principles of the Constitution and sought to dispel fears of a national authority. The Antifederalists published essays of their own, argu- ing that the new Constitution betrayed the Revolution and was a step toward mon- archy. Among the best of the Antifederalist works were the essays, usually attributed to the New York State Supreme Court justice Robert Yates, that were written under the name of “B rutus” and published in the New York Journal at the same time the Federalist Papers appeared. The Antifederalist view was also ably presented in the pamphlets and letters written b y a former delegate to the Continental Congr ess and future U.S. senator, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, using the pen name “The Federal Farmer.” These essays highlight the major differences of opinion betw een
Federalist Papers a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay supporting ratification of the Constitution
62 CHAPTER 2 THe FOUnD InG AnD THe COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 62 27/11/18 2:00 PM
Federalists and Antifederalists. F ederalists appealed to basic principles of go vern- ment in support of their nationalist vision. Antifederalists cited equally fundamental precepts to support their vision of a looser confederacy of small republics.
Representation One major area of contention between the two sides was the ques- tion of r epresentation. The Antifederalists asserted that r epresentatives must be “ a true picture of the people . . . [possessing] the knowledge of their circumstances and their wants.”20 This could be achieved, argued the Antifederalists, only in small, relatively homogeneous republics such as the existing states. I n their view, the size and extent of the entire nation precluded the construction of a truly representative form of government. As Brutus put it, “Is it practicable for a country so large and so numerous . . . to elect a representation that will speak their sentiments? . . . It certainly is not.”21
Federalists, for their par t, saw no reason that representatives should be precisely like those they r epresented. In the F ederalist view, one of the gr eat advantages of representative government over direct democracy was precisely the possibility that the people would choose as their r epresentatives individuals possessing ability , experience, and talent superior to their own. In Madison’s words, rather than serving as a mirr or or r eflection of society, r epresentatives must be “[those] who possess [the] most wisdom to discern, and [the] most vir tue to pursue, the common good of the society.”22
Tyranny A second impor tant issue dividing Federalists and Antifederalists was the threat of tyranny—unjust rule by the group in power. Both opponents and defend - ers of the Constitution frequently affirmed their fear of tyrannical rule. Each side, however, had a different view of the most likely source of tyranny and, hence, of the way in which to forestall the threat.
From the Antifederalist perspectiv e, the gr eat danger was the tendency of all governments—including r epublican go vernments—to become gradually mor e and more “aristocratic” in character, wherein the small number of individuals in positions of authority would use their stations to gain mor e and more power over the general citiz enry. In essence, the fe w would use their po wer to tyranniz e the many. For this r eason, Antifederalists w ere sharply critical of those featur es of the Constitution that divorced governmental institutions from direct responsibility to the people—institutions such as the Senate, the executive, and the federal judiciary. The last, appointed for life, presented a par ticular threat: “I wonder if the world ever saw . . . a court of justice invested with such immense powers, and yet placed in a situation so little responsible,” protested Brutus.23
The Federalists, too, recognized the threat of tyranny, but they believed that the danger par ticularly associated with r epublican go vernments was not aristocracy but majority tyranny. The Federalists were concerned that a popular majority, “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens,” would endeavor to “trample on the rules of justice.”24 From the Federalist perspective, it was pre- cisely those featur es of the Constitution that the Anti - federalists attacked as potential sour ces of tyranny that actually offered the best hope of averting the threat of op- pression. The size and extent of the nation, for instance,
tyranny oppressive government that employs cruel and unjust use of power and authority
Article VII of the Constitution required 9 of the 13 states to ratify the Con- stitution in order for it to be adopted. In this image from January 1788, the pillars represent the first five states that ratified the Constitution, with Massachusetts as the likely sixth.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS The Antifederalists worried that the size and diversity of the United States made democratic government impossible. In what ways might a large heterogeneous population limit democracy and enhance democracy?
63THe F IGHT FOr rAT I F ICAT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 63 27/11/18 2:00 PM
was for the Federalists a bulwark against tyranny because a majority would have difficulty uniting in a large and populous nation.
Governmental Power A third major difference between Federalists and Antifederalists was the issue of go vernmental power. Both op - ponents and proponents of the Constitution agreed on the principle of limited government. They differed, however, on the fundamentally important question of how to place limits on governmental action. Antifederalists favored limiting and enumerating the powers granted to the national go vernment in r elation both to the states and to the people at large. To them, the powers given the national govern- ment ought to be “confined to certain defined national objects.”25 Otherwise, the national go vernment would “ swallow up all the power of the state go vernments.”26 Antifederalists bitterly attacked the supremacy clause and the elastic clause of the Constitution as unlimited and danger ous grants of po wer to the national go vern-
ment.27 Antifederalists also demanded that a bill of rights be added to the Constitu - tion to place limits on the government’s exercise of power over the citizenry.
Federalists favored the construction of a government with broad powers to defend the nation against for eign foes, guar d against domestic strife and insurr ection, pro- mote commerce, and expand the nation ’s economy. Antifederalists shar ed some of these goals but still feared governmental power. In reply, Federalists such as Hamilton acknowledged that every power could be abused but argued that the way to pr event misuse of power was not by depriving the government of the powers needed to achieve national goals but b y adopting the Constitution ’s internal checks and contr ols. As Madison put it, “the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments (state and national), and then the por tion allotted to each sub - divided among distinct and separate depar tments. Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be contr olled by itself.”28 The Federalists’ concern with av oiding unwarranted limits on governmental power led them to oppose a bill of rights, which they saw as nothing more than a set of unnecessary restrictions on the government.
Federalists acknowledged that abuse of power remained a possibility but felt that the risk had to be taken in order to achieve essential goals. “The very idea of power included a possibility of doing harm,” said the Federalist John Rutledge during the South Carolina ratification debates. “If the gentleman would sho w the power that could do no harm,” Rutledge continued, “he would at once discover it to be a power that could do no good.”29 This aspect of the debate between Federalists and Antifed- eralists, perhaps mor e than any other , continues to r everberate through American politics. Should the nation limit the federal go vernment’s power to tax and spend? Should Congr ess limit the capacity of federal agencies to issue ne w r egulations? Should the government endeavor to create new rights for minorities, the disabled, and others? Though the details have changed, these are the same great questions that have been debated since the Founding.
REFLECTIONS ON THE FOUNDING
The final product of the Constitutional Convention was an extraordinary victory for the gr oups that had most for cefully called for the cr eation of a ne w system of go vernment to r eplace the Ar ticles of Confederation. While Antifederalist
Debates over how much power the national government should have continue today. After the San Bernardino shooting in 2015, the FBI demanded Apple unlock the perpetrator’s iPhone for details into his criminal activity. Here, a group protests the FBI’s infringement on the right to privacy.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Do you agree with Rutledge that a power that can do no harm can also do no good? How can a system of government maximize the ability of government to do good while minimizing the possibility of harm?
limited government a principle of constitutional government; a government whose powers are defined and limited by a constitution
64 CHAPTER 2 THe FOUnD InG AnD THe COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 64 27/11/18 2:00 PM
criticisms did force the Constitution’s proponents to accept the addition of a bill of rights designed to limit the po wers of the national go vernment, overall it was the Federalist vision of America that triumphed. The Constitution adopted in 1789 created the frame work for a po werful national go vernment that for mor e than 200 y ears has defended the nation ’s interests, promoted its commer ce, and maintained national unity . I n one notable instance, the national go vernment fought and won a bloody war to pr event the nation fr om breaking apar t. And despite this po werful national go vernment, the system of internal checks and balances has functioned r easonably well, as the F ederalists predicted, to pr event the government from tyrannizing its citizens. The national unity created under the Constitution also gradually helped America become a gr eat world power—as many of the framers had hoped.
Although they w ere defeated in 1788, the Antifederalists pr esent us with an important picture of an America that might hav e been. Would Americans in the eighteenth century have been worse off if they had been governed by a confederacy of small republics linked by a national administration with severely limited powers? Were the Antifederalists correct in predicting that a government given great power in the hope that it might do good would, thr ough “insensible progress,” inevitably turn to evil purposes?
The Citizen’s Role and the Changing Constitution
The Constitution has endured for more than two centuries as the framework of go vernment. B ut it has not gone unchanged. The Con- stitution assigns citizens an indirect
but important role in this process of change. Figure 2.3 outlines the ways in which the Constitution might be amended, all of which involve citizens through the elec- tion of members of Congr ess and state legislatur es or, hypothetically, through the election of delegates to national and state constitutional conventions. Amending the Constitution may be difficult, but it is ultimately controlled by institutions elected by the people. O f course, the federal cour ts, whose judges ar e not elected b y the people but appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate, also interpret the Constitution and adapt it to changing cir cumstances. Many voters are aware that their presidential ballots may also help to shape the character of the S upreme Court and other federal courts.
AMENDMENTS: MANY ARE CALLED; FEW ARE CHOSEN
The inevitable need for change was recognized by the framers of the Constitution, and provisions for amendment were incorporated into Ar ticle V. Four methods of amendment are described:
1. Passage in House and Senate by two-thirds vote, then ratification by majority vote of the legislatures of three-fourths (now 38) of the states
2. Passage in House and Senate by two-thirds vote, then ratification by conven- tions called for the purpose in three-fourths of the states
Trace how the Constitution has changed over time through the amendment process
amendment a change added to a bill, law, or constitution
65THe C I T I zen ’S rOLe AnD THe CHAnG InG COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 65 27/11/18 2:00 PM
3. Passage in a national conv ention called for b y Congr ess in r esponse to petitions by two-thirds of the states, then ratification by majority vote of the legislatures of three-fourths of the states
4. Passage in a national conv ention (as in method 3), then ratification by conventions called for the purpose in three-fourths of the states
Figure 2.3 illustrates each of these possible methods. S ince no amendment has ever been proposed by national convention, however, methods 3 and 4 hav e never been emplo yed. And method 2 has been emplo yed only once (the Twenty-First Amendment, which r epealed the E ighteenth Amendment, or P rohibition). Thus, method 1 has been used for all the others.
The Constitution has proved to be extr emely difficult to amend. Since 1789, more than 11,000 amendments have been formally offered in Congress. Of these, Congress officially proposed only 29, and 27 of these w ere eventually ratified by the states. Two of these—Prohibition and its repeal—cancel each other out, so for all practical purposes, only 25 amendments have been added to the Constitution since 1791.
WHICH WERE CHOSEN? AN ANALYSIS OF THE 27
There is mor e to the amending difficulties than the politics of campaigning and voting. It would appear that only a limited number of changes can actually be made to the Constitution. M ost efforts to amend the Constitution hav e failed because they were simply attempts to use the Constitution as an alternative to legislation for dealing directly with a specific public problem.
The 25 successful amendments, on the other hand, are concerned with the structure or composition of government (see Table 2.3). This is consistent with the
FIGURE 2.3
Four Ways the Constitution Can Be Amended *This method of proposal has never been employed. Thus, amendment routes 3 and 4 have never been attempted. **For each amendment proposal, Congress has the power to choose the method of ratification, the time limit for consideration by the states, and other conditions of ratification. The movement to repeal Prohibition in the Twenty-First Amendment was the only occasion in which route 2 was used successfully.
The National Level: Proposal of
Amendments
Method 1
Method 2
Method 3
Method 4
The State Level: Rati�cation of Amendments
C** Acceptance by
majority vote in the legislatures of
three-fourths of the states (38 states)
D** Acceptance by
conventions called for the purpose in
three-fourths of the states (38 states)
B* Passage in a national convention called by
Congress in response to petitions by two-thirds of the
states (34 states)
A Passage in House
and Senate, each by two-thirds vote
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS It is very difficult to amend the Constitution. Should the amendment process be made easier? Would the American system of government be more democratic if the Constitution could be revised more easily?
66 CHAPTER 2 THe FOUnD InG AnD THe COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 66 27/11/18 2:00 PM
AMENDMENT PURPOSE YEAR
PROPOSED YEAR
ADOPTED
I Congress is not to make any law establishing a religion or abridging free exercise of religion, speech, press, assembly, or petitioning the government for redress of grievances.
1789 1791
II, III, IV no branch of government may infringe on the right of people to keep arms (II), is not arbitrarily to occupy homes for a militia (III), and is not to engage in the search or seizure of evidence without a court warrant swearing to belief in the probable existence of a crime (IV).
1789 1791
V, VI, VII, VIII The courts* are not to hold trials for serious offenses without provision for a grand jury (V), a petit (trial) jury (VII), a speedy trial (VI), presentation of charges (VI), confrontation of hostile witnesses (VI), immunity from testimony against oneself (V), and immunity from more than one trial for the same offense (V). neither bail nor punishment can be excessive (VIII), and no property can be taken without just compensation (V).
1789 1791
IX, X All rights and powers not enumerated are reserved to the states or the people. 1789 1791
XI Limited jurisdiction of federal courts over suits involving the states. 1794 1795
XII Provided separate ballot for vice president in the electoral college. 1803 1804
XIII eliminated slavery and eliminated the right of states to treat persons as property. 1865 1865
XIV Asserted the principle of national citizenship and prohibited the states from infringing upon the rights of citizens of the nation, no matter that they happened to live in that state. Also prohibited states from denying voting rights to male citizens over the age of 21.**
1866 1868
XV extended voting rights to all races. 1869 1870
XVI established national power to tax incomes. 1909 1913
XVII† Provided for direct election of senators. This diminished the power of the state legislatures and underscored the idea of a direct connection between Americans and the government of the United States.
1912 1913
XIX extended voting rights to women. 1919 1920
XX eliminated “lame-duck” session of Congress. 1932 1933
XXII Limited presidential term. 1947 1951
XXIII extended voting rights to residents of the District of Columbia. 1960 1961
XXIV extended voting rights to all classes by abolition of poll taxes. 1962 1964
XXV Provided presidential succession in case of disability. 1965 1967
XXVI extended voting rights to citizens aged 18 and over. 1971 1971††
XXVII Limited Congress’s power to raise its own salary. 1789 1992
*These amendments also impose limits on the law-enforcement powers of federal, state, and local executive branches. **In defining citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment actually provided the constitutional basis for expanding the electorate to include all races, women, and residents of the District of Columbia. Only the “18-year-olds’ amendment” should have been necessary since it changed the definition of citizenship. The fact that additional amendments were required following the Fourteenth suggests that voting is not considered an inherent right of U.S. citizenship. Instead, it is viewed as a privilege. †The Eighteenth Amendment, ratified in 1919, outlawed the sale and transportation of liquor. It was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment, ratified in 1933. ††The Twenty-Sixth Amendment holds the record for speed of adoption. It was proposed on March 23, 1971, and adopted on July 5, 1971.
TABLE 2.3
Amendments to the Constitution
67THe C I T I zen ’S rOLe AnD THe CHAnG InG COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 67 27/11/18 2:00 PM
dictionary, which defines constitution as the makeup or composition of something. And it is consistent with the concept of a constitution as “higher law ” because the whole point and purpose of a higher law is to establish a frame work within which government and the process of making ordinary law can take place. Even those who would have preferred more changes to the Constitution have to agree that there is great wisdom in this principle. A constitution ought to enable legislation and public policies to be enacted, but it should not determine what that legislation or those public policies ought to be.
Private property is an ex cellent example. Property is one of the most funda - mental and well-established rights in the U nited States; but it is w ell established not because it is r ecognized in so many wor ds in the Constitution but because legislatures and courts, working within an agreed-upon constitutional framework, have made it a crime for any one, including the go vernment, to tr espass or to take away property without compensation. A constitution is good if it pr oduces the cause of action that leads to good legislation, good case law, and appropriate police behavior. Its principles can be a citizen’s dependable defense against the abuse of power.
And or dinary citiz ens, including students, can influence America’s consti - tution. Take the case of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, which declares that no congressional pay incr ease can take effect until the next Congress is elected. This idea was proposed in 1789 along with the 10 amendments that became the Bill of Rights. This proposed amendment was ratified by several states but never achieved the three-fourths needed to be added to the Constitution. The idea was forgotten until a U niversity of Texas undergraduate, Gregory Watson, wrote his class term paper on the subject in 1982. Watson proposed a campaign to com - plete the ratification process. His professor awarded Watson a C grade, asser ting that the proposal was unrealistic. Watson, however, was undeterred and launched a student-led campaign to complete the ratification process. I n 1992 the Twenty-Seventh Amendment was added to the Constitution, mor e than two centuries after it was proposed.
THE SUPREME COURT AND CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
Although the pr ocess of constitutional amendment outlined in Ar ticle V has seldom been used successfully , another form of constitutional r evision is con - stantly at work in the United States: judicial interpretation of the Constitution and its amendments by the Supreme Court as it reviews cases. In some instances, the Court may give concrete definition to abstract constitutional principles. For example, the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment asserts in general terms that indi- viduals accused of crimes ar e entitled to procedural rights. The Supreme Court, in a series of decisions, established principles giving effect to those rights. Every viewer of television crime pr ograms knows that, upon being arr ested, individu- als must r eceive Miranda warnings informing them of their right to r efuse to speak and their right to counsel. These required warnings are the result of a 1966 Supreme Court decision interpreting the meaning and implications of the F ifth Amendment.
In some instances, the S upreme Cour t does mor e than interpr et or flesh out constitutional pr ovisions: it seems to modify or augment the text itself . For example, in decisions in 1965 and 1973 on bir th contr ol and abor tion,
The Twenty-Sixth Amendment addressed an issue of representation that came to the fore when 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds were drafted to serve in the Vietnam War but could not vote for Congress or the presi- dent who enacted the policies that affected their lives and deaths.
68 CHAPTER 2 THe FOUnD InG AnD THe COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 68 27/11/18 2:00 PM
respectively, the Cour t said that Americans w ere constitutionally entitled to a right of priv acy. The Constitution does not explicitly mention the right to privacy; it is derived from the Fourteenth Amendment and several provisions in the Bill of Rights.
As we examine in more depth later in the book, much of the S upreme Court’s power is itself based on constitutional interpr etation rather than on the text of the document. The Supreme Cour t claims the po wer of judicial r eview—the power to render the final decision when there is a conflict of interpretations of the Constitution or federal law among the cour ts, Congr ess, the ex ecutive branch, or the states. N owhere does the Constitution mention this po wer. In a number of early cases, ho wever, the Supreme Court asserted that the Constitution gav e it the power of judicial r eview; and this interpr etation has prevailed, enhancing the Court’s power. Some commentators denounce this as constitutional amendment by the judiciar y and demand that judges limit themselv es to “strict construction” of the Constitution, adhering closely to the wor ds of the document ’s text. P ro- ponents of the idea of the living Constitution , on the other hand, asser t that the Constitution is subject to change as conditions warrant; and they argue that the judiciary is the institution best qualified to adjust the Constitution’s principles to new problems and times.
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is an example of an amendment that almost succeeded. The proposed amendment guaranteed equality under the law for women and made gender discrimination illegal. The ERA was ratified by 35 state legislatures but failed to get the 38 necessary to equal three- fourths of the states.
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 69 27/11/18 2:00 PM
The Constitution WHAT DO WE WANT? The Constitution’s framers placed individual liberty ahead of all other political values,
a concern that led many of the framers to distrust both democracy and equality. They
feared that democracy could degenerate into a majority tyranny in which the populace,
perhaps led by rabble-rousing demagogues, trampled on liberty. As for equality, the
framers were products of their time and place; our contemporary ideas of racial and
gender equality would have been foreign to them. The framers were concerned primar-
ily with another manifestation of equality: they feared that those without property or
position might be driven by what some called a “leveling spirit” to infringe on liberty
in the name of greater economic or social equality. Indeed, the framers believed that
this leveling spirit was most likely to produce demagoguery and majority tyranny. As a
result, the basic structure of the Constitution—separated powers, internal checks and
balances, and federalism—was designed to safeguard liberty, and the Bill of rights
created further safeguards for liberty. At the same time, however, many of the Consti-
tution’s other key provisions, such as indirect election of senators and the president
and the appointment of judges for life, were designed to limit democracy and, hence,
the threat of majority tyranny.
By championing liberty, however, the framers virtually guaranteed that democracy
and even a measure of equality would sooner or later evolve in the United States.
Liberty promotes the growth of political activity and the expansion of political partici-
pation, as in James Madison’s famous phrase “Liberty is to faction as air is to fire.”30
The “Who Participates?” feature on the facing page traces the expansion of the right
to vote in the United States from the Founding to today. Where they have liberty, more
and more people, groups, and interests will engage in politics and gradually overcome
whatever restrictions might have been placed on participation. They will fight for their
rights and interests, and in doing so, may achieve greater equality, as Jim Obergefell
did in securing marriage equality for same-sex couples. By granting citizens the free-
dom to exercise voice, liberty over time is conducive to democracy.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS What are the U.S. Constitution’s greatest strengths? What are its most pronounced weaknesses? If you were revising the Constitution today, what would you change? Why?
70 CHAPTER 2 THe FOUnD InG AnD THe COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 70 27/11/18 2:00 PM
*Percentages are of the adult (18+ and of noncitizens in all states. SOURCES: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1790–2010, www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html (accessed 9/28/15); United States Elections Project, www.electproject.org/national-1789–present (accessed 9/27/15).
1789 The Founding:
White men of property, age 21+
27.9%
1869 15th Amendment: All men, age 21+
31.7%
1920 19th Amendment:
All men and women, age 21+
92.6%
1971 26th Amendment:
All men and women, age 18+
99.9%
Adult Citizens Eligible to Vote in National Elections*
Who Gained the Right to Vote through Amendments?
Know Your Constitutional Rights
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
Review your rights as outlined in the Constitution, a copy of which is reproduced in the appendix of this book.
Find out what voting rights are retained by individuals who have been convicted of a felony. Go to www.ncsl.orgwww.ncsl.org and search “felon voting rights” for more information.
Find out what voting rights are retained by individuals with mental illness. Go to www.bazelon.org and search “voting” for more information.
Should noncitizens (such as longtime permanent legal residents) have the right to vote? Go to www.latimes.com/citizenship to read more and to join the conversation online.
WHO PARTICIPATES?
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 71 27/11/18 2:00 PM
Key Terms Virginia Plan (p. 50)
New Jersey Plan (p. 50)
Great Compromise (p. 50)
Three-Fifths Compromise (p. 53)
Practice Quiz
5. Which of the following was not a reason that the Articles of Confederation seemed inadequate? a) the lack of a national military b) the inability of the federal government to enforce
treaties c) the persistent economic turmoil among states
International weakness, domestic economic problems, and the national government’s inability to act decisively in response to Shays’s rebellion led to a constitutional convention to replace the Articles of Confederation. The convention’s delegates were deeply divided on the issues of representation in the national government and slavery. The Great Compromise and the Three-Fifths Compromise temporarily reconciled these divisions and allowed the Founders to move forward with creating a new constitutional framework for the United States.
The Second Founding: From Compromise to Constitution
2. In their fight against British taxes, such as the Stamp Act and the Sugar Act of 1764, new england merchants and southern planters allied with which of the following groups? a) shopkeepers, small farmers, laborers, and artisans b) shopkeepers only c) laborers only d) artisans only e) shopkeepers and laborers only
3. The first governing document in the United States was a) the Declaration of Independence. b) the Articles of Confederation. c) the Constitution. d) the Bill of rights. e) the Virginia Plan.
4. Who was responsible for executing laws passed by the national government under the Articles of Confederation? a) the presidency b) the Congress c) the states d) the federal bureaucracy e) the federal judiciary
Dissatisfaction with tax and trade policies, coupled with discontent over retaliatory acts of political repression, radicalized many colonists during the 1770s to push for independence from British rule. The Declaration of Independ- ence helped forge a sense of national unity among diverse elements in colonial society by identifying a widely shared set of grievances, goals, and principles. The first written constitution of the United States, the Articles of Confed- eration, placed strong limits on the powers of the national government and left most power in the hands of the states.
Key Terms Articles of Confederation (p. 46)
confederation (p. 46)
Practice Quiz
1. How did the British attempt to raise revenue in the north American colonies? a) income taxes b) tariffs, duties, and other taxes on commerce c) expropriation and sale of native American lands d) licensing fees for the mining of natural resources e) requests for voluntary donations
The First Founding: Interests and Conflicts
Describe the events that led to the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation (pp. 43–46)
Analyze the reasons many Americans thought a new Constitution was needed, and assess the obstacles to a new Constitution (pp. 47–53)
CHAPTER 2 STUDY GU IDe72
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 72 27/11/18 2:00 PM
8. Which state’s proposal embodied a principle of repre- senting states in the Congress according to their size and wealth? a) new Jersey b) Maryland c) rhode Island d) Virginia e) Connecticut
9. The agreement reached at the Constitutional Conven- tion that determined how slaves would be counted for the purposes of taxation and representation in the House of representatives was called the a) Connecticut Compromise. b) Three-Fifths Compromise. c) Great Compromise. d) Virginia Plan. e) new Jersey Plan.
Practice Quiz
10. Which of the following mechanisms were instituted in the Congress to guard against “excessive democracy”? a) bicameralism b) staggered terms in office c) checks and balances d) selection of senators by state legislatures e) all of the above
11. Which of the following best describes the Supreme Court as understood by the Founders? a) the principal check on presidential power b) the arbiter of disputes within the Congress c) the body that would choose the president d) a figurehead commission of elders e) the highest court of both the national government
and the states
12. The ability of the president to veto a bill passed by Congress is a good example of a) federalism b) the system of checks and balances c) the supremacy clause d) civil liberties e) bicameralism
The Founders sought to create a stronger national gov- ernment than existed under the Articles of Confederation. In particular, they hoped that the new constitution would promote commerce, protect private property, and secure popular support while also avoiding the perils of “excessive democracy.” The Founders’ concern with national power was expressed most clearly in the supremacy clause of Article VI. The national government, however, did not have unlimited power; and there were significant constraints placed on it through the separation of powers, federalism, and the Bill of rights.
Key Terms bicameral (p. 53)
checks and balances (p. 53)
Bill of Rights (p. 54)
separation of powers (p. 54)
federalism (p. 54)
expressed powers (p. 56)
elastic clause (p. 56)
judicial review (p. 57)
supremacy clause (p. 57)
d) the growing power of radical forces in state legislatures
e) the Congress of the Confederation’s strict control over state governments
6. Which event led directly to the Constitutional Convention by providing evidence that the government created under the Articles of Confederation was unable to act decisively in times of national crisis? a) the Boston Tea Party b) the Boston Massacre c) Shays’s rebellion d) the Annapolis Convention e) the War of 1812
7. The draft constitution that was introduced at the start of the Constitutional Convention by edmund randolph showed the strong influence of a) William Patterson. b) Benjamin Franklin. c) James Madison. d) George Clinton. e) Thomas Jefferson.
The Constitution
Explain how the Constitution attempted to improve America’s governance, and outline the major institu- tions established by the Constitution (pp. 53–60)
STUDY GU IDE 73
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 73 27/11/18 2:00 PM
Practice Quiz
14. Which of the following best describes the process of amending the Constitution? a) It is difficult and has rarely been used successfully
to address specific public problems. b) It is difficult and has frequently been used
successfully to address specific public problems. c) It is easy but has rarely been used successfully to
address specific public problems. d) It is easy and has frequently been used success-
fully to address specific public problems. e) It is easy, but it has never been used for any
purpose.
Beeman, richard. Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution. new York: random House, 2010.
Dahl, robert A. How Democratic Is the American Constitution? 2nd ed. new Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002.
The amendment process outlined in Article V of the Constitution creates significant hurdles to change that have rarely been cleared in American history. Attempts to solve specific social problems through the use of a constitutional amendment have been particularly unsuccessful at winning the support required to change the country’s basic govern- ing document. The Supreme Court, however, has provided new meaning and new substance to the Constitution on countless occasions during the last 200 years through decisions on important cases.
Key Term amendment (p. 65)
Ackerman, erin, and Benjamin Ginsberg. A Guide to the United States Constitution, 4th ed. new York: W. W. norton, 2019.
Amar, Akhil reed. The Constitution Today: Timeless Lessons for the Issues of Our Era. new York: Basic Books, 2016.
The Citizen’s Role and the Changing Constitution
Practice Quiz
13. During the debate over ratification, the Federalists were a) those who opposed the new constitution because it
created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles of Confederation.
b) those who opposed the new constitution because it created a weaker national government than existed under the Articles of Confederation.
c) those who opposed the new constitution because it did not end slavery.
d) those who supported the new constitution because it created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles of Confederation.
e) those who supported the new constitution because it ended slavery.
Before the Constitution could go into effect, it had to be ratified by 9 of the 13 states. In the debate over ratification, the Federalists supported the Constitution and the Antifed- eralists opposed it. The three major areas of disagreement between Federalists and Antifederalists were the question of representation, the threat of tyranny, and the extent of government power.
Key Terms Federalists (p. 60)
Antifederalists (p. 60)
Federalist Papers (p. 62)
tyranny (p. 63)
limited government (p. 64)
The Fight for Ratification
Present the controversies involved in the struggle for ratification (pp. 60–65)
Trace how the Constitution has changed over time through the amendment process (pp. 65–69)
For Further Reading
CHAPTER 2 STUDY GU IDe74
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 74 27/11/18 2:00 PM
The American Civil Liberties Union www.aclu.org
The ACLU is committed to protecting, for all individuals, the freedoms found in the Bill of rights. This some- times controversial organization constantly monitors the government for violations of liberty and encourages its members to take political action.
Archiving Early America www.earlyamerica.com
revolutionary Americans were motivated by a variety of competing ideals, principles, and interests. Visit this website to learn more about the early colonists and the founding of our government.
Constitution Finder http://confinder.richmond.edu
Is the American Constitution a model for the world? explore the constitutions of many different nations and see what elements of the U.S. Constitution can be found in the governing documents of other countries.
FindLaw http://findlaw.com/casecode/state.html
The FindLaw website provides all 50 states’ constitu- tions. Click on your state and try to identify such consti- tutional principles as bicameralism, staggered terms of office, checks and balances, and separation of powers.
The National Archives www.archives.gov
This government site provides information about and actual digital images of such founding documents as the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of rights.
Lewis, Anthony. Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment. new York: Basic Books, 2008.
Main, Jackson Turner. The Social Structure of Revolutionary America. Princeton, nJ: Princeton University Press, 1965.
Paulson, Michael S. and Luke Paulson, The Constitution: An Introduction. new York: Basic Books, 2017.
Stewart, David O. Madison’s Gift: Five Partnerships That Built America. new York: Simon & Schuster, 2015.
Storing, Herbert, ed. The Complete Anti-Federalist. 7 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.
West, Thomas. The Political Theory of the American Founding: Natural Rights, Public Policy, and the Moral Conditions of Freedom. new York: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
ellis, Joseph. The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution. new York: Knopf, 2015.
Ferling, John. The American Revolution and the War That Won It. new York: Bloomsbury, 2015.
Gerstle, Gary. Liberty and Coercion: The Paradox of American Government from the Founding to the Present. Princeton, nJ: Princeton University Press, 2015.
Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. The Federalist Papers. edited by Isaac Kramnick. new York: Viking, 1987.
Jensen, Merrill. The Articles of Confederation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1963.
Keller, Morton. America’s Three Regimes. new York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Recommended Websites
The National Constitution Center www.constitutioncenter.org
The national Constitution Center in Philadelphia maintains a website that provides in-depth instruc- tional analysis of the U.S. Constitution. Check out the Interactive Constitution function and follow the docu- ment from its Preamble through the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.
Oyez www.oyez.org
This website for U.S. Supreme Court media has an excellent search engine for finding information on Supreme Court cases. See how the Court has interpreted the Constitution over time.
The PBS Liberty! Series www.pbs.org/ktca/liberty
The PBS Liberty! series on the American revolution offers an in-depth look at the revolutionary War and includes information on historical events such as the Constitutional Convention.
The Supreme Court of the United States www.supremecourtus.gov
The website for the U.S. Supreme Court provides information on recent decisions. Take a moment to read some oral arguments, briefs, or opinions.
STUDY GU IDE 75
wtp12e_ptr_ch02_040-075.indd 75 27/11/18 2:00 PM
Federalism
030303 chapter
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS Decades of work as a commercial fisherman and long-haul truck driver left Larry Harvey
with severe pain. The 70-year-old grandfather found
one thing that helped: medical marijuana, which was
legalized in the state of Washington in 1998. He and
his wife included cannabis among the many herbs
they grew on their property outside a little town some
80 miles north of Spokane.
One hot August day in 2012, armed federal
agents stormed the Harveys’ home. Larry was hand-
cuffed and sent to jail, despite his poor health and
advanced age. Prosecutors said guns had been
found along with the marijuana. A judge released him
17 days later, but the lack of health care in jail left
him unable to walk more than short distances.1
Washington state, along with 32 other states and
the District of Columbia, protects qualified medical
marijuana patients from arrest and prosecution (as
of 2018, 10 states permit the use of recreational
marijuana as well).2 Yet under federal law marijuana
is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance,
in the same category as heroin, LSD, and MDMA
(“ecstasy”). Users are subject to arrest and prosecu-
tion by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration.
Thus medical marijuana patients like Larry Harvey
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 76 27/11/18 12:19 PM
Federalism is at the center of a national debate over marijuana policy: while marijuana remains illegal under federal law, some states permit marijuana for medicinal or recreational use. Larry Harvey, pictured here, was prosecuted under federal law for growing marijuana though Washington state allowed the practice.
are caught in a clash between state and federal law.
States can legalize medical marijuana, and medical
marijuana defenses can be mounted in state courts,
but federal law considers marijuana a dangerous
drug with no medical value; evidence about the
medical necessity of marijuana for patient-defendants
cannot even be admitted in federal court.3
The federal response to the states has shifted
over time. As state laws began to loosen restrictions
on marijuana starting in the late 1990s, the federal
government at first sought to assert its authority,
raiding marijuana clinics and individual homes like
Larry Harvey’s. In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that
these federal actions were constitutional. By 2013,
however, the Justice Department under Presi dent
Obama, stated that it would not challenge state laws
so long as the states maintained a close watch over
their marijuana markets. Instead the federal govern-
ment would focus its enforcement efforts on specific
issues, including trafficking by gangs, sales to minors,
and selling across state lines. Washington’s governor,
Jay Inslee, issued a joint statement with the state’s
attorney general noting that the decision “reflects a
balanced approach by the federal government that
respects the states’ interests in implementing these
laws and recognizes the federal government’s role
77
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 77 27/11/18 12:19 PM
in fighting illegal drugs and criminal activity.”4 It remains to be seen whether
marijuana will be a focus of a possibly renewed War on Drugs in the Trump
administration.5
Larry Harvey’s situation and the debates about marijuana policy engage
some of the oldest questions in American government: What is the responsi-
bility of the federal government, and what is the responsibility of the states?
When should there be uniformity across the states, and when is it better
to let states adopt their own laws based on the needs and desires of their
population, which may result in a diverse set of laws across the country?
Which approach serves the common good?
The United States is a federal system, in which the national government
shares power with lower levels of government. Throughout American history,
lawmakers, politicians, and citizens have wrestled with questions about how
responsibilities should be allocated across the different levels of government.
Some responsibilities, such as international relations, clearly lie with the fede-
ral government. Others, such as divorce laws, are controlled by state govern-
ments. In fact, most of the rules and regulations that Americans face in their
daily lives are set by state and local governments. However, many government
responsibilities are shared in American federalism and require cooperation among
local, state, and federal governments. The debate about “who should do what”
remains one of the most important discussions in American politics.
★ Describe what the Constitution says about the powers of the national government and of the states (pp. 79–84)
★ Consider how the relationship between the federal and state governments evolved during the nation’s first 140 years (pp. 84–88)
★ Trace developments in the federal framework leading to a stronger national government (pp. 89–94)
★ Analyze the changing role of the states in the federal framework (pp. 94–102)
★ Analyze contemporary relationships among national, state, and local governments (pp. 102–7)
CHAPTER GOALS
78 CHAPTER 3 FEDErAL ISM
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 78 27/11/18 12:19 PM
Federalism in the Constitution The Constitution has had a pro- found influence on American life through federalism, the division of powers and functions betw een the national government and the state
governments. G overnments can organiz e po wer in a v ariety of ways. O ne of the most important distinctions is between unitary and federal governments. In a unitary system, the central go vernment makes the impor tant decisions and lower levels of government have little independent power. In such systems, lower levels of go vernment primarily implement decisions made b y the central go v- ernment. In France, for example, the central go vernment was once so inv olved in the smallest details of local activity that the minister of education boasted that by looking at his watch he could tell what all French schoolchildren were learning at that moment because the central go vernment set the school curric - ulum. In a federal system, b y contrast, the central go vernment shares power or functions with lo wer levels of go vernment, such as regions or states. N ations with div erse ethnic or language gr oupings, such as S witzerland and Canada, are most likely to hav e federal arrangements. I n federal systems, lo wer lev els of go vernment often hav e significant independent power to set policy in some ar eas, such as education and social pr ograms, and to impose tax es. Yet the specific ways in which power is shar ed vary greatly: no two federal systems are exactly the same.
The United States was the first nation to adopt federalism as its governing frame- work. With federalism, the framers sought to limit the national go vernment b y creating a second layer of state governments. By granting a few “expressed powers” to the national go vernment and r eserving all the r est to the states, the original Constitution recognized two sovereigns: state governments and the federal govern- ment. Table 3.1 indicates which level of government has responsibility for some of the actions that affect our everyday lives.
THE POWERS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
As we saw in Chapter 2, the expressed powers granted to the national government are found in Ar ticle I, S ection 8 of the Constitution. These 17 powers include the po wer to collect tax es, coin money , declar e war , and r egulate commer ce. Article I, Section 8 also contains another important source of power for the national go vernment: the implied powers that enable Congress “to make all Laws which shall be necessar y and proper for carr ying into Execution the fore- going Powers.” Not until several decades after the Founding did the Supreme Court allow Congress to exercise the power granted in this necessary and proper clause, but as we shall see later in this chapter, this doctrine allowed the national government to expand considerably the scope of its authority , although the process was a slo w one. In addition to these expr essed and implied po wers, the Constitution affirmed the power of the national government in the supremacy clause (Article VI), which made all national laws and tr eaties “the supreme Law of the Land.”
Describe what the Constitution says about the powers of the national government and of the states
federalism a system of government in which power is divided, by a constitution, between a central government and regional governments
unitary system a centralized government system in which lower levels of government have little power independent of the national government
expressed powers specific powers granted by the Constitution to Congress (Article I, Section 8) and to the president (Article II)
implied powers powers derived from the necessary and proper clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; such powers are not specifically expressed but are implied through the expansive interpretation of delegated powers
necessary and proper clause Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which provides Congress with the authority to make all laws “necessary and proper” to carry out its expressed powers
79FEDErAL ISM In THE COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 79 27/11/18 12:19 PM
TIME SCHEDULE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT
7:00 a.m. Wake up. Standard time set by the national government. Federal and state
7:10 a.m. Shower. Water courtesy of local government, either a public entity or a regulated private company.
Local
7:18 a.m. Brush your teeth with toothpaste whose cavity-fighting claims have been verified by a federal agency.
Federal
7:30 a.m. Have a bowl of cereal with milk for breakfast. “nutrition Facts” on food labels are a federal requirement, pasteurization of milk required by state law, freshness dating on milk based on state and federal standards.
Federal and state
7:57 a.m. recycle the empty cereal box and milk carton. State or local
8:30 a.m. Drive or take public transportation to campus. Airbags and seat belts required by federal and state laws. roads and bridges paid for by state and local governments, speed and traffic laws set by state and local governments, public transportation subsidized by all levels of government.
Federal, state, and local
8:45 a.m. Arrive on campus of large public university. Buildings are 70 percent financed by state taxpayers.
State
9:00 a.m. First class: Chemistry 101. Tuition partially paid by a federal loan (more than half the cost of university instruction is paid for by taxpayers), chemistry lab paid for with grants from the national Science Foundation (a federal agency) and smaller grants from business corporations made possible by federal income tax deductions for charitable contributions.
Federal
2:00 p.m. Second class: American Government 101 (your favorite class!). You may be taking this class because it is required by the state legislature or because it fulfills a university requirement.
State
4:00 p.m. Third class: Computer Science 101. Free computers, software, and internet access courtesy of state subsidies plus grants and discounts from Apple and Microsoft, the costs of which are deducted from their corporate income taxes; internet built in part by federal government. Duplication of software prohibited by federal copyright laws.
Federal and state
6:00 p.m. Eat dinner: hamburger and french fries. Meat inspected for bacteria by federal agencies. Federal
7:00 p.m. Work at part-time job at the campus library. Minimum wage set by federal government; some states and cities set a higher minimum. Books and journals in library paid for by state taxpayers.
Federal, state, local
8:15 p.m. Go online to check the status of your application for a federal student loan (FAFSA) on the Department of Education’s website at studentaid.ed.gov.
Federal
10:00 p.m. Go home. Street lighting paid for by county and city governments, police patrols by city government.
Local
10:15 p.m. Watch netflix. Broadband internet service regulated by federal government. Check app for tomorrow’s weather. Weather forecast provided by a federal agency.
Federal
10:45 p.m. To complete your economics homework, visit the Bureau of Labor Statistics at www.bls.gov to look up unemployment levels since 1972.
Federal
Midnight Put out the trash before going to bed. Trash collected by city sanitation department, financed by “user charges.”
Local
TABLE 3.1
The Presence of Federal, State, and Local Government in the Daily Life of a Student at “State University”
80 CHAPTER 3 FEDErAL ISM
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 80 27/11/18 12:19 PM
THE POWERS OF STATE GOVERNMENT
One way in which the framers sought to pr eserve a str ong role for the states was through the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment states that the powers the Constitution does not delegate to the national government or prohibit to the states ar e “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Antifederalists, who fear ed that a str ong central go vernment would encr oach on individual liberty, repeatedly pressed for such an amendment as a way of limiting national power. Federalists agreed to the amendment because they did not think it would do much harm, giv en the po wers of the Constitution alr eady granted to the national government. The Tenth Amendment is also called the “reserved powers amendment” because it aims to reserve powers to the states.
The most fundamental power that the states r etain is that of coer cion—the power to dev elop and enfor ce criminal codes, to administer health and safety rules, and to r egulate the family via marriage and div orce laws. These issues touch closely on state and local values, which the Founders saw as appropriately differing from state to state (see F igure 3.1). S tates also hav e the po wer to
reserved powers powers, derived from the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, that are not specifically delegated to the national government or denied to the states
FIGURE 3.1
The Size of State Governments The Founders believed that local needs and values varied from state to state and thus left many powers and responsibilities to state governments rather than the national govern- ment. State governments vary substantially in their relative size (how many state employees per 100 residents). How might these differences reflect differing needs and values?
SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, “2016 Annual Survey of Public Employment and Payroll,” October 19, 2017, factfinder .census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk/ (accessed 6/8/18); U.S. Census Bureau, “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017,” May 8, 2018, www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/popest/state-total.html (accessed 6/8/18).
FULL-TIME STATE EMPLOYEES PER 100 RESIDENTS
1
2
3
4
Fl or
id a
Ill in
oi s
N ev
ad a
A riz
on a
C al
ifo rn
ia O
hi o
Te xa
s W
is co
ns in
Te nn
es se
e C
ol or
ad o
G eo
rg ia
P en
ns yl
va ni
a N
ew H
am p
sh ire
N ew
Y or
k In
d ia
na M
ic hi
ga n
N or
th C
ar ol
in a
Id ah
o M
in ne
so ta
M is
so ur
i V
irg in
ia M
ar yl
an d
M as
sa ch
us et
ts Io
w a
M ai
ne N
eb ra
sk a
N ew
J er
se y
Lo ui
si an
a S
ou th
D ak
ot a
S ou
th C
ar ol
in a
W as
hi ng
to n
C on
ne ct
ic ut
O re
go n
O kl
ah om
a R
ho d
e Is
la nd
K an
sa s
A la
b am
a U
ta h
M on
ta na
K en
tu ck
y M
is si
ss ip
p i
A rk
an sa
s N
ew M
ex ic
o W
es t
V irg
in ia
W yo
m in
g V
er m
on t
N or
th D
ak ot
a D
el aw
ar e
A la
sk a
H aw
ai i
81FEDErAL ISM In THE COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 81 27/11/18 12:19 PM
regulate individuals’ livelihoods; if you’re a doctor or a lawyer or a plumber or a barber, you must be licensed b y the state. Even more fundamentally, the states have the power to define private property—private property exists because state laws against trespass define who is and is not entitled to use a piece of property. If you own a car, your ownership isn’t worth much unless the state is willing to enforce your right to possession b y making it a crime for any one else to driv e your car without your consent. These are fundamental matters, and the powers of the states regarding these domestic issues are much greater than the powers of the national government.
A state’s authority to r egulate these fundamental matters is commonly r eferred to as the police power of the state and encompasses the state ’s power to regulate the health, safety, welfare, and morals of its citiz ens. Policing is what states do—they coerce you in the name of the community in or der to maintain public or der. And this was exactly the type of po wer that the F ounders intended the states, not the federal government, to exercise.
In some ar eas, the states shar e concurrent powers with the national go vernment, whereby they r etain and shar e some po wer to r egulate commer ce and affect the currency—for example, b y being able to char ter banks, grant or deny corporate charters, grant or deny licenses to engage in a business or practice a trade, r egulate the quality of products or the conditions of labor, and levy taxes. Wherever there is a direct conflict of laws between the federal and the state lev els, the issue will most likely be resolved in favor of national supremacy.
STATES’ OBLIGATIONS TO ONE ANOTHER
The Constitution also creates obligations among the states. These obligations, spelled out in Article IV, were intended to promote national unity. By requiring the states to r ecognize actions and decisions taken in other states as legal and pr oper, the framers aimed to make the states less like independent countries and mor e like components of a single nation.
Article IV, Section 1 calls for “Full Faith and Credit” among states, meaning that each state is normally expected to honor the “P ublic Acts, Records, and J udicial Proceedings” that take place in any other state. S o, for example, if a person has a restraining order placed on a stalker or batterer in one state, other states are required to enforce that order as if they had issued it.
Notwithstanding, some cour ts have found ex ceptions to the full faith and credit clause: if a law is against the “ strong public policy” of a state, that state may not be obligated to r ecognize it—even if it has been sanctioned b y other states. 6 A look at the history of interracial marriage, for example, offers some perspective on how much leeway states have to recognize marriages performed in other states. In 1952, 30 states prohibited interracial marriage. Many of the states that prohibited interra- cial marriage also refused to recognize such marriages performed in other states.7 For example, in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case, which successfully challenged the ban on interracial marriage, the Lovings (a black woman and a white man) were married in the D istrict of Columbia. H owever, when they r eturned to their home state of Virginia, which prohibited interracial marriage, the state refused to recognize them as a married couple.8
Until recently, same-sex marriage was in a similar position to interracial mar - riage half a century ago. Thirty-five states had passed “Defense of Marriage Acts” or had adopted constitutional amendments that defined marriage as a union
police power power reserved to the state government to regulate the health, safety, and morals of its citizens
concurrent powers authority possessed by both state and national governments, such as the power to levy taxes
full faith and credit clause provision from Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution requiring that the states normally honor the public acts and judicial decisions that take place in another state
82 CHAPTER 3 FEDErAL ISM
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 82 27/11/18 12:19 PM
between one man and one woman. Anxious to sho w its disap - proval of gay marriage, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which declared that states would not have to recog- nize a same-sex marriage from another state. The act also said that the federal government would not r ecognize same-sex marriage— even if it were legal under state law—and that same -sex marriage partners would not be eligible for the federal benefits, such as Medicare and S ocial Security, normally av ailable to spouses. 9 In 2013, ho wever, the S upreme Cour t in United S tates v. Windsor struck do wn the D efense of M arriage A ct in par t, r equiring that same-sex married couples receive equal treatment on issues relating to taxes, inheritance, and other federal laws. 10 After Windsor, many state cour ts str uck down the state bans on same-sex marriage.
On the second anniversary of the Windsor ruling, the Supreme Court, in a historic and long -awaited decision, r uled that the F ourteenth Amendment guar - anteed a fundamental right to same -sex marriage. The case, Obergefell v. Hodges, combined four lawsuits by same-sex couples challenging their home states ’ refusals to grant same-sex marriage licenses or recognize same-sex marriages performed out of state.11 While 37 states recognized same-sex marriage on the eve of the Obergefell announcement, the Cour t’s 5–4 decision immediately r equired that number to jump to 50: all states must offer marriage licenses to two people of the same sex and recognize same-sex marriages licensed out of state. In one stroke, same-sex mar- riage turned fr om a state -level policy choice to a nationally r ecognized right. I n the aftermath of the Obergefell decision, several of the 13 states that were man- dated to lift their bans on same -sex marriage pr otested the r uling. K en Paxton, the attorney general of Texas, for example, called the decision “ unlawful” and pledged to pr ovide legal assistance to local officials who refused to carr y out the new law.12 However, such resistance ebbed as it became clear that the cour ts would enforce the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Article IV, S ection 2, kno wn as the “ comity clause,” also seeks to pr omote national unity. It provides that citizens enjoying the privileges and immunities of one state should be entitled to similar treatment in other states. What this has come to mean is that a state cannot discriminate against someone from another state or give special privileges to its o wn residents. For example, in the 1970s, when Alaska passed a law that gave residents preference over nonresidents in obtaining work on the state ’s oil and gas pipelines, the S upreme Court ruled the law ille - gal because it discriminated against citiz ens of other states. 13 The comity clause also regulates criminal justice among the states by requiring states to return fugi- tives to the states fr om which they hav e fled. Thus, in 1952, when an inmate escaped from an Alabama prison and sought to avoid being returned to Alabama on the grounds that he was being subjected to “cruel and unusual punishment” there, the Supreme Court ruled that he must be returned according to Article IV, Section 2.14
States’ relationships with one another ar e also governed by the interstate com - pact clause (Ar ticle I, S ection 10), which states that “N o State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.” The Court has interpr eted the clause to mean that states may enter into agr ee- ments with one another , subject to congr essional approval. Today compacts ar e used for a wide range of issues from adult offender supervision to pest control, but are especially impor tant in r egulating the distribution of riv er water, addressing
privileges and immunities clause provision, from Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution, that a state cannot discriminate against someone from another state or give its own residents special privileges
Previously a state-level policy, same-sex marriage was declared a fundamental right nationwide by the Supreme Court in 2015. The decision prompted a brief backlash when clerks in some states, such as Kim Davis from Kentucky, pictured here, refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
83FEDErAL ISM In THE COnST I TUT IOn
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 83 27/11/18 12:19 PM
environmental concerns, and operating transportation systems that cross state lines.15
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE CONSTITUTION
Local go vernment occupies a peculiar but v ery impor tant place in the American system (see Table 3.2). I n fact, the status of American local go vernment is probably unique in world experience. First, it must be pointed out that local government has no status in the U.S. Constitution. State legislatur es cr eated local go vernments, and state constitutions and laws permit local go vernments to take on some of the responsibilities of the state governments. Thus local governments are subject to ultimate control by the states. This imbalance of power means that state governments could legally dissolve local governments or force multiple local governments to consolidate into one large local- ity. Most states amended their o wn constitutions to giv e their larger cities home rule—a guarantee of noninterference in various areas of local affairs.16 In recent years, as discussed belo w, some local go vern- ments hav e passed laws making policy on matters fr om minimum wage to public broadband, only to have state legislatures preempt, or remove, that authority, illustrating the degr ee to which local go vern- ments are creations of the state.
FEDERALISM IN PRACTICE
The formally enumerated powers of the national and state go vernments in the Con- stitution represent only par t of the stor y. What makes the fede ral form of government relevant for the nature of American democracy is its shifting practice over time. As we’ll see, the states dominated for the nation’s first 140 years or so, with the federal govern- ment becoming much more important after the New Deal in the 1930s. Over the last 80 years, even as the trend has been toward centralization of government power, the states have asserted themselves at cer tain times and in c ertain policy areas, sometimes aided by the courts. But then at other moments a crisis shifts power toward the national government again, as during the G reat Depression, the S eptember 11, 2001, terr or attacks, and the fiscal crisis that began in 2008. Federalism creates a complex, flexible form of government whose workings shift over time.
The Traditional System of Federalism At the time of the F ounding, the states far surpassed the federal go v- ernment in their power to influence the liv es of or dinary Americans. In the system of shar ed po wers between the states and the federal
government, the states w ere most activ e in economic and social r egulation, while the federal government took a much mor e hands-off approach. Even so, the federal government gradually expanded its powers in the wake of important Supreme Court decisions. However, it was not until the N ew Deal in the 1930s that the federal government gained vast new powers.
home rule power delegated by the state to a local unit of government to manage its own affairs
Consider how the relationship between the federal and state governments evolved during the nation’s first 140 years
TYPE NUMBER
national 1
State 50
County 3,031
Municipal 19,519
Townships 16,360
School districts 12,880
Other special districts 38,266
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, www2.census.gov/govs/cog/ g12_org.pdf (accessed 11/2/13).
TABLE 3.2
90,107 Governments in the United States
84 CHAPTER 3 FEDErAL ISM
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 84 27/11/18 12:19 PM
RESTRAINING NATIONAL POWER WITH DUAL FEDERALISM
As we have noted, the Constitution created two layers of government: the national government and the state governments. The consequences of this dual federalism are fundamental to the American system of go vernment; they hav e meant that states have done most of the fundamental go verning. For evidence, look at Table 3.3, which lists the major types of public policies b y which Americans w ere governed for the first century and a half under the Constitution. We call it the “ traditional system” because it prevailed for much of American history.
Under the traditional system, the national government was quite small compared with both the state governments and the governments of other Western nations. It was also very narrowly specialized in the functions it per formed. The national gov- ernment built or sponsored the construction of roads, canals, and bridges (internal improvements). It provided cash subsidies to shippers and shipbuilders and distri- buted free or low-priced public land to encourage w estern settlement and business ventures. It placed r elatively heavy tax es on impor ted goods (tariffs), not only to raise revenues but also to protect “infant industries” from competition from the more advanced European enterprises. It protected patents and provided for a com- mon currency, which encouraged and facilitated enterprises and expanded markets.
What do these functions of the national government reveal? First, virtually all the functions were aimed at assisting commerce. Second, virtually none of the national
dual federalism the system of government that prevailed in the United States from 1789 to 1937 in which most fundamental governmental powers were shared between the federal and state governments
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT POLICIES (DOMESTIC) STATE GOVERNMENT POLICIES LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Internal improvements
Subsidies
Tariffs
Public land disposal
Patents
Currency
Property laws (including slavery)
Estate and inheritance laws
Commerce laws
Banking and credit laws
Corporate laws
Insurance laws
Family laws
Morality laws
Public health laws
Education laws
General penal laws
Eminent domain laws
Construction codes
Land-use laws
Water and mineral laws
Criminal procedure laws
Electoral and political party laws
Local government laws
Civil service laws
Occupations and professions laws
Adaptation of state laws to local conditions
Public works
Contracts for public works
Licensing of public accommodation
Zoning and other land-use regulation
Basic public services
TABLE 3.3
The Federal System: Specialization of Governmental Functions in the Traditional System, 1789–1937
85THE TrAD I T IOnAL SYSTEM OF FEDErAL ISM
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 85 27/11/18 12:19 PM
government’s policies directly coerced citizens. The emphasis of governmental pro- grams was on assistance, promotion, and encouragement—the allocation of land or capital to meet the needs of economic development.
Meanwhile, state legislatures were also actively involved in economic r egulation during the nineteenth century. In the United States, then and now, private property exists only in state laws and in state court decisions regarding property, trespass, and real estate. American capitalism took its form fr om state property and trespass laws and from state laws and court decisions regarding contracts, mar kets, credit, banking, incorporation, and insurance. Laws concerning slavery were a subdivision of property law in states wher e slavery existed, though Ar ticle I, S ection 2 of the Constitution (kno wn as the fugitiv e slav e clause) ensur ed that slav ery would be protected ev en in fr ee states. This clause obliged free states to r eturn r unaway slaves to the state fr om which they escaped (although it was r endered moot by the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery). Even today, states control many policy areas, including the licensing of professions such as law and medicine, requirements for childr en’s education, and, until r ecent decades, vir tually all criminal laws— regarding everything from trespass to murder.
All this (and mor e, as shown in the middle column of Table 3.3) demonstrates that in the United States’ first 150 years, most of the fundamental governing was done by the states. The contrast between national and state policies, as shown by Table 3.3, demonstrates the difference in the power vested in each. The list of items in the middle column could actually hav e been made longer. Moreover, each item on the list is a category of law that fills many volumes of statutes and court decisions.
By allowing state governments to do most of the fundamental governing, the Constitution saved the national government from many policy decisions that might have pr oven too divisiv e for a large and v ery y oung country. And the state and regional variation in policy the federal framework allows continues to facilitate gov- ernance in this large and diverse nation. The most fundamental impact of federalism on the way the U nited States is governed comes not fr om any particular provision of the Constitution but fr om the frame work itself , which has determined which level of government does what and, thr ough that, the political dev elopment of the country. As we shall see, some important aspects of federalism have changed, but the federal framework has survived two centuries and a devastating civil war.
In 1815, President James Madison called for a federally funded pro- gram of “internal improvements,” which was one of the few policy roles for the national govern- ment during the first half of the nineteenth century. By improving transportation through the con- struction of roads and canals, the government fostered the growth of the market economy and boosted federal power.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Which level of government had the most influence over citizens’ lives when the country was founded? Why did this allocation of responsibilities make sense at the time?
86 CHAPTER 3 FEDErAL ISM
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 86 27/11/18 12:19 PM
FEDERALISM AND THE SLOW GROWTH OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT’S POWER
As the nation grew, disputes arose about the powers of the federal government versus the powers of the states. In the first several decades after the Founding, the Supreme Court decided sev eral critical cases that expanded federal po wers and facilitated trade across the states. These decisions removed barriers to trade in the ne w nation and laid the groundwork for a national economy. However, by the end of the nine- teenth century, as reformers began to enact laws regulating businesses through such measures as child labor restrictions, the Court took a much more restrictive view of federal power. Not until well into the New Deal in 1937 did the federal government gain the expansive powers it exercises today.
The Supreme Court’s early decisions to expand federal po wer rested on its pr o- national interpretation of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. That article enu- merates the powers of Congress, including the power to tax, raise an army, declare war, establish post offices, and “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States and with the Indian tribes.” This commerce clause would later form the basis for expansive federal government control over the economy, but its scope initially remained unclear.
The Court’s early decisions began to define national power by favoring federal control over the economy when there was a conflict between the states and the fed- eral government. The first and most important such case was McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), which involved the question of whether Congress had the power to charter a national bank—an explicit grant of po wer no where to be found in Ar ticle I, Section 8.17 Chief Justice John Marshall answered that this power could be “implied” from other powers that w ere expressly delegated to Congr ess, such as the “ powers to lay and collect tax es; to borr ow money; to r egulate commerce; and to declar e and conduct a war .” Marshall’s decision rested on the necessar y and pr oper clause of Article I, Section 8, which gave Congress the power to enact laws “necessary and proper” for executing its substantive powers.
By allo wing Congr ess to use the necessar y and pr oper clause to interpr et its delegated po wers expansiv ely, the S upreme Cour t cr eated the potential for an unprecedented increase in national government power. Marshall also concluded that whenever a state law conflicted with a federal law (as in McCulloch), the state law would be deemed invalid since the Constitution states that “the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Both parts of this great case are pro-national, yet Congress did not immediately seek to expand the policies of the national government.
Another major case, Gibbons v . O gden (1824), r einforced this nationalistic interpretation of the Constitution. The important but r elatively narrow issue was whether the state of New York could grant a monopoly to Robert Fulton’s steam- boat company to operate an ex clusive service between New York and New Jersey. Chief Justice Marshall argued that New York State did not have the power to grant this particular monopoly, so Marshall had to define what Article I, Section 8 meant by “commerce among the several states.” He insisted that the definition was “com- prehensive,” extending to “every species of commercial intercourse.” However, this comprehensiveness was limited “to that commerce which concerns more states than one.” Gibbons is important because it established the supremacy of the national gov- ernment in all matters affecting what later came to be called “interstate commerce.”18 But the pr ecise meaning of interstate commer ce would r emain uncer tain during
commerce clause Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which delegates to Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States and with the Indian tribes”; this clause was interpreted by the Supreme Court in favor of national power over the economy
87THE TrAD I T IOnAL SYSTEM OF FEDErAL ISM
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 87 27/11/18 12:19 PM
several decades of constitutional discourse. B acked by the implied-powers decision in McCulloch and b y the br oad definition of “interstate commerce” in Gibbons, Article I, S ection 8 was a sour ce of po wer for the national go vernment as long as Congress sought to facilitate commerce through subsidies, services, and land grants.
Later in the nineteenth century, though, any effort of the national government to regulate commerce in such areas as fraud, the pr oduction of substandard goods, the use of child labor , or the existence of danger ous working conditions or long hours was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as a violation of the concept of interstate commerce. Such legislation meant that the federal government was entering the factory and the wor kplace—local areas—and was attempting to r egulate goods that had not yet passed into interstate commer ce. To enter these local workplaces was to exercise police power—a power reserved to the states. No one questioned the power of the national go vernment to r egulate businesses that intrinsically inv olved interstate commerce, such as railr oads, gas pipelines, and water way transportation. But well into the twentieth century the Supreme Court used the concept of interstate commerce as a barrier against most efforts by Congress to regulate local conditions.
Thus, federalism, as interpreted by the Supreme Court for 70 years after the Civil War, made it possible for business to hav e its cake and eat it, too: entr epreneurs enjoyed the bene fits of national policies facilitating commerce and were protected by the courts from policies regulating commerce by protecting the rights of consum- ers and workers.19
All this changed after 1937, when the Supreme Court issued a series of decisions that laid the groundwork for a much stronger federal government. Most significant was the Cour t’s dramatic expansion of the commer ce clause. By throwing out the old distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce, the Court converted the commerce clause from a source of limitations to a source of power for the national government. The Court upheld acts of Congress protecting the rights of employees to organize and engage in collective bargaining, regulating the amount of farmland in cultivation, extending lo w-interest credit to small businesses and farmers, and restricting the activities of corporations dealing in the stock mar ket.20 The Court also upheld many other laws that contributed to the constr uction of the “ welfare state.” With these rulings, the Cour t decisively signaled that the era of dual feder - alism was over. In the futur e, Congress would hav e very broad powers to r egulate activity in the states.
In 1916 the national government passed the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act, which excluded from interstate commerce all goods man- ufactured by children under age 14. The act was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and the regulation of child labor remained in the hands of state governments until the 1930s.
88 CHAPTER 3 FEDErAL ISM
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 88 27/11/18 12:19 PM
Federalism in the Modern Era The economic crisis of the Great Depression and the natur e of the government response signaled a new era in the age -old question of the meaning and operation of federalism
in the United States. In this section we will look at how the balance of state and federal power has shifted since the 1930s, with gr owth in the siz e and scope of the federal government. We will examine the changing nature of federalism and the tools the fed- eral government has used both to elicit state effort and to shape resultant state policy.
THE NEW DEAL AND WORLD WAR II: NEW ROLES FOR GOVERNMENT
The door to increased federal action opened when states proved unable to cope with the demands br ought on b y the G reat Depression of the 1930s. B efore this national economic catastrophe, states and localities took responsibility for addressing the needs of the poor, usually through private charity. But the extent of the depres- sion quickly exhausted local and state capacities. B y 1932, 25 percent of the work- force was unemployed. The jobless lost their homes and settled into camps all over the country, called “Hoovervilles,” after President Herbert Hoover. Elected in 1928, the year before the depr ession hit, H oover steadfastly maintained that the federal government could do little to alleviate the misery caused by the depression. It was a matter for state and local governments, he said.
Yet demands mounted for the federal go vernment to take action. I n Congress, some Democrats proposed that the federal go vernment finance public works to aid the economy and put people back to wor k. Other members of Congress introduced legislation to provide federal grants to the states to assist them in their r elief efforts. Most of these measures failed to win congr essional approval or were vetoed by President Hoover.
When Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in 1933, he energetically threw the federal go vernment into the business of fighting the depression thr ough a number of pr oposals known collectively as the N ew Deal. He proposed a variety of temporary measures to provide federal relief and work pro- grams. Most of the programs he proposed were to be financed by the federal government but administered by the states. In addition to these temporary measures, Roosevelt presided over the creation of sev eral important federal pr ograms designed to provide future economic security for Americans. The New Deal signaled the rise of a more active national government.
FROM LAYER CAKE TO MARBLE CAKE: COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM AND THE USE OF CATEGORICAL GRANTS
For the most par t, the ne w national pr ograms that the Roosevelt administration dev eloped did not dir ectly take power away from the states. Instead, the national government
Trace developments in the federal framework leading to a stronger national government
The New Deal expanded the scope of the federal government. One of the largest and most effective New Deal programs, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) employed millions of Americans in projects such as constructing highways, bridges, and public parks.
89FEDErAL ISM In THE MODErn ErA
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 89 27/11/18 12:19 PM
typically redirected states by offering them grants-in-aid, whereby Congress appropri- ates money to state and local governments on the condition that the money be spent for a particular purpose defined by Congress (see Figure 3.2). Franklin Roosevelt’s New D eal expanded the range of grants -in-aid into social pr ograms, pr oviding grants to the states for financial assistance to poor children. Congress added more grants after World War II, creating new programs to help states fund activities such as providing school lunches and building highways. Sometimes the national govern- ment required state or local governments to match the national contribution dollar for dollar, but in some programs, such as the development of the interstate highway system, the congressional grants provided 90 percent of the cost of the program.
grants-in-aid programs through which Congress provides money to state and local governments on the condition that the funds be employed for purposes defined by the federal government
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
$700
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018† 2019†
Grants to the states rose sharply in 2009 as a result of federal efforts to stimulate the economy.
The increasing costs of medical care pushed up government spending on health care in the 2000s.
Federal Medicaid program �rst enacted.
FIGURE 3.2
Historical Trend of Federal Grants- in-Aid,* 1950–2019 (in billions of dollars) Spending on federal grants-in-aid to the states and local governments has grown dramati- cally since 1990. These increases reflect the growing public expectations about what government should do. What has been the most important cause of the steady increase in these grants?
*Excludes outlays for national defense, international affairs, and net interest. **Estimate. †Data in constant (fiscal year 2009) dollars.
SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget, U.S. Budget for Fiscal Year 2019, “Historical Tables: Table 12.1, Summary Comparison of Total Outlays for Grants to State and Local Governments: 1940–2023,” www.whitehouse .gov/omb/historical-tables/ (accessed 6/8/18).
90 CHAPTER 3 FEDErAL ISM
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 90 27/11/18 12:19 PM
These types of federal grants -in-aid ar e called categorical grants because the national government determines the purposes, or categories, for which the money can be used. F or the most par t, the categorical grants cr eated befor e the 1960s simply helped the states perform their traditional functions.21 During the 1960s, however, the national role expanded and the number of categorical grants increased dramatically.22 The grants authorized during the 1960s announced national pur - poses much more strongly than did earlier grants. One of the most important—and expensive—was the federal Medicaid program, which provides states with grants to pay for medical car e for the poor, the disabled, and many nursing home r esidents. Over time the value of categorical grants has risen dramatically , incr easing fr om $2.3 billion in 1950 to an estimated $675 billion in 2017.
The growth of categorical grants cr eated a new kind of federalism. I f the traditional system of two so vereigns per forming highly different functions could be called dual federalism, historians of federalism suggest that the sys - tem since the N ew D eal could be called cooperative federalism. The political scientist Morton Grodzins characterized this as a mo ve from “layer cake feder - alism” to “marble cake federalism,”23 in which intergovernmental cooperation and sharing have blurr ed a once-clear distinguishing line, making it difficult to say wher e the national go vernment ends and the state and local go vern- ments begin (see F igure 3.3). Figure 3.4 demonstrates the financial basis of the “marble-cake” idea.
As important as the states w ere in this ne w system of grants, some ne w federal grants, particularly during the War on Poverty of the 1960s, bypassed the states and instead sent money directly to local governments and even to local nonprofit organ- izations. The theme heard repeatedly in Washington was that the states simply could not be trusted to carry out national purposes.24
One of the r easons that Washington distrusted the states was the way African American citizens were treated in the South. The southern states’ forthright defense of segregation, justified on the grounds of states ’ rights, helped tarnish the image of the states as the civil rights movement gained momentum. The national officials who planned the War on Poverty pointed to the racially ex clusionary practices of the southern states as a reason for bypassing state governments. The political sci- entist James Sundquist described their thinking: “I n the drafting of the E conomic
categorical grants congressional grants given to states and localities on the condition that expenditures be limited to a problem or group specified by law
cooperative federalism a type of federalism existing since the new Deal era in which grants-in-aid have been used strategically to encourage states and localities (without commanding them) to pursue nationally defined goals; also known as intergovernmental cooperation
DUAL FEDERALISM COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM
“Marble Cake”
Cooperate on some policies
“Layer Cake”
National Government
State Governments
National Government
State Governments
FIGURE 3.3
Dual versus Cooperative Federalism In layer-cake federalism, the responsibili- ties of the national government and state governments are clearly separated. In marble-cake federalism, national policies, state policies, and local policies overlap in many areas.
91FEDErAL ISM In THE MODErn ErA
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 91 27/11/18 12:19 PM
Opportunity A ct, an ‘ Alabama syndr ome’ dev eloped. Any suggestion within the poverty task force that the states be given a role in the administration of the act was met with the question, ‘Do you want to give that kind of power to [then–Alabama governor] George Wallace?’”25
Yet even though many national policies of the 1960s bypassed the states, other new programs, such as Medicaid—the health program for the poor—relied on state governments for their implementation. In addition, as the national government
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 20201960
30%
25
20
15
10
5
0
Grants-in-aid as percentage of federal domestic programs
Grants-in-aid as percentage of gross domestic product
Federal aid as percentage of state/local expenditures**
Federal aid as percentage of federal budget
Federal aid fell after 1980, re�ecting Ronald Reagan’s desire to return more responsibility to the states.
Federal grants began to rise during the 1960s as the federal government assumed a bigger role in funding social and economic development programs in the states.
During the 1990s, the increased costs of health care and generous spending on transportation programs sent federal aid to states and localities on an upward path.
Federal aid increased as a percentage of state/local expenditures with the Great Recession and has remained high.
FIGURE 3.4
The Rise, Decline, and Recovery of Federal Aid, 1960–2019* The level of federal aid has varied over the past several decades as program costs and politics have affected the role the national government plays in funding state and local services. The data in this figure show the rise, decline, and recovery of federal aid. What factors contributed to each of these trends?
*Excludes national defense, international affairs, net interest, and undistributed offsetting receipts. Data for 2018 and 2019 are estimated. **Estimates for state and local expenditures in 2018 and 2019 are not available.
SOURCES: Office of Management and Budget, U.S. Budget for Fiscal Year 2019, Analytical Perspectives, Table 14-2, “Trends in Federal Grants to State and Local Governments,” www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ spec-fy2019.pdf (accessed 6/8/18). Government Publishing Office, Budget of the United States Government, www .gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionGPO.action?collectionCode=BUDGET (accessed 4/13/16).
92 CHAPTER 3 FEDErAL ISM
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 92 27/11/18 12:19 PM
expanded existing programs run by the states, states had to take on mor e responsi- bilities. These new responsibilities meant that the states w ere playing a critical r ole in the federal system.
NATIONAL STANDARDS, REGULATION, AND PREEMPTION
Giving policy responsibilities to states introduces the possibility of variation and raises questions about how different things should be when one crosses a state line, or in what policy areas it is acceptable for states to differ. Supreme Court decisions about the fundamental rights of American citizens have provided important answers to these questions, typically pushing for greater uniformity across the states. But in other policy areas, national government has at times provided incentives or imposed rules in order to create greater uniformity.
Federal grants, as we have seen, are one such tool: Congress provides an incentive by giving money to state and local governments if they agree to spend it for the purposes Congress specifies. But as Congress in the 1970s began to enact legislation in new areas, such as environmental policy, it resorted to another tool: regulations on states and local- ities. Some political scientists call this a move toward regulated federalism.26 The national government began to set standards of conduct or to r equire the states to set standar ds that met national guidelines. The effect of these national standards is that state and local policies in the areas of environmental protection, social services, and education are more uniform from coast to coast than are other nationally funded policies.
Some national standar ds r equire the federal go vernment to take o ver ar eas of regulation formerly overseen by state or local go vernments. Such preemption occurs when state and local actions are found to be inconsistent with federal requirements. In some cases, federal laws and r egulations are more stringent than state laws. I n the 1970s, pr eemptions r equired the states to abide b y tougher federal r ules in policies as div erse as air and water pollution, occupational health and safety , and access for the disabled. The regulated industries often oppose such laws because they increase the cost of doing business. After 1994, when Republicans retook control of Congress, the federal go vernment used its pr eemption power in business ’s fav or, limiting the ability of states to tax and r egulate industry. For example, the Internet Tax Freedom Act, first enacted by Congress in 1998 and subsequently r enewed, prohibits states and localities from taxing internet access services.
Congress is not the only federal body that can pr eempt the states; federal r eg- ulatory agencies can also issue r ules that override state law. One controversial case involved a 2006 Food and Drug Administration drug-labeling rule preempting state laws that allo w individuals to sue dr ug companies in state cour ts. Opponents— many of them trial lawyers—charged that such rules amounted to “stealth preemp- tion” that “ will depriv e consumers of their right to hold negligent corporations accountable for injuries caused by defective products.”27 Supporters claimed that the rules were a proper use of federal authority.
State and local governments often contest federal pr eemptions. For example, in 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft declared that Oregon’s law permitting doctor- assisted suicide was illegal under federal dr ug regulations. The state, a physician, a pharmacist, and several terminally ill state residents challenged Ashcroft’s rule, and in January 2006 the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 vote that the attorney general did not have the authority to outlaw the Oregon law.28 Individuals have also challenged federal preemption. In 2009 the Supreme Court ruled against a drug manufacturer and in favor of a woman whose arm had to be amputated after she was impr operly
regulated federalism a form of federalism in which Congress imposes legislation on states and localities, requiring them to meet national standards
preemption the principle that allows the national government to override state or local actions in certain policy areas; in foreign policy, the willingness to strike first in order to prevent an enemy attack
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS When is federal preemption of local laws desirable? Is preemption justified for some issues more than for others?
93FEDErAL ISM In THE MODErn ErA
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 93 27/11/18 12:19 PM
injected with a dr ug designed to counter nausea. 29 Although the dr ug company knew that such complications could arise, it argued that it was not r esponsible for the amputation because federal r egulations did not r equire it to warn against this danger in labeling the drug. The Court, however, found the company liable for the damage. In its decision, the Cour t made it clear that federal r egulations could not preempt state consumer protections and that states had the power to adopt stricter protections than those of the federal government.
In 2009, after only a few months in office, President Obama reversed the George W. Bush administration’s use of federal regulations to limit state laws. Under the new policy, federal regulations should preempt state laws only in extraordinary cases. The president directed agency leaders to review the regulations that had been put in place over the pr evious 10 y ears and consider amending them if they inter fered with the “legitimate prerogatives of the states. ”30 But as w e will see, the O bama administra- tion did use its po wer of pr eemption to challenge state immigration laws, charging that states were making laws in a domain r eserved for federal authority . The Trump administration has mo ved in the opposite dir ection. California has long had mor e stringent v ehicle emissions and mileage targets than the federal go vernment, but a Trump administration pr oposal would r evoke the ability of any state to set r ules different from federal levels.31 In May 2018, California and 16 other states sued the Trump administration to keep the stricter regulations in place.
Evolving Role of the States The federal government’s fluid strategies vis -à-vis the states—fr om cooperating with them to r egulat- ing them—raise the question of the
appropriate role for the states in the federal system. Do some divisions of responsibil- ity between states and the federal government work better than others? Might states be sources of experimentation and innovation, the “laboratories of democracy” that Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis suggested?32 Which responsibilities are states administratively and fiscally capable of carrying out? And what are the implications of the variation across the nation that might result from having states determine pol- icy? States are sovereign actors in the federal system. In addition to receiving funding from the national government, they raise their own revenues. They make policy in a number of ar eas and decide which policy ar eas lower levels of go vernment such as cities and counties can contr ol. Forty-nine states have to balance their budgets, unlike the federal government, which can run budget deficits. Hence states embody both the promise and the constraints of a federal form of government.
STATES’ RIGHTS
The Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states the powers the Constitution does not specifically delegate to the national government, has been used over the decades by different groups, for different purposes, to bolster the role of the states in the federal system. For much of the nineteenth centur y, when federal power remained limited, the Tenth Amendment was used to argue in favor of states’ rights, which in their extreme version claimed that the states did not have to submit to national laws whenever they believed the national government had exceeded its authority. Prior to
Analyze the changing role of the states in the federal framework
states’ rights the principle that the states should oppose the increasing authority of the national government; this principle was most popular in the period before the Civil War
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS How have Supreme Court decisions affected the balance of power between the federal government and the states? Has the Supreme Court favored the federal government or the states?
94 CHAPTER 3 FEDErAL ISM
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 94 27/11/18 12:19 PM
the Civil War, sharp differences between the North and the South over tar- iffs and slavery gave rise to arguments supporting nullification. Most fully articulated by John C. Calhoun, vice president under Andrew Jackson and later a senator from South Carolina, the doctrine of nullification proposed that states were not bound by federal laws that they considered unconstitu- tional. Such arguments were voiced less often after the Civil War, but the Supreme Court continued to use the Tenth Amendment to strike do wn laws that it thought ex ceeded national power, including the Civil Rights Act passed in 1875, which would hav e eliminated discrimination against African Americans in public accommodations and transportation.
By the late 1930s, although the Supreme Court had struck down some national regulations limiting the power of large corporations and preserv- ing the health and w elfare of citizens, the overall direction of the Cour t’s decisions expanded federal po wer. I ndeed, so much so that the Tenth Amendment appeared irrelevant. In 1941, Justice Harlan Fiske Stone declared that the Tenth Amendment was simply a “truism,” that it had no real meaning.33
Yet the idea that some powers should be reserved to the states did not go away. One reason is that groups with substantive policy interests often support states’ rights as a means for achieving their policy goals. F or example, in the 1950s, southern opponents of the civil rights movement revived the idea of states’ rights to support racial segregation. In 1956, 96 southern members of Congress issued a “S outhern manifesto” in which they declar ed that southern states w ere not constitutionally bound by Supreme Court decisions outlawing racial segregation. They believed that states’ rights should o verride individual rights to liber ty and formal equality. With the eventual triumph of the civil rights movement, the slo- gan of “states’ rights” became tarnished by its association with racial inequality.
The 1990s saw a revival of inter est in the Tenth Amendment and impor tant Supreme Cour t decisions limiting federal po wer. M uch of the inter est in the Tenth Amendment stemmed fr om conser vatives who believ ed that a str ong fed - eral government encroached on individual liber ties. They believed such fr eedoms were better pr otected by returning more power to the states thr ough the pr ocess of devolution, as we’ll see later.34 The Supreme Cour t’s 1995 r uling in United States v. Lopez fueled fur ther inter est in the Tenth Amendment. 35 I n that case, the Court, stating that Congress had exceeded its authority under the commerce clause, struck down a federal law that barr ed handguns near schools. This was the first time since the New Deal that the Cour t had limited congr essional powers in this way . In 1997 the Cour t again r elied on the Tenth Amend- ment to limit federal power in Printz v. United States.36 The decision declared unconstitutional a provision of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that required state and local law-enforcement officials to conduct background checks on handgun purchasers. The Court declared that this provision vio- lated state so vereignty guaranteed b y the Tenth Amendment because it required state and local officials to administer a federal regulatory program.
Thus, the expansion of the power of the national government since the 1930s has not left the states powerless. State governments continue to make important laws. N o better demonstration of the continuing influence of the federal framework can be offered than that in the middle column of Table 3.3, which is still a fairly accurate characterization of state go vern- ment today. In each of these domains, however, states must no w share power with the federal government.
John C. Calhoun, one of the most prominent advocates of states’ rights, argued that states should have the right to veto any federal law they found to be unconstitutional.
In 1995 the Supreme Court ruled that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was an unconstitutional application of the commerce clause, leaving this area of regulation to the states. In striking down a federal law, the Supreme Court ruled that regulating guns near schools is a state prerogative.
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 95 27/11/18 12:20 PM
DEVOLUTION
Since the 1970s, as states became mor e capable of administering large -scale programs, the idea of devolution—transferring responsibility for policy from the fed- eral government to the states and localities—has become popular . Proponents of devolution champion states’ potential as innovators and experimenters, whose good ideas might spr ead horiz ontally to other states and ev en v ertically to the federal government through policy diffusion. Devolution’s supporters also assert that govern- ment closer to the people can better tailor policies to local needs than can the federal government in far-off Washington, D.C. Political conservatives have been the chief proponents of such views, but as we will see later, there is some expedience to views about federalism that depend on which party controls which levels of government.
Block Grants as a Tool of Devolution Proponents of mor e state authority hav e looked to block grants as a way of reducing federal control. Block grants are federal grants that allow the states considerable lee way in spending federal money. President Nixon led the first push for block grants in the early 1970s, as part of his New Federal- ism. Nixon’s approach consolidated programs in the areas of job training, community development, and social ser vices into three large block grants. These grants imposed some conditions on states and localities as to how the money should be spent, but not the narrow regulations contained in categorical grants. In addition, Congress provided an impor tant new form of federal assistance to state and local go vernments, called general revenue sharing. Revenue sharing pr ovided money to local go vernments and counties with no strings attached; localities could spend the money as they wished. (see Figure 3.5)
In his version of the New Federalism in the 1980s, President Reagan also looked to block grants to r educe the national go vernment’s control and r eturn power to the states. But unlike Nixon, he used them to cut federal spending as well. General revenue sharing ended—members of Congr ess never liked it because they couldn ’t claim credit for projects implemented by state and local officials—and the 12 new
devolution a policy to remove a program from one level of government by delegating it or passing it down to a lower level of government, such as from the national government to the state and local governments
diffusion policy decisions in one political jurisdiction are influenced by choices made in another jurisdiction
block grants federal grants-in-aid that allow states considerable discretion in how the funds are spent
New Federalism attempts by presidents nixon and reagan to return power to the states through block grants
general revenue sharing the process by which one unit of government yields a portion of its tax income to another unit of government, according to an established formula; revenue sharing typically involves the national government providing money to state governments
FIGURE 3.5
Regulated versus New Federalism
Regulated Federalism New Federalism
National government sets policy for the states
State governments help pay for and administer programs
State governments have �exibility to make policy and administer programs
National government provides funding
National standards
Conditional grants
Unfunded mandates
Block grants
Revenue sharing Devolution
96 CHAPTER 3 FEDErAL ISM
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 96 27/11/18 12:20 PM
While the United States has evolved into a system of cooperative federalism, some democracies began that way. Germany’s constitution, adopted in 1949, was designed to use a cooperative federal system to help prevent the abuses of central government power seen in Hitler’s Germany. For example, the upper house of the German parliament comprises delegates from the Länder (“states”) governments, giving the states an official check on all national policy.
The most interesting blending of power, however, is in taxation and spending. Unlike U.S. states, German states and local governments have no taxation powers, making them
fully dependent on federal funding. However, German states are responsible for implementing most government policy. As a result, almost two-thirds of German government spending is carried out by states and local governments, compared to less than half of U.S. spending. This emphasis on local spending includes the running of Germany’s extensive social security program, a complex system carried out at the national, state, and local levels. In the United States, comparable social spending is both carried out and financed by national, state, and local government or is left to Americans to pay out of pocket.
Cooperative Federalism: Competition or a Check on Power?
SOURCE: OECD, "Figure 2.42. Distribution of general government expenditures across levels of government, 2015 and 2016," Government at a Glance 2017, www .oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/government-at-a-glance-2017_gov_glance-2017-en; “Regional Policy Profile: United States,” www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy/ profile-United-States.pdf and “Regional Policy Profile: Germany,” www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy/profile-Germnay.pdf (acessed 6/7/18).
UNITED STATES GERMANY
50 states
National
Pensions, health, defense veterans bene�ts, transportation, food and agriculture, foreign policy, etc.
Education, general public services, law enforcement, economic affairs, health, etc.
Defense, digital infrastructure, foreign policy
Welfare, general public services, education, economic affairs, transport, etc.
Multilevel Social Security system: pensions, child support, unemployment insurance, health, maternity leave, etc.
Taxation: Federal, state, and local
16 Länder
Taxation: Federal only
52% 48 17% 40 43
State and local
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 97 27/11/18 12:20 PM
block grants enacted between 1981 and 1990 cut federal spending in those areas by 12 percent.37 Reagan’s view was that states could spend their own funds to make up the difference if they chose to do so.
The Republican Congress elected in 1994 attempted to take the devolution strat- egy even further, continuing to support block grants and proposing substantial cuts in federal programs. Their biggest success was the 1996 welfare reform law, which delegated to states impor tant new responsibilities. Most of the other major pr oposed block grants or spending r eductions, however, failed to pass Congr ess or were vetoed by President Clinton.38
Trade-Offs of State Control Neither block grants nor reduced federal funding have proven to be magic solutions to the problems of federalism. F or one thing, there is always a trade -off between accountability—that is, whether the states ar e using funds for the purposes intended—and flexibility. If the objective is to have account- able and efficient government, it is not clear that state bur eaucracies are any more efficient or more capable than national agencies. I n Mississippi, for example, the state Department of Human Services spent money from the child care block grant for office furniture and designer salt and pepper shakers that cost $37.50 a pair . As one Mississippi state legislator said, “I’ve seen too many years of good ol’ boy politics to know they shouldn’t [transfer money to the states] without stricter controls and requirements.”39 Even after block grants w ere created, Congress reimposed regula- tions in order to increase the states’ accountability.
At times the federal government has also moved to limit state discretion over spend- ing in cases where it thinks states are too generous. For example, in 2007, President Bush issued r egulations that pr evented states fr om providing benefits under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to childr en in families w ell above the poverty line. The Bush administration also barred states from providing chemotherapy to undocumented immigrants, who are guaranteed emergency medical treatment under Medicaid.40 These new rules embroiled states and the federal government in sharp con- flicts over state discretion in spending decisions, once the hallmark of New Federalism.
Innovation and Diffusion Sometimes states hav e been impor tant sources of policy innovations that have in some cases diffused to other states or to the federal govern- ment. For example, Minnesota first created charter schools in 1991; now 44 states and the District of Columbia permit them.41 In 2004, Utah became the first state to allow guns to be carried on college campuses; now 12 states have such provisions.42 Policy ideas tend to diffuse geographically to neighboring states or ideologically to states with similar political environments. Diffusion can also proceed through the layers of the federal system. In 1990, San Luis Obispo, California, became the first city to ban smoking in bars and r estaurants. The State of California follo wed with a state wide ban on smoking in enclosed workplaces in 1995, and the federal government banned smoking on commer cial flights in 1998. The Massachusetts health car e r eform of 2006 became the template for the federal Affordable Care Act of 2010. With so many jurisdictions in the American federal system having significant policy responsibilities, the possibilities for generating and disseminating new ideas are endless.
States and Fiscal Constraint One reason states have been such important sources of innovation is the creativity spurred by fiscal constraint. The states raise their own revenue, in addition to receiving federal funds, and operate under stringent fiscal constraints. Forty-nine states have legal or constitutional provisions requiring their
98 CHAPTER 3 FEDErAL ISM
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 98 27/11/18 12:20 PM
proposed budgets to balance; most are also prohibited from carrying deficits into the next fiscal year.43 Both the growth of national standards and devolution have created fiscal challenges for states and heightened questions about which level of go vern- ment should pay for various public priorities.
One problem that emerged in the 1970s and especially in the 1980s was the increase in unfunded mandates—the product of a Democratic Congress that wanted to achieve liberal social objectives and Republican presidents who opposed increased social spending. For example, the 1973 R ehabilitation Act prohibited discrimina- tion against the disabled in programs that were partly funded by the federal govern- ment. The new law r equired state and local go vernments to make public transit accessible to disabled people with wheelchair lifts in buses, elev ators in train sta - tions, and special transpor tation systems wher e needed. These requirements were estimated to cost state and local governments $6.8 billion over 30 years.44 But Con- gress did not supply additional funding to help states meet these new requirements; the states had to shoulder the increased financial burden themselves. Between 1983 and 1991, Congr ess mandated standar ds in many policy ar eas, including social services and environmental regulations, without providing additional funds to help the states meet those standards. Altogether, Congress enacted 27 laws that imposed new regulations or required states to expand existing programs.45
States and localities quickly began to pr otest the cost of unfunded mandates, com - plaining that they w ere unable to set their o wn priorities due to the unr eimbursed costs. These burdens became par t of a rallying cr y to reduce the power of the federal government—a cry that took center stage in 1994 when a R epublican Congress was elected. One of the first measures the new Congress passed was an act to limit the cost of unfunded mandates, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Under this law, the Congressional Budget Office must assess the cost of any mandate that it believes would exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($76 million in 2014 adjusted for inflation). Bills that would impose sizable costs on the priv ate sector must also be assessed. The goal is to ensure that Congress knows how much it is expecting of state and local governments and the private sector. Congress must identify funding sources for bills that ex ceed the thr eshold established in UMRA. O f all public laws enacted since 1996, fewer than 5 percent have included private-sector mandates with costs esti- mated to exceed the threshold, while fewer than 1 percent have contained intergovern- mental mandates (mandates on state or local governments) with such costs.46
Recently, concern about unfunded mandates has arisen around health care reform. The major health care reform enacted under President Obama, the Affordable Care Act of 2010, called for a major expansion of Medicaid. Because Medicaid is partly funded by the states, any major increase in the number of Medicaid recipients could impose a significant fiscal burden on the states. Although the ACA provided additional federal aid to support the new requirements, the Medicaid provisions became a target for state challenges to the health care law. One of the central claims in the 26 states’ lawsuits charged that the federal go vernment did not hav e the po wer to withhold M edicaid funds from states that did not implement the ne w expansions.47 The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that states could decline to expand Medicaid coverage without losing their existing Medicaid funds. After the Court’s decision, 25 states, all led by Repub- lican governors, announced that they would not implement the expanded co verage. Some began to r econsider this decision. B y late 2018, 36 states plus the D istrict of Columbia had decided to expand Medicaid, and 14 had decided to not expand.48 It is clear that in programs where the national and state governments share responsi- bility, the question of who pays remains acute.
unfunded mandate a law or regulation requiring a state or local government to perform certain actions without providing funding for fulfilling the requirement
The federal government frequently passes laws that impose mandates on the states, such as the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, which protects against discrimina- tion based on disability. States were required to pay for changes to meet federal standards for accessibility in public transportation and public facilities.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Should states be required to implement unfunded mandates? How much of the funding should the federal government provide for policies or standards that it sets?
99EVOLV InG rOLE OF THE STATES
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 99 27/11/18 12:20 PM
FIGURE 3.6
The Changing Federal Framework
1789
Dual Federalism 1789–1937
1937
Cooperative Federalism 1937–60
1960
Regulated Federalism 1960s–1970s
1970 2000
New Federalism 1970s–
DEVOLUTION: FOR WHOSE BENEFIT?
As F igure 3.6 indicates, federalism has changed dramatically o ver the course of American history. Finding the right balance among states and the federal government is an ev olving challenge for American democracy , and since the expansion of the national government in the 1930s, questions about “who does what” have frequently provoked conflict. Why does such an appar ently simple choice set off such highly charged political debate? One reason is that many decisions about federal-versus-state responsibility have implications for who benefits from government action.
Let’s consider the benefits of federal control v ersus devolution in the r ealm of redistributive programs—programs designed primarily for the benefit of the poor. Many political scientists and economists maintain that states and localities should not be in charge of r edistributive programs. They argue that since states and local govern- ments have to compete with one another , they do not hav e the incentiv e to spend their money on the needy people in their areas. Instead, they want to keep taxes low and spend money on things that promote economic development.49 In this situation, states might engage in a “race to the bottom”: if one state cuts assistance to the poor, neighboring states will institute similar or deeper cuts both to reduce expenditures and to discourage poorer people from moving to their states. As one N ew York leg- islator put it, “The concern we have is that unless w e make our w elfare system and our tax and regulatory system competitive with the states around us, we will have too many disincentives for business to move here. Welfare is a big part of that.”50
In 1996, when Congress enacted major welfare reform, it followed a different logic. By changing welfare from a combined federal–state program into a block grant to the states, Congress gave the states mor e responsibility for pr ograms that ser ve the poor. Supporters of the change hoped to reduce welfare spending and argued that states could act as laboratories of democracy b y experimenting with many different approaches in order to find those that best met the needs of their citizens. As states altered their welfare programs in the wake of the ne w law, they did indeed design div erse approaches. For example, Minnesota adopted an incentive-based approach that offers extra assistance to families that take low-wage jobs, while six other states imposed very strict time limits on receiving benefits, allowing welfare recipients less than the five-year limit in the federal legislation. After the passage of the law, welfare rolls declined dramatically. On average, they declined by more than half from their peak in 1994. In 12 states the decline was 70 percent or higher. Politicians have cited these statistics to claim that the poor hav e benefited from greater state contr ol of w elfare, yet most studies hav e found that the majority of those leaving welfare remain in poverty.
More br oadly, dev olution and state contr ol in ar eas such as r edistributive policy has r esulted in substantial interstate v ariation in pr ogram r ules. As of 2018
redistributive programs economic policies designed to transfer income through taxing and spending, with the goal of benefiting the poor
100 CHAPTER 3 FEDErAL ISM
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 100 27/11/18 12:20 PM
cash welfare benefits for a family of three are $714 in California, $462 in Colorado, and $290 in Texas.51 The lifetime limit for receiving welfare benefits is 60 months in most states, but 48 months in Michigan, 21 months in Connecticut, and 12 months in Arizona.52 Under federal Medicaid rules, dental and vision services are required for children but optional for adults. I n most states M edicaid does not co ver eyeglasses for adults, but in Texas it does. Utah provides eyeglasses only to pregnant Medicaid recipients, while Tennessee provides them only after cataract surger y. Most Medicaid adults do not have dental care coverage; they can get cavities filled in Massachusetts, but only in the front twelve teeth, not in the molars.53 Whether one is eligible, under what criteria, and for which benefits vary widely across states; the same person could be eligible in one state but not another , or could receive a differing level of assistance depending on where they live. These differences in policy parameters arise from differ- ences in state wealth and political environment.54
In some decisions about federalism, local concerns ar e overridden in the name of the national inter est. The question of speed limits, traditionally a state and local responsibility, provides an example. In 1973, at the height of the oil shortage, Congress passed legislation to withhold federal highway funds fr om states that did not adopt a maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour in order to reduce fuel consumption. Although Congress had not formally taken over the authority to set speed limits, the power of its purse was so important that every state adopted the new speed limit. As the crisis faded, concern about energy conser vation diminished. The national speed limit lost much of its support, even though it was found to have reduced the number of traffic deaths. In 1995, Congress repealed the penalties for higher speed limits, and states once again became fr ee to set their o wn speed limits. M any states with large rural areas raised their maximum to 75 miles per hour; Montana initially set unlimi- ted speeds in its rural areas during daylight hours. Research indicates that the number of highway deaths has indeed risen in the states that increased the limits.55
Because the division of responsibility in the federal system has impor tant implica- tions for who benefits, few conflicts over state-versus-national control will ever be settled once and for all. New evidence about the costs and benefits of different arrangements provides fuel for ongoing debates about what are properly the states’ responsibilities
The debate over national-versus-state control of speed limits arose in 1973, when gas prices skyrocketed and supplies became scarce. Drivers nationwide were forced to wait in long lines at gas stations. The federal government responded to the gas crisis by instituting a national 55-mile-per-hour speed limit. In 1995, Congress removed its speed limit restrictions and allowed states to raise the limit above 55 miles per hour without losing federal highway funds.
101EVOLV InG rOLE OF THE STATES
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 101 27/11/18 12:20 PM
and what the federal government should do. Likewise, changes in the political control of the national go vernment usually pr ovoke a r ethinking of r esponsibilities as ne w leaders seek to alter federal arrangements for the benefit of the groups they represent.
The Politics of Federalism Today Since the y ear 2000, the political polarization betw een R epublicans and D emocrats that has character - ized national politics and divided states has been play ed out thr ough
the federal system as well. Not all decisions about federalism have divided along polit- ical lines. But many of the most controversial issues in American politics—including the appropriate amount of public social spending, the rights and benefits of immi- grants (legal and undocumented), government response to global climate change, and questions about whether and ho w government should r egulate business and moral behavior—have been fought through the federal system. Politicians of all stripes have regularly turned to the federal government to override policies they don’t like that were made at the state lev el. The reverse is also true: when the federal government proves unable or unwilling to act, activists and politicians instead try to achieve their goals in states and localities. S ometimes, states seek to go their o wn way regardless of federal law. It is often then up to the courts to decide which level of government should have the final say. In many cases, the federal government has succeeded in advancing its policy agenda through the states. However, the era since 2000 has been mar ked by a considerable amount of back -and-forth between the states, the federal go vernment, and even localities as debates over federalism have become politically prominent.
EXPEDIENCY VERSUS IDEOLOGY IN FEDERALISM
Although conservatives proclaim their preference for a small federal government and their support for mor e state autonomy, in fact they often expand the federal go v- ernment and limit state autonomy. During the presidency of George W. Bush, the growth of government; the activist, free-spending Republican Congress; and a series of Supreme Court rulings supporting federal power over the states made it clear that conservatives do not always suppor t small go vernment, nor do they always fav or returning power to the states. O nce in po wer, many conser vatives discovered not only that they needed a str ong federal go vernment to r espond to public demands but also that they could use federal power to advance conservative policy goals.
For President Bush, the importance of a strong federal government dawned with force after the terrorist attacks in 2001. Aware that the American public was look - ing to Washington for pr otection, Bush worked with Congr ess to pass the USA PATRIOT Act, which greatly increased the surveillance powers of the federal gov- ernment. A year later he created the enormous new federal Department of Home- land S ecurity. D emocrats suppor ted the pr esident in both initiativ es. P resident Bush, with the support of Democrats, also expanded federal control and increased spending in policy ar eas far r emoved from concerns about security . The 2001 No Child Left B ehind A ct intr oduced unpr ecedented federal inter vention in public education, traditionally a state and local r esponsibility. New, detailed federal test - ing requirements and provisions stipulating how states should tr eat failing schools were major expansions of federal authority in education. When a number of states
Analyze contemporary relationships among national, state, and local governments
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS The role of the national government has changed significantly from the Founding era to the present. Do you think the framers of the Constitution would be pleased with the current balance of power between the national government and the state governments?
102 CHAPTER 3 FEDErAL ISM
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 102 27/11/18 12:20 PM
WHO ARE AMERICANS?
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS 1. What are some of the bene�ts
of federal grants to state and local governments?
2. What is the rationale behind transfers from one state to another? Is it fair that some states pay more in federal taxes than they receive? What might explain why some states are net recipients and some net contributors?
SOURCES: Federal Grants to State and Local Governments: A Historical Perspective on Contemporary Issues, https://fas.org; Federal Spending in the States, 2015, http://knowledgecenter.csg.org; IRS 2015 Data Book, https://www.irs.gov, (accessed 3/16/18).
Federal Grants to State and Local Governments, 2016
Although Americans often think they pay a lot in federal taxes, they receive much in return in the form of federal money for state and local programs. Federal outlays for grants to state and local governments have grown from $51.5 billion in 1960 to $593.5 billion in 2016 (in constant dollars).
Fiscal Transfers between the States and the Federal Government, 2015
Every U.S. state contributes to the federal government through the federal taxes paid by the state’s citizens, and every state receives money from federal spending. Federal spending is a broad category that includes the federal grants described above as well as spending on military bases and federal procurement. Not every state receives the same amount from the federal government, however. The map above shows how much federal spending each state received for each dollar paid in federal taxes in 2015.
Health $397 billion
Income security $105 billion
Education $61 billion
Transportation $64 billion
Other $35 billion
AK
HI
WA
OR
CA
NV UT
NM
TX
NE
WY
CO KS
AZ
MS AL
SD
IA
WI
MN
IL
NDMT
ID
KY
IN
TN
VA
FL
ME
NY
WV
LA
AR
MO
SC
GA
NC
PA
OH
OK
VT
RI
CT
MA NH
MD
DE NJ
MI $1.50+
$0.80–1.00
< $0.80
$1.01–1.50
$1.00
DC
Federal spending per tax dollar
Who Benefits from Federal Spending?
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 103 27/11/18 12:20 PM
threatened to defy some of the ne w federal r equirements, Bush’s Department of Education relaxed its tough stance and became mor e flexible in enforcing the act. President Obama later released the states from the federal NCLB mandates and in 2015 enacted a new education law called Every Student Succeeds, returning power to the states to evaluate schools, a move that might be expected more from a con- servative president.
In the S upreme Cour t, too, many decisions began to suppor t a str onger federal r ole o ver the states. This was surprising to many observers because in the 1990s it had appear ed that the Cour t then was embar ked on a “ federalism revolution” designed to r eturn more power to the states. I nstead, in several key decisions, the Court reaffirmed the power of the federal go vernment. Decisions to uphold the federal F amily and M edical Leav e Act and the Ameri cans with Disabilities Act asserted federal authority against state claims of immunity fr om the acts. In one important 2005 case, the Court upheld the right of Congress to ban medical marijuana, even though 11 states had legalized its use. Overturning a lower-court ruling that said Congress did not have authority to regulate mari- juana when it had been grown for noncommercial purposes in a single state, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government did have the power to regulate use of all marijuana under the commerce clause precipitating the type of raid that Larry Harvey of the chapter opener experienced. 56 Even so, b y 2018, 33 states and the District of Columbia had legaliz ed medical marijuana (see F igure 3.7). Amid this legal confusion, a medical marijuana industry began to flourish. In 2012, Colorado and Washington went fur ther by legalizing r ecreational mari - juana soon followed by eight more states even though it is a prohibited substance by federal law. The federal government has not endorsed these laws, and while it made prosecution of marijuana in these states a lo w priority during the O bama administration, the Trump administration’s first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, vowed to increase such prosecutions.
FIGURE 3.7
Marijuana Laws across the States SOURCE: The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, State Laws, norml.org/laws; “33 Legal Medical Marijuana States and DC,” November 7, 2018, https://medicalmarijuana .procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881 (accessed 11/7/18).
CREDIT: State Marijuana Laws in 2018 Map, originally published by Governing.com, March 30, 2018. Reprinted by permission of Governing.
Medical marijuana broadly legalized Marijuana legalized for recreational use No broad laws legalizing marijuana
104 CHAPTER 3 FEDErAL ISM
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 104 27/11/18 12:20 PM
POLARIZATION AND NATIONAL GRIDLOCK: STATES STEP IN
The move to a stronger federal role has not been uniform. In some cases the Supreme Court has granted more authority to the states. One closely watched federalism case in 2006 was the challenge to O regon’s “right to die ” law, discussed earlier , which allows doctors to pr escribe lethal doses of medicine for terminally ill patients who request it. Challengers claimed the law was illegal because Congress has the right to outlaw such use of drugs under the Controlled Substances Act, which regulates pre- scription drugs. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled in Oregon’s favor.57 Washington State, Vermont, Montana, California, and Colorado followed in Oregon’s footsteps to make physician-assisted suicide legal.58
States hav e also r esponded to gridlock at the national lev el b y taking action themselves. O n some issues, the majority of the states hav e pr essed the federal government to act, but it has not r esponded. One issue on which most states would like the federal go vernment to establish uniform law is internet sales. C urrent law requires internet retailers to collect sales tax on online pur chases only when the busi - ness has a physical presence in the buyer’s state. This has become a major issue for states, most of which r ely on sales tax es for a significant part of their r evenue. One study estimated that states lost $23 billion in 2012 fr om internet sales on which no taxes were collected.59 In 2013 the Senate—with support from both Democrats and Republicans—passed the Marketplace Fairness Act, which would require online retail- ers to collect state sales taxes. However, in the House, some Republicans opposed the measure as a tax increase. By 2016, with the issue still unresolved in Congress, officials in 13 states had begun to impose tax es on out -of-state internet sales. F rustrated by congressional inaction, the states aimed to push Congress to act or to throw the matter into the courts, where they hoped for a decision that would support them.60
STATE-FEDERAL TUG OF WAR
The long-standing tug -of-war betw een the federal and state go vernments has continued in r ecent y ears. Indeed, immigration policy has been a center of federal - state conflict. Frustrated by congressional inaction on immigration reform, President Obama issued ex ecutive memoranda in 2012 that would pr ovide temporar y legal status and work permits to those who had been brought to the United States as chil- dren, termed the “Dreamers.” However, when Obama moved to expand this Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) in 2014 and extend legal status to some parents of U.S. citizens and legal residents (called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, or DAPA), 26 states led by Texas challenged the executive order in court. They charged the expansion exceeded executive authority and would impose unreasonable costs on states, which would bear additional costs such as issuing driv- er’s licenses. The expansion was never implemented because the S upreme Court, in the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, deadlocked in a 4–4 decision, leaving in place lower-court decisions that sided with the states.61 The Trump administra- tion began a six-month phaseout of the DACA program in September 2017, giving Congress until March 2018 to devise a legislative solution.62 Congressional action failed, but as of late 2018 DACA remained in place due to two federal judges’ rulings.
Whether states and localities hav e to enforce federal immigration laws has been a particular center of controversy. For example, the Secure Communities program, launched in 2008, r equired state and local authorities to check the fingerprints of people being booked into jail against a Homeland Security database. The policy led to a r ecord number of depor tations in 2009 and 2010, leading sev eral states and
105THE POL I T ICS OF FEDErAL ISM TODAY
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 105 27/11/18 12:20 PM
Since the Trump administration’s announcement of the six-month phaseout of the DACA program put in place by the Obama admini- stration, the legislative branch on the federal level has failed to implement a solution. State-level challenges to the termination of the policy, however, have been successful in protecting those covered by the program.
localities to pull out of the agr eement with the federal government on the grounds that the law was detaining too many undocumented immigrants who had nev er committed a crime. The Obama administration softened its depor tation policy in 2011 but sustained opposition, as well as federal court decisions that challenged the constitutionality of elements of the policy, ultimately led the government to end the program in late 2014. In its place, the Obama administration launched the Priority Enforcement Program in July 2015, which adopts a more limited deportation policy than the one formerly mandated by Secure Communities.63
President D onald Trump campaigned on pr omises for mor e rigor ous immi - gration enforcement. In January 2017 he signed an ex ecutive order increasing the number of immigrants considered a priority for deportation, from those convicted of serious crimes such as felonies or multiple misdemeanors (as under O bama) to those accused or convicted of minor crimes as well.64 In response, a growing number of cities, counties, and states declar ed themselves “sanctuaries” that limit coopera - tion with national go vernment enforcement of immigration law. President Trump pledged to cancel funding for sanctuary cities and states, but in 2017 a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from withholding federal grants from these juris- dictions because of sanctuar y policies.65 In January 2018, the J ustice Department began considering whether state and local officials could be subject to criminal charges if they implement sanctuary status, which opponents say would be illegal.66
The 2010 Affordable Care Act has also been the object of contestation between the federal and state governments. As we have seen, one controversial part of that legis- lation required states to expand their Medicaid programs to cover more low-income residents. The Court’s 2012 ruling in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius that the federal government could not impose all -or-nothing conditions on the states—implement the expansion or lose all M edicaid funding—represented a sharp departure from the past.67 The ruling has far-reaching potential to change the federal government’s power to impose conditions on the states when it supplies the funds. The other controversial provision of the Affordable Care Act was the “indi - vidual mandate,” the requirement that individuals without health car e insurance be required to pur chase such insurance. The 26 states suing the federal government charged that Congress had no power to force individuals to purchase a product and that it had ex ceeded its po wer under the commer ce clause. I n defending the law , the federal go vernment argued the opposite: that the complex interactions of the health care market made the individual mandate constitutional under the commerce clause.68 Everyone is part of the health care economy. Even if a person does not have health insurance, federal law r equires that hospitals pr ovide treatment in an emer - gency, costs which are borne by all of the people who do pay for health insurance. The Court rejected this argument on the grounds that the federal government cannot reg- ulate economic inactivity, that is, the failure to purchase health insurance. Instead, it found that the Affordable Care Act could be justified by Congress’s power to tax. The law required individuals who do not receive insurance from their employers or their parents and who are not eligible for Medicaid to purchase insurance or pay a penalty. The Court reasoned that the penalty could be consider ed a tax and, in that sense, passed constitutional muster. The complex and surprising decision marked a new era in American federalism. The Court placed limits on two of the key powers that have expanded the r each of the federal go vernment since the N ew Deal—the power to regulate commerce and the power to spend for the general welfare. The decision will surely invite challenges to federal power in diverse areas, possibly including education programs, the drinking age, and environmental regulations.
106 CHAPTER 3 FEDErAL ISM
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 106 27/11/18 12:20 PM
The Affordable Care Act law survived another challenge in 2015 when the Supreme Court ruled that federal subsidies to help pay for insurance should be avail- able to residents in states that offered insurance through the federal exchange as well as in states that had formed their own state insurance marketplaces. The outcome of King v. Burwell ensured that subsidies would be available in all states.69 The ACA also survived a repeal attempt after the 2016 election, when Republicans took control of Congress and the Presidency. However, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed in late 2017 did repeal the individual mandate requiring Americans to have health insurance.
STATE PREEMPTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICY
Another notable development in the recent politics of federalism has been the willingness of state go vernments to pr eempt local policy . Just as states sometimes seize the initiative and make policy in areas where the federal government has failed to do so, so too hav e cities made policy in ar eas of state inaction or wher e policy preferences differ in the city compared to the state at large. I n recent years some cities have set higher minimum wages than their surr ounding state; implemented paid sick leav e regulations on emplo yers; regulated the “sharing economy” of car - and home-sharing; passed laws prohibiting discrimination in public facilities such as bathrooms; and attempted to establish public br oadband services. In each of these cases, some state legislatur es that disagr eed with the dir ection of municipal policy have responded with preemption, passing laws nullifying municipal law or author - ity. As of 2017, 25 states preempt local minimum wage ordinances, 17 preempt local paid leav e ordinances, 37 limit local authority to r egulate ride sharing, and 3 limit local authority on home sharing. Michigan banned cities from banning plastic bags; Texas banned cities fr om banning fracking. S eventeen states pr ohibit localities from establishing municipal broadband service, and three—most famously North Carolina—preempt local anti-discrimination ordinances.70
In February 2016, the Charlotte City Council passed an or dinance prohibiting sex discrimination in public facilities. The following month the North Carolina legislature passed HB2, the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act. The “Charlotte bathroom bill,” as it came to be kno wn, eliminated local authority to r egulate access to public facilities and required people to use the bathr oom of their designated gender at bir th. The state faced strong objections to the law, which was viewed by opponents as a viola- tion of transgender rights, and the state lost nearly $400 million in investment as plans for new jobs and events such as the NBA all -star game, NCAA championship, and business confer ences were canceled.71 Other preemption laws similarly unmake local pr ovisions. In St. Louis, the minimum wage rose to $10 an hour in May 2017. Two months later, the Missouri legislature nullified the law. Some business own- ers pledged to keep the new higher wage, but other owners of fast food restaurants and grocery stores reset wages to the state ’s mini- mum of $7.70 an hour ($7.85 as of January 1, 2018).72
Like str uggles betw een the federal and state go vernments since 2000, the mor e recent episodes of municipal pr eemption reflect the era’s political polarization, with conservative state leg- islatures preempting the authority of more liberal municipal gov- ernments. Although conservatives have historically extolled the virtues of local control, views on federalism can depend more on party control of government than traditional ideological stances.
Despite the Charlotte City Council’s ordinance prohibiting sex dis- crimination in public facilities, state preemption allowed for the North Carolina legislature to pass the “Charlotte bathroom bill,” which undid the provisions originally set out by the city council. Opponents to this legislation saw the bill as a clear violation of transgender rights, and protested its passage.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Why was the 2010 Affordable Care Act controversial? How did the Supreme Court’s decisions about the law reflect the principles of federalism?
107THE POL I T ICS OF FEDErAL ISM TODAY
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 107 27/11/18 12:20 PM
Federalism WHAT DO WE WANT? In recent years, sharp differences in Americans’ views on many economic and social
issues have been reflected in the federal system. Until 2015, when the Supreme Court
ruled that state-level bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, 37 states
allowed same-sex marriage and 13 did not. Today, over half of the 50 states have legal-
ized medical marijuana, while 10 and Washington, D.C., have gone further and legalized
recreational marijuana.73 More states are likely to change their laws on marijuana, but
differences across the states are likely to persist for many years. Half of the states
welcomed the expansion of Medicaid, the program that provides medical assistance to
the poor. The other half, concerned about costs and the growing role of government in
the economy, initially declined to implement the expansion. Some states actively wel-
come immigrants and seek to opt out of restrictive federal laws; other states go beyond
the federal government in enacting restrictive immigration laws. Yet while states have the
authority to devise their own laws on a variety of important issues, Americans’ participa-
tion in state and local politics remains low (see the “Who Participates?” feature on the
facing page).
As described in the opening of this chapter, Larry Harvey’s arrest for using medical
marijuana, legal in his state but illegal under federal law, raises questions about the
promise, conflict, and ambiguity inherent in a federal system of government. Our history
of federalism means that we are comfortable with the idea that states should have
the freedom to enact laws that best serve their residents, within the bounds set by
Congress and the courts. We expect states to act as “laboratories of democracy” that
try out new policies. But the great variation across the states today poses questions
that will have to be answered in the coming decades. Is the federal government endan-
gering people by allowing states to legalize marijuana? Or is the federal government
endangering critically ill people by prosecuting medical marijuana use even in states
with legalization? Is it fair that a transgender person in California can legally change the
sex on her birth certificate, but a transgender person in Tennessee would be denied
the same? Is it reasonable that a gun owner can openly carry a handgun in Georgia but
not in Florida? Each generation confronts a different set of questions about how much
variation across the states is appropriate. Are some of the issues on which the states
differ fundamental rights that should be uniform across the country? Is it important to
preserve state choice on most matters? As today’s youth help to answer these ques-
tions in the coming decades, they will be remaking American federalism.
Thus, American federalism remains a work in progress. As public problems shift and
as local, state, and federal governments change, questions about the relationship
between American values and federalism naturally emerge. The different views that
people bring to this discussion suggest that federalism will remain a central issue in
American democracy.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS What would be the advantages and disadvantages of a unitary system in which the federal government had all the power? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of a fully decentralized system in which the states had all the power?
108 CHAPTER 3 FEDErAL ISM
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 108 27/11/18 12:20 PM
Attend a board of supervisors, city council, planning commission, or other local government meeting. Agendas and minutes will usually be available on county and city websites.
Attend a session of your local or state judiciary. Cases on the docket are available online, as are rules for attendance and behavior when the court is in session.
Get Involved in State and Local Politics
Visit the state capitol. If you make an appointment, you might be able to meet with your local representative. Committee meetings and hearings are generally open to the public, as are meetings of the legislature.
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
New Jersey 39%
Percentage of voting-eligible population*
Missouri 62%
California 31%
Texas 28%
Florida 43%
Virginia 43%
*The voting-eligible population excludes noncitizens and people who are institutionalized or not allowed to vote in some states because they are ex-felons. The voting-age population includes everyone over 18.
NOTE: Oregon had an additional election in 2016 to �ll a vacancy.
SOURCES: Elect Project, electproject.org; Voter Turnout, elect.ky.gov; Post Election Statistics, electionstatistics.sos.la.gov; 2017 Results, state.nj.us; 2017 Results Report, elections.virginia.gov (accessed 3/10/18).
Seattle Washington, D.C. 43% 38%
Chicago Detroit
33% 27%
Denver Houston
24% 22%
San Antonio New York City
10% 7%
Turnout in Recent Gubernatorial Elections
Median % of voters to turn out in the following years:
2015, 2017 2014 2016
Percentage of voting-age population in selected cities*
Turnout in Most Recent Municipal Election
Presidential
65%
Non-presidential congressional
40%
Non-presidential, non-congressional
39%
Who Participates in State and Local Politics?
WHO PARTICIPATES?
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 109 27/11/18 12:20 PM
2. Which amendment to the Constitution stated that the powers not delegated to the national government or prohibited to the states were “reserved to the states”? a) First Amendment b) Fifth Amendment c) Tenth Amendment d) Fourteenth Amendment e) Twenty-Sixth Amendment
3. A state government’s authority to regulate the health, safety, and morals of its citizens is frequently referred to as a) the reserved power. b) the police power. c) the expressed power. d) the concurrent power. e) the implied power.
4. Which constitutional clause requires that states normally honor the public acts and judicial decisions of other states? a) privileges and immunities clause b) necessary and proper clause c) interstate commerce clause d) preemption clause e) full faith and credit clause
5. Many states have amended their constitutions to guarantee that large cities will have the authority to manage local affairs without interference from state government. This power is called a) home rule. b) devolution. c) preemption. d) states’ rights. e) new Federalism.
While the Founders wanted a national government that was stronger than it had been under the Articles of Confedera- tion, they also wanted to preserve the autonomy of the states. The necessary and proper clause, the supremacy clause, and the specific powers granted to Congress in Article I demonstrate the nation-centered focus of the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment, which grants all undelegated powers to the states, shows the state- centered focus of the Constitution. The Constitution also creates obligations among the states and includes some concurrent powers that are shared by both the federal government and state governments.
Key Terms federalism (p. 79)
unitary system (p. 79)
expressed powers (p. 79)
implied powers (p. 79)
necessary and proper clause (p. 79)
reserved powers (p. 81)
police power (p. 82)
concurrent powers (p. 82)
full faith and credit clause (p. 82)
privileges and immunities clause (p. 83)
home rule (p. 84)
Practice Quiz
1. Which term describes the division of powers between the national government and the state governments? a) home rule b) separation of powers c) federalism d) checks and balances e) unitary system
Federalism in the Constitution
Describe what the Constitution says about the powers of the national government and of the states (pp. 79–84)
CHAPTER 3 STUDY GU IDE110
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 110 27/11/18 12:20 PM
c) dual federalism. d) cooperative federalism. e) regulated federalism.
7. In which case did the Supreme Court create the potential for increased national power by ruling that Congress could use the necessary and proper clause to interpret its delegated powers broadly? a) United States v. Lopez b) Printz v. United States c) Loving v. Virginia d) McCulloch v. Maryland e) Gibbons v. Ogden
8. In 1937 the Supreme Court laid the groundwork for a stronger federal government by issuing a number of decisions that a) dramatically narrowed the definition of the commerce
clause. b) dramatically expanded the definition of the commerce
clause. c) struck down the supremacy clause. d) struck down the privileges and immunities clause. e) struck down the full faith and credit clause.
Practice Quiz
9. The value of categorical grants a) increased from $2.3 billion in 1950 to approximately
$31 billion in 2016. b) increased from $2.3 billion in 1950 to approximately
$675 billion in 2016. c) decreased from $31 billion in 1950 to approximately
$2 billion in 2016. d) decreased from $667 billion to approximately
$2 billion in 2016. e) remained the same between 1950 and 2016.
10. The principle that allows the federal government to take over areas of regulation formerly overseen by states or local governments is called a) regulated federalism. b) preemption. c) devolution. d) “layer cake” federalism. e) exemption.
The relative importance of states and the federal govern- ment has changed significantly over time. For the first 140 years of American history, the national government was small, reluctant to directly coerce citizens, and focused primarily on assisting commerce. Most of the fundamental governing in the United States during this period was done by the states. Beginning in the 1930s, the Supreme Court dramatically expanded the power of the federal government through its expansive interpretation of the commerce clause.
Key Terms dual federalism (p. 85)
commerce clause (p. 87)
Practice Quiz
6. The relationship between the states and the national government from 1789 to 1937 is known as a) unitary government. b) new Federalism.
The Great Depression effectively ended the traditional system of dual federalism in which the states and the federal govern- ment performed very different functions and instituted a new system of cooperative federalism. Under this new system, the size and scope of the national government grew dramatically. As Congress began to enact legislation in previously unregu- lated areas during the 1970s, the national government began to set an increasingly large number of standards that required states to meet national guidelines. This more recent trend is often referred to as regulated federalism.
Key Terms grants-in-aid (p. 90)
categorical grants (p. 91)
cooperative federalism (p. 91)
regulated federalism (p. 93)
preemption (p. 93)
The Traditional System of Federalism
Federalism in the Modern Era
Consider how the relationship between the federal and state governments evolved during the nation’s first 140 years (pp. 84–88)
Trace developments in the federal framework leading to a stronger national government (pp. 89–94)
STUDY GU IDE 111
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 111 27/11/18 12:20 PM
14. The Supreme Court’s decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius was significant because a) it affirmed the federal government’s absolute power
to impose all-or-nothing conditions on state govern- ments attempting to receive federal funding.
b) it limited the federal government’s power to impose all-or-nothing conditions on state governments attempting to receive federal funding.
c) it struck down the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act as a violation of the interstate commerce clause.
d) it eliminated the federal government’s ability to provide subsidies for health insurance coverage.
e) it invalidated the educational standards and testing requirements imposed by the 2001 no Child Left Behind Act.
Since the year 2000, the political polarization between republicans and Democrats has been played out through the federal system as well as in national politics. Some- times, states seek to go their own way regardless of federal law, and the federal government has succeeded in advanc- ing its policy agenda through the states. It is often up to the courts to decide who gets the final say. However, the era since 2000 has been marked by a considerable amount of back-and-forth between the states, the federal govern- ment, and even localities as debates over federalism have become politically prominent.
The Politics of Federalism Today
Practice Quiz
11. The process of returning more of the responsibilities of governing from the national level to the state level is known as a) devolution. b) diffusion c) incorporation. d) home rule. e) preemption.
12. To what does the term New Federalism refer? a) the era of federalism initiated by President
roosevelt during the late 1930s b) the national government’s regulation of state action
through grants-in-aid c) the type of federalism that uses categorical grants
to influence state action d) efforts to return more policy-making discretion to
the states through the use of block grants e) the recent emergence of local governments as
important political actors
13. When state and local governments must conform to costly federal regulations or conditions in order to receive grants but do not receive reimbursements for their expenditures it is called a) states’ rights. b) block grants. c) general revenue sharing. d) unfunded mandate. e) redistributive programs.
Throughout the history of American federalism, questions about “who does what” have provoked intense political conflict. Despite the national government’s expansion since the 1930s and more recent attempts to enhance state authority through block grants and revenue sharing, both the federal and state governments remain important play- ers in American democracy. Most of the important public policy issues in recent years, including controversies about government spending, immigration, climate change, health care, and economic regulation, are debated and addressed through the United States’ unique system of federalism.
Key Terms states’ rights (p. 94)
devolution (p. 96)
diffusion (p. 96)
block grants (p. 96)
New Federalism (p. 96)
general revenue sharing (p. 96)
unfunded mandates (p. 99)
redistributive programs (p. 100)
Evolving Role of the States
Analyze the changing role of the states in the federal framework (pp. 94–102)
Analyze contemporary relationships among national, state, and local governments (pp. 102–7)
CHAPTER 3 STUDY GU IDE112
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 112 27/11/18 12:20 PM
Constitution Finder http://confinder.richmond.edu
Governments can organize power in either a unitary or a federal system. Examine the constitutions of different countries throughout the world, and try to identify how those governments organize power.
Council of State Governments www.csg.org
This organization provides information on a variety of state–federal policy areas. See what current issues concerning federalism are of prime importance to the state governments on this site.
Governing.com www.governing.com
See what state–federal issues are important to your local government officials on the website for Governing magazine.
National Conference of State Legislatures www.ncsl.org
National Governors Association www.nga.org
These are two of the largest organizations dedicated to representing state and local government interests at the federal level.
Oyez: U.S. Supreme Court Media www.oyez.org
read here about one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the division of federal and state power in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland.
Karch, Andrew. Democratic Laboratories: Policy Diffusion among the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007.
Kettl, Donald. The Regulation of American Federalism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987.
Mettler, Suzanne. Dividing Citizens: Gender and Federalism in New Deal Public Policy. Ithaca, nY: Cornell University Press, 1998.
Michener, Jamila. Fragmented Democracy: Medicaid, Federalism, and Unequal Politics. new York: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Pierceson, Jason. Same-Sex Marriage in the United States: The Road to the Supreme Court. Lanham, MD: rowman and Littlefield, 2013.
robertson, David Brian. Federalism and the Making of America. new York: routledge, 2011.
Van Horn, Carl E. The State of the States. 4th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2005.
Derthick, Martha. Keeping the Compound Republic: Essays on American Federalism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2001.
Elazar, Daniel. American Federalism: A View from the States. 3rd ed. new York: Harper & row, 1984.
Feiock, richard C., and John T. Scholz. Self-Organizing Federalism: Collaborative Mechanisms to Mitigate Institutional Collective Action Dilemmas. new York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Gerston, Larry n. American Federalism: A Concise Introduc- tion. Armonk, nY: M. E. Sharpe, 2007.
Grodzins, Morton. The American System. Chicago: rand Mcnally, 1974.
Johnson, Kimberly S. Governing the American State: Congress and the New Federalism, 1877–1929. Princeton, nJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.
Recommended Websites
Pew Charitable Trusts Stateline www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/ stateline/about
This nonprofit site provides news coverage in the states, focusing on four issues: fiscal and economic issues, health care, demographics, and the business of govern- ment. It also offers a weekly newsletter that includes the highlights of its reporting.
Supreme Court of the United States Blog www.scotusblog.com
Supreme Court of the United States blog provides in- dependent scholarly analysis of court rulings. The site provides timely discussion of pending and recent court decisions including Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision that made same-sex marriage legal in all states.
U.S. Census Bureau www.census.gov
The Census Bureau maintains one of the largest collec- tions of data about social and economic conditions of the nation’s 50 states.
World Federalist Movement www.wfm.org
This international organization is dedicated to the division of power and authority among all local, state, and international governmental agencies. Generally, it promotes federalism and constitutional democracy throughout the world.
For Further Reading
STUDY GU IDE 113
wtp12e_ptr_ch03_076-113.indd 113 27/11/18 12:20 PM
Civil Liberties
040404 chapter
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS In Portland in 2006, Simon Tam founded what Oregon Music News called the first
and only all Asian American dance-rock band, or
“Chinatown Dance Rock,” as the band prefers.
The various members of the band are of Chinese,
Taiwanese, Vietnamese, and Filipino descent. In
addition to playing at anime conventions and cultural
festivals, they are known for their community involve-
ment battling Asian stereotypes and supporting
young Asian people.1
They are also known for a First Amendment case
over the band’s name, the Slants. The name has
three sources. The first two reference the members’
“slant” on life and the guitar chords they use: “It
actually sounds like a fun, 80s, New Wave kind of
band. And it’s a play on words. We can share our
personal experiences about what it’s like being
people of color—our own slant on life, if you will.
It’s also a musical reference. There are slant guitar
chords that we use in our music,” Tam said. The third
source was a reclaiming and repurposing of the old
ethnic slur about Asian people. “We grew up and the
notion of having slanted eyes was always considered
a negative thing,” Tam said. “Kids would pull their
eyes back in a slant-eyed gesture to make fun of
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 114 27/11/18 4:58 PM
The First Amendment protects Americans from government infringement on their right to free speech. In the case of the Slants, they used the First Amendment as grounds to re-appropriate a term deemed offensive for themselves and their cultures.
us. . . . I wanted to change it to something that was
powerful, something that was considered beautiful or
a point of pride instead.”
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had a
different view. Tam’s application for a trademark on
the band’s name was rejected as a violation of the
Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act of 1946,
which prohibits trademarks that disparage a racial
or ethnic group. The denial stated that although the
“applicant, or even the entire band, may be willing
to take on the disparaging term as a band name,
in what may be considered an attempt . . . to wrest
‘ownership’ of the term,” that “does not mean that
all [Asian Americans] share the applicant’s view.” The
case ultimately went to the Supreme Court, which
in 2017 ruled unanimously that the disparagement
clause violated the First Amendment’s free speech
clause. The band could keep the name.
But in a further twist, the band’s victory inadver-
tently undermined legal challenges to the name of
the Washington Redskins football team. A group of
Native Americans who found the “Redskins” name
offensive had filed a petition to revoke the team’s
trademark, using the Lanham Act’s disparagement
clause. Once the Court declared the clause unconsti-
tutional, they lost the legal basis for their argument,
115
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 115 27/11/18 4:58 PM
and the team was able to keep the name. “There’s no more challenge to
make,” said their attorney. Thus the Slants’ successful effort to reclaim
what had been an epithet to their group meant that a moniker offensive to
another group remains in use. The Slants’ free speech was protected to their
joy, but so was the Redskins’ free speech to the disappointment of Native
American groups.
Free speech, along with the freedoms of assembly, religion, and privacy,
are among the civil liberties contained in the Bill of Rights and elsewhere in
the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson said that a bill of rights “is what people
are entitled to against every government on earth.” Note the wording: against
government. Civil liberties are protections from improper government action.
Today in the United States, we often take for granted the liberties contained in
the Constitution. But these freedoms raise difficult questions. Do the cases of
the Slants and the Redskins strike you as different or the same? Under what
circumstances can the government restrict Americans’ liberties, especially in
the realms of speech, assembly, and privacy? Do freedoms for some people,
such as free speech, threaten other people? How should contrasting views be
reconciled, or can they? And how should we think about possible trade-offs,
as between the right of privacy from surveillance and national security?
★ Explain the origins and evolution of the civil liberties in the Bill of Rights as they apply to the federal government and the states (pp. 117–22)
★ Describe how the First Amendment protects freedom of religion (pp. 123–27)
★ Describe how the First Amendment protects free speech and freedom of the press (pp. 127–36)
★ Explore whether the Second Amendment means people have a right to own guns (pp. 136–38)
★ Explain the major rights that people have if they are accused of a crime (pp. 138–46)
★ Assess whether people have a right to privacy under the Constitution (pp. 146–51)
CHAPTER GOALS
116 CHAPTER 4 C I V I L L IBeRT IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 116 27/11/18 4:58 PM
Civil Liberties and the Constitution Civil liberties are related to but dif- ferent from civil rights. Civil rights, which we will discuss in Chapter 5, are obligations (what the go vern- ment must do) to guarantee equal citizenship and to define how peo-
ple will be treated by the government. The foundations of civil liber ties as well as civil rights ar e to be found in the state and federal constitutions which guarantee free speech, fr eedom of the pr ess, freedom of assembly and so for th. The federal Constitution’s Bill of Rights includes both liber ties and rights. H owever, because civil liberties are limits on government power, the evolution and expansion of civil liberties in the United States is mainly a story of judicial action to overturn state and federal government policies that placed limits on liber ty. Civil rights, on the other hand, were shaped as much or more by the actions of the Congress and state legis- latures as by the decisions of the cour ts. Thus, in Chapter 5 we will consider such pieces of federal legislation as the Voting Rights Act and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Why might the actions of the federal and state go vernments threaten civil liber- ties? There may be a v ariety of r easons, but the fundamental pr oblem is the clash between the basic duty of go vernments to pr otect the public ’s health, safety , and general welfare from such dangers as crime, environmental hazards, and terrorism, and the freedom of citizens to go about their o wn business without go vernmental interference. Most Americans wish to be protected against violent criminals, but few would say there should be no restraint on police conduct in conducting inv es- tigations and interrogations. Most Americans want to be protected against terrorist plots, but few approve of unrestricted government surveillance and intrusions into their own communications. How do we balance safety and freedom? Where do we draw the line between anarchy and a police state?
In the United States, the federal and state constitutions establish the basic limits on government action and the decisions of the cour ts, interpreting constitutional principles, attempt to balance public safety and individual freedom. This balance is never carved in stone but needs to constantly be r eexamined and revisited in light of changing circumstances.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS
When the first Congress under the newly ratified Constitution met in late April of 1789, the most impor tant item of business was the consideration of a pr oposal to add a bill of rights to the Constitution. Such a proposal had been turned down with little debate in the waning days of the P hiladelphia Constitutional Convention in 1787, not because the delegates w ere against rights but because, as the F ederalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, later argued, it was “ not only unnecessar y in the pr o- posed Constitution but would even be dangerous.”2 First, according to Hamilton, a bill of rights would be irrelevant to a national government that was given only dele- gated powers in the first place. To put restraints on “powers which are not granted” could provide a pretext for governments to claim more powers than w ere in fact granted: “For why declare that things shall not be done which ther e is no power to do?”3 Second, the Constitution was to H amilton and the Federalists a bill of rights in itself, containing provisions that amounted to a bill of rights without r equiring
Explain the origins and evolution of the civil liberties in the Bill of Rights as they apply to federal government and the states
117C IV I L L IBeRT IeS AND THe CONST I TUT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 117 27/11/18 4:58 PM
additional amendments (see Table 4.1). For example, Article I, Section 9 included the right of habeas corpus, which prohibits the government from depriving a person of liberty without an open trial before a judge. Many of the framers, moreover, saw the very structure of the Constitution, including checks and balances, as protective of citizens’ liberties.
Despite the po wer of H amilton’s arguments, when the Constitution was submitted to the states for ratification, Antifederalists, most of whom had not been delegates in P hiladelphia, picked up on the argument of Thomas Jefferson (who also had not been a delegate) that the omission of a bill of rights was a major imperfection of the new Constitution. The Federalists conceded that to gain ratification they would hav e to make an “ unwritten but unequiv ocal pledge” to add a bill of rights that would include a confirmation (in what would become the Tenth Amend- ment) of the understanding that all po wers not expressly delegated to the national government or explicitly prohibited to the states were reserved to the states.4
“After much discussion and manipulation . . . at the delicate pr ompting of Washington and under the master ful pr odding of M adison,” the H ouse of Representatives approved 17 amendments; of these, the S enate accepted 12. Ten of the amendments w ere ratified by the necessar y thr ee-fourths of the states on December 15, 1791; fr om the star t, these 10 w ere called the Bill of Rights (see Table 4.2).5 The protections against improper government action contained in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights represent important civil liberties.
NATIONALIZING THE BILL OF RIGHTS
The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law. . . .” But this is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that addresses itself exclusively to the national government. For example, the S econd Amendment provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ” And the Fifth Amendment
habeas corpus a court order demanding that an individual in custody be brought into court and shown the cause for detention
Bill of Rights the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791; they ensure certain rights and liberties to the people
civil liberties areas of personal freedom constitutionally protected from government interference
CLAUSE RIGHT ESTABLISHED
Article I, Section 9 Guarantee of habeas corpus
Article I, Section 9 Prohibition of bills of attainder
Article I, Section 9 Prohibition of ex post facto laws
Article I, Section 9 Prohibition against acceptance of titles of nobility, etc., from any foreign state
Article III Guarantee of trial by jury in state where crime was committed
Article III Treason defined and limited to the life of the person convicted, not to the person’s heirs
TABLE 4.1
Rights in the Original Constitution (Not in the Bill of Rights)
118 CHAPTER 4 C I V I L L IBeRT IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 118 27/11/18 4:58 PM
says, among other things, that “no person shall . . . be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” for the same crime. Since the First Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that is explicit in its intention to put limits on Congress and therefore on the national government, a fundamental question inevitably arises: D o the r emaining provisions of the B ill of Rights put limits only on the national go vernment, or do they limit the state governments as well?
The Supreme Court first answered this question in 1833 by r uling that the Bill of Rights limited only the national go vernment and not the state go vernments.6 This meant that the actions of state governments were restricted only b y their o wn constitutions as interpr eted by their o wn courts. But in 1868, when the F ourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution, the question arose once again. The Four- teenth Amendment reads as if it were meant to impose the Bill of Rights on the states:
No State shall make or enfor ce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This language sounds like an effort to extend the B ill of Rights in its entir ety to all citiz ens, wherever they might r eside.7 Yet this was not the S upreme Court’s interpretation of the amendment for nearly 100 years. Within five years of ratifica- tion of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court was making decisions as though the amendment had never been adopted.8
The only change in civil liberties during the first 50-odd years follo wing the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment came in 1897, when the S upreme Court held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did in fact prohibit states from taking property for a public use without just compensation.9 However, the Supreme Court had selectively “incorporated” into the Fourteenth Amendment only the property protection provision of the Fifth Amendment and no other clause
Amendment I Congress cannot make any law establishing a religion or abridging freedoms of religious exercise, speech, assembly, or petition.
Amendments II, III, IV No branch of government may infringe upon the right of the people to keep arms (II), cannot arbitrarily take houses for militia (III), and cannot search for or seize evidence without a court warrant swearing to the probable existence of a crime (IV).
Amendments V, VI, VII, VIII The courts cannot hold trials for serious offenses without provision for a grand jury (V), a trial jury (VII), a speedy trial (VI), presentation of charges and confrontation by the accused of hostile witnesses (VI), and immunity from testimony against oneself and immunity from trial more than once for the same offense (V). Furthermore, neither bail nor punishment can be excessive (VIII), and no property can be taken without “just compensation” (V).
Amendments IX, X: Limits on the national government
Any rights not enumerated are reserved to the state or the people (X), and the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution should not be interpreted to mean that those are the only rights the people have (IX).
TABLE 4.2
The Bill of Rights
119C IV I L L IBeRT IeS AND THe CONST I TUT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 119 27/11/18 4:58 PM
of the Fifth or any other amendment of the Bill of Rights. In other words, although according to the F ifth Amendment “due process” applied to the taking of life and liberty as w ell as pr operty, only pr operty was incorporated into the F ourteenth Amendment as a limitation on state power.
No further expansion of civil liber ties via the Fourteenth Amendment occurred until 1925, when the S upreme Court held that fr eedom of speech is “ among the fundamental personal rights and ‘liberties’ protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states.”10 In 1931 the Court added freedom of the pr ess to that shor t list of fr eedoms protected by the B ill of Rights from state action; in 1939 it added freedom of assembly.11
But that was as far as the Court was willing to go. In the 1937 case of Palko v. Connecticut, the Court gave its blessing to the preservation of a legal framework in which the states had the po wer to determine their own laws on a number of fundamental issues. I n that case, a Connecticut cour t had found F rank Palko guilty of second-degr ee murder and sentenced him to life in prison. U nhappy with the v erdict, the state of Connecticut appealed the conviction to its high - est court, won the appeal, got a ne w trial, and then succeeded in getting P alko convicted of first-degree murder. Palko appealed to the Supreme Court on what seemed an open-and-shut case of double jeopardy, which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. Yet, although the majority of the Court agreed that this could indeed be considered a case of double jeopar dy, they decided that double jeop - ardy was not one of the pr ovisions of the B ill of Rights incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment as a restriction on the powers of the states. It took more than 30 years for the Cour t to nationaliz e the constitutional pr otection against double jeopardy. Because Frank Palko lived in the state of Connecticut rather than in a state whose constitution included a guarantee against double jeopardy, he was eventually executed for the crime.
The Palko case established the principle of selective incorporation, b y which the provisions of the B ill of Rights w ere to be consider ed one b y one and selectiv ely applied as limits on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. In order to make clear that “selective incorporation” should be narrowly interpreted, Justice Benjamin Cardozo, writing for an 8–1 majority, asserted that although many rights have value and importance, some rights do not represent a “principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.”12 Palko left states with most of the po wers they had possessed ev en before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, such as the power to engage in searches and seizures with- out a warrant, to depriv e accused persons of trial b y jury, and to pr osecute accused persons more than once for the same crime.13 Few states chose to use these kinds of powers, but some did.
So, until 1961 (see Table 4.3), only the First Amendment and one clause of the Fifth Amendment had been clearly incorporated into the F ourteenth Amendment as binding on the states as w ell as on the national go vernment.14 After that, one by one, almost all the pr ovisions of the Bill of Rights w ere incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment and applied to the states. Table 4.3 shows the progress of this revolution in the interpretation of the Constitution. Before we leave the topic, it is wor th mentioning that one element of the F ourteenth Amendment is being called into question today. This is the idea that all persons “born or naturalized” in the United States ar e citiz ens. Some politicians and public figures, most notably Donald Trump, have argued that the childr en of undocumented immigrants should not be considered U.S. citizens and might be subject to deportation. Though we are
selective incorporation the process by which different protections in the Bill of Rights were incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, thus guaranteeing citizens protection from state as well as national governments
120 CHAPTER 4 C I V I L L IBeRT IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 120 27/11/18 4:58 PM
These cases are significant because they represent the first instance that the Supreme Court acknowledged that the selected provision or amendment was binding on the states. In some cases this meant the Supreme Court overturned the state or local law under contention. In other cases the Court held that the law did not violate the Constitution, so the law was upheld.
SELECTED PROVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS INCORPORATED KEY CASE
eminent domain (V) 1897 Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy R.R. v. Chicago
The city of Chicago was required to compensate a railroad company for seizing its property for the purpose of widening a city road.
Freedom of speech (I) 1925 Gitlow v. New York
Upheld Gitlow’s conviction for “criminal anarchy” for publishing a left-wing manifesto. The Court held the First Amendment allowed the states to suppress speech directly advocating the overthrow of the government.
Freedom of press (I) 1931 Near v. Minnesota
Overturned Minnesota’s permanent injunction against those who created a “public nuisance” by publishing, selling, or distributing a “malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical” as an infringement on freedom of the press.
Free exercise of religion (I) 1934 Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California
Students filed suit to protest mandatory military training at the University of California on religious grounds. The Court upheld the right of California to mandate that its students receive military training as permissible under the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion clause.
Freedom of assembly (I) and freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances (I)
1937 DeJonge v. Oregon
DeJonge’s conviction for addressing a meeting of the Communist Party was overturned as an infringement on freedom of assembly.
Free exercise of religion (I) 1940 Cantwell v. Connecticut
State governments may not prohibit the dissemination or expression of religious views.
Nonestablishment of state religion (I)
1947 Everson v. Board of Education
Applying the establishment clause, the Court found that using taxpayer money to bus students to private religious schools did not constitute establishing a religion because busing was a “separate” function from the school’s religious purpose.
Freedom from warrantless search and seizure (IV) (“exclusionary rule”)
1961 Mapp v. Ohio
The Court overturned the conviction of Dollree Mapp for possession of obscene materials because the evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a warrant for conducting a search.
TABLE 4.3
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment
Continued
121C IV I L L IBeRT IeS AND THe CONST I TUT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 121 27/11/18 4:58 PM
SELECTED PROVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS INCORPORATED KEY CASE
Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment (VIII)
1962 Robinson v. California
The Court overturned a California law imposing a 90-day jail sentence on persons found guilty of “addiction to the use of narcotics” as cruel and unusual punishment for what amounted to illness.
Right to counsel in any criminal trial (VI)
1963 Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon requested a lawyer at his trial for a felony crime but was denied under Florida law. The Supreme Court held the right to counsel in the Sixth Amendment applied to the states, so Gideon got a new trial with counsel.
Right against self- incrimination and forced confessions (V)
1964 Malloy v. Hogan
Malloy was imprisoned for contempt after refusing to answer questions about gambling activities on grounds it might implicate him. The Supreme Court held the Fifth Amendment secures defendants against self- incrimination, so Malloy could not be forced to testify.
Right to remain silent (V) 1964 Escobedo v. Illinois
Police denied repeated requests by escobedo to see his lawyer during interrogation; escobedo eventually incriminated himself in a murder. The Court held escobedo’s Sixth Amendment rights to counsel and to the right to remain silent were violated.
Right to counsel and to remain silent (V)
1966 Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda was questioned by police and signed a statement of confession without being informed of his right to counsel and protection from self- incrimination. The Court held defendants in police custody must be informed of their rights.
Right against double jeopardy (V)
1969 Benton v. Maryland
Benton was tried twice for the same crime of larceny. The Supreme Court held “double jeopardy” as impermissible under the Fifth Amendment.
Right to bear arms (II) 2010 McDonald v. Chicago
The Supreme Court struck down a Chicago firearms ordinance making it extremely difficult to own a gun within city limits as violating the Second Amendment.
TABLE 4.3
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment—cont’d
a nation of immigrants, struggles over who may lawfully engage in the opportunities provided by American democracy can become bitter.
The best way to examine the Bill of Rights today is the simplest way: to take the major provisions one at a time. S ome of these pr ovisions are settled ar eas of law; others are not. The Court can reinterpret any one of them at any time.
122 CHAPTER 4 C I V I L L IBeRT IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 122 27/11/18 4:58 PM
The First Amendment and Freedom of Religion
Congress shall make no law r especting an establishment of r eligion, or pr o- hibiting the fr ee ex ercise ther eof; or abridging the fr eedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Bill of Rights begins by guaranteeing freedom of religion, and the First Amend- ment provides for that fr eedom in two distinct clauses: “Congr ess shall make no law [1] respecting an establishment of r eligion, or [2] pr ohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The first clause is called the “establishment clause,” and the second is called the “free exercise clause.”
SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE
The establishment clause and the idea of “ no law ” r egarding the establishment of r eligion could be interpr eted in sev eral possible ways. O ne interpr etation, which probably reflects the views of many of the F irst Amendment’s authors, is that the go vernment is pr ohibited from establishing an official church. Official state churches, such as the Church of England, were common in the eighteenth century and w ere vie wed b y many Americans as inconsistent with a r epubli- can form of go vernment. Indeed, many American colonists had fled Europe to escape persecution for having r ejected state-sponsored churches. A second pos - sible interpretation is the vie w that the go vernment may not take sides among competing religions but is not pr ohibited from providing assistance to r eligious institutions or ideas as long as it shows no favoritism. The United States accom- modates religious beliefs in a variety of ways, from the reference to God on U.S. currency to the prayer that begins every session of Congress. These forms of reli- gious establishment have never been struck down by the cour ts. The third view regarding religious establishment, the most commonly held today, is the idea of a “wall of separation” between church and state—J efferson’s formulation—that cannot be breached by the government. For two centuries, Jefferson’s words have had a powerful impact on our understanding of the proper relationship between church and state in America.
Despite the seeming absoluteness of the phrase “ wall of separation, ” ther e is ample room to disagree on how high the wall is. O ne area of contestation over the appropriate boundary between church and state is in public education. For example, the Court has been consistently strict in cases of school prayer, striking down such practices as Bible reading,15 nondenominational prayer,16 a moment of silence for meditation, and pregame prayer at public sporting events.17 In each of these cases, the Court reasoned that school-sponsored religious observations, even of an appar- ently nondenominational character, are highly suggestive of school sponsorship and therefore violate the prohibition against establishment of religion.
For decades, the Cour t has faced cases inv olving government financial support for religious schools. In 1971 the Court attempted to specify some criteria to guide its decisions and those of lo wer courts, indicating the cir cumstances under which
Describe how the First Amendment protects freedom of religion
establishment clause the First Amendment clause that says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”; this law means that a “wall of separation” exists between church and state
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Despite the establishment clause, the United States still uses the motto “In God We Trust” and calls itself “one nation, under God.” Do you think its reference to God is a violation of the separation of church and state?
123THe F IRST AMeNDMeNT AND FReeDOM OF ReL IG ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 123 27/11/18 4:58 PM
state financial assistance to religious schools was constitutionally permissible. I n its decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court established three criteria to guide future cases. Collectively, these came to be called the Lemon test. The Court held that government aid to religious schools would be accepted as constitutional if (1) it had a secular purpose, (2) its effect was neither to advance nor to inhibit religion, and (3) it did not entangle government and religious institutions in each other’s affairs.18
Although these restrictions make the Lemon test hard to pass, imaginative author- ities are finding ways to do so, and the Supreme Court has demonstrated a willing- ness to let them. F or example, in 1995 the Cour t narrowly ruled that a student religious group at the University of Virginia could not be denied student activities funds merely because it was a religious group espousing a particular viewpoint about a deity. The Court called the denial “viewpoint discrimination” that violated the free speech rights of the group.19
In 2004 the question of whether the phrase “ under G od” in the P ledge of Allegiance violated the establishment clause was brought before the Court. Written without any religious references in 1892, the pledge had long been used in schools. But in 1954, in the midst of the Cold War, Congress voted to change the pledge in response to the “godless Communism” of the Soviet Union.
Ever since the change was made, there has been a steady murmuring of discontent from those who object to an officially sanctioned profession of belief in a deity as a violation of the establishment clause of the F irst Amendment. I n 2003, M ichael A. Newdow, the atheist father of a kindergarten student, brought suit against the local California school district, arguing that the reference to God turned the daily recitation of the pledge into a r eligious exercise. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court,
Lemon test a rule articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman that government action toward religion is permissible if it is secular in purpose, neither promotes nor inhibits the practice of religion, and does not lead to “excessive entanglement” with religion
The First Amendment affects everyday life in a multitude of ways. Because of the amendment’s ban on state-sanctioned religion, the Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that school-sponsored prayer in public schools is illegal. Requiring pregame prayer at public schools violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 124 27/11/18 4:58 PM
which ruled that Newdow lacked a sufficient personal stake in the case to bring the complaint. This inconclusive decision by the Supreme Court left “under God” in the pledge while keeping the issue alive for possible resolution in a future case.20
Another realm of contestation o ver the meaning of the establishment clause is in public displays of r eligious symbols, such as city-sponsor ed nativity scenes in commercial or municipal areas. This realm remains contested, in par t because the Supreme Cour t’s r ulings on such cases hav e been inconclusiv e, as demonstrated by two 2005 cases inv olving displays of the Ten Commandments. I n Van Orden v. P erry, the Cour t decided that a display of the Ten Commandments outside the Texas state capitol did not violate the Constitution. 21 However, in McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, the Court determined that a display of the Ten Commandments inside two Kentucky courthouses was uncon- stitutional.22 Justice Stephen Breyer, the deciding v ote in the two cases, said that the display in Van Orden had a secular purpose, wher eas the displays in McCreary had a purely religious purpose. The key difference between the two cases is that the Texas display had been exhibited in a large park for 40 years with other monuments related to the dev elopment of American law , whereas the K entucky display was erected much mor e r ecently and initially b y itself , suggesting to some justices that its posting had a r eligious purpose. B ut most obser vers saw little difference between the two cases. Clearly , the issue of go vernment-sponsored displays of religious symbols has not been settled.
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
The free exercise clause pr otects the right to believ e and to practice whatev er religion one chooses; it also protects the right to be a nonbeliever. The precedent- setting case inv olving fr ee ex ercise is West Virginia S tate Boar d of E ducation v . Barnette (1943), which involved the children of a family of Jehovah’s Witnesses who refused to salute and pledge allegiance to the American flag on the grounds that their religious faith did not permit it. Three years earlier, the Court had upheld such a r equirement and had permitted schools to expel students for r efusing to salute the flag. But the entry of the United States into a war to defend democracy, coupled with the ugly tr eatment to which the J ehovah’s Witnesses’ children had been subjected, induced the Court to reverse itself and to endorse the free exercise of religion even when it may be offensive to the beliefs of the majority.23
free exercise clause the First Amendment clause that protects a citizen’s right to believe and practice whatever religion he or she chooses
In 2001, Alabama Supreme Court chief justice Roy Moore had a large granite statue of the Ten Commandments installed in the Alabama Supreme Court building. Despite a court injunction requiring Justice Moore to remove the statue, citing a violation of the Establish- ment Clause, the statue remained until the building manager was compelled to remove it.
125THe F IRST AMeNDMeNT AND FReeDOM OF ReL IG ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 125 27/11/18 4:58 PM
Although the Supreme Court has been fairly consistent and strict in protecting the free exercise of religious belief, it has taken pains to distinguish between religious beliefs and actions based on those beliefs. The 1940 case of Cantwell v. Connecticut established the “time, place and manner” rule. The case arose from the efforts of two Jehovah’s Witnesses to engage in door-to-door fund-raising. Americans ar e free to adhere to any religious beliefs, but the time, place, and manner of their exercise are subject to regulation in the public interest.24
In recent years, the principle of free exercise has been bolstered by statutes pro- hibiting religious discrimination by public and private entities in a variety of realms including hiring, land use, and the treatment of prison inmates. Three recent cases illustrating this point are Holt v. Hobbs,25 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. A bercrombie & F itch S tores, I nc.,26 and Burwell v . H obby Lobb y S tores.27 The Holt case involved a Muslim prisoner in an Arkansas jail. The prisoner, Gregory Holt, asser ted that his r eligious beliefs r equired him to gr ow a bear d. Thus, according to Holt, an Arkansas prison policy prohibiting beards was a violation of his ability to ex ercise his r eligion. The Court held that the prison policy was a violation of the fr ee exercise clause and violated a federal statute designed to protect the ability of prisoners to worship as they pleased. In the second case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought suit against Abercrombie & Fitch for refusing to hire a Muslim woman who wore a head scarf in violation of the company’s dress code. The Court held that the store’s actions amounted to religious discrimination in hiring, a violation of Title VII of the U.S. Code, which prohibits employers from hiring discrimination based upon race, color , religion, gender, and national origin.
The Hobby Lobby case involved the owners of a chain of craft stores who claimed that a section of the Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) requiring employers to provide their female employees with free contraceptive coverage violated their religious beliefs as pr otected by the R eligious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). This law, enacted in 1993, r equires the go vernment to pr ove a “compelling inter- est” for r equiring individuals to obey a law that violates their r eligious beliefs.
Does religious freedom lead to discrimination on the basis of religion? Here, senior counsel for Hobby Lobby stores speaks to supporters after the Supreme Court ruled that businesses were not required to provide free contra- ceptive coverage if they find it in violation of their religious beliefs.
126 CHAPTER 4 C I V I L L IBeRT IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 126 27/11/18 4:58 PM
The Supreme Cour t r uled in fav or of H obby Lobby. Currently, members of the LGBTQ community are concerned that RFRA will be used as the basis for dis- crimination in hiring or other r ealms against gay or transgender individuals b y individuals claiming that such practices violate their own religious beliefs. In 2017 the Trump administration affirmed the Court’s decision b y declaring that under ACA employers who had religious or moral objections would no longer be required to provide birth control benefits.
The First Amendment and Freedom of Speech and of the Press
Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
Freedom of speech and fr eedom of the pr ess have a special place in
American political thought. To begin with, democracy depends on the ability of individuals to talk to one another and to disseminate information. I t is difficult to conceive how democratic politics could function without fr ee and open debate. Such debate, moreover, is seen as an essential mechanism for determining the qual- ity or validity of competing ideas. As J ustice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in 1919, “The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the com- petition of the market . . . That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.”28 What is sometimes called the “ marketplace of ideas ” receives a good deal of pr otection from the courts. In 1938 the Supreme Court held that any legislation that attempts to restrict speech “is to be subjected to a more exacting judicial scrutiny . . . than are most other types of legislation.”29 This higher standard of judicial review came to be called “strict scrutiny.”
The doctrine of strict scrutiny places a heavy burden of proof on the govern- ment if it seeks to regulate or restrict speech. Americans are assumed to have the right to speak and to br oadcast their ideas unless some compelling r eason can be identified to stop them. But strict scrutiny does not mean that speech can never be r egulated. Over the past 200 y ears, the cour ts have scrutinized many different forms of speech and constructed different principles and guidelines for each. According to the cour ts, although vir tually all speech is pr otected by the Constitution, some forms of speech are entitled to a greater degree of protection than others.
POLITICAL SPEECH
Political speech was the activity of gr eatest concern to the framers of the Constitu - tion, even though some found it the most difficult form of speech to tolerate. Within seven years of the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, Congress adopted the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts (long since repealed), which, among other things, made it a crime to say or publish anything that might tend to defame or bring into disrepute the government of the United States.
The first modern free speech case arose immediately after World War I. It involved persons who had been convicted under the federal Espionage A ct of 1917 for opposing U.S. inv olvement in the war. The Supreme Court upheld the
Describe how the First Amendment protects free speech and freedom of the press
127THe F IRST AMeNDMeNT AND FReeDOM OF SPeeCH AND OF THe PReSS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 127 27/11/18 4:58 PM
Espionage Act and refused to protect the speech rights of the defendants on the grounds that their activities—appeals to draftees to r esist the draft—constituted a “clear and present danger” to national security.30 This is the first and most famous, though since discar ded, “test” for when go vernment inter vention or censorship can be permitted.
It was only after the 1920s that real progress toward a genuinely effective First Amendment was made. S ince then, political speech has been consistently pr o- tected by the cour ts even when it has been deemed “insulting ” or “outrageous.” In the 1969 case Brandenburg v . O hio, the cour t r uled that as long as speech falls shor t of actually inciting action, it cannot be pr ohibited, even if it is hos - tile to or sub versive of the government and its policies. This decision came in the case of a K u Klux Klan leader, Charles Brandenburg, who had been arr ested and convicted of adv ocating “revengent” action against the pr esident, Congress, and the Supreme Court, among others, if they continued “to suppress the white, Caucasian race.” Although Brandenburg was not carrying a weapon; some of the members of his audience were. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court reversed the state courts and fr eed Brandenburg while also declaring O hio’s Criminal Syndicalism Act unconstitutional because it punished persons who “ advocate, or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety [of violence] as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform” or who publish materials or “voluntarily assemble . . . to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism.” The Supreme Court argued that the statute did not distinguish “ mere advocacy” from “incitement to imminent lawless action.”31 It would be difficult to go much further in protecting freedom of speech.
Another area of political speech that has r ecently received much attention is the First Amendment status of monetar y contributions to political campaigns. Campaign finance reform laws of the early 1970s, arising out of the Watergate scandal, sought to put sev ere limits on campaign spending. I n the 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo, a number of important provisions were declared unconstitutional on the basis of a new principle that spending money by or on behalf of candidates is a form of speech pr otected by the F irst Amendment. 32 (For more details, see Chapter 10.)
The issue came up again in 2003 with passage of a new and still mor e severe campaign finance law, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). In McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the 5–4 majority seriously reduced the area of speech protected by the Buckley v. Valeo decision by holding that Congress was well within its power to put limits on campaign spending. The Court argued that “the selling of access . . . has given rise to the appearance of undue influence [that justifies] regu- lations impinging on First Amendment rights . . . in order to curb corruption or the appearance of corruption.”33 In the McConnell case, the Court also upheld BCRA’s limitations on “issue advertising.” The act prohibited political advocacy groups from running ads that mentioned a candidate within 30 days of a primar y election and 60 days of a general election. This ban was justified with the argument that wealthy special inter ests could affect election outcomes with last-minute ad campaigns. However, in its 2007 decision in the case of Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, the Court reversed itself, declaring that such ads were protected speech and could not be prohibited so long as they focused mainly on issues and w ere not simply appeals to vote for or against a specific candidate.34
Even more recently, in the 2010 case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Com- mission, the Supreme Court declared that the First Amendment prohibited BCRA’s
“clear and present danger” test test used to determine whether speech is protected or unprotected, based on its capacity to present a “clear and present danger” to society
During the 2008 presidential primaries, the conservative organ- ization Citizens United released a documentary criticizing Hillary Clinton. A lower court found that ads for the film violated the BCRA’s ban on corporate funding of ads for or against a particular candidate. In 2010 the Court declared the BCRA ban unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
128 CHAPTER 4 C I V I L L IBeRT IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 128 27/11/18 4:58 PM
ban on corporate funding of independent political br oadcasts aimed at electing or defeating particular candidates.35 In its 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution pr ohibits the go vernment from regulating political speech and that ther efore the go vernment could not ban this type of political spending by corporations. I n 2014 the Cour t again expanded its pr otection of campaign expenditures under the First Amendment by overturning aggregate limits restrict- ing how much money a donor may contribute. 36 As a r esult of this decision sev - eral wealthy donors contributed more than $10 million to pr esidential candidates in 2016. The Court’s decisions in both cases hav e been contr oversial. R epubli- cans hailed the decisions as a victor y for free speech, while Democrats denounced the decisions. P resident O bama called Citizens U nited “a major victor y for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies, and the other po werful inter- ests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”37
FIGHTING WORDS AND HATE SPEECH
Freedom of speech does have limits, however. Speech can also lose its protected posi- tion when it moves toward the sphere of action. “Expressive speech,” for example, is protected until it moves from the symbolic realm to the realm of actual conduct—to direct incitement of damaging conduct with the use of so-called fighting words. In 1942 a man called a police officer a “goddamned racketeer” and “a damn Fascist” and was arrested and convicted of violating a state law forbidding the use of offen- sive language in public. When his case r eached the Supreme Court, the arrest was upheld on the gr ounds that the First Amendment provides no protection for such offensive language because such wor ds “are no essential par t of any exposition of ideas.”38 This decision was reaffirmed in the important 1951 case of Dennis v. United States when the S upreme Court held that ther e is no substantial public inter est in permitting certain kinds of utterances: the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libel- ous, and the insulting or “fighting” words—those which b y their v ery utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate br each of the peace.39 Since that time, however, the Supreme Court has r eversed almost ev ery conviction based on argu - ments that the speaker had used “fighting words.”
In r ecent y ears, the incr eased activism of minority and women ’s gr oups has prompted a movement against words that might be construed as offensive to mem- bers of a particular group. Scores of universities have attempted to develop speech codes to suppr ess utterances deemed to be racial or ethnic or gender slurs. The drafting of such codes has been encouraged b y the D epartment of E ducation’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) which has also interpreted Title IX of the H igher Education Act to require colleges to vigor ously prosecute charges involving racial or sexual harassment. Critics have charged that the procedures encouraged by OCR ignore the rights of the accused and hav e led, on some campuses, to the cr eation of tribunals that assume the guilt of any one charged with an offense. This issue is currently being fought out on college campuses acr oss the countr y.40 In 2017, Education Secretary Betsy Devos rescinded the depar tment’s previous guidelines, declaring they w ere unfair to those accused of sexual misconduct, and said ne w rules would soon be promulgated that would provide justice to all parties involved in a sexual misconduct case.
Similar issues hav e arisen in large corporations, both public and priv ate, with many successful complaints and lawsuits alleging that the wor ds of emplo yers or
fighting words speech that directly incites damaging conduct
129THe F IRST AMeNDMeNT AND FReeDOM OF SPeeCH AND OF THe PReSS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 129 27/11/18 4:58 PM
their supervisors created a “hostile or abusive working environment.” The Supreme Court has held that a “hostile wor king environment” results from “sexual harass- ment,” including “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual natur e [emphasis added].”41 A fundamental free speech issue is involved in these regulations of hostile speech.
Many jurisdictions hav e drafted or dinances banning hate speech—forms of expression designed to assert hatred toward one or another group, be they African Americans, Jews, Muslims, or others. S uch ordinances seldom pass constitutional muster. The leading Supreme Court case in this realm is the 1992 decision in R.A.V. v. City of S t. Paul.42 Here, a white teenager was arr ested for burning a cr oss on the lawn of a black family in violation of a municipal ordinance that banned cross burn- ing. The Court ruled that such an ordinance must be content neutral—that is, it must not prohibit actions directed at some groups but not others. The statute in question prohibited only cross burning, which is typically directed at African Americans. Since a statute banning all forms of hateful expression would be deemed overly broad, the R.A.V. standard suggests that virtually all hate speech is constitutionally protected.
The issue of hate speech has arisen on a number of college campuses. Some stu- dents and faculty at several colleges have demanded that (usually) conservative and far-right speakers be banned from campus on the grounds that they promote hatred. Student pr otesters hav e for ced the cancellation of speeches b y conser vatives like Ann Coulter and M ilo Yiannopoulos, disrupted talks by such prominent conserv- ative scholars as Charles Murray, and have unsuccessfully sought to prevent “white nationalist” Richard Spencer from speaking. There seems little doubt that the right of all these individuals to speak is protected by the Constitution. The conflict arises when that Constitutional right comes up against univ ersity policies to emphasiz e safety. It is important to remember that not so long ago speakers on the political left were banned fr om campuses in the name of safety . Perhaps people of all political persuasions should think about the words of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said, “if there is any principle of the Constitution that mor e impera- tively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”43
STUDENT SPEECH
One category of conditionally protected speech is the speech of high school students in public schools. In 1986 the Supreme Court backed away from a broad protection of student free speech rights by upholding the punishment of a high school student for making a sexually suggestiv e speech. The Court opinion held that such speech interfered with the school’s goal of teaching students the limits of socially acceptable behavior.44 Two years later the S upreme Cour t took another conser vative step b y restricting students’ speech and press rights even further, defining them as part of the educational process and not to be treated with the same standard as adult speech in a regular public forum.45 A later case involving high school students is the 2007 case of Morse v. Frederick.46 This case dealt with the policies of Juneau-Douglas High School in J uneau, Alaska. I n 2002 the O lympic tor ch r elay had passed thr ough Juneau on its way to S alt Lake City for the opening of the Winter Olympics. As the torch passed Juneau-Douglas High, a senior, Joseph Frederick, unfurled a ban- ner reading “BONG HITS 4 JESUS.” The school’s principal promptly suspended Frederick, who then br ought suit for r einstatement, alleging that his fr ee speech rights had been violated. Like most of America ’s public schools, J uneau-Douglas
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Is there speech that should be banned because it does not contribute to the exchange of ideas? How do we determine what speech should be protected because it contributes to this exchange and what speech does not?
130 CHAPTER 4 C I V I L L IBeRT IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 130 27/11/18 4:58 PM
High prohibits assemblies or expr essions on school gr ounds that adv ocate illegal drug use, saying that some federal aid is contingent on this policy. Civil libertarians, of course, see such policies as restricting students’ right to free speech. Speaking for the Court’s majority, Chief Justice Roberts said that the F irst Amendment did not require schools to permit students to advocate illegal drug use.
COMMERCIAL SPEECH
Commercial speech, such as newspaper or television advertisements, does not have full First Amendment protection because it cannot be consider ed political speech. Initially considered to be entir ely outside the pr otection of the F irst Amendment, commercial speech today is subject to limited r egulation. For example, the pr ohi- bition of false and misleading adv ertising by the Federal Trade Commission is an old and well-established power of the federal government. The Supreme Court has upheld city ordinances prohibiting the posting of all commercial signs on public property (as long as the ban is total so that there is no hint of selective censorship).47
However, the gains far outw eigh the losses in the effort to expand the pr otec- tion of commercial speech under the First Amendment. “In part, this reflects the growing appreciation that commer cial speech is par t of the fr ee flow of informa - tion necessary for informed choice and democratic participation.”48 For example, in 1975 the Supreme Court struck down a state statute making it a misdemeanor to sell or circulate newspapers encouraging abortions; the Court ruled that the statute infringed on constitutionally pr otected speech and on the right of the r eader to make informed choices.49 On a similar basis, the Court reversed its own earlier deci- sions upholding laws that prohibited lawyers, dentists, and other professionals from advertising their services. For the Court, medical service advertising was a matter of health that could be adv anced by the free flow of information.50 And in a 2001 case, the Court ruled that a Massachusetts ban on all cigar ette advertising violated the First Amendment right of the tobacco industry to advertise its products to adult consumers.51 These instances of commercial speech, significant in themselves, are
The Supreme Court has ruled that high school students’ speech can be restricted. In a 2007 case involving a student who displayed the banner above, the Court found that the school principal had not violated the student’s right to free speech by suspending him.
131THe F IRST AMeNDMeNT AND FReeDOM OF SPeeCH AND OF THe PReSS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 131 27/11/18 4:58 PM
all the more significant because they indicate the breadth and depth of the freedom existing today to direct appeals to a large public, not only to sell goods and services but also to mobilize people for political purposes.
SYMBOLIC SPEECH, SPEECH PLUS, AND THE RIGHTS OF ASSEMBLY AND PETITION
The First Amendment treats the freedoms of religion and political speech as equal to the freedoms of assembly and petition—speech associated with action. For this rea- son, the long record of Supreme Court cases largely protects an individual’s right to symbolic speech, assembly, and petition. Freedom of speech and freedom of assem- bly are closely r elated by the “public forum doctrine.” In the 1939 case of Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, the Court declared that the government may not pr ohibit speech-related activities such as demonstrations or leafleting in public areas traditionally used for that purpose, though, of course, the go vernment may impose rules designed to protect the public safety so long as these rules do not discriminate against particular viewpoints.52
Generally, the Supreme Court has sought to protect actions that are designed to send a political message. One example is the burning of the American flag as a pro- test. In 1984, at a political rally held during the R epublican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, a political pr otester burned an American flag, thereby violating a Texas statute that pr ohibited desecration of a v enerated object. In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court declared the Texas law unconstitutional on the grounds that flag burning was expr essive conduct pr otected by the F irst Amendment.53 Since 1995 the House of Representatives has seven times passed a resolution for a constitutional amendment to ban this form of expr essive conduct, but each time the S enate has failed to go along.54
In the 2011 case of Snyder v. Phelps, the Court sought to protect another form of symbolic speech. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church had frequently demon- strated at military funerals, claiming that the deaths of the soldiers w ere a sign that
Should the First Amendment’s protection of free speech apply even when that speech is seen as offensive? In 2011 the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 that members of the Westboro Baptist Church had a right to picket soldiers’ funerals to demonstrate what they take as a sign of God’s disapproval of homosexuality.
132 CHAPTER 4 C I V I L L IBeRT IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 132 27/11/18 4:58 PM
Should individuals be prosecuted for leaking classified information to the press? Then-Pfc. Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden were charged for the crime of leaking classified information related to government surveillance.
God disappr oved of the acceptance of homosexuality in the U nited S tates. The father of a soldier killed in Iraq brought suit against the church and its pastor, claim- ing that the demonstrators had caused him and his family severe emotional distress. The Supreme Court ruled, however, that the First Amendment protected free speech in a public place against such suits.55
Closer to the original intent of the assembly and petition clause is the category of “speech plus”—following speech with physical activity such as picketing, distributing leaflets, and other forms of peaceful demonstration or assembly. Such assemblies are consistently protected by courts under the First Amendment; state and local laws reg- ulating such activities are closely scrutinized and frequently overturned. But the same assembly on private property is quite another matter and can in many circumstances be regulated. For example, the dir ectors of a shopping center can lawfully pr ohibit an assembly protesting a war or supporting a ban on abortion. Assemblies in public areas can also be r estricted under some circumstances, especially when the assembly or demonstration jeopar dizes the health, safety , or rights of others. This condition was the basis of the S upreme Cour t’s decision to uphold a lo wer-court order that restricted the access that abortion protesters had to the entrances of abortion clinics.56
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
For all practical purposes, fr eedom of speech implies and includes fr eedom of the press. With the exception of the broadcast media, which are subject to federal regu- lation, the press is protected under the doctrine against prior restraint. Beginning with the landmark 1931 case of Near v. Minnesota, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that, except under the most extraor dinary circumstances, the F irst Amendment of the Constitution prohibits government agencies from seeking to prevent newspapers or magazines from publishing whatever they wish.57 Indeed, in the 1971 case New York Times Co. v. United States (the so-called Pentagon Papers case), the Supreme Court ruled that the go vernment could not block publication of secr et Defense Depart- ment documents furnished to the New York Times by an opponent of the Vietnam War who had obtained the documents illegally.58
“speech plus” speech accompanied by conduct such as sit-ins, picketing, and demonstrations; protection of this form of speech under the First Amendment is conditional, and restrictions imposed by state or local authorities are acceptable if properly balanced by considerations of public order
prior restraint an effort by a governmental agency to block the publication of material it deems libelous or harmful in some other way; censorship; in the United States, the courts forbid prior restraint except under the most extraordinary circumstances
133THe F IRST AMeNDMeNT AND FReeDOM OF SPeeCH AND OF THe PReSS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 133 27/11/18 4:58 PM
Another press freedom issue that the cour ts have often been asked to decide is the question of whether journalists can be compelled to r eveal their sour ces of information. Journalists assert that if they cannot ensure their sources’ confidential- ity, the flow of information will be reduced and press freedom effectively curtailed. Government agencies, however, aver that names of news sources may be relevant to criminal or even national security inv estigations. More than 30 states hav e “shield laws,” which, to v arying degr ees, pr otect journalistic sour ces. There is, ho wever, no federal shield law and no special constitutional pr otection for journalists. The Supreme Court has held that the press has no constitutional right to withhold infor- mation in court.59
In addition to pr osecuting journalists for r efusing to r eveal their sour ces, the government may seek to pr osecute individuals who leak information to the pr ess. During the Obama presidency, seven individuals were charged or prosecuted for dis- closing classified information. These cases included Pfc. Bradley Manning, an army intelligence analyst sent to prison for providing classified documents to WikiLeaks, which published many of the documents, and Edward Snowden, an employee of the National Security Agency (NSA) who fled the country to escape arrest after revealing the details of NSA domestic spying operations. Manning, who took the name Chelsea after undergoing gender reassignment surgery, was released from prison in 2017.
Libel and Slander Some speech is not pr otected at all. I f a written statement is made in “reckless disregard of the truth” and is considered damaging to the victim because it is “malicious, scandalous, and defamatory,” it can be punished as libel. If such a statement is made orally, it can be punished as slander.
Most libel suits today involve freedom of the press, and the realm of free press is enormous. Historically, newspapers were subject to the law of libel, which provided that newspapers that printed false and malicious stories could be compelled to pay damages to those they defamed. In recent y ears, however, American cour ts hav e greatly narrowed the meaning of libel and made it extr emely difficult, particularly for politicians or other public figures, to win a libel case against a ne wspaper. In the important 1964 case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Court held that to be deemed libelous, a stor y about a public official not only had to be untrue but also had to r esult fr om “actual malice” or “ reckless disr egard” for the tr uth.60 In other words, the newspaper had to print false and malicious material deliberately. In practice, it is nearly impossible to prove that a paper deliberately printed maliciously false information, and it is thus especially difficult for a politician or other public figure to win a libel case. Essentially , the print media hav e been able to publish anything they want about a public figure.
However, the Court has opened up the possibility for public officials to file libel suits against the press. The Court has held since the 1970s that the press was immune to libel suits only when the printed material was “ a matter of public concern.”61 In other words, a newspaper would have to show that the public official was engaged in activities that were indeed public. This principle has made the press more vulnerable to libel suits, but it still leaves an enormous realm of freedom for the press. President Trump has said that stricter libel laws ar e needed to prevent what he likes to call “fake news,” though no action or policies have changed.
With the emergence of the internet as an impor tant communications medium, the courts have had to decide how traditional libel law applies to internet content. In 1995 the N ew York cour ts held that an online bulletin boar d could be held responsible for the libelous content of material posted b y a third party. To protect
libel a written statement made in “reckless disregard of the truth” that is considered damaging to a victim because it is “malicious, scandalous, and defamatory”
slander an oral statement made in “reckless disregard of the truth” that is considered damaging to the victim because it is “malicious, scandalous, and defamatory”
134 CHAPTER 4 C I V I L L IBeRT IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 134 27/11/18 4:58 PM
internet service providers, Congress subsequently enacted legislation absolving them of responsibility for third-party posts. The federal courts have generally upheld this law and declared that service providers are immune from suits regarding the content of material posted by others.62
Obscenity and Pornography If libel and slander cases can be difficult because of the problem of determining the tr uth of statements and whether those statements are malicious and damaging, cases involving pornography and obscenity can be even trickier. Not until 1957 did the Supreme Court confront this problem, and it did so with a definition of obscenity that may have caused more confusion than it cleared up. In writing the Cour t’s opinion, J ustice William Brennan defined obscenity as speech or writing that appeals to the “ prurient interest”—that is, whose purpose is to excite lust, as this appears “ to the average person, applying contemporar y com- munity standards.” Even so, B rennan added, the wor k should be judged obscene only when it is “ utterly without r edeeming social impor tance.”63 In 1964, J ustice Potter Stewart confessed that, although he found pornography impossible to define, “I know it when I see it.”64
The vague and impractical standards that had been dev eloped meant ultimately that almost nothing could be banned on the gr ounds that it was pornographic and obscene. An effort was made to str engthen the r estrictions in 1973, when the Supreme Court expressed its willingness to define pornography as a work that (1) as a whole, is deemed prurient by the “average person” according to “community standards”; (2) depicts sexual conduct “in a patently offensive way”; and (3) lacks “serious literar y, ar tistic, political, or scientific value.” This definition meant that pornography would be determined b y local rather than national standar ds. Thus, a local bookseller might be pr osecuted for selling a v olume that was a best-seller nationally but that was deemed pornographic locally.65 This new definition of stan- dards did not help much either, and not long after 1973, the Cour t began again to review all such community antipornography laws, reversing most of them.
In recent years, the battle against obscene speech has targeted pornography on the internet. Opponents of this form of expr ession argue that it should be banned because of the easy access childr en hav e to the internet. The first major effort to r egulate the content of the internet occurr ed in 1996, when Congr ess passed the Telecommunications A ct. A ttached to it was an amendment, called the Communications Decency Act (CDA), designed to regulate the online transmission of obscene material. The constitutionality of the CDA was immediately challenged in court by a coalition of inter ests led b y the American Civil Liber ties Union. In the 1997 case of Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, the Supreme Court struck down the CDA, r uling that it suppressed speech that “adults have a constitutional right to receive” and that governments may not limit the adult population to mes - sages that are fit for children. Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens described the internet as the “town crier” of the modern age and said that the internet was entitled to the greatest degree of First Amendment protection possible.66 In 2003, Congress enacted the PROTECT Act, which outlaw ed efforts to sell child pornography via the internet. The Supreme Court upheld this act in the 2008 case of United States v. Williams, in which the majority said that criminalizing efforts to pur vey child pornography did not violate free speech guarantees.67
In 2000 the S upreme Court extended the highest degr ee of F irst Amendment protection to cable (not broadcast) television. In United States v. Playboy Entertain- ment Group, the Cour t str uck down a por tion of the 1996 Telecommunications
135THe F IRST AMeNDMeNT AND FReeDOM OF SPeeCH AND OF THe PReSS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 135 27/11/18 4:58 PM
Act that required cable TV companies to limit the broadcast of sexually explicit pro- gramming to late-night hours. In its decision, the Court noted that the law already provided parents with the means to restrict access to sexually explicit cable channels through various blocking devices. M oreover, such pr ogramming could come into the home only if parents decided to purchase such channels in the first place.68
Closely related to the issue of obscenity is the matter of violent broadcast content. Can a state or the federal government prohibit broadcasts or publications deemed to be excessively violent? Here, too, the Court has generally upheld freedom of speech. For example, in the 2011 case of Brown v. E ntertainment M erchants A ssociation, the Court struck down a California law banning the sale of violent video games to children, saying that the law violated the First Amendment.69
The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms
A w ell r egulated M ilitia, being neces - sary to the security of a fr ee State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The point and purpose of the Second Amendment is the pr ovision for militias; they were to be the backing of the go vernment for the maintenance of local public order. “Militia” was understood at the time of the F ounding to be a militar y or police resource for state go vernments, and militias w ere specifically distinguished from armies and tr oops, which came within the sole constitutional jurisdiction of Congress. Many individuals, though, have argued that the Second Amendment also establishes an individual right to bear arms.
The judicial record of Second Amendment cases is far sparser than that of First Amendment cases, and for almost 60 y ears the Cour t made no S econd Amend- ment decisions. In the absence of a r uling that would apply to the entir e country, localities across the country have very different gun ownership standards, the result of a patchwork of state and local laws. F or instance, in Wyoming, there is no ban on owning any type of gun, ther e is no waiting period to pur chase a firearm, and individuals are not r equired to obtain a permit for carr ying a concealed w eapon. In California, in contrast, the possession of assault w eapons is banned, ther e is a 10-day waiting period to pur chase a firearm, and a permit is r equired to carr y a concealed weapon. Figure 4.1 shows the backgr ound check r equirements to pur - chase a firearm across the country.
The Court’s silence on the application of the Second Amendment ended in 2008, when the Supreme Court made the first of two rulings in favor of expansive rights of gun ownership by individuals. In the case District of Columbia v. Heller, at issue was a strict Washington, D.C., law that banned handguns. In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment provides a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense, a view that had long been subject to debate. In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia stated that the decision was not intended to cast doubt on all laws limiting firearm possession, such as the prohibition on gun ownership by felons or the mentally ill.70 In his dissenting opinion, Justice Stevens asserted that the Second Amendment only protects the rights of individuals to bear arms as part of a militia force, not in an individual capacity. The District of Columbia
Explore whether the Second Amendment means people have a right to own guns
136 CHAPTER 4 C I V I L L IBeRT IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 136 27/11/18 4:58 PM
FIGURE 4.1
Gun Rights by State Although state gun laws must conform to the Second Amendment as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, laws concerning gun sales and ownership vary widely from state to state. It is much more difficult to buy a gun in, say, New York or California than in Texas or Kentucky. This map shows states that require criminal background checks for the sale of all firearms, only handguns, or none when purchasing firearms. While federal law requires background checks when purchasing a firearm from a licensed seller, only 21 states require them from unlicensed sellers as well.
*An answer of N/A indicates the state does not require criminal background checks for gun sales by unlicensed sellers.
SOURCE: Background Checks, Gun Law Navigator, www.everytownresearch.org/ (accessed 6/12/18).
AK
HI
All �rearms Only handguns *N/A
WA
OR
CA
NV UT
NM
TX
KS
NE
WY
CO
AZ
MS AL
SD
IA
WI
MN
IL
NDMT
ID
KY
IN
MI
TN
VA
FL
ME
NY
WV
LA
AR
MO
SC
GA
NC
PA
OH
OK
MD DE NJ
VT
RI CT
MA NH
is an entity of the federal government, and the Court did not indicate that its ruling applied to state firearms laws. However, in the 2010 case of McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court applied the Second Amendment to the states, making this decision the first new incorporation decision by the Court in 40 years. The case concerned a Chicago ordinance that made it extremely difficult to own a gun within city limits, and the Court’s ruling had the effect of overturning the law.71
Despite these rulings, the debate over gun control continues to loom large in American politics today. A r ecent series of tragic shootings (including the killing of 20 elementar y school students in N ewtown, Connecticut; 9 parishioners at a Charleston, South Carolina, church; 50 people at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida; 59 individuals at a concer t in Las Vegas, Nevada; 27 worshipers at a chur ch in Sutherland Springs, Texas; and 17 students and staff members at a high school in Parkland, Florida) has kept the issue of gun laws firmly on the national agenda. Proponents of gun contr ol point to these shootings as evidence of the need to
137THe SeCOND AMeNDMeNT AND THe R IGHT TO BeAR ARMS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 137 27/11/18 4:58 PM
restrict the availability of firearms while opponents of gun control say that shooting incidents demonstrate that Americans are not safe and should be free to carry arms for self protection. Interestingly, after each mass shooting opposition to gun con - trol increased, perhaps suggesting that many Americans equate gun ownership with personal safety. In 2016, President Obama issued several executive orders designed to expand backgr ound checks for gun pur chasers and licensur e r equirements for firearms dealers. I n 2017, ho wever, most of these or ders w ere r escinded b y President Trump.
Rights of the Criminally Accused Except for the F irst Amendment, most of the battle to apply the Bill of Rights to the states has been fought over the various protections granted
to individuals who are accused of a crime, who are suspects in the commission of a crime, or who are brought before the court as a witness to a crime (Table 4.4). The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth amendments, taken together, are the essence of the due process of law, even though these precise words for this fundamental concept do not appear until the end of the Fifth Amendment. In the next sections, we will look at specific cases that illuminate the dynamics of this important constitutional issue. The procedural safeguards that we will discuss may seem remote to most law-abiding citizens, but they help define the limits of government action against the personal liberty of every citizen. Many Americans believe that “legal technicalities” are responsible for setting many actual criminals free. In some cases, this is true. In fact, few convictions are actually lost because of excluded evidence. But one of America’s traditional and most strongly held juridical values is that “it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go fr ee.”72 In civil suits, v erdicts rest on “the preponderance of the evidence ”; but in criminal cases, guilt has to be pr oven
Explain the major rights that people have if they are accused of a crime
due process of law the right of every individual against arbitrary action by national or state governments
A string of mass shootings in the United States, including ones in which 59 people at a concert in Las Vegas and 17 students and staff members at a high school in Parkland, Florida, were killed, have prompted calls for legislation to limit the availability of guns.
138 CHAPTER 4 C I V I L L IBeRT IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 138 27/11/18 4:58 PM
“beyond a r easonable doubt ”—a far higher standar d. The provisions for due pr ocess in the B ill of Rights were added in order to improve the probability that the standard of “reasonable doubt” would be respected.
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particu- larly describing the place to be sear ched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to guaran - tee the security of citiz ens against unr easonable (i.e., improper) searches and seizures. In 1990 the Supreme Court summariz ed its understanding of the F ourth Amendment brilliantly and succinctly: “A search com- promises the individual inter est in priv acy; a seizur e deprives the individual of dominion o ver his or her person or property.”73 But how are we to define what is reasonable and what is unreasonable?
The 1961 case of Mapp v. Ohio illustrates one of the most important of the principles that have grown out of the F ourth Amendment—the exclusionary rule, which pr ohibits evidence obtained during an illegal search from being intr oduced in a trial. A cting on a tip that D ollree (D olly) M app was harboring a suspect in a bombing incident, several police- men for cibly enter ed M app’s house, claiming they had a warrant to look for the bombing suspect. The police did not find the bombing suspect but, in an old trunk in the basement, did find some materials they declared to be obscene. Although no warrant was ever produced, the evidence that had been seized was admitted by a court, and Mapp was charged and convicted of illegal possession of obscene materials.
The question before the Cour t was whether any evidence pr oduced under the circumstances of the sear ch of her home was admissible. The Court’s opinion affirmed the exclusionary rule: under the Fourth Amendment (applied to the states through the F ourteenth Amendment), “ all evidence obtained b y sear ches and seizures in violation of the Constitution . . . is inadmissible.”74 This means that even people who are clearly guilty of the crime of which they are accused must not be convicted if the only evidence for their conviction was obtained illegally.
The exclusionary rule is the most dramatic r estraint imposed by the cour ts on police behavior because it rules out precisely the evidence that produces a convic- tion; it fr ees those people who ar e known to hav e committed the crime of which they have been accused. Thus, in recent years the Court has softened the applica - tion of the exclusionary rule, and federal courts have relied on its discretionary use,
exclusionary rule the ability of courts to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment
No improper searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment)
No arrest without probable cause (Fourth Amendment)
Right to remain silent (Fifth Amendment)
No self-incrimination during arrest or trial (Fifth Amendment)
Right to be informed of charges (Sixth Amendment)
Right to counsel (Sixth Amendment)
No excessive bail (eighth Amendment)
Right to grand jury (Fifth Amendment)
Right to open trial before a judge (Article I, Section 9)
Right to speedy and public trial before an impartial jury (Sixth Amendment)
evidence obtained by illegal search not admissible during trial (Fourth Amendment)
Right to confront witnesses (Sixth Amendment)
No double jeopardy (Fifth Amendment)
No cruel and unusual punishment (eighth Amendment)
TABLE 4.4
The Rights of the Accused from Arrest to Trial
139R IGHTS OF THe CR IM INALLy ACCUSeD
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 139 27/11/18 4:58 PM
whereby they make a judgment as to the “ nature and quality of the intr usion.”75 In 2006, in the case of United States v. Grubbs, the Supreme Court ruled that the police could conduct searches using such “anticipatory warrants”—warrants issued when the police know that incriminating material is not y et present but have rea- son to believe that it will eventually arrive at a particular premises.76 The warrants are held until the police are ready to conduct their search. In some instances, such as during an arr est, the authorities can conduct sear ches without obtaining any warrants at all.
The Fourth Amendment is also at issue in the contr oversy over mandatory drug testing. Such tests are most widely applied to public employees. In 1989 the Supreme Court upheld the U.S. C ustoms Service’s drug-testing program for its employees77 and dr ug and alcohol tests for railr oad wor kers if they w ere inv olved in serious accidents.78 Since then, mor e than 40 federal agencies have initiated mandatory employee dr ug tests, giving rise to public appeals against the general practice of “suspicionless testing” of employees, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. A 1995 case, in which the Cour t upheld a public school district ’s policy r equiring all stu - dents participating in interscholastic spor ts to submit to random dr ug tests, surely contributed to the efforts of federal, state, and local agencies to initiate random and suspicionless drug and alcohol testing.79
The most recent cases suggest, however, that the Cour t is beginning to con - sider limits on the war against drugs. In a decisive 8–1 decision in 1997, the Court applied the F ourth Amendment as a shield against “ state action that diminishes personal privacy” in cases that do not inv olve high-risk or safety-sensitiv e tasks. 80 And in 2013, the Court held that the use of a drug-sniffing dog on the front porch of a home constituted a search that violates the Fourth Amendment in the absence of consent of a warrant.81
Changes in technology hav e also had an impact on F ourth Amendment juris - prudence. In the 2012 case of United States v. Jones, the Court held that prosecutors violated Jones’s rights when they attached a Global Positioning System (GPS) device to his J eep and monitor ed his mo vements for 28 days. 82 On the other hand, in Maryland v. King, the Court upheld DNA testing of arrestees without the need for individualized suspicion. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy char- acterized DNA testing as an administrative tool for identifying the arrestee and thus legally indistinguishable from photographing and fingerprinting.83 In the 2014 case
Under what circumstances can the police search an individual’s car? The Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the Supreme Court has had to interpret what is unreasonable.
140 CHAPTER 4 C I V I L L IBeRT IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 140 27/11/18 4:58 PM
of Riley v. California, the Court held that the police were constitu- tionally prohibited from seizing and searching the digital contents of a cell phone during an arr est. As new technologies develop, the Court will continue to face the question of what constitutes a r ea- sonable search.84 In 2016 the FBI sought to compel the Apple Cor- poration to unlock the cell phone used b y Syed Farook, an alleged terrorist who, along with his wife Tashfeen Malik, had killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California. Apple asserted that creating new software to enable the FBI to unlock the phone would allow the agency to invade the privacy of millions of iPhone users. The case became moot when the FBI was able to unlock the phone without Apple’s help.
Fourth Amendment issues hav e also been raised b y aggressive police tactics, particularly the tactic known as “stop and frisk.” This is a tactic in which the police confr ont an individual whom they believe to be acting “suspiciously,” question the individual, and conduct a search for weapons. The practice was reviewed by the Supreme Court in the 1968 case of Terry v. Ohio, and the Cour t then held that if an officer had “probable cause” to believe the individual was armed, such a search was permitted.85 In recent years, some police departments, most notably the N ew York City police, hav e made stop and frisk a routine practice, searching thousands and thousands of individuals whom they deemed to look suspicious. The police aver that this aggr essive tactic has r educed crime rates. In August 2013 a federal judge, Shira Scheindlin, noted that most police stops occurred in minority communities and amounted to a form of racial profiling. The judge’s order ending the practice, however, was stayed by a federal appeals court that removed Judge Scheindlin from the case and accused her of impr oper bias. In 2014 the City of New York dropped its appeal and agreed to engage in a process of mediation with community groups to curtail the practice. After his election in 2014, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced an end to aggr essive stop-and-frisk tactics. Critics charged that the mayor’s orders would lead to an increase in New York crime rates, though this has not occurred.
Finally, the F ourth Amendment places limits on government surveillance of individuals, an ongoing and controversial issue in the United States today. For example, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., recently ruled that an NSA program that collected millions of r ecords of telephone calls was impermissible under the Fourth Amendment.86
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a pre- sentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due pr ocess of law; nor shall priv ate property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Grand Juries The first clause of the Fifth Amendment, the right to a grand jury to determine whether a trial is warranted, is consider ed “the oldest institution known to the Constitution.”87 A grand jur y is a body of citiz ens that must agr ee that the
grand jury jury that determines whether sufficient evidence is available to justify a trial; grand juries do not rule on the accused’s guilt or innocence
Supporters of stop-and-frisk tactics argue that the practice reduces crime rates. However, since Mayor Bill de Blasio ended stop and frisk in New York City in 2014, crime rates have not increased or changed significantly. Here, plain clothes police officers stop and frisk Harlem residents.
141R IGHTS OF THe CR IM INALLy ACCUSeD
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 141 27/11/18 4:58 PM
prosecutor has sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against a suspect. Grand juries play an impor tant role in federal criminal cases. H owever, the pr ovision for a grand jury is the one impor tant civil liberties provision of the B ill of Rights that was not incorporated into the F ourteenth Amendment to apply to state criminal prosecutions. Thus, some states operate without grand juries. In such states, the prosecuting attorney simply files a “bill of information” affirming that there is sufficient evidence available to justify a trial. I f the accused person is to be held in custody, the pr osecutor must take the av ailable information befor e a judge to determine that the evidence shows probable cause.
Double Jeopardy ”Nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopar dy of life or limb ” is the constitutional pr otection from double jeopardy, or being tried mor e than once for the same crime. The protection from double jeopardy was at the heart of the Palko case in 1937, which, as we saw earlier in this chapter, also established the principle of selectiv e incorporation of the B ill of Rights. In the Palko case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition of double jeopardy did not apply to the states. H owever, in the 1969 case of Benton v. Maryland, the Court expressly overruled Palko and declared that the double jeopardy clause did, in fact, apply to the states. 88 In this case, the state of Maryland sought to tr y a defendant, John Benton, for larceny, even though he had previously been acquitted by a jury. Maryland’s constitution did not pr ohibit such a pr oceeding, and at the second trial B enton was convicted. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the second trial violated Benton’s rights under the U.S. Constitution. D ouble jeopar dy no w joined those rights “incorporated ” via the Fourteenth Amendment.
Self-Incrimination Perhaps the most significant liberty found in the Fifth Amend- ment, and the one most familiar to the many Americans who watch television crime shows, is the guarantee that no citiz en “shall be compelled in any crimi - nal case to be a witness against himself .” The most famous case concerning self- incrimination is one of such importance that Chief Justice Earl Warren assessed its results as going “to the very root of our concepts of American criminal jurispr u- dence.”89 Twenty-three-year-old E rnesto Miranda was sentenced to betw een 20 and 30 years in prison for the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old woman. The woman had identified him in a police lineup, and after two hours of questioning, Miranda confessed, subsequently signing a statement that his confession had been made v oluntarily, without thr eats or pr omises of immunity . These confessions were admitted into evidence and ser ved as the basis for M iranda’s conviction. After his conviction, Miranda argued that his confession had not been tr uly vol- untary and that he had not been informed of his right to remain silent or his right to consult an attorney. The Supreme Court agreed and overturned the conviction. Following one of the most intensely and widely criticiz ed decisions ever handed down by the Supreme Court, Ernesto Miranda’s case produced the rules the police must follo w befor e questioning an arr ested criminal suspect. The reading of a person’s “M iranda rights” became a standar d scene in ev ery police station and on virtually every dramatization of police action on television and in the mo vies. Miranda advanced the civil liber ties of accused persons not only b y expanding the scope of the F ifth Amendment clause covering coerced confessions and self- incrimination but also b y confirming the right to counsel (discussed later). The Supreme Court under Burger and Rehnquist considerably softened the Miranda
double jeopardy the Fifth Amendment right providing that a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime
142 CHAPTER 4 C I V I L L IBeRT IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 142 27/11/18 4:58 PM
restrictions, but the Miranda rule still stands as a protection against egregious police abuses of arrested persons.
Eminent Domain The other fundamental clause of the Fifth Amendment is the “takings clause,” which extends to each citiz en a pr otection against the “ taking” of private property “without just compensation.” Although this par t of the F ifth Amendment is not specifically concerned with protecting persons accused of crimes, it is nev ertheless a fundamentally impor tant instance wher e the go vern- ment and the citizen are adversaries. The power of any government to take private property for public use—a power essential to the very concept of sovereignty—is called eminent domain. The Fifth Amendment puts limits on that inher ent power through procedures that require a showing of a public purpose and the provision of fair payment for the taking of someone ’s property. This provision is now uni- versally observed in all U.S. principalities, but it has not always been meticulously observed.
The first modern case confronting the issue of public use inv olved a mom-and- pop gr ocery stor e in a r un-down neighborhood of the D istrict of Columbia. I n carrying out a v ast urban r edevelopment program, the city go vernment took the property as one of a large number of privately owned lots to be cleared for new hous- ing and business construction. The owner of the grocery store took the government to court on the grounds that it was an unconstitutional use of eminent domain to take property from one private owner and eventually to turn that property back, in altered form, to another priv ate owner. In 1945 the stor e owner lost the case. The Supreme Court’s argument was a curious but very important one: the “public inter- est” can mean vir tually anything a legislatur e says it means. I n other wor ds, since the overall slum clearance and r edevelopment project was in the public inter est, according to the legislature, the eventual transfers of property were justified.90 This principle was reaffirmed in the 2005 case of Kelo v. City of New London, where the Court held that the city could seiz e land from one private owner and transfer it to another as part of a redevelopment plan.91
Miranda rule the requirement, articulated by the Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, that persons under arrest must be informed prior to police interrogation of their rights to remain silent and to have the benefit of legal counsel
eminent domain the right of government to take private property for public use
The case of Ernesto Miranda resulted in the creation of Miranda rights, which must be read to those arrested to make them aware of their constitutional rights.
143R IGHTS OF THe CR IM INALLy ACCUSeD
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 143 27/11/18 4:58 PM
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL
In all criminal pr osecutions, the accused shall enjo y the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impar tial jury of the S tate and district wher ein the crime shall hav e been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confr onted with the witnesses against him; to hav e com- pulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Some provisions of the S ixth Amendment, such as the right to a speedy trial and the right to confr ont witnesses befor e an impar tial jury, are not v ery controversial in nature. The “right to counsel” provision, like the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment and the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment, is notable for sometimes freeing defendants who seem to be guilty as charged.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) is the perfect case study because it involved a disrepu- table person who seemed patently guilty of the crime of which he was convicted. In and out of jails for most of his 51 y ears, Clarence Earl Gideon received a five-year sentence for breaking and entering a poolroom in Panama City, Florida. While serv- ing time in jail, G ideon became a fairly w ell-qualified “jailhouse lawyer,” made his own appeal on a handwritten petition, and eventually won the landmark ruling on the right to counsel in all felony cases.92
The right to counsel has been expanded during the past few decades, even as the courts have become more conservative. For example, although at first the right to counsel was met by judges assigning lawyers from the community as a formal public obligation, now most states and cities have created an office of public defender; these state-employed professional defense lawyers typically provide poor defendants with much better legal representation. In addition, defendants have the right to appeal a conviction on the grounds that the counsel provided by the state was deficient. For example, in 2003 the Supreme Court overturned the death sentence of a Maryland death-row inmate, holding that the defense lawyer had failed to inform the jury fully of the defendant’s history of “horrendous childhood abuse.”93 Moreover, the right to counsel extends beyond serious crimes to any trial, with or without a jury, that holds the possibility of imprisonment.94
THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT AND CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
Excessive bail shall not be r equired, nor ex cessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.
Virtually all the debate over Eighth Amendment issues focuses on the last clause of the amendment: one of the greatest challenges in interpreting this provision consis- tently is that what is consider ed “cruel and unusual” varies from culture to culture and from generation to generation.
In 1972 the S upreme Cour t o verturned sev eral state death penalty laws, not because they were cruel and unusual but because they were being applied unevenly—that is, African Americans w ere much mor e likely than whites to be sentenced to death, the poor mor e likely than the rich, and men mor e likely than women.95 Very soon after that decision, a majority of states revised their capital
144 CHAPTER 4 C I V I L L IBeRT IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 144 27/11/18 4:58 PM
punishment provisions to meet the Court’s standards, and the Court reaffirmed that the death penalty could be used if cer tain standards were met. 96 Since 1976, the Court has consistently upheld state laws providing for capital punishment, although the Court also continues to review death penalty appeals each year.
Between 1976 and A pril 2017, states ex ecuted 1,448 people. M ost of those executions occurred in southern states, with Texas leading the way at 542. As of October 2018, 30 states had statutes providing for capital punishment for specified offenses, a policy supported by a majority of Americans, accor ding to polls. O n the other hand, 19 states bar the death penalty , and since the end of the 1990s, both the number of death sentences and the number of executions have declined annually.97 In 2017, 23 people were executed in the United States, a slight increase over the 20 executed in 2016.
Despite the seeming popularity of the death penalty, the debate has become, if anything, more intense. Many death penalty supporters assert its deterrent effects on other would-be criminals. Although studies of capital crimes usually fail to demonstrate any dir ect deterr ent effect, this failur e may be due to the lengthy delays—typically y ears and ev en decades—betw een convictions and ex ecutions. A system that eliminates undue delays might enhance deterr ence. And deterring even one murder or other heinous crime, pr oponents argue, is ample justification for such laws.
Death penalty opponents ar e quick to counter that the death penalty has not been proven to deter crime, either in the U nited States or abroad. In fact, America is the only Western nation that still ex ecutes criminals. I f the go vernment is to serve as an example of proper behavior, say foes of capital punishment, it has no business sanctioning killing when incarceration will similarly protect society. Furthermore, execution is time-consuming and expensive—more expensive than life imprisonment—precisely because the government must make every effort to ensure that it is not ex ecuting an innocent person. C urtailing legal appeals would make the possibility of a mistake too great. And although most Americans do support the death penalty, people also suppor t life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as an alternative. Race also intrudes in death penalty cases: people of color are disproportionately more likely than whites charged with identical crimes to be given the ultimate punishment.
The Supreme Court has long str uggled to establish principles to go vern exe- cutions under the E ighth Amendment. I n r ecent y ears, the Cour t has issued a number of death penalty opinions, declaring that death was too harsh a pen - alty for the crime of rape of a child, 98 prohibiting the ex ecution of a defendant with an IQ under 70 and of a y outhful defendant, and inv alidating a death sentence for an African Americans defendant after the pr osecutor impr operly excluded African Americans fr om the jur y.99 I n 2015 the Cour t upheld lethal injection as a mode of execution despite arguments that this form of execution was likely to cause considerable pain.100
The question of cruel and unusual punishment goes bey ond the death penalty . Federal courts have on occasion held that overcrowding and other dangerous con- ditions within prisons, such as inadequate food, medical car e, and sanitation, may constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Also, prison officials employing threats and beatings against inmates may be guilty of violating this E ighth Amendment right.101 The Court has also been concerned with punishments meted out to the mentally disabled and to juveniles. In a recent case, the Court held that life impris- onment without par ole for a juv enile, even one convicted of mur der, constituted
Opponents argue that the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. In recent years the use of lethal injection drugs including Midazolam has come under scrutiny after some troubling executions where the process was drawn out and painful. In 2015 the Supreme Court upheld the use of lethal injection.
145R IGHTS OF THe CR IM INALLy ACCUSeD
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 145 27/11/18 4:58 PM
cruel and unusual punishment. 102 The “Who Are Americans?” feature takes a look at the U.S. prison population.
The Right to Privacy A right to privacy was not granted in the B ill of Rights, but a clause in the F ourth Amendment pr ovides for “ the right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” In a 1928 case, J ustice Louis B randeis argued in a dissent that the Fourth Amendment should be extended to a mor e general principle of “ privacy in the home. ”103 Another step in this dir ection was taken when sev eral Jehovah’s Witnesses dir ected their childr en not to salute the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in school because the first of the Ten Commandments pr ohibits the worship of “graven images.” They lost their case in 1940, but the Supreme Court, reversing itself in 1943, held that the 1940 case had been “ wrongly decided” and recognized “a right to be left alone ” as par t of the fr ee speech clause of the F irst Amendment.104 Another small step was taken in 1958, when the Supreme Court recognized “privacy in one ’s association” in its decision that the state of Alabama could not use the membership list of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in state investigations.105
BIRTH CONTROL
The sphere of privacy was formally recognized in 1965, when the Court ruled that a Connecticut statute forbidding the use of contraceptives violated the right of marital privacy. Estelle Griswold, the executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, was arrested by the state of Connecticut for providing information, instruction, and medical advice about contraception to married couples. S he and her associates were found guilty as accessories to the crime and fined $100 each. The Supreme Court reversed the lower-court decisions and declared the Connecticut law unconstitutional because it violated “a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights— older than our political parties, older than our school system.”106 Justice William O. Douglas, author of the majority decision in the Griswold case, argued that this right of privacy is also grounded in the Constitution because it fits into a “zone of privacy” created by a combination of the Third, Fourth, and Fifth amendments. A concur- ring opinion, written by Justice Arthur Goldberg, attempted to strengthen Douglas’s argument b y adding that “ the concept of liber ty . . . embraces the right of marital privacy though that right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution [and] is supported by numerous decisions of this Cour t . . . and by the language and histor y of the Ninth Amendment [emphasis added]. ”107 The Ninth Amendment pr ovides that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” According to Justice Goldberg, this language means, in effect, that just because the Constitution does not specifically mention a par ticular right to priv acy does not mean that the people do not r etain that right. The language of the Ninth Amendment, when taken with the evidence provided by the F irst, Third, Fourth, and F ifth amendments, was sufficient for the Court to find that the Bill of Rights implies a constitutional right to privacy.
Assess whether people have a right to privacy under the Constitution
right to privacy the right to be left alone, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to entail individual access to birth control and abortions
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Read the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth amendments in the appendix at the end of this book. In your opinion, do American citizens have a constitutional right to privacy?
146 CHAPTER 4 C I V I L L IBeRT IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 146 27/11/18 4:58 PM
Who Is in Prison? Despite the many freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the United States imprisons more of its people than any other country. Although African Americans make up only about 13 percent of the total U.S. population, they make up 35.7 percent of the prison population. Incarceration rates by state range from a low of 189 per 100,000 residents in Maine to a high of 1,072 per 100,000 residents in Louisiana.*
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, “Prisoners in 2014,” September 2015, www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5387 (accessed 2/18/16).
*Violent offenses include murder, manslaughter, rape/sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated or simple assault. Property offenses include burglary, motor vehicle theft, and fraud. Drug offenses include traf�cking and possession. Public order offenses include weapons, drunk driving, and indecency.
Incarceration Rates by State
>300
300–399
400–499
500–599
600+
Number of incarcerated individuals per 100,000 residents
501
328
329
481
456
566 342
433
792
376
534
499 428
780
788 820
558
368
479 254
487
278461
663
615
581
566
579
644
189
337
468
1072
786
682
552 686
465
499 574
928
298
223 415
237 274
447 563 311
563
PROPERTY OFFENDERS
19.3%
PUBLIC-ORDER OFFENDERS
11.0%
DRUG OFFENDERS
15.7%
VIOLENT OFFENDERS
53.2%
FEMALE 7.0%
MALE 93.0%
WHITE 33.6%
OTHER 9.0%
HISPANIC 21.6%
BLACK 35.7%
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS 1. Due process guarantees the
same legal protections to anyone accused of a crime. However, studies have shown that African Americans and Hispanics are more likely to be jailed—and jailed for longer—than whites convicted of similar crimes. Is this a violation of civil liberties?
2. Some people have argued that prison terms for relatively minor drug offenses violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punisment. What do you think?
WHO ARE AMERICANS?
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 147 27/11/18 4:58 PM
ABORTION
The right to privacy was confirmed and extended in 1973 in an important Supreme Court decision: Roe v. Wade. This decision established a woman’s right to seek an abortion and pr ohibited states fr om making abor tion a criminal act prior to the point at which the fetus becomes viable, which in 1973 was the tw enty-seventh week.108 The Burger Court’s decision in Roe took a revolutionary step toward estab- lishing the right to priv acy. I t is impor tant to emphasiz e that the pr eference for privacy rights and for their extension to include the rights of women to contr ol their own bodies was not something the Supreme Court inv ented in a vacuum. Most states did not r egulate abor tions in any fashion until the 1840s, at which time only six of the 26 existing states had any r egulations governing abortion. In addition, many states had begun to ease their abor tion restrictions well before the 1973 Roe decision, although in recent years a number of states have reinstated some restrictions on abortion including lowering the viability standard: 20 weeks (Texas), 12 weeks (Arkansas), and 6 weeks (North Dakota).
By extending the umbrella of privacy, this sweeping ruling dramatically changed abortion practices in America. In addition, it galvanized and nationalized the abor- tion debate. Groups opposed to abortion, such as the National Right to Life Com- mittee, organized to fight the liberal new standard, while abor tion rights gr oups have sought to maintain that pr otection. While the Supreme Court has continued to affirm a woman’s right to seek an abor tion, the Cour t has since qualified that right as the legal standar d shifted against abor tion rights suppor ters. In Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), the Court narrowly upheld (by a 5–4 majority) the constitutionality of r estrictions on the use of public medical facilities for abor - tion.109 And in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood of Southeaster n Pennsylvania v. Casey, another 5–4 majority of the Cour t upheld Roe but narr owed its scope, refusing to invalidate a Pennsylvania law that significantly limits freedom of choice. The Court’s decision defined the right to an abortion as a “limited or qualified” right subject to regulation by the states as long as the regulation does not constitute an “undue burden.”110 In the 2006 case of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern
One of the most important cases related to the right to privacy was Roe v. Wade, which established a woman’s right to seek an abortion. However, the decision has remained highly controversial, with opponents arguing that the Constitution does not guarantee this right.
148 CHAPTER 4 C I V I L L IBeRT IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 148 27/11/18 4:58 PM
New England, the Court held that a law requiring parental notification before a minor could obtain an abor tion was not an undue bur den.111 And in the 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart decision, the Cour t effectively upheld the federal par tial-birth abortion ban, which outlaws a particular type of abortion procedure.112
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
In the last three decades, the right to be left alone began to include the privacy rights of gay people. One morning in Atlanta, Georgia, in the mid-1980s, a police officer came to the home of Michael Hardwick to serve a warrant for Hardwick’s arrest for failure to appear in court to answer charges of drinking in public. One of Hardwick’s unknowing housemates invited the officer to look in Hardwick’s room, where he found Hardwick and another man engaging in “ consensual sexual behavior ” and then proceeded to arrest him under Georgia’s laws against heterosexual and homo- sexual sodomy. Hardwick filed a lawsuit against the state, challenging the constitu- tionality of the G eorgia law, and won his case in the federal cour t of appeals. The state of Georgia, in an unusual move, appealed the court’s decision to the Supreme Court. In 1986 the majority of the Cour t reversed the lower-court decision, hold- ing against H ardwick on the gr ounds that “ the federal Constitution confers [no] fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy” and that therefore there was no basis to invalidate “the laws of the many states that still make such conduct illegal and have done so for a very long time.”113
Seventeen y ears later, and to almost ev eryone’s surprise, in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) the Court overturned Bowers v. Hardwick with a dramatic pronouncement that gays are “entitled to respect for their private lives”114 as a matter of consti- tutional due pr ocess. Drawing fr om the tradition of negativ e liber ty, the Cour t maintained, “In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spher es of our liv es and existence outside the home, wher e the S tate should not be a dominant pr esence.” E xplicitly encompassing lesbians and gay men within the umbr ella of priv acy, the Cour t concluded that the “ petitioners are entitled to r espect for their priv ate lives. The State cannot demean their exist - ence or contr ol their destiny b y making their priv ate sexual conduct a crime. ”115 This decision added substance to the “right of privacy.”116 In 2015 the Court took another important step in the protection of gay rights by declaring that state bans on same-sex marriage w ere unconstitutional.117 The Court said that the r efusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples constituted a violation of the F our- teenth Amendment’s equal protection and due pr ocess clauses. See Chapter 5 for more on same-sex marriage.
THE RIGHT TO DIE
Another area ripe for litigation and public discourse is the so-called right to die. A number of highly publiciz ed physician-assisted suicides in the 1990s focused attention on whether people have a right to choose their own death and to receive assistance in carrying it out. Can this become par t of the priv acy right? Or is it a new substantive right? The Supreme Court has not definitively answered this question. However, the Court refused to intervene in the well-publicized case of Terri Schiavo, a woman who suffered irreversible brain damage and was kept alive in a vegetative state via a feeding tube for 15 years. During this period, Schiavo’s husband wanted to withdraw life suppor t, citing his wife ’s wishes, while her
149THe R IGHT TO PR IVACy
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 149 27/11/18 4:58 PM
SOURCE: Freedom House, “Freedom in the World 2018 Democracy in Crisis,” https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-aggregate-and-subcategory-scores (accessed 4/27/18).
elections are only a small part of what makes a democracy a democracy. Liberal democracies—a term political scientists use to refer to countries they consider fully democratic—also have extensive civil rights and civil liberties.
Freedom House, an independent watchdog organization focusing on freedom and democracy around the world, collects data on political rights and civil liberties from each country. They measure freedom of expression and belief, respect for the “rule of law,”a the right to organize and form associations, and personal autonomy and individual rights to rank countries as free, partly free, and not free (shown below).
All countries vary in how they prioritize specific liberties. The United States is generally comparable to other democracies when it comes to the freedom of expression and belief and the right to organize and form associations, but the United States places exceptionally high emphasis on personal autonomy and individual rights. In comparison, Latvia is ranked slightly higher on the right to organize and form associations, but concerns regarding the treatment of women and minorities mean its individual rights score is lower.
Civil Liberties around the World
Free (democracy)
Partly free Not free No data available
CIVIL LIBERTIES AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, 2018
a A legal principle that laws should govern a country—including its leaders—rather than having decisions made arbitrarily by individuals in the government.
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 150 27/11/18 4:58 PM
parents wanted support continued indefinitely. The case was heard multiple times in the Florida state courts and the federal courts. In 2005, Schiavo’s husband finally prevailed, and she was removed from life support and subsequently died.118 In the 2006 case of Gonzales v. Oregon, the Supreme Court did intervene to uphold a law allowing doctors to use drugs to facilitate the deaths of terminally ill patients who requested such assistance. 119 Thus, although the Court has not r uled definitively on the right-to-die question, it does not seem hostile to the idea.
Civil Liberties WHAT DO WE WANT? The prominent place of civil liberties is one of the hallmarks of American govern-
ment. The freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and its amendments help define the
relationship between government and citizens by limiting what government can do to
individuals.
But these freedoms also come with trade-offs. We saw in the chapter opener that
the freedom afforded to the Slants rock band to reimagine an ethnic slur as a term
of empowerment undermined Native Americans’ efforts to end the use of an ethnic
term they found offensive. Trade-offs are prominent in many areas of government.
Surveillance is one where difficult trade-offs are particularly acute. Government eaves-
dropping on communications, travel, and personal conduct has become a fact of
American life. Revelations in the summer of 2013 of extensive electronic surveillance
by the NSA of Americans’ phone and internet communications caused considerable
consternation in Congress and in the news media. However, many Americans believe
that they are the beneficiaries rather than the potential victims of government surveil-
lance. Those who have nothing to hide, goes the saying, have nothing to fear. But as
law professor Daniel Solove shows, surveillance can entrap even the most innocent
individuals in a web of suspicions and allegations from which they may find it extremely
difficult to extricate themselves.120
The trade-off between individual privacy and government surveil-
lance raises questions not just about security but also about political
power. Popular government requires that citizens possess a good deal
of knowledge about the actions of the state. In essence, citizens must
undertake their own surveillance of the government and its officials
as a precondition for exerting influence over them. At the same time,
citizens’ ability to exercise power also requires that they have consid-
erable protection from the state’s scrutiny. Those who disagree with
government must be both free to organize and voice their opinions and
free from government retaliation.
Thus, popular government requires a combination of government
transparency and citizen privacy. Questions about privacy will continue to
grow as surveillance technologies become more sophisticated and we,
as citizens, will be challenged to adapt eighteenth-century constitutional
National Intelligence director James Clapper and other defense officials testified before Congress following revelations in 2013 of extensive government surveillance programs. Electronic monitoring allows the government to gather vast quantities of data from private communications.
151C IV I L L IBeRT IeS : WHAT DO We WANT?
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 151 27/11/18 4:58 PM
protections to twenty-first-century issues. How have new technologies affected the
government’s ability to monitor its citizens? What are your expectations of privacy in
your email conversations, your plane tickets, your reading habits?
These issues, along with questions about the right to bear arms, the use of
the death penalty, and religious freedom (see the “Who Participates?” feature on
the facing page) are unlikely to go away any time soon and will continue to challenge
Americans in the years to come.
152 CHAPTER 4 C I V I L L IBeRT IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 152 27/11/18 4:58 PM
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
Percentage of American Adults in Each Religious Tradition
Learn more about your other First Amendment rights, such as free speech on the internet, at www.eff.org.
Know Your First Amendment Rights
Learn more about freedom of religion from a variety of legal scholars at www.constitutioncenter.org.
Share your opinion about the First Amendment and religion on campus with your school newspaper. Find information about students’ religious rights at www.thefire.org.
Protestant 44%
Other Christian 3%
Catholic 20%
Jewish 2%
Buddhist 1%
Muslim 1%
Hindu 1%
Other faiths 1%
Nothing in particular 17%
Atheist 3%
Agnostic 3%
Don't know 4%
Under the First Amendment, Americans enjoy the freedom to practice (or not practice) the religion of their choice. Most Americans identify with and participate in some form of religion.
Religious Affiliation and Freedom of Religion
SOURCE: Robert P. Jones and Daniel Cox, America's Changing Religious Identity, 2016, www.prri.org/ (accessed 11/4/17).
WHO PARTICIPATES?
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 153 27/11/18 4:58 PM
Key Terms establishment clause (p. 123)
Lemon test (p. 124)
free exercise clause (p. 125)
Practice Quiz
5. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which led to the Lemon test, concerned the issue of a) school desegregation. b) financial assistance to religious schools. c) cruel and unusual punishment. d) obscenity. e) prayer in school.
Two parts of the First Amendment touch on religious freedom: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The courts have been somewhat inconsistent in determining how solid the establishment clause’s “wall of separation” between church and state actually is in practice. While the courts have been more consistent in protecting the free exercise of religious beliefs, they have taken pains to distinguish between religious beliefs and actions based on those beliefs.
The First Amendment and Freedom of Religion
2. Which of the following rights was not included in the original Constitution? a) prohibition of bills of attainder b) prohibition of ex post facto laws c) guarantee of habeas corpus d) guarantee of trial by jury in the state where the
crime was committed e) None. They were all included in the original
Constitution.
3. The process by which some of the liberties in the Bill of Rights were applied to the states is known as a) preemption. b) selective incorporation. c) judicial activism. d) civil liberties. e) establishment.
4. Which of the following provisions of the Bill of Rights was incorporated in the 1897 Supreme Court case Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy R.R. v. Chicago? a) the right to counsel in any criminal trial b) the right against self-incrimination c) freedom from unnecessary searches and seizures d) freedom to petition the government for redress of
grievances e) protection against the “taking” of private property
by state governments “without just compensation”
Although some of the framers believed that a bill of rights was unnecessary and potentially dangerous, the Federalists made a pledge to add one in order to secure support for the Constitution during the ratification process. Over the course of the first 100 years of American history, the Bill of Rights was interpreted to limit only the actions of the federal government. One by one, most of the important provisions of the first 10 amendments have been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment and applied to the states.
Key Terms habeas corpus (p. 118)
Bill of Rights (p. 118)
civil liberties (p. 118)
selective incorporation (p. 120)
Practice Quiz
1. From 1791 until the end of the nineteenth century, the Bill of Rights was interpreted to put limits on a) the national government only. b) the state government only. c) both the national and state governments. d) neither the national nor the state government. e) political parties and interest groups.
Civil Liberties and the Constitution
Explain the origins and evolution of the civil liberties in the Bill of Rights as they apply to federal govern- ment and the states (pp. 117–22)
Describe how the First Amendment protects freedom of religion (pp. 123–27)
CHAPTER 4 STUDy GU IDe154
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 154 27/11/18 4:58 PM
Practice Quiz
9. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that a) states can require citizens to own firearms. b) federal grants can be used to support the formation
of state militias. c) felons cannot be prevented from purchasing assault
rifles. d) the Second Amendment provides a constitutional
right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self- defense.
e) the Second Amendment applies only to the federal government and not to states.
7. The standard articulated by the Supreme Court in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul suggests that a) virtually all “hate speech” is not constitutionally
protected by the First Amendment. b) virtually all “hate speech” is constitutionally
protected by the First Amendment. c) “hate speech” is not constitutionally protected by
the First Amendment when it is directed at religious groups.
d) “hate speech” is not constitutionally protected by the First Amendment when it is directed at racial or ethnic minority groups.
e) “hate speech” is not constitutionally protected by the First Amendment when it is expressed on college campuses.
8. Which of the following describes a written statement made in “reckless disregard of the truth” that is con- sidered damaging to a victim because it is “malicious, scandalous, and defamatory”? a) slander b) libel c) speech plus d) fighting words e) expressive speech
The Second Amendment granted Americans the right “to keep and bear Arms” in order to provide for state militias. Prior to 2010, the Second Amendment was not incorporated. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court asserted that the right to bear arms applies to both state governments and the federal government.
Given the importance of freedom of speech and of the press to the functioning of democratic government, Ameri- cans are assumed to have the right to speak and broadcast their ideas unless there is some compelling reason to stop them. According to the courts, although virtually all speech is protected by the Constitution, some forms of speech are entitled to a greater degree of protection than others. Libel, slander, and speech that incites lawless action are exam- ples of speech that can be limited by the government.
Key Terms “clear and present danger” test (p. 128)
fighting words (p. 129)
“speech plus” (p. 133)
prior restraint (p. 133)
libel (p. 134)
slander (p. 134)
Practice Quiz
6. The judicial doctrine that places a heavy burden of proof on the government when it seeks to regulate or restrict speech is called a) judicial restraint. b) judicial activism. c) habeas corpus. d) prior restraint. e) strict scrutiny.
The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms
The First Amendment and Freedom of Speech and of the Press
Explore whether the Second Amendment means people have a right to own guns (pp. 136–38)
Describe how the First Amendment protects free speech and freedom of the press (pp. 127–36)
STUDY GU IDE 155
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 155 27/11/18 4:58 PM
Practice Quiz
13. In which case was a right to privacy related to the use of birth control first formally recognized by the Court? a) Griswold v. Connecticut b) Roe v. Wade c) Lemon v. Kurtzman d) Planned Parenthood v. Casey e) Baker v. Carr
14. In which case did the Supreme Court rule that state governments no longer had the authority to make private sexual behavior a crime? a) Texas v. Johnson b) Webster v. Reproductive Health Services c) Gonzales v. Oregon d) Lawrence v. Texas e) Bowers v. Hardwick
A right to privacy is never explicitly mentioned in the Consti- tution. In fact, it was not until 1965 that the Supreme Court interpreted the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth amendments to create a constitutional “zone of privacy.” The right to privacy has since been used to strike down laws limiting access to birth control, outlawing abortion, and criminalizing gay and lesbian sexual activity. The Supreme Court has not yet definitively answered the question of whether the right to privacy also gives individuals a right to choose their own death and to receive assistance in carrying it out.
Key Term right to privacy (p. 146)
The Right to Privacy
c) persons under arrest must be informed prior to police interrogation of their rights to remain silent and to have the benefits of legal counsel.
d) the government has the right to take private property for public use if just compensation is provided.
e) a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime.
11. Which of the following is called “the oldest institution known to the Constitution”? a) The Third Amendment’s freedom from forced
quartering of soldiers during peacetime. b) The Fourth Amendment’s freedom from warrantless
search and seizure. c) The Fifth Amendment’s right to remain silent. d) The Fifth Amendment’s right against self-incrimination
and forced confessions. e) The Fifth Amendment’s right to a grand jury in order
to determine whether a trial is warranted.
12. Which famous case deals with the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to counsel? a) Roe v. Wade b) Mapp v. Ohio c) Gideon v. Wainwright d) Terry v. Ohio e) Miranda v. Arizona
The essence of the Constitution’s due process of the law is found in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and eighth amendments. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreason- able searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment provides individuals with the right to a grand jury, protection from double jeopardy, and a guarantee against self-incrimination. The Sixth Amendment provides the right to legal counsel, the right to a speedy trial, and the right to confront witnesses before an impartial jury. The eighth Amendment protects individuals against “cruel and unusual” punishment.
Key Terms due process of law (p. 138)
exclusionary rule (p. 139)
grand jury (p. 141)
double jeopardy (p. 142)
Miranda rule (p. 143)
eminent domain (p. 143)
Practice Quiz
10. In Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that a) evidence obtained from an illegal search could not
be introduced in a trial. b) the government must provide legal counsel for defen-
dants who are too poor to provide it for themselves.
Rights of the Criminally Accused
Explain the major rights that people have if they are accused of a crime (pp. 138–46)
Assess whether people have a right to privacy under the Constitution (pp. 146–51)
CHAPTER 4 STUDy GU IDe156
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 156 27/11/18 4:58 PM
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) www.aclu.org
The ACLU is committed to protecting for all individuals the freedoms found in the Bill of Rights. This some- times controversial organization constantly monitors the government for violations of liberty and encourages its members to take political action.
Electronic Privacy Information Center http://epic.org/privacy
For an extensive list of privacy issues, go to the web page for the electronic Privacy Information Center. Here you will find civil liberties concerns as they relate to all forms of information technology, including the internet.
The Free Expression Network www.freeexpression.org
The Free expression Network is an organization “dedicated to preserving the right to free expression.” On its website you can find links to important First Amendment issues and organizations.
Freedom Forum www.freedomforum.org
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are con- sidered critical in any democracy; however, only some kinds of speech are fully protected against restrictions. Freedom Forum is a nonpartisan agency that investi- gates and analyzes such First Amendment restrictions.
O’Brien, David M. Constitutional Law and Politics: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. 10th ed. Vol. 2. New york: W. W. Norton, 2017.
Richards, Neil. Intellectual Privacy: Rethinking Civil Liberties in the Digital Age. New york: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Smith, Steven D. The Rise and Decline of American Religious Freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014.
Solove, Daniel. Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff between Pri vacy and Security. New Haven, CT: yale University Press, 2011.
Tebbe, Nelson. Religious Freedom in an Egalitarian Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017.
Waldron, Jeremy. The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012.
Weinrib, Laura. The Taming of Free Speech: America’s Civil Liberties Compromise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016.
Winkler, Adam. Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. New york: W. W. Norton, 2013.
Amar, Akhil Reed. The Law of the Land: A Grand Tour of Our Constitutional Republic. New york: Basic Books, 2015.
Ash, Timothy Garton. Free Speech. New Haven, CT: yale University Press, 2017.
Barbas, Samantha. Newsworthy: The Supreme Court Battle over Privacy and Press Freedom. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2017.
Brandon, Mark. The Constitution in Wartime. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005.
Friendly, Fred W. Minnesota Rag: The Dramatic Story of the Landmark Supreme Court Case That Gave New Meaning to Freedom of the Press. New york: Vintage, 1982.
Gray, David. The Fourth Amendment in an Age of Surveillance. New york: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Lewis, Anthony. Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Bio g raphy of the First Amendment. New york: Basic Books, 2010.
Lewis, Anthony. Gideon’s Trumpet. New york: Random House, 1964.
Recommended Websites
National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League www.naral.org
National Right to Life Committee www.NRLC.org
The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League and the National Right to Life Committee are two of the nation’s largest interest groups weighing in on the abortion issue. See what these opposing groups have to say about privacy rights.
Religious Freedom http://guides.lib.virginia.edu/content.php?pid5147534&sid 51255449
The establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted to mean a “wall of separation” between government and religion. On the Religious Freedom Page you can find information on a variety of issues pertaining to religious freedom in the United States and around the world.
U.S. Supreme Court Media www.oyez.org
This website for U.S. Supreme Court media has a great search engine for finding information on cases affecting civil liberties, such as Lemon v. Kurtzman, Miranda v. Arizona, Mapp v. Ohio, and New York Times v. Sullivan, to name a few.
For Further Reading
STUDY GU IDE 157
wtp12e_ptr_ch04_114-157.indd 157 27/11/18 4:59 PM
Civil Rights
050505 chapter
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS U.S. Naval Academy midshipman Regan Kibby always knew he wanted to join the military.
“I felt if I could do it, I should. It felt like a duty.” His
father had served in the Navy, and Regan had enrolled
in the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps in high
school. In the summer before senior year, he attended
three service-oriented summer programs, at the U.S.
Naval Academy, the U.S. Military Academy, and the
U.S. Air Force Academy, ultimately choosing the naval
academy for the next step in his career training.
During Kibby’s “plebe summer” in 2015, the rigor-
ous training program before freshman year, Defense
Secretary Ashton Carter made an announcement:
the Pentagon would allow transgender people to
serve openly. Kibby, who had been born a girl but
never felt that designation quite right, started
coming out as transgender to his roommates, to
members of Navy Spectrum, an organization for
LGBTQ midshipmen, and to his company officer. In
November 2016 the Navy issued a protocol for
service members with gender dysphoria who wished
to transition. Kibby’s transition was later approved,
and he was thrilled: he would no longer have to
choose between the “fundamental parts of his
identity.” “I just thought I could fly under the radar,
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 158 27/11/18 12:23 PM
Americans agree over the basic notion of civil rights but often clash over their application. The rights of transgender people have been a topic of heated debate. After facing several legal and political roadblocks, transgender Americans were allowed to both enlist and serve openly in the military, starting in 2018.
graduate, and serve my country like I always planned
to.” He knew it would be a challenge. An older
transgender Naval Academy alum who had had to
retire before transitioning and who had become an
advocate for transgender service members had told
him, “Make yourself indispensable. You’re going to
have to work twice as hard to get the respect you
deserve.” Kibby took on a double major and leader-
ship positions. He also found a clinic that accepts
the military’s health insurance, Tricare, and that
provides transgender services.1
Then in July 2017, President Donald Trump
tweeted that transgender people would no longer
be allowed to serve in the U.S. military. “It was
devastating,” said Kibby, who would not be allowed to
graduate from the Naval Academy if the ban were to
stand. “I’m very likely not going to be able to continue
my education, the path that I planned for my life.”2
Trump released a presidential memorandum the
following month requiring all transgender service
members to be discharged starting in March 2018.
When transgender members of the military sued,
the issue went to court. After four federal courts
ruled against the ban, the Trump administration
announced in December 2017 that it would not
take the issue to the Supreme Court, and openly
159
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 159 27/11/18 12:23 PM
transgender Americans were allowed to enlist beginning January 1, 2018.3
Kibby’s career was saved.
As we saw in the previous chapter, in the Bill of Rights, civil liberties are
phrased as negatives—what government must not do. Civil rights, on the
other hand, are positives—what the government must do to guarantee equal
citizenship and protect citizens from discrimination. Civil liberties protect
Americans from various forms of governmental abuse. Civil rights regulate
who can participate in the political process and civil society and how they
can participate: for example, who can vote, who can hold office, who can
have a trial or serve on juries, and when and how citizens can petition the
government to take action. Civil rights also define how people are treated in
employment, education, and other aspects of American society.
As in the case of civil liberties, Americans agree with the basic principle of
civil rights but quarrel frequently over their application. The question of who has
the constitutional right to do what underlies some of the major controversies of
American history. Fifty years ago, the African American struggle for equal rights
took center stage. Many goals of the civil rights movement that once aroused
bitter controversy are now widely accepted as part of the American commitment
to equal rights. But even today the question of what is meant by “equal rights” is
hardly settled. To what extent can states mandate racial preferences in college
admissions? What rights do undocumented immigrants possess? Do transgender
individuals have the right to use a public restroom based upon their gender identifi-
cation rather than their physical characteristics, and can they serve in the military?
As we saw in Chapter 4, the evolution of civil liberties in the United States
mainly, though not exclusively, involved the actions of the federal courts. Liberties
are limits on government action, and the courts are the institution best situated
to tell Congress, the president, and state governments what they may not do. Civil
rights, though, involve the government’s obligation to act, and the evolution of
civil rights required much more action on the part of Congress and the president.
★ Trace the legal developments and social movements that expanded civil rights (pp. 161–79)
★ Describe how different groups have fought for and won protection of their civil rights (pp. 179–94)
★ Contrast arguments for and against affirmative action (pp. 195–97)
CHAPTER GOALS
160 CHAPTER 5 C I v I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 160 27/11/18 12:23 PM
The Struggle for Civil Rights In the U nited S tates the histor y of slav ery and legaliz ed racial discrimination against African Ameri- cans coexists uneasily with a str ong tradition of individual liber ty.
Indeed, for much of our histor y Americans have struggled to reconcile such exclu- sionary racial practices with our notions of individual rights. With the adoption of the F ourteenth Amendment in 1868 civil rights became par t of the Constitu - tion, guaranteed to each citiz en through “equal protection of the laws.” This equal protection clause launched a century of political movements and legal efforts to press for racial equality.
For African Americans, the central fact of political life for most of American history has been a denial of full citiz enship rights. B y accepting the institution of slavery, the Founders embraced a system fundamentally at odds with the “Blessings of Liberty” promised in the Constitution. Their decision set the stage for two centu- ries of African American struggles to achieve full citizenship.
For women, electoral politics was a decidedly masculine world. U ntil 1920, not only were women barred from voting in national politics but electoral politics was closely tied to such male social institutions as lodges, bars, and clubs. Yet the exclu- sion of women fr om this political world did not pr event them fr om engaging in public life. I nstead, women car ved out a “ separate sphere” for their public activi - ties. Emphasizing female stewardship of the moral realm, women became important voices in social reform well before they won the right to vote.4 Prior to the Civil War, women played leading roles in the abolitionist movement.
SLAVERY AND THE ABOLITIONIST MOVEMENT
No issue in the nation’s history so deeply divided Americans as that of slavery. The importation and subjugation of Africans kidnapped fr om their nativ e lands was a practice virtually as old as the country itself: the first slaves brought to what became
discrimination the use of any unreasonable and unjust criterion of exclusion
civil rights obligation imposed on government to take positive action to protect citizens from any illegal action of government agencies and of other private citizens
equal protection clause provision of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing citizens “the equal protection of the laws.” This clause has been the basis for the civil rights of African Americans, women, and other groups
Trace the legal developments and social movements that expanded civil rights
Slavery tore the nation apart and ultimately led to the Civil War. The abolition movement organized in the North and pushed to end slavery. Harriet Tubman (far left in photograph) was an abolitionist and ex-slave who helped many slaves escape bondage through a system of safe houses called the “underground railroad.”
161THe STRUGGLe FOR C Iv I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 161 27/11/18 12:23 PM
the United States arrived in 1619, a year before the Plymouth colony was established in M assachusetts. White southerners built their agricultural economy (especially cotton production) on a large slave labor force. By 1840 nearly half of the popula - tions of Alabama and Louisiana consisted of black slav es. Even so, only about one- quarter of southern white families owned slaves.
Slavery was so much a par t of southern culture that efforts to restrict or abolish the institution were met with fierce resistance. Despite the manifest cruelties of the slave system, southerners r eferred to it mer ely as their “ peculiar institution.” This quaint label meant little to slavery’s opponents, however; and an abolitionist move- ment grew and spread among northerners in the 1830s (although abolitionist senti- ment could be traced back to the prerevolutionary era). The abolitionist movement spread primarily through local organizations in the North. Soon two political parties emerged: the staunchly antislav ery Liberty Party and the mor e moderate Free Soil Party, which sought primarily to r estrict slavery from spreading into ne w western territories. Some opponents of slav ery took matters into their o wn hands, aiding in the escape of r unaway slaves along the U nderground Railroad. In the S outh, a similar, if contrary, fervor prompted mobs to break into post offices in order to seize and destroy antislavery literature.
In 1857 the S upreme Court inflamed this tense atmosphere with its infamous decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott was a slave who had been taken by his owner to the free state of Illinois and the territory of Wisconsin, where slavery was forbidden. Scott sued for his fr eedom, arguing that his r esidence in a free territory meant he was a free man. The Court, however, disagreed, holding that slaves— indeed, all blacks—were not citizens of the United States. Scott had no due process rights because, as a slav e, he was his master ’s permanent property, regardless of his master’s having taken him to a free state or territory.5 This decision split the country deeply over the issue of slav ery; the emotional po wer of the slav ery issue was such that it precipitated the nation’s bloodiest conflict, the Civil War. From the ashes of the Civil War came the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments, which would redefine civil rights from that time on.
THE WOMEN’S RIGHTS MOVEMENT
The quiet upstate New York to wn of S eneca F alls play ed host to what would later come to be kno wn as the star ting point of the modern women ’s movement. Convened in July 1848 and organized by the activists Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, the Seneca Falls Convention drew 300 delegates to formulate plans for advancing the political and social rights of women.
The centerpiece of the convention was its Declaration of Sentiments and Resolu- tions. Patterned after the Declaration of Independence, the Seneca Falls document declared, “ We hold these tr uths to be self -evident: that all men and women ar e created equal” and “The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establish- ment of an absolute tyranny over her.” The most controversial provision of the dec- laration, nearly rejected as too radical, was the call for the right to vote for women. Although most of the delegates were women, about 40 men participated, including the renowned abolitionist Frederick Douglass. The link to the antislavery movement was not new. Stanton and Mott had attended the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London in 1840 but had been denied delegate seats because of their sex. This rebuke helped precipitate the 1848 convention in Seneca Falls.
162 CHAPTER 5 C I v I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 162 27/11/18 12:23 PM
The convention and its par ticipants were subjected to wide - spread ridicule, but similar conventions were organized in other states. And in the same y ear as the S eneca Falls Conv ention, New York State passed the M arried Women’s Property Act in order to restore the right of married women to own property.
THE CIVIL WAR AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION
The hopes of African Americans for achieving full citizenship rights initially seemed fulfilled when three constitutional amend- ments w ere adopted after the Civil War: the Thirteenth Amend- ment abolished slav ery, the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed equal protection and due process under the law, and the Fifteenth Amendment guaranteed voting rights for blacks. Protected by the presence of federal tr oops, African American men w ere able to exercise their political rights immediately after the war. Between 1869 and 1877 blacks were elected to many political offices: two black senators w ere elected fr om Mississippi, and a total of 14 African Americans were elected to the House of Representatives. African Americans also held many state-level political offices. As voters and public officials, black citizens found a home in the Republican Party, which had secured the ratification of the three constitutional amendments guaranteeing black rights. After the war, the Republican Party continued to reach out to black voters as a means to build party strength in the South.6
This political equality was short-lived, ho wever. The national government withdrew its tr oops from the S outh and turned its back on African Americans in 1877, when Reconstruction ended. In the Compromise of 1877, southern D emo- crats agreed to allo w the R epublican candidate, R utherford B. H ayes, to become president after a disputed election. I n ex change, nor thern R epublicans dr opped their support for the civil liberties and political participation of African Americans. After that, southern states erected a “Jim Crow” system of social, political, and eco- nomic inequality that made a mocker y of the pr omises in the Constitution. The first Jim Crow laws were adopted in the 1870s, in each southern state, to criminaliz e intermarriage of the races and to segr egate trains and depots. These were promptly followed by laws segregating all public accommodations, and within 10 years all southern states had adopted laws segregating the schools.
Immediately after the Civil War, when male ex -slaves won the franchise, some women pressed for the right to v ote at the national lev el; but politicians in both parties rejected women’s suffrage as disruptive and unrealistic. Women also star ted to press for the v ote at the state lev el in 1867, when a r eferendum to give women the vote in Kansas failed. F rustration with the general failur e to win r eforms acce- lerated suffrage activism. In 1872, Susan B. Anthony and several other women were arrested in R ochester, New York, for illegally r egistering and v oting in that y ear’s national election. (The men who allowed the women to register and vote were also indicted. Anthony paid their expenses and ev entually won presidential pardons for them.) A t Anthony’s trial, J udge Ward Hunt ordered the jur y to find her guilty without deliberation. Yet Anthony was allowed to address the court, saying, “Your denial of my citizen’s right to vote is the denial of my right of consent as one of the
Many see the Seneca Falls Conven- tion of 1848 as the starting point of the modern women’s rights movement. Its Declaration of Sentiments proclaiming equality for women is one of the move- ment’s most important documents.
Thirteenth Amendment one of three Civil War amendments; it abolished slavery
Fourteenth Amendment one of three Civil War amendments; it guaranteed equal protection and due process
Fifteenth Amendment one of three Civil War amendments; it guaranteed voting rights for African American men
Jim Crow laws laws enacted by southern states following Reconstruction that discriminated against African Americans
163THe STRUGGLe FOR C Iv I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 163 27/11/18 12:23 PM
governed, the denial of my right of r epresentation as one of the tax ed, the denial of my right to a trial of my peers as an offender against the law.”7 Hunt assessed Anthony a fine of $100 but did not sentence her to jail. She refused to pay the fine.
CIVIL RIGHTS AND THE SUPREME COURT: “SEPARATE BUT EQUAL”
Resistance to equality for African Americans in the S outh led Congr ess to adopt the Civil Rights A ct of 1875, which attempted to pr otect blacks fr om discrimi - nation by proprietors of hotels, theaters, and other public accommodations. But the Cour t declar ed the legislation unconstitutional on the gr ounds that the act sought to pr otect blacks against discrimination b y private businesses, wher eas the Fourteenth Amendment, according to the Cour t’s interpretation, was intended to protect individuals fr om discrimination only against actions b y public officials of state and local governments.
In the infamous case of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Court went still further by upholding a Louisiana statute that required segregation of the races on tr olleys and other public carriers (and, by implication, in all public facilities, including schools). Homer Plessy, a man defined as “one-eighth black,” sat in a trolley car reserved for whites and was found guilty of violating a Louisiana law that pr ovided for “equal but separate accommodations” on trains and levied a $25 fine on any white pas- senger who sat in a car r eserved for blacks or on any black passenger who sat in a car reserved for whites. The Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause was not violated by racial distinction as long as the facilities were equal, thus establishing the “separate but equal” rule that prevailed through the mid-twentieth century. White people generally pr etended that segr egated accom- modations were equal as long as some accommodation for blacks existed. The Court said that although “the object of the [Fourteenth] Amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law . . . it could not have
“separate but equal” rule doctrine that public accommodations could be segregated by race but still be considered equal
The 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson upheld legal segregation and created the “sepa- rate but equal” rule, which fostered national segregation. Overt discrimi- nation in public accommodations was common.
164 CHAPTER 5 C I v I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 164 27/11/18 12:23 PM
intended to abolish distinctions based on color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfac - tory to either.”8 What the Cour t was saying in effect was that the use of race as a criterion of exclusion in public matters was reasonable.
ORGANIZING FOR EQUALITY
The creation of a Jim Crow system in the southern states and the lack of a legal basis for “equal protection of the laws ” prompted the beginning of a long pr ocess in which African Americans built organizations and devised strategies for asser ting their constitutional rights.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People One such strategy sought to win political rights thr ough political pr essure and litigation. This approach was championed b y the National Association for the A dvancement of Colored People (NAACP), established in 1909 b y a gr oup of black and white reformers that included W. E. B. D u Bois, one of the tw entieth centur y’s most influential and creative thinkers on racial issues. B ecause the nor thern black v ote was so small in the early 1900s, the NAACP relied primarily on the courts to press for black political rights. After the 1920s it built a str ong membership base, with some strength in the South, which would be critical when the civil rights movement gained momentum in the 1950s.
Women’s Organizations and the Right to Suffrage The 1886 unveiling in New York Harbor of the Statue of Liberty, depicting liberty as a woman, prompted women’s rights advocates to call it “the greatest hypocrisy of the nineteenth century,” in that “not one single woman throughout the length and breadth of the Land is as yet in possession of political Liberty.”9
The climactic movement toward women’s suffrage had been formally launched in 1878 with the introduction of a proposed constitutional amendment in Congr ess. Parallel efforts were made in the states. Many states granted women the right to vote before the national government did. Western states with less entrenched political systems opened politics to women earliest. When Wyoming became a state in 1890, it was the first state to grant full suffrage to women. Colorado, Utah, and Idaho all
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS What were the consequences of the “separate but equal” policy for southern society and for blacks’ civil rights?
Women fought for decades for the right to vote. The Nineteenth Amendment, ratified in 1920 over the opposition of President Wilson, guaranteed that right. Pictured here on the right are women voting for the first time after the passage of the amendment.
165THe STRUGGLe FOR C Iv I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 165 27/11/18 12:23 PM
followed suit in the next several years. Suffrage organizations grew—the National American Woman S uffrage Association (NAWSA), formed in 1890, claimed 2 million members by 1917 and staged mass meetings, parades, petitions, and pro- tests. NAWSA organized state-by-state efforts to win the right for women to v ote. Members of a more militant group, the National Woman’s Party, staged pickets and got arrested in fr ont of the White House to pr otest President Wilson’s opposition to a constitutional amendment granting women this right. When the N ineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920, women were finally guaranteed the right to vote.
LITIGATING FOR EQUALITY AFTER WORLD WAR II
The shame of discrimination against black military personnel during World War II, plus revelations of Nazi racial atrocities, moved President Harry S. Truman finally to bring the pr oblem of racial discrimination to the White House and national attention, with the appointment in 1946 of the P resident’s Commission on Civil Rights. In 1948 the commission submitted its report, To Secure These Rights, which laid bare the extent of the pr oblem and its consequences and r evealed the success of experiments with racial integration in the armed for ces during World War II. This was intended to demonstrate to southern society that it had nothing to fear. But the commission r ecognized that the national go vernment had no clear consti - tutional authority to pass and implement civil rights legislation. I t proposed tying such legislation to the commer ce power described in Ar ticle I of the Constitution, which allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce, although it was clear that discrimination was not itself related to the flow of interstate commerce.10 The com- mittee even suggested using the treaty power as a source of constitutional authority for civil rights legislation.11
The Supreme Court had begun to change its position on racial discrimina - tion before World War II by being stricter about the criterion of equal facilities in the “separate but equal ” rule. In 1938, for example, the Cour t rejected Missouri’s policy of paying the tuition of qualified blacks to out-of-state law schools rather than admitting them to the University of Missouri Law School.12
After the war, modest progress resumed. In 1950 the Court rejected Texas’s claim that its ne w “law school for N egroes” afforded education equal to that of the all - white University of Texas Law School, anticipating its future civil rights rulings by opening the question of whether any segr egated facilities could be tr uly equal.13 But in ordering the admission of blacks to all -white state law schools, the Supreme Court did not directly confront the “separate but equal” rule. The most important pre-1954 decision was probably Shelley v. Kraemer, in which the Court ruled against the widespread practice of “restrictive covenants” whereby the seller of a home added a clause to the sales contract r equiring the buyer to agree never to sell the home to any non-Caucasian, non-Christian, and so on. The Court ruled that such covenants could not be judicially enforced since the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits any organ of the state, including the courts, from denying equal protection of its laws.14
Although none of those pre-1954 cases confronted “separate but equal” and the principle of racial discrimination as such, they w ere extremely significant to black leaders in the 1940s and gav e them encouragement to believ e that at last they had an opportunity and enough legal precedent to change the constitutional framework itself. Much of this legal wor k was done b y the Legal D efense and E ducational Fund of the NAACP, which until the late 1940s had concentrated on winning small victories within the existing framework. In 1948 the Legal Defense Fund upgraded
166 CHAPTER 5 C I v I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 166 27/11/18 12:23 PM
its approach by simultaneously filing suits in different federal districts and through each level of schooling. After nearly two years of these mostly successful equalization suits, the lawyers decided the time was ripe to confront the “separate but equal” rule head-on, but they felt they needed some heavier ar tillery to lead the attack. Their choice was the African American lawyer Thurgood Marshall, who had been fighting, and often winning, equalization suits since the early 1930s. Marshall was pessimistic about the r eadiness of the S upreme Cour t for a full confr ontation with segr ega- tion itself and the constitutional principle sustaining it. B ut the unwillingness of Congress after the 1948 election to consider fair -employment legislation seems to have convinced Marshall that the courts were the only hope.
In the fall of 1952 the Court had on its docket cases from Delaware, Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and the D istrict of Columbia challenging the constitu - tionality of school segr egation. O f these, the case filed in Kansas became the one chosen by the NAACP. This case was further along in the process of adjudication in its district court, and it had the advantage of being located in a state outside the Deep South, a fact that would minimize any local opposition to a favorable decision.15
Oliver B rown, the father of thr ee girls, liv ed “ across the tracks ” in a lo w- income, racially mixed Topeka neighborhood. Every school day, Linda Brown took the school bus to the M onroe Elementary School, for black childr en, about a mile away. In September 1950, Oliver Brown took Linda to the all-white Sumner School, which was closer to home, to enter her into the thir d grade, in defiance of state law and local segr egation rules. When they w ere refused, Brown took his case to the NAACP, and soon ther eafter, the case Brown v. Board of Education was born. I n mid-1953 the Cour t announced that the sev eral cases on their way up would be reargued within a set of questions having to do with the intent of the F ourteenth Amendment. Almost exactly a year later, the Court responded to those questions in one of the most important decisions in its history:
Does segregation of childr en in public schools solely on the basis of race, ev en though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minor- ity group of equal educational oppor tunities? We believe that it does. . . . We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educa- tional facilities are inherently unequal.16
The Brown decision altered the constitutional framework by indicating that racial discrimination violated the Constitution.
CIVIL RIGHTS AFTER BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION
Brown v. Board of E ducation withdrew all constitutional authority to use race as a criterion of exclusion, and it signaled more clearly the Court’s determination to use the strict scrutiny test in cases r elated to racial discrimination. This meant that the burden of pr oof would fall on the go vernment to sho w that the law in question was constitutional—not on the challengers to sho w the law’s unconstitutionality.17 Although the use of strict scrutiny would give an advantage to those attacking racial discrimination, the historic decision in Brown v. Boar d of E ducation was mer ely a small opening mo ve. F irst, most states r efused to cooperate until sued, and many ingenious schemes w ere employed to delay obedience (such as paying the tuition for white students to attend newly created “private” academies). Second, even as southern school boards began to cooperate b y eliminating their legally enfor ced
Brown v. Board of Education the 1954 Supreme Court decision that struck down the “separate but equal” doctrine as fundamentally unequal; this case eliminated state power to use race as a criterion of discrimination in law and provided the national government with the power to intervene by exercising strict regulatory policies against discriminatory actions
strict scrutiny a test used by the Supreme Court in racial discrimination cases and other cases involving civil liberties and civil rights that places the burden of proof on the government rather than on the challengers to show that the law in question is constitutional
167THe STRUGGLe FOR C Iv I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 167 27/11/18 12:23 PM
(de jure) school segregation, extensive actual (de facto) school segregation remained, in the North as well as in the South, as a consequence of racially segregated housing that could not be addressed by the 1954–55 Brown principles. Third, discrimination in employment, public accommodations, juries, v oting, and other ar eas of social and economic activity was not directly touched by Brown.
School Desegregation, Phase One Although the District of Columbia and some of the school districts in the bor der states began to r espond almost immediately to cour t-ordered desegr egation, the states of the D eep S outh r esponded with a carefully planned delaying tactic commonly called “ massive resistance.” Southern politicians stood shoulder to shoulder to declar e that the S upreme Court’s deci - sions and orders were without effect. The legislatures in these states enacted statutes ordering school districts to maintain segr egated schools and state superintendents to terminate state funding wherever there was racial mixing in the classroom. Some southern states violated their own long traditions of local school autonomy by centralizing public school authority under the go vernor or the state boar d of education, and they gave themselves the power to close the schools and to provide alternative priv ate schooling wher ever local school boar ds might be inclined to obey the Supreme Court.
Most of these plans of “ massive r esistance” w ere tested in the federal cour ts and struck down as unconstitutional. 18 But southern r esistance was not confined to legislation. P erhaps the most serious incident occurr ed in Ar kansas in 1957, when Governor Orval Faubus mobilized the Arkansas National Guard to intercede against enforcement of a federal court order to integrate Little Rock Central High School. President Eisenhower was compelled to deplo y U.S. troops and place the city under mar tial law. This action by the federal go vernment underlined that a right was at issue. The Supreme Court considered the Little R ock confrontation so historically impor tant that the opinion it r endered in that case was not only agreed to unanimously but, unpr ecedentedly, signed personally b y ev ery one of the justices.19
de jure literally, “by law”; refers to legally enforced practices, such as school segregation in the South before the 1960s
de facto literally, “by fact”; refers to practices that occur even when there is no legal enforcement, such as school segregation in much of the United States today
“Massive resistance” among white southerners attempted to block the desegregation efforts of the national government. For example, at Little Rock Central High School in 1957, an angry mob of white students prevented black students from entering the school.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Describe the changes in American society between the Plessy v. Ferguson and the Brown v. Board of Education decisions. How have changes in civil rights policy since the Brown case impacted society?
168 CHAPTER 5 C I v I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 168 27/11/18 12:23 PM
The end of massive r esistance, ho wever, became simply the beginning of still another southern strategy . “P upil placement ” laws authoriz ed school districts to place each pupil in a school accor ding to a v ariety of academic, personal, and psy - chological considerations, never mentioning race at all. This put the burden of trans- ferring to an all-white school on the nonwhite children and their parents, making it almost impossible for a single court order to cover a whole district, let alone a whole state, thereby delaying desegregation awhile longer.20
Social Protest after Brown Ten years after Brown, fewer than 1 percent of black school-age children in the Deep South were attending schools with whites.21 A decade of frustration made it fairly obvious to all observers that adjudication alone would not succeed. The goal of “equal protection” required positive, or affirmative, action by Congress and b y administrative agencies. And given massiv e southern resistance and a generally negative national public opinion toward racial integration, progress would not be made thr ough courts, Congress, or federal agencies without intense, well-organized support. Figure 5.1 shows the increase in the number of civil rights demonstrations for voting rights and public accommodations during the years following Brown.
The number of organized demonstrations began to mount slo wly but surely after Brown v. Board of Education. Only a year after Brown, black citizens in Montgomery, Alabama, challenged the city’s segregated bus system with a y earlong boycott. The boycott began with the arrest of Rosa Parks, who refused to give up her seat for a white man. A seamstress who worked with civil rights groups, Parks eventually became a civil rights icon, as did one of the ministers leading the boycott, Martin Luther King, Jr. After a year of private carpools and walking, Montgomery’s bus system desegregated, but only after the Supreme Court ruled the system unconstitutional.
FIGURE 5.1
Peaceful Civil Rights Demonstrations, 1954–68 Peaceful demonstrations were an impor- tant part of the civil rights movement. Why did the number of demonstrations grow after 1955? Why do you think the focus shifted from public accommodations to voting rights after 1964?
NOTE: The data are drawn from a search of the New York Times index for all references to civil rights demonstrations.
SOURCE: Jonathan D. Casper, The Politics of Civil Liberties (New York: Harper and Row, 1972), 90.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1954 1955 1956
Total
For voting
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961
NUMBER OF DEMONSTRATIONS
1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968
For public accommodations
169THe STRUGGLe FOR C Iv I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 169 27/11/18 12:23 PM
By the 1960s the many organizations that made up the civil rights mo vement had accumulated experience and built networ ks capable of launching large -scale direct action campaigns against southern segregationists. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the S tudent Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and many other organizations had built a mo vement that stretched across the South, using the media to attract nationwide attention and suppor t. The image of pro- testers being beaten, attacked b y police dogs, and set upon with fire hoses did much to win br oad sympathy for the cause of black civil rights and to discr edit state and local go vernments in the S outh. In the massive March on Washington in 1963, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., staked out the movement’s moral claims in his famous “I H ave a D ream” speech. S teadily, the mo vement created intense pressure for a reluctant federal government to take more assertive steps to defend black civil rights.
Protests against discriminator y practices to ward African Americans did not end in the 1960s. I n recent years, a v ariety of pr otests coalesced under the banner Black Lives Matter to focus attention on allegations of police misconduct dir ected at African Americans. The movement took off in Ferguson, M issouri, after the shooting of an unarmed black man b y a white police officer and spread across the nation often via social media, which pr esented live photos and films taken by cell phone cameras, as the television ne ws carried r eports, photos, and videos of police violence against blacks in Chicago, South Carolina, Baltimore, New York, and many other cities. African Americans had long asserted that they were often victims of racial profiling and more likely than whites to be harassed, physically harmed, or arr ested by the police. Police departments had often replied that blacks were more likely than whites to be engaged in criminal activity. Reports and video footage of killings, how- ever, proved difficult for the police to justify and led many police departments to introduce new training methods and to adopt new rules governing police behavior.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS
It is impor tant to obser ve here the mutual dependence of the cour ts and legisla - tures: the legislatures need constitutional authority to act, and the cour ts need leg- islative and administrative assistance to implement cour t orders and focus political
The struggle for African American civil rights has spanned decades. Among the key moments are Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955–56), sit-ins at segregated lunch counters throughout the South, the March on Washington and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech (1963), and the Black Lives Matter movement that persists today.
170 CHAPTER 5 C I v I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 170 27/11/18 12:23 PM
support. Consequently, even as the U.S. Congr ess finally moved into the field of school desegregation (and other ar eas of “equal protection”), the cour ts continued to exercise their powers, not only by placing court orders against recalcitrant school districts but also b y extending and r einterpreting aspects of the equal pr otection clause to support legislative and administrative actions (see Table 5.1).
Three civil rights acts were passed during the first decade after the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. But these acts were of only marginal importance.
By far the most impor tant piece of legislation passed b y Congress concerning equal opportunity was the Civil Rights A ct of 1964. It not only put some teeth in the voting rights provisions of the 1957 and 1960 acts but also went far beyond vot- ing to attack discrimination in public accommodations, segregation in the schools, and, at long last, the discriminatory conduct of employers in hiring, promoting, and laying off their employees. Discrimination against women was also included, extend- ing the important 1963 provisions. The 1964 act seemed bold at the time, but it was enacted fully 10 y ears after the S upreme Court had declar ed racial discrimination “inherently unequal” and long after blacks had demonstrated that discrimination was no longer acceptable. With the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress pointed to a different part of the Constitution as the primary source of its authority to ban racial discrimination in some businesses: the “commerce clause,” which empowers Con- gress to “regulate commerce . . . among the several states.” Over the previous twenty years, Congress and the courts had come to agree that this clause empowered Con- gress to regulate commercial activity broadly defined. And this time, when southern business owners challenged the law, the Supreme Court upheld it.
Public Accommodations After the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights A ct, pub- lic accommodations quickly removed some of the most blatant forms of racial discrimination. Signs defining “colored” and “white” restrooms, water fountains, waiting rooms, and seating arrangements were removed; and a host of other prac - tices that relegated black people to separate and inferior arrangements were ended. In addition, the federal go vernment filed more than 400 antidiscrimination suits in federal courts against hotels, restaurants, taverns, gas stations, and other “public accommodations.”
171THe STRUGGLe FOR C Iv I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 171 27/11/18 12:23 PM
Many aspects of legaliz ed racial segregation—such as separate B ibles to swear in black and white witnesses in the cour troom—seem like ancient histor y today. But the issue of racial discrimination in public settings is by no means over. In 2014, for example, an African American customer at a Vancouver, Washington “Elmer’s” res- taurant noticed that he was being asked to prepay for his food while white customers were presented with their bills after they had finished their meals. The case was settled out of cour t for an undisclosed amount. 22 Other forms of racial discrimination in public accommodations are harder to challenge, however. For example, there is con- siderable evidence that taxicabs often refuse to pick up black passengers.23 Such prac- tices may be common, but they are difficult to prove and remedy through the law.
School Desegregation, Phase Two The 1964 Civil Rights Act also declared dis- crimination by private employers and state governments (school boards, etc.) illegal
Political action and government action worked in tandem to produce dramatic changes in American civil rights policies.
JUDICIAL AND LEGAL ACTION POLITICAL ACTION
1954 Brown v. Board of Education 1955 Montgomery, Alabama, bus boycott
1956 Federal courts order school integration; of special note is one ordering Autherine Lucy admitted to the University of Alabama, with Governor Wallace officially protesting
1957 Civil Rights Act creating Civil Rights Commission; President eisenhower sends 101st Airborne Division paratroops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce integration of Central High School
1957 Southern Christian Leadership Conference formed, with Martin Luther King, Jr., as president
1960 First substantive Civil Rights Act, primarily voting rights 1960 Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee formed to organize protests, sit-ins, freedom rides
1961 Interstate Commerce Commission orders desegregation on all buses and trains and in terminals; President Kennedy (JFK) favors executive action over civil rights legislation
1963 JFK shifts, supports strong civil rights law; JFK’s assassination; President Johnson asserts strong support for civil rights
1963 Nonviolent demonstrations in Birmingham, Alabama, lead to King’s arrest and his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”; March on Washington
1964 Congress passes historic Civil Rights Act covering voting, employment, public accommodations, education
1965 voting Rights Act 1965 King announces drive to register 3 million blacks in the South
1966 War on Poverty in full swing Late 1960s Movement diverges: part toward litigation, part toward community action programs, part toward war protest, part toward more militant “Black Power” actions
TABLE 5.1
Cause and Effect in the Civil Rights Movement
172 CHAPTER 5 C I v I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 172 27/11/18 12:23 PM
and then w ent fur ther to pr ovide for administrativ e agencies to help the cour ts implement these laws. Title IV of the act, for example, authoriz ed the ex ecutive branch, through the Justice Department, to implement federal court orders to desegregate schools and to do so without having to wait for individual parents to bring complaints. Title VI of the act v astly strengthened the r ole of the ex ecutive branch and the credibility of court orders by providing that federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments for education must be withheld from any school system practicing racial segregation. Title VI became the most effective weapon for desegre- gating schools outside the South because the situation in northern communities was subtler and more difficult to address. In the South, the problem was segregation by law coupled with overt resistance to the national government’s efforts to change the situation. In contrast, outside the S outh, segregated facilities were the outcome of hundreds of thousands of housing choices made b y individuals and families. Once racial residential patterns emerged, racial homogeneity, property values, and neigh- borhood schools and churches were defended by real estate agents, neighborhood organizations, and the like. Thus, in order to eliminate discrimination nationwide, the 1964 Civil Rights Act gave (1) the president, through the Justice Department’s Office for Civil Rights, the power to withhold federal education grants24 and (2) the attorney general of the United States the power to initiate suits (rather than having to await complaints) wherever there was a “pattern or practice” of discrimination.25
In the decade follo wing the 1964 Civil Rights A ct, the J ustice D epartment brought legal action against more than 500 school districts. During the same period, administrative agencies filed lawsuits against 600 school districts, threatening to suspend federal aid to education unless real desegregation steps were taken.
Busing One step taken toward desegregation was busing children from poor urban school districts to w ealthier suburban ones. I n 1971 the S upreme Court held that state-imposed desegr egation could be br ought about b y busing childr en acr oss
The 1964 Civil Rights Act made desegregation a legal requirement. The policy of busing from black neighborhoods to white schools bitterly divided the black and white communities in Boston. In 1976 a protester waved an American Flag threateningly at an innocent black bystander—a lawyer on his way to his office—as another white man sought to help him get out of the way.
173THe STRUGGLe FOR C Iv I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 173 27/11/18 12:23 PM
school districts. 26 B ut the decision w ent bey ond that, adding that under cer tain limited circumstances even racial quotas could be used as the “starting point in shap- ing a remedy to correct past constitutional violations” and that pairing or grouping schools and reorganizing school attendance zones would also be acceptable.
Three years later, however, this principle was severely restricted when the Supreme Court determined that only cities found guilty of deliberate and de jure racial segre- gation would have to desegregate their schools,27 effectively exempting most north- ern states and cities from busing because school segregation in northern cities is generally the de facto r esult of segregated housing and thousands of acts of priv ate discrimination against blacks and other minorities.
Boston provides a good illustration of the agonizing pr oblem of making further progress in civil rights in the schools under the constitutional framework established by these decisions. Boston school authorities were found guilty of deliberately build- ing school facilities and drawing school district boundaries “ to increase racial seg - regation.” After vain efforts by Boston school authorities to draw up an acceptable plan to remedy the segregation, in 1974 federal judge W. Arthur Garrity ordered an elaborate desegregation plan of his own, involving busing between the all-black neighborhood of R oxbury and the nearb y white, wor king-class community of South Boston. The city’s schools w ere so segr egated and uncooperativ e that ev en the conservative administration of President Richard Nixon had already initiated a punitive cutoff of funds. But even many liberals criticized Judge Garrity’s plan as being badly conceiv ed for inv olving two neighboring communities with a histor y of tension and mutual resentment. The plan did work well at the elementary school level, but proved explosive at the high school level, generating a continuing crisis for the city of Boston and for the whole nation.28
The prospects for fur ther school integration diminished with a 1991 S upreme Court decision holding that lo wer federal cour ts could end super vision of local school boards if they could sho w “good faith” compliance with cour t or ders to desegregate and that “ vestiges of past discrimination ” had been eliminated “ to the extent practicable.”29 It is not necessarily easy for a school boar d to prove that the new standard has been met, but this was the first time since Brown and the 1964 Civil Rights Act that the Court had opened the door at all to retreat.
In 2007 the Cour t’s ruling in Parents Involved in Community Schools v . Seattle School District No. 1 limited school integration measur es still fur ther.30 By making race one factor in assigning students to schools, the cities of S eattle, Washington, and Louisville, K entucky, had hoped to achiev e gr eater racial balance acr oss the public schools. The Court ruled that these plans were unconstitutional because there was no compelling government interest in using race as a criterion in assigning stu- dents to schools. Many observers described the decision as the end of the Brown era because it attacked one of the few public strategies left to promote racial integration.
Outlawing Discrimination in Employment D espite the agonizingly slo w pr og- ress of school desegr egation, some pr ogress was made in other ar eas of civil rights during the 1960s and ’70s. Voting rights were established and fairly quickly began to revolutionize southern politics. Service on juries was no longer denied to minorities. But progress in the right to par ticipate in politics and go vernment dramatized the relative lack of progress in the economic domain, where battles over civil rights were increasingly being fought.
The federal courts and the Justice Department enter ed this area thr ough Title VII of the Civil Rights A ct of 1964, which outlaw ed job discrimination b y
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Brown v. Board of Education led to the end of de jure segregation. However, de facto segregation remains in many areas, including housing and schooling. Should there be legal or social efforts to address de facto segregation?
174 CHAPTER 5 C I v I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 174 27/11/18 12:23 PM
all private and public employers, including governmental agencies (such as fire and police departments) that employed more than 15 workers. Title VII makes it unlaw- ful to discriminate in emplo yment on the basis of color , religion, sex, or national origin, as well as race.
Title VII delegated some of the po wers to enforce fair-employment practices to the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and others to a ne w agency created in the 1964 act, the E qual Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). B y executive order, these agencies had the power of the national government to revoke public contracts for goods and services and to refuse to engage in contracts with any private company that could not guarantee that its r ules for hiring, promotion, and firing were nondiscriminator y. And in 1972, P resident Nixon and a D emocratic Congress cooperated to strengthen the EEOC by giving it authority to initiate suits rather than wait for grievances.
But one pr oblem with Title VII was that the accusing par ty had to sho w that deliberate discrimination was the cause of the failure to get a job or a training oppor- tunity. The courts have since allowed aggrieved parties (the plaintiffs) to make their case if they can show that an employer’s hiring practices had the effect of exclusion. A leading case in 1971 involved a “class action” by several black employees in North Carolina attempting to show with statistical evidence that blacks had been relegated to only one depar tment in the D uke Power Company, which inv olved the least desirable manual -labor jobs, and that they had been kept out of contention for better jobs because the employer had added attainment of a high school education and the passing of specially prepared aptitude tests as qualifications for higher jobs. The Supreme Court held that although the statistical evidence did not prove inten- tional discrimination and although the r equirements were race-neutral in appear - ance, their effects were sufficient to shift the burden of justification to the employer to show that the requirements were a “business necessity” that bore “a demonstrable relationship to successful per formance.”31 The ruling in this case was subsequently applied to other hiring, promotion, and training programs.32
Voting Rights In the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Congress significantly strengthened legislation protecting voting rights by barring literacy and other tests as a condi - tion for voting in six southern states, 33 by setting criminal penalties for inter fer- ence with efforts to vote, and by providing for the replacement of local registrars with federally appointed registrars in counties designated by the attorney general as significantly resistant to registering eligible blacks to vote. The right to vote was further strengthened with ratification in 1964 of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, which abolished the poll tax, and in 1975 with legislation permanently outlaw - ing literacy tests in all 50 states and mandating bilingual ballots or oral assistance for Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean speakers; and Native Americans and Alaska natives.
In the long run, the laws extending and pr otecting voting rights could prove to be the most effective of all the gr eat civil rights legislation because the pr ogress in black political participation produced by these acts has altered the shape of Ameri- can politics. I n 1965, in the sev en states of the O ld Confederacy co vered by the Voting Rights A ct, 29.3 per cent of the eligible black r esidents were registered to vote, compared with 73.4 percent of the white residents (see Table 5.2). By 1972 the gap between black and white r egistration in the sev en states was only 11.2 points. At one time, white leaders in M ississippi had attempted to dilute the influence of this growing black v ote by gerrymandering districts to ensur e that no blacks would
gerrymandering the apportionment of voters in districts in such a way as to give unfair advantage to one racial or ethnic group or political party
175THe STRUGGLe FOR C Iv I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 175 27/11/18 12:23 PM
be elected to Congress. But the black voters changed Mississippi before Mississippi could change them. I n 1988, 11 per cent of all elected officials in Mississippi were black—still well below the percentage of blacks in the state’s voting-age population, which was 32 percent in 1990, but progress nonetheless.34
Several provisions of the 1965 act were scheduled to expire in 2007. However, in 2006, responding to charges that black voters still faced discrimination at the polls, Congress renewed the act for another 25 y ears. Pressure for renewal of the act had been intense since the disputed 2000 pr esidential election. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted hearings on the election in F lorida, at which black v ot- ers testified about being turned away from the polls and wr ongly purged from the voting rolls and about the unreliable voting technology in their neighborhoods. On the basis of this testimony and after an analysis of the vote, the commission charged that there had been extensive racial discrimination.35 Recently, Texas has come under fire for gerr ymandering congr essional districts that discriminate against Latino voters. Due to population growth, most of it among Latinos, Texas gained four new congressional seats after the 2010 census. The heavily Republican state legislatur e
The vRA had a direct impact on the rate of black voter registration in the southern states, as measured by the gap between white and black voters in each state. Further insights can be gained by examining changes in white registration rates before and after passage of the vRA and by comparing the gaps between white and black registration. Why do you think registration rates for whites increased significantly in some states and dropped in others? What impact could the increase in black registration have had on public policy?
BEFORE THE ACT* AFTER THE ACT* 1971–72
WHITE % BLACK % GAP** % WHITE % BLACK % GAP %
Alabama 69.2 19.3 49.9 80.7 57.1 23.6
Georgia 62.6 27.4 35.2 70.6 67.8 2.8
Louisiana 80.5 31.6 48.9 80.0 59.1 20.9
Mississippi 69.9 6.7 63.2 71.6 62.2 9.4
North Carolina 96.8 46.8 50.0 62.2 46.3 15.9
South Carolina 75.7 37.3 38.4 51.2 48.0 3.2
virginia 61.1 38.3 22.8 61.2 54.0 7.2
TOTAL 73.4 29.3 44.1 67.8 56.6 11.2
*Available registration data as of March 1965 and 1971–72.
**The gap is the percentage-point difference between white and black registration rates.
SOURCE: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Political Participation (1968), Appendix VII: Voter Education Project, attachment to press release, October 3, 1972.
TABLE 5.2
Registration by Race and State in Southern States Covered by the Voting Rights Act (VRA)
176 CHAPTER 5 C I v I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 176 27/11/18 12:23 PM
drew a map designed to ensure that three of the new seats would go to Republican candidates. However, a coalition of minority gr oups and the J ustice Department contested the map in cour t, charging that it failed to cr eate a sufficient number of majority-minority districts. After extensiv e legal wrangling, the ne w r edistricting plan included three majority-minority districts.36
The 1965 Voting Rights A ct had also r equired some state and local go vern- ments to obtain federal preclearance before making any changes to their voting laws or practices. The designation of which jurisdictions needed preclearance was based upon a formula that calculated each jurisdiction ’s histor y of past v oting discrimination. In the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court over- turned the formula, saying it was based on data mor e than 40 y ears old. 37 The Obama administration was critical of the decision, but there seemed little possibility that Congress would take action to devise a new preclearance formula.
A new area of controversy in the realm of voting rights concerns is so-called voter ID laws. S ome 34 states hav e enacted legislation r equiring v oters to sho w posi - tive identification at the polls. As of 2018, 18 of these states required prospective voters to sho w an official photo ID before they would be allo wed to cast ballots. Republicans generally support such laws, arguing that they deter voter fraud. Demo- crats generally oppose such laws, countering that they ar e particularly burdensome to poor and minority voters, who they say are less likely than others to possess such IDs. Cases challenging the laws on equal pr otection grounds have met mixed suc- cess. In 2008 the S upreme Cour t upheld the constitutionality of I ndiana’s voter ID law, affirming the states’ “valid interest” in impr oving election pr ocedures and deterring fraud.38 On the other hand, in 2013 the S upreme Court struck down an Arizona law requiring that individuals produce proof of U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote. In 2016 voter ID laws were struck down or modified by courts in Kansas, North Carolina, North Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin, indicating increased judicial suspicion of these statutes. G iven the political contr oversy over voter ID laws, it seems likely that the Court will be asked to rule yet again on the question.
Housing The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not address housing, but in 1968 Con- gress passed another civil rights act specifically to outlaw housing discrimination. Called the Fair Housing Act, the law prohibited discrimination in the sale or rental of most housing—eventually covering nearly all the nation’s housing. Housing was among the most controversial of discrimination issues because of deeply entrenched patterns of r esidential segregation across the U nited States. Such segregation was not simply a product of individual choice. Local housing authorities deliberately segregated public housing, and federal guidelines had sanctioned discrimination in Federal H ousing A dministration mor tgage lending, effectively pr eventing blacks from joining the ex odus to the suburbs in the 1950s and ’60s. N onetheless, Con- gress had been reluctant to tackle housing discrimination, fearing the tremendous controversy it could arouse. But just as the housing legislation was being considered in April 1968, the civil rights leader M artin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated; this tragedy brought the measure unexpected support in Congress.
Although it pr onounced sw eeping goals, the F air H ousing A ct had little effect on housing segregation because its enfor cement mechanisms w ere so weak. Individuals who believ ed they had been discriminated against had to file suit themselv es. The burden was on the individual to pr ove that housing discrimination had occurr ed, ev en though such discrimination is often subtle and difficult to document. Although local fair housing groups emerged to assist
177THe STRUGGLe FOR C Iv I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 177 27/11/18 12:23 PM
individuals in their cour t claims, the pr ocedures for pr oving discrimination constituted a formidable barrier to effective change. These procedures were not altered until 1988, when Congr ess passed the F air Housing Amendments A ct. This new law put mor e teeth in the enfor cement pr ocedures and allo wed the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to initiate legal action in cases of discrimination.39
Efforts to prohibit discrimination in lending have met some success. Several laws passed in the 1970s required banks to report information about their mortgage lend- ing patterns, making it mor e difficult for them to engage in redlining, the practice of refusing to lend to entir e neighborhoods. The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act required banks to lend in neighborhoods in which they do business. Through vigorous use of this act, many neighborhood organizations have reached agreements with banks that, as a r esult, have significantly increased investment in some poor neighborhoods.
Even so, racial discrimination in home mor tgage lending r emains a significant issue. In 2007 the issue of pr edatory lending—offering loans well above mar ket rates, often with complex pr ovisions that borrowers do not understand—attracted nationwide attention as the number of home foreclosures skyrocketed. In 2009 civil rights organizations, several states, and some cities filed charges against banks and other lenders claiming they had illegally discriminated against African American and Latino home buyers. Minority home buyers, the suits charged, had been offered subprime mortgage products with higher interest rates, in contrast to whites with similar income levels, who were offered loans at lower interest rates. By 2012 some of these lawsuits had resulted in the largest financial settlements ever issued for lend- ing discrimination. I n announcing one settlement, the J ustice Department vowed to “vigorously pursue those who would take advantage of certain Americans because of their race, national origin, gender or disability ,” noting that such discrimination “betrays the promise of equal opportunity that is enshrined in our Constitution and our legal framework.”40
redlining a practice in which banks refuse to make loans to people living in certain geographic locations
The mortgage crisis that led to foreclosures on many homes in 2008 and 2009 hit minority communities especially hard. Civil rights organizations argued that some lenders discriminated against African Americans and Latino home buyers, making it harder for them to get a fair deal on a mortgage.
178 CHAPTER 5 C I v I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 178 27/11/18 12:23 PM
Marriage The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was also silent on the question of interracial marriage, which 16 states continued to outlaw in 1967. I n that y ear, the S upreme Court r uled in Loving v. V irginia that such state laws were unconstitutional. The case concerned a Virginia couple, a white man and a black woman, who married in Washington, D.C., wher e such unions w ere legal. When they moved back to Virginia, which outlawed interracial marriage, authorities charged the couple with violating Virginia law . The Lovings mo ved back to Washington, D.C., and challenged the Virginia law. Nine years later the Supreme Court struck down state laws banning marriage on the basis of racial classifications. In so doing, the Court declared marriage “one of the ‘basic civil rights of man, ’ fundamental to our v ery existence and survival.”41
Extending Civil Rights Even before equal employment laws began to hav e a positiv e effect on the economic situation of blacks, something equally dramatic began happening: the extension of civil
rights to other groups. The right not to be discriminated against was being success- fully claimed by the other gr oups listed in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights A ct, those defined by sex, religion, or national origin, and eventually by still other groups defined by age or sexual orientation. This extension of civil rights has become the new frontier of the civil rights struggle.
Once racial discrimination began to be seen as an impor tant civil rights issue, other groups rose to demand recognition and active protection of their civil rights. Under Title VII, any group or individual can try, and in fact is encouraged to try, to convert goals and grievances into questions of rights and of the deprivation of those rights. A plaintiff must establish only that his or her membership in a group is an unreasonable basis for discrimination. In the United States today, a large number of individuals and groups have and are claiming illegal discrimination.
LEVELS OF SCRUTINY UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
Before we examine the civil rights movements of the past 60 years, it is useful to take a moment to describe how the courts have analyzed laws in cases where an individual or group has claimed discrimination. As has already been made clear, the courts have been a very important actor in the contest for rights protections. Recall that civil rights are the rules governing who may participate in the political process and regulating the ways in which the go vernment may or may not tr eat its citiz ens. The equal protec- tion clause of the F ourteenth Amendment does not r equire that everyone be treated equally. State and federal laws often create classifications allowing some, but not other, individuals to engage in activities or r eceive benefits. States, for example, allo w only those with cer tain qualifications to engage in various occupations (such as medical
Describe how different groups have fought for and won protection of their civil rights
The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that state laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional. The case Loving v. Virginia was invoked numerous times in the Court’s decision almost 50 years later, declaring marriage a fundamental right for same-sex couples.
179exTeND ING C Iv I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 179 27/11/18 12:23 PM
professions) and set a minimum age for driving automobiles, v oting, and consuming alcohol. Courts generally recognize the need for such systems of classification. Some systems of classification, on the other hand, such as those based on race, gender, or religion, raise serious constitutional questions. When dealing with challenges to state-imposed systems of classification, the courts emplo y a thr ee-tiered appr oach, placing a greater burden of proof on the government to defend some types of classifi- catory schemes than others. The three tiers are often called “levels of scrutiny.”
First Level The first and lowest level of scrutiny is applied by the courts to most state and federal r egulatory schemes, such as motor v ehicle and occupational licensing, as well as laws setting a minimum age for the pur chase of alcohol and cigar ettes. Here, the courts will generally apply the “rational basis test.” Under this level of scrutiny, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that there is no rational basis whatsoever for the government’s rules. Such a showing is extremely difficult, and few plaintiffs succeed.
Second Level The next level of judicial review of state action under the equal pro- tection clause is intermediate scrutiny (or exacting scr utiny). Here, there is a gr eater burden on the government to show that its classification scheme not only is rational but also serves an important interest. Courts generally apply intermediate scr utiny to laws that afford differential treatment to men and women or that discriminate against the inheritance and property rights of illegitimate children. In recent years, federal courts have generally applied intermediate scrutiny in cases involving gender orientation. For example, in the 2013 case of Windsor v. United States the Second Circuit Courts of Appeals employed intermediate scrutiny in holding that the fed - eral Defense of Marriage Act, which applied the terms marriage and spouse only to heterosexual unions, served no legitimate state inter est.42 The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision but did not indicate which level of scrutiny it had applied.
Third Level The highest level of scr utiny employed by the cour ts, “strict scrutiny,” places the burden of proof on the government to show that discrimination serves a “compelling interest,” that the law is “narrowly tailored to achieve that goal,” and that the government has used the “least r estrictive means” for achieving its compelling interest. Strict scrutiny generally applies to laws that discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or national origin. These are termed suspect classifications. Strict scrutiny also applies to laws that hinder the ex ercise of fundamental rights, such as access to the courts or the right to vote. When a federal court employs strict scrutiny, the govern- ment is seldom able to meet its bur den of pr oof. All race -based classifications are automatically subject to strict scr utiny.43 In 2013 the S upreme Court also applied strict scrutiny to a case inv olving a claim of r everse discrimination. I n the case of Fisher v. University of Texas, a white plaintiff charged that she had been rejected in favor of less qualified minority applicants.44 The Supreme Court remanded the case for r econsideration by a lo wer federal cour t, which was instr ucted to apply strict scrutiny to the school’s admissions process. The court of appeals still rejected Fisher’s claim, and in 2016 the Supreme Court upheld the university’s procedures.45
WOMEN AND GENDER DISCRIMINATION
Title VII provided a valuable tool for the growing women’s movement in the 1960s and ’70s. In fact, in many ways the law foster ed the growth of the women’s move- ment. The first major campaign of the National Organization for Women (NOW)
intermediate scrutiny a test used by the Supreme Court in gender discrimination cases that places the burden of proof partially on the government and partially on the challengers to show that the law in question is unconstitutional
180 CHAPTER 5 C I v I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 180 27/11/18 12:23 PM
involved picketing the EEOC for its r efusal to ban sex -segregated emplo yment advertisements. NOW also sued the New York Times for continuing to publish such ads after the passage of Title VII. Another organization, the Women’s Equity Action League (WEAL), pursued legal action on a wide range of gender-discrimination issues, filing lawsuits against law schools and medical schools for discriminatory admission policies, for example.
Building on these victories and the gr owth of the women’s movement, femi- nist activists sought an “E qual Rights Amendment” (ERA) to the Constitution. The proposed amendment was short: its substantive passage stated that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged b y the United States or by any S tate on account of sex. ” The amendment’s suppor ters believ ed that such a sw eeping guarantee of equal rights was a necessar y tool for ending all discrimination against women and for making gender r oles more equal. Opponents charged that the amendment would be socially disruptive and would introduce changes (such as unisex restrooms) that most Americans did not want. The amendment easily passed Congress in 1972 and won quick approval in many state legislatures, but it fell three states short of the 38 needed to ratify it b y the 1982 deadline.46
Despite the failure of the ERA, efforts to stop gender discrimination expanded dramatically as an ar ea of civil rights law . In the 1970s the conser vative Burger Court (under Chief J ustice Warren Burger) helped establish gender discrimina - tion as a major and highly visible civil rights issue. Although the S upreme Court refused to treat gender discrimination as the equivalent of racial discrimination,47 it did make it easier for plaintiffs to file and win suits on the basis of gender discrimination b y applying an “intermediate ” level of r eview to these cases, as described earlier.48
In recent years, laws and cour t decisions designed to deal with discrimination against women hav e been used b y groups representing transgender individuals to press for equal rights, especially in the realm of employment. For example, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights A ct makes it unlawful to discriminate in emplo yment on the basis of color , r eligion, sex, national origin, or race. The act is enforced by the EEOC. P ressed by groups representing transgender wor kers, in J uly 2015 President O bama issued an ex ecutive or der pr ohibiting federal contractors fr om discriminating against wor kers based on their sexual orientation or gender iden - tity. Two months later , the EEOC filed its first-ever lawsuits to pr otect transgen- der workers under Title VII. In late December, then–attorney general E ric Holder announced that, going for ward, the Justice Department would consider discrimi - nation against transgender people as co vered by the Civil Rights A ct’s prohibition of sex discrimination. 49 Nonetheless, attempts hav e been made to pass legislation requiring transgender individuals to use public bathr ooms that corr espond to the gender designated on their birth certificates. In 2016, North Carolina enacted such a law, leading to boycotts and protests, with several corporations announcing plans to reduce their operations in the state. When the D epartment of J ustice warned North Carolina that the law violated the Civil Rights A ct, the state sued the fed - eral government in order to defend its ne w law. In 2017, under pr essure from the business community, North Carolina repealed its ordinance.
As discussed in this chapter ’s intr oduction, mor e r ecently, P resident Trump tweeted that transgender individuals would be barr ed fr om the armed for ces, though there has been no plan to implement the president’s tweet pending further clarification.
181exTeND ING C Iv I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 181 27/11/18 12:23 PM
Equality in Education Title IX of the 1972 E ducation Act forbade gender dis - crimination in education, but it initially sparked little litigation because of its weak enforcement provisions. In 1992 the Supreme Court ruled in Franklin v. Gwinnett County P ublic Schools that monetar y damages could be awar ded for gender dis - crimination, opening the door for mor e legal action in the ar ea of education. 50 The greatest impact has been in the ar eas of sexual harassment (the subject of the Franklin case) and in equal tr eatment of women’s athletic programs. The potential for monetary damages has made univ ersities and public schools take the pr oblem of sexual harassment mor e seriously. And in the two y ears after the Franklin case, complaints to the E ducation Department’s Office for Civil Rights about unequal treatment of women’s athletic programs nearly tripled. I n several high-profile legal cases, some prominent universities were ordered to create more women’s sports pro- grams, prompting many other colleges and univ ersities to follow suit in order to avoid potential litigation.51 In 1997 the Supreme Court refused to hear a petition by Brown University challenging a lower-court order that the university establish strict sex equity in its athletic programs. The Court’s decision meant that in colleges and universities across the country, varsity athletic positions for men and women must reflect the schools’ overall enrollment numbers. 52 Though the ruling has a major impact on college athletic pr ograms, advocates for gender equality note that many differences between male and female students continue to exist. They point to gen- der barriers in important fields such as science, technology, engineering, and math, which female students are much less likely to enter.53
In 1996 the Supreme Court made another important decision about gender and education by putting an end to all-male schools supported by public funds. It ruled that the Virginia Military Institute’s ( VMI) policy of not admitting women was unconstitutional.54 Along with the Citadel, an all -male militar y college in S outh Carolina, VMI had never admitted women in its 157-year history. VMI argued that the unique educational experience it offered (including intense physical training and the harsh treatment of freshmen) would be destroyed if women were admitted. The Court, however, ruled that the male -only policy denied “ substantial equality” to women. Two days after the r uling, the Citadel announced that it would accept women. Even without formal barriers to entr y, the experience of the ne w female cadets at these schools was not easy . Of the four women admitted to the Citadel
Gains for women in the area of civil rights have come, but slowly. Title IX of the 1972 Education Act has helped promote gender equality in education and helped increase women’s participation in college sports, though women continue to be underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and math. In 2009, President Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to help combat pay discrimination. After serving in the military for decades, women were finally allowed to serve in combat in 2013. Despite these steps forward, gender inequity persists in American life.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Has Title IX created equality in men’s and women’s college athletic programs? Should there be public efforts to encourage more female students to enter well-paid fields such as science and technology, or is that mainly a matter of individual choice?
182 CHAPTER 5 C I v I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 182 27/11/18 12:23 PM
immediately after the S upreme Cour t decision, two quit within months. They charged harassment from male students, including attempts to set the female cadets on fire.55 Women persevered, and today women constitute nearly 10 percent of the Citadel’s corps of cadets.56
Sexual Harassment Courts began to find sexual harassment to be a form of sex discrimination during the late 1970s. Most such law has been dev eloped by courts through interpr etation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights A ct. I n 1986 the Supreme Court recognized two forms of sexual harassment. O ne type is “quid pro quo” harassment, which involves an explicit or strongly implied threat that submis- sion is a condition of continued employment. The second is harassment that creates offensive or intimidating employment conditions amounting to a “hostile environ- ment.”57 Employers and many emplo yees have complained that “hostile envir on- ment” sexual harassment is too ambiguous. When can an employee bring charges? When is the emplo yer liable? I n 1986 the Cour t said that sexual harassment may be legally actionable even if the employee did not suffer tangible economic or job- related losses in relation to it and in 1993 added that tangible psychological costs did not have to be a result either to warrant legal action.58 In two 1998 cases, the Court further strengthened the law when it said that whether or not sexual harassment results in economic harm to the employee, an employer is liable for the harassment if it was committed by someone with authority over the employee—by a supervisor, for example. But the Court also said that an employer may defend itself by showing that it had a sexual harassment prevention and grievance policy in effect.59
In 2011 the D epartment of E ducation’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to the mor e than 7,000 colleges and univ ersities receiving federal money, advising them, under the authority of Title IX, to adopt stringent procedures to adjudicate charges of sexual assault and harassment on campus. OCR told colleges to shift the bur den of pr oof from the accuser to ward the accused in such cases, to allow accusers to appeal not-guilty findings (double jeopardy contrary to the language of the Fifth Amendment) and to refrain from allowing accused per- sons from cross-examining their accusers (contrary to the Sixth Amendment). These procedures have led to a fur or on many campuses and a flurry of charges of false accusations and unfair proceedings.60
183exTeND ING C Iv I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 183 27/11/18 12:23 PM
Sexual harassment remains an issue today. Recently, a number of cases of sexual harassment of female members of the U.S. militar y have come to light. These cases have led to sev eral cour ts-martial of both officers and noncommissioned officers. Some observers argue that the pr oblem is systemic, ho wever, and hav e urged the military to enact reforms that would hopefully have the effect of stemming the abuse of women in the military.
Equality in Employment Women hav e also pr essed for civil rights in emplo y- ment. In particular, women have fought against pay discrimination—when a male employee is paid mor e than a female emplo yee of equal qualifications in the same job. After the Equal Pay Act of 1963 made such discrimination illegal, women’s pay slowly moved toward the level of men’s pay. In 2007 this movement received a set- back when the Supreme Court ruled against a claim of pay discrimination. The case, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., involved a female supervisor named Lily Ledbetter, who learned late in her car eer that she was being paid up to 40 per cent less than male supervisors, including those with less seniority. Ledbetter filed a griev- ance with the EEOC, charging sex discrimination.61 The Supreme Court denied her claim, ruling that, according to the law, workers must file their grievance 180 days after the discrimination occurs. M any obser vers found the r uling unfair because workers often do not kno w about pay differentials until well after the initial deci - sion to discriminate has been made. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only female member of the Court at the time, marked her disagreement by reading her dissent aloud, a rare occurrence. In January 2009 the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act became the first bill that President Obama signed into law. The new law gave workers expanded rights to sue in cases, such as Ledbetter’s, when an employee learns of discriminatory treatment well after it has started. Despite such cases, women continue to earn about 20 percent less than men in the U.S. workforce.62
The fight against gender discrimination as an important part of the civil rights struggle has coincided with the rise of women’s politics as a discrete movement in American politics. As with the struggle for racial equality, the relationship between changes in government policies and political action suggests that, to a great degree, changes in government policies produce political action. The inclusion of gender as a protected class in the 1964 Civil Rights Act prompted women to take steps to press for their rights wher e they were denied in education and emplo yment. The “Who Are Americans?” feature on page 185 considers the progress on women’s rights.
LATINOS
The labels Latino and Hispanic encompass a wide range of gr oups with div erse national origins, distinctiv e cultural identities, and par ticular experiences. As a result, civil rights issues for them have varied considerably by group and by place. For example, the early political experiences of M exican Americans were shaped by race and by region. In 1848, under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico ceded to the United States territory that now comprises Arizona, California, New Mexico, and parts of Colorado, Nevada, and Utah, as well as extended the Texas border to the Rio Grande. Although the tr eaty guaranteed full civil rights to the r esidents of these territories, M exican Americans in fact experienced ongoing discrimination, which they sought to r emedy through the cour ts. In 1898 the cour ts reconfirmed Mexican Americans’ formal political rights, including the right to v ote. In many places, however, and especially in Texas, Mexican Americans were segregated and
184 CHAPTER 5 C I v I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 184 27/11/18 12:23 PM
Have Women Achieved Equal Rights?
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS 1. How much does each of these
factors—education, political of�ce, and income—say about gender equality in the United States?
2. While most Americans support the principle of equal opportunity for all groups, there is disagreement over how much the government should do to ensure equal outcomes. Discuss the difference between equal opportunity and equal outcomes in the context of women’s rights.
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits gender discrimination, and the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the principle that women should have the same rights as men. Since 1960 the United States has made great strides toward gender equality in some areas but, as the data show, still has a long way to go in other areas.
Education Politics Percentage of college students who are women
Percentage of members of Congress who are women
Percentage of state legislators who are women
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
39%
39%
42%
45%
48%
56%
4%
2%
2%
6%
13%
17%
11%
17%
23%
25%
2017 201756% 25%
19%
SOURCES: National Center for Education Statistics, www.nces.ed.gov (accessed 11/4/17); Congressional Research Service, www.fas.org; National Conference of State Legislators, www.ncsl.org; Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov (accessed 11/4/17).
White
Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women
African American Latino Asian American
Median Weekly Earnings by Race and Gender
$942 $766 $718 $641 $663 $586 $1,151 $902
In 2016 women who were full-time wage and salary workers had median usual weekly earnings that were 82 percent of those of male full-time wage and salary workers.
WHO ARE AMERICANS?
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 185 27/11/18 12:23 PM
prevented from voting through such means as the white primary and the poll tax.63 Texas established separate schools for Mexicans, a practice also common in southern California. In the housing markets, Mexicans were often banned by restrictive cove- nants from buying or renting houses in many neighborhoods.
The earliest Mexican American independent political organizations included the League of U nited Latin American Citiz ens (LULAC), founded in 1929, and the GI Forum, created in 1948. Both gr oups worked to stem discrimination against Mexican Americans. LULAC pursued a legal strategy like the NAACP’s to eliminate the segregation of M exican American students. O ne of its earliest victories came in 1930, when it successfully challenged a Texas school district’s decision to estab - lish separate schools for Anglos and Mexicans.64 LULAC also litigated the 1946–47 Mendez v. Westminster case, which overturned school segregation in Orange County, California.65 This case was an important precursor to Brown v. Board of Education, and many of the same actors were involved.
In the 1960s a new kind of Mexican American political movement was born. By the late 1950s the first Mexican American was elected to Congress, and four others followed in the 1960s. A central inspiration for political mobilization emerged from the United Farm Workers union and its charismatic leader, César Chávez. In an era of unprecedented economic pr osperity, California’s farmworkers, mainly M exican migrants, remained poorly paid and lacked basic rights for fair treatment on the job. Employing novel tactics such as the national grape bo ycott, the union dr ew Americans’ attention to the plight of farmworkers and the injustices that confronted Mexican migrants and M exican Americans in the fields. Chávez, whose hunger strikes and inspirational speeches kept the movement in the public eye, came to symbolize the quest for M exican American civil rights mor e broadly.66 The fields were not the only focus of conflict. In the late 1960s, Mexican American students, inspired by the black civil rights movement, launched boycotts of high school classes in East Los Angeles, Denver, and San Antonio, demanding bilingual education, an end to discrimination, and more cultural recognition. They were soon joined by students in colleges and universities across California.
Since that time, Latino political strategy has developed along two tracks. One is a traditional ethnic gr oup path of v oter registration and voting along ethnic lines. The other is a legal strategy using the various civil rights laws designed to ensure fair
Immigration is one of today’s most controversial issues. President Trump campaigned on a promise to build a protective wall on the U.S.–Mexico border. Supporters of stricter immigration policies believe they will help protect jobs for American citizens. Others support the rights of undocumented people—especially young people brought to the United States by their parents—and believe that they should have a path to American citizenship.
186 CHAPTER 5 C I v I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 186 27/11/18 12:23 PM
access to the political system. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), founded in 1968, has played a key role in designing and pursu- ing the latter strategy.
Immigrants and Civil Rights Since the 1960s, rights for Latinos have been inter- twined with immigrant rights. For much of American history, legal immigrants were treated much the same as citizens. But continuing immigration and mounting eco- nomic insecurity hav e undermined this sense of equality . Groups of v oters across the country now strongly support drawing a sharper line between immigrants and citizens. The Supreme Cour t has r uled that unauthoriz ed immigrants ar e eligible for education and emergency medical car e but can be denied other social benefits. The movement to deny benefits to noncitizens gathered steam in California, which experienced sharp economic distr ess in the early 1990s and has the highest lev els of immigration of any state. I n 1994 an ultimately unsuccessful mo vement in California sought to deny unauthoriz ed immigrants all ser vices except emergency medical care in an attempt to discourage unauthorized immigration and to pressure those already in the country to leave.
Unauthorized immigration has continued to be a hot -button political issue. One priority for advocacy groups has been the issue of undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as young children, were raised in the United States, and have no real ties to the nation in which they were born. One proposed piece of legislation to benefit such individuals is the Development, Relief, and E ducation Act for Alien Minors, known as the DREAM A ct. This proposal would provide a route to permanent r esidency for such individuals via militar y ser vice or college attendance. The DREAM Act was intr oduced in Congr ess in 2001 but has been defeated every year on the gr ounds that it would encourage illegal immigration. Absent legislation, the D epartment of H omeland Security has instituted its o wn policy, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), instructing immigration officials to take no action to deport law -abiding individuals who enter ed the United States illegally as children. In 2014, President Obama issued executive memo- randa granting quasi -legal status and wor k permits to some 5 million individuals who entered the United States illegally as childr en or who hav e children who are American citizens. The president’s orders were challenged in the federal courts, and
187exTeND ING C Iv I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 187 27/11/18 12:23 PM
to suspect that the person was in the countr y illegally. O pponents of the police checks vowed to challenge that par t of the law on the gr ounds that it led to illegal racial profiling.69
Immigration was, of course, a very divisive topic during the 2016 presidential elec- tion. During the campaign for the R epublican nomination, D onald Trump asserted that he would build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico, institute a temporary ban on Muslims seeking to travel to the United States, and end the Obama administra- tion’s program to accept several thousand Syrian refugees every year. When Trump took office, he lost little time in seeking to implement these campaign promises pertaining to immigration, though not all hav e come to fruition. As of 2018, while the fence on the U.S.-Mexico border had been extended in some places, no wall had been built.
However, in J anuary 2017, Trump issued ex ecutive orders barring entr y into the U nited S tates for trav elers fr om six pr edominantly M uslim countries and blocking the admission of all r efugees seeking admission to the United States for 120 days. C ritics charged Trump, who had fr equently stated his concerns that Muslim immigrants might include terrorists, with religious discrimination, and in particular with violating the 1965 I mmigration Act, which states that people should not experience preferences or discrimination on account of their “race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” At least one federal appeals court agreed with this argument, though other immigration laws seem to give the presi- dent broad discretion in the matter . In a 5–4 decision, the U.S. S upreme Court upheld the ban, though the dissenting opinion argued the ban infringed on the right to religious liberty.
ASIAN AMERICANS
Like the term Latino, the label Asian A merican encompasses a wide range of people from very different national backgrounds who came to the U nited States at different moments in history. As a consequence, Asian Americans have had very diverse experiences.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Why are immigration and the rights of immigrants so controversial?
in 2016 a 4–4 tie in the Supreme Court left in place a lower-court decision disal- lowing the pr esident’s plan. 67 I n 2018 the S upreme Cour t declined to hear the Trump administration’s appeal from a lower-court ruling requiring continuation of the DACA program. However, DACA cases befor e several U.S. district cour ts at the end of 2018 may r esult in competing rulings that could force the Supreme Court to address the question.
Efforts to curb illegal immigration hav e led to civil rights violations of legal immigrants. Latino organizations opposed the I mmigration Reform and Contr ol Act of 1986 because it imposed sanctions on emplo yers who hir e undocumented workers. Such sanctions, they feared, would lead employers to discriminate against Latinos. These suspicions were confirmed in a 1990 report by the General Account- ing Office, which found employer sanctions had cr eated a “widespread pattern of discrimination” against Latinos and others who appear foreign.68
Another ongoing issue is federal cooperation with local and state law -enforcement agencies to enfor ce federal immigration laws. P rograms initiated b y the D epartment of Homeland Security in the final years of the George W. Bush administration led to immigrant “sweeps,” which rounded up Latinos, many of whom were legal immigrants or even American citizens. A broad coalition of civil rights organizations opposed the program for engaging in racial profiling and violating civil rights, and the congressional Hispanic Caucus called on the next president to end it. Yet, the Obama administration’s Secure Communities program, which initially sought to focus on major drug offenders, violent criminals, and those alr eady in prison, came under fire for illegally detaining citizens and legal immigrants. The Secure Communities P rogram was terminated in 2014 in favor of an effort to refocus law enforcement attention on serious criminals.
In 2017, however, President Trump ordered stricter immigration enforcement and began to expand the ranks of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Many thousands of immigrants who had not committed serious crimes w ere slated for deportation, and immigration enforcement at the border was stepped up as well. Several cities and a handful of states declared themselves “sanctuaries” and declined to cooperate with ICE agents. The administration responded by threatening to cut off federal funding from local governments that failed to help federal authorities.
Finally, as w e saw in Chapter 3, while some local go vernments declared them- selves to be sanctuaries, a number of states, including Ariz ona, Utah, South Carolina, Indiana, Georgia, and Alabama, passed very strict immigration laws within the past few years. Civil rights groups have contested the laws in court, and the federal Justice Department has instituted its own legal challenges. Arizona’s 2010 law provided the inspiration for these far-reaching state measures. Arizona’s law required immigrants to carry identity documents with them at all times, made it a crime for an undocu- mented immigrant to apply for a job, gave the police greater powers to stop anyone they suspected of being an unauthorized immigrant, and required them to check the immigration status of a person they detain if they suspect that person is an unau - thorized immigrant. The Justice Department challenged the law on the gr ounds that the federal go vernment was r esponsible for making immigration law , not the states. The Supreme Cour t’s 2012 decision was a par tial victor y for the federal government. The Court struck down three parts of the Arizona law on the grounds that they intr uded upon federal r esponsibility. These included the provision that immigrants carry identity papers, that undocumented immigrants cannot apply for jobs, and that police can stop persons they suspect of being undocumented immi - grants. The Court let stand the pr ovision that r equired local police to check the immigration status of an individual detained for other r easons if they had grounds
188 CHAPTER 5 C I v I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 188 27/11/18 12:23 PM
to suspect that the person was in the countr y illegally. O pponents of the police checks vowed to challenge that par t of the law on the gr ounds that it led to illegal racial profiling.69
Immigration was, of course, a very divisive topic during the 2016 presidential elec- tion. During the campaign for the R epublican nomination, D onald Trump asserted that he would build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico, institute a temporary ban on Muslims seeking to travel to the United States, and end the Obama administra- tion’s program to accept several thousand Syrian refugees every year. When Trump took office, he lost little time in seeking to implement these campaign promises pertaining to immigration, though not all hav e come to fruition. As of 2018, while the fence on the U.S.-Mexico border had been extended in some places, no wall had been built.
However, in J anuary 2017, Trump issued ex ecutive orders barring entr y into the U nited S tates for trav elers fr om six pr edominantly M uslim countries and blocking the admission of all r efugees seeking admission to the United States for 120 days. C ritics charged Trump, who had fr equently stated his concerns that Muslim immigrants might include terrorists, with religious discrimination, and in particular with violating the 1965 I mmigration Act, which states that people should not experience preferences or discrimination on account of their “race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” At least one federal appeals court agreed with this argument, though other immigration laws seem to give the presi- dent broad discretion in the matter . In a 5–4 decision, the U.S. S upreme Court upheld the ban, though the dissenting opinion argued the ban infringed on the right to religious liberty.
ASIAN AMERICANS
Like the term Latino, the label Asian A merican encompasses a wide range of people from very different national backgrounds who came to the U nited States at different moments in history. As a consequence, Asian Americans have had very diverse experiences.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Why are immigration and the rights of immigrants so controversial?
Soon after taking office, President Trump instituted a “travel ban” on people from some predominantly Muslim countries. He claimed that the move would cut down on foreign terrorism in the United States. Opponents protested this ban on the grounds that it was singling out certain religious groups and not others. The matter moved quickly to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that a modified version of the ban could remain in place.
189exTeND ING C Iv I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 189 27/11/18 12:23 PM
The early Asian experience in the United States was shaped by a series of natural- ization laws dating back to 1790, the first of which declared that only white aliens were eligible for citiz enship. Chinese immigrants began arriving in California in the 1850s, drawn b y the boom of the gold r ush, but they w ere immediately met with virulent antagonism. In 1870, Congress declared Chinese immigrants ineligi- ble for citizenship; in 1882 the first Chinese Exclusion Act suspended the entr y of Chinese laborers.
At the time of the E xclusion A ct, the Chinese community was composed predominantly of single male labor ers, with fe w women and childr en. The few Chinese children in San Francisco were initially denied entry to the public schools; only after par ents of American -born Chinese childr en pr essed legal action w ere the children allowed to attend public school. E ven then, however, they were seg- regated into a separate Chinese school. American -born Chinese childr en could not be denied citizenship, however; this right was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1898, when it ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that anyone born in the United States was entitled to full citizenship.70 Still, new Chinese immigrants were barred from the United States until 1943, after China had become a key war time ally and Congress repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act and permitted Chinese resi- dents to become citizens.
The earliest Japanese immigrants, who came to California in the 1880s, at the height of the anti -Chinese movement, faced similar discrimination. Like Chinese immigrants, J apanese immigrants w ere ineligible to become citiz ens because of their race. D uring the first part of the tw entieth centur y, California and sev eral other western states enacted laws that denied Japanese immigrants the right to own property. The denial of basic civil rights to Japanese Americans culminated in the decision to forcibly remove Americans of Japanese descent as well as Japanese non- citizen residents from their homes and confine them in internment camps during World War II. After the Japanese government launched its attack on Pearl Harbor, America’s J apanese r esidents and citiz ens w ere suspected of dislo yalty. S ome 120,000 individuals of Japanese descent or heritage, including 90,000 American citizens, were forcibly relocated from their homes to 10 internment camps located in California, I daho, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, and Ar kansas. Condi - tions in the camps were poor and characterized by overcrowding, food rationing, and primitiv e sanitar y facilities. D espite a vigor ous legal challenge, the S upreme Court r uled that the internment was constitutional on the gr ounds of militar y necessity.71 In 1944, President Roosevelt rescinded the order that began the intern- ment process and closed the camps. M any of the internees, ho wever, had suffered property losses and health pr oblems during the period of internment and would never recover from its effects. Not until the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 did the fed- eral government formally acknowledge this denial of civil rights as a “grave injustice” that had been “motivated largely by racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.”72
Asian immigration increased rapidly after the 1965 Immigration Act, which lifted discriminatory quotas. In spite of this and other developments, societal discrimina- tion coupled with limited E nglish proficiency barred many ne w Asian American (in addition to Latino) immigrants fr om full par ticipation in American life. Two developments in the 1970s, ho wever, established rights for language minorities. I n 1974 the Supreme Court ruled in Lau v. Nichols, a suit filed on behalf of Chinese students in San Francisco, that school districts have to provide education for students whose English is limited.73 It did not mandate bilingual education, but it established
190 CHAPTER 5 C I v I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 190 27/11/18 12:23 PM
a duty to provide instruction that the students could understand. As w e saw earlier, the 1970 amendments to the Voting Rights Act permanently outlawed literacy tests in all 50 states and mandated bilingual ballots or oral assistance for those who speak Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Spanish, or Native American or Alaskan languages.
NATIVE AMERICANS
The political status of Native Americans was left unclear in the Constitution. But by the early 1800s the courts had defined each of the Indian tribes as a nation. As members of Indian nations, Native Americans were thus declared noncitizens of the United States. The political status of Native Americans changed in 1924, when congressional legislation granted citiz enship to all persons born in the U nited States. A v ariety of changes in federal policy to ward Native Americans during the 1930s pav ed the way for a later r esurgence of their political po wer. M ost important was the federal decision to encourage Native Americans on reservations to establish local self -government.74 Since the 1920s and ’30s, N ative American tribes have sued the federal go vernment for illegal land seizur es; both monetar y reparations and land hav e been awarded as damages but only in small amounts. Native American tribes have been more successful at winning federal recognition of their sovereignty.
The Native American political movement gathered force in the 1960s as N ative Americans began to use protest, litigation, and assertion of tribal rights to improve their situation. The federal government responded to the rise in N ative American activism with the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, which began to give Native Americans more control over their own land.75
As a language minority, Native Americans also benefited from the 1975 amend- ments to the Voting Rights Act and the Lau decision, which established the right of Native Americans to be taught in their own languages. This marked quite a change from the boarding schools run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, where members of Native American tribes were forbidden to speak their o wn languages until r eforms began in the 1930s. I n addition to these language -related issues, N ative Ameri - cans have sought to expand their rights on the basis of their so vereign status. Most significant in economic terms was a 1987 Supreme Cour t decision that fr eed Native American tribes fr om most state r egulations pr ohibiting gambling. The establishment of casino gambling on Native American lands has brought a substan- tial flow of new income to desperately poor reservations.
DISABLED AMERICANS
The concept of rights for the disabled began to emerge in the 1970s as the civil rights model spread to other groups. The seed was planted in a little-noticed provision of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, which outlawed discrimination against individuals on the basis of disabilities. As in many other cases, the law itself helped giv e rise to the movement demanding rights for the disabled.76 Inspired by the NAACP’s use of a legal defense fund, the disability mo vement founded the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund to press its legal claims. The movement achieved its greatest success with the passage of the Americans with D isabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, which guarantees equal emplo yment rights and access to public businesses for the disabled and prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, and health care. Claims of discrimination in violation of this act are considered by the EEOC.
191exTeND ING C Iv I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 191 27/11/18 12:23 PM
The impact of the law has been far-reaching as businesses and public facilities hav e installed ramps, elevators, and other devices to meet the act’s requirements.77
LGBTQ AMERICANS
In less than 50 y ears, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) movement has become one of the largest civil rights mo vements in contempo - rary America. For much of the country’s history, any sexual orientation other than heterosexuality was considered “deviant,” and many states criminalized sexual acts considered to be “ unnatural.” Gay people w ere often afraid to r eveal their sexual orientation for fear of reprisals, including being fired from their jobs; and the police in many cities raided bars and other establishments wher e it was believed that gay people gathered. While no formal r estrictions existed on their political par ticipa- tion, gay people faced the possibility of ostracization, discrimination, and ev en prosecution.78
The contemporary gay rights movement began in earnest in the 1960s. In 1962, Illinois became the first state to repeal its sodomy laws. The movement drew national attention in 1969, when patrons at the Stonewall Inn, a popular gay bar in Green- wich Village, New York, rioted when police attempted to raid the establishment. The first gay pride parade was held in New York City the follo wing year to com - memorate the anniversary of the Stonewall riots, and gay pride parades now take place in dozens of cities across the country.
Gay rights drew national attention again in 1993, when P resident Bill Clinton confronted the question of whether gays should be allowed to serve in the military. As a candidate, Clinton had said he favored lifting the ban on gay people in the military. The issue set off a huge controversy in the first months of Clinton’s presi- dency. After nearly a year of deliberation, the administration enunciated a compro- mise: its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy allowed gay men and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they did not openly proclaim their sexual orientation or engage in homosexual activity. Many gay rights advocates expressed disappointment, charging the president with reneging on his campaign promise. After nearly 20 years of chal- lenges, President Obama signed an ex ecutive order in 2010 r epealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
No Supreme Cour t ruling or national legislation explicitly pr otected gay men and lesbians fr om discrimination until 1996. I n its first gay rights case, Bowers v. Hardwick, the Court ruled against a right to privacy that would protect consensual homosexual activity.79 After the Bowers decision, the gay rights movement sought suitable legal cases to test the constitutionality of discrimination against gay men and lesbians, much as the African American civil rights movement had done in the late 1940s and ’50s. Test cases stemmed from local ordinances restricting gay rights (including the right to marry), allowing job discrimination, and affecting family law issues such as adoption and parental rights. In 1996 the Supreme Court, in Romer v. Evans, explicitly extended fundamental civil rights protections to gay men and lesbians by declaring unconstitutional a 1992 amendment to the Colorado state constitution that prohibited local governments from passing ordinances to protect gay rights.80 In its decision, the Court highlighted the connection between gay rights and civil rights.
It was not until 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, that the Court overturned Bowers and struck down a Texas statute criminalizing cer tain intimate sexual conduct betw een
192 CHAPTER 5 C I v I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 192 27/11/18 12:23 PM
consenting par tners of the same sex. 81 This significant victory for gay men and lesbians extends the right to priv acy to sexual minorities.
However, this decision did not undo the v arious exclusions that depriv e gay men and lesbians of full civil rights, includ - ing the right to marr y. I n 1993, H awaii’s supr eme cour t declared the state ’s ban on same -sex marriage discriminator y, raising the possibility that such marriages could become legal. In Washington, D.C., the R epublican congr essional majority responded with the D efense of M arriage A ct, which defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman for purposes of federal law and benefits, such as Social Security.
More than a decade later, in 2015, the Supreme Court clarified the law concerning same -sex marriage. In the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court ruled that the Constitution’s equal protec- tion clause and the F ourteenth Amendment’s due pr ocess clause guarantee same - sex couples the right to marr y in all states and r equire states to r ecognize same-sex marriages per formed in other jurisdictions (see Chapter 2). 82 Some local officials briefly refused to issue marriage licenses to same -sex couples, but opposition soon melted away. Though the Court was closely divided in the case, the Court’s opinion appeared to reflect a shift in public opinion on same-sex unions, with a majority of Americans favoring the right of same-sex couples to wed.83
Gay rights advocates won a significant victory of a different kind in national politics in 2009 when ne w legislation extended the definition of hate crimes to include crimes against gay and transgender people. S uch legislation had been sought since the 1998 mur der of M atthew Shepard, a Wyoming college student who was br utally slain because of his sexual orientation. The new law allowed for tougher penalties when a crime is designated a hate crime. In another win in 2013, the S enate approved a law that bans discrimination in the wor k- place based on sexual orientation and gender identity (discussed earlier), with a vote of 64 to 32 in which 10 R epublicans joined 54 Democrats. The House did not take up the bill, ho wever, so it has not y et become law. Like other minori - ties fighting for civil rights, the LGBTQ community is organiz ed politically to support such measur es. The Human Rights Campaign is the primar y national political action committee focused on gay rights; it provides campaign financing and volunteers to work for political candidates endorsed by the group. The move- ment has also formed legal rights organizations, including the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.
DO THE POOR HAVE CIVIL RIGHTS?
One category often omitted from discussions of rights is the poor. Yet America’s poor have also struggled for recognition as a group with rights that should be pr o- tected. From the colonial period until the early nineteenth centur y, state income and pr operty r estrictions ex cluded poor people fr om v oting and officeholding. In modern times, adv ocates have argued that the poor hav e a right to education, health care, and other social benefits. Such rights are guaranteed in many European constitutions. And, in the United States, various social policies appear to recognize such rights.
In 2015 the Supreme Court legal- ized same-sex marriage nationwide with its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. The Obama administration showed its support by illuminating the White House in rainbow light.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Political conflicts over gay rights have been carried out in the courts, in state legislatures, in Congress, and in elections. What are some of the decisions that have been reached in each of these different decision-making arenas? Where should decisions about gay rights be made?
193exTeND ING C Iv I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 193 27/11/18 12:23 PM
Women’s Rights every year, the World economic Forum (a nonprofit based in Switzerland) ranks countries based on how close they are to achieving gender equality. In 2017 the United States was ranked 49th out of 144 countries, comparable to countries such as Peru and Zimbabwe.a One of the interesting findings in this report is that the United States has reached full gender parity in regards to educational attainment, yet lags regarding women’s economic participation and opportunity, health and survival, and political empowerment.
When we compare the United States to other democracies, we notice that the United States lacks key legislation that
impacts how women interact in the workforce. While most wealthy democracies mandate employers provide paid maternity and paternity leave, the United States has no legislation that guarantees even unpaid leave. As a result, it is more difficult for women in the United States to balance motherhood and pursuing a career. Largely thanks to various court decisions, U.S. law protects women from gender- based discrimination in hiring and, increasingly, from sexual harassment in the workplace, yet lacks sufficient protections guaranteeing equal pay for equal work.
a World Economic Forum, “Global Gender Gap Report,” 2017, www.reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2017/dataexplorer/ (accessed 5/28/18).
CONSTITUTION CONTAINS A
NON-DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE BASED ON
GENDER
ABORTION PERMITTED
UPON REQUEST
GENDER PARITY
REACHED IN LITERACY AND
IN PRIMARY, SECONDARY,
AND TERTIARY EDUCATION
LAW MANDATES NON-DISCRIMINATION
BASED ON GENDER IN HIRING
LAW MANDATES
EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK
LAW MANDATES MATERNITY LEAVE (PAID OR UNPAID)
Australia ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Brazil ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Canada ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
France ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Germany ✓ ✓ ✓
India ✓ ✓ ✓
Japan ✓ ✓ ✓
Mexico ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
South Africa
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
United States
✓ ✓ ✓
SOURCES: World Bank, “Gender Data Portal,” 2018, www.datatopics.worldbank.org (accessed 7/2/18); Pew Research Center, “Worldwide Abortion Politics,” October 5, 2015, www.pewresearch.org (accessed 7/2/18); World Economic Forum, “Global Gender Gap Report,” 2017, www.reports.webforum.org (accessed 7/2/18).
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 194 27/11/18 12:23 PM
Affirmative Action Over the past half-century or so, the relatively narrow goal of equalizing opportunity by eliminating discrim- inatory barriers ev olved into the
broader goal of affirmative action, compensatory action to overcome the consequences of past discrimination and encourage gr eater diversity. Affirmative action policies take race or some other status into account in order to provide greater opportunities to groups that have previously been at a disadvantage due to discrimination.
In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson issued executive orders promoting minority employment in the federal civil ser vice and in companies doing business with the government. But affirmative action did not become a prominent goal of the national government until the 1970s.
Affirmative action also took the form of efforts by the agencies in the D epart- ment of H ealth, Education, and Welfare to shift their focus fr om “desegregation” to “integration.”84 Federal agencies, sometimes with cour t orders and sometimes without them, required school districts to pr esent plans for busing childr en across district lines, for closing certain schools, and for redistributing faculties as well as students or face the loss of grants-in-aid from the federal government. These efforts dramatically increased the number of black children attending integrated classes.
THE SUPREME COURT AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Efforts by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to shape the meaning of affirmative action today tend to center on one key issue: What is the appr opriate level of review in affirmative action cases—that is, on whom should the burden of proof be placed: the plaintiff, to show that discrimination has not occurred, or the defendant, to show that discrimination has occurr ed? The reason this question is difficult is because the cases in which the Court critically scr utinized and str uck down racially discriminatory laws—cases like Brown and Loving—all involved his- torically disadvantaged racial minority groups. The Court struck down those laws partly because it concluded they w ere motivated by racial hostility—which is not a valid government purpose—and par tly because the Cour t concluded that dis - advantaged minority groups were effectively unable to use the political pr ocess to challenge laws that harmed them. The new cases, however, did not fit this pattern. Instead of being motivated by racial hostility, they were enacted with the objective of assisting victims of past injustice. And instead of harming minority groups, they disadvantaged members of the dominant majority racial gr oup. Yet critics argued that discriminating against any individual because of their race violated the E qual Protection clause.
This question was addressed directly by the Supreme Court in the case of Allan Bakke (see Table 5.3). Bakke, a white male, brought suit against the University of California at Davis Medical School on the grounds that, in denying him admission, the school had discriminated against him on the basis of his race. (That year, the school had reserved 16 of 100 available slots for minority applicants.) Bakke argued that his grades and test scor es ranked him w ell abo ve many students who w ere accepted and that he had been r ejected because he was white, whereas those others accepted were black or Latino. In 1978, Bakke won his case before the Supreme Court and was admitted to the medical school, but the Cour t stopped shor t of
Contrast arguments for and against affirmative action
affirmative action government policies or programs that seek to redress past injustices against specified groups by making special efforts to provide members of those groups with access to educational and employment opportunities
195AFF IRMAT Ive ACT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 195 27/11/18 12:23 PM
declaring affirmative action unconstitutional. The Court rejected the procedures at the University of California because its medical school had used both a quota and a separate admissions system for minorities. The Court accepted the argument that achieving “a diverse student body ” was a “ compelling public purpose ” but found that the method of a rigid quota of student slots assigned on the basis of race was incompatible with the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. Thus, the Court permitted univ ersities (and pr esumably other schools, training pr ograms, and hiring authorities) to continue to consider minority status but limited the use of quotas to situations (1) in which pr evious discrimination had been sho wn and (2) where quotas served more as a guideline for social diversity than as a mathemati- cally defined ratio.85
For nearly a decade after Bakke, the Cour t was tentativ e and permissiv e about efforts by universities, corporations, and go vernments to experiment with affirma- tive action programs.86
But in 1995 another S upreme Cour t r uling fur ther w eakened affirmative action. This decision stated that race-based policies, such as pr eferences giv en by the go vernment to minority contractors, must sur vive strict scr utiny, placing the bur den on the go vernment to sho w that such affirmative action
CASE COURT RULING
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
Affirmative action upheld, but quotas and separate admission for minorities rejected; burden of proof on defendant
Wards Cove Packing Co., Inc. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989)
All affirmative action programs put in doubt: burden of proof shifted from defendant to plaintiff (victim), then burden of proof shifted back to employers (defendants)
St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993)
Required victim to prove discrimination was intentional
Adarand Constructors Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995)
All race-conscious policies must survive “strict scrutiny,” with burden of proof on government to show the program serves “compelling interest” to redress past discrimination
Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir., 1996) Race can never be used as a factor in admission, even to promote diversity (Supreme Court refusal to review limited application to the Fifth Circuit— Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi)
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) Rejection of a “mechanical” point system favoring minority applicants to University of Michigan as tantamount to a quota; Bakke reaffirmed
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) Upheld race-conscious admission to Michigan Law School, passing strict scrutiny with diversity as a “compelling” state interest, as long as admission was “highly individualized” and not “mechanical,” as in Gratz
Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. — (2013) Held that strict scrutiny should be applied to college admissions policies that used race as a factor even if the intent was to favor black applicants
TABLE 5.3
Supreme Court Rulings on Affirmative Action
196 CHAPTER 5 C I v I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 196 27/11/18 12:23 PM
programs ser ve a compelling go vernment interest and addr ess identifiable past discrimination.87
This ambiguous status of affirmative action was how things stood in 2003, when the Supreme Court took two cases against the University of Michigan. The first suit alleged that by automatically awarding 20 points (out of 150) to African American, Latino, and N ative American applicants, the univ ersity discriminated unconstitu - tionally against white students of other wise equal or superior academic qualifica- tions. The Supreme Court agreed, arguing that something tantamount to a quota was involved because undergraduate admissions lacked the necessar y “individuali- zed consideration” and had employed instead a “mechanical one,” based too much on the favorable minority points.88
The second case, Grutter v. Bollinger, broke new ground. Barbara Grutter sued the law school on the grounds that it had discriminated in a race-conscious way against white applicants with equal or superior grades and law boards. A 5–4 decision for the first time aligned the majority of the Supreme Court with Justice Powell’s lone plurality opinion in Bakke. Powell had argued that (1) div ersity in education is a compelling state inter est and (2) race could be constitutionally consider ed as a plus factor in admissions decisions. In Grutter, the Court reiterated Powell’s holding and, applying strict scr utiny to the law school ’s policy, found that the law school ’s admissions process was tailored to the school’s compelling state interest in diversity because it gav e a “highly individualiz ed, holistic r eview of each applicant ’s file” in which race counted but was not used in a “ mechanical” way.89 The Court’s ruling that racial categories can be deployed to serve a compelling state interest put affirm- ative action on stronger ground. The Court reaffirmed the Grutter decision in 2013 when it decided Fisher v. University of Texas, in which a white student challenged the use of race as one factor among many in the admissions decision. In a 7–1 decision, the Court sent the case back to the district cour t with instructions to apply “strict scrutiny” to the school’s policy, as articulated in Grutter.90 As noted earlier, the Court eventually accepted the university’s plan.
Civil Rights WHAT DO WE WANT? The debate about civil rights and affirmative action is ongoing because Americans hold
fundamentally different views about whether and how the government should recog-
nize racial distinctions. At the risk of gross oversimplification, we can divide those with
differing views into two groups and label them liberals and conservatives.91 Conserv-
atives argue, first, that rights in the American tradition are individual rights and that
affirmative action violates this concept by concerning itself with “group rights,” an idea
said to be alien to the American tradition. Second, conservatives argue that the Consti-
tution is “color-blind” and that any discrimination, even if it is called positive or benign,
must inevitably rely on quotas and thus ultimately violate the equal protection clause.
Liberals agree that rights ultimately come down to individuals but argue that since
the essence of discrimination is the unreasonable and unjust exclusion of an entire
group from something valuable the society has to offer, discrimination itself has to be
197C Iv I L R IGHTS : WHAT DO We WANT?
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 197 27/11/18 12:23 PM
attacked on a group basis. Despite progress toward racial equality, liberals argue that
race still matters. They can also cite Supreme Court history because the first definitive
interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Court, in 1873, stated that
the existence of laws in the state wher e the ne wly emancipated N egroes r esided, which discriminated with gr oss injustice and har dship against them as a class , was the evil to be remedied by this clause [emphasis added].92
As to the conservative argument concerning quotas, the liberal response is that
the Supreme Court has already accepted ratios (a form of quota) that are admitted
as evidence to prove a “pattern or practice of discrimination” sufficient to reverse
the burden of proof—to obligate the employer to show that there was not an intent
to discriminate. Further, benign quotas have often been used by Americans both to
compensate for some bad action in the past and to provide some desired distribution
of social characteristics—that is, diversity. For example, a long-respected policy in the
United States is the “veterans’ preference” by which the government automatically
gives extra consideration in hiring to persons who have served in the country’s armed
forces. And the goal of social diversity has long justified “positive discrimination,”
especially in higher education. For example, many private colleges and universities
regularly reserve admissions places for the children of loyal alumni and of their own
faculty, even when, in a pure competition based solely on test scores and high school
records, many of those same students would not have been admitted. These practices
underscore the liberal argument that affirmative or compensatory action for minorities
is not alien to American experience. Because our nation has a history of slavery and
legalized racial discrimination and because discrimination continues to exist (although
it has declined), the issue of racial justice, more than any other, highlights the difficulty
of reconciling our values to our practice.
The civil rights revolution, a revolution that began with African Americans, has broad-
ened to include women and Latinos and to address such matters as sexual orienta-
tion, sexual identification, and immigration status. The “Who Participates?” feature on
the facing page shows a time line of groups that have fought for their rights throughout
American history. As our nation becomes more and more diverse, equal protection of the
laws will become more and more important. If we are to succeed and prosper as a nation,
we must be inclusive. The tumultuous history of civil rights in America demonstrates that
exclusion is a recipe for national calamity. It also demonstrates that struggles for civil
rights often take a long time, beginning with political action by a small group of committed
individuals and often ending with legislation and legal decisions from the highest court in
the country. What civil rights battles now appear on the country’s horizon? What can and
should be done to remedy past wrongs that have current consequences, such as when
past discrimination results in an economic underclass for a racial or ethnic minority? And,
most fundamentally, how does a country based on the democratic principle of majority
rule ensure that the civil rights of minorities are protected? In 2017 the Department of
Justice declared that it was planning to investigate discrimination against whites. Some
said it was high time for such an investigation, while others lamented what they saw as
a step backward for the nation. Civil rights continue to be contested terrain in America.
198 CHAPTER 5 C I v I L R IGHTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 198 27/11/18 12:23 PM
LABOR MOVEMENT
Workers 1930s
NATIVE AMERICAN MOVEMENT
Native Americans 1968–present
Time Line of Major Civil Rights Movements
Do you think the government should do more to protect civil rights in your community? Speak out about civil rights on social media. Post to your Facebook page or Tumblr, launch a hashtag campaign on Twitter, or start an online petition at www.change.org.
Make a phone call to voice your opinion on civil rights. Call the White House (202-456-1111) or your members of Congress (202-224-3121). You can also contact the White House online (www.whitehouse.gov/contact) or email your members of Congress (www.congress.gov/members).
To learn more about your civil rights, explore the Civil Rights page of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services at www.hhs.gov/ocr.
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION Colonists 1775−1783
WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE MOVEMENT Women 1848–1920
THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT
Slaves 1830s–1865
Black Americans 1955–1968
BLACK CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT
GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT
LGBTQ Americans
1969–present
1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
DISABILITY RIGHTSMOVEMENTDisabled Americans
1960s–present FE
M IN
IS T
M OV
EM EN
T
2N D
W AV
E
Wo me
n
19 63
–1 98
2
CHICANO MOVEMENT
Mexican Americans 1960s–1970s
Who Has Fought for Their Rights?
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO Advocate Your Position on Civil Rights
WHO PARTICIPATES?
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 199 27/11/18 12:23 PM
d) a law segregating all public accommodations, such as hotels, restaurants, and theaters
e) All of the above are examples of Jim Crow laws.
3. Which civil rights case established the “separate but equal” rule? a) Plessy v. Ferguson b) Grutter v. Bollinger c) Brown v. Board of Education d) Regents of the University of California v. Bakke e) Adarand Constructors Inc. v. Peña
4. Which of the following organizations established a legal defense fund to challenge segregation? a) the Association of American Trial Lawyers b) the National Association of evangelicals c) the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People d) the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee e) the Southern Christian Leadership Council
5. Massive resistance refers to efforts by southern states during the late 1950s and early 1960s to a) build public housing for poor blacks. b) defy federal mandates to desegregate public
schools. c) give women the right to have an abortion. d) bus black students to white schools. e) stage large-scale protests against Jim Crow laws.
6. Which of the following outlawed discrimination by employers in hiring, promoting, and laying off their employees and state governments illegal? a) the Fourteenth Amendment b) the Fifteenth Amendment c) Brown v. Board of Education d) the 1964 Civil Rights Act e) Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
7. The voting Rights Act of 1965 significantly extended and protected voting rights by doing which of the following? a) barring literacy tests as a condition for voting in six
southern states b) requiring all voters to register two weeks before any
federal election c) eliminating all federal-level registration requirements d) allowing voters to sue election officials for monetary
damages in civil court e) requiring that all voters show a valid government-
issued photo ID
Discrimination against individuals on the basis of their race and gender was tolerated and even enforced by government policy through much of American history. With the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, civil rights became a part of the Constitution. The political struggles of African Americans and women have narrowed the gap between Americans’ belief in equality and the reality of life in the United States, but they have not eliminated it.
Key Terms discrimination (p. 161)
civil rights (p. 161)
equal protection clause (p. 161)
Thirteenth Amendment (p. 163)
Fourteenth Amendment (p. 163)
Fifteenth Amendment (p. 163)
Jim Crow laws (p. 163)
“separate but equal” rule (p. 164)
Brown v. Board of Education (p. 167)
strict scrutiny (p. 167)
de jure (p. 168)
de facto (p. 168)
gerrymandering (p. 175)
redlining (p. 178)
Practice Quiz
1. When did civil rights first become part of the Constitution? a) in 1789 at the Founding b) with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment
in 1868 c) in 2008 when Barack Obama was elected
president d) with the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment
in 1920 e) in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision
2. Which of the following could be described as a Jim Crow law? a) a law forcing blacks and whites to ride on separate
trains b) a law criminalizing interracial marriage c) a law requiring blacks and whites to attend different
schools
The Struggle for Civil Rights
Trace the legal developments and social movements that expanded civil rights (pp. 161–79)
CHAPTER 5 STUDY GU IDe200
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 200 27/11/18 12:23 PM
programs serve a compelling government interest and are narrowly tailored to address identifiable past discrimi- nation in order to be ruled constitutional. In recent years, challenges to affirmative action have also emerged at the state and local levels.
Key Term affirmative action (p. 195)
10. The Supreme Court’s decision in Mendez v. Westminster was significant because it a) served as a precursor for Brown v. Board of
Education by ruling that the segregation of Anglos and Mexican Americans into separate schools was unconstitutional.
b) determined that anyone born in the United States was entitled to full citizenship.
c) allowed school districts to achieve racial integration through busing.
d) held that public accommodations could be segregated by race but still be equal.
e) eliminated state power to use race as a criterion for discrimination in law.
11. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled that a) school districts must provide bilingual education for
students whose english is limited. b) the internment of Japanese Americans during World
War II was constitutional on the grounds of military necessity.
c) the 1882 Chinese exclusion Act was an unconstitu- tional form of racial discrimination.
d) anyone born in the United States was entitled to full citizenship.
e) Chinese immigrants were ineligible for citizenship in the United States.
12. Which two Supreme Court decisions reached opposite conclusions about the constitutionality of state laws criminalizing intimate sexual conduct between consent- ing partners of the same sex? a) Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas b) Lau v. Nichols and Korematsu v. United States c) Romer v. Evans and Obergefell v. Hodges d) Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger e) Lawrence v. Texas and Texas v. Johnson
Affirmative action policies take race or some other status into account in order to provide greater educational and employment opportunities to groups that have been dis- criminated against. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government must show evidence that affirmative action
In the 1970s the civil rights model created by African Americans began to spread beyond racial and ethnic groups to include groups defined by sex, religion, national origin, age, disabilities, and sexual orientation. For many of these groups, government policies played an important role in giving rise to movements that demanded equal treatment.
Key Term intermediate scrutiny (p. 180)
Practice Quiz
8. The judicial test that places the burden of proof on government to show that a race-based policy serves a “compelling interest,” is “narrowly tailored,” and uses the “least restrictive means” for achieving its compelling interest is called a) strict scrutiny. b) intermediate scrutiny. c) limited scrutiny. d) de facto segregation. e) de jure segregation.
9. Which of the following declared that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex”? a) the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act b) Title Iv of the 1964 Civil Rights Act c) the DReAM Act d) the equal Rights Amendment e) Obergefell v. Hodges
Affirmative Action
Extending Civil Rights
Contrast arguments for and against affirmative action (pp. 195–97)
Describe how different groups have fought for and won protection of their civil rights (pp. 179–94)
STUDY GU IDE 201
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 201 27/11/18 12:23 PM
Katznelson, Ira. When Affirmative Action Was White: The Untold Story of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America. New York: W. W. Norton, 2006.
Lee, Sonia Song-Ha. Building a Latino Civil Rights Movement. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2014.
Nichols, Walter J. The DREAMers: How the Undocumented Youth Movement Transformed the Immigrant Rights Debate. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2013.
Rosenberg, Gerald N. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring about Social Change? Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
Stone, Geoffrey. Sex and the Constitution: Sex, Religion and Law From America’s Origins to the Twenty-First Century. New York: Liveright, 2017.
Taylor, Jami Kathleen, and Donald P. Halder-Markel, eds. Transgender Rights and Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2015.
Waldman, Michael. The Fight to Vote. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2016.
Ackerman, Bruce. We the People. vol. 3, The Civil Rights Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014.
Ancheta, Angelo. Race, Rights and the Asian American Experi- ence. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2006.
Chen, Anthony S. The Fifth Freedom: Jobs, Politics, and Civil Rights in the United States, 1941–1972. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009.
Chermerinsky, erwin. Closing the Courthouse Door: How Your Constitutional Rights Became Unenforceable. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017.
Davis, Lennard J. Enabling Acts: The Hidden Story of How the Americans with Disabilities Act Gave the Largest US Minority Its Rights. Boston: Beacon Press, 2015.
Faderman, Lillian. The Gay Revolution: The Story of the Struggle. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2015.
Garrow, David J. Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference: A Personal Portrait. New York: Morrow, 1986.
Gonzales, Roberto. Lives in Limbo: Undocumented and Coming of Age in America. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2015.
Greenberg, Jack. Crusaders in the Courts: How a Dedicated Band of Lawyers Fought for the Civil Rights Revolution. New York: Basic Books, 1994.
e) achieving “a diverse student body” was a “compel- ling public purpose,” but affirmative action poli- cies can only be used to give preferences to Asian Americans.
14. In which case did the Supreme Court rule that that the burden of proof is on the government to show that race-based policies, such as preferences given by the government to minority contractors, serve a compelling government interest and address identifia- ble past discrimination? a) Wards Cove Packing Co., Inc. v. Atonio b) St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks c) Adarand Constructors v. Peña d) Gratz v. Bollinger e) Fisher v. University of Texas
Practice Quiz
13. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Supreme Court ruled that a) race can never be used as a factor in university
admissions, even to promote diversity. b) achieving “a diverse student body” was a “com-
pelling public purpose,” and the method of a rigid quota of student slots assigned on the basis of race was consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause.
c) achieving “a diverse student body” was a “compel- ling public purpose,” but the method of a rigid quota of student slots assigned on the basis of race was incompatible with the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause.
d) achieving “a diverse student body” was a “compel- ling public purpose,” but affirmative action policies can only be used to give preferences to African Americans.
For Further Reading
CHAPTER 5 STUDY GU IDe202
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 202 27/11/18 12:23 PM
ADA Home Page www.ada.gov
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), enacted in 1990, guarantees equal employment rights and access to public businesses for the physically disabled. The U.S. Department of Justice maintains this website, which offers general information on ADA standards, changes in regulation, and policy enforcement.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission www.eeoc.gov
This website provides information on the federal agency and current employment laws. At this site you can even find out how someone might file a harassment or discrimination charge against an employer.
Equality Now www.equalitynow.org
This is an organization dedicated to ending gender discrimination around the world. Read about how this group is fighting for the rights of women in Africa or campaigning against female genital mutilation and sex trafficking.
Federal Bureau of Investigation www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/hate.htm
Civil rights violations fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Find out what steps the FBI is taking to combat the problem of hate crimes, and view some comprehensive statistical data.
Feminist Majority Foundation www.feminist.org
This organization seeks to promote the legal, social, and political equality of women. They develop public policy, participate in grassroots organizing, and train leaders to promote their cause.
Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation www.glaad.org
Human Rights Campaign www.hrc.org
These two prominent interest groups are dedicated to equal rights for lesbians and gay men and ending gender discrimination.
League of United Latin American Citizens www.lulac.org
The League of United Latin American Citizens has worked to stem discrimination against Mexican Americans since World War II and is now the largest and oldest Latino organization in the United States.
Recommended Websites See what this group is doing to guarantee racial equality based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause.
The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a key leader in the fight for civil rights and desegregation. At this website you can find Dr. King’s important speeches and papers, as well as other information about social injustice.
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund www.maldef.org
The Mexican American Legal Defense and education Fund (MALDeF) is the leading nonprofit Latino litigation, advocacy, and educational outreach institution in the United States. At this site, you will learn about litigation and other activities that MALDeF has initiated related to the rights of Latinos and of immigrants more generally.
NAACP www.naacp.org
The NAACP is one of the oldest and largest civil rights organizations that is dedicated to equal rights and putting an end to racial discrimination. This group was particularly influential in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education, which led to the desegregation of public schools.
National Organization for Women www.now.org
This leading women’s rights group continues to fight for gender equality and equal rights.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights www.usccr.gov
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was created by Congress in the late 1950s and continues to investigate complaints of discrimination in American society.
U.S. Supreme Court Media www.oyez.org
This website has a good search engine for finding information on such landmark civil rights cases as Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, Lawrence v. Texas, and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, to name only a few.
STUDY GU IDE 203
wtp12e_ptr_ch05_158-203.indd 203 27/11/18 12:23 PM
Public Opinion
060606 chapter
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS Americans can have quite differ- ent opinions on important issues, even citizens who
have had similarly vivid, harrowing experiences. In
1991, Suzanna Hupp was eating lunch in a Texas
restaurant when a man drove his truck through the
window and began shooting people. Hupp had often
carried a handgun in her purse, but had recently
taken it out because Texas did not allow concealed
carry at the time, and she was afraid she would lose
her license as a chiropractor if caught. “Could I have
hit the guy? He was fifteen feet from me. . . . Could
I have missed? Yeah, it’s possible. But the one thing
nobody can argue with is that it would have changed
the odds.” The gunman killed 23 people, including her
parents. She has become a strong proponent of gun
rights since then. “One of my bugaboos is gun laws.
Anytime we list a place where you can’t carry guns,
to me, that’s like a shopping list for a madman. . . .
If you think about nearly every one of these mass
shootings, they have occurred at places where guns
weren’t allowed. That’s frustrating to me, particularly
when you talk about schools. Where do these mad-
men go? They go to schools and slaughter people.”1
Fifteen-year-old Justin Gruber also survived a
terrible shooting incident, in a school: the shooting
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 204 27/11/18 12:25 PM
Suzanna Hupp (left) and Justin Gruber (right) were both present during episodes of gun violence. These events pushed Hupp to advocate for more gun rights, and Gruber to speak out for more restrictive gun laws. How do political opinions form? And how do government officials respond to shifts in public opinion?
at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in
Parkland, Florida, in February 2018. The incident
left 17 students and teachers dead. But Gruber and
many of his schoolmates reached the opposite view
of Suzanna Hupp, arguing for greater gun control
such as assault weapon bans and increased age
limits for purchase. Objecting to one suggestion raised
after the shooting, Gruber said that arming teachers
is a “terrible idea.” “Adding guns to solve a gun prob-
lem will increase the possible negative outcomes,”
he said. “Teachers shouldn’t have to be trained to
carry weapons. They are supposed to mold the minds
of the next generation.”2 Some students formed a
group, Never Again MSD, known by the hashtag
#NeverAgain, to advocate for tighter gun control.
After mass shootings, support for stronger gun
control measures tends to increase among the gen-
eral public. The percentage of Americans telling the
Gallup Organization that they wanted stricter laws
covering the sale of firearms increased 5 points
after the October 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas
and 7 more points after the Parkland shooting
five months later, to 67 percent overall.3 At the
same time, gun sales typically increase after mass
shootings as gun supporters fear tighter controls
(although this pattern is more muted under Trump
205
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 205 27/11/18 12:25 PM
than it was under Obama).4 Soon after, however, public outcry tends to
fade—after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementry School shooting in Connecticut,
support for more gun control spiked then subsided—and elected politicians
seem to take no action. In these cases, are politicians following public opinion
or are they ignoring it?
The “consent of the governed,” which is demanded in the Declaration of
Independence, is critical for the functioning of a democracy. We expect
government to pay attention to the people. But whose opinion gets repre-
sented in public policy, particularly on issues, such as gun rights and gun
control, where there are strong divides among the public? What is the role of
public opinion compared to that of other political actors, such as organized
interests? How well informed are people, and by what channels can individu-
als have their voices heard? As we will see in this chapter, research shows
that public opinion does indeed have a significant impact on public policy. But
there are debates among scholars about whether the public is sufficiently
informed about politics, as well as whether elected officials represent the
interests of all Americans or only some Americans.
★ Define public opinion, and identify broad types of values and beliefs Americans have about politics (pp. 207–15)
★ Explain the major factors that shape specific individual opinions (pp. 216–25)
★ Explore when and why public opinion changes and what role political knowledge plays (pp. 225–32)
★ Describe the major forces that shape public opinion (pp. 232–34)
★ Analyze how public opinion shapes government policy and influences elected officials (pp. 234–37)
★ Describe basic survey methods and other techniques researchers use to measure public opinion (pp. 237–47)
CHAPTER GOALS
206 CHAPTER 6 PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 206 27/11/18 12:25 PM
Defining Public Opinion The term public opinion refers to the attitudes that people hav e about policy issues, events, elected officials, and politics. I t is useful to distin - guish between values and beliefs, on
the one hand, and attitudes and opinions, on the other . Values (or beliefs) constitute a person’s basic orientation to politics and include guiding principles. Values are not limited to the political ar ena, but they include deep-r ooted morals, ethics, aspira - tions, and ideals that shape an individual’s perceptions of society, government, and the economy. Liberty (i.e. freedom), democracy, and equality of opportunity, for example, are basic politi cal values held by most Americans.
Another useful term for understanding public opinion is ideology. Political ideology refers to a set of beliefs and values that, as a whole, form a general philosophy about government. For example, many Americans believ e that governmental solutions to problems are inherently inferior to solutions offered by the private sector and fr ee markets. Such a philosophy about government may predispose individuals to form negative views of specific government programs, even before they know much about the policy.
An attitude (or opinion) is a vie w about a par ticular issue, person, or ev ent. An individual may have an attitude to ward American policy in the M iddle East or an opinion about economic inequality in America. The attitude may have emerged from a broad belief about military intervention or about the role of government in the economy, but the opinion itself is v ery specific. Some attitudes may be shor t- lived and can change based on changing cir cumstances or new information; others may change over a few years and still others may not change over a lifetime.
To measure public opinion on an issue, one must study the individual opi nions of thousands or millions of people aggr egated together; it is a way to gauge what Americans think about politics and policy . When w e think of public opinion, we often think in terms of differences of opinion. The media are fond of r eport- ing political differences between Republicans and D emocrats, blacks and whites, women and men, the young and the old, and so on. Certainly, Americans differ on many issues, and often these differences are associated with partisanship, economic status, or social and demographic characteristics such as race and ethnicity , gen - der, income, education, age, r eligion, and r egion. For example, individuals whose incomes differ substantially have varying views on many impor tant economic and social programs, including go vernment health car e. In general, the poor , who ar e the chief beneficiaries of these programs, support them more strongly than do those who are wealthier and pay more of the taxes that fund the programs.
Political attitudes ar e incr easingly influenced by par tisanship (R epublicans versus D emocrats) and ideology (conser vatives v ersus liberals). F or example, shortly after taking office in January 2017 P resident Trump signed a contr over- sial executive order immediately halting the U.S. r efugee program and banning immigration to the U nited S tates fr om a half doz en pr edominantly M uslim countries, including Syria. In 2018 the S upreme Court upheld the trav el ban as constitutional, despite legal challenges. Opinion polls show that while 63 percent of Republicans say refugees from the Middle East are a threat, only 30 percent of Democrats say the same.5
public opinion citizens’ attitudes about political issues, leaders, institutions, and events
values (or beliefs) basic principles that shape a person’s opinions about political issues and events
political ideology a cohesive set of beliefs that forms a general philosophy about the role of government
attitude (or opinion) a specific preference on a particular issue
Define public opinion, and identify broad types of values and beliefs Americans have about politics
207DEF IN ING PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 207 27/11/18 12:25 PM
Traditionally, ther e was an assumption that political attitudes w ere r ooted in rational factors, such as self-inter est. Now political scientists understand that opi - nions about issues and politics have emotional underpinnings as well.6 Emotional responses to candidates, events, or policies run the gamut from strongly positive to strongly negative. These emotions are usually measured by survey questions asking if a candidate (or another individual, event, or issue) makes the respondent feel angry, fearful, anxious, or enthusiastic. Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, for example, benefited from high enthusiasm from his supporters. Similarly high posi tive emotions may have given Barack Obama an advantage as the first African American president in 2008, o vercoming racial r esentment among some citiz ens.7 Contrary to the idea that public opinion is purely rational, feelings are complicated and often irrational; once individuals become emotionally attached to par ticular beliefs, they tend to hold on to them even in the face of contradictory information. Using emotions as a guide, individuals form opinions quickly in response to current events. An important study called this “affective [meaning emotional] intelligence.”8
Research has shown that individuals usually monitor political news by respond- ing to familiar political figures or issues in a habitual and unthinking manner. How- ever, when we encounter a new political actor, event, or issue, we tend to form a new evaluation. Anxiety triggered by a change in the political environment, such as a foreign enemy (e.g., Russia, North Korea, or ISIS) or an opposing party’s candidate can trigger incr eased interest, attention, and information seeking, which in some cases prompts a change of opinion. These findings suggest that even individuals with strong opinions might abandon their political habits if they have feelings of anxiety and feel threatened.
For example, the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in P arkland, F lorida, described in the beginning of this chapter , caused str ong emotional responses, including fear and outrage among students and par ents, and reopened a national debate about gun regulation. One month after the shooting, on March 14, 2018, thousands of students and teachers walked out of school to protest the government’s lack of response to gun violence in the United States. In response
Dramatic events, and the emotions they stir, can alter public opinion. In the aftermath of the violence erupt- ing at a 2017 white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, seemingly everyone had an opinion on the state of race relations in America.
208 CHAPTER 6 PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 208 27/11/18 12:25 PM
to the shooting and r eactions to it, the R epublican-controlled Florida state legisla- ture passed a law raising the minimum age to purchase a gun from 18 to 21, despite opposition fr om the N ational Rifle Association. Alternatively, P resident Trump has suggested arming some teachers with handguns. Though most U.S. adults (55 per cent) would oppose allo wing teachers to carr y guns in K–12 schools, a sizable minority (45 percent) said they favored such a measure. Among Republicans, the number was ev en larger, with about 7 in 10 R epublicans and independents who lean Republican (69 percent) in support of this proposal.9
Emotions play a major r ole in public opinion about gun o wnership and school violence; anxiety triggered by an event such as a mass shooting often leads to increased interest and attention ar ound an issue, as w ell as motivation to fight for change in government policy.
POLITICAL VALUES
Despite their differences, most Americans share a common set of v alues, including a belief in the principles, if not always the actual practice, of liber ty, equality, and democracy. The United States was founded on the principle of individual liberty, or freedom. Americans hav e always v oiced strong support for the idea of liber ty and typically support the notion that go vernmental interference with individuals’ lives and property should be kept to a minimum. Liberty is, after all, tied inextricably to the birth of our nation—Puritans fled to America to escape persecution in England for their religious beliefs—and it remains as important in contemporary politics as it was during the F ounding era when the colonists fought for their fr eedom from Britain during the R evolutionary War. Americans hav e str onger vie ws about the importance of liber ty and fr eedom of expr ession than do citiz ens in other demo - cratic countries. One example is the gr owing concern with civil liber ties related to privacy and security of personal information online. Three in four Americans don’t see a need to sacrifice liberty (priv acy and fr eedom) to be safe fr om terrorism.10 Support for fr eedom of speech, a fr ee internet, and a fr ee pr ess is higher in the United States than in most other countries in the world: 71 per cent of Americans believe it is v ery important that “people can say what they want without state or government censorship,” compared to a global av erage of 56 per cent.11 These data underscore the fact that go vernment surveillance is of incr easing concern to most Americans and that the value of liberty matters.
Similarly, equality of opportunity has always been an impor tant theme in Ameri - can society. Most Americans believ e that all individuals should be allo wed to seek personal and economic success. M oreover, most people generally believ e that such success should be the result of individual effort and ability, rather than family con- nections or other forms of special privilege. Quality public education is one of the most important mechanisms for obtaining equality of opportunity in that it allows individuals, regardless of personal or family w ealth, a chance to get ahead. E duca- tion is one of the most important pathways to a high paying job, but rising tuition limits access to a college degree for many people. Student loan debt has skyrocketed in the United States; Americans owed more than $1.3 trillion in loans in 2017. 12 Today 17 states offer free college for eligible students, reflecting the principle of equality of opportunity.
Most Americans also believe in democracy and the rule of law. They believe that every citizen should have the opportunity to take part in the nation’s governmental and policy-making pr ocesses and to hav e some say in determining ho w they ar e
liberty freedom from governmental control
equality of opportunity a widely shared American ideal that all people should have the freedom to use whatever talents and wealth they have to reach their fullest potential
209DEF IN ING PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 209 27/11/18 12:25 PM
governed, including the right to vote in elections.13 (See Chapter 8 for a discussion of rules affecting voting in elections.) F igure 6.1 sho ws there is consensus among Americans on fundamental v alues: for instance, nearly 90 per cent of Americans believe free and fair elections ar e essential to U.S. democracy, while 83 percent say checks and balances with po wer divided between the president, Congress, and the courts is also v ery important for democracy. Eighty percent believe people should be able to make statements that criticiz e the go vernment, including nonviolent protest, and 74 percent believe democracy requires protecting the rights of people with unpopular vie ws. But ther e ar e emerging par tisan divisions, ev en over cor e values. For example, Republicans and Democrats differ significantly on the impor- tance of the fr eedom of the pr ess. Roughly half (49 per cent) of R epublicans say a free pr ess is very important to maintaining a str ong democracy, compared to 76 percent of Democrats.14
Threats to Political Values and the Rule of Law Nearly 90 per cent of Ameri - cans believe a strong democracy in America depends on open and fair elections. I n 2016, America’s free and fair elections w ere threatened by Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin, who orchestrated cyberattacks intended to sway the 2016 pr esidential elec- tion to favor Donald Trump and undermine his opponent, Hillary Clinton. The Central Intelligence Agency and the FBI confirmed the Russians hacked the Demo- cratic National Committee (DNC) and the campaign of H illary Clinton, releasing
FIGURE 6.1
Americans Agree on Many Core Democratic Values SOURCE: Pew Research Center, “Broad Public Agreement on Importance of Many Aspects of a Strong Democracy,” March 2, 2017, www.people-press.org (accessed 1/23/18).
Not too/Not at allSomewhatVery
89%
83%
79%
74%
64%
6 3
4
7
5
12
12
11
National elections are open and fair
PERCENTAGE WHO SAY EACH IS VERY, SOMEWHAT, OR NOT TOO/NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT TO MAINTAINING A STRONG DEMOCRACY IN THE UNITED STATES:
A system of checks and balances dividing power between the
president, Congress, and the courts
Rights of people with unpopular views are protected
People have the right to nonviolent protest
News organizations are free to criticize political leaders
18
20
210 CHAPTER 6 PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 210 27/11/18 12:25 PM
large amounts of data in an effort to undermine her campaign. The hacks produced a stream of leaked emails r esulting in negativ e news about Clinton ’s campaign in the run-up to the election. I n June 2017 the D epartment of H omeland Security confirmed that the computerized election systems of 21 states had been hacked by the Russians, although they could not confirm vote tallies had been changed. The National Security Administration (NSA) found Russian intelligence agents tried to hack the U.S. company that maintains and v erifies voter rolls in multiple states. In Illinois, for example, Russian actors stole driver’s license and social security numbers from 90,000 voter records.
In response to these events, most Americans believe Russia interfered with the 2016 U.S. pr esidential election. E ighty-eight per cent of U.S. adults had hear d about allegations that R ussia was inv olved in hacking the D emocratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and roughly 3 in 4 Americans believe Russia was definitely or probably behind the cyberattacks, accor ding to a P ew survey. Today 73 per cent of Americans see R ussia as a serious pr oblem or an adversary, mor e than any other for eign nation. 15 Historically Republicans hav e been more concerned with Russia than Democrats. But 39 percent of Democrats name Russia as the country representing the greatest danger to the United States, ahead of N orth K orea, countries in the M iddle East, or China. P ew r eports this is the highest percentage naming Russia in nearly three decades. In contrast, only 21 per cent of R epublicans say R ussia r epresents the gr eatest threat to the United States.16
Obviously, the political v alues that Americans espouse hav e not always been put into practice. F or 200 y ears, Americans embraced the principles of equality of opportunity and individual liber ty while denying them in practice to generations of African Americans. U ltimately, proponents of slavery and, later, of segregation were defeated in the ar ena of public opinion because their practices differed so sharply from the fundamental principles accepted by most Americans.
Yet even when there is broad agreement over principles, practical interpretations of principles can differ. For example, in contemporar y politics Americans ’ funda- mental commitment to equality of oppor tunity has led to divisions over affirma- tive action pr ograms, with both pr oponents and opponents citing their belief in equality of oppor tunity as the justification for their position (see Figure 6.2). Pro- ponents of these programs see them as necessary to ensure equality of opportunity, whereas opponents believ e that affirmative action is a form of pr eferential tr eat- ment that violates basic American values (see Chapter 5).17 We form our individual preferences and interpretation of values through interaction with family members, friends, teachers, coaches, mentors, and others in our social groups and networks in a process called socialization. This process of socialization is discussed in more detail later, under family and social networks.
POLITICAL IDEOLOGY
Americans shar e many fundamental political v alues, but the application of these v alues to specific policies varies. The set of underlying ideas and beliefs through which w e come to understand and interpr et politics is called a political ideology.
In the United States the definitions of the two most common political ideologies— liberalism and conservatism—have changed over time. To some extent, contemporary
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS The news often focuses on issues on which public opinion is sharply divided, but in fact there are many issues on which Americans largely agree. What other issues do you think have strong consensus among Americans?
211DEF IN ING PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 211 27/11/18 12:25 PM
liberalism and conservatism can be seen as differences in emphasis with regard to the fundamental American political values of liberty and equality. For liberals, equality is the most impor tant of the cor e values. Liberals encourage government action in such areas as the economy and progressive taxation, health care and workers’ rights, financial aid for college, environmental protection, and business practices to enhance race, class, and gender equality of oppor tunity. F or conser vatives, on the other hand, liberty is the core value. Conservatives oppose many efforts of the govern- ment, however well intentioned, to interfere in private life and free markets, includ- ing government regulations.
Liberalism In classical political theory, a liberal was someone who favored indi- vidual initiative and was suspicious of the motiv es of government and of its ability to manage economic and social affairs—a definition akin to that of today’s liber- tarian. The proponents of a larger and mor e active government called themselv es progressives. In the early twentieth century, many liberals and progressives coalesced around the doctrine of “social liberalism,” which held that government action (laws and policy) might be needed to preserve individual liberty. Today’s liberals are social liberals rather than classical liberals.
In contemporar y politics being a liberal has come to mean suppor ting go v- ernment policies to cr eate a fair er economic system and oppor tunity for up ward mobility, including raising taxes on the wealthy; the expansion of federal social services and health car e; go vernment spending on r oads, infrastr ucture, science, technology, and alternativ e energy; mor e vigor ous efforts on behalf of the poor and minorities; and gr eater concern for pr otecting the environment. For example, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is a leading liberal politician. Warren is an
FIGURE 6.2
Americans’ Support for Fundamental Values Americans support equality of opportunity, liberty, and democracy in principle; but do they always support these values in practice? What limits, if any, do you think Americans favor when it comes to equality, liberty, and democracy?
SOURCES: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press Values Survey, www.pewresearch.com (accessed 2/5/14); Jacob Poushter and Dionna Givens, “Where the World Sees Limits to Free Speech,” Pew Research Center, November 18, 2015, www .pewresearch.com (accessed 11/18/15); First Amendment Center, www.firstamendmentcenter.org (accessed 11/18/15).
Our society should do what is necessary to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. Do you completely agree, mostly agree, mostly disagree, or completely disagree?
People should be able to make statements that criticize the government’s policies.
Any group should be allowed to hold a rally for a cause.
Equality of opportunity Liberty
Democracy
86% completely or mostly
agree
95% agree
69% agree
liberal today this term refers to those who generally support social and political reform, governmental intervention in the economy, more economic equality, expansion of federal social services, and greater concern for consumers and the environment
212 CHAPTER 6 PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 212 27/11/18 12:25 PM
active consumer pr otection advocate whose wor k led to the establishment of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which protects individuals from bank- ruptcy and banks selling high-interest loans. Liberals generally support reproductive rights for women, rights for gays and lesbians, and are concerned with protecting the rights of people accused of crimes, refugees, and immigrants. In international affairs, liberals often suppor t foreign aid to poor nations, arms contr ol, and international organizations that promote peace such as the United Nations and the European Union. Many liberals ar e opposed to militar y wars, but under P resident Obama some liberals tolerated militar y inter ventions in other countries. Liberals ar e also divided on issues of international trade, with some liberals seeking to suppor t local businesses and locally sourced products.
Conservatism By contrast, conservatives believe strongly that a large go vernment poses a threat to the freedom of individual citizens and to free markets and demo- cracy. Ironically, today’s conservatives support the views of classical liberalism. Today, conservatives generally oppose the expansion of governmental activity, asserting that solutions to many social and economic pr oblems can and should be dev eloped in the private sector, local communities, or b y religious organizations. Conser vatives support cutting taxes and r educing government spending. Conser vatives generally oppose efforts to impose government regulation on business, maintaining that regu- lation frequently leads to economic inefficiency, is costly, and can lo wer the entire nation’s standard of living by making U.S. manufactured products more expensive and less competitive. Former Speaker of the H ouse Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) is a lead - ing conser vative politician who is kno wn to suppor t cutting tax es and r educing regulations on businesses, among other conser vative positions. I n terms of social policy, many conser vatives support traditional family v alues and generally oppose
conservative today this term refers to those who generally support the social and economic status quo and are suspicious of efforts to introduce new political formulas and economic arrangements; conservatives believe that a large and powerful government poses a threat to citizens’ freedom
★ Supports stricter environmental protections
★ Favors expanded health coverage for all Americans
★ Advocates increased funding for education
★ Supports same-sex marriage
★ Supports abortion rights and birth control
★ Supports an increase in the minimum wage
★ Supports more equitable tax policy that benefits middle-class Americans and imposes higher taxes on corporations
BOX 6.1
Profile of a Liberal: Senator Elizabeth Warren
213DEF IN ING PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 213 27/11/18 12:25 PM
abortion and same-sex marriage. They often oppose environmental protections that interfere with private business. Many conservatives prefer stricter criminal justice laws, oppose drug legalization, and seek to reduce immigration to the United States. Conservatives today are deeply divided on issues such as immigration, international trade, and the fairness of the U.S. economic system. In international affairs, conser- vatism has come to mean support for military intervention and the maintenance of American military power. There is a split among conservatives in terms of immigra- tion, with pr o-business conservatives often accepting immigration and social con - servatives strongly opposing immigration to the United States.
Libertarianism O ther political ideologies also influence American politics. Libertarians, for example, argue that government interferes with freedom of expres- sion, free markets, and society , and thus should be limited to as fe w spheres of activity as possible (public education being a notable exception for many libertar- ians). In 2016, R epublican Senator and liber tarian Rand P aul ran for pr esident based on his opposition to foreign wars and his commitment to civil liberties and smaller government.
Socialism and the Green Party While liber tarians believ e in less go vernment intervention in economic and social realms, socialists argue that more govern- ment is necessary to promote justice and to reduce economic and social inequality. In 2016, D emocratic pr esidential candidate B ernie S anders called himself a “democratic socialist, ” gaining widespr ead suppor t fr om D emocrats, especially millennials. Like the S ocial Democratic par ties in E urope, Sanders suppor ts fr ee markets and priv ate enterprise but wants go vernment to ensur e more equality of opportunity for citiz ens such as fr ee public college, single pay er health car e, and increased taxation on the v ery affluent. He also suppor ts government policies to protect workers’ rights and unions. Socialists are more to the ideological left than the
★ Wants to trim the size of the federal government
★ Wants to reduce government regulation of business
★ Supports capital punishment for certain crimes
★ Opposes restrictions on the right to bear arms
★ Supports using traditional energy sources and opposes climate change action that reduces manufacturing jobs
★ Opposes many affirmative action programs
★ Favors tax cuts
BOX 6.2
Profile of a Conservative: Former House Speaker Paul Ryan
libertarian someone who emphasizes freedom and believes in voluntary association with small government
socialist someone who generally believes in social ownership, strong government, free markets, and reducing economic inequality
214 CHAPTER 6 PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 214 27/11/18 12:25 PM
mainstream Democratic Party although they share many policy issues. MoveOn.org, a massive online organization with millions of members, advocates a policy agenda consistent with social democrats, as does 2016 Green Party candidate Jill Stein and 2020 presidential candidate Tom Steyer.
Americans’ Ideologies Today Although many Americans subscribe to liber - tarianism, socialism, or other ideologies in par t, most describe themselv es as either liberals, conser vatives, or moderates. F igure 6.3 sho ws that the per cent- age of Americans who consider themselv es moderates, liberals, or conser vatives has remained relatively constant for the past 15 y ears. Gallup sur veys indicate that as of 2017, 35 per cent of Americans consider ed themselv es conser va- tives, 35 per cent moderates, and 26 per cent liberals. B ut among y oung people aged 18-33, tr ends are different: just 15 per cent identify as conser vative, while 41 per cent identify as liberals and 44 per cent as moderates (and independent from the political parties).18
Within each ideological group, individual beliefs often vary. Many conservatives support at least some go vernment social pr ograms. Republican president George W. Bush called himself a “compassionate conservative,” to indicate that he fav ored programs that assist the poor and needy. In contrast, staunch conser vatives hold much more critical views of government’s role in the economy and society. Many joined the rising Tea Party movement in 2009 to protest President Obama’s efforts to expand the role of the federal government, especially in health care.
And while P resident O bama suppor ted health car e r eform and other social programs, he was criticiz ed b y those on the left for extending the tax policies of his R epublican pr edecessor, G eorge W. B ush, which benefited the affluent; for expanding U.S. military involvement overseas; and for deportations of undoc- umented immigrants. In short, some of Obama’s domestic, economic, and foreign policies are associated with conservatives and some with liberals. The real political world is far too complex to be seen simply in terms of a str uggle between liberals and conservatives.
FIGURE 6.3
Americans’ Ideology More Americans identify themselves as “conservatives” than “liberals.” During the period shown in this figure, however, Americans have had Democratic and Republican presidents. What might account for this apparent discrepancy? What role do moderates play in the electorate? How stable is Americans’ ideology over time?
SOURCE: Lydia Saad, “Conservative Lead in U.S. Ideology Down to Single Digits,” Gallup, January 11, 2018, https://news.gallup.com/poll/225074/ conservative-lead-ideology-down-single-digits.aspx (accessed 10/10/18).
0
10
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
20
30
40
50%
Liberal
Moderate
Conservative
215DEF IN ING PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 215 27/11/18 12:25 PM
How We Form Political Opinions As noted abo ve, br oad ideologies do not necessarily determine ev ery political opinion a person holds. Though conservatives generally
support small go vernment, most also suppor t some federal pr ograms, such as the military, national par ks, national security , and wish to see them—and hence the government—expanded. Some conservatives are not opposed to immigration and accept same-sex marriage. Though most liberals do not favor American militar y intervention abroad, many do favor military intervention for what they deem to be humanitarian purposes or to pr event terrorist attacks. H ow are political opinions like these formed?
POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION
People’s attitudes about political issues and elected officials tend to be shaped by their underlying political beliefs and values. For example, an individual who has negative feelings about go vernment regulation of the economy would pr obably be predisposed to oppose the dev elopment of ne w health car e pr ograms. S imilarly, someone who distrusts the military tends to be suspicious of the use of U.S. for ce for most for eign conflicts. The processes through which these underlying political beliefs and values are formed are collectively called political socialization.
Probably no nation, and cer tainly no democracy , could sur vive if its citiz ens did not shar e some fundamental beliefs. I n contemporar y America, the agents of socialization that foster differences in political opinions include the family and social networks, education, membership in social groups, religion, party affiliation, self- interest, and political envir onment. Other agents of socialization, such as public education, promote similarities.
Of course, no list of the agents of socialization can fully explain an individual ’s basic political beliefs. I n addition to the factors that ar e impor tant for ev eryone, experiences and influences that are unique to each individual play a role in shaping political orientation. An early encounter with an important mentor (for example, a teacher, coach, or r eligious leader), can have a lasting impact on an individual ’s views. A major political event, such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, or the 2016 presidential election, can leave an indelible mark on a person’s political consciousness. And some deep-seated personality characteristic, such as paranoia or openness to ne w experiences, may str ongly influence the formation of political
beliefs. One recent experiment found that people who tend to be more fearful appear to support policies that protect the existing social structure from both external and internal threats.19
Some new research has found that political beliefs may have a genetic basis and thus be “har d-wired.” Using data fr om a large sample of twins, scholars
found that genes, in combination with envir onmental factors, may contribute to our ideology .20 Individual backgrounds, experiences, and social factors also
explain people’s political attitudes. What follow are some of the most impor tant agents of socialization that affect individuals’ beliefs.
The Family and Social Networks M ost people acquir e their initial orienta - tion to politics fr om their families. As might be expected, differences in family
Explain the major factors that shape specific individual opinions
political socialization the induction of individuals into the political culture; learning the underlying beliefs and values on which the political system is based
agents of socialization social institutions, including families and schools, that help to shape individuals’ basic political beliefs and values
The family is one of the largest influences on a person’s political views. Children raised in conserva- tive or liberal families, usually, but not always, hold those same views later in life.
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 216 27/11/18 12:25 PM
background tend to produce divergent political perspectives. Although relatively few parents spend significant time directly teaching their chil- dren about politics, political conversations occur in many households, and children tend to absorb the political vie ws of par ents and other caregivers, often without r ealizing it. S tudies find, for example, that party pr eferences ar e initially acquir ed at home, ev en in households that don’t explicitly talk about politics. Children raised in households in which both primar y caregivers are Democrats or Republicans tend to become Democrats or Republicans respectively.21 Of course, not all children absorb their par ents’ political vie ws. Two of the late R epub- lican president Ronald Reagan’s three children, for instance, r ejected their par ents’ conser vative v alues and became activ e on behalf of D emocratic candidates.
Nevertheless, family, friends, coworkers, and neighbors are an important source of political orientation for nearly ev eryone. Political scientist Betsy Sinclair argues that individuals are “social citizens” whose political opinions and behavior ar e sig- nificantly shaped by peer influence, including friends and family.22 Sinclair shows that social networks can and do have the power to change an individual’s opinion. When members of a social network express a particular political opinion or belief, Sinclair finds, others notice and conform, particularly if their conformity is likely to be highly visible. The conclusion is that basic political acts are surprisingly subject to social pressures.
Online social networ ks such as F acebook and Twitter may incr ease the r ole of peers in shaping public opinion. F or example, the widely shar ed Facebook meme of an equal sign against a r ed backgr ound in 2013 communicated suppor t for gay rights at the same time that the U.S. Supreme Court was deciding two con- troversial cour t cases affecting gay and lesbian marriage rights. This social media discussion was associated with upticks in public support for gay marriage nationally. Public opinion on this issue changed rapidly over a decade. In 2017, 62 percent of Americans believed marriages betw een same-sex couples should be r ecognized by law, an increase of over 20 percent from 2005 when only 36 per cent of Americans felt this way.23 Similarly, the #MeToo movement that emerged in 2017 to highlight and combat sexual harassment, used social media to organize online and offline.
Education After family , formal education can be an impor tant sour ce of dif - ferences in political perspectiv es. G overnments use public education to tr y to teach all children a common set of civic values; it is mainly in school that Ameri- cans acquir e their basic beliefs in liber ty, equality , and democracy . I n histor y classes, students ar e taught that the F ounders fought for the principle of liber ty (freedom). In the course of studying such topics as the Constitution, the Civil War, and the civil rights movement, students are taught the importance of equal- ity. Research finds formal education is a strong predictor of tolerance for racial, ethnic, and religious minorities.24
At the same time, differences in formal education ar e strongly associated with differences in political opinions. I n particular, those who attend college ar e often exposed to modes of thought that will distinguish them from their friends and neigh- bors who do not pursue college diplomas. Education is one of the most important factors in pr edicting who engages in behaviors that incr ease political kno wledge, such as regularly following the news, voting, and participating in politics as well as higher earnings over a lifetime.25
By sharing their personal stories with the #MeToo hashtag, woman and men were able to network and organize (online and offline) to draw attention to what they saw as pervasive sexual harassment in American life.
217HOW WE FOrM POL I T ICAL OP IN IONS
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 217 27/11/18 12:25 PM
SOCIAL GROUPS AND PUBLIC OPINION
The social groups to which individuals belong comprise another impor tant source of political v alues. S ocial gr oups include those that individuals hav en’t chosen (national, religious, gender, and racial groups, for example) and those they join will- ingly (political parties, labor unions, the military, and environmental, educational, and occupational gr oups). Membership in a par ticular group can giv e individuals experiences and perspectives that shape their view of political and social life.
Race Race plays an impor tant r ole in shaping political attitudes and opinions, among both minorities and whites. The experiences of blacks, whites, and Asian Americans, for example, can differ significantly. By 2045 the U.S. population is predicted to become majority minority , as the siz e of minority populations will outnumber white non-Hispanics, in large part due to youthful minorities.26 Blacks are a minority and have been victims of persecution and discrimination throughout American history, while many Asians are relatively recent immigrants to the United States. Blacks and whites also hav e different occupational oppor tunities, often live in separate communities, and fr equently attend separate schools. S uch differences tend to pr oduce distinctive political vie ws. Many black Americans per ceive other blacks as members of a group with a common identity and a shared political interest in overcoming persistent racial and economic inequality. Political scientists refer to this phenomenon as “linked fate”: African Americans see their fate as linked to other members of the black community.27 This linked fate acts as a sort of filter through which black Americans evaluate information and determine their own opinions and policy preferences.
That black and white Americans have different views is reflected in public per- ception of fair treatment across racial groups in the United States. Figure 6.4 shows that 84 percent of African Americans believ e that blacks are treated less fairly than whites in dealing with the police, compared to 50 percent of whites. In a striking difference, 66 percent of blacks believe blacks are treated unfairly in applying for a loan or home mor tgage compared to 25 per cent of whites who shar e this perspec- tive of racial discrimination, while 64 per cent of blacks believe they are treated less fairly in the workplace compared to just 25 percent of whites. Blacks are over twenty percentage points more likely to believe blacks face racial discrimination in voting in elections compared to whites.28
Events and cir cumstances can cause opinions to change. I n 2009, 80 per cent of African Americans said blacks and other minorities do not get equal tr eatment under the law; the number of whites giving this r esponse was just 40 per cent.29 In the past fe w y ears, ho wever, widely publiciz ed incidents of ex cessive use of police for ce against African Americans hav e begun to cause a shift in public opinion on this issue. The activist movement Black Lives Matter gained momen - tum in 2014 after the killing of M ichael B rown, an unarmed, 18-y ear-old African American, by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Protests erupted across the nation when the officer, Daren Wilson, was not indicted. O ne month after that verdict, a white police officer in New York was not indicted despite video evidence that he had used a chokehold and other means of force on Eric Garner, an African American man, heard repeatedly saying that he could not breathe. By 2015, 90 per cent of African Americans agr eed that blacks and whites ar e not tr eated equally by police, and 54 percent of whites felt the same way (see Figure 6.4), show- ing that while there is still a racial divide on this issue, opinions on it have changed
218 CHAPTER 6 PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 218 27/11/18 12:25 PM
significantly over the past few years.30 Strikingly, half of all Americans now agree that racism is a big problem, compared to only 26 percent in 2009.31
Ethnicity E thnicity also affects policy attitudes. Latinos are the fastest-gr owing minority population in the United States. While most Latinos are white in race, their shar ed Hispanic ethnicity contributes to a gr oup consciousness that shapes opinions. The U.S. Latino population, which makes up 17 percent of the total population and 12 per cent of the electorate, is div erse, comprising individuals of Central American, S outh American, and Caribbean descent, and thus their backgrounds and circumstances can be quite different.32 In spite of the differences, however, the Latino population has a growing sense of “linked fate.”
Unsurprisingly, immigration is one of the most impor tant policy issues among Latinos, with significant majorities of Latinos concerned about restrictive immigration policies and the threat of deportation. The number of first-generation immigrants—or foreign-born citiz ens—living in the United States quadrupled from almost 10 million in 1970 to over 40 million today. Most immigrants legally
FIGURE 6.4
Perception of Fair Treatment across Racial Groups In the United States, racial groups may not perceive race relations in precisely the same way. How, according to the data in this figure, do blacks and whites differ in their views on race relations? Which group is more likely to think that race relations are good? What factors help to account for these differences in perception?
SOURCE: Brakkton Booker, “How Equal Is American Opportunity? Survey Shows Attitudes Vary by Race,” National Public Radio, September 21, 2015, www .npr.org (accessed 3/11/16). Samantha Neal, “Views of Racism as a Major Problem Increase Sharply, Especially among Democrats,” Pew Research Center, August 29, 2017, www.pewresearch.org (accessed 5/23/18).
In dealing with the police
On the job or at work
In local public schools
When voting in elections
54%
16%
15%
13%
48%
90%
54%
51%
PERCENTAGE SAYING BLACKS IN THEIR COMMUNITY ARE TREATED LESS FAIRLY THAN WHITES:
PERCENTAGE WHO:
Think “slavery and discrimination have created conditions that
make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class”
Support affirmative action
30%
27%
70%
81%
Think “blacks should get by without special favors, just like
Irish, Italians, and Jews did”
69%
34%
Support Black Lives Matter movement
52%
82%
Black respondentsWhite respondents
219HOW WE FOrM POL I T ICAL OP IN IONS
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 219 27/11/18 12:25 PM
reside in the United States.33 Differences in opinion are found between Latinos and white non-Hispanics over immigration. Although most Americans (72 per cent) support a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants, there are differences in opinion based on ethnicity . In 2015, 69 per cent of white non-H ispanics said there should be a path to citiz enship for immigrants compar ed to 86 per cent of Latinos who shared this opinion.34
President Trump pushed for ne w immigration enfor cement policies that expanded the pool of unauthorized immigrants who could be deported because of previous criminal charges, even for low-level offenses such as a parking ticket or dr ug possession. A 2017 P ew sur vey found 47 per cent of H ispanic adults, regardless of their immigration status, say they worr y “ a lot ” or “ some” that they themselves, a family member , or a close friend could be depor ted. Among Hispanics that are lawful permanent r esidents but not U.S. citiz ens, 66 percent were v ery or some what concerned about depor tation for themselv es or their friends and family.35
With respect to ideology , Latinos typically ar e suppor tive of go vernment laws to improve the lives of citizens and to reduce prevailing inequality, which includes favoring public funding for education, health, and welfare; Latinos generally see an active government as a good thing and favor liberal economic policies to create jobs and improve the economy. While Latinos tend to be fairly r eligious, Latino Deci- sion surveys find they do not allow their r eligious beliefs to dictate their political decisions—they are thus less likely to vote for conservative politicians because of social issues.36
Gender Men and women have important differences of opinion as w ell. Reflect- ing differences in social r oles and occupational patterns, women tend to oppose military intervention more than men do, ar e more likely than men to fav or gun control, and are more supportive of government social programs. Perhaps because of these differences on issues, women are more likely than men to vote for Demo- cratic candidates. In the 2016 presidential election, men were much more likely to favor Republican Donald Trump and women to favor Democrat Hillary Clinton. This tendency of men’s and women’s opinions to differ is known as the gender gap. Following the election, men ar e now much more likely than women to say they have “quite a lot” of confidence in the future of the U nited States then women; this r epresents a significant change from 2015 when men and women had similar lev els of confidence. As of 2018, only 30 percent of women appr oved of the job Trump was doing as pr esident, compared to 46 per cent of men. This 16 percent gender gap in presidential approval is wider than for any other modern president.37 (See Figure 6.5.)
Religion Religion is an important predictor of opinion on a wide range of issues. Religious individuals ar e usually defined in surveys r egarding r eligious affilia- tion, frequency of church attendance, and the belief that religion and prayer are important in their lives. One of the fastest-growing groups in America are those without r eligious affiliation, rising from 5-6 per cent of the population in the 1990s to almost 25 per cent today.38 Among r eligious groups, white ev angelical Protestants tend to be ev en more conservative than Catholics. Just over 30 per- cent of evangelical Protestants believe abortion rights for women should always be permitted, compar ed to 75 per cent of those without r eligious affiliation.
gender gap a distinctive pattern of voting behavior reflecting the differences in views between women and men
220 CHAPTER 6 PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 220 27/11/18 12:25 PM
Similarly sharp differences in opinion are also found in terms of attitudes about same-sex marriage: only 35 per cent of ev angelical Protestants support same-sex marriage compared to 76 per cent of the nonr eligious.39 Religion also helps us understand opinions on teaching evolution in the public schools, environmental policy, immigration, partisanship, ideology, and other issues. White evangelicals and weekly churchgoers are much more likely to hold conservative views and be Republican, while the religiously unaffiliated are more likely to hold liberal views and favor the Democratic Party.
Party Affiliation Political party membership is one of the most impor tant factors affecting political attitudes. We can think of par tisanship as r ed- or blue-tinted glasses that color opinion on a v ast array of issues. S elf-identified partisans (individuals affiliating with the Republican or D emocratic Party) tend to r ely on party leaders and the media for cues on the appr opriate positions to take on major political issues.40
In r ecent y ears, par ty polarization has become a defining feature of Congr ess and many state legislatur es. As a r esult, the leadership of the R epublican Party has become increasingly conservative, whereas that of the Democratic Party has become more liberal, a shift reflected in public opinion. Geographic sorting—where liberals choose to liv e in neighborhoods, cities, counties, and states that ar e more liberal, while conservatives move to areas with populations with more conservative views— also contributes to mass polarization. Large cities, such as New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles, hav e predominantly Democratic populations, while R epublicans are more numerous in rural and suburban areas.
According to r ecent studies, differences betw een D emocratic and R epublican partisans on a variety of political and policy questions are greater today than during any other period for which data are available. Across a wide range of issues, Demo- crats and R epublicans str ongly disagr ee. For example, 76 per cent of D emocrats strongly favor government policies to pr otect the envir onment compared to just
FIGURE 6.5
Differences in Public Opinion by Gender, 2018 Data reveal significant differences in men’s and women’s opinions about the political world. What might explain the differences we see in how optimistic men and women are about the future of the United States? What might explain the differences in how men and women view specific presidents?
SOURCE: Samantha Smith, “In Trump Era, Women’s Views of Nation’s Prospects Take a Negative Turn,” Pew Research Center, May 15, 2017, www .pewresearch.org (accessed 5/23/18); “Trump Gets Negative Ratings for Many Personal Traits, but Most Say He Stands Up for His Beliefs,” Pew Research Center, October 1, 2018, www.people-press.org/2018/10/01/ trump-gets-negative-ratings-for-many-personal-traits-but-most-say-he-stands -up-for-his-beliefs/ (accessed 10/10/18).
WomenMen
Percentage saying they approve of President Trump
53%
46%
29%
30%
Percentage saying they have “quite a lot” of
confidence in the future of the United States
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Political scientists have observed “geographic sorting” in the United States, where liberals live in areas with other liberals and conservatives live in areas with other conservatives. Is the area where you live strongly liberal, conservative, or evenly mixed? What are the political consequences of geographic sorting?
221HOW WE FOrM POL I T ICAL OP IN IONS
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 221 27/11/18 12:25 PM
30 percent of R epublicans, and while 72 per cent of R epublicans oppose granting legal citizenship for immigrants with jobs in the United S tates, only 34 percent of Democrats do.41 Figure 6.6 offers a more detailed look at Americans’ attitudes toward immigration, br oken do wn b y par ty affiliation and by education. Wide differences in public opinion exist based on par tisanship inv olving immigration, energy, income inequality, infrastructure, job creation, climate change and energy , national defense, budget deficit, taxes, terrorism, trade, and much more.
Despite the fact that the rift between the “red” (Republican-leaning) and “blue” (Democrat-leaning) states seems deeper than ever, political scientist Morris Fiorina and colleagues argue that most Americans hold moderate opinions.40 While political elites and members of Congress may be highly polarized, there is general agreement among most Americans ev en on those issues thought to be most divisiv e. Thus, evidence of partisan polarization in public opinion is mixed: some see deep divisions while others see evidence of popular consensus.
Economic Class and Group Self-Interest Another way that membership in groups can affect political beliefs is through what might be called rational political interest. On many economic issues, for example, the inter ests of the rich and the poor differ significantly. Inevitably, these differences in interests will produce differ- ences in political outlook.
The framers of the Constitution thought that the inherent gulf between the rich and the poor would always be the most impor tant source of conflict in politi- cal life. Today significant numbers of Republicans and D emocrats bemoan the chasm between the 99 per cent of income earners and the top 1 per cent. Donald Trump (on the right) and B ernie Sanders and H illary Clinton (on the left) made income inequality a major piece of their 2016 campaigns. B ut while ther e might be agr eement on the pr oblem, ther e ar e huge disagr eements about the solution. Republicans favor cutting taxes on business and w ealthier Americans. In addition, President Trump favors cr eating jobs b y promoting an isolationist for eign policy with reduced reliance on free-trade, tariffs on steel and aluminum, and limiting for- eign immigration. Liberals tend to fav or government policies to pr omote equality, such as raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, free college education, and raising tax es on the w ealthy, as w ell as incentiv es to encourage emplo yee-owned
The opinions of women and men diverge greatly on some, but by no means all, political issues. One of the biggest gender gaps appears around gun control. Many more women than men favor more restrictions on gun ownership.
222 CHAPTER 6 PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 222 27/11/18 12:25 PM
companies and strengthen employee unions. Wealthier individuals tend to favor the Republican solutions, including tax cuts, while the less wealthy tend to favor the liberal policies including government benefits.
However, some researchers have found that people don ’t necessarily translate broad concerns about inequality or their o wn economic self-inter est into spe - cific policy preferences.43 For instance, two-thirds of Americans favored the 2001 and 2003 federal tax cuts suppor ted by President George W. Bush, even though the tax r eduction dispr oportionately benefited the very w ealthy and ther efore increased inequality. The poor, middle class, and affluent alike favored the tax cuts. Political scientist Larry Bartels concluded that the public is not always able to translate a concern for economic self-inter est into policy pr eferences that
FIGURE 6.6
Social Group Influence on Public Opinion Social groups have strong impacts on individuals’ opinions. Party affiliation and level of education are two predictors of opinion on certain issues, like immigration.
*Highest level attained.
SOURCE: Brian Schaffner and Stephen Ansolabehere, “CCES Common Content, 2014,” Harvard Dataverse, V2 http://dx.doi .org/10.7910/DVN/XFXJVY (accessed 5/4/16).
100%
25
0
50
75
College degree
High school or less
Some college
Postgraduate work
PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS WHO OPPOSE CITIZENSHIP FOR UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS WITH JOBS, BY PARTY:
34%
72%
100%
25
0
50
75
Democrats Republicans
PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS WHO OPPOSE CITIZENSHIP FOR UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS WITH JOBS, BY EDUCATION∗:
57% 52%
49% 45%
223HOW WE FOrM POL I T ICAL OP IN IONS
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 223 27/11/18 12:25 PM
would benefit average citizens because they lack necessary information about the effects of the tax cuts.44
Differences in inter est also exist among the generations. S enior citiz ens and younger Americans have different views on such diverse issues as the war on drugs, Social Security, and criminal justice. The young, for example, are much more accept- ing of legalization of marijuana than ar e older citiz ens. The young are also mor e likely to favor same-sex marriage than are older age cohorts, and they are more con- cerned about the high cost of a college education, climate change, criminal justice issues, and privacy and security online (government surveillance). Older citizens are more concerned with pr otecting social security benefits than are the young. Some of these differences are rooted in where individuals learn about politics and media consumption; the young are significantly more likely to get their ne ws online and are less likely to watch television news (see Chapter 7).
Nevertheless, gr oup membership can nev er fully explain a giv en individual ’s political views. An individual’s unique personality and life experiences may produce political views very different from those of the group to which one might nominally belong. Some African Americans ar e conservative Republicans, and some w ealthy businesspeople are very liberal. Group membership is conduciv e to particular out- looks, but it is not determinative.
Political Environment A final set of factors that shape political attitudes and values are the conditions under which individuals become involved in political life. Although political beliefs are influenced by family background and group member- ship, the content and character of these vie ws is, to a large extent, determined b y political circumstances. For example, the bab y-boom generation that came of age in the 1960s was exposed to the Vietnam War and the resulting widespread antiwar protests on college campuses and in urban areas throughout the nation. As a result, this generation has generally opposed foreign wars.
Similarly, the vie ws held b y members of a par ticular gr oup can shift dramatically o ver time as political cir cumstances change. F or example, white southerners were staunch members of the Democratic Party from the Civil War through the 1960s. As Democrats, they became key supporters of liberal New Deal and post–New Deal social programs that greatly expanded the size and power of the national government and provided social welfare programs. The 1960s mark the beginning of the S outh’s move from the Democratic to the R epublican camp—mainly because of white southern - ers’ opposition to racial integration of schools and public facilities.
Since the 1960s a majority of southern whites have shifted to the Repub- lican Party and away from the Democrats. Today Southern whites provide a solid base of support for efforts to scale back social programs and sharply reduce the siz e and po wer of the national go vernment—hence the popu - larity of the Tea Party movement.45 This major shift in partisanship in the South was the result of changes in the political envir onment and the poli- cies promoted by the parties.
Another example of public opinion change can be seen in the ev olv- ing political envir onment in the West. California’s R epublican go vernor in the 1970s, R onald R eagan, w ent on in the 1980s to become one of the most admir ed R epublican pr esidents, ushering in major tax r eform and scaling back the siz e and r each of the federal go vernment. But since the 1990s, California, once a R epublican stronghold, has become solidly
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, certainly influenced public opinion in the months immediately following the attacks and likely also had a long-term effect on many Americans’ basic political beliefs.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS An individual’s family, social networks, group membership, party affiliation, education, self-interest, and political environment can influence his or her political perspectives. What influences in your life have affected your political opinions and beliefs?
224 CHAPTER 6 PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 224 27/11/18 12:25 PM
Democratic. Some argue that the shift began with a series of R epublican-endorsed ballot measures targeting racial and ethnic minorities—including immigration, affir- mative action, and bilingual education—which triggered a backlash especially among Latinos, who had pr eviously par ticipated in politics in v ery low numbers. I n the 1990s, the number of Latino voters who favored more liberal public policy increased dramatically. With Latinos and blacks combined making up mor e than 50 per - cent of California ’s population, this demographic envir onmental change mo ved California to a solid Democratic state.46 In this case, immigration and demographic change, two envir onmental factors, caused public opinion in the nation ’s largest state to change over time.
In sum, public opinion and orientations are shaped by the political circumstances in which individuals and groups find themselves, and those outlooks can change as circumstances change.
Political Knowledge and Changes in Public Opinion
The section above described what factors shape individuals ’ opinions, including political socialization, group identity , and political envi - ronment. These factors are relatively
constant: one’s level of education, for example, is generally set by early adulthood. However, these are not the only influences on public opinion. Individuals encounter new information fr om political leaders and the media thr oughout their liv es. What role does political knowledge and information play in forming opinions? What causes people’s opinions to change over time?
STABILITY AND CHANGE OF PUBLIC OPINION
One of the most impor tant studies of ho w public opinion is formed is b y political scientist John Zaller.47 Zaller argues that individuals learn about politics b y convert- ing information from the news, elected officials, and other sources into opinions. His model of opinion formation wor ks in three stages. In the “receive” stage, an indivi - dual receives information from a number of different sources. In the “accept” stage, the individual assesses this information thr ough the lens of her o wn political views and accepts only those messages that ar e in line with pr eviously held beliefs, mean - ing that some political information will be r ejected. Finally, in the “ sample” stage, the individual selects some of the accepted information—often the information that is most r ecent—and forms an opinion fr om it. So, according to this theor y, if you receive information fr om various sources about a pr oposed tax cut, y ou will then assess the different messages based on your own previously held beliefs about tax cuts. If you believe tax cuts are generally good, you will likely reject information that sug- gests this particular cut is bad and accept only the messages suggesting that it is good.
The decision to accept or reject information is based on political knowledge. When asked about his opinion on a topic, the individual selects the most r elevant or most recently acquired and accepted information fr om his “bucket ” of information (the third stage above). Citizens with more political knowledge can differentiate between information that fits or does not fit with their beliefs—and then correctly accept or
Explore when and why public opinion changes and what role political knowledge plays
225POL I T ICAL KNOWLEDGE AND CHANGES IN PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 225 27/11/18 12:25 PM
reject it. For less-informed individuals, the media and political leaders may play a larger role in influencing public opinion. Low-informed individuals are more susceptible to fake news, partisan news, and political propaganda from elites than more-informed individuals. This reliance on politicians and the media, Zaller concludes, means that the public’s opinions are often unstable and unr eliable because these sour ces provide competing, changing information. As a result, public opinion is often a reflection of whatever recent campaign message (or media story) an individual has stored in her short-term memory. As we will see in Chapter 7, this effect is called priming.
Another way of understanding ho w individuals form political opinions is the online-processing model.48 According to this model, an individual keeps a running tally of information and uses that tally to form an opinion on a policy issue or to decide which candidate to vote for. However, by the time an individual actually votes or voices an opinion on a specific issue, she may have forgotten some of the older information included in her decision-making process. This effect leads to the miscon- ception that voters are uninformed, when in fact their opinion is informed but they have not retained all of the facts used to form that opinion. This model also implies a large role for political elites and the media but does not necessarily suggest that opinion is unstable. I f public opinion is easily manipulated, the democratic pr ocess, which relies on citizens to play a significant part in the government, would be at risk. B ut other research has shown that individuals are quite stable in their policy attitudes.49
To take a closer look at whether and how public opinion changes, see Figure 6.7. The Pew Research Center tracks public opinion over time with annual surveys ask- ing identical questions. Some opinions are relatively stable: support for abortion, for example, has remained virtually unchanged over the past decade, with over half of Americans saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Optimism about the economy and personal finances, however, experienced a gradual decline triggered by the financial crisis in 2008. In contrast, opinion on same-sex marriage has changed dramatically over the past two decades, with approval of marriage rights increasing by 25 percentage points. Notice that when public opinion has shifted, the shift has occurred fairly steadily in one direction; it doesn’t simply jump around.50
The shift in public opinion on same-sex marriage has occurred partly in response to government policy. Political scientists call this “ policy feedback.” In 2009, Iowa was just the thir d U.S. state to allo w same-sex marriages when the state S upreme Court issued a unanimous and at the time unpopular decision in the case Varnum v. Brien.51 Changes in opinion immediately before and after the court decision were large. A survey of Iowans conducted immediately before and after the court legalized
After political opinions form, they remain relatively stable. The most knowledgeable people are generally able to discern whether new information fits or contradicts their previously held beliefs. Do you think the people in this protest (left) would change their opinions about tax cuts after seeing President Trump’s tweet (right)?
226 CHAPTER 6 PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 226 27/11/18 12:25 PM
same-sex marriage showed that certain groups—Democrats, educated, young, non- religious, and people who have gay/lesbian family or friends—were the most likely to change their opinion in favor of same-sex marriage.52 In 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states. Favorable public opinion may have helped pave the way for national policy change.53
Public opinion on envir onmental policy sho ws evidence of both stability and change. In June 2017 P resident Trump withdrew the U nited States from an inter - national treaty signed by nearly 200 nations to pr otect the ear th’s environment. The political decision was widely criticized by global political leaders. The Paris Agreement
FIGURE 6.7
Stability and Change in Public Opinion Public opinion on some issues has stayed stable in the last two decades, while opinion on other issues has shifted. What might explain why opinion on personal finance and same-sex marriage has changed, while opinion on abortion and the environment has stayed relatively constant?
NOTE: Personal finance data are from 2015.
SOURCES: “Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage,” Pew Research Center, June 26, 2017 www.pewforum.org (accessed 5/23/18); “Views on Abortion, 1995–2017,” Pew Research Center, July 7, 2017 www.pewforum.org (accessed 5/23/18); “Public Views about Guns,” Pew Research Center, June 22, 2017, www.people-press.org (accessed 5/23/18); “Economics and Personal Finances,” Pew Research Center, www.pewresearch.org (accessed 12/23/15).
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
2005 2010 2015
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
100%
90
80
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
100%
90
80
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100%
Legal in all/most cases
Excellent/good
Only fair/poor
Control gun ownership
Protect the right to own guns
Illegal in all/most cases
DO YOU THINK ABORTION SHOULD BE LEGAL IN ALL OR MOST CASES?
HOW WOULD YOU RATE YOUR OWN PERSONAL FINANCIAL SITUATION?
DO YOU FAVOR OR OPPOSE ALLOWING GAYS AND LESBIANS TO MARRY LEGALLY?
WHAT DO YOU THINK IS MORE IMPORTANT, TO CONTROL GUN OWNERSHIP OR PROTECT THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS?
1996 2005 2010 2015
Oppose same-sex marriage
Favor same-sex marriage
2000
227POL I T ICAL KNOWLEDGE AND CHANGES IN PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 227 27/11/18 12:25 PM
sought to pr event rising temperatur es and climate change b y r educing r eliance on fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas and dev elop alternative energy sour ces. Surveys reveal most Americans fav or protecting the envir onment consistent with the terms of the P aris Agreement. In 2016 r oughly three quar ters (74 per cent) of Americans believed “the country should do whatev er it takes to pr otect the environment.” Less than a quarter say “the country has gone too far in its efforts to protect the environ- ment.” Opinions on environmental protection go hand in hand with energy policy, as scientists find burning fossil fuels is linked to rising global temperatures. While Trump favors increasing coal production, most Americans (65 percent) favor developing alter- native energy sources, such as wind and solar. This is a five percent increase from 2014. In some states, such as Iowa, 37 per cent of energy is produced from wind po wer. Public opinion favoring alternative energy development may drive policy change.54
Though there might seem to be broad agreement on protecting the environment, partisan differences about these issues has been gr owing. In 1994, 74 per cent of Republicans favored taking “any steps necessary” to protect the envir onment, but in 2016 only 52 percent agreed with this statement. Over the same time period support for protecting the environment increased among Democrats from 85 per- cent in 1994 to 90 per cent in 2016. Today a 38 percent gap separates opinions on protecting the environment between Republicans and Democrats. Many Republi- cans are concerned that environmental laws and regulations hurt the economy and can cost jobs; today 6 in 10 R epublicans are concerned with the economic costs of environmental regulations, up from 3 in 10 in 2007. In contrast, just 17 percent of Democrats believe environmental regulations hurt the economy.
POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE
What best explains whether citizens are generally consistent in their political views or inconsistent and open to the influence of others? In general, knowledgeable citizens are better able to evaluate new information and determine if it is relevant to and consistent with their beliefs and opinions; they ar e also more likely to be par tisans and to hav e an ideology (such as liberal or conservative).55 As a result, better-informed individuals can recognize their political interests and act consistently to further those interests.56
In an impor tant recent study of political kno wledge, researchers found that the average American exhibits little formal kno wledge of political institutions, pr ocesses, leaders, or policy debates; many Americans could not name their member of Congress and did not know that U.S. senators serve six-year terms.57 They also found that polit- ical knowledge is not evenly distributed throughout the population. Those with higher education, income, and occupational status and who are members of social or political organizations are more likely to know about and be active in politics. As a result, indi- viduals with more income and education also have a disproportionate share of knowl- edge and influence and thus are better able to get what they want from government.
As mentioned above, political knowledge may protect individuals from exposure to misinformation that can distort public opinion. While social media have created new platforms for organizing and voter mobilizing, discussing politics, and creating networks (see Chapter 7), it has been associated with incr eased misinformation. Fake news on Facebook—with its billion users globally—was extensive in the 2016 election. A study found that the top 10 fake ne ws stories cir culated on Facebook were shared more widely than the top 10 authentic ne ws stories about the elec - tion. The most viral story on Facebook was that the Pope had endorsed Trump for president. Russian Twitter “bot” accounts hav e been linked to br eaking many of
228 CHAPTER 6 PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 228 27/11/18 12:25 PM
the fake ne ws stories. S ince the election, both G oogle and F acebook have imple- mented new protocols to block content from deceptive outlets, and Twitter, Reddit, and Instagram deleted thousands of fake accounts. M isinformation fr om elected officials and online news has encouraged mor e Americans to seek w ebsites such as PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, and Snopes.com to verify the content of political infor - mation. It has also encouraged more Americans to turn to established media outlets, such as the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, or New York Times, for news. Politi- cal knowledge and accurate political news is more important now than ever.
Shortcuts and Cues Because being informed politically requires a substantial invest- ment of time and energy, most Americans seek to acquire political information and to make political decisions “on the cheap” by making use of shortcuts for political evalu- ation and decision making rather than engaging in a lengthy process of information- gathering. As noted above, researchers have found that individuals r ely on cues from trusted par ty elites, inter est gr oups, and the media to aid in attitude formation. 58 Today, tw eets fr om elected officials are an incr easingly impor tant sour ce of ne ws; Donald Trump relies on Twitter more extensively than any other president, often tweet- ing multiple times a day. Other “inexpensive” ways to become informed involve taking cues from trusted friends, social networks and social media, r elatives, colleagues, and perhaps religious leaders. Political scientists Richard Lau and David Redlawsk contend that by using informational shor tcuts, av erage citiz ens can form political opinions that are, in most instances, consistent with their underlying preferences. They call this “voting correctly.”59 Even individuals with low levels of political knowledge are able to make relatively informed political choices b y relying on these v oter cues. It is gener- ally accepted by scholars that people r ely on shortcuts in forming public opinion on politics and public policy.60 From this perspective, lower levels of political knowledge about politics, or instability of opinions, may not be a serious problem.
The public’s reliance on elite cues has taken on ne w significance in today’s era of party polarization. As elected officials have become incr easingly polarized, has this change affected the way that citizens arrive at their opinions? Political scientists have found stark evidence that polarized political environments change how citizens make
People use cues from political elites and other trusted sources as a shortcut to forming opinions. Someone might not know the details about immigration and the DREAM act, but if they were a liberal or democrat, they might hear Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) speaking on behalf of the bill and then feel they too supported it.
229POL I T ICAL KNOWLEDGE AND CHANGES IN PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 229 27/11/18 12:25 PM
decisions and form opinions. N otably, polarization betw een the parties means that par ty endorsements (of an issue or candidate) have a larger impact on public opinion formation than they used to. For example, if Republican leaders in Congress support a plan to impose higher tax es (tariffs) on foreign goods, citiz ens that identify as Republicans are more likely to support the plan as well. At the same time, polarization decreases the impact of other infor- mation on public opinion—that is, par ty polarization may actu - ally reduce levels of political kno wledge. Thus, elite polarization may have negative implications for public opinion formation.61
Skim and Scan Another factor affecting political knowledge is the form in which people consume information. The transformation of political information in the digital era has had a profound effect on the way the news is reported and how citi- zens learn about politics. Today more than three in four Americans r ead the news online or seek political information online. 62 Recent research also indicates a trend in journalism toward shorter articles and flashier headlines, and Twitter limits text to 280 characters. Americans today are likely to read the news by skimming and scanning multiple headlines online, in bits and b ytes, rather than b y reading long news ar ticles.63 There is a debate about whether the shift to digital media cr eates a mor e informed public, giv en the br oader div ersity of information sour ces and more personalized communication of the ne ws via social media, or a public that is less informed because of a tendency to favor skimming and scanning over in-depth reading. However, as we’ve seen in this chapter , some research indicates that most individuals use simple cues and shor tcuts to pr ocess political information. I f this is correct, skimming and scanning headlines might pr ovide a reasonable way to be informed about politics without extensive time or effort.
Costs to Democracy Political knowledge is necessar y for effective citizenship. Those who lack political information cannot effectively defend their o wn political interests, rights, and freedoms and can easily become losers in political struggles and government policy. The presence of large numbers of politically ignorant individu- als means that power can more easily be manipulated by political elites, the media, foreign governments and wealthy special interests that seek to shape public opinion. If knowledge is power, then a lack of knowledge can contribute to growing political and economic inequality. When individuals are unaware of their interests or how to pursue them, it is virtually certain that political outcomes will not favor them. The answer is to get informed and stay informed.
One of the most important areas of government policy is taxation. The United States has one of the largest gaps between the rich and the poor of any nation in the world. But rather than raise taxes, over the past several decades the United States has substantially reduced the rate of taxation levied on its wealthiest citizens. George W. Bush signed major tax cuts into law in 2001, providing a substantial tax break mainly for the top 1 percent of the nation’s wage earners. Political scientist Larry Bartels has shown that, surprisingly, most Americans favored the 2001 tax cuts, including mil - lions of middle- and lo wer-middle-class citizens who did not stand to benefit from the tax policy. Additionally, 40 percent of Americans had no opinion at all regarding the Bush tax cuts. The explanation for this odd state of affairs appears to be a lack of political knowledge. Millions of individuals who were unlikely to derive benefit from President Bush’s tax policy thought they would. S ince most Americans think they
More and more people getting their news online, which seems to have altered reading habits. News articles have become shorter, and people are spending more time scanning headlines and less read- ing in-depth coverage.
230 CHAPTER 6 PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 230 27/11/18 12:25 PM
WHO ARE AMERICANS?
Why a person is rich
Men Women
Overall By gender
Republican Democrats
By party
College gradHigh school or less
By education
Family income <$30K
Family income $30K–$74,999
Family income $75K+
By income
Why a person is poor
Men Women
Overall By gender
Republican Democrats
By party
College gradHigh school or less
By education
Family income <$30K
Family income $30K–$74,999
Family income $75K+
By income
Where Does Income Inequality Stem From?
In your opinion, which generally has more to do with . . .
Worked harder Had advantages in life
43%45% 39%49% 47%41% 21%66% 60%29%
41%47% 47%42% 37%51%
Lack of effort Circumstances beyond control
53%34% 46%42% 60%26% 32%56% 71%19%
49%38% 59%28% 56%31% 51%38% 57%33%
49%39% 44%46%
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS 1. Do the �ndings in this study
show that opinions are shaped by economic self-interest? Why or why not?
2. Which of these groups is most likely to support government action to address inequality? Are the other groups not concerned about inequality? Use the data to explain your answers.
An individual’s party identi�cation, gender, and income may in uence his or her opinions on speci�c issues. A recent study showed there are signi�cant differences of opinion about the government’s role in reducing the income gap between men and women and across income groups, but the most pronounced differences were between Democrats and Republicans.
SOURCE: Pew Research Center, “Why People Are Rich and Poor: Republicans and Democrats Have Very Different Views,” www.pewresearch.org (accessed 11/19/17).
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 231 27/11/18 12:25 PM
pay too much in taxes, they favored the policy, even if the wealthy benefited much more than the middle class. (See the “Who Are Americans?” feature for public opin- ion on income inequality.) President Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress adopted even larger tax cuts for the affluent and corporations in 2017. Opinion polls showed a majority of Americans were opposed to the 2017 tax reform. Had political knowledge ar ound tax es incr eased, or did the opposition r eflect the low public opinion about President Trump and Congress at the time?
The Media, Government, and Public Opinion
When individuals attempt to form opinions about par ticular political issues, ev ents, and political lead - ers, they seldom do so in isolation.
Typi cally, they ar e confronted with—sometimes bombar ded by—the efforts of a host of individuals and groups seeking to persuade them to adopt a particular point of view. In the approach to the 2016 presidential election, someone trying to decide what to think about H illary Clinton or Donald Trump could hardly avoid an ava- lanche of opinions expressed through the media, in meetings, or in conversations with friends. The marketplace of ideas is the interplay of opinions and views that takes place as competing forces attempt to persuade as many people as possible to accept a particular position on a particular issue. Given this constant exposure to the ideas of others, it is virtually impossible for most individuals to r esist some modification of their own beliefs. Three forces that play important roles in shaping opinions in the marketplace are the government, private groups, and the news media.64
POLITICAL LEADERS
All go vernments tr y to influence, manipulate, or manage their citizens’ beliefs. But the extent to which public opinion is actually affected by governmental public relations can be limited. Often, governmental claims are disputed by the media, by interest groups, and increasingly by the opposing political party.
This hasn’t stopped modern presidents from focusing a great deal of attention on shaping public opinion to boost suppor t for their policy agendas. Franklin Delano Roosevelt promoted his policy agenda directly to the American people through his famous “fireside chat” radio broadcasts. A hallmark of the Clinton administration was the establishment of a political “ war room” similar to the one that operated in his campaign headquarters, where staff met daily to discuss and coordinate the president’s public-relations efforts.65 The George W. Bush administration developed an extensive public-relations program to bolster popular support for the president’s policies, including the war against terrorism.66
Like his predecessors, President Obama was effective in shaping public opi nion. He built support for national health car e reform by relying upon the po wer of his oratorical skills to build support for his administration’s initiatives in domestic and foreign policy. Obama’s White House was the first to use digital and social media to promote the president’s policy agenda. Facebook posts promoted his policies and served to personaliz e the pr esident. Obama was especially adept at using Twitter, with 70 million followers on that network. His use of multiple Twitter accounts to
Describe the major forces that shape public opinion
marketplace of ideas the public forum in which beliefs and ideas are exchanged and compete
232 CHAPTER 6 PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 232 27/11/18 12:25 PM
shape public opinion in fav or of his policies allo wed him to communicate dir ectly with the people without having to be interviewed by the media.
Though Obama was the first president to use Twitter, Donald Trump is the nation’s first Twitter president. Twitter was a key tool that helped Trump win the pr esidency; as president he uses it to pr omote his policy agenda and shape public opinion. O ften tweeting in the early morning hours, Trump communicates his sentiments on politics like no other president in modern history. A website, the Trump Twitter Archives, lists thousands of Trump tweets searchable by topic. Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer said that although they often circumvent or contradict his own staff—and sometimes even himself—Trump’s tweets will continue: “He has this direct pipeline to the American people, where he can talk back and forth.” Trump uses Twitter for policy proposals, government announcements, attacking his enemies, defending himself and his campaign, building support for his party and his policies, and just plain venting. Laced with emotion and frequent typos, his tweets are authentic, if not always factually correct. He is kno wn for Twitter rants, with multiple tw eets on the same topic. F or example, facing mounting criticism and a federal investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russians to sway the 2016 election, Trump tweeted in June 2017, “I am being inv estigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt”67 and “You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political histor y - led by some very bad and conflicted people! #MAGA” (“Make America Great Again”—Trump’s campaign slogan). 68 New scholarship argues political leaders like Trump prefer social media to traditional media since they can control the content unmitigated by the mainstream press.69
INTEREST GROUPS
The ideas that become prominent in political life are developed and spread not only by government officials and parties but also b y important economic and political groups searching for issues that will adv ance their causes. O ne notable example is the abor tion issue, which has inflamed American politics over the past 30 y ears. The notion of a fetal “right to life, ” whose pr oponents seek to outlaw abor tion and overturn the S upreme Cour t’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, was dev eloped by conservative politicians who saw of abor tion as a means of uniting Catholic and Protestant conser vatives and linking both gr oups to the R epublican P arty.70 To advance their cause, leaders of the right-to-life movement sponsored well-publicized
Interest groups focus much of their efforts on influencing public opin- ion. (Left) A member of the liberal group MoveOn.org hand delivers petitions in support of the Iran Nuclear agreement to New Jersey senators Cory Booker and Robert Menendez. (Right) Indivisible is another liberal group that formed after the 2016 elections to protest Donald Trump and Republican policies.
233THE MED IA , GOVErNMENT, AND PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 233 27/11/18 12:25 PM
Senate hearings at which testimony, photographs, films (such as The Silent Scream), and other exhibits w ere presented to illustrate the mo vement’s claim that abor tion amounted to the murder of millions of unborn human beings. Finally, Catholic and Evangelical Protestant religious leaders were organized to denounce abor tion from their church pulpits and, increasingly, from their electronic pulpits on the Christian Broadcasting Network and the various other television forums available for religious programming. Religious leaders hav e also organiz ed demonstrations, pickets, and disruptions at abortion clinics throughout the nation.71
THE MASS MEDIA
The media are among the most po werful for ces operating in the mar ketplace of ideas. As we shall see in Chapter 7, the mass media ar e not simply neutral messen- gers for ideas developed by others. Instead, the media are opinion makers and have an enormous impact on popular attitudes. For example, since the publication of the Pentagon Papers by the New York Times and the exposure of the Watergate scandal led by the Washington Post in the 1970s, the national ne ws media have relentlessly investigated personal and official wrongdoing on the par t of politicians and public officials. Today, the national media plays a similar role in exposing potential govern- ment corruption and Russian interference in the 2016 election, as discussed earlier. Media revelation of corruption in government has contributed to the cynicism and distrust of government that prevail in much of the general public.
At the same time, the ways in which media co verage interprets or “ frames” specific events can have a major impact on popular responses and opinions about these events (see Chapter 7). 72 Given the critical impor tance of media framing to the way the public per ceives the ne ws, President G eorge W. B ush w ent to great lengths to persuade broadcasters to follow his administration’s lead in their coverage of both terr orism and America ’s r esponse to terr orism in the months following the September 11, 2001, attacks. The media acquiesced, presenting the administration’s military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as its domes- tic antiterrorist efforts, in a positiv e light. E ven supposedly liberal ne wspapers such as the New York Times published articles supportive of the military invasion of I raq in M arch 2003, when P resident B ush or dered the inv asion. I n 2002, Congress passed the J oint R esolution to A uthorize the U se of U nited S tates Armed Forces Against Iraq. Public opinion in favor of invading Iraq remained above 50 per cent betw een June and N ovember of 2002, accor ding to G allup polls. By the time the invasion occurred, in March 2003, after months of pr esi- dential messages and media co verage focused on the thr eat of terrorism, public support had reached over 70 percent.73
Public Opinion and Government Policy In 1960 the authors of a book titled The American V oter argued that few Americans think about politics ideologically or consistently, so one would naturally expect public opi -
nion to vary, as discussed earlier.74 Given generally low levels of political knowledge among v oters and the changing natur e of public opinion, it ’s little wonder that
Analyze how public opinion shapes government policy and influences elected officials
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Does it matter what news sources an individual reads? How can the news influence public attitudes on issues of public policy?
234 CHAPTER 6 PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 234 27/11/18 12:25 PM
politicians are sometimes unwilling to act solely on the basis of public opinion. But one could argue that consulting public opinion is a duty of elected officials in a democracy. Is government policy responsive to public opinion?
GOVERNMENT RESPONSIVENESS TO PUBLIC OPINION
Studies generally find that elected officials are influenced by the preferences of the public. Political scientists Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro explored the relation- ship between broad changes in opinion toward various political issues and the policy outcomes that most closely correspond to the issues.75 The results showed that shifts in public opinion on par ticular issues do in fact tend to lead to changes in public policy. This is especially true when there are wide swings in opinion r egarding par- ticularly high-profile issues that are relatively simple, such as legalization of same-sex marriage. Other studies have found similar evidence that government policy gener- ally does track public opinion. U nsurprisingly, states wher e conservative opinions predominate tend to adopt more conservative laws and states with more liberal pub- lic opinion adopt more liberal policies.76 Another example is in health car e. A July 2009 Pew survey found that 65 per cent of Americans fav ored a law “ requiring all Americans to have health insurance, and government aid for those unable to afford it.”77 The federal government adopted the Affordable Health Care Act for America in 2010, which required health insurance for all citizens.
However, there is r eason to question whether pr evailing public opinion causes politicians to make policies that r eflect the general will or whether government policy in fact causes changes in public opinion. The relationship between govern- ment policy and opinion may be dynamic, wherein policy responds to opinion but opinion also shifts based on ne w government policies.78 Recent studies have found government policy to have an effect on opinion in various areas, such as the envi- ronment, health car e, w elfare r eform, the death penalty , and smoking bans. F or example, researchers found that in states that adopted smoking bans, public opinion then shifted to become mor e critical of cigar ette smoking than in states without such bans.79 Scholars hav e suggested a number of possible mechanisms to explain this process. New policy may expose the public to ne w ideas, causing opinion to change, or experience with a successful or unsuccessful policy may give the public new information. A policy might act as a “signal” of a moral or ethical view (such as a smoking ban acting as a “signal” that smoking should be stigmatized).
To what extent do political leaders listen to the opinions of their constituents? To what extent should they listen? Is Calvin’s father right that leaders should do what they believe is right, not what the public wants?
235PuBL IC OP IN ION AND GOVErNMENT POL ICY
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 235 27/11/18 12:25 PM
Of course, sometimes public opinion and policy do not align, as the prior discus- sion of envir onmental policy and the P aris Agreement. Sometimes public officials act on their o wn preferences if they believ e it will benefit government or society , and lawmakers typically do use their own judgment when making policy choices.80 When elected officials pursue policies not aligned with public opinion, it is often because they view particular groups of the electorate as more important than others. Inevitably, loyal voting blocs or inter est groups that r egularly contribute to a can - didate may have their interests more closely represented than the general public.81
DOES EVERYONE’S OPINION COUNT EQUALLY?
In a democracy, it is assumed that elected r epresentatives will implement the poli - cies favored by the majority of the people, and in a general sense this happens in the United States. But when policy issues are more complicated (such as taxation or foreign policy), the public is likely to hav e less of a v oice. Further, citiz ens who are more affluent and more educated may hav e a dispr oportionate influence over politics and public policy decisions. This has been shown when comparing the responsiveness of elected officials to low- and high-income individuals, v oters and nonvoters, and whites and minorities. The view that some groups in a society have more influence in politics is not new, but it is quite a departure from the traditional pluralist view of all citizens having equal access to the political sphere.
How do more affluent and educated citizens manage to wield outsiz e influence over policy makers? One way is obvious: they vote at higher rates, and they are more likely to contribute money to political campaigns. As w e will discuss in Chapter 8, voters and individuals making political contributions tend to be more affluent and educated than nonv oters. Indeed, there is ne w evidence suppor ting the common, but generally untested, assumption that v oters are better represented than nonvot- ers. In a comparativ e study of the r oll-call votes of U.S. senators, political scien - tists John Griffin and Brian Newman demonstrated that elected officials are indeed responsive to the policy preferences of voters but not to those of nonvoters.82
In r egard to income gr oup, r esearch has found that U.S. senators fr om both the Republican and Democratic par ties are less likely to respond to the opinions of low-income constituents than to those of constituents with higher incomes. 83 Senate votes on such varied issues as the minimum wage, civil rights, and abor tion are more likely to reflect the opinions of the rich. The influence of affluent Ameri- cans may explain government policies such as failure to increase the minimum wage and the 2017 tax reform that significantly reduced corporate taxes and reduced taxes
paid by the wealthiest citizens, all of which contribute to growing income inequality.84
As an alternative to analyzing legislative votes, political scientist Martin Gilens has used survey results to confirm that those with higher incomes are more likely to have their policy preferences represented by actual pol- icies.85 He considered public opinion sur veys on a wide v ariety of policy issues conducted over 20 years and compared the responses of upper- and lower-income groups with related federal policy outcomes. G ilens found a relationship between what the public wants and what the go vernment actually does, albeit with a str ong bias to ward the status quo . But when Americans with different income levels differ in their policy preferences, policies strongly reflect the preferences of the most affluent and show little or no relationship to the preferences of poor or middle-income Americans.
Charles Koch, one of the wealthi- est people in the world, is a major donor to Republican candidates and causes. Some say that the opinions of wealthier individuals have more influence on politicians and govern- ment policy, though this has been difficult to prove unequivocally.
236 CHAPTER 6 PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 236 27/11/18 12:26 PM
Some argue that every American citizen has an equal right to voice opinions in the political arena, but others point out that some voices receive a very attentive listen- ing, while others are hardly heard at all.86
Measuring Public Opinion A centur y ago American political leaders gauged public opinion b y the pr esence of cr owds at meet - ings and their applause. This direct exposure to the people ’s vie ws did
not necessarily produce accurate knowledge of public opinion. It did, however, give political leaders confidence in their public support—and therefore confidence in their ability to govern by consent.
Today, public officials make extensive use of public-opinion polls to help them decide whether to run for office, what policies to support, how to vote on important legislation, and what types of appeals to make in their campaigns. All r ecent presi- dents and other major political figures have worked closely with polls and pollsters.
MEASURING PUBLIC OPINION FROM SURVEYS
It is not feasible to inter view the mor e than 300 million Americans r esiding in the United States on their opinions of who should be the next pr esident or what should be done about important policy issues such as how to improve the economy and cr eate jobs. I nstead, pollsters take a sample of the population and use it to make inferences (e.g., predictions and educated guesses) about the preferences of the population as a whole. For a political survey to be an accurate representation of the population, it must meet cer tain requirements, including an appr opriate sampling method (i.e., randomization), a sufficient sample size, and the avoidance of selection bias.87 While some are skeptical of sampling, random sample surveys, which are used extensively in business and marketing as well as politics, ensure that the samples are accurate and reliable predictions of the underlying population.
Websites such as RealClearPolitics.com list the results of every political sur vey released each day; during elections, this can be doz ens of different sur veys daily. Every week, the opinions of Americans regarding candidates and public policies are measured, as well as opinions on a vast array of products (toothpaste), entertainment (movie star romances), and even college political science textbooks!
Representative Samples One way to obtain a r epresentative sample is what statisticians call a simple random sample (or probability sample). To take such a sample, one would need a complete list of all the people in the U nited States, and indivi - duals would be randomly selected from that list. Imagine that everyone’s name was entered into a lotter y, with names then drawn blindly fr om an enormous bo x. If everyone had an equal chance of selection, the r esult is a random sample. S ince we don’t have a complete list of all Americans, pollsters use census data, lists of house - holds (for in-person or telephone sur veys), and telephone numbers to cr eate lists, drawing samples from regions and then neighborhoods within r egions. State voter registration files are often used in political surveys designed to predict the outcome of an election or public opinion. If respondents are chosen randomly and everyone has an equal chance of being selected, then their r esults can be used to pr edict
Describe basic survey methods and other techniques researchers use to measure public opinion
public-opinion polls scientific instruments for measuring public opinion
sample a small group selected by researchers to represent the most important characteristics of an entire population
simple random sample (or probability sample) a method used by pollsters to select a representative sample in which every individual in the population has an equal probability of being selected as a respondent
237MEASur ING PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 237 27/11/18 12:26 PM
Parliaments, political parties, and the press are three institutions that play an important role in making democracy work. Parliament is the branch of government that most directly represents the voters; it serves as a major forum for policy debate and prevents abuse of executive power. Political parties offer different ideological goals, thereby helping to organize government, mobilize voters, and ensure political competition and accountability. Finally, the press plays an important “watchdog” role in politics, informing
voters and helping them hold their leaders accountable for their actions.
While these institutions are important to all democracies, we do notice that Americans tend to be much less confident in these institutions than are citizens in other democracies. This raises two important questions: Why are the u.S. scores so low, and what does it mean for politics when a large percentage of a population loses confidence in the institutions that keep its democracy functioning?
Confidence in Democratic Institutions
SOURCE: R. Inglehart et al., eds., “World Values Survey: Round Six—Country-Pooled Datafile Version,” 2014, www.worldvaluessurvey.org (accessed 6/5/18).
United States
Australia Mexico Brazil Japan Germany South Africa
India
23 13
20 16 13
28 30 22 25
46
16 21 20
44 44 54
36 43
66
34
51
24 15
71
PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION WHO HAVE “A GREAT DEAL” OR “QUITE A LOT” OF CONFIDENCE IN . . .
The press Political parties Parliament
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 238 27/11/18 12:26 PM
behavior for the overall population. If randomization is not used or some people are excluded from the chance to be selected, then the sample will be biased and cannot be used to generalize to the population accurately.
Another method of drawing samples of the national population is a technique called random digit dialing. A computer random number generator is used to pr o- duce a list of 10-digit telephone numbers. Given that 95 percent of Americans have telephones (cell phones or landlines), this technique usually r esults in a random national sample because almost ev ery citizen has a chance of being selected for the survey. Telephone surveys are fairly accurate, cost-effective, and flexible in the type of questions that can be asked; but many people r efuse to answer political surveys, and response rates—the per cent of those called who actually answ er the sur vey— have been falling steadily, averaging less than 15 percent.88
Sample Size A sample must be large enough to provide an accurate representation of the population. Surprisingly, though, the size of the population being measur ed doesn’t matter, only the siz e of the sample. A sur vey of 1,000 people is almost as effective for measuring the opinions of all Texans (28 million residents) as the opi- nions of all Americans (over 323 million residents).
Flipping a coin shows how this works. After tossing a coin 10 times, the number of heads and tails may not be close to 5 and 5. After 100 tosses of the coin, though, the percentage of heads should be close to 50 per cent and after 1,000 tosses, v ery close to 50 per cent. In fact, after 1,000 tosses, ther e is a 95 per cent chance that the number of heads will be some where between 46.9 per cent and 53.1 per cent. This 3.1 percent variation from 50 per cent is called the sampling error (or margin of error): the chance that the sample used does not accurately represent the population from which it is drawn. I n this case, 3.1 per cent is the amount of uncer tainty we can expect with a typical 1,000-person sur vey. If we conduct a national survey and find candidate A leads candidate B by 5 percent in the upcoming election and the uncertainty in the sur vey is 3 per cent, it means candidate A leads candidate B b y anywhere between 2 (523) and 8 (5 1 3) percentage points. Normally, samples of 1,000 people ar e considered sufficient for accurately measuring public opinion through the use of surveys.
Larger sample siz es can yield mor e accurate pr edictions of the opinions of a population, but there is a trade-off in terms of cost since it is also more expensive to survey more people. Why is a sample siz e of only 1,000 generally accepted as adequately representative of much larger populations? Consider the “ diminishing returns” of sampling mor e and mor e people. The sample error from a sample of 500 people is 4.4 per cent. With 1,000 r espondents, it dr ops to 3.1 per cent and with 1,500 to 2.5 per cent. That is, the smaller and smaller gains in accuracy have to be w eighed against the incr easing costs of polling mor e people. The consensus among statisticians and pollsters is that the optimal trade-off point is 1,000—hence 1,000 is the “ gold standard.” But today many sur veys conducted online include thousands of respondents, making their predictions potentially even more accurate.
When an election poll of 1,000 people indicates that 51 per cent of v oters surveyed favor the R epublican candidate and 49 per cent support the D emocratic candidate, the outcome is considered too close to call because the difference, 2 per- cent, is within the margin of err or of 3.1 per cent. That is, a figure of 51 per cent really means that betw een 48 per cent and 54 per cent of v oters in the population probably favor the Republican, while a figure of 49 percent indicates that between 46 percent and 52 percent of all voters probably support the Democrat. Thus, in this
random digit dialing a polling method in which respondents are selected at random from a list of 10-digit telephone numbers, with every effort made to avoid bias in the construction of the sample
sampling error (or margin of error) polling error that arises based on the small size of the sample
239MEASur ING PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 239 27/11/18 12:26 PM
example, a 52-to-48 percent Democratic victory would still be consistent with polls predicting a 51-to-49 percent Republican triumph.
Survey Design and Question Wording Even with a good sample design, sur - veys may fail to reflect the true distribution of opinion within a target population. One frequent source of measurement error is the wording of survey questions. The words used in a question can have an enormous impact on the answers it elicits. The reliability of sur vey r esults can also be adv ersely affected by poor question format, the ordering of questions, poor vocabulary, ambiguity of questions, or questions with built-in biases.
Often, minor differences in the wor ding of a question can conv ey vastly differ- ent meanings to r espondents and thus pr oduce quite different r esponse patterns (see Bo x 6.3). F or example, for many y ears the U niversity of Chicago ’s N ational Opi nion Research Center has asked r espondents whether they think the federal go v- ernment is spending too much, too little, or about the right amount of money on “assistance for the poor.” Answering the question posed this way, about two-thirds of all respondents seem to believ e that the go vernment is spending too little. H owever, the same survey also asks whether the government spends too much, too little, or about the right amount for w elfare. When the wor d welfare is substituted for “ assistance for the poor,” about half of all respondents indicate that too much is being spent.89
Online Surveys Today, pollsters are increasingly turning to the use of online sur- veys, often using similar techniques to those of telephone sur veys. Internet surveys can be more efficient, less costly, and more accurate than standar d phone sur veys; and they include much larger samples of y oung people and yield mor e accurate results within age cohor ts. B ut many sur veys y ou will find online do not use
THE SITuATION The public’s desire for tax cuts can be hard to measure. In 2000, pollsters asked what should be done with the nation’s budget surplus and got different results depending on the specifics of the question.
THE QuESTION President [Bill] Clinton has proposed setting aside approximately two-thirds of an expected budget surplus to fix the Social Security system. What do you think the leaders in Washington should do with the remainder of the surplus?
VArIATION 1 Should the money be used for a tax cut, or should it be used to fund new government programs?
VArIATION 2 Should the money be used for a tax cut, or should it be spent on programs for education, the environment, health care, crime fighting, and military defense?
SOURCE: Pew Research Center, reported in the New York Times, January 30, 2000, WK 3.
BOX 6.3
It Depends on How You Ask
240 CHAPTER 6 PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 240 27/11/18 12:26 PM
probability sampling (random sampling) and thus ar e not r epresentative of the American population. Instead, they reflect those willing to take a quiz online.
Knowledge Networks and YouGov are leaders in internet polling using sampling methods in which r espondents complete sur veys online instead of being inter - viewed on the phone. YouGov has a large population of r espondents (hundreds of thousands of individuals) identified using probability sampling, so the sample is representative of the American population. I ndividuals without internet access ar e given free subscriptions or complete the sur veys using the TV. If a client commis - sions a survey, YouGov randomly draws a sample of, say, 1,000 people from its population of online r espondents. B ecause r espondents hav e agr eed to complete a number of sur veys in ex change for free internet access, they ar e more likely to complete the surveys. YouGov has been mor e accurate in pr edicting the outcomes of recent presidential elections than other firms.90
Other polling companies use different methods for conducting internet surveys, often b y using statistical w eights to make the sur veys generally r epresentative of the American population.91 Internet surveys such as the Cooperative Congressional Election Study can have very large samples, up to 50,000 people, and rolling panel survey designs, where the same respondents are interviewed repeatedly over months. In the future, internet surveys may be more representative of the American popula- tion than traditional telephone sur veys and may replace telephone surveys entirely, especially given falling response rates and the growing number of households with- out landline phones but using cell phones exclusively.
Critics of internet sur veys contend that the samples may still be biased b y not including enough respondents from groups that are more likely to be offline, espe- cially non-English speakers, Latinos, the elderly, and the poor. Online surveys may include more respondents who are interested in politics than the normal population. Proponents contend that minorities and the poor ar e increasingly online, even via mobile access, and that the samples ar e representative of the American population. Because online surveys from sites such as YouGov have proved to be more accurate in for ecasting elections than many telephone sur veys r elying on cell phones and landlines, online surveys are likely here to stay.92
In contrast to online surveys, with more than 60 years’ experience studying Ameri- can public opinion, the American National Election Studies (ANES) is the premier broad general sur vey. The ANES traditionally has conducted surveys using face- to-face inter views, but because inter viewing respondents in person is v ery costly, the ANES incr easingly conducts online sur veys as well. The ANES is consider ed the gold standar d for political sur vey research because of its accuracy , design and question wording.
Telephone and online surveys increasingly embed experimental techniques within the design, in which one group of respondents is given a treatment, or unique question wording, and responses are compared with a control group of respondents that does not r eceive the tr eatment. The researcher is inter ested in the difference in responses between the treatment and control group. Experiments are one of the most rigorous methods for detecting causal r elationships. During Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign, for example, mobilizers found that if they asked individuals to list everything in their daily schedule, and state the time of day they planned to vote within that schedule, the individual was more likely to actually vote, compared to individuals who w ere simply asked to v ote for the candidate. I n another sur - vey framing experiment, individuals in one gr oup were exposed to a frame arguing
241MEASur ING PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 241 27/11/18 12:26 PM
that affirmative action is necessar y to correct past discrimination, while those in a second gr oup r eceived a competing frame arguing that affirmative action giv es African Americans special tr eatment. N ot surprisingly , those in the first group showed greater support for affirmative action than did those in the second group for the same policies. B y using a tr eatment and control group design, framing experi - ments pr ovide mor e lev erage in assessing cause and effect in measuring changes in public opinion. F raming experiments are an impor tant way to understand ho w public opinion changes in response to political elites and the mass media.
WHEN POLLS ARE WRONG
The history of polling o ver the past centur y contains many instances of getting it wrong and learning v aluable lessons in the pr ocess. As a r esult, polling techniques have gr own more and more sophisticated, and pollsters hav e a mor e nuanced understanding of ho w public opinion is formed and ho w it is r evealed. Polls are best understood as best guesses of a political outcome but not a pr ediction of fact. The 2016 election provides a recent example of inaccurate polling: the vast majority of opinion polls leading up to the election predicted that Hillary Clinton would win by a landslide.
Social Desirability Effects Political scientists have found that survey results can be inaccurate when the sur veys include questions about sensitiv e issues for which individuals do not wish to shar e their true preferences. For example, respondents tend to overreport voting in elections and the frequency of their church attendance because these activities are deemed socially appropriate. Political scientists call this the social desirability effect, whereby respondents report what they expect the inter- viewer wishes to hear or whatever they think is socially acceptable, rather than what they actually believe or know to be true.93 On other topics, such as questions about income or alcohol and dr ug use, respondents may feel self-conscious and choose not to answer.
Given the failur e of public opinion polls to pr edict the outcome of the 2016 election, many people question if polls systematically underr eported support for Trump and his policies. Explanations for why Trump performed better at the bal- lot box than in the polls include that Trump did better in polls of voters (either registered or likely voters) than in polls of all adults, and he also performed better in polls conducted online or b y automated script sur veys with a liv e-telephone caller. This latter finding may be the result of the social desirability effect. Because Trump is a polarizing and controversial figure, some people may have been reluc- tant to tell an interviewer they support Trump or his policies; online surveys may allow respondents to r eveal their tr ue preferences without facing social pr essure to conform.
Pew studied if telephone sur veys w ere systematically under estimating public support for Trump. The researchers compar ed public suppor t for the pr esident’s agenda using telephone surveys with live interviewers to online public support for his agenda using surveys. They expected the online surveys to show higher support for the pr esident and his policies, because self-administer ed online sur veys should reduce respondents’ reluctance to reveal their true preferences. The study found little statistical difference in evaluations of Trump or his policies when varying the mode of the inter view from online to telephone. 94 The fact that Clinton won 3 million
social desirability effect the effect that results when respondents in a survey report what they expect the interviewer wishes to hear rather than what they believe
242 CHAPTER 6 PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 242 27/11/18 12:26 PM
more votes than Trump may be evidence that the 2016 election polls were partially right after all.
Questions that ask directly about race or gender are particularly problematic. Social desirability makes it difficult to learn voters’ true opinions about touchy sub- jects such as racial attitudes because respondents hide their preferences from the interviewer for fear of social r etribution (against what might be deemed “ politi- cally incorrect” opinions). For example, researchers have found respondents in sur- veys didn’t want to admit that they opposed school integration and would not vote for the black candidate and, therefore, abstained from answering the question. Measuring public opinion can be a challenge; measuring opinions incorr ectly can bias the findings. However, surveys using experiments can be designed to tap respondents’ latent or hidden feelings about sensitive issues without directly asking them to express overt opinions.
Selection Bias The importance of accurate sampling was brought home early in the histor y of political polling. A 1936 Literary Digest poll pr edicted that the Republican candidate, Alf Landon, would defeat the D emocratic incumbent, Franklin Roosevelt, in that y ear’s presidential election. The actual election ended in a R oosevelt landslide. The main problem with the sur vey was what is called selection bias in drawing the sample. The pollsters had relied on telephone directories and automobile registration rosters to produce the survey sample. During the Great Depression, though, only wealthier Americans owned telephones and automobiles. Thus, the millions of working-class Americans who constituted R oosevelt’s base of support were excluded from the sample.
Selection bias was also at play in pr eelection polls in the 2012 pr esidential elec- tion, when G allup significantly overestimated Latino suppor t for the R epublican candidate, suggesting a close race between the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, and the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. The Gallup numbers were incorrect because of selection bias (that is, they had too few Latinos in their sample and there- fore their predictions were inaccurate). Estimates based on aggregating information from many different statewide public opinion polls were more accurate.95
As discussed, in the 2016 pr esidential election, although most polls pr edicted the dir ection of the popular v ote corr ectly in H illary Clinton’s favor, they failed
selection bias polling error that arises when the sample is not representative of the population being studied, which creates errors in overrepresenting or underrepresenting some opinions
Though public opinion is important, it is not always easy to interpret, and polls often fail to predict how Americans will vote. In 1948 election-night polls showed Thomas Dewey defeating Harry S. Truman for the presidency, which caused the Chicago Daily Tribune to incorrectly print a banner announc- ing Dewey’s win. In 2016 polls considerably favored Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, causing many to doubt the possibility of Trump winning the election.
243MEASur ING PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 243 27/11/18 12:26 PM
to predict the siz e of the v ote margin and the election outcome (see F igure 6.8). Other possible explanations for the polling inaccuracies included the use of “likely voter models,” which left out some gr oups that ended up v oting at higher-than- usual rates, such as r ural, non-college educated, blue-collar v oters who suppor ted Trump in large numbers. Trump called these voters the “silent majority.” Selection bias may have been at play in why the polls failed to predict the 2016 election out- come. Nonresponse bias may have also occurred, where Trump supporters were less likely to respond to surveys.
The LA Times/USC survey accurately predicted a Trump win, relying on a dif- ferent methodology than the others. I t used rolling panel sur veys, where the same individuals w ere inter viewed r epeatedly over time. P anel sur veys hav e a str onger internal research design, where the researcher can measure opinion change for the
FIGURE 6.8
Accuracy of Final Preelection Polls, 2016 A large number of news organizations conducted polls to predict the outcome of the 2016 election. For how many of these polls was the actual result within their margin of error, assuming a sample size of 1,000 and a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent? What might explain why some respected organiza- tions, like Pew and Politico, were so far off the mark?
SOURCES: All poll data, except LA Times/USC, from HuffPost Pollster, www.elections.huffingtonpost. com/pollster (accessed 11/10/16). Poll results are from the most recent polls prior to election day in the database. USC/LATimes data from www.cesrusc.org/ election/ (accessed 11/11/16). Popular vote margin data from “CNN 2016 Election Results,” www.cnn .com/election/results (accessed 11/11/16).
–13 –12 –11 –10 –9 –8 –7 –6 –5 –4 –3 –2 –1 0 +1 +2 +3
AP/GfK:
Democracy Corps:
Politico/GWU/Battleground:
American Research Group:
Pew Research:
CNN/ORC:
Monmouth/SurveyUSA:
NBC/Wall Street Journal:
Ipsos/Reuters:
CBS/New York Times:
Angus-Reid/MARU:
YouGov/Economist:
Fox News:
PPP:
Bloomberg/Selzer:
UPI/CVOTER:
ABC/Washington Post:
Zogby Analytics:
Rasmussen:
IBD/TIPP:
Gravis Marketing:
LA Times/USC:
PREDICTED MARGIN FOR TRUMP
Actual vote margin for Trump
244 CHAPTER 6 PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 244 27/11/18 12:26 PM
same sample of individuals. Scholars increasingly recognize that measuring change over time is the key to accurately measuring public opinion.
In recent years, the issue of selection bias has been complicated b y the fact that growing numbers of individuals r efuse to answ er pollsters’ questions, or they use voice mail or caller ID to screen unwanted callers. If pollsters could be certain that those who responded to their surveys simply reflected the views of those who refused to respond, there would be no pr oblem. Some studies, ho wever, suggest that the views of r espondents and nonr espondents can differ, especially along social class lines. This can lead to incorrect inferences of public opinion.
Push Polling Push polls are not scientific polls and are not intended to yield accurate information about a population. Instead, they involve asking a respondent a loaded question about a political candidate designed to elicit the r esponse sought by the pollster and, simultaneously , to shape the r espondent’s per ception of the candidate in question. One of the most notorious uses of push polling occurred in the 2000 S outh Carolina Republican presidential primary, in which G eorge W. Bush defeated John McCain and went on to win the presidency. Callers working for Bush supporters asked conser vative white voters if they would be mor e or less likely to vote for McCain if they kne w he had father ed an illegitimate black child (a false statement).
The Bandwagon Effect Public-opinion polls can influence political realities and elections. In fact, sometimes polling can ev en create its o wn reality. The so-called bandwagon effect occurs when polling results convince people to support a candidate marked as the pr obable victor. This is especially true in the pr esidential nomina- tion process, where there may be multiple candidates within one party vying to be the par ty’s nominee. R esearchers found that the change in national media co ver- age received by a candidate befor e and after the I owa caucuses, the first nominat- ing event, was a major pr edictor of ho w well the candidate would do in the N ew Hampshire primar y (the second nominating ev ent) and in pr esidential primaries nationwide, contr olling for other factors including money and standing in the polls.96 A candidate who has “ momentum”—that is, one leading in the polls— usually finds it considerably easier to raise campaign funds than a candidate whose poll standing is poor. Wanting to highlight the momentum he felt he had, Trump frequently cited his lead in the polls during the 2016 presidential primaries and general election to mobilize his base.
BIG DATA, POLLING AGGREGATORS, AND MEASURING PUBLIC OPINION
Computational data analysis and social media hav e opened ne w ways to measur e mass opinion. Some of the most fundamental questions about politics and public opinion are now being measured not with sur veys but in terms of actual behavior online, including Google searches. Big data refers to data sets that ar e so large and complex that they r equire advanced analytics, rather than traditional methods, to reveal insights on a massiv e scale. J ournalist Sasha Issenberg shows how big data played a critical role in Obama’s presidential election campaigns. By analyzing Net- flix movie queues, for example, campaign consultants w ere able to investigate con- cern for global warming based on the titles a person puts into her rental queue, even if she does not actually end up watching the film. Opinions about a wide range of
push poll a polling technique in which the questions are designed to shape the respondent’s opinion
bandwagon effect a shift in electoral support to the candidate whom public opinion polls report as the front-runner
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Is it important that public-opinion polls be accurate? How might polls fail to be accurate? What are the consequences if polls are systematically inaccurate?
245MEASur ING PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 245 27/11/18 12:26 PM
policy issues could be gleaned fr om the aggregate preferences of millions of mo vie viewers. This type of analysis is called data mining.97
Twitter, the pr eferred medium of candidates and political elites, intr oduces another way to measur e public opinion and agenda setting using text analysis. One study analyzed the number of Twitter followers for the 2016 presidential can- didates and tracked changes o ver time, as w ell as tracked mentions of any of the candidates based on millions of tweets.98 A candidate’s lead in positive Twitter cover- age may be more important to winning the White House than a lead in traditional public-opinion polls. Coding large amounts of Twitter data can also be v aluable for measuring phenomena that are difficult or impossible to measure with standard telephone surveys, such as the use of racial slurs.
Rather than rely on surveys to measure the opinions of U.S. citizens, researchers are now using Google search data. An example is public response in Flint, Michigan, and the surr ounding communities when the city ’s water supply was found to be contaminated by lead. The Flint drinking water disaster exposed r oughly 100,000 residents to harmful contaminants, r equiring r esidents to drink filtered or bot - tled water. Local residents used online search engines as way to follow the news and understand the health pr oblems fr om drinking contaminated water . P ew Research Center analyz ed 18 months of G oogle search data to track public inter - est in the F lint water contamination crisis. The study covered ev ents including boiling-water advisories from bacteria, reports of elevated lead levels in children’s blood and tap water samples, bottled-water distribution, emergency warnings, and criminal charges. The data based on 2,700 different search terms r eveals that residents of Flint were searching for information about their water long befor e the government r ecognized the contamination and befor e the media dr ew national attention to the problem. Similarly, Google search data has been able to predict local flu outbreaks based on sear ch terms of symptoms (fev er, etc.) considerably earlier than the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) declares a flu outbreak in a local area.99
Beyond Twitter, big data are playing a role in election forecasting, predictive ana- lytics, and measuring public opinion. For example, polling aggregators can be used to track public opinion more accurately. Blogger Nate Silver became an overnight sensation in 2008 b y aggr egating thousands of public-opinion polls conducted in each of the 50 states to pr edict the winner of the pr esidential election state by state mor e accurately than any single polling house—a feat he r epeated in 2012 (though he was often incorr ect in pr edicting the winner in the tumultuous 2016 primaries).100
Silver and FiveThirtyEight.com also use statistics to average thousands of public opinion polls overtime to cr eate a mor e accurate estimate of pr esidential approval than any one single poll. The thousands of polls they draw from are weighted based on their sample size, methodological rigor, and past accuracy—polls that historically have been more accurate count mor e.101 Five months after his victor y in the 2016 election, Trump had the lowest approval ratings of any president in modern history during the first 150 days in office.
The Democratic Party and the Republican Party now use a database of 240 mil- lion Americans, including a wide range of data from voting history and party regis- tration, social media, consumer purchasing patterns, and so on. Using big data and data mining, researchers can predict factors that make a person more likely to vote in the first place and whether he will cast a vote for the Republican or Democratic can- didate. Data mining has been used for years in business, marketing, and economics
246 CHAPTER 6 PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 246 27/11/18 12:26 PM
but is growing in importance in campaigns, elections, and policy. The study of poli- tics has been on the forefront of this big data revolution with sophisticated analyses of massive amounts of data including text scraping and text analysis of social media. These are just a few examples of how very large sample data—millions and millions of data points—are changing how we measure public opinion in the digital age.
Public Opinion and Democracy WHAT DO WE WANT? This chapter has focused on the role of public opinion in American politics. A major
purpose of democratic government, with its participatory procedures and representa-
tive institutions, is to ensure that political leaders will heed the public will. And, indeed,
a good deal of evidence suggests that they do. There are many instances in which
public policy and public opinion do not coincide, but often the government’s actions are
consistent with citizens’ preferences, at least in the most general sense.102
However, it is not always clear what the public will is. Mass shootings heighten
the preferences of supporters of both gun control and gun rights. Whose preferences
prevail when attitudes differ among groups? Or when they differ between the public
and elites? Or between the affluent and the poor? Some political scientists argue that
government policy is much less responsive to public opinion on the issues that really
count and that when the interests of elites are at stake, government officials are much
more likely to represent the opinions of the affluent than the poor.103 People in lower
income groups, moreover, are less likely to actively seek out ways to express their
political opinions than are wealthier people (see the “Who Participates?” feature
on p. 249).
New technology may be able to help. The migration of politics online has greatly
expanded the amount of information available and the ease of becoming informed.
And as we will see in Chapter 7, online media are more diverse than traditional
media. Given this new media environment, we might expect public opinion to be
more accurate, even about the nuances of public policy. Digital citizenship offers the
promise of a more informed electorate, with citizens having multiple venues in which
to translate their opinions into political action and demand improved representa-
tion from political leaders. The use of social media by students from the Marjory
Stoneman Douglas High School to argue for greater gun regulations shows digital
citizenship in action.
At the same time, the internet raises new concerns about the accuracy and con-
sistency of public opinion and whether people hold opinions that depart from facts
and the truth. As Chapter 7 will show, Americans may become trapped in a “filter
bubble” in which they are exposed only to news consistent with their political pref-
erences. There are internet vandals, or “bomb throwers,” who defame other people
and their opinions in ways that may negatively color public opinion. Misinformation—
rumor masked as legitimate news—may be more common, especially in blogs or
social media sites. Some research finds that the gap between the haves and the
247PuBL IC OP IN ION AND DEMOCrACY : WHAT DO WE WANT?
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 247 27/11/18 12:26 PM
have-nots in terms of political knowledge actually increases with the availability of
more information. The implications are significant, given the explosion of political
coverage online. The research suggests that with more information, public opinion
may actually be less consistent.104
Social media may be reshaping what is public opinion. The effects of new media—
vast and still unfolding—include the wide dissemination of public-opinion polls and the
rise of internet polling. Do new media make public opinion more or less important?
Do they make elected officials more or less responsive to the citizens? Time will tell.
248 CHAPTER 6 PuBL IC OP IN ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 248 27/11/18 12:26 PM
Be an Informed Consumer of Opinion Polls
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
When you encounter information from opinion polls, consider the source of the poll, the wording of the questions, and whether individuals were randomly selected to participate. Learn more at www.umich.edu/~numbers/polls.
Go to www.realclearpolitics.com to see polls about the same issues from different sources. Note the margins of error, and notice how aggregating polls makes a difference.
SOURCE: American National Election Study 2016 time series, www.electionstudies.org (accessed 11/4/17).
Who Expresses Their Political Opinions?
By income group
< $20,000 $75,000+$20,000−$39,999 $40,000−$74,999
26% 25% 28% 35% 19% 24% 24%
4% 4% 4% 3% 7% 9% 10% 15%
Attended a town or city council meeting Signed a petition
Attended a protest march Tried to contact a member of Congress
If asked, consider responding to an opinion poll—or take the initiative and express your views through one of the actions above.
Attended a town or city council meeting Signed a petition
Attended a protest march Tried to contact a member of Congress
28%
WHO PARTICIPATES?
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 249 27/11/18 12:26 PM
Practice Quiz
4. The process by which Americans learn political beliefs and values is called a) brainwashing. b) propaganda. c) indoctrination. d) political socialization. e) political development.
A number of factors, including the family, education, membership in social groups, self-interest, and the political environment, help form people’s underlying political beliefs and values.
Key Terms political socialization (p. 216)
agents of socialization (p. 216)
gender gap (p. 220)
How We Form Political Opinions
b) the analysis of events broadcast by news reporters during the evening news.
c) the beliefs and attitudes that people have about issues, events, elected officials, and policies.
d) decisions of the Supreme Court. e) any political statement that is made by a citizen
outside of his or her home.
2. Today, the term ______________ refers to someone who generally supports the social and economic status quo and is suspicious of efforts to introduce new political formulas and economic arrangements. a) libertarian b) liberal c) conservative d) democrat e) Whig
3. Socialism refers to a) a political ideology that emphasizes social
ownership and strong government. b) a political ideology that emphasizes freedom and
voluntary association with small government. c) a political ideology that argues for the need to place
strict limitations on voting rights and civil liberties. d) a political ideology that argues a single ruler should
have total control over every aspect of people’s lives.
e) a political ideology that argues governments are inherently repressive and should be abolished entirely.
Public opinion refers to the attitudes that people have about issues, events, elected officials, and public policy. Despite differences in opinion on many issues, most Americans share a common set of values, including a belief in the prin- ciples of liberty, equality, and democracy. Although many Americans subscribe to other ideologies, most describe themselves as either liberals, conservatives, or moderates. Contemporary liberalism and conservatism have different emphases with regard to the values of liberty and equality.
Key Terms public opinion (p. 207)
values (or beliefs) (p. 207)
political ideology (p. 207)
attitude (or opinion) (p. 207)
liberty (p. 209)
equality of opportunity (p. 209)
liberal (p. 212)
conservative (p. 213)
libertarian (p. 214)
socialist (p. 214)
Practice Quiz
1. The term public opinion is used to describe a) the speeches and writings made by a president
during his or her term in office.
Defining Public Opinion
Define public opinion, and identify broad types of values and beliefs Americans have about politics (pp. 207–15)
Explain the major factors that shape specific individual opinions (pp. 216–25)
CHAPTER 6 STuDY Gu IDE250
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 250 27/11/18 12:26 PM
c) In general, citizens with high levels of political knowledge are better able to evaluate new information and determine if it is consistent with their beliefs and opinions.
d) In general, citizens with high levels of political knowledge are less likely to belong to political organizations and to be active in politics.
e) In general, citizens with high levels of political knowledge are better able to recognize their political interests and to act to further those interests.
7. Three stages of John Zaller’s model of opinion forma- tion are a) “skim,” “scan,” and “sample.” b) “skim,” “scan,” and “accept.” c) “skim,” “receive,” and “accept.” d) “scan,” “receive,” and “accept.” e) “receive,” “accept,” and “sample.”
Practice Quiz
8. Which of the following are the most important external influences on how political opinions are formed in the marketplace of ideas? a) the government, private groups, and the news
media b) the unemployment rate, the Dow Jones industrial
average, and the NASDAQ composite c) random digit dialing surveys, push polls, and
framing experiments d) the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence,
and the Federalist Papers e) the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the
judicial branch
As people encounter new information, it may (or may not) influence their opinions. Many people acquire political information and make political decisions by relying on cues from party elites, interest groups, trusted acquaintances, and the mass media. However, inadequate knowledge can prevent individuals from effectively defending their political interests.
Practice Quiz
6. Which of the following statements about political knowledge is not accurate? a) In general, citizens with high levels of political
knowledge are more likely to be partisans (Democrats or republicans).
b) In general, citizens with high levels of political knowledge are more likely to have an ideology (liberal or conservative).
When individuals form opinions about specific issues, events, and politicians, they do not do so in isolation. They are bombarded by the efforts of many individuals and groups seeking to persuade them. Government officials and interest groups rely on messaging and a variety of media to get their messages across to citizens. The news media also serve as a powerful force in creating opinion and influencing popular attitudes.
Key Term marketplace of ideas (p. 232)
Political Knowledge and Changes in Public Opinion
The Media, Government, and Public Opinion
Explore when and why public opinion changes and what role political knowledge plays (pp. 225–32)
Describe the major forces that shape public opinion (pp. 232–34)
5. The fact that women tend to oppose military interven- tion more than men do is an example of a) the rally around the flag effect. b) partisan polarization.
c) the peace paradox. d) the bandwagon effect. e) the gender gap.
STUDY GU IDE 251
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 251 27/11/18 12:26 PM
b) Citizens who are less affluent and less educated have a disproportionately large influence over politics and public policy decisions in the united States.
c) Citizens who are more affluent and more educated have a disproportionately large influence over politics and public policy decisions in the united States.
d) Less affluent and less educated citizens only exert an influence over politics and public policy deci- sions when the Democratic Party controls the u.S. Congress.
e) Less affluent and less educated citizens only exert an influence over politics and public policy deci- sions when the republican Party controls the u.S. Congress.
Although there are many instances where government policy differs from the desires of the public, research has shown that there is generally a strong connection between what government does and what people want. research has also shown, however, that more affluent and more educated citizens have disproportionately large influence over policy decisions.
Practice Quiz
9. Which statement best describes influence over politics and public policy decisions in the united States? a) All citizens exert an equal influence over politics and
public policy decisions in the united States.
Public Opinion and Government Policy
Analyze how public opinion shapes government policy and influences elected officials (pp. 234–37)
c) micropopulation d) respondents e) median voters
11. A push poll is a poll in which a) the questions are designed to shape the
respondent’s opinion rather than measure the respondent’s opinion.
b) the questions are designed to measure the respondent’s opinion rather than shape the respondent’s opinion.
c) the questions are designed to reduce measurement error.
d) the sample is chosen to include only undecided or independent voters.
e) the sample is not representative of the population it is drawn from.
12. A familiar polling problem is the bandwagon effect, which occurs when a) the same results are used over and over again. b) polling results influence people to support the can-
didate marked as the probable victor in a campaign. c) polling results influence people to support the
candidate who is trailing in a campaign. d) background noise makes it difficult for a pollster
and a respondent to communicate with each other. e) a large number of people refuse to answer a
pollster’s questions.
Surveys can provide a very accurate description of public opinion on an issue if they employ an appropriate sampling method, include a sufficient sample size, and avoid selec- tion bias. In addition to the characteristics of the sample, the reliability of surveys is determined by the ordering and wording of the questions pollsters choose to ask.
Key Terms public-opinion polls (p. 237)
sample (p. 237)
simple random sample (or probability sample) (p. 237)
random digit dialing (p. 239)
sampling error (or margin of error) (p. 239)
social desirability effect (p. 242)
selection bias (p. 243)
push poll (p. 245)
bandwagon effect (p. 245)
Practice Quiz
10. Which of the following is the term used in public- opinion polling to denote the small group representing the opinions of the whole population? a) control group b) sample
Measuring Public Opinion
Describe basic survey methods and other techniques researchers use to measure public opinion (pp. 237–47)
CHAPTER 6 STuDY Gu IDE252
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 252 27/11/18 12:26 PM
American Association for Public Opinion Research www.aapor.org
This website is one of the premier academic sites for public opinion data on a host of political and social topics.
FiveThirtyEight www.fivethirtyeight.com/politics
FiveThirtyEight, named for the number of electors in the Electoral College, was founded as a polling aggregator site by political analyst Nate Silver. The blog now covers a broad range of topics, but it is still widely known for Silver’s election forecasts.
Gallup www.gallup.com
The Gallup Organization has been involved in the scientific study of public opinion for more than 70 years and is highly regarded. This website contains public-opinion data archives, video archives, and international polls.
Hutchings, Vincent. Public Opinion and Democratic Account- ability: How Citizens Learn about Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university Press, 2005.
Lau, richard, and David redlawsk. How Voters Decide: Information Processing in an Election Campaign. New York: Cambridge university Press, 2006.
Lee, Taeku. Mobilizing Public Opinion. Chicago: university of Chicago Press, 2002.
Lippmann, Walter. Public Opinion. 1922. http://xroads.virginia .edu/,Hyper2/CDFinal/Lippman/cover.html.
Lodge, Milton, and Charles S. Taber. The Rationalizing Voter. New York: Cambridge university Press, 2013.
Marcus, George E., W. russell Neuman, and Michael MacKuen. Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago: univer- sity of Chicago Press, 2000.
Norrander, Barbara, and Clyde Wilcox. Understanding Public Opinion. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2009.
Tesler, Michael, and David O. Sears. Obama’s Race: The 2008 Election and the Dream of a Post-Racial America. Chicago: university of Chicago Press, 2010.
Wlezien, Christopher, and Stuart Soroka. Degrees of Democ- racy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy. New York: Cambridge university Press, 2010.
Zaller, John. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge university Press, 1992.
Asher, Herbert. Polling and the Public: What Every Citizen Should Know. 8th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2011.
Barreto, Matt, and Gary M. Segura. Latino America: How America’s Most Dynamic Population Is Poised to Transform the Politics of the Nation. New York: Public Affairs, 2014.
Bartels, Larry. Unequal Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university Press, 2008.
Berinsky, Adam. Silent Voices: Public Opinion and Political Participa- tion in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university Press, 2005.
Clawson, rosalee, and Zoe Oxley. Public Opinion: Democratic Ideals and Democratic Practice. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2008.
Delli Carpini, Michael, and Scott Keeter. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale university Press, 1997.
Erikson, robert, Michael MacKuen, and James Simson. The Macro Polity. New York: Cambridge university Press, 2002.
Gallup, George. The Pulse of Democracy. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1940.
Gilens, Martin. Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university Press, 2012.
Ginsberg, Benjamin. The Captive Public: How Mass Opinion Promotes State Power. New York: Basic Books, 1986.
Griffin, John, and Brian Newman. Minority Report: Evaluating Political Equality in America. New York: Cambridge university Press, 2008.
Recommended Websites Latino Decisions www.latinodecisions.com
A leader in Latino opinion research, Latino Decisions presents data and analysis on Latino American political opinions, attitudes, and engagement.
Pew Religion and Public Life www.pewforum.org
Pew religion and Public Life conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, and content analyses of attitudes about religion and politics. Pew research Center is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that also explores attitudes toward numerous other political issues.
Real Clear Politics www.realclearpolitics.com
This website aggregates top news stories, analyses, edito- rials, videos, and polls with the goal of providing users with ideological diversity. The “Polls” section averages polling data for presidential and congressional races and has often been an effective predictor of election outcomes.
For Further Reading
STUDY GU IDE 253
wtp12e_ptr_ch06_204-253.indd 253 27/11/18 12:26 PM
The Media
070707 chapter
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS When the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, proposed to
end “net neutrality” in 2017, teenagers across the
country leapt into action. Many had lived their entire
lives in an era of neutrality, aspects of which began in
2006 and were codified by President Barack Obama
in 2015. Under net neutrality, internet service provid-
ers were regulated like a utility. They could not block
websites, slow some data transmission while impos-
ing fees for fast transmission, or charge consumers
to connect to certain sites. Chairman Pai asserted
that such rules overregulated the internet. But many
teenagers, who get the majority of their news and
information from the internet, disagreed. They used
social media to coordinate letter-writing, Twitter, and
protest efforts.
Sixteen-year-old student Will Howes led a protest
in front of a Verizon store in Sioux Falls, South
Dakota, arguing, “They can throttle your Netflix,
they can change your Google results. The right to
access information online is threatened.”1 His fellow
protesters worried that rural South Dakotans might
get priced out of internet service, which was already
limited there. Teen protesters in front of a Keene,
New Hampshire, Verizon store had similar concerns
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 254 27/11/18 12:26 PM
Net neutrality—the principle that all data and content on the web must be treated equally and not blocked or slowed for certain users—has been a hot-button issue. Anooha Dasari is just one of many young people who have spoken out and organized in support of net neutrality.
about the price and availability of high-speed inter-
net, holding signs asking, “Hey Siri, how much does
this sentence cost?” As high school senior Harrison
Hicks said, “The internet is imperative to my educa-
tion, and it’s really hard to be a self-starter and to
teach yourself the information you need without the
internet, especially since we’re the first generation
who’s grown up with the internet having been around
our entire lives.”2 Anooha Dasari, a high school
junior from Mundelein, Illinois, who sent classmates
links for emailing the FCC, said, “For research, for
news, to communicate with friends, the internet is a
big part of my life. It has formulated my personality,
opinions, and political ideology. If it is controlled, my
generation of students could be inclined to be just
on one part of the [political] spectrum. That’s danger-
ous.” In December 2017, Pai cast the deciding vote
to end the neutrality rules. Dasari vowed to continue
to fight: “I will tweet and email and call and stay in
the process.”3
The sharing of information, whether via traditional
or digital media, is an essential component of Ameri-
can democracy. So central is information to citizen
participation that the Constitution’s First Amend-
ment guarantees freedom of the press, and most
Americans believe that a free press is an essential
255
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 255 27/11/18 12:26 PM
condition for both liberty and democratic politics. Today, as the means of
communication has expanded, the media continue to play a central role in
American politics, not only in setting the agenda of topics that Americans
think about and discuss but also in shaping public opinion on political issues
and politicians. The political implications of this media system are significant.
Politics is increasingly defined by the individuals and groups who are best
able to blend older and newer media—using, for example, both television and
digital media to promote their message.
Discussing the right of press freedom, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The basis
of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should
be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should
have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government,
I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”4 As the nature of media
has evolved, its centrality to government and politics has never waned. In
fact, in an era when politicians accuse each other and media members of
promoting “fake news,” and people fight for or against control of internet com-
munications, a full understanding of America’s dynamic media landscape may
be more important than ever.
★ Describe the key roles the media play in American political life (pp. 257–60)
★ Discuss how digital media have transformed how citizens learn about politics (pp. 261–77)
★ Analyze the ways the media can influence public opinion and politics (pp. 277–82)
★ Explain how politicians and others try to shape the news (pp. 283–85)
★ Trace the evolution of rules that govern broadcast media (pp. 285–87)
CHAPTER GOALS
256 CHAPTER 7 THe MeD IA
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 256 27/11/18 12:26 PM
The Media in American Democracy Freedom of the press is protected under the F irst Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, along with the most cherished individual rights in
American democracy, including fr eedom of speech and r eligion. Freedom of the press is the right to circulate opinions in print and digital media without censorship by the government. In the United States, citizens and priv ate companies hav e the right to publish newspapers, magazines, and other forms of digital media with fe w government r estrictions. In many authoritarian countries ther e is no fr eedom of the press and the government controls the news and political information through state-sponsored media.
Why would the F ounders car e so much about the rights of the media to report the ne ws without inter ference from government? In the 1700s, when they were still under B ritish control, freedom of speech did not exist in the American colonies. Criticizing the King of E ngland was a crime punishable, in some cases, by death. When the colonists won their fr eedom from England they wanted to be able to freely express their political opinions without fear of retaliation. The first of 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution adopted during the F ounding period states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or pro- hibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Despite attacks from both Republicans and Democrats that claim major media outlets are biased, most Americans believe freedom of the press is very important for maintaining a strong democracy, and that “news organizations are free to criticize political leaders” (see Figure 6.1 in Chapter 6).
The media serve three important roles in American democracy: helping to inform the public about current political issues and events; providing a forum through which candidates, politicians, and ev en the public can debate policies and issues; and acting as a watchdog on the actions of politicians and other political actors. Part of the media’s role of informing the public involves providing a variety of per- spectives on current events and fact-checking sources to provide unbiased coverage of current events. The media serve as a type of public square where citizens become informed about their government, political leaders, societal problems, and possible solutions—a forum where information necessary for democracy is exchanged.
Without the work of journalists and the media, democracy and self-government would not be possible. The news media are how individuals learn about politics and current events, government policy, candidates, and political parties. The information presented by the media allo ws citizens to cast informed decisions in elections and to form opinions about policy issues. American philosopher J ohn Dewey believed the media served to educate the public. A strong democracy, he said, was based not only on v oting rights, but ensuring that public opinion on curr ent issues is based on communication among citizens, experts, and elected officials. This communica- tion ensures elected officials adopt policies consistent, for the most part, with the preferences of the citizens and serves as a counterweight to communication among elites, the wealthy, and corporations. In other words, the mass media help level the playing field between political elites and “the people,” giving citizens a more potent voice in society. Without the media, citizens would not know the actions of political
media print and digital forms of communication, including television, newspapers, radio, and the internet, intended to convey information to large audiences
Describe the key roles the media play in American political life
257THe MeD IA IN AMer ICAN DeMOCrACy
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 257 27/11/18 12:26 PM
leaders, corporations, or foreign governments and would be powerless to change the system. Journalists (people trained to r eport the news) give ordinary citizens infor- mation and knowledge, and this information is ultimately power.
Finally, the media serve as a watchdog for the public, scrutinizing the actions of elected officials on behalf of citizens—most of whom do not hav e the opportunity to closely follo w the actions of politicians and go vernment. Like an alarm system for a home, the media notify the public of actions taken b y government that may harm them.
The watchdog role of the media is the most impor tant for the study of politics. Political news is reported on page 1 of print newspapers or in news alerts on your cell phone. The media inform the public about what policy issues are at stake in terms of changes in go vernment laws and r egulations. The media seek to expose which individuals and groups are exerting power in politics and what are their tactics and strategies, and sheds light on the different perspectives being used by political actors (e.g., the arguments for and against building a wall betw een the United States and Mexico, a major federal tax cut or raise, or adopting a law to create free college tui- tion). The media often expose how financial interests are tied to political leaders and policy making, or scandalous behavior of politicians and other public figures, like allegations of sexual assault against R epublican senatorial candidate R oy Moore or Democratic senator Al Franken (Minn.). By reporting the news in the public inter- est the media continuously monitor the actions of public officials in its surveillance mode and strives to protect the public from government overreach and corruption by serving as a check on political power.
Informing the public, creating a forum for debate, and keeping a watchful eye on government action are critical components to democracy. And it seems like a lot to ask of the media. Do the media meet these goals?
JOURNALISM
Most practicing journalists receive training in schools of journalism and mass com- munication. Journalists are guided by standards in reporting the news in the public interest, known as the principles of journalism. Above all the news media seek to
One of the media’s role in American democracy is that of a watchdog, investigating and highlighting alleged and actual wrongdoing by public officials. Recently, the media have exposed episodes of alleged sexual misconduct by several politi- cians including Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.), senatorial candidate Roy Moore (R-Ala.), and Donald Trump.
258 CHAPTER 7 THe MeD IA
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 258 27/11/18 12:26 PM
report the truth via fact-checking, verification of sources, and investigative journal- ism (defined in more detail later). This includes reporting factual claims b y rely- ing on legitimate sources and citing people with credible positions, eyewitnesses and par ticipants in ev ents, and documents associated with r ecognizable and credible institutions. The traditional news media aim to balance coverage of current events b y pr oviding objectiv e tr eatment of opposing sides, and it av oids includ - ing personal vie ws of r eporters or editors. While reporting the ne ws without any bias—objectivity—is ultimately unattainable because all individuals have biases that influence how they understand events, objectivity is a method used by journalists to report both sides of a story.
THE PROFIT MOTIVE
The media are sometimes r eferred to as the four th branch of go vernment, provid- ing a check on the po wer of government and political leaders. B ut who checks or controls the media? In the United States the media are not part of government and not subject to checks and balances like Congr ess, the pr esidency, and the cour ts. Instead most media in the U nited S tates ar e priv ately owned companies. M edia companies, like technology companies such as Verizon, Amaz on, or A pple, ar e for-profit corporations.
Public broadcasting refers to television, radio, and digital media that receive fund- ing from the public through license fees, subsidies, or tax dollars. In most other dem- ocratic countries public broadcasting plays a major role in informing the public about politics and current events. In contrast, public br oadcasting in the U nited States— such as National Public Radio or PBS—plays a very small role in the media system, at just 2 per cent of mar ket shar e, compared to 35 per cent in F rance, 40 per cent in Germany, and 65 per cent in D enmark. What is unique about the media in the United States is that most are entirely privately owned and operated. There is evidence from cross-national surveys that U.S. citizens have lower levels of political knowledge than those in European demo cracies who consume more public broadcasting.5
Public media usually come with gr eater r estrictions. S wiss law, for example, pr ohibits political campaign ads on radio and TV pr ograms; they ar e only allo wed in ne wspapers. I n F rance, the media ar e pr ohibited fr om co vering ne ws about candidates running for public office the last few days befor e the election. American media face many fe wer government regulations, as will be discussed later in this chapter.
U.S. media companies earn most of their r evenue from adver- tising, rather than subscriptions, although r evenue fr om sub - scriptions has been incr easing. This means media actors—from journalists to editors to the o wners of the media companies—ar e motivated by what audiences want, because higher ratings gener - ate more advertising revenue. Because of the need to reach wide audiences to sell advertisements, the U.S. media are more focused on soft ne ws, such as enter tainment, spor ts, and celebrity ne ws, than are European media, which provide more hard news coverage of politics and civic ev ents. And when it comes to political ne ws, American media tend to focus incr easingly on mor e dramatic, highly conflictual events and issues. S ensational stories of scan - dals or candidate attacks often generate mor e interest—and thus
Because of the U.S. media’s profit motive, they tend to focus on highly conflictual political events like presidential debates and less on the subtle details of changes in public policy.
259THe MeD IA IN AMer ICAN DeMOCrACy
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 259 27/11/18 12:26 PM
revenue—than the stories of everyday governing and details of public policy. None- theless, objectivity is still the goal, and standard practice is that news, opinion, and ads should be separate and distinct; that is why the opinions of editors ar e reserved for the opinion pages.
The profit motive of the ne ws industr y may hav e contributed to D onald Trump’s unexpected victor y in the 2016 election. D ue to the no velty of a television celebrity r unning for pr esident, Trump’s campaign was a financial boon for the media industr y. His candidacy received double the media coverage of his D emocratic opponent, H illary Clinton, and his R epublican challengers in the primaries. The head of CBS, Les Moonves, said the Trump phenomena “may not be good for America, but it ’s damn good for CBS . . .”6 Throughout the election and Trump’s first year in office, the cable news channels pr ofited from higher ratings because of the public ’s fascination with Trump; CNN, for example, earned about $100 million in television and adv ertising r evenue more than expected in 2016.7 Newspapers and digital news outlets found that if the wor d Trump was mentioned in a title, it was mor e likely to be r ead and shared online.
MASS MEDIA OWNERSHIP
One noteworthy feature of the traditional media in the U nited States is the con- centration of its ownership. A small number of giant corporations control a wide swath of media holdings, including television networ ks, mo vie studios, r ecord companies, cable channels and local cable providers, book publishers, magazines, newspapers, and increasingly, online and digital media outlets. Large global cor - porations o wn much of the media offline and online.8 Media monopolies, such as D isney, hav e pr ompted questions about whether enough competition exists among traditional media to produce a truly diverse set of views on political mat- ters.9 In 2019, for example, D isney purchased 21st Centur y Fox to become the third largest media company in the United States. As major newspapers, television stations, and radio networ ks fall into fe wer hands, the risk incr eases that poli - ticians and citiz ens who expr ess less popular or minority vie wpoints will hav e difficulty finding a public forum.
Despite the appearance of substantial numbers overall, the number of traditional news-gathering sour ces operating nationally is actually quite small—sev eral wir e services, four br oadcast networks, a fe w elite print ne wspapers, and a smattering of other sour ces, such as a fe w large local papers and sev eral small, independent radio networks. More than three-fourths of the daily print newspapers in the United States are owned by large media conglomerates such as the Hearst, McClatchy, and Gannett corporations. Much of the national ne ws that is published b y local news- papers is provided by one wire service, the Associated Press. More than 500 of the nation’s television stations are affiliated with one of just four networks and carry that network’s evening news programs.
The trend in concentration of traditional media o wnership occurr ed in large part due to the r elaxation of go vernment regulations in the 1980s and ’90s. The enactment of the 1996 Telecommunications Act opened the way for additional con- solidation in the media industr y, and a wav e of mergers and consolidations has further r educed the field of independent media across the countr y. But as mor e digital-only news sources come online, these trends toward concentration in media ownership may reverse.
media monopoly the ownership and control of the media by a few large corporations
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS In recent years, a number of major media corporations have acquired numerous newspapers, television stations, and radio properties. Is media concentration a serious problem? Why or why not?
260 CHAPTER 7 THe MeD IA
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 260 27/11/18 12:26 PM
The Media Today The past three decades have resulted in a massiv e transformation of the U.S. news media. New competition from fr ee digital sour ces has put pressure on traditional subscription-
based ne ws sour ces as Americans migrated to r eading the ne ws online. Today 93 per cent of adults r ead the ne ws online. 10 This picture is v ery different fr om the early 2000s, when most Americans said that after television, print ne wspapers were their main sour ce for ne ws and less than 20 per cent r ead the ne ws online (see Figure 7.1).11 Though not replacing losses in subscription and traditional adver- tising revenue, digital advertising revenue continues to grow.12
Despite the digital transformation of the ne ws media, much of what makes the media important in American politics r emains the same. M ajor newspapers and TV networks—even if their content is increasingly delivered in digital form—remain pop- ular and important sources of news. Political leaders are successful in making head- line news and setting the news agenda. And journalists trained in professional schools create and develop much of what we consume as news, including original reporting.
But mor e and mor e, the media ar e online companies facing an envir onment where anyone with access to an internet connection can publish the ne ws. It is still only a small number of organizations that have credibility and the largest audiences, however;13 the leading newspapers in the United States, such as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post, receive some of the highest traffic online. Nevertheless, the digital transformation of the media has created a reorgani- zation of the media industry that impacts how the news is made and how consumers learn about politics.
Discuss how digital media have transformed how citizens learn about politics
FIGURE 7.1
Use of Online News Continues to Grow The media landscape for news has seen remarkable shifts in a short period of time. Twenty years ago, more than 80 percent of Americans watched news on television and more than half read news in a newspaper. Today, fewer Americans watch news on TV and just over one-quarter read the newspaper. What media source has gained rather than lost its audience?
SOURCE: “Americans’ Online News Use Is Closing in on TV News Use,” Pew Research Center, September 5, 2017, www.pewresearch.org (accessed 5/23/18).1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2013 2015 2017
TV
Radio
Newspaper Internet
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100%
PERCENTAGE OF U.S. ADULTS WHO OFTEN GET THEIR NEWS ON EACH PLATFORM
261THe MeD IA TODAy
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 261 27/11/18 12:26 PM
Before the internet, journalism organizations largely contr olled the ne ws, including original r eporting, writing and pr oduction, packaging and deliv ery, and selecting editors. Over time, technology companies like F acebook, Apple, Google, and Amazon have become major play ers in the content and deliv ery of the ne ws. These companies are partners in the business of journalism fr om the financial side to how the ne ws is pr oduced and deliv ered to consumers. They report the ne ws using advanced technology, engineering, and market research to push specific news alerts to specific people, based on their interests and preferences. And it seems to be working: Facebook and Google, for example, generate the most digital adv ertising revenue for newspapers.14
The interdependence betw een technology and media companies continues to grow. In one of the latest trends, technology companies and their CEOs have been purchasing or dev eloping major ne ws media companies, such as the cr eation of the Intercept by Ebay founder P ierre Omidyar, or the pur chase of the Washington Post b y Amazon CEO J eff Bezos. Both the Intercept and Washington Post hav e a reputation for forceful investigative journalism and original reporting. And Facebook editors control trending topics in the ne ws on the global platform, a key editorial role in what makes the headline news.
Beyond making the ne ws profitable again, these high-tech collaborations are changing ho w Americans learn about curr ent ev ents in the U nited S tates and globally.15 This is evident in the growing number of Americans who r ead news by using social networ k platforms such as Twitter or F acebook—community forums designed to emphasize participation, networked communities, and trans- parency. H ow citiz ens r ead the ne ws has changed in the digital age, but the role of the media in politics remains as important today as during the founding of our nation.
One of the costs of the transformation of the media to digital and citiz en journalism—news produced by individuals and organizations bey ond professional journalists—has been less rigor ous fact-checking and editorial standar ds for some online news websites. Some digital-only news platforms, on both the ideological left and right, no longer follow the guiding principles of journalism.
Despite mass ownership of traditional ne ws outlets, the American news media are among the world ’s freest and most div erse. Americans have thousands of available options in political reporting. These options include a wide variety of local and national newspapers, newsmagazines, broadcast media, radio, podcasts, and digital sources. The freedom to speak one’s mind is one of the most cherished of American political v alues. Without the ne ws media’s inv estigations, citiz ens
Two trends in media have been the consolidation of media outlets into large conglomerates and the growing influence of technology on media. Founded by Rupert Murdoch (left), News Corp is a media conglomerate that has owned Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, among other news outlets. Since he acquired the Washington Post, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos (right) has deepened the paper’s focus on investigative journalism, which some say has made the Post profitable again.
262 CHAPTER 7 THe MeD IA
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 262 27/11/18 12:26 PM
would be for ced to r ely entirely on information pr ovided by politicians and the government, and would be deprived of information necessary to evaluate issues carefully and form reasoned opinions. Americans get their news from (1) newspa- pers and magazines; (2) br oadcast media (radio and television); and incr easingly, (3) digital media. Each of these three sources—newspapers, broadcast, and digital— has distinctive characteristics.
NEWSPAPERS
Newspapers are the oldest medium for the dissemination of the news, though most Americans read digital versions of print media today. Newspapers have an especially influential audience because they help set the political agenda for the nation. Their audience of political elites r elies on the detailed co verage provided by professional journalists to inform their views about public matters.
The emergence of newspapers (and later radio and television networ ks) as mass-production businesses driven primarily for profit had major implications for the role of the media in politics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centu- ries. The development of standardized reporting and writing practices emphasizing objectivity in political news coverage was due in large part to generate revenue for media organizations. The owners of large ne wspaper companies determined that the best way to make a pr ofit was to appeal to as broad an audience as possible, which meant not alienating potential readers who held liberal or conservative poli- tical views. This, in turn, required methods to train and “ discipline” reporters to produce a standardized, seemingly neutral news product. In contrast, some native digital ne ws is less likely than like journalism fr om legacy media outlets to be value neutral.
These journalistic practices were successful in attracting audiences, and for a long time most cities and to wns in the countr y had their o wn ne wspaper. However, for most traditional ne wspapers, recent decades have been financially challenging. Competition fr om broadcast media and fr ee content online, com - bined with simultaneous declines in advertising revenue and circulation levels, have undermined the traditional business model of ne wspapers.16 In 2018 there were roughly 39,210 working journalists, down from a high of 60,000 a decade before.17 Estimates indicate daily ne wspaper print cir culation has declined b y over 30 per cent over the past 20 y ears.18 And lo wer cir culation leads to lo wer advertising revenue.
Following the 2016 election, ho wever, some major U.S. ne wspapers r eported a sharp increase in digital subscriptions.19 The New York Times added more than 500,000 digital subscriptions in 2016—a 47 per cent incr ease fr om the pr evious year, while the Wall Street Journal had a 23 percent increase over the previous year, and the Chicago Tribune a 76 percent increase. The newspaper industry as a whole, however, continues to face declines in cir culation and ad r evenue. The New York Times saw a 9 percent decline in advertising revenue but a 3 percent rise in circula- tion revenue, for an overall revenue decline of 2 percent in 2016.20
The Washington Post, in contrast, may be a model for making the news media profitable. The Post is a priv ate company o wned b y Amaz on CEO J eff Bezos. While revenues for most newspapers continued to decline (see Figure 7.2), the Post experienced double-digit revenue growth for three straight years. Along with a via- ble financial model, the Post has emerged as a leader in investigative reporting, data analytics, and marketing. Bezos rebuilt the Post into a media technology company,
The circulation and newsstand sales of traditional newspapers and news magazines have fallen in the last decade. However, because the remaining audience includes polit- ical elites and politically engages citizens, they remain important forums in the marketplace of ideas.
263THe MeD IA TODAy
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 263 27/11/18 12:26 PM
producing 1,200 articles per day, an exploding readership, and dynamic digital con- tent. The paper’s content-distribution uses social media like F acebook and Twitter, offers discounts to Amazon Prime members, and the Post app is pr einstalled on Amazon’s Fire tablets. The Post now tracks how different headlines and story fram- ings affect readership of each story. One of the three major newspapers in the United States, the 140-y ear-old Washington Post is kno wn for inv estigative reporting and for breaking the stor y that r evealed the Watergate scandal in 1970 that led to the impeachment and r emoval from office of President Nixon. Today the Post focuses on adversarial journalism of the Trump Administration and extensive reporting of Russian interference in U.S. elections.21
News organizations such as the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Economist were among the first to charge customers for reading the news online. For most newspapers today, non-ad r evenue comes mainly fr om digital subscriptions rather than print circulation. This model allows a certain number of free visits before requiring users to pay and appears to be a viable business model for the digital press. Elite newspapers have been able to cr eate a viable business model wher eby people will pay digital subscriptions to access content, and paid digital ne ws is increasing revenue and improving content. Digital subscription models have not been as viable for many smaller or mid-sized local, regional, and even big-city papers, however.
Legacy newspapers face the greatest competition from digital-only news outlets, such as Politico, Bloomberg News, the Drudge Report, the National Review, and a host of others. And the pace of technological change in the ne ws media shows no signs of slowing down.22
While the media were widely criticized during the 2016 presidential campaign for a lack of scrutiny and uneven coverage of candidates, the media’s investigative report- ing on the Trump campaign is noteworthy. During the election investigative articles in the Washington Post, for example, revealed the history around candidate Donald Trump’s casino bankruptcies, failure to release his taxes, and ties between Russia and
FIGURE 7.2
Advertising Revenue Media is a business, not a branch of government, so media rely on subscription and advertising money to fund their services. As print newspapers’ readership declined, their advertising revenue fell sharply. Some of this money shifted to online advertising, including ads for mobile devices.
SOURCE: Newspaper Association of America (2003–2013), Pew Research analysis of BIA/ Kelsey data (2014), www.journalism.org/ media-indicators/newspaper-print-and-online -ad-revenue/ (accessed 2/3/17).
$2,664
3,109
3,042
3,370
3,506
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
18,931
22,795
34,740
$46,61
AD REVENUE IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
16,366
5,3002016 12,975
264 CHAPTER 7 THe MeD IA
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 264 27/11/18 12:26 PM
the Trump campaign, while others focused on the defunct and fraudulent Trump University.23 Russia’s involvement in the election was especially troubling, and public knowledge of possible foul play in what are normally free and fair elections would not be possible without the deep investigative reporting by the media.24
BROADCAST MEDIA
Television news reaches more Americans than any other single ne ws source. It is estimated that over 95 percent of Americans have a television, and tens of millions of people watch national and local news programs every day. Pew reports that com- bined average viewership for the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening newscasts remained stable in 2016 at about 24 million. 25 Despite the rise of digital media, television news (local, national networ k, and cable) still commands tr uly massive audiences, much larger than other sources. Television news, however, generally covers relatively few topics and provides little depth of coverage. It serves the important function of alerting viewers to issues and ev ents—headline news—via brief quotes and shor t characterizations of the day’s events. Furthermore, broadcast media do very little of their o wn reporting, instead r elying on leading ne wspapers or digital media to set their ne ws agenda. P rint and digital media, as written text, also pr ovide more detailed and complete information than radio or television media, offering a better context for analysis.
Because they ar e aware of the character of television ne ws coverage, politicians and others often seek to manipulate the ne ws by providing the media with sound bites that will dominate ne ws coverage. Sound bites can wor k for or against poli - ticians. During the 2016 pr esidential election, calls for depor ting undocumented immigrants were a frequent sound bite topic from candidates such as Donald Trump.
Twenty-four-hour cable ne ws stations such as MSNBC, CNN, and F ox News offer more detail and commentar y than the half-hour ev ening news shows found on the three broadcast news stations—ABC, NBC, and CBS. But even these chan- nels offer more headlines and sound bites than ne wspapers, especially during their prime-time broadcasts.
Politicians generally consider local br oadcast ne ws a friendlier v enue than the national ne ws. N ational r eporters ar e often inclined to criticiz e and question, whereas local and state r eporters ar e mor e likely to accept the pr onouncements of national leaders at face v alue. Local TV continues to be a major sour ce of news, especially for older Americans, though its importance as a news source is decreasing among the y ounger generation in fav or of social media such as F ace- book (see F igure 7.3). G enerally, however, Americans’ reliance on television does not appear to be going away.
RADIO
Radio is another br oadcast ne ws sour ce that has ev olved with the popularity of podcasting. In the 1990s, talk radio became an important source of commentary as well as entertainment. Conservative radio hosts, such as R ush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, have huge audiences and have helped to mobilize support for conservative political causes and candidates. In the political center or center left, National Public Radio (NPR) is a co veted source for in-depth political r eporting. In recent years radio news listening has experienced significant growth; in 1990 there were 400 radio stations, a number that has grown to over 2,000 today.
broadcast media television, radio, or other media that transmit audio and/or video content to the public
265THe MeD IA TODAy
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 265 27/11/18 12:26 PM
Broadcast radio includes traditional AM/FM radio and digital formats such as online radio and podcasting. While AM/FM radio reaches almost all Americans and remains steady in its revenue, online radio and podcasting has expanded rapidly in the past decade, steadily gr owing to 64 percent of Americans who r eported tuning in during the last month in 2018, up from 12 percent in 2007. While public broad- casting has a much smaller share of the total media market in the United States than in other countries, NPR is still popular and an impor tant way for people to learn about politics each day. In 2017 there were 5.4 million unique downloads of NPR podcasts every week, a number that continues to grow.26 Mobile devices, including satellite radios and cell phones, have triggered a growth in radio use as online radio listening can occur nearly anywhere. Listening to radio news while commuting is a primary way many Americans become informed about politics.27
Comedy Comedy talk shows with political content, such as The Daily Show, The Late Show, and Saturday Night Live attract millions of television viewers. These shows use humor, sarcasm, and social criticism to discuss serious topics, generally covering almost every major political event. Pew surveys have shown that these talk shows are important sources of political ne ws, especially for y oung people and liberals, and that follo wers of comedic talk sho ws are well informed about politics. 28 It is also likely that mor e- informed viewers are self-selecting into watching comedy news. These shows combine political news and entertainment and are an important source of news for young people.
FIGURE 7.3
Where People Get the News, by Age Younger people get their news from the internet more than older Ameri- cans. What does this trend mean for the future of other news media?
SOURCE: Amy Mitchell et al., “Pathways to News,” Pew Research Center, July 7, 2016, www.journalism.org (accessed 5/23/18).
Print newspapers Online TVRadio
18–29
30–49
50–64
65+
5% 14
50
10% 27
49 45
23% 29 29
85
72
20 24
48%
27
PERCENTAGE OF EACH AGE GROUP THAT REGULARLY USES EACH PLATFORM FOR NEWS
266 CHAPTER 7 THe MeD IA
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 266 27/11/18 12:26 PM
DIGITAL MEDIA
The twenty-first century has experienced a profound transformation of the media, as discussed in the introduction. The impact of the internet in mass communication parallels that of the printing pr ess in nineteenth-centur y America, which saw the rise of the penny press and widespread literacy.29 Today, even as the print newspaper business has consolidated, readership of online news has soared. Digital has become the medium of choice to consume enter tainment, ne ws, and information about politics for all age groups below 50. In 2000 just 35 percent of adult internet users said they looked for news or information about politics or the upcoming campaigns online. Today 94 percent of young people get news online from mobile devices, and even 67 percent of Americans over age 65 go online for news.30 In 2017 online news closed in on TV as the major source for news; 43 percent of Americans primarily get news online, compared to 50 percent who rely on TV.31
Streaming videos is a growing substitute for television for some viewers, funda- mentally altering broadcast news, as dedicated channels pr ovide political analysis, commentary, full-length features, and comedy. Presidential addresses are now regu- larly str eamed liv e, and millions of people tune in to hear the pr esident in this format.32 Similarly, podcasts ar e restructuring radio news by allowing listeners to tune in to the news at any time online.
While many traditional news sources, such as newspapers, now publish online, other digital-only outlets tend to be smaller and mor e specialized and hav e lower personnel and overhead costs than mainstream publishers. Besides digital-only news outlets, other digital ne ws sources include ne ws websites, citizen journalism such as blogs, social media such as Twitter and YouTube, podcasts, and nonpr ofit jour- nalism. (See the “Who Are Americans?” feature on p. 279 for more information on where Americans get their ne ws.) Do digital media ultimately help or hinder pr o- gress toward the ideal of a well-informed citizenry that can govern itself effectively? The following discussion helps to answer this question.
News aggregators such as G oogle News, Reddit, and R ealClear Politics generally compile and repackage stories that w ere created by other sources, and then deliv er them online to consumers in conv enient formats. They serve as a platform that allows users to share and comment on the news. Some of this content is produced by digital-only news organizations, mainstream media, social movement organizations, ordinary users and other “ amateurs,” as w ell as po werful political gr oups, govern- ments, candidates, nonprofits, corporations, and professional media organizations. News aggr egators cover thousands of ne ws stories each day , as w ell as the latest public-opinion polls and their o wn synthesis of the headline ne ws. Mirroring the digital revolution, digital advertising has grown as a percentage of total media adver- tising across all platforms. The main benefactors of digital advertising continue to be social media and technology companies, such as Google and Facebook.33
Social media sites are particularly convenient for obtaining breaking news 24 hours a day , and formats for doing so ar e becoming mor e diverse and interac - tive. Fully 73 percent of Americans use YouTube, the most commonly used social media platform, followed by Facebook (68 percent).34 Rather than merely providing a forum to connect with friends and family , social media ar e spaces for learning about politics and no w a primar y source for ne ws—a dramatic change fr om just a few years ago. A majority of American adults—67 per cent—gets news on social media. The trend in using social media for political information continues to gr ow at a rapid rate across all demographic groups.
penny press cheap, tabloid- style newspaper produced in the nineteenth century, when mass production of inexpensive newspapers first became possible due to the steam-powered printing press; a penny press newspaper cost one cent compared with other papers, which cost more than five cents
news aggregator an application or feed that collects web content such as news headlines, blogs, podcasts, online videos, and more in one location for easy viewing
267THe MeD IA TODAy
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 267 27/11/18 12:26 PM
The rise of digital media has changed the way that people get information and share it, affecting everything from political activism, campaign adv ertising, and v oter mobilization to public opinion. Online media are more diverse and have created a more participa- tory press, one in which citiz ens and nonprofit organizations now play a prominent role, and journalists regularly interact with readers via social media, especially Twitter. Readers can now post comments online, upload videos, and par ticipate in a community , providing feedback on almost all online news articles. Digital media, by repre- senting a wider range of political views than traditional media, have created more information and a more vibrant media environment.
The term digital citiz enship r efers to the ability to par ticipate in cultur e and politics online. Today’s internet has the potential to benefit society as a whole by facilitating political par ticipation and social inclusion through greater access to political information and news.35 The internet helps provide the information and skills
needed for democratic engagement and economic oppor tunity. However, r egular and effective use of the internet r equires high-speed access and digital literacy to evaluate and use information online. 36 Individuals without the access or skills to use the internet may be incr easingly uninformed and ex cluded from the world of politics online. I n 2018, 73 per cent of Americans w ere digital citizens, individuals with home high-speed access and the technology and literacy skills to use it.37 Access to the internet is shaped by income and education. While only half of the working poor (those earning less than $20,000 a y ear) had home broadband, 85 percent of those earning mor e than $100,000 a y ear did. S ixty-three percent of high school graduates have home broadband compared with almost 90 percent of college grad- uates.38 These data suggest that there are significant inequalities in access to digital media, what is called the digital divide.39 Because digital media ar e essential to par- ticipation in society , some argue that go vernment has a r esponsibility to pr ovide affordable and universal access, as is provided by most other democratic countries.
Today, mobile internet on smar tphones is incr easingly important for ne ws and participation in society, especially for the y oung, racial and ethnic minorities, and foreign-born populations. S imilar inequalities based on demographic factors, such as income and education, ar e also found for mobile internet access. While many people see smar tphone access as the bridge o ver the digital divide, others consider it an inferior form of access because many human capital–intensiv e activities— applying for a job , research for school, or wor k—require a computer and a br oad- band internet connection.40 So while young people may think of smartphone access as a panacea, and the per centage of those r eading the ne ws on mobile phones has soared, it is definitely far from a perfect replacement for a computer and broadband.
Social Media and Filtering Social media, such as F acebook and Twitter, tend to be a secondar y source for ne ws after television for many Americans but ar e a pri - mary source for the y oung. While television r emains the main sour ce of ne ws for one in two Americans, y oung people ages 18–33 incr easingly learn about politics and news online and ar e significantly less likely than older Americans to turn to local TV. S eventy-eight per cent of people under age 50 get their ne ws fr om social media.41
The high rate of exposure to political news via social media is notable since young Americans overall are less engaged in politics—just 46 percent of people age 18–29
digital citizen a daily internet user with broadband (high-speed) home internet access and the technology and literacy skills to go online for employment, news, politics, entertainment, commerce, and other activities
digital divide the gap in access to the internet among demographic groups based on education, income, age, geographic location, and race/ethnicity
social media web- and mobile- based technologies that are used to turn communication into interactive dialogue among organizations, communities, and individuals; social media technologies take on many different forms including text, blogs, podcasts, photographs, streaming video, Facebook, and Twitter
The rise of digital media has made it easier for Americans to get political news, but one in five Americans still lacks home internet access. People without high-speed internet access at home often get free access in public libraries, but access is restricted to certain times.
268 CHAPTER 7 THe MeD IA
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 268 27/11/18 12:26 PM
voted in the 2016 election compar ed to 59 per cent for the 30–44 age gr oup.42 As the web becomes an increasingly important source for political news, young people may become more engaged in politics.43
Because they are more personalized and interactive than anonymous news orga- nizations, social media allo w Americans to learn about politics and political ne ws from each other. Growing use of social media for ne ws is evident acr oss all demo- graphic groups, including older people, women and men, and gr oups defined by race, education, and income. F igure 7.4 sho ws the per centage of adults who use each social networ king site as w ell as the per centage who get ne ws from that site. Worldwide, Facebook had over 2.2 billion users in 2018, with 214 million users in the United States. Two-thirds of Americans use social media.44 As of 2018, roughly 68 percent use Facebook and 24 percent use Twitter, both of which have high rates of exposure to political news.45 With President Trump tweeting multiple times per day, as well as the use of Twitter and Facebook by congressional leaders and other politicians, social media sites have become a news source in their own right, as well as forums to share news published in the mainstream media.
Facebook provides a more interactive forum for learning about politics than does Twitter, with users more likely to post and respond to news about government and politics, while Twitter’s strength is in providing news coverage as it happens, focus- ing on live events. More than two-thirds of users of both sites say they hav e posted about news at least at some point. Compar ed to passiv ely watching television or reading the news, this is a high rate of engagement with political news.46
Before social media, most people read a daily newspaper or tuned into a television program to keep up with the daily news. Social media, now a key way to dissemi nate the news, have changed ho w people access ne ws and hav e also incr eased filtering of the news. Both Facebook and Twitter have contributed to political mobiliza- tion and information sharing b y creating vir tual social networ ks where groups of like-minded individuals can quickly and easily shar e information. While many news stories posted on social media ar e still pr oduced by major ne wspapers and digital media organizations, they are consumed differently. Political scientists Jason Gainous and Kevin Wagner use the metaphor of social media as the ne w dinner table, in that discussions of politics and curr ent events occur within digital social networks of friends and family. Their research shows people prefer news that is con- sistent with their pre-existing beliefs; social networks tend to be more homogeneous
As the Hispanic population contin- ues to grow, Latino-oriented news outlets are increasingly influential. Jorge Ramos is a popular news anchor on the Spanish-language network Univision, which in recent years has beat out major networks ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC for the number 1 primetime spot.
269THe MeD IA TODAy
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 269 27/11/18 12:26 PM
with people holding similar perspectiv es. This has contributed to growing par ty polarization in politics.47
Social media also pr ovide a platform for citiz ens to be dir ectly engaged with political candidates and elected officials, who have been quick to adopt Facebook and Twitter as means of communicating with their suppor ters and filtering the daily news for them. Gainous and Wagner, in their book Tweeting to Power, argue that social media is ho w citiz ens learn about politics: “S ocial media alters the political calculus in the United States by filtering who controls information, who consumes information, and how that information is distributed.”48 Because the networks operate outside of traditional media, and users pick their o wn friend networks and can av oid disagreeable ideas and information, par ties, groups, and political candidates ar e able to dir ectly dictate the content of these information networks. This study found individuals who are mor e activ e politically online and read the news using social media hold stronger partisan opinions. This means using social media for r eading the news can exaggerate par ty polarization among the mass public.
Obama was the first American president to use social media extensiv ely in his campaign and during his administration. Political candidates and organizations rep- resenting the ideological right, such as the Tea Party, and the left, such as MoveOn. org, have taken advantage of this po wer to filter the news for their audiences. B ut Donald Trump is the nation’s first “Twitter President,” directly communicating his opinions on issues and other politicians directly to the people, unmediated by the media or ev en his White House pr ess staff. With mor e than 50 million Twitter followers, Trump has an enormous audience. H is unconventional political strategy involves using social media and rallies to communicate dir ectly with the American people and set the media agenda, while attacking the cr edibility of other sour ces that provide information countering his statements. On any given day, the president
FIGURE 7.4
Social Media and the News Many Americans who use social media use those sites as a way to obtain political news. This graph shows the percentage of American adults who use each social media site compared with the percentage who report getting news from that site. What are the advantages of getting news on social media, and what are some potential drawbacks?
SOURCE: Jeffrey Gottfried and Elisa Shearer, “News Use across Social Media Platforms 2017,” Pew Research Center, September 7, 2017, www.journalism.org (accessed 5/23/18).
Facebook YouTube Twitter LinkedIn redditInstagram
58%
18% 15%
11%
26%
7%
21%
5% 6% 4%
66%
45%
PERCENTAGE OF ADULTS WHO . . .
Use the social networking site Get news from the site
270 CHAPTER 7 THe MeD IA
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 270 27/11/18 12:26 PM
tweets multiple times, often calling out his opponents in his famous celebrity take- down mode he perfected from his experience as a reality TV host. Among his core supporters, the truth is what Trump says it is on Twitter or in emotional speeches before rally crowds. However, fact-checking websites such as PolitiFact have found 70 percent of Trump’s statements are false or misleading and another 15 percent are only half true.49
While Trump effectively used Twitter to his adv antage to filter the news for his supporters during the election and then set the media’s agenda, his strategy of going public all the time may backfire. While most Americans believe Twitter does allow Trump to communicate dir ectly to the people, fe w Americans think this is a good idea. A 2017 Gallup survey found a majority (52 percent) say his tweets are not an effective way for him to share his views on important issues, and 72 percent say the tweets do not send the right message to other world leaders. Seven in 10 Americans believe Trump’s tweets are often in r esponse to TV news the pr esident has hear d, and 71 percent say Twitter is a “risky way for a president to communicate,” leading to misunderstandings.50
Social media used for ne ws make citiz ens mor e informed and engaged in politics, and mor e likely to par ticipate. On the do wn side, citiz ens may be mor e vulnerable to misinformation from political actors and candidates, especially if the candidate or organization is their only source of news. Are social media empowering or disempowering? The answer may lie somewhere in between.
CITIZEN JOURNALISM
Digital news is creating a new generation of whistle-blowers, enhancing the media’s traditional r ole as a watchdog for the people against go vernment corr uption. A distinguishing feature of this phenomenon is the dev elopment of citizen journalism, which is interactiv e and par ticipatory. Citizen journalism includes ne ws reporting and political commentar y by ordinary citizens and ev en crisis co verage from eye- witnesses on the scene, thus inv olving a wider range of v oices in gathering ne ws and interpreting political events. The near-universal availability of cameras on cell phones gives millions of Americans the capacity to photograph or record events, thus providing eye-witness accounts. At the same time, social media permit users to upload videos that can be viewed by hundreds of thousands of subscribers or relayed by the mainstream media for even wider dissemination.
In 2017 a global firestorm erupted over United Airlines’ treatment of a passenger, an older Asian man, who was violently dragged off a boarded plane for refusing to voluntarily give up his seat. The video footage of the bloodied passenger was filmed by other passengers using smartphones and uploaded to social media. The video was viewed by millions of people globally , creating an outcr y against mistr eatment of airline passengers. In response the CEO of United Airlines apologized for the mis- treatment of the passenger and the airline changed its policies; this event also led to a congressional investigation of regulations on U.S. airlines.51 The United example illustrates how the mechanism of social media and grassroots politics can fuel policy change as well as candidate campaigns.
Citizen journalism is enhanced by the ease of star ting a blog. There are mil- lions of blogs, covering virtually every topic imaginable, and a large share of these include political ne ws and commentar y on local, national, and world ev ents. Many blogs are citizen-run and more and more representative of the diversity of
citizen journalism news reported and distributed by citizens, rather than professional journalists and for-profit news organizations
271THe MeD IA TODAy
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 271 27/11/18 12:26 PM
American views than traditional ne ws, which generally r eflects the priorities of political elites.
Citizen journalism supplements the wor k of pr ofessional journalists in many important ways. The diversity of online media has created new opinion leaders and new voices and has even, at times, improved information. In recent years, for exam- ple, bloggers hav e uncovered major factual err ors in media r eports and for ced the networks and ne wspapers to issue corr ections. Furthermore, because bloggers and social media posts do not hav e strict editorial boar ds, they can post a stor y within minutes. This ability to scoop the mainstream media means bloggers can frame sto- ries about political candidates before those stories break in the mainstream media.52 By sharply lo wering the technological and financial barriers that previously pr e- vented all but a fe w individuals fr om reaching mass audiences, blogs incr ease the ability of ordinary people to engage in effective political action.
The freewheeling nature of blogging and social media often means that ther e is less traditional quality control employed by professional journalists and institutional old media. B ecause they do not face the bur den of fact-checking r equired for the mainstream media or some digital-only ne ws outlets, ev en well-meaning bloggers can post false information. This is one reason why misinformation about some poli- tical issues is higher among blog r eaders than those r eading online ne ws from the mainstream press.53
NONPROFIT JOURNALISM
As traditional news organizations have cut budgets and inv estigative journalism, political information is incr easingly emanating fr om univ ersities, think tanks, nonprofits, and private foundations. Think tanks such as the Brookings Institu- tion, the Cato Institute, and the Pew Research Center provide news and analysis on current events to influence public debate. While some are ideologically driven, these institutions often provide critical analysis of policy issues. Universities have expanded their public outr each, encouraging faculty to explain their findings for a general audience. Community-based nonpr ofit newspapers ar e suppor ted by local foundations seeking to fill the void in local news as local papers close
As we have seen with recent dra- matic events like the Charlottesville white nationalist rally (left) and Black Lives Matter protests (right), social media and citizen journalism are transforming the news. Groups can mobilize and push out their messages quickly using social media, and citizen journalists can use mobile technology to capture and disseminate news without the filter of mainstream media outlets.
272 CHAPTER 7 THe MeD IA
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 272 27/11/18 12:26 PM
their doors. F or example, the B ill and M elinda G ates Foundation, established by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, provides extensive funding to National Public Radio. Nonprofits can provide rigorous original reporting and critical analysis of current events.
BENEFITS OF ONLINE NEWS
As digital news media has become mainstr eam, it is wor thwhile to reexamine why Americans appear to prefer online news. The reasons include (1) the convenience of getting news online, (2) the up-to-the-minute currency of the information available online, (3) the depth of the information av ailable online, (4) the div ersity of view- points, and (5) the lo w cost.54 At the same time, changes to the media hav e raised some concerns, as we will see in the following sections.
Convenience Information online is convenient and always available for those with access to the internet on a computer or through mobile devices. Pew surveys show that nearly half of those who use online ne ws and political information cite its convenience.55 Because political kno wledge is central to the formation of political attitudes, the convenience of online news may lead to a more informed and engaged citizenry. Use of digital media is associated with mor e interest in politics, gr eater knowledge of politics, and a greater likelihood of discussing politics with friends and family, as well as voting.56
Currency One of the fundamental changes usher ed in by an era of online ne ws is the speed with which local, national, and international events are covered, as well as the scope of coverage. Major news stories regularly break first online. Social media have accelerated even further the speed with which ne ws travels around the globe. For example, ne ws of P resident Trump firing FBI director James Comey in 2016 spread rapidly through messaging and social media ev en before it could be verified by traditional media.
Depth Online news pr ovides more information than the 60-second sound bites found in television and radio ne ws. By blending more detailed treatment of topics with the visual and emotive appeal of streaming videos, digital media shares quali- ties both of print media (promoting knowledge) and of the visual aspects of televi - sion (promoting interest and engagement). 57 The multimedia and even immersive (virtual reality) capacity of the digital media notwithstanding, most w ebsites still rely heavily upon written text, and most political “ web surfing” consists mainly of reading, which facilitates greater recall of information and, in turn, encourages the acquisition of political knowledge.58
Diversity Online sour ces ar e much mor e div erse than those found in the tradi - tional media, and this div ersity may lead to an incr ease in political knowledge and interest.59 While major players online often include mainstream outlets,60 the web remains populated by a wide range of information sources. By making foreign media such as the B ritish B roadcasting Company (BBC) and Al J azeera television eas - ily available, digital media hav e reduced the importance of physical pr oximity and created more global news. Such a vast array of voices, of course, means that online sources also can pr ovide misinformation or outright lies—just as can happen in mainstream media, campaign events, and even presidential debates.
273THe MeD IA TODAy
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 273 27/11/18 12:26 PM
CONCERNS ABOUT ONLINE NEWS
While online ne ws holds significant promise for impr oving access to the politi - cal information citiz ens need, the shift to ward online media has also giv en rise to several major concerns. These potential disadvantages include a decline in investiga- tive journalism, uneven quality in news content, fake news, and negative effects on knowledge and tolerance.
Loss of Investigative Power In a democracy, the press is expected to be a watch- dog for the people and to inform citiz ens about go vernment abuses of po wer. The greatest challenge for journalism organizations is to generate enough r evenue to finance original reporting and inv estigative journalism. 61 When r eaders paid subscription fees to read the news, circulation was high and advertising provided sufficient revenue to allo w newspapers and br oadcasters to cover both basic ne ws (weather, sports, business) and political events. Revenue from publishing basic news subsidized political analysis and inv estigative journalism. The internet has made it harder for ne ws outlets to draw adv ertising dollars, since ad firms are migrating online to deliver targeted ads directly to consumers via social media and search engines. Firms can now reach consumers without paying ne ws organizations. By breaking apart mainstream news organizations, digital news may actually reduce the media’s ability to engage in the kind of sustained, in-depth r eporting that is critical to the media’s watchdog role.
More Variation in the Quality of News As already noted, the growing diversity of digital news has led to substantial v ariation in the quality of av ailable information. Multiple perspectives create a str onger marketplace of ideas, but the fr eewheeling nature of the internet also means that hate speech, unsubstantiated r umors, and factual errors can overwhelm thoughtful, original, and civic-oriented voices. This is especially so in anonymous online forums.
Fake News Political candidates and political leaders ar e particularly susceptible to attack when negative stories go viral and spread quickly without fact-checking
Without traditional media’s commitment to fact-checking, digital media sometimes spread inaccurate information and rumors. In 2008, the false claim that Presi- dent Obama was not a natural-born citizen spread rapidly online and remained a top story even after Obama released his official long- form certificate.
274 CHAPTER 7 THe MeD IA
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 274 27/11/18 12:27 PM
FIGURE 7.5
Who Sees Fake News? Especially during and since the 2016 elections, much attention has been paid to “fake news.” How prevalent is it? Are we likely to see more of it?
SOURCE: “Many Americans Believe Fake News Is Sowing Confusion,” Pew Research Center, December 14, 2016, www.journalism.org (accessed 5/23/18).
Completely made up Not fully accurate
32%
39%
26%
51%
27%
19%
PERCENTAGE OF ADULTS WHO OFTEN/SOMETIMES/ HARDLY EVER OR NEVER COME ACROSS
POLITICAL NEWS ONLINE THAT IS . . .
Often Sometimes Hardly ever/never
or respect for the privacy of public figures. In contrast to legitimate new stories, fake news ar e false stories cir culated to generate ad r evenue or to benefit one political candidate or par ty over another. The most widely publicized fake news story in the 2016 election, for example, was that the Pope had endorsed Trump for president.62 Circulation of the top 10 fake news stories on Facebook was more widespread than the top r eal news stories about the election (for mor e on who sees false news, see Figure 7.5). A study published by Stanford University found fake news stories on social media in the 2016 presidential election disproportion- ately favored Trump. The Russian government was involved in generating many of the fake news stories to discredit Clinton and her campaign.63 To verify media reports found in both traditional and online media, there are websites such as FactCheck.org, Snopes.com, and PolitiFact.com devoted exclusively to checking the veracity of political claims.
Potential Effects on Knowledge and Tolerance Perhaps the gr eatest concern about politics in the digital age is that the very diversity of online news may actually lower tolerance for social, religious, and political diversity, leading to more partisan polarization and societal conflict. Digital media often do not abide b y traditional media’s principle of objective journalism. Instead, the specialization of information online and on cable television means that liberals and conser vatives alike can self- select media that are consistent with their underlying assumptions and avoid expo- sure to information that might challenge their pr econceived beliefs.64 The natural tendency to select ne ws that conforms with our o wn beliefs is exacerbated b y the way search engines cater to our individual pr eferences—called the “filter bubble,” or “ self-selection bias ”—which scr eens out exposur e to information that might challenge or broaden our worldview.65
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Does digital news coverage differ from traditional print and television media? What impact does digital media have on American politics?
275THe MeD IA TODAy
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 275 27/11/18 12:27 PM
In general, individuals who frequently consume political news are more likely to be interested in politics, to hav e political knowledge, and to v ote in elections. B ut exposure to highly partisan news (Fox News for conservatives, MSNBC for liberals) or news on social media and blogs may lower political knowledge.
The media in all their varying forms—traditional and digital—lead to a mor e informed public, but also to growing gaps between the informed and uninformed.66 And y et, despite the dramatic rise in political information and the div ersity of the media, average levels of political kno wledge in the population hav e remained constant for the last fe w decades, due to individuals “customizing” the political information they receive through their choice of news outlets, which, as discussed earlier, makes users less likely to encounter information that challenges their par - tisan viewpoints.67
If the ne w digital media ar e to cr eate a mor e informed democratic pr ocess, citizens must have “information literacy” or the ability to find and evaluate informa- tion.68 Greater access to information online makes education and critical thinking among citizens more important than ever before.
DO AMERICANS TRUST THE MEDIA TODAY?
One negative consequence of media concentration combined with par ty polariza- tion may be a gr owing distrust of mainstr eam media. Political scientist Jonathan Ladd argues that fifty years ago the political parties were less polarized and were less likely to attack one another in the press, and newspaper editors also had less incen- tive to attack their competitors.69 Ladd maintains that as competition increased in party politics and journalism, the public’s distrust of the mass media grew, leading the public to reject the mainstream press’s reporting and turn to alternativ e parti- san media sour ces—those expressly favored by Republicans or D emocrats. There are growing par tisan divisions in confidence in the news media. J ust 11 per cent
Though the media generally attempt to remain unbiased, a num- ber of media figures and outlets are distinctly left- or right-leaning, such as Rachel Maddow of MSNBC and Tucker Carlson of Fox News. Consumers are increasingly turning to partisan media, reflecting a ten- dency to self-select information that already conforms with their beliefs, making it more difficult to evaluate information objectively.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS To what extent, do you think, are the media biased? As more news sources have become available, has this led to more or less bias in the media?
276 CHAPTER 7 THe MeD IA
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 276 27/11/18 12:27 PM
of Republicans have a lot of trust in national news media compared to 34 percent of Democrats, according to a 2017 Pew survey.70
Distrust in the mainstream media has increased with the Trump presidency. In response to the negative media coverage of his campaign and presidency, Trump has waged an unpre- cedented war on the American media, fr equently referring to major newspapers and broadcast media as “fake news” to discredit them (though these mainstr eam sources are not producing fabricated news).
In F ebruary 2017, Trump upped the ante in a tw eet wher e he called the press “the enemy of the American people. ” Conservative Republican senator John McCain publicly criticized Trump, warning that without a fr ee and adversarial press, “That’s how dictators get started . . . by suppressing free press. In other words, a consolidation of po wer when you look at histor y, the first thing that dictators do is shut do wn the pr ess. And I’m not saying that P resident Trump is tr ying to be a dictator. I’m just saying we need to learn the lessons of history.”71
In an age of digital media, it is mor e impor tant than ev er for citiz ens to find and evaluate information (see the “ What You Can D o” section at the end of the chapter). Political fact-checking w ebsites such as P olitiFact.com, Snopes.com, and FactCheck.org have grown in importance and popularity.
Media Influence The content and character of news and public affairs programming— what the media choose to present and how they present it—can have
far-reaching political consequences. The media can shape and modify, if not fully form, the public ’s per ception of ev ents, issues, and institutions. M edia coverage can rally suppor t for, or intensify opposition to, national policies on impor tant matters such as health care, the eco nomy, or international wars. Media disclosures can greatly enhance or fatally damage the careers of public figures, as discussed ear- lier. At the same time, the media ar e influenced by the individuals or groups who are subjects of the news. The president in particular has the power to set the news agenda through speeches and actions. All politicians, for that matter, seek to shape or manipulate their media images by cultivating good relations with reporters and through news leaks and staged news events.
In recent American political histor y, the media have played a central r ole in many major events. For example, the media w ere a critically impor tant factor in the civil rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s. Television images showing peaceful civil rights marchers attacked by club-swinging police helped to generate sympathy among north- ern whites for the civil rights struggle and greatly increased the pressure on Congress to bring an end to segregation.72 To take another example, the media were also instrumen- tal in compelling the N ixon administration to negotiate an end to American inv olve- ment in the Vietnam War by portraying the war as misguided and unwinnable.73
Conservatives have long charged that the liberal biases of r eporters and jour- nalists result in distorted news coverage.74 Though some professional journalists
Analyze the ways the media can influence public opinion and politics
The internet has facilitated both diversity and specialization in the news media. Websites such as FactCheck.org exist solely for the purpose of evaluating statements made by U.S. politicians. The site corrects misinformation every day, such as the false story that CNN was shutting down because of poor ratings.
277MeDIA INFlUeNCe
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 277 27/11/18 12:27 PM
do lean D emocratic, they generally defend their pr ofessionalism, insisting that their personal political leanings do not affect the way they perform their jobs.75 Today journalists r epresent liberals, conser vatives, and moderates. Those who decry “the liberal media” seldom ackno wledge the par tisan or ideological lean - ings of media owners. Rupert Murdoch, for example, the chief ex ecutive officer of News Corporation and 21st Centur y Fox, is a politically activ e conservative. Sheldon Adelson is another wealthy media mogul with a clear conser vative par- tisan and ideological agenda.
Many news sources are perceived as distinctly left- or right-leaning, and, as dis - cussed earlier, people have a tendency to select ne ws that conforms with their o wn ideology. Table 7.1 sho ws wher e different ideological gr oups get political ne ws. With the exception of Fox News and, perhaps, MSNBC, there is not much credible empirical evidence for the idea that any par ticular mainstream news source is, as a whole, explicitly ideologically biased in one direction or another, at least in terms of the news coverage. Most have been found to be centrist. 76 Of course, many people perceive particular news stories to be biased. This perception may be what driv es ideological self-selection of news sources.
HOW THE MEDIA INFLUENCE POLITICS
Traditional and digital media influence American politics in a number of impor- tant ways.77 The power of all media collectively, both traditional and online, lies in their ability to shape what issues Americans think about (agenda setting) and what opinions Americans hold about those issues (framing and priming).
Percentage of each ideological group who report getting news about politics in the previous week from each source
SOURCE CONSISTENTLY
LIBERAL MOSTLY LIBERAL MIXED MOSTLY
CONSERVATIVE CONSISTENTLY CONSERVATIVE
CNN 52 48 49 32 20
Fox News 10 24 39 61 84
ABC News 33 38 42 32 26
NBC News 37 44 40 29 21
CBS News 30 32 32 24 22
MSNBC 38 32 25 23 13
NPr 53 23 12 10 8
SOURCE: Pew Research Center, “Where News Audiences Fit on the Political Spectrum,” www.journalism.org/interactives/media-polarization/table/consume/ (accessed 3/7/16).
TABLE 7.1
Media and Viewers’ Ideology
278 CHAPTER 7 THe MeD IA
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 278 27/11/18 12:27 PM
Percentage of each voter group who got news about politics and government in the previous week from …
In a democracy like the United States, people need information to understand current issues and the government’s actions. But not all Americans get their news from the same place. Outlets for news vary by medium (print, TV, radio, and internet), as well as source (e.g., Fox News).
SOURCE: Jeffrey Gottfried, Michael Barthel, and Amy Mitchell, “Trump, Clinton Voters Divided in Their Main Source for Election News,” January 18, 2017, www.journalism.com (accessed 3/9/18).
Where Do Americans Get Their News?
All voters
Trump voters
Clinton voters
Fox News
CNN
Local TV
Broadcast news (ABC/CBS/NBC)
MSNBC
NPR
New York Times
19%
3%
40%
13%
18%
8%
5%
9%
3%
4%
7%
0%
3%
5%
0%
14%
15%
12%
7%
8%
5%
8%
8%
7%
1. Are there differences between how younger adults and older adults get their news? Which age group is more likely to get news from television versus the internet?
2. What might be some consequences of such differences?
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS
WHO ARE AMERICANS?
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 279 27/11/18 12:27 PM
Agenda Setting and Selection Bias The first source of media po wer is agenda setting; that is, the media help to set the agenda for political discussion. Agenda setting involves identifying the issues that politicians will pay attention to: some things are deemed important while others ar e not. Groups and forces that wish to bring their ideas before the public in order to generate support for policy proposals or political candidacies must secure media coverage. If the media are persuaded that an idea is newsworthy, then they may declare it an “issue” that must be confronted or a “problem” to be solved, thus clearing the first hurdle in the policy-making pro- cess. If, on the other hand, an idea lacks or loses media appeal, its chance of resulting in new programs or policies is diminished.
In the lead-up to the 2016 election, for example, the mainstream media and Donald Trump focused extensively on Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State, and the risk of jeopar dizing government secrets. Clinton’s email use dominated the media agenda, especially in the 10 days befor e the election when FBI director James Comey reopened the investigation into her email server.
Some stories have such overwhelming significance—such as wars, natural disas- ters, and domestic and international acts of terrorism—that in these cases the main concern of political leaders is not whether a story will receive attention but whether political leaders themselves will figure prominently and positively in media accounts. At the same time, many important issues are not on the media’s agenda, such as alter- native energy sources to fossil fuels like solar and wind power. Likewise, these issues are often absent from major policy discussions.
Media attention plays a central role in whether or not officials act on a policy issue, but how policy issues make the news in the first place has remained a puzzle. Political scientist Amber Boydstun has shown that the media have two modes: an “alarm mode” for breaking stories and a “patrol mode” for covering them in gr eater depth.78 The incentive to reach a wider audience (and generate ad revenue) often initiates “alarm mode” around a stor y, after which ne ws outlets go into watchdog “ patrol mode” to monitor policy implications until the next big media storm hits. This pattern results in skewed coverage of political issues, with a few issues receiving the majority of media
agenda setting the power of the media to bring public attention to particular issues and problems
Through agenda setting, the media have the power to influence which issues the public pays attention to. After FBI director James Comey released a letter indicating the reopening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server days before the 2016 election, the media’s intense cover- age of the investigation caused the Clinton campaign to respond to the letter publicly.
280 CHAPTER 7 THe MeD IA
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 280 27/11/18 12:27 PM
attention while others receive none at all. Today, Twitter often sets off “alarm mode” by breaking news and causing it to go viral, setting the agenda for mainstream news.
Political candidates need the media’s agenda-setting role to win elections. Candidates who receive positive news coverage gain momentum, pick up political endorsements, attract campaign contributions, and win support from voters.79 In the 2008 Democratic primaries for president, Barack Obama exceeded the media’s expectations with his early win in the Iowa caucuses. Obama’s unexpected victory earned him increased press atten- tion and eventually led the first African American president to the White House.80 In 2016, Donald Trump exceeded media expectations b y coming in second in I owa and winning New Hampshire. But candidates who dis appoint media expectations, such as 2016 Republican candidate Jeb Bush, see their political endorsements, campaign con - tributions, and polling numbers dwindle. The influence of the media on political can- didates is just one example of the media’s vitally important role in American democracy.
Because the media are businesses and seek to attract the largest possible audiences, they naturally tend to co ver stories with dramatic or enter tainment value, giving less attention to impor tant stories that they deem less compelling. N ews cove rage often focuses on crimes and scandals, especially those inv olving pr ominent individuals. Selection bias means that the news media may provide less information about important political issues that the public depends upon. F or example, there was a media fr enzy in January 1998 when reports surfaced that Democratic president Clinton might have had an affair with a White House intern. I n 2016, D onald Trump’s sensationalist statements during the course of his campaign dominated headline ne ws for months. Partisanship and ideology notwithstanding, the age-old journalistic instinct for sensa- tional stories often trumps both the media’s responsibility to inform the public about what really matters and the public’s responsibility to demand that from the media.
What the mainstr eam media decide to r eport on and what they ignor e has important implications. For example, the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, extended under Obama in 2010, had widespr ead effects, dramatically increasing the federal budget deficit and widening the income gap between the super-rich and most other Americans. But the media provided little coverage of these measures, the result being
selection bias (news) the tendency to focus news coverage on only one aspect of an event or issue, avoiding coverage of other aspects
During the 1960s, civil rights protesters learned a variety of techniques designed to elicit sympathetic media coverage. Tele- vision images of police brutality in Alabama led directly to the enact- ment of the 1965 Civil Rights Act.
281MeDIA INFlUeNCe
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 281 27/11/18 12:27 PM
that 40 percent of Americans had no opinion on whether they fav ored the massive tax cuts in 2001.81 In contrast, the media paid more attention to the Trump admini- stration’s 2017 tax reform plan, and most Americans had definitive opinions about it. While the bill only had a 36 percent approval rating according to a Pew Research survey, it was adopted by Congress anyway.82
Access to the print and br oadcast media is such an impor tant political resource that political forces that have less media access, such as Black Lives Matter, have only a very limited opportunity to influence the political process. The skewed coverage of traditional media, however, may be partially balanced out by the diversity of media sources online, especially the growing influence of social media.
Framing The language and context in which the media present the ne ws, known as framing, can determine ho w the American people interpr et political ev ents. R obert Entman defines framing as the social constr uction of phenomena b y the mass media, political or social movements, political leaders, or other political actors and organizations. Frames shape how individuals perceive meaning from words or phrases, photographs, or video.83 Knowing this, politicians take care to choose language that presents their ideas in the most favorable light possible. For example, during the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump framed Hillary Clinton as a criminal for her use of a private email server.
Because few citizens read legislation, when forming opinions about policy and politics, the public r elies on media co verage. This means that arguments made by elected officials and other political actors—or frames—are critical in how the public interprets events and policy.
For example, Obama’s health care initiative was framed differently by Democrats and Republicans. The Obama administration labeled the initiative the Patient Pro- tection and Affordable Care Act, thus framing the proposal as a matter of compas - sionate r esponsibility and good economic sense. Early pr ess coverage framed the bill as “health car e reform.” Sensing that Americans generally appr ove of the idea of “reform,” Republican opponents of the legislation chose different language: the law’s provisions for limiting ex cessive medical testing w ere labeled as “health car e rationing,” for example, and proposals to create committees to advise patients about end-of-life care were called “death panels.”
Priming A thir d important way the media can shape political ev ents is kno wn as priming. Priming involves “calling attention to some matters while ignoring others ” when evaluating political officials.84 As a r esult, the public will be primed to use certain criteria when ev aluating a politician or an issue and ignor e other criteria. In the lead-up to the 2008 presidential election, for example, the serious economic recession took the media spotlight. As a r esult the economy—far mor e than other issues—became one of the most impor tant lenses through which the public ev alu- ated the 2008 presidential candidates.
In the case of political candidates, the media ’s focus on which candidate “has momentum” and “is winning the horse race ” can prime the public to ev aluate the candidates based on their likelihood to win the election rather than on their positions on policy issues. F or example, when the media declar ed that D onald Trump had momentum after his unexpected victories and polling numbers exceeded expectations early in the primary season, he went on to win the Republi- can nomination. News media are not alone in agenda setting, framing, and priming; elected officials, interest groups, and other political players compete over all three in hopes of influencing public opinion.
framing the power of the media to influence how events and issues are interpreted
priming process of preparing the public to bring specific criteria to mind when evaluating a politician or issue
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS How do the media distort political reality? How do politicians use the media for their own purposes? What are the consequences for American democracy when the electorate is informed through such a filter? How might the quality of political information in America be improved?
282 CHAPTER 7 THe MeD IA
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 282 27/11/18 12:27 PM
News Coverage News co verage, or the content of the ne ws, comes fr om numer ous sources. G overnments, politicians, corporations, interest groups, non-
profit organizations, and others issue press r eleases to draw attention to an issue and tell their side of the stor y. The news media continues to be dominated b y official government sources. Journalists also gain information thr ough investigative journalism and media leaks.
MEDIA LEAKS
The media may report information that is leaked by government officials. A leak is the disclosure of confidential information to the news media. Leaks may emanate from a v ariety of sour ces, including “whistle-blowers,” lower-level officials who hope to publicize what they view as their bosses’ or the government’s improper activities. In 1971, for example, Daniel Ellsberg, a minor Defense Department staffer, sought to discr edit official justifications for America’s militar y inv olvement in Vietnam by leaking top-secr et documents to the pr ess. The Pentagon Papers—the Defense Department’s own secret history of the war—were published by the New York Times and the Washington Post after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government could not block their release.85 The Pentagon’s credibility was severely damaged, has- tening the erosion of public support for the war. Most leaks, though, originate not with low-level whistle-blowers but rather with senior go vernment officials, prom- inent politicians, and political acti vists. Journalists ar e likely to r egard high-lev el sources of confidential information as valuable assets whose favor must be retained.
Digital technology has taken the cat-and-mouse game of leaks t o a new level. WikiLeaks, an international organization dedi cated to publishing classified infor- mation, posts leaked government documents to its website and uses an anony- mous system so that leakers cannot be identified. In recent years, WikiLeaks has released thousands of secr et government documents inv olving instances of go v- ernment corruption, war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, torture at U.S. military detention camps, and stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee in the 2016 election.
In 2013, Edward Snowden, a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA), disclosed thousands of classified digital documents to journalists and international media. The leaks revealed widespr ead global sur veillance programs by the U.S. go vernment work- ing with telecommunication companies. The world learned the NSA was searching millions of emails and tapping cell phones, ev en of for eign political leaders. F or revealing the mass surveillance programs, Snowden has been called a hero, a whistle- blower, a dissident, and a traitor. The leaks garnered intense media attention and sparked heated public debate o ver government sur veillance and priv acy of infor - mation for individuals. Critics of WikiLeaks and Snowden argue that governments must have some secr ets and that the r elease of some go vernment documents may jeopardize national security as well as American soldiers and their local allies by revealing their identities. Media leaks play a pivotal role in informing the public of government wrongdoings in terms of for eign policy and infringement of priv acy and security in a digital age.
Explain how politicians and others try to shape the news
The United States charged Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, for breaching national security by publishing classified documents. Since 2012, Assange has been living in exile.
283NeWS COVerAGe
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 283 27/11/18 12:27 PM
ADVERSARIAL JOURNALISM
The political power of the ne ws media vis-à-vis the go vern- ment has greatly increased in recent years through the grow- ing prominence of adversarial journalism, a form of reporting in which the media adopt a skeptical or even hostile posture toward the government and public officials.
Presidents were the first national officials to make use of the oppor tunities presented by this dev elopment. By com- municating dir ectly to the electorate thr ough ne wspapers and magazines, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson established political constituencies for themselves, independ- ent of par ty organizations, and ther eby str engthened their own power relative to that of Congress. President Franklin
Delano Roosevelt used the radio, most notably in his famous fireside chats, to reach out to voters throughout the nation and to make himself the center of American political life. S ubsequent presidents all sought to use the media to enhance their popularity and power, and the media became a cornerstone of presidential power.
The Vietnam War shattered this amicable r elationship between the pr ess and the presidency. During the early stages of U.S. involvement, American officials in Vietnam who disappr oved of the way the war was being conducted leaked to reporters information critical of administrative policy. Publication of this material infuriated the White House, which pressured publishers to block its r elease, but the national broadcast media and especially the two leading national newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times, refused to do so . As the Vietnam War dragged on, adv erse media co verage fanned antiwar sentiment. I n turn, these shifts in popular and congr essional sentiment emboldened journalists and publishers to continue to present news reports critical of the war. The media were also central actors in the Watergate affair, the cluster of scandals that ultimately forced President Nixon to r esign from office in disgrace just two years later. A relentless series of inv estigations launched b y the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the television networ ks led to disclosur es of the v arious crimes of which Nixon was guilty, leading to thr eats of impeachment and his subsequent resignation. Gradually, a generation of journalists dev eloped a commitment to adversarial journalism.
Adversarial journalism intensified during Trump’s first year in office as the president became embroiled by a federal investigation into possible collusion between his cam- paign for president and Russia. The national news media, led by the New York Times and Washington Post, reported almost daily on br eaking news revealing how Russia used a sophisticated cyber campaign to interfere in the 2016 election. The media’s reporting has revealed that Russian president Vladimir Putin tried to discredit Hillary Clinton and tip the outcome of the 2016 election in fav or of D onald Trump. The media first reported that Russian operatives hacked the accounts of the D emocratic Party and publically r eleased 30,000 embarrassing emails r elated to Clinton ’s presi- dential campaign. They have also reported frequently on the federal inv estigation by Robert Mueller and his team r egarding whether anyone close to Trump participated in the Russian interference in the election. Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, surrendered to the FBI and pleaded guilty to charges that he launder ed millions of dollars thr ough overseas shell companies after r eaching a deal with the Justice Department. Rick Gates, Manafort’s longtime associate as well as a campaign adviser, also pleaded guilty to federal crimes.
The famous photograph of the after- math of a napalm attack was one of many media images that shaped the American public’s views on the Vietnam War. Media accounts criti- cal of the war helped to turn public opinion against it and hastened the withdrawal of American troops.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and many other presidents have criticized the media. Why are many politicians hostile to media? Do you share their views?
284 CHAPTER 7 THe MeD IA
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 284 27/11/18 12:27 PM
Without the rigorous investigative and adversarial journalism of the news media on behalf of political leaders, the people would not hav e the means (and infor - mation) necessary to hold their elected r epresentatives accountable to the people. Throughout this chapter we have discussed the watchdog role of the media. Adver- sarial journalism, where the news media seeks to expose political corruption through reporting that is skeptical of go vernment and public officials, is a critical part of what makes democratic governments work.
Aggressive use of the techniques of inv estigation, publicity, and exposur e has allowed the national media to enhance their autonomy and car ve out a prominent place for themselv es in American go vernment and politics. Without aggr essive media coverage, important questions about the conduct of American foreign and domestic policy, police violence, drone attacks, election interference by foreign gov- ernments, political corr uption, and civil liber ty violations may not ev er be raised. It is easy to criticize the media for their aggressive tactics, but our democracy may not function effectively without the critical role of the press. Independent media are needed as the watchdogs of American politics.
Regulation of the Media In many countries, such as China, the government ex ercises strict contr ol over traditional media content. In others, the go vernment o wns the
broad cast media (for example, the BBC in B ritain) but does not tell the media what to say.
In the United States, the print and online media are essentially free from govern- ment interference. The broadcast media, on the other hand, ar e subject to federal regulation. American radio and television ar e r egulated b y the F ederal Commu - nications Commission (FCC), an independent agency established in 1934. Radio and TV stations must have FCC licenses, which must be r enewed every five years. Through regulations prohibiting obscenity, indecency, and profanity, the FCC has sought to prohibit radio and television stations from airing explicit sexual and excre- tory references between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., the hours when the audience is most likely to include childr en. Generally speaking, FCC r egulation applies only to the over-the-air broadcast media. It does not apply to cable television, the internet, or satellite radio.
In 1996, Congr ess passed the Telecommunications Act, a br oad effort to end most r egulations. The legislation loosened restrictions on media o wnership and allowed telephone companies, cable television providers, and broadcasters to com- pete with one another to provide telecommunication services. Following the passage of this act, mergers between telephone and cable companies and different entertain- ment media pr oduced a gr eater concentration of media o wnership than had been possible since regulation of the industry began in 1934.
Though the act loosened many regulations, it did include an attempt to regulate the content of material transmitted over the internet. This law, known as the Com- munications Decency Act, made it illegal to make “indecent” sexual material on the internet accessible to those under age 18. The act was immediately denounced by civil libertarians, and in 1997 the S upreme Court ruled that the Communications Decency Act was an unconstitutional infringement of the right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment (see Chapter 4).
Trace the evolution of rules that govern broadcast media
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS In wartime, can media criticism of government action aid the nation’s enemies? Should there be limits on media criticism of the government during times of war? Or does criticism actually enhance the nation’s strength?
285reGUlAT ION OF THe MeD IA
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 285 27/11/18 12:27 PM
Although the government’s ability to regulate the content of the internet is limi- ted, the FCC has used its licensing power to impose several regulations that can affect the political content of radio and TV broadcasts. The first of these is the equal time rule, under which broadcasters must provide to candidates for the same political office equal opportunities to communicate their messages to the public. U nder the terms of the Telecommunications Act, during the 45 days before an election, broad- casters are required to make time av ailable to candidates at the lo west rate charged for that time slot.
The second regulation affecting the content of broadcasts is the right of rebuttal, which r equires that individuals be giv en the oppor tunity to r espond to personal attacks. For many years, a third important federal regulation was the fairness doctrine. Under this rule, broadcasters that aired programs on controversial issues were required to provide time for opposing vie ws. In addition, the fairness doctrine included a requirement that TV and radio stations cover controversial issues of public and social importance in their communities. I n 1985, ho wever, the FCC stopped enfor cing the fairness doctrine on the gr ounds that ther e were so many radio and television stations—to say nothing of ne wspapers and ne wsmagazines—that in all likelihood many different viewpoints were already being presented without each station being required to tr y to pr esent all sides of ev ery argument. I n 1987 the FCC officially revoked the fairness doctrine. Critics of this FCC decision charge that in many media markets the number of competing viewpoints is actually quite small.
The rise of online media challenges our thinking about regulation of the media as it is more difficult—some say impossible—to regulate political content online. In 2011 the United Nations declared that access to the internet is a human right. 86 While this declaration came in response to threats by authoritarian governments against internet access, it demonstrates the significance of information technology in modern life.87
equal time rule the requirement that broadcasters provide candidates for the same political office equal opportunities to communicate their messages to the public
right of rebuttal a Federal Communications Commission regulation giving individuals the right to have the opportunity to respond to personal attacks made on a radio or television broadcast
The debate over net neutrality highlights fundamental questions about democracy. If the media are intended to be a marketplace of ideas, what should the government do to regulate that marketplace? Should any single entity be allowed to exert more influence or control, or should everyone be allowed to participate equally?
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 286 27/11/18 12:27 PM
The Internet and Global Democracy The internet and social media play an increasing role in elections, as demonstrated in this chapter. Critics of this trend have raised concerns that a lack of “quality control” allows the spreading of fake news by unscrupulous groups.a A number of foreign and domestic actors have used the open nature of this media to manipulate campaign rhetoric for political gain. The British government opened investigations into the spread of false news during the “Brexit” vote on leaving the european Union,b and russia used internal techniques to manipulate elections in the United States and europe.c
Supporters, however, point out that the internet and social media have allowed voters to connect better with their political
systems. Nonprofit groups like GotToVote.cc run social media campaigns to help African citizens register to vote and identify their polling stations. In Kenya, biometric voter registration has made it more difficult for people to cast multiple ballots, and real-time texting has improved oversight on election counts, helping to combat voter fraud.d
While internet and social media are certainly transforming politics, it is important to remember that not all global citizens are part of this trend. Internet access may be near-universal in wealthy countries, but there are still many countries where less than a third of the population ever go online. If the future of politics is online, then many poor and older people around the world may be increasingly left behind.
a Thomas B. Edsall, “Opinion: Democracy, Disrupted,” March 2, 2017, New York Times, www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/opinion/how-the-internet-threatens-democracy.html (accessed 5/21/18). b “What Are the Links between Cambridge Analytica and a Brexit Campaign Group?” Reuters, March 21, 2018, www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-cambridge-analytica -leave-eu/what-are-the-links-between-cambridge-analytica-and-a-brexit-campaign-group-idUSKBN1GX2IO (accessed 5/21/18). c Constanze Stelzenmüller, “Testimony: The Impact of Russian Interference on Germany’s 2017 Election,” June 28, 2017, www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-impact-of-russian -interference-on-germanys-2017-elections/ (accessed 5/21/18). d Loren Treisman, “How Kenyans Are Using Tech to Stop Election Fraud,” August 3, 2017, CNN, www.cnn.com/2017/07/27/africa/kenya-elections-technology/index.html (accessed 5/21/18).
SOURCE: World Bank, “Individuals Using the Internet (% of Population),” 2016, data.worldbank.org (accessed 5/21/18).
INTERNET USAGE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD
Under 33% 33–66% Over 66%
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 287 27/11/18 12:27 PM
The Media and Democracy WHAT DO WE WANT? The freedom of the press is essential to democratic government. Ordinary citizens
depend on the media to investigate wrongdoing, publicize and explain governmental poli-
cy, evaluate politicians, and bring to light matters that might otherwise be known to only a
handful of governmental insiders. In short, without free and active media, democratic gov-
ernment would be virtually impossible. Citizens would have few means through which to
know or assess the government’s actions—other than the claims or pronouncements of
the government itself. Moreover, without active (indeed, aggressive) media, citizens would
be hard-pressed to make informed choices among competing candidates at the polls—
one reason that the teenage defenders of net neutrality discussed at the beginning of
the chapter hoped to keep the internet open as a source of information on public affairs.
Today’s media are not only adversarial but also increasingly partisan. Blogs, digital-
only news websites, social media, and others can be unabashedly partisan. To some
extent, increasing ideological and partisan stridency is an inevitable result of the ex-
pansion and proliferation of news sources. When the news was dominated by three
networks and a handful of national papers, each sought to appeal to the entire national
audience. This required a moderate and balanced tone so that consumers would not be
offended and transfer their attention to a rival network or newspaper. Today, there are
so many news sources that few can aim for a broad-based national audience. Instead,
many target a partisan or ideological niche and aim to develop a strong relationship with
consumers in that audience segment by catering to their biases and predispositions.
The rise of digital media has fundamentally changed how political information is gath-
ered and distributed. News today is participatory and involves citizens as well as profes-
sional journalists. Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia founded by Jimmy Wales, has
millions of pages compiled by legions of volunteers and provides relatively unbiased con-
tent on virtually every political topic imaginable. Social media, Wikipedia, and all Wiki-type
sites involve people working collaboratively to write and create information and transmit
knowledge. Social media also enable citizens to express their political opinions. (The
“Who Participates?” feature on the facing page shows some of the ways Americans
participate in politics via social media.) Is such a system the future of the news media?
Or will the movement away from net neutrality push out smaller voices in favor of powerful
media companies?
The media can make or break reputations, help to launch or destroy political
careers, and build support for or rally opposition to programs and institutions.88
Wherever there is so much power, at least the potential exists for its abuse or overly
zealous use. All things considered, free media are so critically important to the main-
tenance of a democratic society that Americans must be prepared to take the risk
that the media will occasionally abuse their power. Governmental controls that would
prevent the media from misusing their power would also limit freedom. The ultimate
beneficiaries of free and active media are the American people.
288 CHAPTER 7 THe MeD IA
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 288 27/11/18 12:27 PM
Be an Informed Consumer of Media
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
Check media watchdog organizations such as the Columbia Journalism Review (www.cjr.org), Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (www.fair.org), and Accuracy in Media (www.aim.org) for reports of media bias and censorship.
For information on the factual accuracy of what is said by political players, go to www.factcheck.org. For investigative journalism in the public interest, go to www.propublica.org. For reporting on the accuracy of news rumors, go to www.snopes.com.
Gather information from a variety of news sources rather than relying on just one. You can set up a news aggregator with a variety of free downloadable apps, including Flipboard (www.�ipboard.com) and Feedly (www.feedly.com).
SOURCE: American National Election Study 2016 time series, www.electionstudies.org (accessed 11/4/17).
Age
18–29
30–49
50–64
65+
43%
42% 30%
18%
Education
< High school
Some college
College graduate
Postgraduate
20%
37% 25%
18%
Race / ethnicity
White
Black
Asian
Hispanic / Latino
34%
28% 25%
32%
Sex
Male Female
30% 36%
Income group
<$20K
$20K – <$40K
$40K – <$75K
$75K+
34%
32% 35%
34%
Partisanship
Democrats
Independents
Republicans
36% 33%
31%
Percentage who said “yes” to this question
In the last 12 months, did you send a message on Facebook or Twitter about political issues?
Civic Engagement in the Digital Age
WHO PARTICIPATES?
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 289 27/11/18 12:27 PM
Practice Quiz
3. Digital citizenship requires a) an online subscription to one or more online newspapers. b) high-speed internet access and the skills to use
and evaluate online information. c) a social media account. d) maintaining a political blog. e) registering one’s computer with the government.
4. News reporting devoted to a targeted portion of readers based on content or ideological presentation is called a) nonprofit journalism. b) for-profit journalism. c) niche journalism. d) citizen journalism. e) adversarial journalism.
5. Which of the following is not a reason that many Americans appear to prefer online news? a) the convenience of getting news online b) the up-to-the-minute currency of the information
available online c) the depth of the information available online d) the diversity of online viewpoints e) the accuracy and objectivity compared to traditional
media outlets
The rise of the internet over the last three decades has pro- duced a massive transformation in the U.S. news media. While newspapers, magazines, television programs, and radio broad- casts are still important sources of news, many Americans now rely on digital media to learn about politics. The convenience, currency, depth, and diversity of online news has led many Americans to prefer it to more traditional sources. Changes arising from the emergence of the internet have, however, also raised concerns that online news may produce a decline in investigative journalism, a decrease in the quality of news content, and a reduction in political knowledge and tolerance.
Key Terms broadcast media (p. 265)
penny press (p. 267)
news aggregator (p. 267)
digital citizen (p. 268)
digital divide (p. 268)
social media (p. 268)
citizen journalism (p. 271)
The Media Today
Practice Quiz
1. Public broadcasting outlets that receive government funding through license fees, subsidies, or tax dollars a) are prohibited by the Constitution from operating in
the United States. b) account for less than 5 percent of media market
share in the United States. c) account for nearly one-third of media market share
in the United States. d) account for approximately half of media market
share in the United States. e) account for more than two-thirds of media market
share in the United States.
2. More than three-fourths of the daily print newspapers in the United States are owned by a) large media conglomerates. b) the national government. c) small local companies. d) private individuals. e) the employees who run them.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to publish newspapers, magazines, and other forms of digital media without censorship by the govern- ment. The media serve three central roles in American democracy: informing the public about current political developments; providing a forum for debating political issues; and acting as a watchdog on the actions of political leaders. Unlike many other democracies, public broadcast- ing is a relatively small part of the American media land- scape and a few giant corporations control a wide swath of media holdings in the United States.
Key Terms media (p. 257)
media monopoly (p. 260)
The Media in American Democracy
Describe the key roles the media play in American political life (pp. 257–60)
Discuss how digital media have transformed how citizens learn about politics (pp. 261–77)
CHAPTER 7 STUDy GU IDe290
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 290 27/11/18 12:27 PM
Practice Quiz
6. The media’s powers to determine what becomes a part of political discussion is known as a) framing. b) priming. c) agenda setting. d) selection bias. e) niche journalism.
7. The fact that Democrats discussed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as a matter of compassionate responsibility and good economic sense while republicans discussed it as a matter of “health care rationing” is an example of a) framing. b) priming. c) agenda setting. d) selection bias. e) niche journalism.
9. Which organization has used the internet to anonymously release thousands of secret U.S. government documents relating to corruption, war crimes, and torture in recent years? a) the Federal Communications Commission b) Wikileaks c) the National Security Agency d) the Project for excellence in Journalism e) the Freedom of Information Agency
10. Adversarial journalism refers to a) the recent shift in American society away from
general-purpose sources of information and toward narrowly focused niche sources.
b) an era in American history when political parties provided all of the financing for newspapers.
c) a form of reporting in which the media adopt a skeptical or even hostile posture toward the opinions and behaviors of their audience.
d) a form of reporting in which the media adopt an accepting and friendly posture toward the govern- ment and public officials.
e) a form of reporting in which the media adopt a skeptical or even hostile posture toward the government and public officials.
11. Which event shattered the amicable relationship between the press and the presidency? a) September 11, 2001 b) the Vietnam War c) Watergate d) World War II e) the Monica lewinsky affair
The content and character of news programming can have far-reaching political consequences. In recent American poli- tical history, the media have played a central role in numerous major events, such as the civil rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s, the Vietnam War, and the Watergate affair. The power of the media lies in their ability to shape what issues Americans think about (agenda setting) and what opinions Americans hold about those issues (framing and priming).
Key Terms agenda setting (p. 280)
selection bias (news) (p. 281)
framing (p. 282)
priming (p. 282)
While many politicians, corporations, interest groups, and nonprofit organizations attempt to shape media coverage, the content of news is typically dominated by official govern- ment sources. In addition to government sources, however, reporters frequently gain information through leaks and practicing adversarial journalism. leaks, which are confi- dential pieces of information disclosed to members of the media, have driven press coverage on issues ranging from foreign policy to government corruption. Also incorporated into daily news coverage are thousands of press releases authored by advocates of influential political interests. Adversarial journalism, a form of reporting in which the media adopt a skeptical or even hostile posture toward public officials, has increased the political power of the press in recent years.
Practice Quiz
8. Most leaks originate with a) low-level government whistle-blowers. b) senior government officials, prominent politicians,
and political activists. c) members of the public who witness misbehavior. d) ambassadors from foreign countries. e) members of the media.
Media Influence
News Coverage
Analyze the ways the media can influence public opinion and politics (pp. 277–82)
Explain how politicians and others try to shape the news (pp. 283–85)
STUDY GU IDE 291
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 291 27/11/18 12:27 PM
Jamieson, Kathleen, and Paul Waldman. The Press Effect. New york: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New york: New york University Press, 2008.
Jenkins, Henry, Sam Ford, and Joshua Green. Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. New york: New york University Press, 2013.
Mossberger, Karen, Caroline Tolbert, and ramona McNeal. Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.
Pariser, eli. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. New york: Penguin, 2011.
Shirky, Clay. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations. New york: Penguin, 2009.
West, Darrell. The Next Wave: Using Digital Technology to Further Social and Political Innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2011.
Boydstun, Amber e. Making the News: Politics, the Media, and Agenda Setting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013.
Carr, Nicholas. The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New york: W. W. Norton, 2011.
Chadwick, Andrew. The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. New york: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Timothy e. Cook, “The News Media as a Political Institution: looking Backward and looking Forward,” Political Communi- cation 23, no. 2 (September 2006).
Fenton, Tom. Bad News: The Decline of Reporting, the Business of News, and the Danger to Us All. New york: Harper Collins, 2005.
Hamilton, James T. All the News That’s Fit to Sell. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.
Iyengar, Shanto. Media Politics: A Citizen’s Guide. New york: W. W. Norton, 2015.
Iyengar, Shanto, and Donald Kinder. News That Matters: Television and American Public Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.
For Further Reading
Practice Quiz
12. In general, FCC regulations apply only to a) cable television. b) internet websites. c) over-the-air broadcast media. d) satellite radio. e) newspapers and magazines.
13. The now defunct requirement that broadcasters provide time for opposing views when they air programs on controversial issues was called a) the equal time rule. b) the free speech doctrine. c) the fairness doctrine. d) the right of rebuttal. e) the response rule.
Although American print and online media are free from gov- ernment interference, broadcast media are subject to signi- ficant federal regulation. radio and television stations in the United States are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC has used its licensing power to impose several regulations, such as the equal time rule, the right of rebuttal, and the fairness doctrine, that affect the political content of radio and television broadcasts.
Key Terms equal time rule (p. 286)
right of rebuttal (p. 286)
Regulation of the Media
Trace the evolution of rules that govern broadcast media (pp. 285–87)
CHAPTER 7 STUDy GU IDe292
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 292 27/11/18 12:27 PM
Accuracy in Media www.aim.org
This nonprofit watchdog group attempts to ensure accuracy in media reporting by identifying botched or slanted stories and then “setting the record straight.”
Columbia Journalism Review www.cjr.org
The Columbia Journalism review is an organization committed to analyzing and critiquing trends in the media and journalism industries.
G. R. Boynton’s New Media and Politics ir.uiowa.edu/polisci_nmp/
This website contains a collection of research on new media trends such as microblogging, streaming video, and Twitter, with a focus on how these developments have shaped the way people share political information.
Journalism.org www.journalism.org
This nonprofit, nonpolitical site, sponsored by the Project for excellence in Journalism, examines the overall performance of the press as providers of information. Its aim is to help both consumers and producers of the news.
Recommended Websites National Telecommunication and Information Administration www.ntia.doc.gov
The National Telecommunication and Information Administration advises the president on telecommunica- tions policies for the technological advancement of the nation. The “Broadband” section of the website includes “Digital Nation reports” on internet usage in the United States.
Pew Internet, Science, and Tech www.pewinternet.org
Pew Internet, Science, and Tech conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, and content analyses of trends around internet, science, and technology. Pew research Center is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that also explores attitudes toward numerous other political issues.
Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy www.shorensteincenter.org
This research center based out of Harvard University explores the intersection of the press, politics, and public policy. The “News and events” section includes a weekly roundup of “Must-reads” on the media and politics.
STUDY GU IDE 293
wtp12e_ptr_ch07_254-293.indd 293 27/11/18 12:27 PM
Political Participation and Voting
080808 chapter
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS Who votes affects who is elected and what issues politicians put at the top of their
agenda. Historically there’s been a great deal of
concern that young people turn out at lower rates
than older Americans. But these days, although
their turnout can still be low, the sheer number
of Americans under age 35 means that they
constitute a larger share of the electorate than
baby boomers and older Americans.1 And they are
beginning to flex their electoral muscles, shaping
election outcomes.
The 2017 Virginia race for governor is a case in
point. Early polls showed Republican Ed Gillespie
ahead of Democrat Ralph Northam. But in the end
Northam won by nine percentage points. Much of
Northam’s margin came from Virginians under 30,
whose turnout increased from just 18 percent in
2009 to 34 percent in 2017 and who supported
Northam over Gillespie 69 to 30 percent.2
Groups on both the political right and left
mobilized Virginia voters at double or triple the rates
of the previous gubernatorial election. The National
Rifle Association and Americans for Prosperity
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 294 27/11/18 12:51 PM
For much of the country’s history, large groups of Americans were denied the right to vote. Most restrictions on voting have been eliminated for Americans age 18 and older, but turnout remains relatively low, especially among young voters. Will changes in voting laws increase participation?
reached out to conservative voters. The Virginia
League of Conservation Voters and BlackPAC
knocked on Democrats’ doors. NextGen America, a
group founded by billionaire Tom Steyer to mobilize
young voters, sponsored a petting zoo at Virginia
Tech to pull students in with baby animals and tell
them where to vote.3
As important as the youth vote was, 34 percent is
a pretty low turnout rate. Turnout is generally higher in
presidential elections, but even at the modern peak,
the election of 2008, only 62 percent of Americans
voted;4 in 2016, the turnout rate was 59 percent.5
In most democratic countries, residents are auto-
matically registered to vote in elections at adult age.
In the United States, citizens must actively register
to vote and, in most states, must do so in advance
of the election—sometimes 30 days beforehand.
Young people especially are less likely to register to
vote than are older Americans.6 In an effort to boost
voter turnout, a number of states have begun to offer
same-day registration, which means that people can
both register and vote when they go to the polls on
Election Day. As of 2018, 18 states plus Washing-
ton, D.C., had enacted same-day registration laws.
295
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 295 27/11/18 12:51 PM
Of the 10 states with the highest average voting rates, 7 offer same-day
registration.7
Voting is just one form of political participation, and voter-registration
requirements are just one factor that affects who participates in American
politics. As we will see in this chapter, who participates and how they partici-
pate matter a great deal—in elections and in influencing government policy.
★ Describe the major forms of traditional and digital participation in politics (pp. 297–310)
★ Describe the patterns of participation among major demographic groups (pp. 310–19)
★ Explain the factors in the political environment that influence whether individuals vote or not (pp. 319–23)
★ Explain the effect of electoral laws on voting (pp. 323–27)
CHAPTER GOALS
296 CHAPTER 8 POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION AND VOT ING
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 296 27/11/18 12:51 PM
Forms of Political Participation We can think of political par tici- pation as falling into two major categories. Traditional participation in politics includes not only v ot- ing but also attending campaign
events, rallies, and fund-raisers, volunteering on behalf of candidates and politi - cal organizations, canv assing, displaying campaign signs, contacting elected officials, contributing money to candidates and parties, or ev en challenging a law in cour t. P rotests, demonstrations, and strikes, too, ar e age-old forms of participatory politics.
In addition to traditional par ticipation, the gr owing world of digital politics includes not only the exchange of information but also fund-raising and voter mobilization. Though most experts now agree that digital politics is just a new way of engaging in traditional politics, as digital politics becomes mor e common, it continues to change participation in important ways that may increase engagement in politics overall.
TRADITIONAL POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
Traditional political participation refers to a wide range of activities designed to influence government, politics, and policy. For most citizens today, voting in elections is the most common form of par ticipation in politics. Yet ordinary people took par t in politics long befor e the adv ent of the election or any other formal mechanism of popular involvement in political life. If there is any natural or spontaneous form of popular political participation, it is not the election but the pr otest or riot. In fact, for much of American histor y, fewer Americans ex ercised their right to v ote than participated in urban riots and rural uprisings, as voting for a long time was limited to white, male, landowning citizens.
The vast majority of Americans reject rioting or violence for political ends, but peaceful protest is protected by the First Amendment and generally r ecognized as a legitimate and impor tant form of political activity . During the height of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, hundr eds of thousands of Americans took par t in peaceful protests to demand social and political rights for African Americans. Peace- ful marches and demonstrations hav e been emplo yed by a host of gr oups across the ideological spectr um, such as the conser vative Tea P arty M ovement against big go vernment and 2011 O ccupy Wall S treet pr otests against gr owing income inequality. To take a mor e r ecent example, in M arch 2018 thousands of people participated nationwide in M arch for Our Lives protests against gun violence and lack of gun regulations in the wake of a string of school shootings.
Protests have erupted particularly in response to the Trump presidency and some of his controversial measures. The nationwide Women’s March the day after Trump’s inauguration day was the largest single-day pr otest in U.S. histor y, with half a million protesters. The Women’s March advocated policies to protect human rights, women’s rights, L GBTQ rights, r eproductive rights, racial equality , free- dom of r eligion, workers’ rights, immigration r eform, universal health car e, and protecting the environment. That same month there were massive protests against Trump’s controversial travel restrictions on immigrants from seven predominantly
Describe the major forms of traditional and digital participation in politics
traditional political participation activities designed to influence government, including voting, campaign contributions and face-to-face activities such as volunteering for a campaign or working on behalf of a candidate or political organization
protest participation that involves assembling crowds to confront a government or other official organization
297FORMS OF POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 297 27/11/18 12:51 PM
Muslim countries. I n A ugust 2017 violent clashes er upted in Charlottesville, Virginia, between white nationalists, rallying against the city’s decision to remove a statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee, and counterprotesters. President Trump further inflamed emotions when he refused to denounce the white suprem- acists. The fallout from the contr oversial Charlottesville mar ches, and Trump’s comments, led the CEO s of leading U.S. corporations to r esign in protest from two White House advisory councils of American business leaders. P rotests often lead to action and r emain a common form of political par ticipation across the ideological spectrum.
Growing concern o ver police discrimination and ex cessive use of for ce against African Americans has led to hundreds of protests across the nation in the past five years, including NFL players, coaches, and owners kneeling in locked arms during the playing of the national anthem in silent protest of racial inequality.
People par ticipate in public pr otests to attract media attention, raise public awareness, and send a message to politicians about the policies they enact. The Black Lives Matter movement and protests by NFL players, for example, have prompted a national discussion and political action ar ound police violence and reform, including revamped training programs and calls to equip police officers with body cameras. Opinion polls suggest that both white and black Americans increas- ingly feel that racism is a problem in American society.8
Elections, of course, ar e the hallmar k of political par ticipation in a democracy . In addition to v oting (discussed belo w), citizens can giv e money to candidates or political organizations, v olunteer to wor k on campaigns, contact political offi- cials, sign petitions, attend public meetings, join organizations, display campaign signs and pins, write letters to the editor , and attend rallies. They can also lobby their representatives in Congress, and they can even sue the government or run for elected office. Such activities can communicate much more detailed information to public officials than voting can. B y v olunteering for a political campaign, writ - ing or emailing their member of Congr ess, or contributing money to a political organi zation, people can convey their specific opinions, making these other political
One advantage of protest is visibility: through media attention, protesters can raise awareness, attract like- minded individuals, and put pressure on politicians. That was the goal of (left to right) the Women’s March, NFL players kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality, and white nationalists in Charlottesville, Virginia, protesting the removal of a Confederate statue.
298 CHAPTER 8 POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION AND VOT ING
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 298 27/11/18 12:51 PM
activities often more satisfying than voting.9 However, these other forms of political action generally require more time, effort, and/or money than voting. As a result, as Figure 8.1 shows, the percentage of the population that participates in ways other than voting is relatively low.
Participation through Voting F or most Americans, v oting is the single most important political act. Voting is the most common way that individuals interact with politics. The right to vote gives ordinary Americans an equal voice in politics as each vote has the same value. Voting is especially important because it selects the officials who make the laws that the American people must follow.
The right to vote, or suffrage, is a legal right. D uring early periods of Ameri - can histor y, suffrage was restricted to white males o ver the age of 21. M any states further limited voting to those who o wned property or paid mor e than a specified amount of annual tax. Until the early 1900s, state legislatur es elected U.S. senators, and ther e were no dir ect elections for members of the E lectoral College (who in turn elect the pr esident). As a result, elections for the U.S. House as well as state and local offices were the primary venue for citizen partici- pation in government.
During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, states often acted to restrict suffrage, initially through poll tax es (fees to v ote) and literacy tests (r eading tests) designed to curtail immigrant voting in northern cities. These laws were later imported to the southern states to prevent African Americans and poor whites from voting during the J im Crow era, the period betw een the Civil War and the 1960s (see Chapter 5). Voter eligibility r equirements often v aried gr eatly fr om state to state. Some states openly pr evented the right to v ote on the basis of race; others did not. S ome states r equired property ownership for v oting; others had no such restrictions.10
Over the past two centuries of American histor y, a dominant tr end has been federal statutes, cour t decisions, and constitutional amendments designed to override state voting laws and expand suffrage.11 In the South, voting rights for
suffrage the right to vote; also called franchise
299FORMS OF POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 299 27/11/18 12:51 PM
African American men w ere established b y the F ifteenth Amendment in 1870, which pr ohibited denying the right to v ote on the basis of race. D espite the Fifteenth Amendment, the v oting rights of African American men w ere effec- tively rescinded during the 1880s b y the states of the former Confederacy with voting laws such as poll taxes and literacy tests, as discussed above. A goal of the civil rights mo vement in the 1950s and ’60s was v oting rights for African Americans. This goal was partially achieved with the enactment of the 1965 Vot- ing Rights A ct, which authoriz ed the federal go vernment to r egister v oters in states that discriminated against minority citiz ens and allo wed the go vernment to challenge voting rules and practices that systematically disenfranchise minor - ity voters. The result was the re-enfranchisement of southern blacks for the first time since the 1860s.
Women won the right to vote in 1920 through the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment resulted primarily fr om the activism of the women’s suffrage movement, led by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Carrie Chapman Catt, among others, during the late nineteenth and early tw entieth centuries. The suffragists held rallies, demonstrations, and protest marches for more than half a century before achieving their goal. Before the federal government granted women the right to vote, numerous states and territories adopted women’s suffrage, paving the way for women to earn the right to vote nationally.
The most recent expansion of the right to v ote in the U nited S tates, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. Ratified during the Vietnam War, in 1971, it was intended to channel the disruptive protest activi- ties of students involved in the anti–Vietnam War movement into peaceful partici- pation at the ballot box.
FIGURE 8.1
Political Participation Political activities such as volunteer- ing generally take more time and effort than voting. When asked about various forms of political participa- tion, over 40 percent of respondents said they expressed support for a campaign on social media.
SOURCE: The ANES 2012 Time Series Study, www.electionstudies.org/studypages/anes _timesseries_2012/anes_timeseries_2012 .htm (accessed 10/30/14). Based on a sample made up primarily of registered voters; “Political Engagement, Knowledge, and the Midterms,” Pew Research Center, April 26, 2018, www.people-press.org/2018/04/26/10 -political-engagement-knowledge-and-the -midterms/ (accessed 10/12/18).
PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO REPORT PARTICIPATING IN EACH ACTIVITY
Voted in a general election
Publicly expressed support for a campaign on social media
Contacted an elected official
Attended a local government meeting
Contributed money to a campaign
Attended a political rally or event
Worked or volunteered for a campaign
79%
42
40
29
29
28
16
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Describe the expansion of suffrage in the United States since the Founding. Why might the government have denied participation to so many for so long? What forces influenced the expansion of voting rights?
300 CHAPTER 8 POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION AND VOT ING
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 300 27/11/18 12:51 PM
Current Trends in Voter Turnout Today, voting rights are granted to all Ameri - can citizens aged 18 and above, although some states revoke this right from those who have committed a felony or ar e mentally impair ed. Although eligibility to vote is no w almost univ ersal, America’s o verall rate of v oting par ticipation, or turnout, remains relatively low. The United States ranked 32nd in terms of v oter turnout compar ed to other dev eloped countries in 2016. J ust o ver 58 per cent voted in the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections. This pales in comparison to voting rates in the most recent national elections in other democracies: 87 percent in Belgium, 86 per cent in Sweden, 71 per cent in France, and 61 per cent in the United Kingdom. Turnout in state and local elections, especially those that do not coincide with national contests or primaries, is typically much lower.12
Not only does the U nited S tates hav e r elatively lo w rates of par ticipation in elections, but those who do not v ote are more likely to lack a college edu - cation and hav e lo wer incomes. That education and income tracks so closely with voter turnout is unique to the U nited States among other Western demo- cracies. Lo w v oter turnout coupled with unequal par ticipation rates can hav e negative outcomes, including the election of candidates who do not r eflect the interests of most v oters, go vernment policies that benefit wealthy v oters o ver the middle and lower classes, and lower trust in government and perceptions of government legitimacy.
Participation in U.S. pr esidential elections has declined o ver the past four decades from a high of 64 percent in 1960. In 1996 participation reached a mod- ern low when only 52 per cent of eligible v oters went to the polls. S ince then, however, overall trends have improved in presidential elections due to highly con- tested elections and major efforts to get out the v ote. Turnout reached a modern high of 62 percent in 2008 when Barack Obama’s campaign mobilized many new voters. Turnout in 2016 was the thir d highest in the modern period and br oke a record in terms of v otes cast at 137.5 million ballots or 59 per cent of eligible
The campaign for women’s suffrage gathered strength in the United States in the mid-eighteenth century. Activists fought for decades—with tactics ranging from protests to pickets to hunger strikes—before the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution granted all adult women the right to vote in 1920.
turnout the percentage of eligible individuals who actually vote
301FORMS OF POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 301 27/11/18 12:51 PM
voters.13 Midterm elections with only congressional elections at the national level tend to have much lower voter turnout. In 2014, 36 percent voted though in 2018 turnout rose to 49 per cent, a r ecord high seen in non-pr esidential elections since 1966 (see Figure 8.2). Despite these overall trends, there are significant differences in voter turnout rates across the states. We’ll learn about why later in this chapter.
FIGURE 8.2
Voter Turnout* in Presidential and Midterm Elections, 1892–2018 Since the 1890s, participation in elections has declined substantially. One pattern is consistent across time: more Americans tend to vote in presidential election years than in years when only congressional and local elections are held. What are some of the reasons that participation rose and fell during the last century?
*Percentage of voting-eligible population
SOURCES: Erik Austin and Jerome Clubb, Political Facts of the United States since 1789 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986); United States Election Project, www.electproject.org (accessed 11/14/16); “2018 November General Election Turnout Rates,” United States Election Project, November 7, 2018, www.electproject .org/2018g (accessed 11/9/18).
Presidential election
Midterm election
2000 2012 20241904 1916 1928 1940 1952 1964 1976 1988
80%
70
50
40
30
20
10
0
60
1892
After 1960, political parties grew weaker and less likely to mobilize voters. In the early 1970s, trust in federal government declined with the Watergate scandal.
During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, reforms such as requirements for voter registration discouraged voters from going to the polls.
During the New Deal era, politicians and unions mobilized urban immigrants to vote for the €rst time.
302 CHAPTER 8 POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION AND VOT ING
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 302 27/11/18 12:51 PM
DIGITAL POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
Digital political participation is rapidly changing the way Americans experience politics. The internet and social media give citizens greater access to information about can- didates and campaigns and a greater role in politics than ever before; digital politics is the new pulse of American democracy where political news frequently goes viral. Digital politics builds on traditional forms of participation but makes many of those activities easier and more immediate, giving citizens greater potential for commu - nity building and networ ked participation. The internet, and social media in par- ticular, offers an active, two-way form of communication with feedback, rather than the more passive, one-way communication involved in reading printed newspapers, watching television, or listening to the radio . It allows for person-to-person com - munication as w ell as br oadcast capability, especially thr ough social media, wher e information can be widely shared.
Digital participation includes discussing issues or mobilizing supporters through social media, emailing and text messaging, r eading blogs and online ne ws stories, viewing YouTube videos and campaign ads, and sharing opinions on the inter - net, contributing money to candidates and political organizations, contacting political leaders and following them on Twitter, campaigning on social networking sites, working on behalf of candidates, and organizing face-to-face neighborhood meetings online. With 67 percent of Americans reading the news using social media, digital par ticipation is the most common way av erage Americans par ticipate in politics outside of voting.14
Why are digital media so effective for mobilization and political par ticipation? Online mobilization wor ks through emotional appeals, immediacy , personal net - works, and social pr essure. Political scientist Meredith Rolf argues that social con - nections are an essential component of political participation. Her work reveals that individual factors such as income and education are imperfect predictors of turnout, but one’s social network is strongly predictive of political participation. When mem- bers of a social network indicate they have voted in an election or contributed to a candidate, for example, that can motivate others to do the same. Peer social pressure allows members of a social network to model and mimic actions of other members of their group.15
Social media in par ticular can efficiently coordinate the actions of millions of people required for political campaigns and winning elections. O ne in three social media users have encouraged others to vote, and roughly the same percentage have shared their own thoughts or comments on politics or go vernment online.16 Social media are characterized by tiny acts of political par ticipation—sharing, following a candidate or organization, liking a post, commenting—that can scale up to dra - matic changes, leading to r eal world political pr otests, voter mobilization driv es, and the election of candidates and par ties to government.17 Small acts of political participation made possible by social media may give those uninterested in politics or who are rarely engaged a way of getting involved easily, which can than encourage them to do more.
Politicians, too, make much use of social media. I n 2016 ev ery serious pr esi- dential candidate had a F acebook page and Twitter account, with thousands or in some cases millions of fans who received daily updates from the candidates, political parties, and campaigns. These fans, in turn, signaled to their friends which candi- dates they supported for elected office, making politics a seamless part of everyday
digital political participation activities designed to influence politics using the internet, including visiting a candidate’s website, organizing events online, and signing an online petition
303FORMS OF POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 303 27/11/18 12:51 PM
discussion. Donald Trump’s supporters receive emails from his organization, follow him on Twitter and Facebook, and turn out for rallies and events. Based on a survey analysis of 65,000 registered voters and holding all other demographic factors con - stant, frequent social media users were more likely to vote for Trump than any other candidate in 2016.18
Unlike traditional social movements that gain momentum slowly over time, digi- tal politics, and the use of social media especially , can create punctuated explosive bursts of collective action. For example, Bernie Sanders’s supporters relied heavily on Reddit to organize rallies and rock concerts during the 2016 presidential primaries on behalf of the Vermont senator. Protests erupted after Trump won the 2016 elec- tion despite losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. Over 700,000 people signed an online petition in a matter of days to eliminate the electoral college and elect the president based on actual votes cast.
Some hav e dismissed social media as clicktivism—forms of par ticipation that require little effort and may or may not conv ert to offline acts of participation in politics. O thers argue so-called clicktivism is the building block for sustained partici pation in politics. President Trump’s extensive use of Twitter is evidence that audience-building on social media matters for political leadership and winning votes. The clicks of millions of Americans can and do add up.
Digital Politics Leads to Offline Participation An impor tant question is whether online engagement in politics influences offline participation, especially voting. The discussion above suggests a number of mechanisms b y which social networks and small acts of political participation lead to voting and offline engage- ment in politics. Many people use social media to facilitate organizing face-to-face neighborhood meetings or to get information about a local campaign ev ent or where to vote. D igital politics encourages information-gathering and interac- tion among users and elected officials by combining the content of traditional media with interpersonal communication. The combination of information and interaction giv es the internet the potential to pr omote inter est in politics and increase participation. A growing body of research finds that online activities such as reading digital ne ws, commenting on blogs, and using email or social media for politics increases the likelihood of v oting and is associated with contributing to political campaigns, volunteering on behalf of candidates, and even contacting elected officials. Online participation is also linked with discussing politics with friends or family, developing an interest in politics in general, and being informed about politics.19
Additionally, the ease of making monetary contributions online has led to a dra- matic increase in this form of political participation. The percentage of people who donated directly to candidates has doubled since 1992. Barack Obama was the first candidate to capitaliz e on online fundraising, raising much of the money needed to win the 2008 presidential election from small (less than $100) individual online donations. In fact, the 2008 presidential election and Obama’s campaign ushered in the modern era of digital politics, building comprehensive online strategies to mobi- lize supporters, and citizens made unprecedented use of digital media to learn about candidates and to participate in campaigns.20 In 2016, 12 percent of Americans said they contributed money to a candidate running for public office, up from 6 percent four years earlier. In large par t because of online donations, 71 per cent of Hillary Clinton’s fundraising total21 and 40 percent of Donald Trump’s22 in 2016 came from individual contributions.
304 CHAPTER 8 POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION AND VOT ING
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 304 27/11/18 12:51 PM
aInternational Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), Voter Turnout Database, www.idea.int/vt/viewdata.cfm (accessed 4/12/18). bNicole Hasham, “Election 2016: Voter Turnout Lowest since Compulsory Voting Began in 1925,” Sydney Morning Herald, August 8, 2016, www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/ election-2016-voter-turnout-lowest-since-compulsory-voting-began-in-1925-20160808-gqnij2.html (accessed 4/12/18). cMichael P. McDonald, “National General Election VEP Turnout Rates, 1789–Present,” United States Election Project, June 11, 2014, www.electproject.org/national-1789-present (accessed 4/12/18). dHasham, “Election 2016.”
Over the past 20 years, voter turnout in U.S. national elections has hovered around 45 percent of the voting-age population. While the number is significantly higher in presidential elections than in midterm elections (though in the 2018 midterm election turnout was roughly 49 percent),a voting rates in the United States still lag behind those in many other democratic countries. Australia, despite seeing their lowest turnout since 1925, had 78.9 percent of their voting-age population participate in the 2016 parliamentary election.b
So why does voter turnout vary so much from country to country? Part of the explanation rests in how we calculate who is eligible to vote. In the United States, noncitizens and ex-felons are denied voting rights. If we exclude those populations when calculating voter percentages, U.S. turnout would be at least two percentage points higher in each election.c
Another explanation relates to the rules governing elections. Some countries have rules that make it easier or harder for citizens to vote, while others penalize those who do not vote. In many democracies, citizens are automatically registered to vote when they reach a certain age; in contrast, U.S. citizens generally must register themselves, reregister if they move, and, in many states, register a certain number of days before the election. Many countries hold their elections on a Sunday, send their ballots through the mail, or declare their election day a national holiday, meaning that fewer voters must choose between going to work or going to the polls. Voting is also compulsory in many countries. Australia, for instance, charges a $20 fine (about US$16) unless a citizen can provide a good excuse for why she did not vote.d Countries with frequent elections like the United States and Switzerland often see depressed turnout as well, despite laws that ease or hinder access to the polls.
Voter Turnout in Comparison
Compulsory voting
Weekend or holiday voting
Automatic or compulsory registration
TURNOUT IN NATIONAL ELECTIONS*
81%Australia
Brazil
Germany
India
Japan
United Kingdom
Canada
Mexico
Tunisia
United States
Switzerland
76
69
65
60
57
60
55
South Africa 54
54
45
39
*Average 1990–2018. SOURCES: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) voter turnout database, www.idea.int/ vt/viewdata.cfm, and the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, www.aceproject.org/epic-en/CDMap?question=VR008&f= (accessed 3/27/18).
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 305 27/11/18 12:51 PM
Twitter has become an especially impor tant tool for v oter mobilization. The percentage of Americans following elected offi- cials on Twitter continues to soar. Citizens like following political figures on social media because they feel mor e emotionally con - nected to the candidates.23 Social media also allow users to avoid exposure to information that challenges their preexisting views— it’s easier to follo w people online whom y ou agree with. E lected officials and organizations on the ideological left and right have taken advantage of this dynamic to filter the news and curr ent events. Recent research finds people who use social media for poli- tics frequently hold stronger opinions and ar e more polarized by party. A benefit of Twitter for politics, ho wever, is that it leads to more interest in politics and higher rates of par ticipation and voter turnout.24
Researchers have suggested a number of possible r easons that digital politics may foster participation. First, information and political news are available 24 hours a day for those with internet access. Online news is often breaking news that can spread rapidly, and it is generally free. Digital politics may also engage individuals who otherwise would not be involved in politics. The internet cre- ates a form of “accidental mobilization” for those who are greeted by political ne ws on social media—sometimes politics finds the individual, rather than the other way ar ound.25 I t is common for candidates to place political ads on social media sites and in Google searches, prompting the individuals exposed to these ads, who may be online for entir ely separate r easons, to learn about politics. Donald Trump took advantage of online political ads in the 2016 campaign unlike any other modern candidate, spend - ing millions of dollars on online ads. With two-thirds of Ameri - cans using social media, “F acebook was the 500-pound gorilla ” that mobilized voters to support Trump. Facebook ads were more important than television ads in 2016.26
Further, digital media hav e unique characteristics that enhance par ticipation. S treaming video online combines the qualities of print media that pr omote knowledge and in-depth
reporting with the immediate and visual aspects of television that generate inter - est, engagement, and emotion. 27 Emotional responses to political candidates or issues learned fr om online media hav e been sho wn to trigger inter est in politics and engagement. 28And research has found that emotions ar e impor tant in can - didate evaluations and ultimately political behavior and par ticipation. A r ecent study found Obama in 2008 and Trump in 2016 generated higher positive emo- tions from their supporters compared to other candidates. High emotional enthu- siasm for these candidates was associated with their popularity , and ultimately their election victories.29
Finally, as w e have discussed, online politics makes it easier for people to par - ticipate in politics because it r equires less effort. By its very nature, digital politics occurs in ways that are less location-dependent than traditional politics: community takes on a v ery different meaning in an online social networ k compared with, say, a v oter’s actual neighborhood pr ecinct. The internet facilitates participation that is potentially br oad but with loose connections. 30 A large but mor e loosely knit
Like the traditional “I Voted” stickers, political messages shared on social media may remind and encourage others to participate too. In recent elections, Facebook users could click an “I Voted” button to announce that they had cast a ballot.
306 CHAPTER 8 POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION AND VOT ING
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 306 27/11/18 12:51 PM
online community may pr omote extensive organizing efforts and improve political knowledge, interest, and participation, but it also encourages forms of par ticipation that can be lo w in intensity and sporadic—“clicktivism,” as discussed abo ve—possibly attracting individuals with only moderate political interest. Political scientist Bruce Bimber has shown that some interest groups are responding to this ne w political climate of sporadic par ticipation by making it possible for individuals to suppor t a specific issue or campaign without making a commitment to membership in the organization as a whole.31 In this way, online politics widens the pool of political participation.
For all these r easons, digital media may foster a ne w kind of community building that has the potential to r everse the tr ends in declining political participation since the 1960s. Some analysts have cited reduced trust in government, unresponsive elected offi- cials, and a diminishing stock of what Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone, calls social capital—community networks that moti- vate political participation—to explain low voter turnout in the United States.32 By making political information, discussion, communication, and mobilization easier, the internet, and especially social media, may help Americans gr ow a new kind of digital social capital, one based on shared political experiences online.33
Expressive Politics Political scientist Russell Dalton has argued that participation in politics is becoming mor e expr essive than ev er befor e, largely aided b y social media.34 Today, individuals turn to social media to expr ess their opinions on issues or candidates in many ways. This trend was ex emplified by the r esponse to the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that made same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.
In the wake of the decision, digital politics created a media firestorm as responses to the decision took over the internet. The immediacy with which the news spread was r emarkable. Traditional media and social media conv erged to celebrate or denounce the news that marriage for same-sex couples was the new law of the land. Social media enabled citiz ens to shar e their opinions in uniquely expr essive ways. For example, the #Lo veWins hashtag was used almost 5.5 million times in 24 hours, even by celebrities and President Obama, to recognize the Court’s deci- sion. Overall there were 10 million tweets about the Supreme Court decision in less than 12 hours.35 And millions of people, too, used Facebook’s tool to add a rainbow- colored background to their profile pictures or shared news stories and memes using rainbow images to show their support for marriage rights. Increased participation in digital politics, especially through social media, may force elected officials to better represent the people.36
Are There Drawbacks to Digital Participation? While social media can be effec- tive in online political mobilization and activ ation, at the same time digital media create silos, echo chambers, and filter bubbles where individuals with shared views communicate to the ex clusion of others, leading to incr eased ideological par ty polarization—and ev entually hyper-par tisanship. As mentioned earlier , people tend to surround themselves with news from like-minded sources. In such environ- ments, people may uncritically believ e news from outlets they tr ust while dismiss - ing or ignoring information from sources they dislike. Social media algorithms can also cr eate echo chambers that lead to extr eme or biased vie ws that get worse
#LoveWins
News about the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision to legalize same-sex marriage spread rapidly, in part through viral activity on social media. Sites such as Twitter provided users with a highly visible platform to show support.
307FORMS OF POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 307 27/11/18 12:51 PM
over time, creating a world of “alternative facts” where individuals cannot agree on basic principles.
There is evidence that social media—because of filter bubbles and polarized information environments—has exacerbated partisan conflict, social divisions, the culture wars, and intolerance based on race, ethnicity, gender, or religion. Anonymous social media discussion boar ds can hav e unintended consequences b y allowing a forum for racism and hate speech, terrorist appeals, and sexual harassment—forums that have mobilized far right gr oups, including white nationalists. S ome observers see a lack of civility in public discourse, or what is called a “ coarsening of public discourse.” Members of targeted groups—such as women and minorities—may opt out of participating in discussion of politics in what has been called the “disruption of the public square.”37
THE DARK SIDE OF DIGITAL POLITICS: RUSSIAN VOTER SUPPRESSION AND MOBILIZATION
Free and fair elections ar e the foundation for democracies. B ut democratic elections may be incr easingly vulnerable to manipulation b y foreign governments and other extremists because of open networ ks and unr egulated political adv ertising on social media. D onald Trump’s campaign not only capitaliz ed on social media and high enthusiasm from his suppor ters but also benefited from a R ussian cyber campaign that used social media to discredit his opponent. Intelligence agencies have confirmed Russian interference in the election. R ussian propaganda to disrupt the election was intended to mobilize Trump supporters to vote, demobilize Clinton supporters, pro- mote third-party candidates to Bernie Sanders’s supporters, and sow seeds of discord in the American public.
The first strategy focused on mobilizing voters to cast a ballot for Donald Trump. One notable ad featured a kneeling soldier and stated that the Constitution should be amended to take contr ol of the army fr om Clinton should she be elected pr esi- dent. A similar ad had the false caption, “69 per cent of v eterans fav or Trump” (in reality roughly 52 percent of veterans voted for Trump compared to 48 percent for Clinton—nearly a toss-up). As S enator Chris Coons (D-D el.) said, “This ad is nothing short of the Russian government directly interfering in our elections, lying to American citiz ens, duping folks who believ e they ar e joining and suppor ting a group that is about veterans and based in Texas, when in fact it is paid for in rubles [Russian currency] by Russians.”38
A second category of Russian propaganda worked to suppress votes for Clinton. These ads were targeted in sophisticated ways toward demographic and partisan groups in swing states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, and central Pennsylvania (three states Trump narrowly won o ver Clinton), but also nationwide. F ake news stories focused on Clinton’s health and mental stability in the two weeks leading up to the election. The most troubling Russian propaganda ads encouraged people to cast a vote for Clinton by texting or tweeting their ballot, both of which are invalid forms of voting in the United States. Finally, to dissuade Bernie Sanders’s supporters from turning out to vote for Clinton, the websites of Sanders supporters were found have extensive postings by fake eastern Europeans bot accounts.
The scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election and the for eign propa- ganda campaign was far greater than initially expected. Facebook and other social media platforms revealed thousands of false political ads appeared on their networks that were paid for b y Russian operatives, with many of the ads focused on v oter
308 CHAPTER 8 POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION AND VOT ING
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 308 27/11/18 12:51 PM
suppression. These ads are estimated to hav e reached 126 million people on F ace- book alone, or 40 percent of the U.S. population. (To put this number in perspec- tive, there were only 135 million votes cast in the 2016 election.) The information was shared hundreds of millions of times. Russian propaganda on Instagram during the election reached another 20 million people. Twitter found nearly 3,000 accounts controlled b y R ussian operativ es and 36,000 mor e bot accounts that tw eeted 1.4 million times during the election. A r ecent study fr om USC found that 1 in 5 tweets about the election w ere from bot accounts; the majority pr omoted stories damaging to Clinton.39
In addition to the aims described abo ve, Russia’s campaign on social media also sought more generally to divide the public o ver controversial issues such as race, immigration, abor tion, gay rights, and gun o wnership. Fake Facebook accounts linked to Russia included, for example, Infidels against Islam, Fed-up with Illegals, and Stop Killing White People.
Russian inter ference has exposed the outsiz ed role played by platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and G oogle in American politics and discourse—and that these companies don ’t always follo w the same r ules as go vernment institutions. Russia’s actions exposed the dar k side of technology for democratic go vernance. Unlike traditional media (radio, television, print media) online political ads on Google and social media sites ar e not r egulated. A for eign government was able to take adv antage of the U nited States’ open digital communication and media system to inter fere in the election. I n response Congress has enacted economic sanctions on Russia and is considering new regulations of online political advertis- ing. The Honest Ads Act is aimed at preventing foreign influence on elections by subjecting political ads sold online to the same r ules and transparency that apply to TV and radio.40 The technology companies have also taken steps to crack down on fake accounts.
SUMMING UP DIGITAL PARTICIPATION
As w e hav e seen, digital par ticipation in politics has benefits and costs. It has the potential to foster inno vation, fr ee expr ession, social connections, information seeking, and political par ticipation. B ut it may also foster mis- information, intolerance, a lack of civility, and breaches of privacy and even demobilization. A barrier to digital par ticipation is the digital divide—defined as the gap betw een those with and those without home internet or mobile access. Growing inequalities online r eplicate existing societal inequalities based on race and economic class that threaten to widen gaps in who is informed about politics and who par ticipates. Today, over 35 per cent of Americans don ’t have home broadband, and those without access tend to be poorer, less educated, and older . The digital divide creates ne w inequalities as the world of politics moves online.
Perhaps the most transformative aspect of digital media is how they affect candidates and par ties. Political candidates find campaigning online particularly attractive because it is cost-efficient and can reach a wide audience of prospective voters. Running for office can be enormously expensive, but social media may help level the playing field by reducing candidate reliance on money from corpo- rations, special inter ests, and w ealthy donors. D igital politics holds the pr omise of reinvigorating a more grassroots and participatory democracy. In 2016, Bernie Sanders largely r ejected Super PAC funding for his campaign and r elied heavily
309FORMS OF POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 309 27/11/18 12:51 PM
on digital media; D onald Trump did the same during the primaries. G rassroots funding in turn may allo w political leaders to better connect to, and ultimately represent, the people.
Who Participates? Individuals face a number of costs and benefits related to their decision to become involved in politics. Just as in any other activity in life, an individual is likely to vote in an elec-
tion only if the benefits outweigh the costs.41 One benefit associated with voting is the favorable policies that might r esult from having one’s preferred candidate or par ty in office, which the potential voter weighs against the slim likelihood of her vote actually influencing the outcome of the election. Another benefit of voting is the sense of pride gained from fulfilling one’s civic duty. The costs related to voting can include the time and resources needed to become informed and to cast a ballot, which may help explain why the poor and the less educated ar e less likely to vote and participate in politics in other ways.
To understand who v otes, it helps to understand why some Americans don ’t vote. The U.S. Census indicates the top reason for not voting in the 2016 presidential election was “did not like the candidates or campaign issues.” This reason was cited by almost 25 per cent of nonv oters in 2016, compar ed to just 13 per cent who gav e this response in 2012. Fifteen percent of nonvoters said they were “not interested in poli- tics”; 4 percent said they were “too busy or [had] conflicting schedules”; and almost 12 percent said they had an illness or disability that pr evented them from voting. As we can see, even personal health can be a pr edictor of voting, with the healthier more likely to participate in politics.42
The factors that help us explain voting in elections can be grouped into three general categories: (1) a person’s social and demographic characteristics and attitudes about politics; (2) the political envir onment in which elections take place, such as campaigns that seek to mobilize voters and whether an election is contested among two political candidates; and (3) the state electoral laws that shape the electoral pro- cess. We examine each in turn.
SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
One of the most impor tant and consistent findings from surveys about participa- tion is that Americans with higher lev els of education, more income, and higher- level occupations—collectively, what social scientists call higher socioeconomic status—participate much more in politics than do those with less education and less income.43 Education is the single most important factor in predicting not only whether an individual will v ote but also most kinds of par ticipation. Unsurpris- ingly, income is another important factor when it comes to making contributions, as well as voting. People who are more affluent have the money, time, and capac - ity to par ticipate effectively in the political system. Among people aged 45–64, for example, the 2016 Census found that 83 per cent of individuals earning o ver $150,000 a year voted compared to 43 percent of those earning less than $20,000 per year.44 These characteristics are also related to attitudes toward politics. Higher
Describe the patterns of participation among major demographic groups
socioeconomic status status in society based on level of education, income, and occupational prestige
310 CHAPTER 8 POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION AND VOT ING
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 310 27/11/18 12:51 PM
levels of political inter est are associated with individuals higher on the socioeco - nomic scale.45
Figure 8.3 sho ws the differences in v oter turnout linked to ethnic and racial groups, education level, employment status, and age. Just 52 percent of those with only a high school diploma voted in the recent presidential election, compared with 74 percent of college graduates.46
FIGURE 8.3
The Percentage of Americans Who Voted, 1976–2016 Voting rates vary substantially by race and ethnicity, educa- tion, employment status, and age. Which groups have the highest rates of voter turnout? Among which groups has participation increased the most since 1992?
SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, “Reported Voting and Registration by Race, Hispanic Origin, Sex, and Age Groups: November 1964 to 2016”; “Reported Voting and Registration by Region, Educational Attainment, and Labor Force: November 1964 to 2016,” www.census.gov (accessed 3/24/18).
Eight grades or less
High school graduate
Some high school
Some college
College graduate
1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 20042000 2008 2012 2016 0
80%
70
60
50
40
30
20
1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 0
80%
70
50
40
30
20
60
18–24
25–44
45–64 65 and over
1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 0
60
70
80%
50
40
30
20
Asian American Hispanic American
White
African American
Unemployed
Employed
1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 0
60
70
80%
50
40
30
311WHO PART IC IPATES?
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 311 27/11/18 12:51 PM
Education is one of the most impor tant predictors of voting, and it is also asso - ciated with encouraging other people to v ote or support an issue, as well making a donation to a candidate or cause.47
AGE AND PARTICIPATION
Older people hav e much higher rates of par ticipation than do y oung people, in part because homeownership and property taxes, more common among older indi- viduals, lead to a gr eater awareness of the impor tance of government. This pattern was evident in 2016 with citizens 65 years and older reporting the highest turnout (71 per cent), followed by those age 45–66 (67 per cent), 58 per cent turnout for those age 30–44, and the lo west turnout for those age 18–29 (46 per cent). Youth turnout remained lower than the average across all other age gr oups in 2016. I n midterm elections without a pr esidential race, youth turnout has historically been extremely low. However, in 2018, y outh voter turnout increased by 10 per cent to 31 percent from 21 percent in 2014.48
Millennials (ages 18–35) ar e now the largest age cohor t in the U nited States. According to Pew, 47 percent of millennials are Democrats or lean Democrat, com- pared to 34 percent who are Republicans or lean Republican. In 2018, 67 percent of young people supported Democratic candidates, compared to just 32 percent for Republican candidates, a larger gap than youth voting for Democrats in 2008 when President Barack Obama was first elected.49
A primary reason young people don’t vote is that they lack an interest in politics or have not been mobilized to participate. Studies have found that if young people do vote, they tend to maintain this habit throughout their lifetime.50 Another reason younger people vote less is that political campaigns often target older v oters rather than y oung v oters, because the former ar e mor e likely to v ote. But this may be changing as more organizations channel energy and r esources into getting younger people to vote. NextGen America (mentioned at the beginning of this chapter) for example, is an organization focusing on youth turnout that helped register 1 million voters in the 2016 election. NextGen supports candidates who favor addressing climate change, alternative energy, and reversing economic inequality.
Since the early 1990s, sev eral campaigns hav e sought to increase the par ticipation of young vot- ers. Rock the Vote enlists musicians and actors to urge young people to v ote. I t has spawned other initiatives aimed at y oung v oters, including Rap the Vote and R ock the Vote a lo Latino . The Obama campaign made y oung v oters central to its electoral strategy in 2008 and 2012, winning a significantly higher percent of the youth vote than his opponents.51 The Obama campaign posted vid- eos on YouTube and used social media to reach out to young people rather than focusing primarily on television ads (which target older voters). In 2016, Democratic presidential candidate B ernie Sanders was also effective in inspiring y outh par ticipation in politics. Although S anders failed to secur e his party’s nomination, election polls consistently showed o ver 80 per cent of people aged 18 to
Even though much time and effort is spent mobilizing young voters, people who actually vote tend to be older than the average American.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS As voter turnout has declined since its peak in the late 1800s, inequality in political participation has become more severe. Why are upper- income Americans more likely to be voters than lower-income Americans?
312 CHAPTER 8 POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION AND VOT ING
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 312 27/11/18 12:51 PM
29 preferred him to his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Sanders called for a political revolution and focused on ending a corr upt campaign finance system, combating economic inequality, and providing free college tuition. Young people were drawn to the candidate’s reputation of honesty and authenticity.
Relatively low voter turnout by the young has implications for the policies addressed by government at the local, state, and federal levels. For example, young people share older Americans’ concerns about the economy and national security, but they tend to be more concerned about economic inequality and student debt, and expr ess sup- port for stronger environmental laws, funding for public education and colleges, and more tolerance for personal freedoms than older people do. A recent survey of 13- to 25-year-olds showed the consequences of coming of age in an era of hyper-par tisanship and scandal; most saw the political system as ineffective and br oken, and 9 out of 10 would not consider r unning for office.52 At the same time y oung people hav e a strong inter est in community ser vice, and nearly 20 per cent ar e involved in com - munity service projects, with numbers higher among those with college experience. 53 The distinctive attitudes of today’s young people suggest that higher levels of political participation by this group could significantly alter government policy and politics.
AFRICAN AMERICANS
As we saw in Chapter 5, during much of the tw entieth century in the S outh, the widespread use of the poll tax, literacy tests, and other measur es such as the white primary deprived African Americans of the right to vote. This system of legal segre- gation meant that African Americans in the South had few avenues for participating in politics. Through a combination of protest, legal action, and political pressure, the civil rights movement compelled a reluctant federal government to enforce black civil and political rights.
The victories of the civil rights movement made blacks full citizens and stimulated a tr emendous gr owth in v oter turnout. The movement dr ew on an organizat ional
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS When the Twenty-Sixth Amendment changed the voting age from 21 to 18 in 1971, observers expected that the youth vote would add a significant new voice to American politics. Why has the youth vote turned out to be less important than was hoped? What changes would engage more young people in the political system?
In the 2016 presidential primaries, Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders energized young people and swept the youth vote, despite trailing Hillary Clinton overall. Still, 18- to 24-year-olds turned out at lower rates than all other age groups.
313WHO PART IC IPATES?
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 313 27/11/18 12:51 PM
base and network of communication rooted in black churches, the National Association for the A dvancement of Color ed People (NAA CP), and historically black colleges and univ ersities. B ecause they tended to v ote as a cohesiv e bloc, African American voters began to wield considerable political power, and the num- ber of African American elected officials grew significantly as blacks exercised their newfound political rights. D espite this pr ogress, today, state laws r equiring go v- ernment voter identification have created a ne w impediment for black and other minority voters in some states.
Being represented by a member of one’s group appears to have positive effects on par ticipation lev els. African Americans ar e mor e likely to v ote when r esid- ing in states with increased representation in the state legislature, as measured by the per centage of black lawmakers. 54 African Americans r epresented b y a black member of Congress are more likely to vote in elections, have a sense of efficacy—the belief that the government is responsive to them—and higher levels of political knowledge.55
With Barack Obama running in 2008 as the first black major-party candidate for president, African American interest in the election surged. The black–white voting gap went from 7 percent in 2004 to 1 percent in 2008 as many African Americans voted for the first time (see Figure 8.3).56 In 2012, blacks were more likely to vote than whites.57 Exit polls indicated that 95 percent of African Americans who voted cast ballots for Obama.
In the 2016 election, black turnout in the pr esidential election declined 7 per - centage points compared to 2012. Possible explanations for this decrease include strict voter ID laws and a r eduction in the days allo wed for early v oting in some states, the lack of an African American pr esidential candidate on the ballot, and a divisive presidential campaign including anti-minority rhetoric.58
Racial segregation remains a fact of life in the U nited States along with the per - sistence of black urban poverty.59 These conditions, often called concentrated poverty, post barriers to African American political participation. As the previous section on socioeconomic status described, participation (for blacks as well as whites) is highly correlated with mor e income, higher education, and higher-lev el occupations. Nevertheless, comparing citiz ens of similar socioeconomic status, African Ameri - cans are somewhat more likely to vote than whites.60
This may be because African Americans are a minority group. African Americans who feel a shared sense of collective identity, a concept called linked fate, are more likely to vote and par ticipate politically. Political scientist Michael Dawson argues that black linked fate is a major pr edictor of political behavior . Dawson uses the construct of linked fate to measure the degree to which African Americans believ e that their o wn self-inter ests ar e linked to the inter ests of the race. 61 That is, the experiences of African Americans with race and racial discrimination in the United States, including a history of slavery, unify their personal interests in seeking a can- didate and policies that benefit their racial group. Black civic, community, religious, and political organizations ar e also impor tant in incr easing political par ticipation for this group.
LATINOS
For many years, analysts called the Latino vote “the sleeping giant” because Latinos, while accounting for a large portion of the population, as a group had relatively low levels of political participation. For instance, 48 percent of Latinos voted in the
314 CHAPTER 8 POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION AND VOT ING
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 314 27/11/18 12:51 PM
2016 presidential election compared to 65 percent of non-Hispanic whites and just under 60 per cent of African Americans. D espite continuing gr owth of the Latino population in the United States, just 12.7 million Latinos cast a ballot in the presi- dential election out of roughly 26 million eligible.62
Political scientists M att B arreto and G ary S egura explain why v oting rates are lower for Latinos compared to whites and African Americans. As a group, more Latinos are recent immigrants to this country and thus hav e fewer opportunities, such as access to a quality education, than do other ethnic and racial groups; there- fore, they are more likely to lack resources for participation in politics such as money, time, and language skills.63
Today, politicians, political par ties, and scholars vie w Latinos, the largest and fastest-growing minority in the United States, as a political group of critical impor- tance. Latinos make up 17 per cent of the population and r epresent 1 in 10 voters. In large states such as California and Texas, Latinos are approaching 50 percent of the population.64 Although Latino registration and turnout are lower than those of other racial groups, these numbers have been increasing. Rapid population growth, increased registration rates, and uncertain party attachment all magnify the impor- tance of the Latino vote.
While Latinos have tended to favor the Democrats in national elections, par ticu- larly due to staunch R epublican opposition to immigration, Latinos tend to be religious, which may be expected to make them mor e socially conser vative. B ut national surveys of Latinos find that they often do not allow their religious beliefs to dictate their political decisions. In addition to favoring an easier path to citizenship for immigrants, Latinos also favor more liberal economic policies. In 2016, Latinos strongly favored Clinton o ver Trump. Trump made ending illegal immigration a major theme of his campaign, proposing to build a wall between the United States and Mexico. The issue of immigration has continued to widen the partisan divide between minorities and white non-H ispanics. While 55 per cent of white non- Hispanics v oted for R epublicans in 2018, 76 per cent of nonwhites v oted for Democrats. In 2018, 69 percent of Latinos voted Democratic.65
Similar to African Americans, Latinos are also more likely to vote when residing in states with incr eased representation in the state legislatur e, as measur ed by the percentage of Latino lawmakers, or in a district with a Latino member of Congress.66 This phenomenon is commonly referred to as descriptive representation—when indi- viduals are represented in go vernment by officials of their same race, ethnicity, or gender, allowing minority groups to have a greater ability to affect policy outcomes. Descriptive r epresentation may also confer symbolic benefits, such as reducing levels of political alienation among racial and ethnic minorities. 67 As the Latino
Though their turnout was lower than in 2012, Latinos and African Americans strongly favored Clinton over Trump in 2016.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS How significant a factor was the Latino vote in the 2016 election? Why does the percentage of eligible Latinos who vote still lag behind that of other groups?
315WHO PART IC IPATES?
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 315 27/11/18 12:51 PM
population continues to grow, this gr oup may influence more strongly who wins and who loses in U.S. elections.
ASIAN AMERICANS
Asian Americans ar e a smaller gr oup than whites, Latinos, or African Americans, comprising roughly 6 percent of the population or 21 million citizens. In particular states, such as California, home to 33 percent of the nation’s Asian American popu- lation, the group has become an important political presence. Asian Americans have education and income lev els closer to those of whites than of Latinos or African Americans; but they ar e less likely to par ticipate in politics than whites or African Americans.68 Asian Americans have voter turnout rates similar to Latinos.69
No one national gr oup dominates among the Asian American population, and this diversity has impeded the dev elopment of gr oup-based political po wer. Asian Americans often hav e different political concerns fr om one another , stemming from their different national backgr ounds and experiences in the U nited S tates. Historically, these gr oups hav e united most effectively ar ound common issues of ethnic discrimination or anti-Asian violence, federal immigration policies, and discriminatory mortgage loan practices.
Asian American voter turnout rate increased to 49.3 percent in 2016, up from just under 47 percent in 2012 and surpassing Hispanics for the first time since 1996. But Asians constitute a much smaller share of the electorate than Latinos. In 2016, roughly 5 million Asians v oted. Asian Americans hav e been mo ving, along with other minority groups, toward the Democratic Party in recent elections. Although a majority of Asian Americans voted Republican in the early 1990s, in the 2000s they have been voting increasingly Democratic; and 65 percent of Asian Americans voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.70
The U.S. electorate in 2016 was the country’s most racially and ethnically diverse ever; combined, African Americans, Latinos and Asians, and other racial or ethnic minorities accounted for nearly 27 percent of all voters almost an identical percent- age as in 2012. However, since minority groups made up a larger share of the overall population in 2016 than 2012, this means many minorities chose not to v ote in 2016. At the same time, turnout for non-Hispanic whites increased in 2016, in large part mobilized by Trump’s campaign.
GENDER AND PARTICIPATION
Today, women register and vote at rates similar to or higher than those of men. The ongoing significance of gender issues in American politics is best exemplified by the gender gap—a distinctive pattern of male and female voting decisions—in elec- toral politics. Women tend to v ote in higher numbers for D emocratic candidates, whereas Republicans win more male votes. Behind these voting patterns are differ- ing assessments of key policy issues. Women are more likely than men to oppose military activities, especially war, and to support gun control as well as social spend- ing for health care, public education, and welfare. Though the gender gap generally runs around 10 points in pr esidential elections, the 2016 pr esidential election saw the first female major party candidate, D emocrat Hillary Clinton, and the largest gender gap in history: surveys showed that 54 percent of women supported Clinton compared to 41 percent among men, a 13-point advantage.71
gender gap a distinctive pattern of voting behavior reflecting the differences in views between women and men
316 CHAPTER 8 POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION AND VOT ING
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 316 27/11/18 12:51 PM
One key development in gender politics in r ecent decades is the gr owing num- ber of women in electiv e office (see Figure 8.4), an increasingly significant form of descriptive representation. A record number of women ran for office in 2018, and at least 125 women will ser ve in the 116th Congr ess, up fr om 107 in 2016. The numbers mark a ne w all-time high for the number of women in Congr ess. Over 100 women won House seats and at least 13 women won Senate seats, in addition to the 10 female senators who were not up for re-election this year.
Recent research has shown that one key to incr easing the number of women in political office is to encourage more women to run for political office. Although women are just as likely as men to win an election, women are less likely to run for office, even if they are equally qualified. Because women are less likely than men to hold office, they also are less likely to benefit from the advantage of incumbency.72 Organizations supporting female candidates have worked to encourage more women to run for office and have supported them financially. In addition to the bipartisan National Women’s Political Caucus, the Women’s Campaign Fund and EMIL Y’s List provide prochoice Democratic women with early campaign financing, which is critical to establishing electoral momentum.
Why does the gender gap matter? Although women in public office by no means take uniform positions on policy issues, sur veys show that, on the whole, female legislators are more supportive of women’s rights, education, and health car e spending and ar e also mor e attentiv e to childr en’s and family issues. Never- theless, par tisanship matters more than gender in terms of representation of women’s issues, especially in the curr ent highly par tisan political envir onment in Congress.73 More women in Congress are Democrats, and Democratic lawmakers are much more likely to support these issues than Republican lawmakers regardless of gender.
FIGURE 8.4
Percentage of Women in Elective Office, 1975–2018 The number of women holding elected office has always been larger in state offices than in Congress. When did the percentage of women elected to office begin to rise more rapidly?
*Governors, attorneys general, etc.
SOURCES: Cynthia Costello, Shari Miles, and Anne J. Stone, eds., The American Woman, 2001–2002 (New York: W. W. Norton, 2002), 328; and Center for American Women and Politics, www.cawp.rutgers .edu (accessed 11/9/18).
25
20
15
10
5
0
30
35%
Members of Congress
Statewide elected of�cials*
State legislators
1975 19951981 1987 1991 1999 2008 2012 2016 20202003
317WHO PART IC IPATES?
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 317 27/11/18 12:51 PM
RELIGIOUS IDENTITY
Religious identity plays an important role in American life. For many citizens, reli- gious gr oups pr ovide an organizational infrastr ucture for political par ticipation. African American churches, for example, were instrumental in the civil rights move- ment, and African American r eligious leaders continue to play impor tant roles in national and local politics. Jews have also been active as a group in politics but less through religious bodies than thr ough a v ariety of social action agencies, includ - ing the American Jewish Congress and the Anti-Defamation League. In the United States churches are an important social institution that often fosters political partici- pation. Through church activities many people learn civic skills that pr epare them to participate in the political world. Today roughly one in four Americans ar e reli- giously unaffiliated and do not identify with any religion.
For most of American history, religious language, symbols, and values have been woven deeply into the fabric of public life. U ntil the mid-tw entieth centur y, for example, public school students generally began the day with prayers or Bible read- ings. But a v ariety of cour t decisions gr eatly r educed this kind of o vert r eligious influence on public life (see Chapter 4). These decisions helped to spawn a counter- movement of religious activists seeking to r estore the prominent role of religion in civic life and the mobilization of r eligious organizations has been one of the most significant political developments of the past half century. Some of the most divisive conflicts in politics today, such as those o ver abortion, bir th control, and contra - ceptives, hinge on differences over religious beliefs. These divisions have become so salient that they no w constitute what is called a “ culture war,” with r epercussions throughout the political system and many policy areas.
One of the most significant drivers of this ne w politics was the mobilization of white evangelical Protestants into a cohesiv e political for ce. The Moral Majority, the first broad-based political organization of evangelical Christians, quickly rose to pr ominence in the 1980 election when it aligned with the R epublican Party, eventually backing Ronald Reagan for president. Over the next few years, evangeli- cals strengthened their movement by registering voters and mobilizing them. Their success was evident in the 1984 election, when 8 in 10 evangelical Christian voters cast their ballots for R eagan. In 1988 the telev angelist Pat Robertson ran for pr es- ident. Although his candidacy was unsuccessful, his suppor ters gained contr ol of some state R epublican parties and won positions of po wer in others. President
Religious identity remains a signifi- cant factor in voting patterns. White evangelical Christians strongly support Republicans. Religious people of color tend to vote for Democrats, suggesting race may be a stronger predictor of voting behavior than religion.
318 CHAPTER 8 POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION AND VOT ING
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 318 27/11/18 12:51 PM
George W. Bush was closely aligned with r eligious conservatives, and the r eligious right played an important role in electing him. In 2016 most evangelical Christians supported Trump in the general election.
Despite the influences of race and ethnicity, gender, age, r eligion, and socioeco - nomic status, these factors ar e not the only explanations for v oter turnout or other forms of political par ticipation. O ur incomplete understanding of what motiv ates political par ticipation is evident when w e compare voting across countries. I f more political resources lead to a gr eater likelihood of v oting, why does the U nited States, one of the most prosperous countries in the world, have only moderate voting rates? And Americans have become more educated over the past centur y, with more people finishing high school and attending college. Given the well-documented links between educational attainment and voting, why has participation declined during this period?74 These puzzles mean that we need to look beyond the socioeconomic characteristics of individuals and to the larger political environment in which participation occurs.
Political Environment and Voter Mobilization
Whether or not people feel engaged or ar e r ecruited to par ticipate in politics depends on their political environment—that is, social set - ting, their friends and family, where
they live, what associations they belong to. For example, citizens living in presi- dential battleground states (states with r oughly equal numbers of D emocrats and Republicans in the population) are exposed to a torrent of campaign ads, candidate visits, and grassroots mobilization efforts. These individuals are more know ledgeable about presidential elections, are more interested in the campaign, and have a higher probability of voting than residents of states that are “safe” for either the Republican Party, such as Texas, or the Democratic Party, such as New York or California.
MOBILIZATION
A critical aspect of political envir onments is whether people ar e mobiliz ed—by parties, candidates, campaigns, inter est gr oups, and social mo vements. A r ecent comprehensive study of the decline in political par ticipation in the U nited States found that half of the dr op-off could be accounted for by r educed mobilization efforts.75 People become much more likely to participate when someone—especially someone they know—asks them to get involved.
A series of experiments conducted b y the political scientists D onald Green and Alan G erber demonstrate the impor tance of personal contact for mobiliz - ing voters. Evaluating the results of several get-out-the-vote drives, the research- ers sho wed that face-to-face interaction with a canv asser gr eatly incr eased the chances that the person contacted would go to the polls, boosting o verall voter turnout b y almost 10 per cent. The impact of direct mail was much smaller , increasing turnout b y just 0.5 per cent.76 “Robocalls” (pr erecorded phone calls) from a phone bank had no measurable effect on voter turnout. S ocial media networks can mimic face-to-face communication. I n a large study inv olving 61 million users on Facebook, political scientists found voter turnout in the 2010
Explain the factors in the political environment that influence whether individuals vote or not
mobilization the process by which large numbers of people are organized for a political activity
319POL I T ICAL ENV IRONMENT AND VOTER MOB IL I zAT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 319 27/11/18 12:51 PM
midterm election increased by 340,000 additional people (who otherwise would not have voted). Users’ closest friends on the network had the most influence in getting them to v ote.77 Thus, online and offline networks both play ed a r ole in mobilizing voters.78
In previous decades, political par ties and social mo vements relied on personal contact to mobilize voters. As we will see in Chapter 9, during the nineteenth cen - tury, American political party machines employed hundreds of thousands of workers to bring voters to the polls. The result was a very high turnout rate, typically mor e than 90 percent of eligible v oters.79 But political party machines began to decline in strength at the beginning of the twentieth century. By the late twentieth century, political parties had become essentially fund-raising and adv ertising organizations rather than mobilizers of people. Without party workers to encourage them to go to the polls, many eligible voters will not participate.
Nevertheless, competitiv e presidential elections since 2000 hav e once again motivated both par ties to build str ong grassr oots organizations to r each v ot- ers and turn them out on E lection D ay. I n the 2004 elections, R epublicans were mor e successful in their organizational efforts than D emocrats, building an organization with more than 1.4 million volunteers who were trained to make calls, go door to door to r egister voters, write letters in fav or of President Bush, post blogs online, and phone local radio call-in sho ws. In 2008, B arack Obama’s campaign made mobilization a centerpiece of its strategy , organizing a base of v olunteers to go door to door seeking suppor t for their candidate. Many of O bama’s crucial primary victories r elied on dir ect voter mobilization. The campaign then created a nationwide organization, opening mor e than 700 field offices. Obama campaigned in all 50 states, rather than focusing on battle - ground states as his predecessors had done. By mobilizing support in places where Democrats had not seriously contended in the past, the Obama campaign expanded the electoral map . For the first time in decades, turnout rates were comparable to those in 1960.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Why do efforts toward direct mobilization seem to be more successful than television advertising in promoting voter turnout? How is the internet becoming an important tool for increasing political participation?
People are more likely to turn out to vote if someone asks them face to face. Direct mail and imper- sonal phone calls are less likely to have an effect on turnout.
320 CHAPTER 8 POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION AND VOT ING
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 320 27/11/18 12:51 PM
In 2016 political campaigns shifted to social media as a primar y way to mobi - lize voters and directly provide their supporters with election updates. Three in 10 Americans received digital messages about ne ws and the elections, with far mor e Americans turning to the candidates’ social media posts rather than to their websites or emails.80 The Trump campaign was especially effective in mobilizing voters via social media networks.
DATA ANALYTICS AND VOTER MOBILIZATION
Today’s modern campaigns use massiv e computer databases and sophisticated data analytics to identify individuals and members of the electorate to mobiliz e turnout in elections. Digital politics creates digital footprints that can be used b y candidate and issue campaigns for micr o-targeting to mobiliz e voters in elections or shape their opinions about politics. I n Hacking the E lectorate, political scientist E itan Hersh argues that most of what campaigns know about voters comes from a core set of public records based on the voter rolls from all fifty states with data on 240 mil- lion Americans. States vary in the kinds of records they collect from voters, however, and these variations in data by state make campaigns more or less effective at micro- targeting voters in different states. States with better record keeping and computer- ized public records allow better mobilization of voters in campaigns.81
In the past, social movements, such as the labor movement in the 1930s and the civil rights movement in the 1960s, played an important role in mobilizing people into politics. Though interest groups and political par ties have generally r educed their efforts at direct mobilization since then, some have revived direct mobilization in recent years. The Tea Party movement in par ticular has engaged in widespr ead grassroots mobilization, as have organizations on the left such as MoveOn.org.82
ELECTORAL COMPETITION
To be motivated to vote, individuals must be interested in the election and knowl- edgeable about the candidates. An impor tant factor, often overlooked in analyzing political participation, is whether elections are competitive; that is, whether there are at least two par ties (and their candidates) activ ely contesting a position in go v- ernment.83 Competitiv e elections, and the campaign spending and mobilization efforts that go along with them, play a key r ole in turnout in the U nited States and cross-nationally.84 Conversely, limited exposure to competitive elections may be one reason for the lower levels of turnout since the 1960s. In many congressional, statewide, and local races, a candidate (often the incumbent) r uns unopposed or is expected to win by such a large margin that the challenger’s chances are virtually nil. When congressional districts are drawn to favor one political party over another— what is termed gerrymandering (see Chapter 10)—election outcomes are thus often highly lopsided in fav or of one candidate o ver another. Relatively uncompetitive elections are a primary reason why most members of Congress win by landslides.
Political scientist Todd Donovan uses a sports analogy to explain the importance of competitive elections in mobilizing turnout: “P eople watch a game to see their team win, or because of interest in an important game. Uncontroversial calls by the umpire and high scoring is meaningless if only one team takes the field, and attend- ance will suffer if two teams are playing that no one can cheer for .”85 When candi- dates and political par ties spend more effort and money to compete for an elected office, more information becomes available to voters in the form of media ads, news
321POL I T ICAL ENV IRONMENT AND VOTER MOB IL I zAT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 321 27/11/18 12:51 PM
coverage, door-to-door campaigns, online campaigns, and more. Electoral competi- tion reduces the cost to individuals of becoming informed, leading to higher turn - out. Conversely, if elections are uncompetitive (where the winner beats the loser by more than 5 percent) or uncontested (where only one name appears on the ballot), they generate little political information. Without activ e campaigns, individuals have few opportunities to be interested in an election and may not vote.86
Unique rules for pr esidential elections in the U nited States create variation in electoral competition across the 50 states. No other country uses an electoral college to mediate betw een a national or dir ect vote for pr esidential candidates and the actual winner. To win, a U.S. pr esidential candidate must receive a majority of the votes in the electoral college. Each state is giv en a set number of v otes in the elec - toral college based on the size of its congressional delegation. (The electoral college is covered in more detail in Chapter 10.) Some citizens reside in competitive battle- ground states, such as Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. These states are defined by high levels of competition betw een the par ties. Most Americans, ho wever, live in nonbattleground states (also called “safe” states) such as California, New York, and Texas, where one of the major par ties is generally assured of victory in presidential elections. Hence, presidential elections are often decided by a relatively small num- ber of voters in the United States’ dozen or so battleground states. (For example, if Hillary Clinton had won just 110,000 mor e votes across Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, she would have won the 2016 election.) Every four years, residents of battleground states get smother ed with attention fr om candidates and media, while citizens in states with fe w electoral v otes or wher e one political par ty has a solid majority barely get noticed. O ne study found that v oter turnout is higher in battleground states than in nonbattleground states and less skewed in terms of lower participation by the poor and young.87
Even the rules for nominating presidential candidates create variation across the states in electoral competition that effects voter turnout. Selecting presidential can- didates involves a sequence of statewide primary elections and caucuses. The early phase of this pr ocess is dominated b y a handful of small-population states. The privileged position of Iowa and New Hampshire, sites of the nation’s first caucus and first primary respectively, can boost political participation in those states. Similarly, studies have shown that citizens residing in “Super Tuesday” states (the 12 states that hold primaries or caucuses on a single day about six weeks after the New Hampshire primary) are more likely to v ote in pr esidential primaries and be inter ested in the election.88 Usually the nomination contest is essentially o ver quickly, as one candi - date secures a significant lead in early primaries, leaving many citizens with no role in selecting their par ty’s nominee. Turnout in states with later primaries, include large states like California and Texas, naturally plummets.
BALLOT MEASURES
Beyond candidate races, ballot measur es (initiatives and r eferenda) have been found to incr ease v oter turnout, especially in lo wer-profile, midterm elections but also in presidential elections. 89 E lections that include contr oversial initiativ es on the s tate ballot—in which citiz ens v ote dir ectly on policy questions such as the minimum wage, immigration, or taxation—hav e also been found to incr ease v oter turnout, political interest, and contributions to inter est groups.90 In many states, ballot-measure campaigns are important for mobilizing voters and can have spillover effects on candidate races.91 When citizens are asked to vote directly on controversial policy issues,
322 CHAPTER 8 POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION AND VOT ING
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 322 27/11/18 12:51 PM
public awareness of politics and policy debates incr eases. Initiatives often involve high campaign spending by proponents and opponents of the proposed laws, which gener- ates mass media coverage. The Los Angeles Times estimated that $452 million was spent in California alone in 2016 on contr oversial ballot measur es including legalizing the recreational use of marijuana and r epealing the death penalty .92 Additionally, simply being asked to v ote on issues—salient or other wise—can increase participation. This has been called the “educative effects” of direct democracy as voters are forced to make a yes-or-no choice on the policy issue.93
Only 24 of the 50 states have the initiative process that lets citizens draft legislation, circulate petitions, and place the issue on the ballot for a popular v ote. This is another reason that what state one lives in can matter for how likely they are to participate in politics.
State Electoral Laws and Participation As stipulated by the Constitution, the states, not the federal go vernment, control v oter r egis tration and v ot- ing itself . This decentralized system
continues to cr eate wide v ariation in the laws go verning elections and v oting, which affect participation in politics.94 Voter turnout in presidential elections in the last dec- ade ranges from a high of over 70 percent of eligible voters in Maine to 42 percent in Hawaii. State electoral laws can facilitate or cr eate barriers to v oting that can r educe participation and help explain the differences in turnout across states.
REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
In most democratic countries, residents are automatically registered to vote in elec- tions at adult age. In the United States, citizens must actively register to vote and, in most states, must do so in adv ance of the election—sometimes 30 days befor ehand. An important factor reducing voter turnout is our nation’s unique state-by-state patch- work of r egistration rules. In every American state but N orth Dakota, individuals
Explain the effect of electoral laws on voting
Voters often turn out in higher numbers when there are controver- sial initiatives on the ballot. In 2016 groups for and against Proposition 64 in California, which would legal- ize recreational marijuana, spent millions of dollars on media and mobilization campaigns.
323STATE ELECTORAL LAWS AND PART IC IPAT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 323 27/11/18 12:51 PM
who are eligible to vote must register with the state election board before they are actually allowed to vote, although a growing number of states allo w same-day reg- istration. At the turn of the nineteenth centur y, progressive reformers introduced registration r equirements to limit political corr uption and discourage immigrant and working-class voters from going to the polls so that political par ties would be more responsive to middle-class voters and professionals.
One of the most common r easons that people in the U nited States give for not voting is that they are not registered. Young people especially are less likely to regis- ter to vote than are older Americans, in part because they tend to change residences more often than older people.95 Registration requirements also reduce voting by less affluent individuals and those with lower levels of education because r egistering in advance of the election can be more difficult than the act of voting itself. Once indi- viduals become interested in the election and learn about the candidates, it may be too late for them to r egister, especially if they live in states that require registration up to a month before the election. Registration requirements thus not only r educe the number of people who vote but also tend to create an electorate that is, on aver- age, better educated, more affluent, older, and whiter than the citizenry as a whole.
In an effort to boost voter turnout, a number of states have begun to offer same- day registration, which means that people can both register and vote when they go to the polls on E lection Day. As of 2018, 18 states plus Washington, D.C., had enacted same-day r egistration laws. Thirteen states and the D istrict of Columbia have recently gone ev en further, adopting laws to automatically r egister their r es- idents to vote in elections b y information sharing between government agencies collecting similar information: the D epartment of M otor Vehicles and the secr e- tary of state’s office.96 Though these states have adopted these laws, automatic voter registration was only in effect in Oregon for the 2016 election. Though turnout in Oregon did not increase in 2016 from 2012, some scholars believe automatic voter registration is more likely to have an impact on turnout in state and local elections, rather than in presidential elections when voters are better informed and don’t need a reminder to vote.97
Although many U.S. citizens are strong advocates of universal suffrage and voter turnout, this reform triggers controversial debate and deep partisan conflict. Opponents contend that these laws make the states’ voter rolls more vulnerable to fraud. Supporters say the ne w system may be mor e secure than traditional paper registration because rather than simply attesting to their eligibility with a signa - ture, individuals have to submit proof of citizenship. Automatic voter registration is generally fav ored by Democrats, who want expanded access to the ballot bo x. Republicans, on the other hand, often don ’t want to add ne w voters who may be more likely to support the Democratic Party. It is important to note, however, that lawmakers are not always corr ect about which par ty will benefit from increased voter registration.
Voter Identification Requirements Another barrier to v oting is the r equirement that voters provide proof of identity . Despite near univ ersal adult suffrage in the United States, recent adoption of voter ID laws in many states has reduced turnout rates, especially for the low-income, racial minorities, the elderly, and people with disabilities—all of whom disproportionately lack government ID. Thirty-four states have some identification requirements to cast a ballot at the polls, but 10 states had strict ID laws in 2018 that required voters to present a government-issued photo ID or nonphoto ID in or der to cast a ballot. 98 Estimates indicate that 11 per cent
324 CHAPTER 8 POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION AND VOT ING
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 324 27/11/18 12:51 PM
SOURCES: National Conference of State Legislatures, www.ncsl.org/research/ elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-early -voting.aspx (accessed 11/4/17); National Conference of State Legislatures, www.ncsl.org/research/elections -and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx#Table1 (accessed 11/4/17).
* Two additional states have adopted same-day registration to take effect in 2019.
Convenience Voting, 2018
Voter ID Requirements, 2018
AK
HI
WA
OR
CA
NV UT
NM
TX
NE
WY
CO KS
AZ
MS AL
SD
IA
WI
MN
IL
NDMT
ID
KY
IN
TN
VA
FL
ME
NY
WV
LA
AR
MO
SC
GA
NC
PA
OH
OK
VT
RI
CT
MA NH
NJ
DC
MI
AK
HI
WA
OR
NV UT
NM
TX
NE
WY
KS
AZ
MS AL
SD
IA
WI
MN NDMT
ID
KY
IN
TN
VA
FL
ME
NY
WV
LA
AR
MO
SC
GA
NC
PA
OH
OK
RI
MA NH
NJ
MI
MD DE
MD DE
Same-day and/or automatic registration
No ID requirement
Strict nonphoto ID
Strict photo ID
Nonstrict nonphoto ID
Nonstrict photo ID
All-mail voting No convenience votingEarly voting Early voting and no-excuse absentee voting
CA
VT
CT
IL
CO DC
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS 1. Find your state on the maps. Do you think your state’s voting laws affected turnout in the 2018 election?
2. In which regions of the country do we �nd the most states with convenience voting? Why might this be
the case?
States have increasingly passed laws to make voting easier, such as early voting, which allows voters to cast a ballot before Election Day; “no-excuse” absentee voting, which permits voters to request an absentee ballot without providing justi�cation; all-mail voting, whereby voters �ll in their ballot at home and mail it, eliminating polling places altogether; and same-day and automatic voter registration. At the same time, many states have passed voter identi�cation requirements, which make voting harder for some people. The maps show these laws by state as of the 2018 election.
Which States Make Voting Easier?
WHO ARE AMERICANS?
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 325 27/11/18 12:51 PM
of U.S. citizens, or 21 million Americans, do not have government-issued photo identification, including one in five African Americans. Government identification can be difficult to obtain even if an ID is av ailable for fr ee, because citiz ens must pay for a bir th cer tificate to apply for a government-issued identification. Travel to the Department of Motor Vehicles can be difficult for the elderly, disabled, and those living in r ural ar eas. While the tr ue effect of these laws is still not known, some government reports estimate that strict voter ID laws reduce turnout by 2–3 per centage points, which can amount to millions of people who ar e pre- vented from voting nationwide. Voter ID laws may change election outcomes in swing states.99
For example, out of 2.8 million votes cast in Wisconsin, just 22,748 votes sepa- rated Trump’s victory over Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, one of the closest competitions of any state. Wisconsin’s new voter ID law r equires a citiz en to show government identification in order to cast a ballot. O ne study found that nearly 17,000 registered Wisconsin voters were prevented from voting in the 2016 presidential election by the state’s new strict voter identification law.100 The results suggest that enough v oters could hav e been deterr ed fr om par ticipating that it flipped the outcome of the presidential election in the state.
Photo identification is a partisan issue. In Wisconsin and elsewhere, Republicans argue that such laws pr otect against v oter fraud and ensur e that the v ote is fair , regardless of par ty. Opponents of v oter ID laws, mainly D emocrats, counter that there have been almost no significant instances of voter fraud in the modern era and that these laws suppr ess the vote of segments of the population most likely to vote for D emocrats but also least likely to hav e photo ID—racial minorities and the poor.101 Studies have shown that illegal v oting via impersonating someone else is very rare in the United States.
There is also wide variation in implementation of voter ID laws. In Texas a student identification card does not count to vote, but a gun owner’s license does. A study by Caltech/MIT scholars found that minority voters are more frequently questioned to provide ID than white v oters. The adoption of strict voter ID laws in 14 states appears to coincide with a decline in African American turnout in the 2016 election.
VOTING RIGHTS OF FELONS
A barrier to voting that has grown more important in recent years is the restriction on the voting rights of people who have committed a felony. Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia prohibit prison inmates who are serving a felony sentence from voting. In 21 states, felons on pr obation or parole are not permitted to v ote, but voting rights ar e restored automatically after par ole or pr obation is complete. In 13 states, felons lose their v oting rights for ever for some crimes. O n the other end of the spectrum, felons never lose their right to vote in Maine and Vermont. With the sharp rise in incarceration rates over the past three decades, restrictions on voting for felons hav e had a significant impact on voting rights. B y one estimate, 5.3 million people (2.4 percent of the voting-age population) have lost their voting rights as a r esult of these r estrictions. Felon voting restrictions disproportionately affect minorities because 59 percent of the prison population is African American or Latino, though these groups make up only 30 percent of the population.102 One in eight black men cannot vote because of a criminal record.103 The impact of felon dis- enfranchisement has been especially str ong in the South. Concern over the impact of these voting restrictions has led to campaigns to r estore voting rights to people who have committed a felony.104
326 CHAPTER 8 POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION AND VOT ING
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 326 27/11/18 12:51 PM
VOTING AND REGISTRATION REFORMS
Election reform efforts over the past centur y have focused on making v oter regis- tration and v oting more accessible and conv enient. As mentioned abo ve, same-day registration (SDR) allows citizens to both register to vote and cast a ballot on the same day. Seventeen states plus the District of Columbia have SDR laws.105 Concern over SDR focuses on fraud and noncitiz ens voting. As might be expected, in states that allow registration on the day of the election, not only is v oter turnout higher than the national av erage but y ounger and less educated v oters are also mor e likely to participate.106 On average, SDR increases overall turnout by 5 percent.107
In 1998, Oregon was also the first state to create a system for voting exclusively by mail, thus eliminating polling places altogether . Individual voters fill in their ballot at home and place it in the mail or in dr op boxes throughout the state. I n Washington State, Colorado, California, and many other states, many citizens now cast votes using permanent absentee ballots, which are mailed. Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia allo w “no-excuse” absentee voting, which means any v oter can request an absentee ballot without providing a justification. Not only does mail voting increase turnout, it also sav es the government money by not having to staff polling stations thr oughout the state. B ut because the w estern states tend to hav e higher voter turnout than most other parts of the country, it’s difficult to disentangle whether mail voting or regional political culture drives higher turnout.
Another reform that has been adopted b y many states is early voting, which allo ws registered voters to cast a ballot at their r egular polling place up to 40 days befor e the election. Thirty-three percent of votes cast in the 2016 election were cast early, either in person or via mail. As of 2018, 37 states allow early voting in which any qualified voter may cast a ballot in person during a designated period prior to Election Day.108 Three of these states go so far as to mail a ballot to all registered voters. Some studies find that the effects of early voting laws on turnout and the demographic composition of who v otes are not yet clear.109 One study from Oregon found that voting by mail tends to advan- tage upper-class and older citiz ens, who ar e more likely to v ote anyway.110 But others contend that early voting increases turnout among groups that are traditionally less likely to vote, including minorities. For a political campaign, a v ote cast early is like securing another dollar in the bank. (S ee inside the back cover of y our textbook to find voter- registration requirements in your state.)
Overall, SDR has been found to hav e the greatest effect in boosting voting rates and making par ticipation b y different demographic gr oups mor e equal. H av- ing the ability to v ote at the last minute helps many people who other wise may not v ote, par ticularly y oung adults and individuals with a high school–lev el edu- cation or less. 111 An individual need not become aware of the registration process in or der to r egister to v ote; he mer ely needs to know the date of the election and the location of the polling place, wher e registering to vote and voting can happen at the same time.
same-day registration the option in some states to register on the day of the election, at the polling place, rather than in advance of the election
permanent absentee ballots the option in some states to have a ballot sent automatically to your home for each election, rather than having to request an absentee ballot each time
early voting the option in some states to cast a vote at a polling place or by mail before the election
Convenience voting, such as early voting and voting by mail, removes the need to stand in a potentially long line to cast a vote and may result in increased voter turnout.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Why is voter turnout so low in the United States? What are the consequences of low voter turnout?
327STATE ELECTORAL LAWS AND PART IC IPAT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 327 27/11/18 12:51 PM
Political Participation WHAT DO WE WANT The American political community has expanded over the course of history, with new
groups winning and asserting political rights. This expansion has brought American poli-
tics more closely into line with the fundamental values of liberty, equality, and democracy.
But for much of the twentieth century, the electoral system in the United States failed to
mobilize an active citizenry, giving rise to an uneven pattern of political participation that
gives some people more of a voice in politics than others. Since 2000 a series of highly
competitive presidential elections has spurred political campaigns to pay more attention
to drawing greater numbers of voters into the political process; even so, many Americans
still do not participate in politics. The “Who Participates?” feature on the facing page
shows who participated in the 2016 presidential election.
Naturally enough, one of the most important factors in sustaining participation
is a sense of political efficacy, the feeling that average citizens can help shape what
government actually does. One important study found that elected officials respond
more to the preferences of voters than nonvoters, confirming long-held assumptions
that affluent, more educated, and older citizens have more voice in politics and public
policy.112 A study by the political scientist Larry Bartels showed that senators (both
Republicans and Democrats) are much less responsive to the policy preferences of
low-income citizens—who are also less likely to be active voters.113 If the voices of only
the more affluent are heard during election time, the issues that concern lower-income
Americans may not find a place at the top of the political agenda.
What would it take to increase political engagement among citizens of all back-
grounds? Several recent developments promise to give a greater number of people
more of a voice in American government. Over the past few decades, innovative states
have led the way by reforming and modernizing America’s patchwork election system,
with reforms ranging from automatic and same-
day voter registration to early and mail voting.
Some states, such as Iowa and California, use
nonpartisan boards to draw legislative districts,
which tends to boost competition in congressio-
nal and state legislative races. Increased com-
petition, in turn, often results in a more informed
and energized electorate, thus increasing turn-
out. What if every state adopted automatic
voter registration? Would this increase turnout
for young voters who are the most mobile and
are now the largest age cohort? Would reforming
America’s elections allow most citizens to vote
and elected representatives that adopt policies
in the interests of the greatest number of people,
not just wealthy elites? Would true universal
suffrage make American great again?
For much of American history, formal barriers restricted the right to vote and created a pattern of unequal participation in politics. Today, most of those barriers have been eliminated, but voter turnout remains relatively low, especially among young voters.
328 CHAPTER 8 POL I T ICAL PART IC IPAT ION AND VOT ING
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 328 27/11/18 12:51 PM
Register to Vote
In most states you can register to vote using the National Mail Voter Registration Form found at www.eac.gov. The Election Assistance Commission website also includes various tips about registering and voting.
Find out when you need to register in order to vote in the next election. Visit www.usa.gov/register-to-vote for a list of registration deadlines.
If you’ve moved to attend college or for another reason, you can register with your new address.
Many states allow online registration. Go to www.ncsl.org and search "online voter registration" to �nd a list of these states with links to their websites.
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
14.3%
46.2%
70.4%
11.0%
45.3%
8.0%
12.2%
10.8%
52.6%
88.6%
13.3%
20.1%
93.9%
Displayed a campaign button, lawn sign, or bumper sticker
Gave money to a candidate, party, or other group
Talked about voting for or against a candidate or party
Went to political meetings, rallies, or speeches
Voted
Percentage of each age group who…
54.4%
7.1%6.7%
9.4%
SOURCE: American National Election Study, 2016 Time Series, www.electionstudies.org (accessed 12/20/17).
18–24
45–64
25–44
65+
Age group82.3%
6.3% 6.3%
Who Participated in the 2016 Presidential Election?
WHO PARTICIPATES?
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 329 27/11/18 12:51 PM
Practice Quiz
4. Which of the following statements about young people’s political attitudes is most accurate? a) Younger people are less supportive of strong
environmental laws than older people. b) Younger people are less concerned about economic
inequality than older people. c) Younger people express less tolerance for personal
freedoms than older people. d) Younger people are less concerned about national
security than older people. e) Younger people are more supportive of funding
for public education and colleges than older people.
Socioeconomic status, race, gender, age, and religious affiliation are associated with different levels and types of political participation. Generally speaking, whites, older people, women, and those with higher levels of education and income vote most frequently. In recent elections, African Americans, Latinos, women, and young people have been more likely to support Democratic candidates than whites, males, and older people.
Key Terms socioeconomic status (p. 310)
gender gap (p. 316)
Who Participates?
Practice Quiz
1. Which of the following is not a form of traditional political participation? a) volunteering for a campaign b) attending an abortion rights rally c) displaying a yard sign for a Republican congressional
candidate d) voting in an election e) signing an online petition
2. Which group won voting rights most recently? a) 18- to 20-year-olds b) Asian Americans c) white property owners d) women e) African Americans
3. The digital divide means a) some citizens watch television news and some
do not. b) newspapers rarely publish the same stories on their
websites that they do in their print editions. c) few politicians maintain websites once they are
elected to office. d) not all citizens have equal access to the internet. e) people who learn about politics online are less
informed than those who learn about politics through traditional media.
Political participation refers to a wide range of activities designed to influence government, politics, and policy. These activities fall into two major categories: traditional political participation, which includes voting, engaging in protest, volunteering, and contributing to a candidate; and digital political participation, which refers to a newer set of activities carried out through the internet, such as reading online news stories, posting comments on social media, and visiting a political party’s website. Voting is the most common form of traditional political participation, but voter turnout is relatively low overall in the United States. While digital political participation has the potential to encourage innovation, free expression, and higher levels of traditional political participation, it may also produce misinformation, intolerance, and a lack of civility in public discourse.
Key Terms traditional political participation (p. 297)
protest (p. 297)
suffrage (p. 299)
turnout (p. 301)
digital political participation (p. 303)
Forms of Political Participation
Describe the major forms of traditional and digital participation in politics (pp. 297–310)
Describe the patterns of participation among major demographic groups (pp. 310–19)
CHAPTER 8 STUDY GU IDE330
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 330 27/11/18 12:51 PM
as same-day registration, permanent absentee ballots, automatic registration, and early voting, to make it easier to vote.
Key Terms same-day registration (p. 327)
permanent absentee ballots (p. 327)
early voting (p. 327)
Practice Quiz
8. Which of the following techniques is considered most effective in mobilizing voters? a) direct mailings b) “robocalls” c) phone calls made by volunteers d) face-to-face contact e) television advertisements
9. How many states currently have an initiative process that lets citizens draft legislation, circulate petitions, and place measures on the ballot for a popular vote? a) 0 b) 12 c) 24 d) 36 e) 50
d) Latinos make up approximately 17 percent of the population.
e) Latino registration and turnout rates have been lower than those of whites and African Americans in recent elections.
7. One reason that there are fewer women than men in elected office is that a) there is a limit set by the Constitution on the
number of women who can serve in the House of Representatives.
b) fewer women are eligible to run for office under the rules created by state and local governments.
c) women are less likely to vote in elections than men. d) women are less likely to run for office than men. e) women are less likely to win elections than men.
As stated in the Constitution, states retain control of voter registration and voting. In practice, there is wide variation in the laws governing elections and voting from state to state. Voter-registration requirements and other barriers, such as felony disenfranchisement and ID requirements, may reduce participation. States have experimented with reforms, such
Three general factors in the political environment influ- ence whether individuals vote or not: mobilization efforts, electoral competitiveness, and the presence or absence of state-level ballot initiatives. People who are mobilized by political parties, candidates, campaigns, interest groups, and social movements are more likely to participate than those who are not. In competitive elections, turnout is higher because there are more opportunities for individuals to become interested in and informed about the race as each side campaigns to get its message out. People also make the effort to vote when ballot measures address issues that are important to them.
Key Term mobilization (p. 319)
5. African Americans a) almost never participate in politics. b) consistently support the Republican Party in
elections. c) vote at much higher rates than whites. d) have never voted as a cohesive bloc. e) are more likely to participate when they feel a
shared sense of collective identity.
6. Which of the following statements about Latinos is not accurate? a) Latinos have tended to favor Democratic candidates
in recent national elections. b) In some large states, such as California and
Texas, Latinos are approaching 50 percent of the population.
c) Latinos have tended to favor Republican candidates in recent national elections.
State Electoral Laws and Participation
Political Environment and Voter Mobilization
Explain the effect of electoral laws on voting (pp. 323–27)
Explain the factors in the political environment that influence whether individuals vote or not (pp. 319–23)
STUDY GU IDE 331
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 331 27/11/18 12:51 PM
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., William G. Jacoby, Helmut Norpoth, and Herbert F. Weisberg. The American Voter Revisited. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008.
Manza, Jeff, and Christopher Uggen. Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
McDonald, Michael P., and John Samples, eds. The Marketplace of Democracy: Electoral Competition and American Politics. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2006.
Mossberger, Karen, Caroline Tolbert, and Ramona McNeal. Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society and Participation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.
Nicholson, Steven P. Voting the Agenda: Candidates, Elections, and Ballot Propositions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.
Piven, Frances Fox, and Richard Cloward. Why Americans Don’t Vote. New York: Pantheon, 1988.
Putnam, Robert. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.
Rosenstone, Steven J., and John Mark Hansen. Mobiliza- tion, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan, 1993.
Schattschneider, E. E. The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. Boston: Wadsworth-Cengage Learning, 1975.
Sinclair, Betsy. The Social Citizen: Peer Networks and Political Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.
Barreto, Matt, and Gary Segura. Latino America: How America’s Most Dynamic Population Is Poised to Transform the Politics of the Nation. New York: Public Affairs, 2014.
Bowler, Shaun, and Todd Donovan. The Limits of Electoral Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Cain, Bruce E., Todd Donovan, and Caroline J. Tolbert, eds. Democracy in the States: Experiments in Election Reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2008.
Crenson, Matthew A., and Benjamin Ginsberg. Downsizing Democracy: How America Sidelined Its Citizens and Privatized Its Public. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004.
Dalton, Russell J. The Good Citizen: How a Younger Generation Is Reshaping American Politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2008.
Donovan, Todd, and Shawn Bowler. Reforming the Republic: Democratic Institutions for the New America. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2004.
Green, Donald P., and Alan S. Gerber. Get Out the Vote! How to Increase Voter Turnout. Washington, DC: Brookings Institu- tion Press, 2004.
Griffin, John D., and Brian Newman. Minority Report: Evaluat- ing Political Equality in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
Hanmer, Michael J. Discount Voting: Voter Registration Reforms and Their Effects. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Karpf, David. The MoveOn Effect: The Unexpected Transforma- tion of American Political Advocacy. New York: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2012.
d) literacy tests e) voter identification laws
12. States that allow for same-day registration a) have lower overall voter turnout rates than states
that do not allow for same-day registration. b) have the same overall voter turnout rates as states
that do not allow for same-day registration. c) have higher rates of voter turnout among younger
and less educated voters than states that do not allow for same-day registration.
d) have overall turnout rates that are very close to 100 percent.
e) have lower rates of voter turnout among younger and less educated voters than states that do not allow for same-day registration.
Practice Quiz
10. Voter-registration requirements and processes are determined and controlled by a) local governments. b) the federal government. c) the U.S. Constitution. d) the states. e) an independent organization.
11. Which of the following factors is not currently an obstacle to voting in the United States? a) registration requirements b) that elections occur on Tuesdays c) the restriction of voting rights for people who have
committed a felony
For Further Reading
CHAPTER 8 STUDY GU IDE332
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 332 27/11/18 12:51 PM
League of Women Voters www.lwv.org
Established in 1920 as part of the women’s suffrage movement, the League of Women Voters encourages informed and active participation in government.
Open Secrets www.opensecrets.org/elections/
Campaign contributions are a form of political participa- tion that is both necessary and controversial. This web- site uses data from the Federal Election Commission to publish the names of those who give elected officials campaign money and those who may be receiving prefer- ential treatment.
Project Vote www.projectvote.org
Since 1982, Project Vote has worked to increase the participation of low-income, minority, youth, and other marginalized and underrepresented voters. The organiza- tion sponsors voter registration drives and get-out-the- vote programs and monitors election laws across the states. As a community organizer, Barack Obama worked for Project Vote, registering voters in Chicago.
Smith, Daniel, and Caroline Tolbert. Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004.
Springer, Melanie. American Electoral Institutions and Voter Turnout, 1920–2000. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014.
Recommended Websites Project Vote Smart www.votesmart.org
This nonpartisan site is dedicated to providing citizens with information on political candidates and elected officials. Here you can easily view candidates’ biographical information, positions on issues, and voting records so that you can make an informed choice on Election Day.
United States Election Project www.electproject.org
Click on “Voter turnout data” for the best and most reliable source for voter turnout rates nationally and by state in presidential and midterm elections from 1980–2016.
U.S. Census Bureau: Voting and Registration www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting.html
The U.S. Census Bureau collects statistics on voting and registration by various demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. See if you can find differences in voter turnout by race, age, gender, or socioeconomic status.
Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry Brady. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.
STUDY GU IDE 333
wtp12e_ptr_ch08_294-333.indd 333 27/11/18 12:51 PM
Political Parties
090909 chapter
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS Political parties play a variety of important roles in American democracy. They mobi-
lize people to participate in the political arena and
to vote. They convey information about what policies
candidates support. And they are broader than inter-
est groups, which generally seek narrow policy objec-
tives. Political parties are capable of mobilizing many
more voters to win control of government.
For all their important mobilizing and information-
conveying functions, parties, like other aspects of
government and politics, can seem far from ordinary
people. But ordinary people can have a big impact in
political parties. Early in 2009, before the term “Tea
Party” was coined, Keli Carender was a conserva-
tive blogger in Seattle. She became concerned that
the stimulus bill that Congress was considering to
address the financial crisis and ensuing recession
was simply more of “big government” trampling on
her “freedom and liberty.” After calls and emails to
her congressional representative were ignored, she
organized a “Porkulus Protest” in Seattle without
support from any national organization. “I just got
fed up and planned it. . . . I had 120 people show up,
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 334 27/11/18 12:29 PM
Individuals can have profound effects on political parties. Keli Carender took her belief in limited government and her anger over excessive government spending and started the Tea Party movement, which has strongly influenced the direction of the Republican Party.
which is amazing for the bluest of blue cities I live
in, and on only four days’ notice!! This was due to
me spending the entire four days calling and email-
ing every person, think tank, policy center, university
professors (that were sympathetic), etc. in town, and
not stopping until the day came.” She also contacted
conservative author Michelle Malkin, who publicized
the rally on her blog. At a second rally later that
month, twice as many people showed up, in part
because Carender had collected email addresses at
the first rally. Her advice to other would-be organiz-
ers: “Number one: just get it done. Do you need a
permit? Find out and then just get it. Do you want a
guest speaker? Get on the phone and call anyone
you can think of and get them there. You will need to
alert the media, so just get that done. . . . Let people
help you. Almost immediately I had two women
email me and say, what can I do? And boom, I had
two other organizers to start helping me with the
next event.”1
Carender’s protests were among the first events
in what became known as the Tea Party movement,
which gained steam when CNBC business analyst
Rick Santelli called for a “tea party” protest of the
335
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 335 27/11/18 12:29 PM
Obama administration’s plans for addressing the Great Recession. This con-
servative populist movement not only challenged Democratic policies but also
the Republican party establishment. As political candidates associated with
the Tea Party ran for office starting in the 2010 midterm elections, they some-
times won Republican Party endorsement but often ran against the main-
stream party. Indeed, as a nontraditional Republican candidate, Donald Trump
courted Tea Party supporters during his presidential campaign in 2016. As we
will see in this chapter, parties play an important role in American democracy,
mobilizing voters and organizing their choices. Revolts against the political
parties by rank-and-file members occur very rarely in American history. But
sometimes, parties are shaken up by grassroots activity like Keli Carender’s.
Her story, and others like it, show that individuals can make a difference, not
just in political parties but also in the broader political arena. The key is to
“just get it done.”
★ Define political parties and their functions in politics (pp. 337–40)
★ Explain the roles that parties play in elections (pp. 340–44)
★ Describe how the major American parties are structured at the national, state, and local levels (pp. 344–48)
★ Explain how parties organize legislative business and influence policy (pp. 348–52)
★ Identify the reasons for and sources of party identification (pp. 352–60)
★ Describe how the party system in the United States has changed over time and its main features today (pp. 360–71)
CHAPTER GOALS
336 CHAPTER 9 POL I T ICAL PART IES
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 336 27/11/18 12:29 PM
What Are Political Parties? Political parties, like inter est gr oups (see Chapter 11), ar e organizations that seek influence over go vern- ment. They can generally be distin-
guished from interest groups on the basis of their mission. A par ty seeks to control the government by nominating candidates and electing its members to office. As we will see in Chapter 11, interest groups do not control the operation of government and its personnel but rather tr y to influence government policies, often thr ough lobbying elected officials and contributing to campaigns.
Although the Founders did not envision the rise of political parties, they quickly became a cor e featur e of the American political system. P arties and partisanship organize the political world and simplify complex policy debates for citiz ens and elected officials. Parties also play central roles in mobilizing citizens to vote, inform- ing the public of government policy, and ensuring that the public v oice is heard in policy debates.
Political parties have been the chief points of contact betw een government, on the one side, and individual citiz ens and inter est groups, on the other . Through organized political par ties, citizens and gr oups can influence government policies. As political scientist Walter Dean Burnham wrote, political parties “generate . . . collective power on behalf of the many [who are] individually powerless against the relatively few who are individually or organizationally powerful.”2 It may be difficult for ordinary citizens to have any real influence on government acting as individuals, but they can have an impact on what government does when they act collectively. Political parties also seek to organiz e and influence important groups in society to win elections and gain political power. They are instruments through which citizens and government attempt to influence each other.
In a landmar k book written o ver a half-centur y ago, political scientist E. E. Schattschneider advocated for a political system run by party politics instead of inter- est groups.3 To be an equal democracy where all groups are represented, there must be competitive and responsible political parties that provide real choices to the electorate so that the public can participate in the government’s decision-making process. Parties, he believed, are able to mobiliz e more people than inter est groups because they can expand the “scope of conflict” or the policy debate to include most or all of the elec- torate. While interest groups (see Chapter 11) benefit from focusing on specific policy issues, political par ties broaden political conflict to the public arena and focus on a range of policy issues, from the economy to foreign policy, in order to win elections.
It is not enough, however, to simply have political parties: parties must be “competitive” and “responsible.” When political parties compete with one another to win elections, Schattschneider contended, they hav e incentiv es to continually expand public debates to include nonv oting members of the electorate in or der to gain a majority of voters and win the election. This strategy has been evident in the extremely competitive presidential elections since 2000, with widespr ead voter- mobilization campaigns on the par t of the D emocratic and R epublican par ties. Voter turnout in 2008, 2012, and 2016 was at the highest levels since 1960, largely because of the get-out-the-vote campaign drives organized by the political parties.
Political parties must also act “responsibly” by continually informing the people of current political issues that are in their best interests. And once in power, politi- cal parties must enact laws that represent their members’ interests. In this idealized
Define political parties and their functions in politics
political parties organized groups that attempt to influence the government by electing their members to important government offices
partisanship identification with or support of a particular party or cause
337WHAT ARE POL I T ICAL PART IES?
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 337 27/11/18 12:29 PM
view, competitive and responsible parties can help incr ease voter turnout, creating more equal representation for those in lower socioeconomic classes.
Some political scientists argue that Schattschneider’s vision is far from reality. Today, we have large, powerful, and active political parties, but party candidates are often subsidized by big businesses and the w ealthy. Political scientist Larr y Bartels found that on economic issues both the D emocratic and R epublican par ties ar e more responsive to the pr eferences of the upper and middle classes and ignor e the policy wishes of the lo wer class. Bartels calls this “unequal democracy.”4 Stagnating wages for the middle class and rising income inequality help explain why many vot- ers have grown increasingly frustrated by the D emocratic and R epublican parties; in the 2016 pr esidential election, many suppor ted populist candidates, such as Republican Donald Trump and Independent Bernie Sanders, who sought to reform the political system.
Another criticism of par ties stems from the idea that they ar e in fact controlled more by interest groups and wealthy campaign donors than by politicians and the public. This influence causes parties to be less likely to respond to voter preferences, and parties may even take advantage of the public ’s lack of attention to politics to promote their own agenda.5
Some observers believe that the pr oblem in the United States today is that the two parties and political elites in Congr ess are too polarized along liberal and con - servative lines, wher eas the majority of Americans hold moderate opinions and values; thus, Congr ess and the par ties do a poor job of r epresenting the citiz ens.6 Others argue that the rules governing our election system need reform so that there are more than two major political parties to better represent citizens’ views.7 Both of these topics are covered in more detail near the end of this chapter.
As long as political parties have existed, they have been criticized for introduc- ing selfish, “partisan” concerns into public debates and national policy. Yet political parties are extremely important to the functioning of a democracy. Most Americans affiliate or lean toward one of the two major parties, Democrats or Republicans. As we will see, parties can increase participation in politics, provide a central cue for citi- zens to cast informed votes, and organize the business of legislatures and governing.
While both major parties often claim to be looking out for lower- income individuals (as did the Bernie Sanders and Trump campaigns in 2016), studies have shown that both Democrats and Republicans in Congress respond more to the interests of the affluent and middle-class Americans.
338 CHAPTER 9 POL I T ICAL PART IES
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 338 27/11/18 12:29 PM
HOW DO POLITICAL PARTIES FORM AND CHANGE?
Historically, par ties form in one of two ways. The first, which could be called internal mobilization , occurs when political conflicts prompt officials and com- peting factions within government to mobilize popular support. This is precisely what happened during the early y ears of the American R epublic. Competition in Congr ess betw een nor theastern mer chants and southern farmers led each group to attempt to organiz e their supporters. The result was the foundation of America’s first national parties: the Federalists, whose strength was greatest in the New England states and the Jeffersonians or Antifederalists, whose primary base was in the South.
The second way that parties form is called external mobilization, which takes place when a group of politicians outside of government organizes popular support to win governmental power. For example, during the 1850s a group of state politicians who opposed slavery, especially the expansion of slav ery in U.S. territorial possessions, built what became the R epublican Party by constructing par ty organizations and mobilizing popular support in the Northeast and West.
America’s two major par ties now are the Democrats and the R epublicans. Both trace their roots back over 150 years, and both hav e evolved over time. Since they were formed, the two major par ties hav e undergone significant changes in their policy positions and their membership. These changes have been prompted both by issues and events (economic change, the civil rights mo vement, immigration, etc.) and by demographic and social change in the U nited States. Today growing dif - ferences in the demographic profiles of Republicans and Democrats suggest mor e change in the par ty system is under way . Younger v oters and racial and ethnic minorities increasingly affiliate with the Democratic Party, while white, older people are more likely to vote Republican. In the 2016 presidential campaign, a lack of trust in and fr ustration with the federal go vernment mobiliz ed many to suppor t “outsider” populist candidates on both the ideological right and left. The success of outsider candidates may signal that change to the political parties is under way (see discussion in this chapter on the history of party systems and party realignments).
THE UNITED STATES’ TWO-PARTY SYSTEM
Over the past 200 years, Americans’ conception of political parties has changed con- siderably. In the early years of the Republic, parties were seen as threats to the social order and w ere r eferred to as “ factions.” In the Federalist Papers, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison condemned factions that pursued narrow self-interest over the broader well-being of the nation as a whole.8 In his 1796 Farewell Address, President G eorge Washington warned his countr ymen to shun par tisan politics. Nonetheless, a two-party system emerged early in the ne w Republic. Beginning with the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans in the late 1780s, two major parties have dominated national politics, although which two parties has changed with the times and issues. (See “Party Systems,” which follows.)
Most other countries in the world use a pr oportional representation system, in which seats in government (national legislature or parliament) are allocated to politi- cal par ties based on their shar e of the total v ote cast in the election. I n contrast, the United States uses geographic single-member districts combined with winner- take-all elections. It doesn’t matter, for example, if the contest for a U.S. House seat is won with 40 percent or 80 percent of the total vote; the candidate with the
two-party system a political system in which only two parties have a realistic opportunity to compete effectively for control
339WHAT ARE POL I T ICAL PART IES?
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 339 27/11/18 12:29 PM
largest number of v otes (a plurality) in that district wins the seat in Congr ess or a state legislature. That is why the system is “winner take all” or a plurality electoral system: unlike in proportional systems, runners-up do not gain seats in government (see Chapter 10 as well). The U.S. system is also called “first past the post” because the candidate with the most votes wins the election, even if she did not win a major- ity of the popular vote. In the United States, proportional voting rules are uncom- mon, especially above the local level, and are absent at the national level.
Election rules largely determine how many political parties there are in a country. Plurality voting rules in the United States create its two party–dominant system, and third parties have generally not won seats in Congress, state legislatures, or the presi- dency. Under U.S. election rules, voters have an incentive not to vote for small- or third-party candidates for fear of “wasting” their vote when only one party (usually one of the two largest par ties) can win the election. Concern about wasting one ’s vote on third parties is called the spoiler effect or strategic voting. Proportional rep- resentation systems used in many other countries tend to r esult in multiple par ties in government. If U.S. rules were to change, the number of political par ties would likely change as well.
WHAT POLITICAL PARTIES DO
Without political parties, democracy as we know it would be difficult to achieve. In the U nited S tates, citiz ens take for granted that leaders will r un for public office, that there will be competition among candidates, that they will hav e the opportunity to learn about candidates and policy issues from campaigns and cast their ballots in fair elections, and that once in office, political leaders will work together to make policy and govern. Each of these tasks is complex, however, and would be all the mor e so if political par ties did not exist. P arties mobilize citizens in the electorate to v ote, offer choices to voters in elections, and pr o- vide officeholders with organization for running government. As political scientist John Aldrich argues in Why Parties, parties solve three fundamental problems of democracy: how to r egulate the number of people seeking public office, how to mobilize voters, and how to achiev e and maintain the majorities needed to pass legislation once in office.9
Parties, Voter Mobilization, and Elections
Parties have always been central to the electoral pr ocess, and in r ecent years they have taken on a r enewed role in r ecruiting candidates, coor -
dinating campaigns, mobilizing voters, and raising money.10 Just as companies seek to brand their products in the commercial marketplace using ad campaigns, brand- ing and mar keting now r egularly happen in candidate campaigns. As campaigns become more candidate-centered, branding has become central. Barack Obama, for example, was especially effective in branding his campaign with the wor ds “hope” and “change.” In 2016, Donald Trump branded his campaign with the ubiquitous “Make American G reat Again” r ed baseball caps. Parties succeed when they win elections; thus, we begin with parties and elections.
Explain the roles that parties play in elections
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS What rules governing the American electoral process promote a two-party system? How might different rules impact the party system?
340 CHAPTER 9 POL I T ICAL PART IES
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 340 27/11/18 12:29 PM
SOURCE: The U.S. Federal Election Commission, transition.fec.gov and the Kiesraad (Dutch Electoral Commission), www.kiesraad.nl (accessed 4/12/18).
The American political system is dominated by two political parties, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, but many other countries have more than two parties. The number varies depending on the electoral rules in place. Countries such as the United States, which use a first-past- the-post system (in which the candidate with the most votes wins the seat), tend to have two major parties that dominate the system. In contrast, the Netherlands uses a proportional representation system and has 13 parties in their current legislature, with 4 of the parties working together to form a coalition government.
In proportional representation systems like the Netherlands, voters select parties to represent them nationally rather than candidates to represent their region, and parties receive roughly the same percentage of votes in parliament as they received in the election. Thus, the legislature tends to more accurately resemble how the national electorate voted. The party representation in the 2017 Dutch parliament is almost identical to the 2017 national vote, whereas in the United States, the largest parties tend to be overrepresented while smaller parties lose out.
Two-Party and Multi-Party Systems
VVD PVV CDA D66 Groenlinks SP PvdA ChristenUnie PvdD 50PLUS SGP DENK FvDem
2017 NETHERLANDS LOWER HOUSE (TWEDE CAMER)
21%
13 12 12
9 9
6
3 3 3 2 2 2
22%
13 13 13
9 9
6
3 3 3 2 2
1
Democrats Republicans Other
5 0
2016 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Percentage of votes Percentage of seats
47% 48
55
45%
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 341 27/11/18 12:29 PM
RECRUITING CANDIDATES
One of the most impor tant but least noticed par ty activities is the r ecruitment of candidates to run for office. As Schattschneider argued, “responsible parties” recruit candidates who are loyal to the party’s philosophy and policy agenda, with the goal of controlling government and adopting laws that ar e consistent with the par ty’s platform. Each election year, candidates run for thousands of state and local offices as well as congr essional seats. When they do not hav e an incumbent r unning for re-election, party leaders attempt to identify strong candidates and encourage them to run for office in open-seat elections.
An ideal candidate will have a strong leadership record and the capacity to raise enough money to mount a serious campaign, especially if that candidate must chal- lenge an incumbent or will face a well-funded opponent from the other party in the general election. Party leaders are usually not willing to provide financial backing to candidates who are unable to raise substantial funds on their own. For a U.S. House seat, this can mean several hundred thousand dollars; for a Senate seat, a serious candidate must be able to raise sev eral million dollars. Presidential candidates raise hundreds of millions of dollars.
Often, par ty leaders hav e difficulty finding strong candidates and persuading them to run for office. Candidate recruitment is problematic in an era when politi- cians must assume that their personal liv es will be intensely scr utinized on social media, in the press, and in negative campaign ads run by their opponents.11 Other barriers to recruiting quality candidates include the extremely high cost of political campaigns, extensiv e time dev oted to fundraising, and the numer ous gerr yman- dered congressional and legislativ e districts (see Chapter 10), giving challengers a slim chance of success. There needs to be a decent chance of winning for quality challengers to run for office.
PARTY NOMINATIONS AND PRIMARIES
Nomination is the process by which a party selects a single candidate to r un for each elective office. Parties want only one candidate on the general-election ballot so that members of the same par ty do not split the v ote, allowing the other par ty’s candi- date to win. Parties therefore undertake an internal process of nomination to settle on one candidate who will be on the ballot in the general election. The nomination process varies from state to state and office to office, but it usually involves a primary election or caucus among multiple candidates from the same party. Voters in the pri- mary election select just one candidate to go on to the general election to r epresent each political party.
Scholars have found that although the nomination pr ocess appears democratic in that av erage citiz ens hav e a say , par ty elites play an outsiz ed r ole in selecting the candidates who will compete to be the next president of the United States or member of Congress.12 This is in part because of low turnout in primary elections, where generally only the most activ e members of the par ty vote. Political par ties provide money and endorsements, which narr ows the field of candidates who can win in the primaries. Without money and endorsements from one of the two major parties, most candidates cannot get out of the primary. Candidates’ reliance on party money results in partisan voting blocs within government.13 In 2016, however, the Republican Party insiders had less contr ol over the pr ocess; reality-TV star D onald Trump, with no previous experience in public office, secured the nomination despite
nomination the process by which political parties select their candidates for election to public office
primary elections elections held to select a party’s candidate for the general election
caucus (political) a normally closed political party business meeting of citizens or lawmakers to select candidates, elect officers, plan strategy, or make decisions regarding legislative matters
342 CHAPTER 9 POL I T ICAL PART IES
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 342 27/11/18 12:29 PM
the fact that many members of the party emphatically spoke out against him. Only a handful of Republican members of Congress endorsed Trump for president.
GENERAL ELECTION AND MOBILIZING VOTERS
The general election begins after the nominations conclude. Throughout American history, the general election competition is a time of intense par tisanship, when popular support for the parties is high. All the paraphernalia of party committees— from signs, bumper stickers, and buttons to social media slogans, hashtags, and YouTube ads—ar e on display , and par ty members ar e activ ated into local par ty workforces. O ne of the earliest activities of par ty wor kers is v oter r egistration. Parties and candidate campaigns, along with nonpr ofit organizations, mail notices, call and email v oters, organize voter-registration drives on college campuses, and knock on doors to ensur e that citiz ens are registered. Confirming that citizens are registered to vote or helping them register, however, is only the first step.
The next step is turning out the vote. Convincing v oters to actually sho w up to cast a ballot on E lection Day is one of the har dest tasks that the par ties face; it involves getting individuals to go to the polls, stand in line, and vote for the party’s candidates on the ballot. If they are voting by mail—absentee ballots or mail voting is how one in thr ee Americans no w vote—each voter must fill out the ballot and return it. Some states, like Oregon and Washington, have all-mail elections, and all ballots are mailed to home addresses (see Chapter 8).
Voter mobilization, once an ar t, has no w become a science. Campaigns no w organize wide-scale voter-mobilization drives involving field offices with hundreds of thousands of v olunteers and par ty workers contacting millions of v oters. In recent years, the two major par ties have developed an extensive database of o ver 240 million potential adult voters, combining state voter registration files, demo- graphic data from the U.S. Census, and commer cial behavior data, which allows the parties to more accurately seek out votes for their party candidates, contribu- tions, and campaign volunteers. Using these vast computerized databases, modern
With no incumbent running for New Hampshire’s 1st Congressional District seat, Republican candidates debated one another in the prima- ries. Eddie Edwards, left, defeated four other Republican candidates to secure the party’s nomination in the general election.
343PART IES , VOTER MOB IL I zAT ION , AND ELECT IONS
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 343 27/11/18 12:29 PM
political campaigns can pr edict who y ou will v ote for, and they ar e extr emely effective at turning out the v oters who ar e most likely to v ote for their candi - dates. One way campaigns use these data is through micro-targeting, which involves tailoring campaign messages to individuals in small, homogeneous gr oups (e.g., suburban stay-at-home mothers or fans of NASCAR) and emphasizing specific, often heated issues, rather than a one-size-fits-all campaign message. This technique enables political parties to identify small groups based on specific characteristics—including geographic location—and to target candidates ’ strate- gies and messages to these groups.
Big data and targeted campaign messages have revolutionized how parties and candidates conduct v oter-mobilization driv es. I t doesn ’t matter , after all, which party has more support if that party’s voters stay home on Election Day. In 2008 the Obama campaign learned that face-to-face and in-person contacts ar e much more effective than mailings or r obocalls at getting out the v ote.14 The lessons of 2008 were improved on in 2012 and 2016 as both par ties built more accurate databases to use when dev eloping their messages and turning out the v ote. Facebook was especially important in turning out Republican voters for Trump in 2016.
Parties as Organizations In the U nited S tates party organiza- tions exist at vir tually every level of government (see Figure 9.1). These organizations are usually commit- tees made up of a number of activ e
party members. State law and party rules dictate how such committees are created. Usually, committee members are elected at local party business meetings, called cau- cuses, or as part of the regular primary election. The best-known examples of these
micro-targeting when political campaigns tailor messages to individuals in small homogenous groups based on their group interests to support a candidate or policy issue
Describe how the major American parties are structured at the national, state, and local levels
party organization the formal structure of a political party, including its leadership, election committees, active members, and paid staff
Research by political scientists and campaign organizations has shown that face-to-face, in-person con- tacts are much more effective than mailings, robocalls, or TV advertis- ing in mobilizing voters.
344 CHAPTER 9 POL I T ICAL PART IES
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 344 27/11/18 12:29 PM
committees are at the national lev el: the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee.
NATIONAL CONVENTION
At the national level, the party’s most important institution is the national convention. The convention, held ev ery four y ears, is attended b y delegates fr om each of the 50 states. The convention has thr ee formal tasks, the most impor tant of which is to nominate the par ty’s pr esidential and vice-pr esidential candidates. B efore World War II, presidential nominations occupied most of the time at the national convention, requiring days of negotiation and compr omise. In recent years, how- ever, presidential candidates have been chosen by winning enough delegates in state primary elections and caucuses to win the official nomination on the first ballot. Today, the convention serves as a media event to promote the party’s candidates, not as a forum to decide which presidential candidate will represent the party.
The convention’s other two formal tasks, determining the par ty’s rules and its platform, are also impor tant. Party rules can determine the influence of competing groups within the par ty, which may impr ove the par ty’s chances for electoral suc - cess. In 1972, for example, the D emocratic National Convention adopted a ne w set of rules favored by the party’s liberal wing. State delegations to the D emocratic Convention were required to include women and members of minority groups in rough proportion to those groups’ representation among the party’s membership in that state. The change also called for the use of the proportional voting rules. In the case of the Democratic Party, proportional representation increased the likelihood of women and minority delegates being elected, while in the Republican Party, which used pr oportional r epresentation v oting for the first time in 2012, it worked to increase representation of social conservatives and Tea Party members.
The convention also approves the party platform. Platforms are often dismissed as documents filled with promises that voters seldom read. To some extent this criticism is w ell founded: not one v oter in a thousand so much as glances at the party platform, and ev en the news media pay little attention to the documents.
national convention convened by the Republican National Committee or the Democratic National Committee to nominate official candidates for president and vice president in the upcoming election, establish party rules, and adopt the party’s platform
platform a party document, written at a national convention, that contains party philosophy, principles, and positions on issues
FIGURE 9.1
How American Parties Are Organized
National convention
National committee
County conventions Local committees (county, city, town, ward)
Party volunteers Party voters
State conventions State committees
Congressional district committees
345PART IES AS ORGAN IzAT IONS
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 345 27/11/18 12:29 PM
Furthermore, the parties’ presidential candidates make little use of the platforms in their campaigns and usually develop their own themes. Nonetheless, the platform is understood as a contract in which the various party groups attending the convention state their terms for suppor ting the ticket. Party platforms should be seen mor e as internal party documents than as public pledges.
NATIONAL COMMITTEES
Between conv entions, each national political par ty is technically headed b y its national committee. F or the D emocrats and R epublicans, these ar e called the Demo cratic National Committee (DNC) and the Republican National Committee (RNC). Much of what these committees do is raise money for party candidates. The national committees also tr y to minimiz e disputes within the par ty and wor k to enhance the party’s media image. The work of each national committee is overseen by its chairperson.
The DNC and RNC each used to raise tens of millions of dollars of so-called soft money ev ery election cy cle, which could be used to suppor t par ty candidates throughout the nation. The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act outlawed this practice. To circumvent the law and raise the large amounts of money needed for political campaigns, however, each party and most candidates establish Super PACs as sour ces of outside money . These Super PACs pr omote and publiciz e political issues, including airing negative campaign ads. As nonprofit political advocacy groups, Super PACs can claim tax-exempt status under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code (see Chapter 10); therefore the committees that comprise each Super PAC are called 527 committees. Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money as long as their activities are not coordinated with those of the formal party organizations or the candidates, and if their aim is to inform the public and increase voter turnout. M any Super PACs are directed by former R epublican and D emo- cratic par ty officials and run shadow campaigns on behalf of the par ties.15 Super PACs can have outsized influence in elections because they run expensive television and media ads for and against candidates. Because wealthy funders, corporations, and even foreign donors can mask their identity by forming Super PACs, they have become synonymous with political corruption in some circles.
soft money money contributed directly to political parties and other organizations for political activities, such as voter mobilization drives, that is not regulated by federal campaign spending laws
Today, the parties use their national conventions to provide more enter- tainment than substantive policy in order to attract media attention and promote their candidate.
346 CHAPTER 9 POL I T ICAL PART IES
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 346 27/11/18 12:29 PM
CONGRESSIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES
Each party also forms House and Senate campaign committees, whose efforts may or may not be coordinated with the activities of the national committees (that is, the DNC and RNC). The congressional campaign committee is made up of members of each chamber that ar e expected to raise a cer tain sum of money , and doing so allows them to mo ve up in the po wer structure. Congressional committees dir ect funds to the handful of v ery competitiv e House and S enate races each election. Presidential and congr essional fundraising committees compete for dollars fr om the biggest donors, who ar e often corporations and billionair es. I n r ecent y ears, both parties have attempted to better coordinate the fund-raising activities of all of their committees.
The Democrats and the Republicans also have a central committee in each state. The parties traditionally also have county committees and, in some instances, state Senate district committees, judicial district committees, and, in the case of larger cities, citywide party committees and local assembly district “ward” committees.
During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, many cities, counties, and occasionally even a few states had such well-organized parties that they were called party machines, whose leaders w ere called “bosses. ” The famous old machines of New York, Chicago, and Boston r elied on “ precinct captains” and a fairly tight group of par ty members ar ound them. P recinct captains w ere usually leaders in neighborhood party clubhouses, which were important social centers and places for distributing fav ors (or bribes) to constituents. 16 Traditional par ty machines depended heavily on patronage, their power to control government jobs. With thou- sands of jobs to dispense, party bosses were able to recruit armies of political workers to turn out the vote. Voting for the party could mean the guarantee of a government job, such as a police officer, firefighter, or garbage collector. The party machines even distributed free turkeys on Thanksgiving, in exchange for support on Election Day.
Some of the major r eform mo vements in American histor y, such as the Progressive movement in the early 1900s, w ere motivated by the ex cessive power, corruption, and abuses of these par ty machines and their bosses. Progressive reformers changed the r ules of politics to r educe the power of parties and to give voters more voice in deciding who was elected to public office. A few of the many reforms to weaken the party machines included the direct election of U.S. senators; the secret ballot and long ballot, where the names of candidates running for both parties were listed; primary elections where vot- ers, not par ties, picked candidates; and v oter registration, which reduced turnout and pr evented par ty officials from casting false ballots for their candidate.
Few political machines ar e left today . With civil ser vice and the merit system, par ty leaders no longer contr ol many go vern- ment jobs, which was a primary way the party rewarded loyal sup- porters. Nevertheless, state and local par ty organizations are very active in recruiting candidates and conducting voter-registration drives. In addition, under current federal law, state and local party organizations can spend unlimited amounts of money on “ party- building” activities such as v oter-registration and get-out-the- vote drives. National party organizations, which hav e enormous
party machines strong party organizations in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century American cities; these machines were led by often corrupt “bosses” who controlled party nominations and patronage
patronage the resources available to higher officials, usually opportunities to make partisan appointments to offices and to confer grants, licenses, or special favors to supporters
Political parties used to be ruled by powerful local “bosses,” who handed out jobs and favors in exchange for loyalty on Election Day. The cartoon shows “fat cat” New York boss Richard Croker controlling the Democratic Party organization (the donkey) with his pit bulls.
347PART IES AS ORGAN IzAT IONS
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 347 27/11/18 12:29 PM
fund-raising abilities, transfer millions of dollars to the state and local party organi- zations. State and local parties, in turn, spend this soft money to promote national, state, and local political activities. Through the transfer of par ty campaign money, local organizations became linked financially to the national parties and American political parties became more integrated. State and local party organizations play an important role in elections despite the collapse of the old party machines.17
Parties in Government When the bumps, bruises, and dust of the campaign and election hav e settled, does it matter which par ty has won? I t does. Especially when the parties are sharply divided ideo-
logically, as they have been in recent years, the party that controls government can make significant changes to law and policy.
PARTIES AND POLICY
For decades, one of the most familiar complaints about American politics was that the two major parties try to be all things to all people and are therefore indis- tinguishable from each other. But since the 1980s fundamental differences have emerged between the positions of Democratic and Republican party leaders on a
number of key issues. For example, the national leadership of the R epublican Party suppor ts limiting immigration to the United States, maintaining high lev els of militar y spending, cuts in social programs including health care, tax relief for cor- porations and upper-income voters, protecting rights for gun owners, and a social agenda backed by members of conserva- tive r eligious denominations, including opposition to abor - tion. The Republican Party opposes go vernment r egu lation on businesses, including envir onmental laws. The Demo- cratic Party, on the other hand, suppor ts expanded funding for public education, social services and national health care, public spending for infrastructure such as roads, cuts in mili- tary spending, increased regulation of business to address cli- mate change, raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations to combat growing income inequality, restrictions on gun owner- ship, and a variety of consumer protection programs. Demo- crats favor more lenient immigration policies and hav e been strong suppor ters of so-called DREAM ers—undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children.
Partisan conflict has intensified in recent years. More Ameri- cans believ e ther e ar e str onger conflicts between D emocrats and R epublicans in U.S. society today than betw een blacks and whites, the rich and the poor , and other social gr oups (see Figure 9.2). In 2018, 86 percent of Americans said con- flicts between Democrats and Republicans are either strong or very strong.18
Explain how parties organize legislative business and influence policy
Beginning in the 1980s the Republican Party, led by Ronald Reagan, sought to expand its base by focusing on social issues that mattered to conservative religious voters. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) announced his 2016 presidential campaign at Liberty University.
348 CHAPTER 9 POL I T ICAL PART IES
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 348 27/11/18 12:29 PM
Party leaders often seek to develop issues they hope will add new groups to their party’s constituent base. D uring the 1980s, for example, under the leadership of Ronald Reagan, the R epublicans used social issues, including suppor t for school prayer, opposition to abor tion, and opposition to affirmative action, to gain the support of white southerners. This effort was successful at incr easing Republican strength in the once solidly Democratic South. In 2008, Barack Obama campaigned on creating national health insurance for all Americans and ending the I raq War; the effect was to build a coalition of working class and middle class v oters. In the 2016 pr esidential election, D onald Trump pr oposed to build a wall betw een the southern U.S. bor der and M exico to pr event illegal immigration, building a coalition of traditional conser vatives and white wor king-class citiz ens who hav e faced economic hardship.
FIGURE 9.2
Conflicts in the American Public SOURCE: Pew Research, “Public sees strong conflicts between many groups – especially partisans,” December 19, 2017, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/12/19/far-more-americans-say-there-are-strong-conflicts-between- partisans-than-between-other-groups-in-society/ft_17-12-19_politics_publicsees/ (accessed 5/15/18).
64% 22
8 2
Very strong
PERCENTAGE WHO SAY CONFLICTS BETWEEN EACH PAIR IN AMERICA TODAY ARE . . .
13%
24 37
20
12%
23
42
19
Young & older people
Strong Not very strong No con‰icts
Democrats & Republicans
29%
30
28
8
Rich & poor
27%
38
26
4
Blacks & whites
People in cities & people in rural areas
349PART IES IN GOVERNMENT
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 349 27/11/18 12:29 PM
As these examples suggest, par ty leaders can play the r ole of policy entrepreneurs, developing ideas and programs that will expand their par ty’s base of suppor t while eroding that of the opposition. Like their counterpar ts in the business world, party leaders seek to identify and dev elop programs and policies that will appeal to the public. The public, of course, has the ultimate voice. With its v otes it decides whether or not to “buy” new policy offerings.
PARTISANSHIP AND GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNS
Each year passing the federal budget requires cooperation between the Democratic and Republican parties, because the Senate must approve the spending bill for the nation with a supermajority vote (60 out of 100 votes)—and rarely does one party hold 60 seats. I f these spending bills ar e not passed, the go vernment does not have the money to operate fully, and non-essential offices and programs are shut down. In 2013, under Democratic president Obama, Republican lawmakers tried to delay or defund the Affordable Care Act in passing the federal budget. President Obama promised that he would veto any such attempt to end national health care. This stalemate between the parties in the Senate led to a 17-day shut- down of the federal go vernment, during which 850,000 federal emplo yees were furloughed (not paid), and another 1.3 million w ere required to wor k without knowing when they would be paid. G overnment shutdowns are costly, but there are also political costs, for the governing party and for a president unable to adopt their policy agenda.
Government shutdowns are rare, especially when one party controls both cham- bers of Congr ess and the White H ouse. B ut in J anuary 2018, R epublicans and Democrats were again unable to reach a deal on passing a spending bill before fund- ing for the federal go vernment expired at midnight. A t stake was pr otection from deportation for 700,000 DREAMers—immigrants brought to the country illegally as children but who hav e been allowed to live, work, and attend school legally for decades as gr een car d holders. Though Congress appr oved a bipar tisan compr o- mise that protected the DREAMers from deportation, President Trump rejected the agreement, leaving the issue as a gaping divide between the parties as the stalemate continued, centered on immigration.
As the par tisan politics r eached a fev ered pitch, the blame game heated up , with each side pointing the finger at the other. Popular hash tags on Twitter were #TrumpShutdown, clearly targeting the R epublican-controlled government, and #SchumerShutdown, blaming the S enate leader of the D emocratic P arty who provided most of the votes for the shutdown. To end the stalemate a group of bipartisan moderate senators proposed a short-term stopgap spending bill to keep the go vernment operating until early F ebruary. After five shor t-term spending bills, a final omnibus spending bill was passed in March 2018, but the fate of the DREAMers remains unclear.
FACTIONS WITHIN THE PARTIES
While par ty polarization, or the depth of divisions betw een R epublicans and Democrats, is at an all-time high, the divisions within each political par ty may be nearly as important. Parties are broad coalitions of people and groups who agree on a common appr oach to addr ess curr ent challenges facing the nation, including
policy entrepreneur an individual who identifies a problem as a political issue and brings a policy proposal into the political agenda
350 CHAPTER 9 POL I T ICAL PART IES
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 350 27/11/18 12:29 PM
foreign threats to security, economic growth, and social inequality. But political par- ties are also diverse and represent many people with competing inter ests for power and influence. For leaders in Congr ess and state legislatur es, keeping these different groups wor king to ward shar ed goals can be difficult. When cooperation among factions is not successful, a party’s internal divisions can weaken the party itself.
The Republican Party today, for example, is divided in four ways. P ro-business conservatives, epitomiz ed b y N ebraska senator B enjamin S asse, ar e traditional Republican conservatives, generally a relatively affluent group that favors small gov- ernment and lower corporate taxes but also favors global free trade. Far-right or alt- right conservatives, such as P resident Trump, tend to be social conser vatives, often with lower levels of education, and ar e opposed to immigration and U.S. inv olve- ment in the global economy and institutions like the U nited Nations. They favor tariffs on imports to the United States to protect American-made products. Social and religious conservatives, such as Texas senator Ted Cruz, are primarily driven by their socially conservative values, such as opposition to abortion and gay marriage. Finally, libertarians, such as K entucky senator Rand P aul, believe in small go vernment and reduced government regulations, and emphasize individual freedom. Libertarians are closer to traditional conservatives than to alt-right conservatives. These cleavages have presented severe challenges for go verning. For example, far-right conser vatives like Donald Trump favor very strict immigration policies in or der to pr otect American workers, while pro-business conservatives see that immigration is important to main- tain a healthy economy. These differences make it difficult to find common ground. Trump’s electoral success in the 2016 R epublican presidential primaries was due in part to a crowded field of candidates; no one candidate could secure a majority.
During his pr esidency, D onald Trump has waged a war, particularly through his use of Twitter, against many R epublican leaders within his par ty, including Senate Majority Leader M itch McConnell, former attorney general J eff Sessions, former FBI dir ector J ames Comey, the late Ariz ona senator J ohn M cCain, and Special Counsel R obert Mueller, among others. 19 Nonetheless, R epublican law - makers in Congr ess have generally rallied ar ound the pr esident even if they hav e personally been subject to his wrath on Twitter. Despite serious divisions within parties, when a job needs to get done, the parties often unify behind a shared goal.
The 2016 presidential election also revealed serious divides within the D emo- cratic Party between its liberal wing (whose members favored Bernie Sanders) and traditional Democrats, who fav ored Hillary Clinton and who tend to be older and hold a mix of moderate and liberal values. Such divisions within the party may have contributed to the Democrats losing the White House and Congress in 2016, as many Sanders supporters refused to vote for Clinton in the general elec- tion. Today, however, the Democratic Party has renewed strength and has largely remained united in staunch opposition to P resident Trump. Within the D emo- cratic Party, the coalitions all str ongly fav or social safety nets (national health care, etc.) but are divided in terms of government regulation of business.
PARTIES IN CONGRESS
Congress depends mor e on the par ty system than is generally r ecognized, as the parties form the basic organization for running Congress. The Speaker of the House is a par ty office. All the members of the House take par t in the election of the Speaker, but the actual selection is made by the majority party—the party that holds a majority of seats in the H ouse. (The other party is known as the minority party.)
majority party the party that holds the majority of legislative seats in either the House or the Senate
minority party the party that holds the minority of legislative seats in either the House or the Senate
351PART IES IN GOVERNMENT
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 351 27/11/18 12:29 PM
When the majority par ty caucus pr esents a nominee for S peaker to the entir e House, its choice is usually ratified in a straight vote along par ty lines. The com- mittee system of both houses of Congr ess is also a pr oduct of the two-par ty sys- tem; the party with the most seats chairs the congressional committees, setting the policy agenda. Each party is also assigned a quota of members for each committee, depending on the per centage of total seats held b y the par ty. As w e shall see in Chapter 12, the assignment of individual members to committees is a par ty deci- sion. Granting a member of Congress permission to transfer to another committee is also a party decision, as is advancement up the committee ladder toward serving as committee chair.
Party Identification One r eason why par ties ar e so important is that individual ’s tend to dev elop par ty identification with one of the major political par ties.
Party identification has been compar ed with w earing blue- or r ed-tinted glasses: they color voters’ understanding of politics in general and are the most important cue in how to vote in elections. Party identification can create information bub- bles and filters where citizens follow news media and candidates on social media that ar e of the same par tisan leaning. M ost R epublicans v ote for R epublican party candidates, and most D emocrats v ote for D emocrats. S lightly less than one-third of Americans ar e R epublicans, while D emocrats and I ndependents each make up slightly mor e than one-thir d of the population. H owever, most independents lean toward one of the major par ties, and political scientists often consider independents who lean as identifying with that par ty. The number of people identifying as D emocrats has outnumber ed R epublican identifiers for a long time (see Figure 9.3).
Although it is an emotional tie, par ty identification also has a rational compo- nent. Voters generally form attachments to the par ty that r eflects their views and interests. O nce those attachments ar e formed, usually in y outh, they ar e likely to persist and ev en be handed do wn to childr en, unless some v ery strong factors convince individuals that their party is no longer serving their interests.
On any general-election ballot, there are a number of candidates about whom the average voter has little information. Without knowledge of local or judicial races, most voters fall back on their Republican or Democratic party identification or lean- ing. Some states allow a straight-ticket voting option, where individuals may check one box to cast a ballot for all the R epublican or Democratic party candidates up and down the ballot, from local to national offices.
Party identification gives citizens a stake in election outcomes that goes beyond the particular race at hand. This is why strong party identifiers are more likely to go to the polls, to be contacted b y political campaigns, and to suppor t the party with which they identify. Party activists are drawn from rank and file members, but tend to be mor e ideologically extr eme than the av erage person identifying with the par ty. Activists are those who not only v ote but also contribute their time, money, and effort to par ty affairs, organization, and elections, thus giving them an outsiz e role in the par ty. No par ty could succeed without the thousands of
Identify the reasons for and sources of party identification
party identification an individual voter’s psychological ties to one party or another
party activists partisans who contribute time, energy, and effort to support their party and its candidates
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS How do parties attract the popular support they need to win elections?
352 CHAPTER 9 POL I T ICAL PART IES
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 352 27/11/18 12:29 PM
volunteers who undertake the tasks needed to keep the organization going. Many party activists dev ote their time to politics because they hav e strong beliefs on particular policy issues.
WHO ARE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS?
The Democratic and Republican parties are currently the only truly national parties in the United States. They are the only political organizations that draw support from every region of the country and from Americans of every racial, economic, religious, and ethnic group. The two parties do not draw equal support from members of every social and demographic stratum, however. In the United States today, several group characteristics are associated with each par ty. These include race and ethnicity, gen- der, religion, class (income and education), ideology, region, and age.
The parties have different philosophies and seek to appeal to different core con- stituencies. The Democratic Party at the national level seeks to unite organized labor, the poor and wor king class, college-educated middle-class pr ofessionals, members of racial and ethnic groups, the young, and government workers. The Republicans, by contrast, appeal to business, white non-H ispanics, white wor king-class v ot- ers, upper-class and affluent voters, militar y families, r eligious conser vatives, and libertarian-leaning conser vatives who want less go vernment inter ference in all aspects of society and the economy . Rural and suburban ar eas provide more votes for the Republicans, while urban areas are dominated by Democrats.
Race and Ethnicity The United S tates’ gr owing racial and ethnic div ersity is reflected in changing partisanship and growing divisions among the Republican and Democratic par ties. Since the 1930s and F ranklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal,
FIGURE 9.3
Trends in Party Identification, 1970–2017 Over time, the Democrats have lost strength as more Americans identified themselves as Republicans and indepen- dents. Since 2004, however, the number of Democrats has held steady and the number of Republicans has declined, while the number of Americans identifying as in- dependent of either party has increased to an all-time high. Why do you think this is?
SOURCE: Pew Research Center, “Party Identification,” March 20, 2018, www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/ party-identification-trends-1992-2017/ (accessed 5/15/18).
PERCENTAGE IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES AS . . .
0
10
20
30
40
50%
1970 1976 1982 1988 1994 2000 2006 2012 2018
Republican
Democrat
Independent
353PARTY IDENT I F ICAT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 353 27/11/18 12:29 PM
more African Americans have supported the D emocratic Party than the Republi- can Party. Today more than 90 per cent of African Americans describe themselv es as D emocrats and suppor t D emocratic candidates in national, state, and local elections. In 2016, 92 per cent of African Americans v oted for D emocrat Hillary Clinton for president.20
Latino voters are less monolithic. Cuban Americans, for example, have gener- ally leaned Republican whereas Mexican Americans have favored the Democrats. As a group, however, Latinos increasingly support the Democratic Party. A strong shift toward the Democratic Party occurred in 2008, when the exit polls sho wed that 67 per cent of Latinos suppor ted O bama. This trend has continued, with 65 percent voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Latino party affiliation is particu- larly important because it has the potential to alter the electoral map and change traditionally “red” states (states that r eliably vote for the Republican presidential candidate) to “blue” states (states that r eliably vote for the Democratic presiden- tial candidate).21
Asian Americans hav e been divided in past elections but no w solidly fav or Democratic candidates. In 2016, 65 per cent of Asian Americans v oted for Hillary Clinton, and 29 percent voted for Donald Trump, according to exit polls. Asian Americans, like Latinos, ar e extremely diverse (see Chapter 8), r eflecting cultural differences from their home countries, ranging from India, China, Korea, the Philippines, and more.
The affiliation of African Americans and Latinos with the Democratic Party can be traced to the par ty’s historical policy positions. The Democrats were the party of the civil rights mo vement, desegregation, and affirmative action policies that solidified African American support. S imilarly, Democrats tend to be mor e supportive than Republicans of policies that favor an easier path to citizenship for immigrants. Support for immigration is often critically impor tant for Latino and Asian voters, especially in states like California, where 28 percent of the population are legal immigrants.
For many voters, race and ethnicity play a major role in party identifica- tion. Members of racial and ethnic minority groups tend to favor Demo- cratic candidates. In 2016, Hillary Clinton gained strong support from African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos.
354 CHAPTER 9 POL I T ICAL PART IES
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 354 27/11/18 12:29 PM
While to overgeneralize these groups is a disservice to the unique characteristics that make up these peoples, we also seek broad patterns to understand how Latinos, Asians, and African Americans ar e forming coalitions that may cr eate the founda - tions for the Democratic Party.
Gender Women ar e some what mor e likely to suppor t D emocrats than R epublicans, and men ar e somewhat more likely to suppor t Republicans. This reflects the fact that women tend to prioritiz e health, education, and social ser vices, issues favored by the Democratic Party, while men tend to prioritize fiscal and economic issues and national security, issues favored by the Republican Party. This difference is known as the gender gap. The gender gap has hovered at 10 percent since 1992.
The widest gender gap was in 2016, with the first female major-party pr esi- dential candidate. There was a 24 percentage-point gap between women and men in the 2016 election. The 2018 midterm elections, dubbed another y ear of the women, resulted in at least 125 women in Congress. Women voted for Democrats 59 to 40 per cent; men split 47 to 51 per cent. That 23-point gender gap is the biggest in a midterm election dating back to 1982. In 2016, 54 percent of women supported Democrat Hillary Clinton, compared to 41 percent of men.22 Still, this is not much mor e than the D emocratic advantage among women in 2012 and 2008. The advantage for Trump among men, however, was significantly larger than the 7-point advantage Romney had among men in 2012 and the one-point advan- tage Obama had o ver McCain in 2008. I n 2016, 53 per cent of men suppor ted Trump compared to 41 percent for Clinton.23
Religion Just as racial and ethnic diversity continues to grow, so does religious diver- sity in the United States. Jews are among the Democratic Party’s most loyal constitu- ent groups and have been since the New Deal. Nearly 90 percent of Jewish Americans describe themselves as Democrats. Catholics were also once a strongly pro-Democratic group but hav e been shifting to ward the R epublican Party since the 1970s, when
gender gap a distinctive pattern of voting behavior reflecting the differences in views between women and men
355PARTY IDENT I F ICAT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 355 27/11/18 12:29 PM
Republicans began focusing on abor tion and other social issues impor tant to Catho- lics. White Protestants are more likely to identify with the Republican Party. Evan- gelical Protestants, in particular, have been drawn to the Republicans’ conservative stands on social issues, such as marriage and abor tion. Those who are unaffiliated with a r eligion—a gr owing segment of the population at r oughly 25 per cent— strongly favor the Democratic Party.24 Today 56 percent of American adults believe it is not necessary to believe in God to be moral and have good values.25
The importance of religious conservatives to the Republican Party became more evident after 2000, when George W. Bush awarded federal grants and contracts to reli- gious groups. By using so-called faith-based groups as federal contractors, Bush sought to ensure that these groups and churches would have a continuing stake in Republican success. Religious conservatives, particularly white born-again Christians, overwhelm- ingly supported Bush in 2004, accounting for one-thir d of his v otes. In 2012 and 2016 white evangelical Protestants continued to vote overwhelmingly Republican.26
Class Rising income inequality is an important trend that has r ecently led to eco- nomic populism. The patterns of class voting that emerged fr om the New Deal of the 1930s were simple: upper-income Americans were considerably more likely to be Republican whereas lower-income Americans w ere far mor e likely to identify with the Democrats. This divide is reflected in the differences between the two parties on economic issues. In general, Republicans support cutting taxes, decreased regulation of business, and lo wer social spending—positions that r eflect the interests of the wealthy. The Democrats, however, favor increasing social spending and in some cases raising taxes on the wealthy—a position consistent with the inter ests of less affluent Americans. But beginning in the 1970s, many white wor king-class voters turned to the Republican Party. When class is measured by education, white workers without a college degree have favored Republicans in recent elections. While both the Demo- cratic and R epublican par ties appeal to wor king-class voters, working-class whites with low levels of education tend to vote Republican, while working-class minorities tend to v ote Democratic.27 This trend accelerated in the 2016 election, contribut - ing to Republicans’ electoral success. A wide gap in presidential preferences emerged between those with and without a college degr ee. College graduates backed Clinton by a 9-point margin (52 percent to 43 percent), while those without a college degree backed Trump (52 percent to 44 percent) in what is the widest gap in support among college graduates and non-college graduates in exit polls dating back to 1980.
Ideology Ideology and par ty identification are very closely linked. Most individu- als who describe themselv es as conser vatives identify with the R epublican Party, whereas most who call themselves liberals support the Democrats. This division has increased in r ecent years as the two par ties have taken v ery different positions on social and economic issues.
The Pew Research Center’s political typology finds that 36 percent of Americans are “ideological” and identify strongly with one of the two major par ties. For most Americans, ho wever, par ty and ideological identification are not so clear-cut: 54 percent of Americans are less partisan and less predictable as to which candidates they will suppor t. These voters are only sporadically inter ested in politics, such as during an election cy cle. Finally, the remaining 10 percent of Americans ar e com- pletely on the sidelines of politics—this group tends to be young and diverse.28 This varied political typography of our nation suggests that the categories of liberal and conservative may not capture the full picture.
356 CHAPTER 9 POL I T ICAL PART IES
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 356 27/11/18 12:29 PM
Region After the 2000 election, red and blue maps appeared showing the regional distribution of the vote. Democrats, represented as “blue America,” tend to be clus- tered on the coasts, the upper M idwest, across the nor thern states, and in most urban areas. Republicans, represented as “red America,” tend to be concentrated in the Mountain West and the South, and in suburbs and rural areas.
The explanations for these regional v ariations ar e complex. B etween the Civil War and the 1960s, the Democrats controlled the South. Today, the South is where Republicans gain str ength, but this is changing in some states and urban ar eas. Southern Republicanism has come about because conser vative white southerners associate the Democratic Party with liberal positions and policies that benefit urban and minority voters. Republican strength in the South is also related to the weakness of organized labor in this region and a dependence on military programs supported by the Republicans. Democratic strength in the Northeast and Midwest is a func - tion of the continuing influence of organized labor in the large cities of these regions and of the regions’ large populations of minority voters. The coastal West, especially California and the Pacific Northwest, shifted toward the Democrats in the 1990s, in part because of growing young/millennial populations, the importance of the Latino vote, concerns with the envir onment, and a gr owing population of the r eligiously unaffiliated.29
Many states that used to be solidly r ed or blue ar e now turning “purple” where Republicans and D emocrats battle to win elections. These states include Texas, North Car olina, Virginia, Ariz ona and other states wher e R epublicans used to dominate. For example, D emocrat Hillary Clinton lost Texas by just 9 per cent of the vote in 2016. On the other hand, Midwest states that used to be solidly D em- ocratic favored Republicans in 2016, including Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Ohio, and P ennsylvania. D emographic change and modern electoral campaigns that mobilize high turnout are blurring the lines between red and blue states (Figure 9.4).
FIGURE 9.4
Presidential Vote by County, 2016 In 2016 the Republicans dominated in most counties in the center of the country. Though the map shows more “red” counties than “blue” covering a greater geographic area, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats won many of the most populous counties and several of the states with the most votes in the electoral college (see Chapter 10).
SOURCES: “Presidential Election Results: Donald Trump Wins,” New York Times, www.nytimes.com/ elections/results/president; Mark Newman, Maps of the 2016 U.S. presidential election results, www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/ (accessed 5/15/18).
357PARTY IDENT I F ICAT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 357 27/11/18 12:29 PM
Age Age is also associated with par tisanship. Today young people ar e much more likely to be D emocrats, while the oldest v oters affiliate with the Republican Party. Why does age matter for par tisanship? Individuals from the same age cohor t are likely to have experienced a similar set of events during the period when their party loyalties w ere formed. M illennials, for example, who came of age during B ush’s presidency and the Iraq War, also have a strong identification with the Demo- cratic P arty. The election of Barack O bama in 2008 saw a par ticularly striking shift among y oung voters toward the D emocratic Party. In recent years, however, there has been a striking uptick in the per centage of young people who identify as independent, which may be a reflection of increasing frustration with government. Nonetheless, in 2016, 55 per cent of people ages 18–29 v oted for Hillary Clinton, compared to just 37 per cent for Donald Trump.30 As a gr oup, young people hav e distinct policy preferences that overlap with those of the Democratic Party, includ- ing str ong suppor t for L GBTQ rights, legalization of marijuana, envir onmental protection, and greater economic equality.
RECENT TRENDS IN PARTY AFFILIATION
After the 1960s many analysts began to express concern that American parties had become too w eak to play their vital r ole in conv erting popular political par - ticipation into effective go vernment. These scholars noted a decline in partisan attachment within the electorate, the growth in the numbers of voters identifying as independent, and a rise in so-called split-ticket voting. This overall trend, sometimes termed dealignment, was seen as a pr oduct of gr owing social div ersity and educa - tional attainment, which made v oters less reliant on parties to guide their political decision-making (see F igure 9.5). The growth of the mass media, par ticularly television, also seemed to r educe the role of par ties in elections as television tends to focus on the personalities of individual candidates rather than the “institution ” of the party.
dealignment a movement away from the major political parties; a decline in partisan attachment
FIGURE 9.5
Education and Party Affiliation Recently, people with higher levels of education have affiliated with the Democratic Party more and more. Do you think this trend will continue? How will this affect party platforms, long term?
SOURCE: Pew Research Center, “Gender, Education, Age, Divides in Party Affiliation,” March 20, 2018, www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/wide-gender -gap-growing-educational-divide-in-voters-party -identification/1_2-19/ (accessed 10/16/18).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018
No college degree
College degree
PERCENTAGE OF REGISTERED VOTERS WHO IDENTIFY AS DEMOCRATS OR LEAN DEMOCRATIC
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS What are the major components of each party’s political coalition? What factors tie these groups to their respective parties?
358 CHAPTER 9 POL I T ICAL PART IES
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 358 27/11/18 12:29 PM
forcriticalanalysis 1. How do younger Americans differ from older Americans in their party identi�cation? What is the best predictor of party identi�cation?
2. Do you think of yourself as a Democrat, Republican, or independent? Are other Americans of your gender, age, race, and income level likely to share your references?
SOURCE: American National Election Study 2016 time series, www.electionstudies.org (accessed 11/4/17).
NOTES: Percentages do not add to 100 because the category “Other/don’t know” is omitted. ANES does not include rural/urban/suburban data.
Men
Women
Gender 31% 27%
28%
39%
40%
34%
18–29
30–49
50–64
65+
Age 24% 25%
32%
29%
35%
34%
34%
34%
41%
41%
34%
37%
< $20K
$20–$40K
$40K–$75K
>$75K
Income 20% 23%
31%
34%
40%
38%
32%
32%
40%
39%
37%
35%
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Race 35% 4%
16%
27%
28%
73%
46%
34%
37%
23%
39%
39%
Independent
Republican Party
Democratic Party
Postgraduate
College graduate
Some college
High school diploma or less
Education 24% 35%
30%
26%
44%
31%
31%
35%
33%
34%
39%
39%
Party identi�cation varies by income, race, and gender. For example, as these statistics from 2016 show, Americans with higher incomes are more supportive of the Republican Party than are Americans with lower incomes. Women are signi�cantly more likely than men to identify with the Democratic Party, whereas more men identify as independents.
Who Identifies with Which Party?
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS 1. How do younger Americans differ from older Americans in their party identi�cation? What is the best predictor of party identi�cation?
2. Do you think of yourself as a Democrat, Republican, or independent? Are other Americans of your gender,
age, race, and income level likely to share your references?
WHO ARE AMERICANS?
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 359 27/11/18 12:29 PM
While they often lean to ward one of the two par ties and v ote for the R epubli- cans or D emocrats in national elections, independents hav e unique views and are more supportive of third parties and election reform efforts that create opportunities for groups outside of go vernment to have a voice in government.31 With congres- sional approval ratings at an all-time lo w, the number of Americans identifying as independents has grown to roughly 40 percent.32 In nine states, independent voters outnumber the two major political par ties, including Alaska, which has 55 per cent registered independents; Connecticut, with 41 per cent; Colorado, 38 percent; and Iowa, 36 percent.33
Today, party loyalties in America are in a state of flux. On the one hand, the percentage of voters who declare no party loyalty remains at an all-time high.34 On the other hand, party identification among a large number of the most active voters has grown stronger.35 The “Who Are Americans?” feature indicates the relationship between par ty identification and a number of social criteria. Race and ethnicity, age, education, religion, region, and income seem to have the greatest influence on Americans’ party affiliations.
Party Systems Historians often r efer to the set of parties that ar e impor tant at any given time as a nation ’s par ty sys - tem. The United States has usually had a two-par ty system, meaning
that only two parties have a serious chance to win national elections. But the nation has not always had the same two parties and, as we shall see, minor parties often put forward candidates.
The term party system, however, refers to more than just the number of par ties competing for po wer. I t also includes the organization of the par ties, the domi - nant form of campaigning, the main issue divisions between the parties, the balance of power between and within par ty coalitions, the par ties’ social and institutional bases, and the policies around which party competition is organized. Seen from this broader perspective, the character of a nation’s party system can change even if the number of parties remains the same and even when the same two parties seem to be competing for power. Today’s American party system is very different from the coun- try’s party system of 100 y ears ago, but the D emocrats and R epublicans continue to be the major competing forces. Over the course of American history, changes in political forces and alignments have produced six distinctive party systems.
THE FIRST PARTY SYSTEM: FEDERALISTS AND JEFFERSONIAN REPUBLICANS
The first party system emerged in the 1790s and pitted the Federalists, who favored a strong national government and pr esident, against the J effersonian Republicans, or Antifederalists, who favored a weaker national government with the states retain- ing power protections for individuals from government interference. The Federalists were the establishment party at the time, and the Antifederalists were the outsiders. The Federalists represented mainly New England merchants and supported a program of pr otective tariffs to encourage manufacturing, forgiving states’ R evolutionary
Describe how the party system in the United States has changed over time and its main features today
360 CHAPTER 9 POL I T ICAL PART IES
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 360 27/11/18 12:29 PM
War debts, the cr eation of a national bank, and commer cial ties with B ritain. The Jeffersonians, led by southern agricultural interests, opposed these policies and instead favored free trade, the pr omotion of agricultural inter ests, and friendship with France. The Federalists sought, unsuccessfully, to use the for ce of law against the Jeffersonians by enacting the Alien and Sedition Acts to outlaw criticism of the government. These acts, however, proved vir tually impossible to enfor ce, and the Jeffersonians gradually expanded their base from the South into the Middle Atlantic states. In the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated the incumbent Federalist president, John Adams, and led his par ty to po wer. Over the follo wing years, the Federalists gradually weakened. The party disappeared after the pro-British sympa- thies of some F ederalist leaders during the War of 1812 led to charges of tr eason against the party.
From the collapse of the Federalists until the 1830s, America had only one politi- cal par ty, the J effersonian Republicans, who gradually came to be kno wn as the Democrats. This period of one-party politics was defined by an absence of par ty competition. Throughout this period, however, there was intense conflict within the Democratic Party, par ticularly between the suppor ters and opponents of G eneral Andrew Jackson, America’s great military hero of the War of 1812. Jackson was the first populist president with a wide base of mass support; he sought to give rank- and-file members more say in par ty politics. J ackson’s opponents united to deny him the presidency in 1824, but Jackson won elections in 1828 and 1832. J ackson’s support was in the S outh and West, and he generally espoused a program of free trade and policies that appealed to those regions.
THE SECOND PARTY SYSTEM: DEMOCRATS AND WHIGS
During the 1830s, groups opposing Jackson united to form a new political for ce, the Whig Party, giving rise to the second American par ty system. Both the D emocrats and the Whigs built par ty organizations thr oughout the nation and sought to enlarge their bases of suppor t b y expanding the right to vote. They increased the number of eligible v oters—still only white males—through the elimination of the r equirement of property ownership in or der to be able to v ote. Support for the ne w Whig Party was str onger in the N ortheast than in the South and West and among merchants than among small farmers. H ence, in some measur e, the Whigs w ere the suc- cessors of the Federalists. Yet conflict between the two par ties revolved more around personalities than policies. The Whigs were a diverse group united more by opposition to the Demo- crats than b y agr eement on pr ograms. I n 1840 the Whigs won their first presidential election under the leadership of General William Henry Harrison. The Whig campaign car e- fully av oided issues—since the par ty could agr ee on almost none—and emphasized the personal qualities and her oism of the candidate. They also invested heavily in campaign rallies and entertainment to win the hearts, if not exactly the minds, of the voters.
In the 1830s the Whig Party emerged as the Democrats’ main rival. This drawing depicts a Whig rally and parade during the 1840 election.
361PARTY SYSTEMS
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 361 27/11/18 12:29 PM
During the late 1840s and early 1850s, conflicts over slav ery produced sharp divisions within both the Whig and the D emocratic par ties. By 1856 the Whig Party had all but disintegrated under the strain, and many Whig politicians and voters, along with antislav ery Democrats, joined the ne w Republican Party, which pledged to ban slav ery from the w estern territories. I n 1860 the ne w Republican Party nominated Abraham Lincoln for the pr esidency. Lincoln’s victory in a four- way candidate race for president strengthened southern calls for secession from the Union and, soon thereafter, for all-out civil war.
THE CIVIL WAR AND POST–CIVIL WAR PARTY SYSTEM
During the course of the war , President Lincoln depended heavily on R epubli- can governors and state legislatur es to raise tr oops, provide funding, and main - tain popular suppor t for a long and bloody militar y conflict. The secession of the South had stripped the Democratic Party of many supporters, but the Democrats r emained politically competitiv e thr oughout the war and nearly won the 1864 pr esidential election because of war weariness on the par t of the northern public. With the defeat of the Confederacy in 1865, some Republicans sought to use R econstruction to grant the right to v ote to ne wly fr eed slav es,
thus cr eating a large pr o-Republican v oting bloc. This Reconstruction program failed, in part because of violent r esistance b y southern whites via the Ku Klux Klan. With the end of Reconstruction, the former Confederate states r egained full contr ol of their internal affairs and party politics. Through- out the S outh, African Americans w ere depriv ed of political rights, including the right to v ote, despite post–Civil War constitutional guarantees to the contrary. From the end of the Civil War to the 1890s, the Republican Party remained the par ty of the N orth, with str ong business and middle-class support, while the Democrats were the party of the South, with suppor t also fr om wor king-class and immigrant groups.
THE SYSTEM OF 1896: POPULISM AND REPUBLICAN RESPONSES
During the 1890s, pr ofound and rapid social and economic changes led to the emergence of a v ari- ety of pr otest par ties, including the P opulist Party, which won the support of hundreds of thousands of voters in the South and West. The Populists appealed mainly to small farmers but also attracted w estern mining inter ests and urban wor kers. I n the 1892 presidential election, the Populist Party carried four states and elected go vernors in eight. I n 1896 the Populist P arty effectively merged with the D emo- crats, who nominated William J ennings B ryan, a Democratic senator with pronounced Populist
Following the Civil War, the Repub- lican Party remained dominant in the North. This poster supporting Republican Benjamin Harrison in the 1888 election promises protec- tive tariffs and other policies that appealed to the industrial states in the North.
362 CHAPTER 9 POL I T ICAL PART IES
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 362 27/11/18 12:29 PM
sympathies, for the pr esidency. The Republicans nominated the conser vative senator William M cKinley. I n the ensuing campaign, nor thern and midw est- ern businesses made an all-out effort to defeat what they saw as a radical thr eat from the Populist–Democratic alliance. When the dust settled, the R epublicans had won a r esounding victor y. The GOP (“Grand Old Party”), or R epublican Party, had carried the mor e heavily populated nor thern and midw estern states and confined the Democrats to their smaller bases of suppor t in the S outh and far West. For the next 36 y ears, the Republicans were the nation’s majority party, carrying seven of nine pr esidential elections and contr olling both houses of Congr ess in 15 of 18 contests. The Republican P arty was pr o-business, advocating low taxes, high tariffs on imports, and a minimum of go vernment regulation.
THE NEW DEAL PARTY SYSTEM: GOVERNMENT HELPS THE WORKING CLASS
Soon after the R epublican presidential candidate H erbert Hoover won the 1928 presidential election, the nation’s economy collapsed. The Great Depression, which produced unpr ecedented economic har dship, stemmed fr om a v ariety of causes; but from the perspective of millions of Americans, the Republican Party did not do enough to pr omote economic r ecovery when millions of Americans w ere starving and without jobs. In 1932, Americans elected Franklin Delano Roosevelt and a sol- idly Democratic Congress. Roosevelt developed a pr ogram for economic r ecovery that he dubbed the “N ew Deal.” Under the auspices of the N ew Deal, the siz e of America’s national government increased substantially. The federal government took responsibility for economic management and social w elfare to an extent that was unprecedented in American histor y. For the first time, government took an activ e role in the individual liv es of Americans, pr oviding unemployment benefits, jobs, food, and more.
Roosevelt expanded the political base of the Democratic Party. He rebuilt and revitalized the par ty around unionized workers, upper-middle-class intellectuals and pr ofessionals, southern farmers, J ews, Catholics, and African Americans— the so-called New Deal coalition that made the D emocrats the nation’s majority party for the next 36 years. Groping for a response to the New Deal, Republicans often wound up suppor ting popular New Deal programs such as S ocial Security in what was sometimes derided as “ me too” Republicanism. Even the r elatively conservative administration of Dwight D. E isenhower in the 1950s left the principal New Deal programs intact.
The New Deal coalition was severely strained during the 1960s by conflicts over civil rights and the Vietnam War. The struggle o ver civil rights initially divided northern D emocrats, who suppor ted the civil rights cause, fr om white southern Democrats, who defended the system of racial segregation. As the civil rights move- ment launched a northern campaign aimed at securing access to jobs and education and an end to racial discrimination in such realms as housing, northern Democrats also split, often along income lines. The struggle o ver the Vietnam War fur ther divided the D emocrats, with upper-income liberal D emocrats str ongly opposing the Johnson administration’s decision to greatly expand the numbers of U.S. troops fighting in Southeast Asia. These divisions within the Democratic Party provided an opportunity for the GOP, which returned to power in 1968 under the leadership of Richard Nixon.
363PARTY SYSTEMS
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 363 27/11/18 12:29 PM
THE CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN PARTY SYSTEM
The Republican Party widened its appeal in the second half of the tw entieth century. In 1964, for example, the Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater argued in favor of substantially reduced levels of taxation and spending, less government reg- ulation of the economy, and the elimination of many federal social programs. Though Goldwater was defeated by Lyndon Johnson, his ideas continued to be major themes for the Republican Party. Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy” gave GOP the votes it needed to end Democratic control of national politics. Nixon appealed to disaffected white southerners, and he sparked the shift that gave the party a strong position in all the states of the former Confederacy . The movement of white southerners to the Republican Party was spurred by opposition to desegregation of the South and to the civil rights movement supported by Democratic leaders, including President Kennedy. During the 1980s, under the leadership of President Ronald Reagan, Republicans added two additional impor tant gr oups to their coalition. The first were r eligious conservatives, who were opposed to abortion and marriage equality and felt the Democrats were not pr otecting traditional family and r eligious values. The second were working-class whites, who w ere drawn to R eagan’s tough appr oach to for eign policy and opposition to affirmative action. M any R epublicans consider R eagan’s tenure in office as a “golden era” that saw der egulation of many industries, r educed government intervention in the economy, and exhibited robust economic growth.
While Republicans built a political base ar ound economic and social conser va- tives and white southerners, the Democratic Party maintained its support among a majority of unionized workers and upper-middle-class professionals. Democrats also appealed to racial and ethnic minorities. The 1965 Voting Rights A ct had gr eatly increased black voter participation in the S outh and helped the D emocratic Party retain some House and Senate seats in southern states. And whereas the Republicans appealed to social conser vatives, the D emocrats appealed to Americans concerned with economic fairness and inequality, women’s rights, the environment and protec- tions of public land, and other progressive social causes.
Republicans fared poorly at state and local levels until the 1990s, when conserva- tive religious groups made a concer ted effort to expand their influence within the
Republican Party. This effort led to conflict between members of the “religious right” and more traditional fiscal Republicans, whose major concerns were economic matters such as taxes and federal regulation of business. I n 2000, George W. Bush united the par ty behind a program of tax cuts, education r eform, military strength, and family values.
However, Republicans fared poorly again in the 2008 elections, campaigning during the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. Democrat B arack O bama, the nation ’s first African American president, was elected in 2008 and r eelected for a second term in 2012. He united racial and ethnic minorities, youth, and other liberals with older white moderates in a powerful national coalition, winning large popular majorities in the 2008 and 2012 elections. Obama helped the nation recover from global economic recession; reformed national health car e, the financial sector, and immigra- tion; and pr omoted clean energy and envir onmental protections, labor policy, and LGBTQ rights. He was championed globally as a progressive leader with str ong alliances in E urope. However, he
Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy” helped broaden the Republican Party’s base in the late 1960s and the 1970s by appealing to white southerners. Here, Nixon meets supporters in Georgia in 1973.
364 CHAPTER 9 POL I T ICAL PART IES
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 364 27/11/18 12:29 PM
became deeply unpopular with Republicans who objected to what they saw as over- reach by the federal government. Republicans captured both houses of Congress in 2014, and in 2016, they retained both chambers and won the presidency in a tight race, signaling that sharp partisan differences and intense party conflict would con- tinue to characterize American politics.
Transitions in the par ty systems o ver time ar e sometimes called electoral realign- ments. During these periods, the coalitions that support the parties and the balance of power between the parties change and are redefined. In historical terms, realignments occur when ne w issues, combined with economic or political crises, mobiliz e new voters and persuade large numbers of them to r eexamine their traditional par tisan loyalties and permanently shift their suppor t from one par ty to another. Figure 9.6 charts the sequence of party systems and realignments in American history.
Although scholars dispute the timing of r ealignments, there is some agr eement that five have occurred since the Founding. The first took place around 1790–1800, when the J effersonian Republicans defeated the F ederalists and became the domi - nant force in American politics. The second realignment occurred in 1828, when the Jacksonian D emocrats seiz ed contr ol of the White H ouse and the Congr ess. I n the third period of realignment, centered on the 1860 election, the newly founded Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, won power, in the process destroying the Whig Party, which had been one of the nation ’s two major par ties since the 1830s. Many northern voters who had supported the Whigs or the Democrats on the basis of their economic policies shifted their support to the Republicans as slavery replaced tariffs and economic concerns as the central issue on the nation’s agenda. M any southern Whigs shifted their support to the Democrats. The new regional alignment of forces that emerged was solidified by the trauma of the Civil War and persisted almost to the end of the nineteenth century. In the fourth alignment, the election of 1896 saw Republican candidate William McKinley, emphasizing business, industry, and urban interests, defeat Democrat William Jennings Bryan, who spoke for popu- list economic interests, farmers, and miners. Republican dominance lasted until the fifth realignment, during the period 1932–36, when the Democrats, led by Franklin Delano R oosevelt, took contr ol of the White H ouse and Congr ess during the economic crisis of the Great Depression. Despite sporadic interruptions, the Demo- crats maintained control of both through the 1960s. Since that time, American party politics has been characteriz ed by divided government, wherein the presidency is con- trolled by one party while the other party controls one or both houses of Congress.
Major party realignments are rare in America, occurring on av erage about once every 30 years. There are frequent false alarms, when pundits describe elections as realignments and they turn out not to be. In the 2016 presidential election, signifi- cant factions of the R epublican Party were in disagr eement over Donald Trump’s candidacy, leading some obser vers to question whether the election was the begin - ning of a new party realignment. Many high-profile Republican politicians refused to support Trump, and some withdrew their support during the course of the cam- paign. However, during the first two years of the Trump administration, Republi- cans in Congress have generally supported the President’s policy agenda.
PARTY POLARIZATION
A distinguishing feature of the contemporar y party system is party polarization. The vast and growing gap between Democrats and Republicans has become a defining feature of American politics today , with more Democrats holding liberal positions
electoral realignment the point in history when a new party supplants the governing party, becoming in turn the dominant political force
divided government the condition in American government wherein the presidency is controlled by one party while the opposing party controls one or both houses of Congress
party polarization the division between the two major parties on most policy issues, with members of each party unified around their party’s positions with little crossover
365PARTY SYSTEMS
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 365 27/11/18 12:29 PM
and more Republicans holding conser vative vie ws (see F igure 9.7). I n Congress, polarization is measur ed by par ty unity in r oll-call votes. Over 90 per cent of the time, members of Congress vote in agreement with the majority of their party.36 With this kind of party-line voting, legislation is often enacted by slim vote margins in Congress.
FIGURE 9.6
How the Party System Evolved During the nineteenth century, the Democrats and Republicans emerged as the two dominant parties in American politics. As the American party system evolved, many third parties emerged; but few of them remained in existence for very long.
*Or, in some cases, fourth parties; most of these parties lasted through only one term. **The Anti-Masonics had the distinction of being not only the first third party but also the first party to hold a national nominating convention and the first to announce a party platform.
1788 1790 1804 1808 1812 1816 1820 1824 1828 1832 1836 1840 1844 1848 1852 1856 1860 1864 1868 1872 1876 1880 1884 1888 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2018
Jeffersonian Republicans (Democratic- Republicans)
Republicans
Federalists
Democrats National
Republicans
Whigs
Prohibition
Populist
Socialist
Wallace’s American
Independent
Nader’s
National Unity Anderson’s
States’ Rights (Dixiecrats)
Anti-Masonic**
Liberty
Free Soil
Greenback Labor
Union Labor
American Constitutional
Union
Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive (Bull Moose)
Progressive Party
Perot’s United We Stand
America
Green Party Reform Party
Independent Party
Third Parties* and
Independents
366 CHAPTER 9 POL I T ICAL PART IES
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 366 27/11/18 12:29 PM
The extent of party polarization in Congress was exemplified by party-line voting in 2017 for the most significant overhaul of the U.S. tax code in three decades.37 The bill reduced taxes temporarily to varying degrees for some Americans but, provided the most benefits to affluent citizens. The bill also provided a massive tax cut to cor- porations, lowering the rate fr om 35 to 21 per cent. Through concessions, thr eats, and extended negotiations, Republican leaders secured votes of support from every Republican member of the H ouse but 12 and ev ery Senate Republican but one. Democrats in the House and Senate were in unanimous opposition to the tax bill.
While lawmakers in Congr ess are generally strong conservatives or strong liberals, Congress does not match the ideology of the American public; most Americans are moderates in terms of their opinions on major issues. 38 Party polarization in Congress may be the r esult of how congressional representatives are elected. Every 10 y ears, congr essional district geographic boundaries ar e r edrawn so that each district has roughly the same population. These districts are increasingly drawn to be “safe” for one political par ty or another so that the district has a clear major - ity of either R epublicans or D emocrats. M ost lawmakers ar e elected fr om safe, homogeneous districts, where a majority of v oters identify with their par ty, which means they have little chance of losing in the next election. I ncumbents, on aver- age, win 70 per cent of the popular v ote compared with challengers ’ 30 per cent.39 Uncompetitive elections in Congr ess and safe seats are associated with gr owing party polarization. Without facing competition from the other party during general elections, those elected to Congr ess are strong partisans. Today lawmakers face the greatest threats during their own party’s primary elections, which can have the effect of moving candidates more to the ideological extremes of their party in order to win in the primary.
FIGURE 9.7
Partisan Divisions Have Increased When asked about 10 aspects of political values, Americans’ difference of opinion was stronger between political parties then it was between whites and African Americans, men and women, those that do or don’t attend church regularly, old and young, and highly and less educated.
SOURCE: Pew Research Center, “Key Takeaways on Americans’ Growing Partisan Divide over Political Values,” October 5, 2017, www.pewresearch.org/ fact-tank/2017/10/05/takeaways-on-americans -growing-partisan-divide-over-political-values/ (accessed 5/15/18).
1994 2017
Democrats and Republicans
PERCENTAGE GAP IN POLITICAL OPINION BETWEEN GROUPS IN EACH CATEGORY
Whites and African Americans
Regular and nonregular church attendees
Highly and less educated
Old and young
Men and women
40%
30
20
10
0
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS What are the principal issues dividing the two major parties today? What are the chief areas of agreement between the two parties?
367PARTY SYSTEMS
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 367 27/11/18 12:29 PM
Others argue that par ty polarization has occurr ed not because of how congressional districts are drawn but because individuals segregate themselves by choosing to liv e in lib - eral or conser vative geographic ar eas or consume liberal or conservative news and social media. This is known as self- sorting. No matter what the cause, lawmakers elected fr om solidly safe districts have less incentive to compromise; thus, homogeneous D emocratic and homogeneous R epublican districts add to the polari zation of the political parties.
A specific event that contributed to party polarization was the rise of the Tea Party movement (see the opening of this chapter). The Tea Party is an extr emely conser vative faction of the R epublican P arty, which has suppor ted P resident Trump since the 2016 election. After the election of B arack Obama in 2008, a number of high-pr ofile Tea Party can -
didates went on to win office in the 2010 midterm elections, defeating several incumbents and candidates endorsed b y the R epublican Party. I n total, the Tea Party succeeded in electing about 32 per cent of its candidates in 2010—a str ong showing for a newly organized group—and its ideological influence in elections has continued through 2018.
As Congress has become more ideologically extreme, members have given more power to their par ty leaders, who hav e changed the r ules in Congr ess so that the majority can contr ol the legislativ e process more easily, fur ther intensifying par ty polarization. The ability to debate legislation on the floor of the House has been restricted, and individual members ex ercise less personal choice in deciding ho w to vote. Even strong party leaders are not immune to the pressure from their most ideologically extr eme members. I n 2015, House Speaker John Boehner r esigned in the middle of his term. The historic event occurred because of deep divisions within the Republican Party, especially the opposition of 40 of the most conser va- tive House members—Tea Party activists—who wanted him to take a harder line against Obama and the Democrats.
THIRD PARTIES
Although the U nited States has a two par ty–dominant system, it has always had more than two parties. Typically, third parties in the United States have represented social and economic interests that for one reason or another were not given voice by the two major parties.40 Such parties often influence elections. The Populists, a party centered in the rural areas of the West and Midwest, and the Progressives, spokesper- sons for the urban middle class in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, are the most important examples in the previous century. The most successful recent third party candidate, H. R oss Perot, who ran in 1992 as an independent and in 1996 as the Reform Party’s nominee, won the votes of almost one in five Americans in 1992.
Because third parties almost always lose at the national lev el, such par ties exist mainly as a protest movement against the two parties or to promote specific issues. Third parties often ar e sources of ne w ideas and par ty realignment, and they can profoundly affect elections, taking votes from one of the major parties and enabling the other to win. I n the extr emely close 2000 pr esidential election, for example, third-party candidate Ralph Nader won just 3 percent of the popular vote, but that
third parties parties that organize to compete against the two major American political parties
The Tea Party emerged after the election of Barack Obama in 2008. During the 2010 midterm elec- tions, Tea Party activists around the country rallied to “reclaim the Capitol” and succeeded in electing a number of their candidates to office, which further increased party polarization in Congress.
368 CHAPTER 9 POL I T ICAL PART IES
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 368 27/11/18 12:29 PM
split the D emocratic v ote enough to swing the election in fav or of R epublican George W. Bush. Leaders in both major political par ties fear third-party challenges in pr esidential elections. I n the contr oversial 2016 election, R epublican D onald Trump won 46 percent of the popular vote compared to 48 percent for Democrat Hillary Clinton. Neither candidate won a majority because v otes for thir d parties stole votes from the two major party candidates.
Table 9.1 lists the top candidates in the presidential election of 2016, includ- ing the top thir d-party and independent candidates who ran. Third-party candi - dates fared better in 2016 than in the last three presidential elections, leading some observers to suggest that third parties were one reason Clinton lost key battleground states and thus the election. Third-party and independent candidacies also arise at the state and local levels. The Libertarian and Green parties in particular run candi- dates in many state and local elections. In 2012 independent candidates won Senate races in Maine and Vermont and were re-elected in 2018.
Obstacles Facing Third Parties Americans usually assume that only candidates nominated by one of the two major parties have any chance of winning an election. As noted above, voters who would prefer a third-party candidate may feel compelled to vote for the major-party candidate whom they regard as the “lesser of two evils,” to avoid wasting their votes in a futile gesture. This is called strategic voting.
Under federal election law, only par ties that receive more than 5 per cent of the national presidential vote are entitled to federal funds. The Reform Party qualified by winning 8.2 percent in 1996, but since then thir d parties have not won federal matching money. As discussed earlier, third-party candidates are also hampered by single-member district system for allocating seats. I n many other nations, sev eral individuals can be elected to represent each legislative district—a system of multiple- member districts, more favorable to third-party candidates. Some American states do hav e multiple-member districts for state legislatur e, but the vast majority do not. The plurality system of voting discussed earlier in this chapter also discour - ages many minor parties in the United States.41 In the proportional system used in other countries, par ties can earn seats in go vernment with 15–20 per cent of the popular vote.
The Influence of Third Parties Although the Republican Party was the only Ameri can third party to make itself permanent (by replacing the Whigs), other third parties hav e enjoyed an influence far beyond their electoral siz e. This is because
Third-party candidates rarely win elections, but they can influence campaigns. In 2016, Jill Stein (left) and Gary Johnson and his vice- presidential running mate William Weld (right) ran as alternatives to the Democratic and Republican candidates. Enough votes went to Johnson and Stein that they denied Clinton and Trump from winning a majority.
369PARTY SYSTEMS
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 369 27/11/18 12:29 PM
large par ts of their pr ograms were adopted b y one or both of the major par ties, which sought to appeal to the v oters mobilized by the new party and thus expand their own electoral str ength. The Democratic Party, for example, became a gr eat deal more liberal when it adopted most of the Progressive Party reforms in the early twentieth centur y. M any socialists felt that P resident F ranklin R oosevelt’s N ew Deal had adopted most of their par ty’s platform including unemplo yment com - pensation and laws guaranteeing wor kers the right to organiz e into unions. This kind of influence explains the shor t lives of third parties. Their causes are usually eliminated when the major par ties adopt their policies and draw their suppor ters into the mainstream.
Election Reform and Third Parties I n par t because thir d par ties hav e become increasingly common in American politics despite election rules favoring a two-party system, one-third of all winning presidential candidates since the Civil War have been elected with a plurality (simply more votes than any other candidate) but not a major- ity (more than 50 percent of all votes) of the national popular vote.42 If the party that wins the presidency in one out of three elections is not favored by a majority of voters, that calls into question the legitimacy of our election system. S ome scholars suggest that the failure to secure majorities may continue in the future with the rise of inde- pendent candidates and dissatisfaction with the two major political parties.43
Some pr oponents of election r eform argue that two major par ties ar e not sufficient to represent the varied interests of America’s 320 million people and that more political par ties would impr ove r epresentation. Forms of pr oportional r ep- resentation, multiple-member districts, or instant runoff voting would increase the probability of thir d-party r epresentation in American politics. S tate ballot access laws are another major impediment for third parties. Third parties often fail to meet criteria to get on the ballot, such as registration fees or petition requirements in which a cer tain number of v oters must sign a petition in or der for the thir d-party or independent candidate to gain ballot access. Those who favor a stronger role for
CANDIDATE PARTY VOTE TOTAL PERCENTAGE
OF VOTES ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES*
Hillary Clinton Democratic 65,147,421 48% 227
Donald Trump Republican 62,634,907 46% 304
Gary Johnson Libertarian 4,454,855 3% 0
Jill Stein Green 1,426,922 1% 0
Other candidates 1,047,140 0.8% 0
*As was their right, seven members of the electoral college voted for other candidates despite Trump or Clinton carrying the state.
SOURCE: U.S. Election Atlas, “2016 Presidential General Election Results,” www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2016&minper=0&f=0&off=0&elect=0 (accessed 12/1/16).
TABLE 9.1
Parties and Candidates in 2016
370 CHAPTER 9 POL I T ICAL PART IES
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 370 27/11/18 12:29 PM
third parties argue that states should make it easier to get on the ballot. S upporters of the current system, on the other hand, contend that America ’s two-party system creates stability in go verning and pr events the need for a coalition go vernment, where multiple small parties work together to form a majority to govern.
Ranked Choice Voting An example of an election r eform that may r educe party polarization and incr ease oppor tunities for thir d par ties is ranked choice v oting. Ranked choice voting is a form of instant runoff voting in that it guarantees that the winner of an election has support from a majority of those voting in the election, rather than a plurality. Ranked choice voting (or preference voting) is a ballot form used in countries around the world, notably Australia, that is growing in popular- ity in numerous American cities and some states. Rather than casting a single v ote for one’s most preferred choice, a voter ranks candidates from the most preferred to the least preferred (usually the top three) on the ballot. If a candidate wins a major - ity of first-place votes (50 per cent plus one), the candidate is declar ed the winner and second- or third-place votes are not counted. But if the top candidate does not receive a majority of the votes cast, the candidate with the fe west first-choice votes is eliminated, and those v oters’ ballots are redistributed to their second-choice can - didates. The ballots are recounted; if the leading candidate has a majority of v otes cast, a winner is declared. The process is repeated until a majority winner is declared. This system eliminates the “spoiler” effect that occurs when votes for a thir d-party candidate are discarded.
Research suggests that ranked choice v oting leads to mor e civility in political campaigns, fewer negative campaigns, and cooperation among candidates who seek to be a v oter’s second choice if they cannot be a first choice.44 It is also associated with more grassroots mobilization of voters. Though ranked choice voting is used in many countries around the world, in the United States only the state of Maine uses it, as well as a handful of U.S. cities. Successful local experiments in election reform may open the doors to use of this process at the state or even national level.
Political Parties WHAT DO WE WANT? Parties provide an important opportunity for citizen participation in American politics.
They make it easier for ordinary citizens to understand politics, evaluate candidates,
participate in elections, and have a voice in government policy. They are also important
to the health of the democracy. The presence of an opposition party is an important
check on those in power. And competition among the political parties gives citizens an
incentive to vote and politicians an incentive to get them to vote.45 Voter mobilization
is one of political parties’ most important tasks, as voter turnout in the United States
remains relatively low, especially in primaries and caucuses (see the “Who Participates?” feature on p. 373).
Parties in the United States are considered to be ground-up organizations, meaning
that they get their power from the members of the mass public who support them at
the local level. A century ago, political party bosses controlled the party platform, the
371POL I T ICAL PART IES : WHAT DO WE WANT?
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 371 27/11/18 12:29 PM
party message, and often, through early money to candidates, who held elected office
and who won the nomination for president. But changes to politics ranging from the
advent of primary elections to the digital revolution more recently have altered many
aspects of party politics. As Keli Carender’s mobilizing efforts that helped kick off
the Tea Party movement show, the internet has decentralized party power, opening up
the possibilities for citizen influence. The four resources that political parties use to
contest and win elections (time, money, expertise, and organization) no longer belong
solely to party organizations. Now citizens can volunteer and give money to the party
without ever being contacted by a party official. Online fund-raising allows millions
of donors to give small contributions to parties, and social media allow the party to
spread its message far and wide online. These changes are beneficial for parties
because more people are involved, but at the same time there are more divergent
opinions that must be recognized and appeased. No longer can party leaders craft
their own message and relay it to the field; they must also listen to what their sup-
porters want.
Questions remain, however, over what influence new groups and parties will have
on politics given current U.S. election rules. Will party leaders pay more attention to
the preferences of the mass public and party members? Is the two-party system ideal
for American politics, or would electoral reforms encourage more parties to form and,
hence, provide more choice for voters?
372 CHAPTER 9 POL I T ICAL PART IES
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 372 27/11/18 12:29 PM
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
Volunteer to help your preferred party with a political campaign by making phone calls, knocking on doors, distributing literature, and otherwise working to get out the vote. You can sign up with the Republican Party at www.gop.com/get-involved and with the Democratic Party at www.democrats.org/volunteer, and with other parties through their websites.
If you’re unsure which party best represents your views, visit www.politicalcompass.org/tests/
Get Involved with Your Preferred Party
Turnout in 2016 Primaries Turnout in 2016 Caucuses
1–14% 30–44%15–29% 45–60%
Percentage of voting-eligible population Percentage of voting-eligible population
1 1
Earliest primary/caucus1
Participate in the next primary or caucus in your state. When you register to vote (see p. 329), you may be asked to indicate your party af�liation.
WHO PARTICIPATES?
Who Votes in Primaries and Caucuses?
SOURCE: Michael P. McDonald, “2016 Presidential Nomination Contest Turnout Rates,” United States Election Project, September 21, 2016, www.electproject.org/ (accessed 11/27/17). NOTES: Montana: Caucus data are for credentialed Republicans (only party leaders are allowed to vote). Both parties participated in the primary. South Carolina: Data are for the Democratic primary only. No data are available for Republican primary. Nevada: Data are for Republican caucus only. No data are available for Democratic caucus. Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, North Dakota: Data are for Democratic caucuses only. No data are available for Republican caucuses. Kentucky: Data are for the Democratic primary only. No data are available for the Republican caucus. Nebraska, Washington: Data are for the Republican primary only. No data are available for the Democratic caucus. Idaho: Data are for the Democratic caucus only. No data are available for the Republican primary. Wyoming: Republican caucus was canceled. No data are available. Colorado: No data are available.
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 373 27/11/18 12:29 PM
Practice Quiz
1. A political party is different from an interest group in that a political party a) seeks to control the government by nominating
candidates and electing its members to office. b) is constitutionally exempt from taxation. c) is entirely nonprofit. d) has a much larger membership. e) has a much smaller membership.
2. The congressional election system in the United States is called “first past the post” because a) candidates must win both a primary election and a
general election before taking office. b) seats in the House of Representatives and Senate
are allocated to political parties based on their share of the total vote cast in the election.
c) the candidate with the most votes wins even if she did not win a majority of the popular vote.
d) a candidate can win an election only if he wins a majority of the popular vote.
e) more Americans now vote by mail than at their local polling places.
3. The practice of tailoring campaign messages to individ- uals in small, homogeneous groups is referred to as a) indexing. b) micro-targeting. c) winnowing. d) external mobilization. e) internal mobilization.
A political party is an organization that seeks influence over government by electing its members to office. Although some people are critical of political parties, they are extremely important to the functioning of a democracy because they increase participation in politics, provide a central cue for citizens to cast informed votes, and organize the business of Congress and governing. While the particular parties have changed over time, the United States has had a two-party system since the 1780s. Today, America’s two major parties are the Democrats and the Republicans.
Key Terms political parties (p. 337)
partisanship (p. 337)
two-party system (p. 339)
Because parties succeed when they win elections, parties have a large role in recruiting candidates, coordinating campaigns, mobilizing voters, and raising money.
Key Terms nomination (p. 342)
primary election (p. 342)
caucus (political) (p. 342)
micro-targeting (p. 344)
What Are Political Parties?
Parties, Voter Mobilization, and Elections
Define political parties and their functions in politics (pp. 337–40)
Explain the roles that parties play in elections (pp. 340–44)
CHAPTER 9 STUDY GU IDE374
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 374 27/11/18 12:29 PM
Practice Quiz
4. Which of the following is not determined at a party’s national convention? a) the party’s candidate for president b) the party’s candidate for vice president c) the party’s campaign platform for the presidential race d) the congressional committees party representatives
will be assigned to e) the rules and regulations governing party procedures
5. Super PACs a) were outlawed by the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act. b) are ineligible for tax-exempt status under Section
527 of the Internal Revenue Code. c) are campaign fund-raising organizations legally
affiliated with the Democratic National Committee. d) are prohibited from running advertisements during
election campaigns. e) can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money as
long as their activities are not coordinated with those of the formal party organizations or the candidates.
6. The strength of traditional party machines depended most heavily on a) patronage. b) primaries. c) hard money. d) soft money. e) dark money.
Practice Quiz
7. By identifying problems and proposing policies that will expand their party’s base of support, party leaders can act as a) whips. b) convention delegates. c) patrons. d) policy entrepreneurs. e) party activists.
8. Which of the following features of the House of Representatives is determined by a vote of the whole membership rather than by decisions within each party? a) the assignments of individual members to particular
committees. b) advancement up the committee ladder. c) the ability of individual members to transfer from
one committee to another. d) the use of the seniority system for determining
committee chairs. e) selection of the Speaker of the House.
Party organizations exist at virtually every level of government in the United States, and they play an important role in structuring electoral competition. At the national level, for example, party organizations assemble conventions every four years that nominate the party’s presidential and vice-presidential candidates, draft the party’s campaign platform for the presidential race, and approve changes in the rules governing party procedures. Similarly, at the state and local levels, party organizations are active in recruiting candidates to run for office and in conducting voter registration and get-out- the-vote drives.
Key Terms party organization (p. 344)
national convention (p. 345)
platform (p. 345)
soft money (p. 346)
party machines (p. 347)
patronage (p. 347)
Political parties exert a great deal of influence over public policy, the structure of Congress, and the behavior of presi- dents. The sharp ideological divisions between Democrats and Republicans in recent years mean that election out- comes matter greatly for the kinds of laws that government enacts. The fact that political parties are broad coalitions of diverse interests means that party leaders must always work to overcome divisions between the different factions within their parties. Many of the most important organiza- tional features of Congress, such as the role of the House Speaker, the committee system, and seniority, also depend on the party system.
Key Terms policy entrepreneur (p. 350)
majority party (p. 351)
minority party (p. 351)
Parties as Organizations
Parties in Government
Describe how the major American parties are structured at the national, state, and local levels (pp. 344–48)
Explain how parties organize legislative business and influence policy (pp. 348–52)
STUDY GU IDE 375
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 375 27/11/18 12:29 PM
c) Jeffersonian Republican d) Democratic e) Whig
11. The so-called New Deal coalition was severely strained a) during the 1860s by conflicts over slavery and
southern secession. b) during the 1890s by conflicts over the gold standard. c) during the 1930s by conflicts over the Great Depres-
sion and America’s involvement in World War II. d) during the 1960s by conflicts over civil rights and
the Vietnam War. e) during the 1990s by conflicts over abortion and
affirmative action.
12. The periodic episodes in American history in which an “old” dominant political party is replaced by a “new” dominant political party are called a) constitutional revolutions. b) divided governments. c) unified governments. d) dealignments. e) electoral realignments.
13. Voters who prefer a third-party candidate but vote for the major-party candidate whom they regard as the “lesser of two evils” are engaging in a) strategic voting. b) split-ticket voting. c) straight-ticket voting. d) ranked choice voting. e) rational abstention.
A nation’s party system refers to the organization of the par- ties within the country, the dominant form of campaigning, the main divisions between the parties, the balance of power between and within party coalitions, the parties’ social and institutional bases, and the issues and policies around which party competition is organized. Over the course of American history, changes in political forces and alignments have produced six distinctive party systems. Although third parties have occasionally influenced election outcomes and placed new ideas on the political agenda, numerous factors limit their long-term success and they have rarely been able to win elections at the national level.
Key Terms electoral realignment (p. 365)
divided government (p. 365)
party polarization (p. 365)
third parties (p. 368)
Practice Quiz
10. Which party was formed in the 1830s in opposition to Andrew Jackson’s presidency? a) American Independent b) Federalist
Party Systems
Practice Quiz
9. The decline in partisan attachment in the electorate, the growth in the number of voters identifying as independent, and the rise in so-called split-ticket voting was referred to as a) partisan polarization. b) independentification. c) unalignment. d) realignment. e) dealignment.
Party identification refers to the psychological and emotional attachments people have to one of the political parties. In contemporary American politics, a wide variety of group characteristics, including race, ethnicity, gender, religion, class, ideology, region, and age, are associated with an individual’s party identification. Party loyalties in the United States are currently in a state of flux, and more than one-third of Americans identify themselves as independents rather than as Democrats or Republicans.
Key Terms party identification (p. 352)
party activists (p. 352)
gender gap (p. 355)
dealignment (p. 358)
Party Identification
Identify the reasons for and sources of party identification (pp. 352–60)
Describe how the party system in the United States has changed over time and its main features today (pp. 360–71)
CHAPTER 9 STUDY GU IDE376
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 376 27/11/18 12:29 PM
D.C.’s Political Report www.dcpoliticalreport.com
Here you can find almost every organization that identifies itself as a political party, including such obscure groups as the American Beer Drinker’s Party and the Scorched Earth Party.
Democratic Party www.democrats.org
Republican Party www.GOP.com, www.rnc.org
These are the official websites for the Democrats and Republicans. Compare the platforms of the two main U.S. parties and see whether there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between them.
Green Party www.gp.org
Libertarian Party www.lp.org
The Green Party and Libertarian Party are two of the largest and most successful third parties in recent years. Find out what these parties are trying to accomplish.
McCarty, Nolan, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006.
Polsby, Nelson W. The Consequences of Party Reform. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.
Redlawsk, David P., Caroline J. Tolbert, and Todd Donovan. Why Iowa? How Caucuses and Sequential Elections Improve the Presidential Nominating Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011.
Schattschneider, E. E. The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960.
Shefter, Martin. Political Parties and the State: The American Historical Experience. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.
Aldrich, John H. Why Parties? A Second Look. Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 2011.
Bartels, Larry. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988.
Burnham, Walter Dean. Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: W. W. Norton, 1970.
Cohen, Marty, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John zaller. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations before and after Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
Donovan, Todd, and Shaun Bowler. Reforming the Repub- lic: Democratic Institutions for the New America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003.
Green, Donald, Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Schickler. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002.
Maisel, L. Sandy. Political Parties and Elections: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Recommended Websites National Annenberg Election Survey http://annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org
Individual voters tend to develop psychological ties to one party or another. The National Annenberg Election Survey uses survey data to track party identification by state every two years. Find out if your state has more Democratic or Republican identifiers.
Pew Research Center, Political Polarization www.pewresearch.org/packages/political-polarization
This Pew Research Center series presents interactive graphics illustrating dramatic shifts in party polarization over time as it explores the current political landscape and the implications of party polarization for the American public.
For Further Reading
STUDY GU IDE 377
wtp12e_ptr_ch09_334-377.indd 377 27/11/18 12:29 PM
Campaigns and Elections
101010 chapter
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS Elections are the core of any democracy. In a democratic system like the United
States, citizens self-govern by choosing among can-
didates and electing leaders to represent them in
government. The rules for elections affect who runs,
how they run, who votes, and who wins.
The presidential election of 2016 was historic in
several regards. It was a race between Democrat
Hillary Clinton, who was the nation’s first female
major-party nominee, and Republican Donald Trump,
who became the first person to win the presidency
who had not previously served in elective office or
in the military. Although their share of the electorate
varies from one election to another, young people
as always played an important role. Brian Bodine
of the Texas Young Republican Federation explained
his support for candidate Trump: “As the months
went by, his vision resonated with me more and
more. . . . [His win sent] a powerful message to
established politicians, struggling businesses, dis-
enchanted blue-collar workers and tens of millions
of people throughout the country. If he can accom-
plish even half of what he pledged to do during his
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 378 27/11/18 3:48 PM
Even though many issues affect them deeply, young people do not vote in elections at the same rate as older Americans. However, countless young people have strong impact on campaigns, as epitomized by Brian Bodine (far left) and the members of the Texas Young Republican Federation.
campaign, it will be huge for the country and he will
go down in history as a great President.”1 Jessica
Valdes, a college student in Florida and naturalized
citizen originally from Cuba, supported Clinton, who
she viewed as wanting “to give (immigrants) the
opportunity to achieve the American dream” and
to make college more affordable.2 Yet another stu-
dent, Ethan Aliste, who attends community college
in California, expressed frustration with some of
his friends who were “apathetic about the political
stakes or claimed registering to vote was too diffi-
cult.”3 Turnout among young voters remained lower
than that of older age groups. Just over 46 percent
of 18- to 29-year-olds voted in 2016, compared to
58.7 percent of 30- to 44-year-olds, 66.6 percent of
45- to 64-year-olds, and 70.9 percent of those aged
65 and older.4 Clearly young people do not find the
electoral arena as enticing as do their older coun-
terparts, affecting whose voice gets heard in politics
and government.
As a result of their low voter turnout, many
young people miss out on one of the most remark-
able features of democratic government: every few
years, citizens are provided the means with which
379
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 379 27/11/18 3:48 PM
★ Describe the major rules and procedures of elections in the United States (pp. 381–93)
★ Explain how campaigns are typically conducted (pp. 393–400)
★ Describe how candidates raise the money they need to run (pp. 400–405)
★ Identify the major factors that influence voters’ decisions (pp. 406–8)
★ Analyze the strategies, issues, and outcomes of the 2016 and 2018 elections (pp. 409–21)
CHAPTER GOALS
to change the government and select new leaders. In the United States,
tens of thousands of political offices at the local, state, and national levels
hold popular elections. Although most Americans do not often vote directly
on specific policies and laws, they exert tremendous influence over political
outcomes through the regular selection of their leaders. By allowing citizens
to hold their elected representatives accountable for their actions, elections,
like freedom of speech and a free press, are at the very heart of democracy.
Without them, democratic self-government could not survive.
In this chapter, we will learn about how elections work in the United
States and how electoral rules and other considerations influence campaign
strategy. We will see how election laws, the candidates’ campaigns, and
voters’ choices determined the outcome of the 2016 presidential and congres-
sional elections, and thus determined who represents the American people
in government.
380 CHAPTER 10 CAmPA IgnS AnD ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 380 27/11/18 3:48 PM
Elections in America In the U nited S tates, elections ar e highly routinized events that occur on fixed dates and ar e subject to specific rules. National presidential elections take place every four years,
on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Congressional elections ar e held every two years, also on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Congressional elections that do not coincide with a pr esi dential election are often called midterm elections. Localities and states can choose when to hold their elections. Most Americans have the opportunity to vote in several elections each year. Voting in elections is the most common form of partici pation in American politics.
THE BASIC RULES OF THE GAME FOR U.S. ELECTIONS
In the American federal system, the responsibility for running elections is decen- tralized, r esting largely with state and local go vernments. E lections ar e adminis - tered by state, county, and city election boards that are responsible for establishing and staffing polling places, processing mail-in ballots, and verifying the eligibility of voters. State laws influence who may vote, how they vote, and where they vote. For example, states must choose whether to r equire photo identification to vote and whether or not to allo w their residents to cast a ballot b y mail, to v ote early at an official polling place, and to register to vote and vote on the same day.
Election season begins with primary elections, which are held to select each party’s candidates for the general election. Primary elections are used in races for offices at the national, state, and often local levels. They are used to select the best candidate to represent the political par ty in the general election. Thus, primary elections ar e races where Demo crats compete against Democrats and Republicans against Repub- licans (ex cept in states that hav e “top two primaries, ” in which candidates fr om
Describe the major rules and procedures of elections in the United States
midterm elections congressional elections that do not coincide with a presidential election; also called off-year elections
primary elections elections held to select a party’s candidate for the general election
Elections are the most important way that Americans participate in politics. Some of the rules of elections have changed over time. (Left) African Americans vote for the first time in Wilcox County, Alabama, after the passage of the Voting Right Act in 1965. (Right) An 18-year-old woman registers to vote in Illinois after the Twenty-Sixth Amendment in 1971 lowered the nationwide voting age from 21 to 18.
381ElECT IonS In AmER ICA
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 381 27/11/18 3:48 PM
all parties run against one another and the top two face each other in the general election; California and Washington State use this method). The winners of primary elections face one another as their parties’ nominees in the general election, the deci- sive electoral contest. The winner of the general election is elected to office for a specified term.
The United States is one of the fe w nations in the world to hold primar y elec- tions. In most countries, nominations of candidates ar e controlled completely b y party officials, as they once were in the United States. Primary elections were intro- duced at the turn of the tw entieth centur y b y r eformers who hoped to w eaken the power of par ty leaders; the intr oduction of primary elections for the first time enabled voters, rather than par ty elites, to pick the candidates to compete in the general election (see Chapter 9). In states with closed primaries, only registered mem- bers of a political par ty may vote in a primary election to select that party’s candi- dates. States with open primaries allow all registered voters, including independents, to choose which party’s primary they will participate in.
WHAT IT TAKES TO WIN—WINNER TAKE ALL
On the sur face, the basic idea of ho w an election wor ks may seem simple: v oters select their preferred candidate on the ballot, votes are counted, and the candidate with the most votes wins the election. But there are actually many possible variations in how people vote and how the votes are counted.
While w e take this system for granted in the U nited S tates, ther e ar e thr ee different ways that ballots ar e counted and aggr egated in countries using demo - cratic elections. In some countries, a candidate must receive an absolute majority (50 percent plus 1) of all the votes cast in the relevant district in order to win the election. This type of electoral system is called a majority system. Majority systems usually include a pr ovision for a runoff election betw een the two top candidates because if the initial race draws sev eral candidates, there is little chance that any one will receive a majority.
In some other countries, including the U nited States, candidates for office need not win an absolute majority of the v otes cast to win an election. I nstead, victory is awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes, regardless of the actual percentage this represents. A candidate r eceiving 50 percent or even 30 percent of the popular v ote can win if no other candidate r eceives more votes. This type of electoral system is called a plurality system and is used in most elections in the United States. The winning candidate needs to win a plurality (the most but not necessar- ily a majority) of the v otes cast in the election. These voting rules are commonly referred to as “ winner take all. ” In the 2016 R epublican primaries, for example, Donald Trump was frequently referred to by the media as the winner , but in most states he only won around 35 percent of the vote because there were three or more candidates in the race. Trump also did not win a majority of the popular vote in the general election.
Most advanced democracies use a third type of electoral system, called proportional representation. U nder pr oportional r ules, competing political par ties ar e awar ded legislative seats in r ough proportion to the per centage of popular v otes that each party wins. A par ty that wins 30 per cent of the popular v ote will r eceive roughly 30 percent of the seats in the parliament or other representative body. Proportional representation benefits smaller groups and thir d par ties, such as the G reen Party, Libertarian Party, or even far-right populist parties, because it usually allows a party
plurality system a type of electoral system in which, to win a seat in the parliament or other representative body, a candidate need only receive the most votes in the election, not necessarily a majority of the votes cast
proportional representation a multiple-member district system that allows each political party representation in proportion to its percentage of the total vote
general election a regularly scheduled election involving most districts in the nation or state, in which voters select officeholders; in the United States, general elections for national office and most state and local offices are held on the first Tuesday after the first monday in november in even- numbered years (every four years for presidential elections)
closed primary a primary election in which voters can participate in the nomination of candidates but only of the party in which they are enrolled for a period of time prior to primary day
open primary a primary election in which the voter can wait until the day of the primary to choose which party to enroll in to select candidates for the general election
majority system a type of electoral system in which, to win a seat in the parliament or other representative body, a candidate must receive a majority of all the votes cast in the relevant district
runoff election a “second-round” election in which voters choose between the top two candidates from the first round
382 CHAPTER 10 CAmPA IgnS AnD ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 382 27/11/18 3:48 PM
to win legislative seats with fewer votes than would be required under a majority or plurality system. A party that wins 10 percent of the national vote might win 10 per- cent of the parliamentary seats. In the United States, by contrast, a party that wins 10 percent of the vote would probably win no seats in Congress. Because they give small parties little chance of success, plurality and majority systems tend to r educe the number of political par ties that can hold power. This is one of the reasons that the United States has only two significant political parties (see Chapter 9 for mor e on the two-party system in the United States).
THE BALLOT
Before the 1890s v oters cast ballots accor ding to political par ties. Each par ty printed its own election ballots, listed only its own candidates for each office, and employed party workers to distribute the ballots at the polls. B ecause voters had to choose which par ty’s ballot to use, it was v ery difficult for a voter to cast any - thing other than a straight-ticket vote, selecting candidates fr om the same political party for all offices on the ballot. The advent of a ne w, neutral ballot at the turn of the twentieth century brought a significant change to electoral procedure. The new ballot—called the A ustralian ballot or long-form ballot—was pr epared and administered by the government rather than the political par ties. Each ballot was identical and included the names of all candidates r unning for public office. This ballot reform made it possible for v oters to make their choices on the merits of the individual candidates, rather than the overall party and to have their choice of candidates be private.
Because all candidates for the same office now appeared on the same ballot, vot- ers were no longer forced to choose straight-ticket voting. This practice gave rise to the phenomenon of split-ticket v oting, where voters may, for example, v ote for a Democrat for Senate and a Republican for governor. If a voter supports candidates from more than one party in the same election, he is said to be casting a split-ticket vote. Split-ticket voting for national elections is far less common today than it was in the 1970s and 80s; today most people cast straight-ticket ballots or vote for can- didates of the same political party for Congress and the president.5
In the U nited States, it is the states and county go vernments, not the federal government, that run elections and print the voting ballots. Some counties employ
straight-ticket voting selecting candidates from the same political party for all offices on the ballot
Ballots have changed dramatically over the years. In 2000 the configu- ration of the "butterfly" ballot (left) caused confusion in a key county in the swing state of Florida. This con- tested election led to the passage of the Help Americans Vote Act, which required states to upgrade their voting procedures. Many increased their use of computerized voting machines (right).
383ElECT IonS In AmER ICA
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 383 27/11/18 3:48 PM
paper ballots, while most now use electronic or computerized voting systems. The controversial presidential election of 2000 led to a closer look at different ballot forms and v oting systems used acr oss the 3,000 counties in the U nited States. In 2000 the margin of victory for Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore in Florida was so small that the state ordered a recount. Careful examination of the results revealed that the punch car d voting machines and butterfly ballot used in Florida had led to many voting and counting errors. The controversy made its way to the Supreme Court, which effectively reversed Florida’s recount order, awarding the presidency to Bush. In the wake of the controversial election, Congress adopted the Help Americans Vote Act (HAVA) in 2003, requiring the states to use com- puterized voter registration databases. C ritics of HAVA feared that such systems might be vulnerable to unauthorized use or hacking. In 2016, 21 states experienced intrusion by Russian hackers in their computerized state election systems, although to date there is no evidence that ballots were changed. In I llinois, for example, hackers viewed 300,000 active Illinois voter registration records (names, addresses, birthdates, voting history, etc.) but were unable to modify the data.6 In the past, computerized voting machines hav e generally wor ked well and hav e significantly updated America’s election system, but all computeriz ed systems have vulnerabil- ities. Protecting state and county election systems fr om hackers is a ne w priority for reform.
LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS AND ELECTORAL DISTRICTS
The boundaries for some elected offices are straightfor ward: all eligible U.S. citizens 18 y ears or older may v ote for pr esident; all eligible r esidents of each such state may vote for that state’s governor and two U.S. Senators. Other polit- ical offices, such as members of the U.S. House of R epresentatives and state lawmakers, are elected from geographic legislative districts whose boundaries are drawn b y state go vernments—either state legislatur es or independent com - missions or the cour ts. The boundaries for congressional and state legislativ e districts ar e r edrawn ev ery 10 y ears to r eflect population changes, as deter - mined by the U.S. Census. The process of redrawing district boundaries is called redistricting. The geographic shape of legislative district boundaries is influenced by several factors, including population size and existing government boundaries such as counties.
Federal court decisions hav e played a major r ole in ho w legislative districts ar e drawn. In the 1962 landmar k case Baker v. Carr, the S upreme Cour t r uled that federal courts can inter vene on the issue of drawing legislativ e districts. In a series of decisions in 1963 and 1964, the Cour t held that legislativ e districts for Con - gress and state legislatur es must include r oughly equal populations so as to accor d with the principle of “ one person, one v ote.”7 Prior to these decisions, many state legislative districts w ere simply county boundaries, with each county electing one r epresentative, r egardless of the population of the county . D rawing districts with roughly equal populations shifted po wer fr om r ural ar eas to urban centers, where the population was higher. Today, average U.S. House districts have roughly 700,000 people (up fr om 30,000 people in 1800). S tate legislativ e districts v ary from a fe w thousand people in some states to nearly a million (931,000) in the California Senate. During the 1980s the S upreme Court also declar ed that legis - lative districts should, insofar as possible, be contiguous, compact, and consistent with existing political subdivisions.8
redistricting the process of redrawing election districts and redistributing legislative representatives; this happens every 10 years, to reflect shifts in population or in response to legal challenges in existing districts
384 CHAPTER 10 CAmPA IgnS AnD ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 384 27/11/18 3:48 PM
Despite these legal requirements, state lawmakers who are responsible for draw- ing the district boundaries for Congress and state legislatures regularly seek to influ- ence electoral outcomes to favor one political party over another (or incumbents over challengers). This strategy of drawing legislative districts to fav or a political party is called gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is named for a nineteenth-centur y Massachusetts governor, Elbridge Gerry, who was alleged to have designed an odd- shaped district in the shape of a salamander to promote his party’s interests.9
The principle behind gerrymandering is simple: different populations of v oters residing in geographically defined districts can produce different electoral r esults. For example, b y dispersing the members of a political par ty across two or mor e districts, state lawmakers can dilute that gr oup’s voting power and prevent it from electing a representative in any district. This technique is known as “cracking.” Alter- natively, by concentrating the members of a party in as few districts as possible, state lawmakers can try to ensure that their opponents will elect as few representatives as possible, a technique called “packing.” The controversial but widespread practice of gerrymandering has created many “safe” districts in Congress, and state legislatures where incumbents rarely face a serious challenger. This contributes to the frequency with which members of Congr ess ar e r e-elected in landslide elections. I n 2018, 86 percent of S enators and 93 per cent of H ouse members won r e-election, but a historic 56 members did not ev en run for r e-election.10 When candidates do not face serious challengers in elections ther e is concern that public officials will not represent the interests of the people but will instead make laws that benefit special interests. To address this problem, some states use nonpar tisan redistricting boards or commissions where boundaries are drawn not to advantage one party over the other and the partisanship of voters in the district is not a consideration in drawing geographic boundaries.
Partisan gerrymandering—that is, drawing districts to adv antage one par ty o ver another—has r ecently become highly contr oversial. Critics of this practice claim that these techniques go against the principle of “ one person, one v ote.” Others believe that the pr ocess of legislativ e districting is b y nature political, and par ties strategically drawing districts to gain an advantage is part of the electoral game. They also contend ther e is no agr eed-upon standard for too much par tisan tilt in these
gerrymandering the apportionment of voters in districts in such a way as to give unfair advantage to one racial or ethnic group or political party
partisan gerrymandering occurs when politicians from one party intentionally manipulate the boundaries for legislative election districts to disadvantage their political opponents’ chance of winning an election and advantage their own political party
The original gerrymander was a districting plan attributed to the Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry (1744–1814) that had the shape of a salamander. This practice continues today across the country, as seen here in the odd shape of Illinois’s 4th Congressional District, which was drawn to create a majority Latino district.
385ElECT IonS In AmER ICA
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 385 27/11/18 3:48 PM
decisions. This controversy has found its way into the cour ts. Legislative districts drawn by the Republican state legislature in Pennsylvania, for example, were ruled unconstitutional in 2018 because of gerrymandering. The U.S. Supreme Court took up the matter in Gill v. Whitford, in which Democratic voters of a Wisconsin district sued to o verturn the allegedly gerr ymandered state district map .11 I n June 2018 the Court unanimously agreed to send the case back to the district court, delaying Supreme Court action on partisan gerrymandering for at least another term.
The federal government has often supported congressional districts made up pri- marily of minority group members, a practice intended to increase the number of African Americans and Latinos elected to public office in accordance with the 1965 Voting Rights A ct. Beginning with the 1993 case of Shaw v. Reno, however, the Supreme Court has generally opposed efforts to force the creation of majority-minority districts.12 The Court has asserted that districting based exclusively on race/ethnicity is unlawful. However, most majority-minority districts in the U nited States occur naturally in states and geographic ar eas with large minority populations. M ost African Americans in Congr ess, for example, ar e elected fr om districts with a majority of African American voters.
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
Presidential elections have special rules because they are the only public office in the U.S. elected by all American citizens (though the president is technically elected by the electoral college, not by direct popular vote of the citizens). Moreover, presiden- tial candidates fr om the two major par ties are officially nominated at the parties’ national conventions, following a series of state-by-state primary elections and cau- cuses to select delegates to the conventions. While primary elections are also used to select candidates in congressional and other types of elections, the national conven- tion delegate system for nominating candidates is unique to presidential elections.
Nominating Presidential Candidates: Primaries and Caucuses How do w e pick presidential candidates in the U nited States? Before the pr esidential election every four years, the parties must select candidates to represent them in the general election. The process starts with primary elections and caucuses that are held by the major political par ties to choose a candidate who will face the nominee fr om the other major par ty during the general election. M ost states hold primar y elections, but about one-third use caucuses instead.
Causes are essentially party business meetings. At the lowest level, precinct cau- cuses are meetings of registered voters within a local geographic area who are mem- bers of the same political par ty. There are hundreds of pr ecinct caucuses in each state. The purpose of precinct caucuses is to elect delegates to county assemblies. The same process is repeated for county caucuses, which elect members to represent their preferences at the district caucuses, and finally for the state assembly. If mem- bers of a local precinct caucus prefer Bernie Sanders for president, for example, the delegates representing that precinct at the county, district, and state caucuses would continue to cast v otes for S anders. Thus citizens attending local caucuses end up electing delegates to statewide conventions, which is where delegates to the national party conventions are chosen. Compared to primary elections, caucuses giv e party leaders and activists a larger role in selecting candidates for public office.
Candidate strategies to win states holding primaries ar e very different than for states using caucuses. This is because voter turnout in caucuses tends to be much
majority-minority district an electoral district, such as a congressional district, in which the majority of the constituents belong to racial or ethnic minorities
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS How do district boundaries affect elections for the U.S. House and state legislatures? Should districts be drawn based on partisan considerations or other criteria?
386 CHAPTER 10 CAmPA IgnS AnD ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 386 27/11/18 3:48 PM
lower than in primary elections. Television and mass media campaigns typically are used to campaign in primar y states, while face-to-face and r etail politics ar e more common in caucus states.
The Iowa caucuses are especially famous, as the first state to select presidential candidates in the calendar y ear, as is the N ew Hampshire primary, as the second election in the pr esidential nomination pr ocess. Both the I owa caucus and N ew Hampshire primary are characterized by retail politics, where presidential candidates spend a great deal of time in the state to meet with voters face to face. Like the gene- ral elections, early primaries and caucuses tend to be highly contested, with high levels of mass media coverage and intensive voter mobilization drives.
The primaries and caucuses traditionally begin in January of a presidential elec- tion year and end in J une, with state elections r oughly every two weeks. Iowa and New Hampshire’s disproportionate role in picking presidential candidates is due to their being the first states to cast votes in the caucuses and primaries. These early voting states ar e important because they can help candidates gain momentum b y securing national media attention, money in the form of campaign contributions, and higher ratings in public-opinion polls. Candidates that per form w ell in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary send signals to voters in states holding later primaries and caucuses that a candidate is viable (can win the nomination) and electable (can win the general election). A candidate who performs better than expected in I owa and N ew Hampshire will usually be able to win public suppor t and media coverage for subsequent races. A candidate who fares poorly in these two states may be written off as a loser and drop out of the race. I n 2016, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders beat expectations by both placing second in the Iowa caucuses and first in the New Hampshire primary. These early wins helped solidify Trump’s nomination for the R epublican party ticket, and indicated that S anders would be a viable rival of Clinton throughout the Democratic party nomination. Today, the presidential nomination has become “front-loaded,” with states vying to incr ease their political influence by holding their nominating processes earlier in the calendar year in order to receive more attention from candidates and the media.
retail politics a style of campaigning where candidates connect to voters at intimate gatherings and local events
Campaigning for early primaries and caucuses typically involves grassroots politics, with candidates attempting to connect directly with citizens. Here, 2016 presidential candidate Ted Cruz speaks to potential voters at a local diner in Keene, New Hampshire.
387ElECT IonS In AmER ICA
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 387 27/11/18 3:48 PM
One study found that the change in mass media coverage that candidates receive before and after the I owa caucuses pr edicts ho w w ell they will do in the N ew Hampshire primar y and in pr esidential primaries nationwide measur ed b y v ote share.13 This study suggests that it is not winning the Iowa caucuses that matters but doing better than expected by the national media. For example, if Barack Obama had not won the I owa caucus in 2008, unexpectedly beating pr esumed Democratic front- runner Hillary Clinton, most commentators believ e he would not hav e gone on to captur e the D emocratic nomination. S imilarly, R epublican candidate D onald Trump fared much better than expected b y political elites and the mass media b y placing second in the Iowa caucuses and first in the New Hampshire primary. In an era of viral digital social media, media coverage of early nominating events is even greater than before and may further increase the importance of states holding early primaries and caucuses.14
The result of the pr esidential primar y or caucus determines ho w each state ’s delegates will vote at their party’s national convention. As noted in Chapter 9, the Democratic Party requires that state presidential primaries allocate delegates on the basis of proportional representation; Democratic candidates win delegates in rough proportion to their percentage of the primary vote. The Republican Party does not require pr oportional r epresentation, but many states no w use the system. A fe w states use the winner-take-all system, b y which the candidate with the most v otes wins all the par ty’s delegates in that state. When the primaries and caucuses ar e concluded, it is usually clear which candidates have won their parties’ nominations.
Nominating Presidential Candidates: Party Conventions F or mor e than 50 years after America’s Founding, presidential nominations were controlled by each party’s congressional caucus—all the par ty’s members in the H ouse and the S en- ate. Critics referred to this pr ocess as the “King Caucus ” and charged that it did not fairly r epresent the vie ws of par ty members thr oughout the nation. Thus, the King Caucus process was replaced by the system of national par ty conventions. As it developed over the next centur y, the convention became the decisiv e institution in the pr esidential nominating pr ocesses of the two major par ties. Composed of delegates from each state who pledge lo yalty to different presidential candidates, the convention was a deliberativ e body in which par ty elites argued, negotiated, and eventually chose a single candidate to suppor t. The size of a state ’s delegation depended on the state’s population, and each delegate was allowed one vote for the purpose of nominating the party’s presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Between the 1830s and World War II, delegates to the national party conventions were selected by a state’s party leaders. These individuals were public officials, politi- cal activists, and party notables from all regions of the state, representing most major party factions. Over time, reformers viewed the convention as a symbol of r ule by party elites and the affluent. Around the turn of the twentieth century, many states adopted direct primary elections to choose presidential candidates, enabling average citizens to have a voice in picking their president. As we saw earlier in this chapter, today the nomination is determined in a series of primar y elections and caucuses held in all 50 states during the months prior to the par ty’s national conv ention. These elections determine how each state’s convention delegates will v ote. Candi- dates usually arrive at the convention knowing who has enough delegate support in hand to assure a victory in the first round of balloting. If one candidate does not win a majority of delegates, a second ballot is issued, and delegates can choose to v ote for a different candidate.
delegate a representative who votes according to the preferences of his or her constituency
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Is it fair that two relatively small states (in terms of population) such as Iowa and New Hampshire should have such outsize influence in picking presidents?
388 CHAPTER 10 CAmPA IgnS AnD ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 388 27/11/18 3:48 PM
Superdelegates ar e par ty elites who ar e not bound to the voting r esults in their state primaries and can v ote as they wish. A t the 2016 D emocratic N ational Conv ention, most superdelegates backed Hillary Clinton, giving her a significant advantage over her opponent Bernie Sanders, despite Sanders’s strong suppor t among v oters. The Republican P arty does not use superdelegates, and the practice of r eserving delegates for the par ty elite is incr easingly controversial in the D emo- cratic Party.
Even though the par ty convention no longer contr ols presi- dential nominations, it still has a number of impor tant tasks. The convention makes the rules concerning delegate selection and future presidential primary elections. In 1972, for exam- ple, the Democratic Party adopted rules requiring convention delegates to be br oadly representative of the par ty’s member- ship in terms of race and gender . Another impor tant task for the convention is the drafting of a party platform, a statement of principles and pledges around which the delegates can unite.
Most importantly, the convention is an opportunity for the party to showcase its candidate in anticipation of the upcom- ing general election. O n a national stage with the television cameras r olling, the pr esidential and vice-pr esidential nomi - nees deliver acceptance speeches. These speeches are opportunities for the nominees to begin their formal general-election campaigns and make a positiv e impression on the media. I n her speech at the 2016 D emocratic National Conv ention, for example, Hillary Clinton r epeated thr ee times the theme of her general-election campaign, “stronger together,” insisting that the phrase was not just a slogan for the campaign, but “a guiding principle for the country we’ve always been and the future we’re going to build.”
Picking Presidents: The Electoral College After they ar e officially nominated at the party convention, presidential candidates compete in the general election. As noted earlier, the presidential election differs from other elections in an impor tant way: the v oters do not directly elect the pr esident. In the early histor y of popular voting, nations often made use of indirect elections. In these elections, voters would choose the members of an intermediate body. These members would, in turn, select public officials. The last vestige of this procedure in the United States is the electoral college, the group of electors who formally select the president and vice president of the United States.
When Americans go to the polls on Election Day, they are technically not voting directly for pr esidential candidates, ev en though they mar k ballots as such; they are instead choosing among slates of electors selected b y each par ty in the state and pledged, if elected, to suppor t that par ty’s pr esidential candidate. E lectors are allocated to each state based on the siz e of the state ’s congressional delegation (Senators plus House members). Larger-population states thus have more votes in the electoral college. North Dakota, for example, has 3 votes in the electoral college (based on its 2 senators plus 1 r epresentative), while California has 55 (2 senators plus 53 representatives).
The president of the U nited States is the winner of the electoral college—the candidate who wins at least 270 of the college ’s 538 v otes—not necessarily the
party platform a party document, written at a national convention, that contains party philosophy, principles, and policy positions
electoral college the presidential electors from each state who meet after the general election to cast ballots for president and vice president
Although the party’s nominees for the president and vice president are officially announced at the party conventions, they are actually selected much earlier through caucuses and primary elections. In 2016, Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine formally accepted the Democratic nomination at the national convention.
389ElECT IonS In AmER ICA
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 389 27/11/18 3:48 PM
candidate with the most votes from the people. This is in part because the electoral college and most elections in the U nited States are governed by plurality, winner- take-all rules. With only two exceptions, each state awards all of its electors to the candidate who receives the most votes in the state.15 Thus, in 2016, Trump received all 29 of F lorida’s electoral v otes, though he won only 49 per cent of the v otes in the state.
Since electoral votes are won on a state-by-state basis, it is mathematically pos- sible for a candidate who r eceives the most popular v otes nationwide to fail to carry states whose electoral v otes would add up to a majority . Four times in the nation’s history has the winner of the electoral college not won the popular v ote (the most votes from the people). In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes was the winner in the electoral college despite receiving fewer popular votes than his rival, Samuel Tilden. In 1888, G rover Cleveland received more popular v otes than B enjamin Harrison but fe wer electoral v otes. The third instance was the election of 2000, discussed earlier, when the lengthy legal battle o ver recounting votes in F lorida ultimately ended with the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore that handed George W. Bush the presidency, even though he had not won the popular v ote.16 Bush won a majority in the electoral college, but D emocratic candidate Al Gore won 500,000 mor e votes from the people nationwide. And the four th instance was in 2016 when Hillary Clinton won almost 3 million more votes than Donald Trump, but Trump won the majority in the electoral college. B ecause of these contentious cases wher e the popular v ote winner has lost the election, calls for eliminating the electoral college and using a national popular v ote for pr esident are widespread. Public-opinion polls continue to show that most Americans prefer a direct election for the president.17
Replacing the electoral college with another system would r equire a constitu - tional amendment that most agr ee would be extr emely difficult to pass. However, reform is still possible since the Constitution allo ws states to choose the method of selecting pr esidential electors. O ne example of a r ecent attempt to r eform the electoral college is the National Popular Vote plan, which has been introduced and adopted in a number of state legislatur es. Under the proposed rule change, a state’s electoral college v otes would go to the candidate who won the national popular vote, not the candidate with a plurality of v otes in that specific state. States would enter a compact with other states making the same change, which would go into effect when a number of states representing a majority in the electoral college (270 electoral votes) approved it. The reform would effectively bypass the electoral college without the need for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As of 2018, 10 states plus Washington, D.C., for a total of 165 electoral college v otes, have enacted the bill into law. The bill will take effect when enacted by states possessing an additional 105 electoral votes pass the law.
Another limitation of the electoral college system is that some presidents do not have widespread support. Few democracies in the world elect a president who does not win a majority of the popular v ote. Since the Civil War, roughly one-third of American presidents have been elected with only a plurality (less than 50 per cent) rather than a majority v ote.18 Notably, Abraham Lincoln won just 40 per cent of the popular vote in a four-way election, Bill Clinton was elected with just 43 per - cent of the popular vote in 1992 and Trump with 46 percent in 2016.19 This often happens when a thir d-party candidate r eceives a significant percentage of v otes. If the thir d-party candidate is mor e closely aligned ideologically with the losing
390 CHAPTER 10 CAmPA IgnS AnD ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 390 27/11/18 3:48 PM
FIGURE 10.1
Electing the President: Steps in the Process
Formation of an Exploratory Committee Formed 18 to 24 months before the election, this committee begins fundraising and bringing the candidate’s name to the attention of the media and influential groups.
Fundraising Presidential candidates must develop fundraising strategies, hire expert fundraisers, and
quickly build a substantial “war chest” early on to show they are serious contenders.
Campaigning Months before the primaries, candidates begin meetings with local leaders, public
appearances, ad campaigns, and other strategies.
The Debates In October, the major-party candidates engage in several televised debates along with one
vice-presidential debate.
Primaries and Caucuses Candidates need to do well in early contests such as Iowa and New Hampshire in order to
build momentum and win their party’s nomination. Party debates give candidates an opportunity to impress large television audiences.
The Convention The Democratic and Republican parties hold national conventions in September prior to the November general election. The parties’ nominees for president and vice president
are officially announced.
The General Election On the Tuesday following the first Monday in November, voters in each state cast
ballots. In most states, the candidate who wins the most votes in the state wins all of the state’s votes in the electoral college.
The Electoral College The electors meet in their state capitals in December, and their votes are officially
counted in January.
The Inauguration The president is officially inaugurated on January 20.
The General Election Campaign In the months leading up to the November election, candidates focus on battleground or
swing states as they aim to win at least 270 votes in the electoral college. They run television ads and use new media to reach voters. They must continue to raise money
throughout this process.
391ElECT IonS In AmER ICA
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 391 27/11/18 3:48 PM
major-party candidate, then a majority of v oters may not suppor t the winning presidential candidate.
DIRECT-DEMOCRACY ELECTIONS
Beyond presidential and congressional elections, 24 states also pr ovide for the ini - tiative process. Ballot initiatives allow citiz ens to circulate petitions to place policy change or proposed laws directly on the ballot for a popular vote. If a ballot initiative receives majority suppor t, it becomes law (in F lorida, a super majority is r equired to adopt constitutional initiativ es). Controversial issues fr equently appear on the ballots of states with the initiativ e process. In recent years, voters in several states have raised taxes, lowered taxes, prohibited social services for undocumented immigrants, provided universal health care, created nonpartisan redistricting, protected the envi- ronment, legalized marijuana, and much more. At the turn of the twentieth century, ballot initiatives were used to grant women the right to v ote, prevent child labor, limit the workday to eight hours, and allow voters to elect U.S. senators directly (rather than having them chosen by state legislatures). All 50 states have the legislative referendum, in which the state legislature refers certain laws to the voters for a popular vote. Referendum votes are required for changes to state constitutions.
The initiative and the referendum, both referred to as ballot measures, are exam- ples of direct democracy. They allow voters to govern directly and make laws with- out inter vention b y go vernment officials or the political parties. B allot measur e campaigns often inv olve high spending b y proponents and opponents, and mass media campaigns that can riv al those of congr essional and pr esidential candidates within a state. The validity of ballot measure results, however, is subject to judicial action. If a court finds that an initiative violates the state or national constitution, it can overturn the result. This happened in 2012 when the federal courts overturned California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage.20
Ballot initiatives not only change policy but also appear to affect political behavior. One study found that states with initiatives on the ballot have higher voter turnout over time. Citizens living in direct-democracy states report more interest in politics and ar e mor e likely to discuss politics. Why is this so? B allot pr opositions offer voters the opportunity to directly make public policy and change government laws, which may have an “educative” effect on the people.21 When they have more oppor- tunities to act politically, citizens may learn to participate more and come to believe their participation has meaning.
Elections with policy choices on the ballot provide information to voters in the form of political campaigns and attention in the mass media. Ballot measures con- cerning controversial policy issues generate their o wn campaigns with television, newspaper, and digital media, and r ely on volunteers for mobilization driv es that contact potential v oters.22 Hundreds of initiativ es and r eferenda appear on state election ballots every two years. In 2018 ballot measur es included anti–sanctuary city initiatives in M issouri, Oklahoma, and N evada, raising the minimum wage in Michigan, and paid family and medi cal leave in M assachusetts. An initiativ e in Maine in 2016 cr eated a ne w system of v oting called “ ranked choice v oting,” discussed earlier, in which voters choose three candidates to rank in order of prefer- ence, rather than choosing only one. The new voting system applies to gubernato- rial, congressional, and state legislative elections. Ballot initiatives are increasingly common: more initiatives and referenda have appeared on state ballots over the last 30 years than at any other time in American history, outside of the Progressive era
ballot initiative a proposed law or policy change that is placed on the ballot by citizens or interest groups for a popular vote
referendum the practice of referring a proposed law passed by a legislature to the vote of the electorate for approval or rejection
392 CHAPTER 10 CAmPA IgnS AnD ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 392 27/11/18 3:48 PM
at the turn of the twentieth century. In 2018, 157 ballot measures were certified for the ballot in 37 states.23
In addition, ballot measur es can help shape both the national agenda and evaluations of candidates. 24 I n 2006 coor dinated ballot measur es raising the minimum wage in multiple states may hav e influenced voters to focus on the economy , priming v oters to cast ballots for D emocrats in Congr ess and for D emocratic go vernors. P lacing issues on the ballot as par t of an effort to influence candidate elections is an important strategy for political campaigns attempting to shape the political agenda.
Eighteen states also have legal provisions for recall elections, which allow voters to remove governors and other state officials from office prior to the expiration of their terms. In California, for example, if 12 percent of those who voted in the last general election sign petitions demanding a special r ecall election, one must be scheduled by the state boar d of elections. I n 2003 many California v oters blamed G overnor Gray Davis for the state’s $38-billion budget deficit; Davis became only the second governor in American history to be recalled by his state’s electorate; the actor Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected in his place. In 2012, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker won a highly visible recall election, keeping his position. Federal officials, such as the president and members of Congress, are not subject to recall.
Election Campaigns A campaign is an effort b y politi - cal candidates (and their political party) to win the backing of donors, elected officials, and voters in their
quest for elected office. Campaigns precede ev ery primar y and general election. Because of the complexity of the campaign pr ocess and the amount of money that candidates must raise, pr esidential campaigns often begin almost two y ears before the November election; and congressional campaigns, 12 months in advance of the election. The campaign for any office consists of a number of steps. Candidates often form an explorator y committee consisting of suppor ters who will help them raise funds and bring their names to the attention of the media, potential donors, and voters. Money from corporations and affluent citizens is an important compo- nent of U.S. elections since public funding is limited. Incumbents, who already hold elected office, have an advantage over the candidates challenging them. Incumbents usually are already well known and hav e little difficulty attracting supporters and campaign contributors—unless, of course, they hav e been subject to damaging publicity while in office.
CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS
A formal organization and professional campaign managers are critical for campaign success. For a local campaign, candidates generally need hundr eds of v olunteers and some paid pr ofessionals. S tate-level campaigns call for thousands of v olun- teers, and presidential campaigns require tens of thousands of volunteers and paid staff nationwide. Virtually all serious contenders for national and statewide office retain the ser vices of pr ofessional campaign consultants. M ost candidates need a professional campaign manager, media consultants, pollsters and a data analytics
recall a procedure to allow voters to remove state officials from office before their terms expire by circulating petitions to call a vote
Explain how campaigns are typically conducted
campaign an effort by political candidates and their supporters to win the backing of donors, political activists, and voters in their quest for political office
incumbent a candidate running for re-election to a position that he or she already holds
393ElECT Ion CAmPA IgnS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 393 27/11/18 3:48 PM
team, financial advisers, a press spokesperson, and staff directors to coordinate the activities of volunteer and paid workers. Consultants offer candidates the expertise necessary to craft appealing campaign messages, conduct accurate opinion polls, produce television and social media ads, organize direct-mail campaigns, open field offices, and leverage valuable information about their constituents from massive digital v oter files or from sur veys. Most consultants who dir ect campaigns spe - cialize in politics, corporate advertising and strategic communication, public r ela- tions, communications, and computing. They may work with commercial clients in addition to politicians.
FUNDRAISING
Modern national political campaigns ar e fueled b y enormous amounts of money , with mor e money necessar y for highly competitiv e elections and federal offices. Candidates generally begin raising funds long before they face an election, and many politicians spend mor e time soliciting donations than engaging in any other cam - paign activity. Members of Congress spend a significant portion of their time fund- raising; the Democratic leadership recommends that 40 to 50 per cent of their time be spent on fundraising.25 Serious fundraising efforts involve appealing to both small and large donors. To have a reasonable chance of winning a seat in the House of Rep- resentatives, a candidate may need to raise more than $1 million; in 2014 candidates in the most competitive House races spent $10 million or more. In the 2018 Senate races, candidates in the most competitive elections spent $31–94 million.26
Once elected to office, members of Congress find it much easier to raise cam- paign funds and ar e thus able to outspend their challengers (see F igure 10.2). 27 Incumbents can out-raise their opponent by significant amounts because most busi- nesses and corporations, inter est group contributions, and P AC money donations go to incumbents. These groups seek a voice in government from their investment in
Candidates for national office rely on campaign advisers to guide their campaigns and direct volunteers. Here, Hillary Clinton collaborates with Huma Abedin, her longtime aide and her campaign’s vice chairwoman; Brian Fallon (left), her national press secretary; and Nick Merrill (right), her traveling press secretary.
394 CHAPTER 10 CAmPA IgnS AnD ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 394 27/11/18 3:48 PM
campaign contributions; thus, these organizations—businesses, labor unions, public interest groups, and others—want to invest in the candidate most likely to win, and incumbents win a large per centage of the time. M embers of the majority par ty in the House and Senate are particularly attractive to donors who want access to those in power.28 In the “Money and Politics” section later in this chapter, we will discuss further the critical role that money plays in the electoral process.
CAMPAIGN STRATEGY
For those candidates who win the nomination pr ocess, the last hur dle is the gen - eral election. There are essentially two types of general election campaigns in the
FIGURE 10.2
Average House and Senate Campaign Expenditures, 1984–2018 The average amount spent by House and Senate incumbents to secure re-election has risen sharply in recent years, whereas spending by challengers has remained more stable. What would you expect to see as a consequence of this trend? Is legislation needed to level the playing field?
SOURCES: Norman J. Orstein, Thomas E. Mann, and Michael J. Malbin, eds., Vital Statistics on Congress, 2001–2002 (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 2002), 87, 93; Norman J. Orstein, Thomas E. Mann, Michael J. Malbin, Andrew Rugg, and Raffaela Wakeman, “Vital Statistics on Congress Data on the U.S. Congress—A Joint Effort from Brookings and the American Enterprise Institute,” July 2013, www.brookings.edu/vitalstats (accessed 6/20/14); and OpenSecrets.org, “Incumbent Advantage,” www.opensecrets.org/overview/ incumbs.php (accessed 11/9/18).
84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 02 04 06 08 10 12 1400
84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 02 04 06 08 10 12 14
16
16
18
1800
100
700
600
500
400
300
200
800 900
1,000
1,100
1,200 1,300
1,400 1,500
1,600 1,700
$1,800
0
House incumbents
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
$15.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
Senate incumbents
Senate challengers
House incumbents outspent their challengers by a margin of almost 3 to 1 in 2006.
Senate incumbents outspent challengers by more than a 2-to-1 margin in 2006.
Spending by Senate incumbents and challengers spiked during the contentious1994 elections.
House challengers
Spending by incumbents and challengers spiked in 2010, but incumbents still spent more than double what challengers spent.
HOUSE (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
SENATE (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
395ElECT Ion CAmPA IgnS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 395 27/11/18 3:48 PM
United States today: grassroots campaigns and mass media campaigns. The first type is the organizationally driv en, labor-intensiv e election. Candidates campaign in local elections and many congressional elections by recruiting large numbers of vol- unteers to knock on doors, hand out leaflets, and organize rallies. The candidates make public appearances in many places, including university campuses. Generally, local and congressional campaigns rely heavily on grassroots outreach and mobili- zation designed to make the candidate more visible than her opponent. Statewide campaigns, some congr essional races, and the national pr esidential election fall into the second category: the media-driven, money-intensive electoral campaign. President Obama’s campaigns in 2008 and 2012 w ere notable in combining both types of campaigns.
All campaigns must decide on a strategy: What will their main message be? How will they allocate their resources (television, social media, face-to-face mobilization)? Which voters will they target? The electoral college is one election rule that influ- ences the campaign strategy of presidential candidates by forcing them to campaign heavily in a dozen battleground, or swing, states—those in which Democrats and Republicans are roughly even in the population—while often ignoring the r est of the country. In 2016, 94 per cent of the pr esidential campaign ev ents occurred in 12 battleground states, with the bulk in the populous swing states of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.29 Presidential candidates in the general election focus not on winning the most individual votes but rather on winning the electoral votes of states that ar e not considered safely Republican or safely Democratic. Residents of battleground states get smothered with attention from the candidates and media as presidential candidates vie for that state’s votes, while the millions of residents of states where Republicans generally win (Texas, Utah) or Democrats generally win (New York, Illinois, California) are often ignored. Without electoral competition in safe states, the needs and concerns of the residents may well be ignored.
The Media Contemporary political campaigns rely on a number of communication tools to reach the voters they want to target for support, including social media, mas- sive computerized databases, and micr o-targeting. Digital communication strategy is especially important in mobilizing citizens to vote (see Chapter 7). Donald Trump used Facebook for mobilizing voters more effectively in 2016 than any previous U.S. president. Extensive use of the broadcast media, television in particular, is the hallmark of the modern political campaign. Airing television ads is the primar y cost faced b y pr esidential and congr essional candidates. Two media techniques that became important in the 1990s are the talk show interview and the town hall meeting. The town hall meeting format allo ws candidates the oppor tunity to inter - act with or dinary citiz ens, thus sho wing the candidates ’ concern with the vie ws and needs of the voters. Both talk show appearances and town hall meetings (when televised) allow candidates to deliver their messages to millions of Americans with- out the input of journalists or commentators who might criticize or question the candidates’ assertions.
Candidates spend millions of dollars for paid media time in the form of television and radio ads, as discussed in the previous section. Many of these ads consist of 15-, 30-, or 60-second spots (advertisements) that deliver a candidate’s message to a tar- get audience. One notable example was L yndon Johnson’s 1964 “daisy” ad, which suggested that Johnson’s opponent, Barry Goldwater, would lead the United States into nuclear war. Television ads ar e used to establish candidate name r ecognition,
grassroots campaigns political campaigns that operate at the local level, often using face-to- face communication to generate interest and momentum by citizens
town hall meeting an informal public meeting in which candidates meet with ordinary citizens; allows candidates to deliver messages without the presence of journalists or commentators
396 CHAPTER 10 CAmPA IgnS AnD ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 396 27/11/18 3:48 PM
create a fav orable image of the candidate and a negativ e image of the opponent, link the candidate with desirable gr oups in the community, and communicate the candidate’s stands on selected issues.
Often in the later stages of a campaign, candidates and the political adv ocacy groups that suppor t them will “ go negative,” airing ads that criticiz e their oppo - nents’ policy positions, qualifications, or character. Though voters consistently say they reject so-called negative campaigning, political scientist John Geer found that negative campaign ads can benefit voters more than positive ads in some cases.30 Negative ads ar e more likely to addr ess impor tant policy differences and pr ovide supporting evidence, while positive ads tend to focus on candidates’ personal char- acteristics. And ev en when negativ e ads ar e misleading or patently false, they ar e effective in that v oters remember more from negative ads than fr om positive ads, possibly because negative ads are designed to elicit emotional responses, such as fear, anxiety, or anger.
In addition to ads sponsor ed by the candidates, a gr owing percentage of cam - paign ads ar e sponsored by the political par ties and b y political adv ocacy groups seeking to influence the outcome of the election. The 2010 Citizens United decision (discussed later in this chapter) allowed corporations, unions, and interest groups to spend unlimited amounts of their own money to advocate for political candidates. Corporations, unions, and interest groups can form Super PACs and run unlimited campaign ads for or against candidates, as long as the organizations ar e “independ- ent” of the candidate’s campaign. When viewers see attack ads against a candidate, it can be difficult to determine who sponsored the ad because a S uper PAC with a generic name—Citizens for America, for example—paid for the ad. The effect of unlimited spending on television advertising remains unclear.
Candidates also benefit from free media , wher e the cost of air time is borne by the media themselv es when the media co ver the candidates ’ statements and activities as ne ws. In the 2016 pr esidential primaries, D onald Trump, largely due to his many controversial statements and tweets, benefited from free media cover- age.31 Critics claimed that the networ ks’ tendency to focus on Trump, rather than provide balanced political coverage of all candidates, occurred because he drew the biggest audience.
Online media is fr ee and has become a major w eapon in modern political campaigns as mor e Americans turn to the internet and social media for ne ws.
While voters often complain about the prevalence of negative advertis- ing in campaigns, research shows that negative ads are more memo- rable, and sometimes contain more information about candidates’ policy differences than positive ads.
397ElECT Ion CAmPA IgnS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 397 27/11/18 3:48 PM
Today, every presidential campaign and most campaigns for Congress and major state offices develop a social media strategy for fundraising, generating interest in the candidate, mobilizing suppor ters, and getting out the v ote. (See Chapters 7 and 8 for a fuller discussion of political candidates ’ digital strategy.) One reason digital media ar e so effective at organizing pr esidential campaigns is cost: the internet enables inexpensiv e organization of v olunteers and offers more oppor- tunities for free advertising, such as on Twitter and YouTube. Online political videos may be mor e effective than television ads because vie wers make a con - scious choice to watch them, instead of having their television program inter- rupted by an unwanted ad.
Debates Public debates were a critical part of the democratic process of ancient Greece, where they were both a vital form of public entertainment and the prin- cipal means of what today would be called “ voter education.” Many successful American politicians, such as A braham Lincoln and B arack O bama, came to prominence largely because of their skill as debaters. Today, both pr esidential and vice-presidential candidates hold debates, as do candidates for statewide and even local offices. Debates give voters the opportunity to see how the candidates fare in dir ect, face-to-face ex changes outside the “ campaign bubble ” of stage- managed public appearances and car efully scripted speeches. Candidates who can think on their feet may be seen as demonstrating the kind of on-the-spot decision-making that is more like actual governing than anything else they do in a campaign.
Televised presidential debates began with the famous 1960 K ennedy–Nixon clash. Kennedy’s strong performance in the debate and the perception of many voters that the y outhfully vigorous Kennedy “looked pr esidential” were major factors in bringing about his victor y o ver the much better-kno wn Richar d Nixon. Indeed, candidates can make or break their campaigns with the strength of their debate per formances, including high-pr ofile gaffes during the debates and ev en unconscious gestur es and the nuances of their facial expr essions. Presidential debates usually inv olve civiliz ed disagr eement about substantiv e policy issues. The Republican primary debates in 2016, ho wever, uncharacteris- tically included fierce arguments, harsh character attacks, and personal insults, many of which stemmed fr om the bombastic style of D onald Trump and his opponents’ occasional attempts to match it. When Trump faced off against Democrat Hillary Clinton in the general election, the antagonistic tone contin - ued, and their first televised debate broke viewership records as the most watched in U.S. history.32
Micro-Targeting and Polling The media and televised debates allow candidates to communicate their policy goals and promises to voters. While this method is efficient for campaigns, it is also blunt; different v oters car e about different issues, after all. As w e saw in Chapter 9, the idea behind micr o-targeting is to send different campaign ads or messages to different demographic gr oups of voters and potential v oters. S uburban “ soccer moms, ” for instance, would be targeted with ads different fr om those targeting r ural “cowboy dads.” Republi- can president George W. Bush is credited with successfully using micro-targeting in the 2000 and 2004 pr esidential elections. H is campaign focused on w edge issues—issues where a voter’s preferences diverge from those of his political party. By targeting such voters with messages focusing on Bush’s position on the wedge
398 CHAPTER 10 CAmPA IgnS AnD ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 398 27/11/18 3:48 PM
issue, the campaign hoped to convince these voters to cast a ballot for Bush rather than for his opponent.33
Micro-targeting became mor e sophisticated during the 2008 pr esidential cam- paign as Democrats built an extensive organization to contact and turn out v oters. The Obama campaign made use of an unpr ecedented volume of survey data, con- ducting thousands of short- and long-form random sample interviews each week to gauge voters’ preferences. Statistical algorithms looked for patterns in these opinions and the many other data points the campaign had assembled for ev ery voter based on massiv e state v oter-registration files, consumer data warehouses, commer cial data, and past campaign contacts. The campaign used this mountain of informa- tion to generate different, car efully targeted messages for different demographic, regional, and ideological groups to persuade them to turn out and v ote for Obama.34 It was the first time big data had been used to win a presidential election. Because of micro-targeting, millions of Americans hear d from other Americans about issues that mattered the most to them. Virtually all campaigns for national and state- wide offices make extensive use of random sample opinion polling (see Chapter 6). To be competitiv e, a candidate must use random sample public-opinion polls to gauge public support. Polls of likely voters are conducted throughout most political campaigns. These polls provide the basic information that candidates and their staff use to craft campaign messages and strategies—that is, to select issues, assess the candidates’ strengths and w eaknesses and those of the opposition, and measur e voter responses to the campaign.
Once campaigns have identified specific groups of voters, they reach out via face- to-face contacts, phone calls, mailings, and social media to their target audiences for fundraising and v oter mobilization. Personal contact has been found to be the most effective at mobilizing voters to turn out but r equires field offices and volun- teers. Staffs of paid or volunteer telephone callers, using computer-assisted dialing systems and prepared scripts, also place calls to deliver their candidate’s message. The targeted groups are often those identified by polls as either uncommitted or weakly committed, but str ong supporters of the candidate are also contacted and encouraged to vote and donate money to the campaign. Since 2008 the presidential campaigns of both par ties have also placed millions of automated “ robocalls” urging voters to support their candidates.
Since John Kennedy and Richard Nixon debated on live television in 1960 (left), presidential debates have been one of the most closely watched events in election cam- paigns. The intense, bitter debates in 2016 between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton (right) drew the largest audience for presidential debates in American history.
399ElECT Ion CAmPA IgnS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 399 27/11/18 3:48 PM
Direct mail is another vehicle for communicating with v oters. After obtaining the appropriate mailing lists, candidates usually send pamphlets, letters, and br o- chures describing themselves and their views to voters believed to be sympathetic. Often, the letters sent to voters are personalized: the recipient is addressed by name in the text, and the letter appears actually to hav e been signed by the candidate. In addition to its use as a political adv ertising medium, dir ect mail is an impor tant source of campaign funds. Computeriz ed mailing lists permit campaign strategists to pinpoint individuals whose interests, background, and activities suggest that they may be potential donors to the campaign.
“People po wer” r emains critical in modern political campaigns. R esearch suggests that dir ect mail and r obocalls ar e less effective than in-person and phone contacts. 35 Candidates continue to use the political ser vices of tens of thousands of v olunteers, especially for grassr oots get-out-the-vote driv es. S till, even the r ecruitment of campaign v olunteers has become a job for electr onic technology. Employing a technique called “instant organization, ” paid staff use phone banks to contact not only potential v oters but also potential campaign workers in ar eas targeted by a computer. Volunteer workers are recruited from among those called.
Money and Politics Although online fundraising has made raising money for campaigns more convenient, modern campaigns require a gr eat deal of money . A
60-second spot on prime-time network television costs hundreds of thousands of dollars each time it is aired. Polling, social media campaigns, and data analytics can easily reach or exceed the six-figure mark. Campaign consultants can charge substantial fees.
Describe how candidates raise the money they need to run
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Do American political campaigns help voters make a decision? Or do they produce more confusion than enlightenment?
Contemporary presidential cam- paigns gather large amounts of data on potential voters in order to effectively tailor campaign messages to specific demographics. Armed with these data, volunteers for both the Trump and Clinton campaigns made thousands and thousands of phone calls to urge individuals to support their candi- date on Election Day in 2016.
400 CHAPTER 10 CAmPA IgnS AnD ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 400 27/11/18 3:48 PM
In the nineteenth century, labor-intensive campaigns allowed parties whose chief support came fr om gr oups near er the bottom of the socioeconomic scale to use their numerical superiority as a partial counterweight to the institutional and eco - nomic resources more readily available to the opposition. As many as 2.5 million individuals worked on political campaigns during the 1880s.36 The money-intensive campaign of the modern era, b y contrast, has giv en a major boost to the political fortunes of candidates whose suppor ters ar e able to furnish the large sums no w needed to compete effectively.37
Candidates with the most campaign dollars often win. In 2008 and 2012, Barack Obama raised mor e than his R epublican opponents. I n 2016, though H illary Clinton spent more than her opponent, Donald Trump, she did not win. Nonetheless, the 2016 election shatter ed pr evious r ecords. Combined spending b y candi - dates, parties, and interest groups on the congressional and presidential races was $6.5 billion in 2016 compared with $6.2 billion in 2012 and $5.3 billion in 2008. Of the $6.5 billion, $4.3 billion was spent on congr essional races and $2.6 billion on the presidential race.38
THE COURTS AND CAMPAIGN SPENDING
The United S tates is rar e among democracies in allo wing candidates to raise unlimi ted sums of money to spend on their campaigns with no time r estrictions of when the money can be spent. In most democratic countries, publicly financed campaigns ar e the norm; in such a system, candidates or par ties ar e pr ovided with a set amount of money to spend b y the government. In the United States, candidates may raise ever-increasing amounts of money from private individuals, corporations, and inter est gr oups. R eformers hav e long been concerned about the potential for corr uption that exists when candidates ar e activ ely soliciting private inter ests for funding campaigns. I n an attempt to limit the influence of money in politics, the federal go vernment has adopted a number of laws to limit and regulate contributions to poli tical campaigns. But two Supreme Court decisions adopted over a 40-year period have dismantled most of these restrictions on money in politics.
The first, Buckley v. Valeo (1976), was a landmark Supreme Court case that struck down several provisions of the F ederal Election Campaign Act of 1974, including limits on candidate spending, use of personal funds, and independent expenditures. (Independent expenditures are sums of money spent to influence a campaign, but the donating organization is not allowed to coordinate with a candidate’s official campaign.) The decision introduced the idea that money (in this case, campaign contributions) counts as “speech” under the First Amendment and that candidates could spend unlimited amounts of their own money on their own campaign. How- ever, the Cour t left intact the pr ovision of the law that sets limits on individuals ’ campaign contributions.39
In 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that the government could not restrict independent expenditures by corporations or unions in support of candidates.40 The Court said restrictions on independent expenditures violated the First Amendment. With this decision, the United States entered a new era of campaign finance in which corporations and unions can spend unlimited sums. F ollowing the Citizens U nited deci - sion, SpeechNow v. FEC allowed wealthy individuals and organizations to form
401monEY AnD Pol I T ICS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 401 27/11/18 3:48 PM
committees, called S uper PACs, which can raise unlimited amounts of money to r un adv ertising for and against candidates so long as their efforts ar e not coordinated with those of the candidates. 41 These groups can spend unlimited amounts for or against candidates, but they cannot contribute dir ectly to their campaign. This resulted in a significant increase in campaign spending in the 2010 midterm election and unpr ecedented spending in the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections.
As the Court struggles to balance free speech with preventing political corrup- tion, the sum of these three court decisions tips the scale in favor of speech. Oppo- nents raise concerns that unlimited spending b y w ealthy donors, corporations, and other organizations could worsen existing corr uption in American politics. This concern is bolstered by a number of ne w studies finding that members of Congress make decisions that represent the interests of wealthy campaign donors, not average voters.42
SOURCES OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS
Although restrictions remain on how money is raised and spent on elections, ther e is today a great deal of latitude on where money comes from and what it is used for. Campaigns have at least six potential sources of funds.
Individual Donors Politicians spend a great deal of time asking people for money . Money is solicited via dir ect mail, thr ough the internet, o ver the phone, and in numerous face-to-face meetings. Under federal law, individuals may donate as much as $2,700 per candidate per election, $5,000 per federal P AC per calendar y ear,
Recently courts have ruled that campaign contributions are a form of speech and, for the most part, cannot be restricted. However, many people worry that these decisions reinforce the influence of the very affluent in American politics at the expense of everyone else.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS What purpose do limits on monetary contributions to political campaigns serve? Should there be limits? How do monetary contributions affect the outcomes of elections?
402 CHAPTER 10 CAmPA IgnS AnD ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 402 27/11/18 3:48 PM
a Sruthi Gottipati and Rajesh Kumar Singh. “India Set to Challenge U.S. for Election-Spending Record,” Reuters, March 9, 2014, www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/09/us-india -election-spending-idUSBREA280AR20140309#XxEPYA752ikcQRB5.97 (accessed 4/15/18).
b Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, “Election Expert Team Report: Norway Parliamentary Elections 11 September 2017,” p. 7, December 4, 2017. www.osce .org/odihr/elections/norway/360336?download=true (accessed 4/15/18).
Electoral campaigns are more expensive in the United States than in any other country, with only India approaching the same amount of spending.a Both the United States and India are large federal countries, so spending is high partly because these countries have multiple levels of government to elect. India’s population, however, is approximately four times the U.S. population, so the United States still spends significantly more per voter. Critics have argued that the amount of money in these campaigns creates an unfair advantage for certain candidates, increases the importance and influence of large campaign donors, and potentially undermines the quality of democracy.
Some countries have rules that limit campaign contributions or campaign spending. The United States has extensive rules
regarding campaign contributions for candidates, but has few spending limits. The United Kingdom, in contrast, does not limit contributions but has strict rules on campaign spending. Some countries also allow qualified parties and/or candidates free or subsidized access to media, which reduces the need to raise huge sums.
However, a considerable amount of campaign spending is determined by the nature of the election. norway bans political advertising on television and the radio and campaigns run for two weeks. Even though norway sets no restrictions on campaign spending or fundraising, roughly 74.4 percent comes from public funds.b
Campaign Laws in Comparison
UNITED STATES INDIA UNITED KINGDOM NORWAY
Campaign spending in a recent election (in U.S. dollars)
$6.5 billion (2016)
Roughly $5 billion (2014)
$55.7 million (2017)
Roughly $6.5 million (2013)
length of national election Unlimited 2+ weeks* one month 2 weeks
Are public funds available? only for presidential candidates (federal funds)
no Yes Yes
Is media access free or subsidized?
no Yes (for parties, not candidates)
Yes (for parties, not candidates)
no
Bans on television advertising? no no no Yes
Approximate spending per voter (in U.S. dollars)
$25.97
$6.35
$1.09 $1.76
*While the Electoral Commission of India lists the official campaign as only two weeks, (http://eci.nic.in/eci_main1/the_function.aspx#campaign) with all campaigning required to end the day before the election, polling took 5 weeks in 2014, as different regions of the country were scheduled to go to the polls on different days.
SOURCES: Campaign Laws from The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance Political Finance Database, www.idea.int (accessed 4/15/18); Christopher Ingraham, “Somebody Just Put a Price Tag on the 2016 Election. It’s a Doozy,” Washington Post, April 14, 2017, www.washingtonpost.com (accessed 4/15/18); The UK Electoral Commission, “Political Party Spending at Previous Elections,” 2018, www.electoralcommission.org.uk (accessed 4/15/18); and “International Campaign Finance,” CNN World, reporting of the 2013 election campaign contributions from Statistics Norway, www.ssb.no (accessed 4/30/16).
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 403 27/11/18 3:48 PM
$33,400 per national par ty committee per calendar y ear, and $10,000 to state and local committees per calendar year. (There is no limit to the number of candidates or PACs that an individual can give to, however—a result of the Supreme Court’s deci- sion in McCutcheon et al. v . Federal Election Commission .43) Bernie Sanders’s 2016 presidential campaign raised an unprecedented $231 million in individual contribu- tions, 58 percent of which was made up of small contributions under $200. 44 The “Who Participates?” feature at the end of this chapter looks at the characteristics of donors to political campaigns.
Political Action Committees Political Action Committees (PACs) are organizations established by corporations, labor unions, or interest or advocacy groups to chan- nel the contributions of their members and emplo yees into political campaigns. Under the terms of the 1971 F ederal E lection Campaign A ct, which go verns campaign finance in the United States, PACs are permitted to make larger contri- butions to any given candidate than individuals are allowed to make. Moreover, allied or r elated P ACs often coor dinate their campaign contributions, gr eatly increasing the amount of money a candidate actually r eceives fr om the same interest group. More than 4,600 P ACs are registered with the F ederal Election Commission, which o versees campaign finance practices in the United S tates. Nearly two-thir ds of all P ACs r epresent corporations, trade associations, and other business and pr ofessional gr oups. M any congr essional and par ty leaders have established PACs, known as “leadership PACs,” to provide funding for their political allies.
Soft Money Before 2002 most campaign dollars took the form of “ soft money,” unregulated contributions to the national parties nominally to assist in party build- ing, voter registration efforts, and voter mobilization rather than for particular cam- paigns. Federal campaign finance legislation crafted by Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold and enacted in 2002 sought to ban soft money by prohibiting the national parties from receiving contributions from corporations, unions, or individ- uals and preventing them from directing such funds to their affiliated state parties. However, it did not reduce the overall importance of money in politics. Under fed- eral rules, a national political par ty committee may make unlimited “independent expenditures” advocating support for its own presidential candidate or defeating an opposing party’s candidate as long as these expenditur es are not coor dinated with the candidate’s own campaign.
Outside Spending: Super PACs and Dark Money 527 committees (Super PACs) and 501(c)(4) committees (dark money) are independent gr oups that ar e currently not covered by the campaign spending restrictions imposed in 2002 by the Bipar- tisan Campaign Reform Act, but now raise much of the money used for political campaigns. These groups, named for the sections of the tax code under which they are organized, can raise and spend unlimited amounts as long as their efforts are not coor dinated with those of any candidate ’s campaign. As a r esult, each presidential campaign raises millions fr om sympathetic outside gr oups. A 527 is a gr oup established specifically for the purpose of political advocacy and is required to report to the IRS. A 501(c)(4) is a nonprofit group that also engages in campaign advocacy but may not spend more than half its revenue for political purposes. Unlike a 527, a 501(c)(4) is not r equired to disclose wher e it gets its
political action committee (PAC) a private group that raises and distributes funds for use in election campaigns
527 committee (Super PAC) a nonprofit independent political action committee that may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, and individuals but is not permitted to contribute to or coordinate directly with parties or candidates
501(c)(4) committees (dark money) politically active nonprofits; under federal law, these nonprofits can spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns and not disclose their donors as long as their activities are not coordinated with the candidate campaigns and political activities are not their primary purpose
404 CHAPTER 10 CAmPA IgnS AnD ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 404 27/11/18 3:48 PM
funds or exactly what it does with them—as a r esult, its funding has earned the name “dark money” and has raised growing concern that the lack of transparency in campaign funding thr eatens fair elections. I ndeed, it has become a common practice for w ealthy and corporate donors, as w ell as for eigners, to r oute cam- paign contributions through 501(c)(4)s to avoid the legal limits on contributions through other channels.
Outside spending via S uper P ACs and dar k money (527s and 501(c)(4)s) played an unprecedented role in the 2012 and 2016 presidential races and 2018 midterm elections as outside gr oups ran extensiv e television and online ads. Super PACs on both sides relied on very large contributions. A growing concern is that elections in the United States can be bought with big money from corpo- rations and wealthy donors, who will then hold significant influence when that candidate is elected. P olitical corruption and undue influence from Wall Street were recurring themes among the 2016 pr esidential candidates. B ut 2016 was characterized by lopsided campaign spending: Clinton raised and spent double that of the Trump campaign. By October 2016, Clinton had raised nearly $500 million, with an additional $189 million fr om outside money (S uper P ACs) compared to just $247 million raised by Trump, with another $59 million from outside money.
Public Funding The Federal E lection Campaign A ct also pr ovides for public funding of pr esidential campaigns, as discussed earlier . Candidates r unning as a major party in the pr esidential primaries ar e eligible for public funds b y raising at least $5,000 in individual contributions of $250 or less in each of 20 states. Candidates who reach this threshold may apply for federal funds to match, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, all contributions of $250 or less. B ut by accepting match- ing funds they agr ee to spend no mor e than $48.07 million in their pr esidential primary campaigns, including limits on using their personal funds and funds from private donors.
Under curr ent law , no candidate is r equired to accept public funding for either the nominating races or the general pr esidential election. Candidates who do not accept public funding ar e not affected by any expenditur e limits. In 2008, J ohn McCain accepted public funding for the general election cam - paign, receiving $84 million, but Barack Obama declined, choosing to rely on his own fundraising prowess. Obama was ultimately able to outspend M cCain by a wide margin. N either major-par ty candidate accepted public financing in 2012 or 2016. As a r esult, many obser vers believed that the 2008 race was the last time that a major-par ty candidate would forgo personal fundraising in favor of public funding. The United S tates is unique fr om most other demo - cratic countries, which rely on public funding for political campaigns to prevent corruption.
Unlimited Spending by Candidates of Their Own Money On the basis of the Supreme Court’s 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo, the right of individuals to spend their own money to campaign for office is a constitutionally protected matter of free speech and is not subject to limitation. 45 Thus, extremely wealthy candidates often contribute millions of dollars to their own campaigns; Donald Trump, for example, spent millions of his own money on his 2016 campaign, as did Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996.
405monEY AnD Pol I T ICS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 405 27/11/18 3:48 PM
How Voters Decide Even if w ell-funded gr oups and powerful individuals influence the electoral pr ocess, it is the millions of individual decisions on E lection
Day that ultimately determine electoral outcomes. S ooner or later the choices of voters weigh more heavily than the schemes of campaign advisers or the leverage of interest groups. Three factors influence voters’ decisions at the polls: partisan loyalty, issues and policy preferences, and candidate characteristics.
PARTISAN LOYALTY
Most voters feel a certain sense of identification or kinship with the Democratic Party or the R epublican Party. This sense of identification is often handed down from parents to children and reinforced by social and cultural ties (see Chapter 9). Partisan identification predisposes voters to favor their party’s candidates and oppose those of the other par ty (see F igure 10.3). A t the lev el of the pr esidential contest, issues and candidate personalities may become v ery important. But partisanship is more likely to assert itself in the less visible races, where issues and the candidates are not as well known. State legislative races, for example, ar e often decided by voters’ partisanship.
Once formed, voters’ partisan loyalties seldom change. Individuals tend to keep their party affiliations unless some crisis causes them to reexamine the bases of their loyalties and to conclude that they hav e not given their support to the appropriate party. D uring these r elatively infr equent periods of electoral change, millions of voters can change their par ty ties. For example, at the beginning of the N ew Deal era, betw een 1932 and 1936, millions of former R epublicans transferr ed their allegiance to Franklin Roosevelt and the Democrats.
Identify the major factors that influence voters’ decisions
FIGURE 10.3
The Effect of Party Identification on the Vote, 2016 In 2016 around 90 percent of Democrats and Republicans supported their party’s presidential candidate. Should candidates devote their resources to converting voters who identify with the opposition or to winning more support among inde- pendents? What factors might make it difficult for candidates to simultaneously pursue both courses of action?
406 CHAPTER 10 CAmPA IgnS AnD ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 406 27/11/18 3:48 PM
ISSUES AND POLICY PREFERENCES
Policy preferences are a second factor influencing voters’ choices at the polls. Voters may cast their ballots for the candidate whose position on economic issues they believe to be closest to their o wn or the candidate who has what they believ e to be the best r ecord on for eign policy or immigration. Though candidates for the presidency or Congr ess are often held accountable for the economy , other policy issues vary in importance depending on the election. In 2008, for example, Obama made ending the war in I raq and providing national health car e for all Americans his core issues. In 2016, Donald Trump made curbing immigration and building a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border a key issue in his campaign for the pr esidency. If candidates ar ticulate and publiciz e very different positions on impor tant policy issues, voters are more likely to be able to identify and act on whatev er policy pref- erences they may have. The ability of voters to make choices on the basis of policy preferences is diminished, however, if voters are uninformed or misinformed about the issues and candidates. Voters’ issue choices usually involve a mix of their judg- ments about the past behavior of competing parties and candidates and their hopes and fears about candidates’ future behavior. Political scientists call choices that focus on future behavior prospective voting, whereas those based on past performance are called retrospective voting. Retrospective economic v oting, in which v oters evaluate candidates on the str ength of the economy, has been found to be mor e important than prospective voting.
To some extent, whether prospective or retrospective evaluation is more impor- tant in a par ticular election depends on the strategies of competing candidates. Candidates always endeav or to define the issues of an election in terms that will serve their inter ests. Incumbents running during a period of pr osperity will seek to take credit for the economy ’s strength and will define the election as revolving around their record of success. This strategy encourages voters to make retrospec- tive judgments. B y contrast, an insurgent r unning during a period of economic uncertainty will tell v oters it is time for a change and ask them to make pr ospec- tive judgments. Donald Trump focused on change in 2016 and “ making America great again” and, through well-crafted media campaigns, was able to define voters’ agenda of choices.
The Economy As we identify the strategies and tactics employed by opposing political candidates and par ties, we should keep in mind that the best-laid plans of politicians often go awr y. Election outcomes are affected by a v ariety of for ces that candidates for office cannot fully control. Among the most important of these forces is the condition of the economy . If voters are satisfied with their economic condi- tions, they tend to suppor t the par ty in po wer, while concern about the economy tends to favor the opposition. Thus, the 2008 financial crisis gave Barack Obama and the Democrats a significant advantage. Over the past quarter-century, the Consumer Confidence Index, calculated b y the Confer ence Board, a business r esearch group, has been a fairly accurate pr edictor of presidential outcomes. The index is based on surveys asking v oters how optimistic they ar e about the futur e of the economy . It would appear that a generally rosy view, indicated by a score over 100, bodes well for the party in power. An index score under 100, indicating that voters are pessimistic about the economy’s trend, suggests that incumbents should worry about their own job prospects (see Figure 10.4). In recent presidential elections personal economic conditions were an important factor in explaining voter decisions in the election.
prospective voting voting based on the imagined future performance of a candidate or political party
retrospective voting voting based on the past performance of a candidate or political party
407HoW VoTERS DEC IDE
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 407 27/11/18 3:48 PM
CANDIDATE CHARACTERISTICS
Candidates’ personal attributes can influence voters’ decisions. The more important candidate characteristics that affect voters’ choices are race, ethnicity, religion, gen- der, geography, and socio-economic background. In general, voters may be proud to see someone of their gender or of their ethnic, r eligious, or geographic background in a position of leadership . They may presume that such candidates are likely to have views and perspectives close to their own. This is why politicians often seek to “balance the ticket,” by making certain that their party’s ticket included members of as many important groups as possible.
Just as candidates’ personal characteristics may attract some voters, they may repel others. Some voters are prejudiced against candidates from certain ethnic, racial, or religious groups. And for many y ears, voters were reluctant to suppor t the candi - dacies of women, although this is slo wly changing. Indeed, the fact that the 2008 Democratic candidate was an African American man and the 2016 D emocratic candidate a woman indicates the increasing diversity of candidates for public office.
Voters also pay attention to candidates’ personality characteristics, such as “deci- siveness,” “honesty,” and “vigor.” In recent years, integrity has become a key election issue. In the 2016 pr esidential election many Americans questioned the tr ustwor- thiness of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Nonetheless, Trump supporters saw their candidate as unafraid to speak his mind. Clinton supporters, on the other hand, admired her ambition, toughness, and discipline.
FIGURE 10.4
Consumer Confidence and Presidential Elections Since 1968 the Consumer Confidence Index has been a fairly reliable predictor of incumbents’ political fortunes. Was the result of the 2016 election consistent with this trend? What issues other than the economy influenced the 2016 election?
*Survey was bimonthly prior to 1977 so figures for 1968, 1972, and 1976 are for October and they are for September from 1983 on. **Gore and Clinton won the popular vote, but Bush and Trump were elected by the electoral college.
NOTE: A score above 100 means most people are optimistic about the economy. A score below 100 means most people are pessimistic about the economy. The candidate who won the election appears in bold.
SOURCE: The Conference Board, www .conference-board.org/data/consumerdata .cfm (accessed 10/25/16).
McCain (R)
H. R. Clinton (D)
Kerry (D)
Romney (R)
Gore (D)**
Dole (R)
G. H. W. Bush (R)
Dukakis (D)
Mondale (D)
Carter (D)
Ford (R)
McGovern (D)
Humphrey (D)
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS What factors influence voters’ choices? What factors matter most to you when you decide how to cast your ballot?
408 CHAPTER 10 CAmPA IgnS AnD ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 408 27/11/18 3:48 PM
The 2016 and 2018 Elections In 2016, Democrat Hillary Clinton faced R epublican D onald Trump in a dramatic and bitterly fought presidential race. D espite media predictions of D emocratic success,
Trump won a surprise victor y with a majority of v otes in the electoral college, though Clinton won the popular v ote, r eceiving 2.9 million mor e v otes than Trump. The GOP also retained control of both houses of Congr ess. In the 2018 midterm elections, Democrats won control of the House of Representatives for the first time since 2010. Republicans, however, were able to expand their majority in the U.S. Senate.
In this section, we analyze how the 2016 and 2018 races unfolded and the major factors that contributed to the r esults. We conclude b y considering what these elections might mean for the future of American government and politics.
THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION
As we saw in Chapter 9, over the past 50 years America’s two major political parties have experienced an ideological realignment that has made both parties more ideo- logically homogeneous. Today, the Republican Party is the par ty of conservatives, while the Democratic Party is the political home of those who view themselves as politically liberal. Within each party, though, there are some differences of politi- cal perspective. The Democratic camp includes different varieties of liberal opin - ion ranging from traditional social welfare liberalism, which traces its r oots to the New Deal, to left-liberal pr ogressivism, which envisions a substantially expanded role for the federal go vernment. The Republican camp includes many shades of conservative opinion, ranging from business conservatives who support r educ- ing government regulation and taxes, to social conservatives who oppose abortion and same-sex marriage. I n 2016 each par ty’s nomination was sharply contested by candidates r epresenting different factions within the two par ties as w ell as b y “outsider” populist candidates.
The Democratic Primaries On the D emocratic side, H illary Clinton faced a serious challenge from Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, a left-liberal progressive and self-described Democratic Socialist. Though Clinton’s experi- ence, control of the party machinery, support in minority commu- nities, and fund-raising pr owess seemed to make her nomination a foregone conclusion, S anders mounted an aggr essive candidacy that gained momentum in large par t thr ough mobilizing y oung voters. S anders’s populist platform—which, to some, contained bold new ideas such as fr ee college education—called for a politi - cal revolution to counter political corruption, corporate influence, and inequality. Though outmatched in money and organization, Sanders proved a tenacious competitor. He was widely seen as more trustworthy and “ authentic” than Clinton, especially b y y oung Americans. Ultimately, Sanders won 43 percent of the Democratic primary v ote and carried 23 states and territories compar ed to Clinton’s 34.
Analyze the strategies, issues, and outcomes of the 2016 and 2018 elections
The 2016 Democratic National Convention exposed conflicts within the Democratic Party. While Hillary Clinton was ultimately nominated, Senator Bernie Sanders attracted many supporters.
409THE 2016 AnD 2018 ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 409 27/11/18 3:48 PM
The Republican Primaries On the Republican side, the 2016 pr esidential nomi- nation battle also revealed deep divisions within the party. Seventeen candidates competed in the R epublican primaries, including “ establishment” candidates such as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, libertarian Rand Paul, and social conser vatives like Ted Cruz. Real estate mogul and r eality-TV star Donald Trump was an “outsider” populist candidate, claiming to represent the interests of ordinary Americans rather than elites. His platform included the enactment of harsher immigration laws, the repeal of O bamacare, the appointment of mor e conservative judges to the federal courts, an end to environmental and other regulations that increased manufacturing costs in the U nited States, and changes to international economic agr eements to better serve American interests. With slogans like “Make America Great Again” and “America First,” Trump’s stances more closely mirrored those of European national- ist and radical right populist candidates than the views of mainstream conservatives in the United States.
In the early w eeks of the Republican race, Donald Trump was not taken seriously as a pr esidential candidate b y most pundits and par ty leaders. D ur- ing the Republican primaries, however, Trump campaigned cleverly, making use of huge noisy rallies, social media (especially Twitter and F acebook), and the propensity of the br oadcast media to focus on sound bites and sensationalism. At the first televised Republican pr esidential primar y debate in A ugust 2015, Trump sought to drive the agenda by insulting his rivals and making bold, out- landish, and even false political claims that ser ved to make his opponents ’ care- fully dev eloped talking points seem pale and boring. Throughout the course of his campaign, Trump continued to command headlines with contr oversial and incendiar y comments, including his asser tions that he would build a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border and place a temporar y ban on Muslim immigra- tion to the United States. As Trump’s provocative statements dominated the news media for much of the primar y season, other R epublican candidates dr opped from the race.
THE GENERAL ELECTION
With their par ties’ nominations in hand, Clinton and Trump faced one another in the general election. Clinton seemed to possess sev eral adv antages, especially her experience in public office and the Democrats’ seeming advantage in the elec - toral college. B ased on v oting patterns in r ecent elections, states with a total of roughly 217 electoral votes were considered “blue states,” either safely Democratic or favorable to the Democrats. States with another 32 electoral votes leaned toward the D emocrats, potentially putting the D emocratic candidate within 21 of the 270 votes needed to win. The Republicans, by contrast, could generally only count on around 191 electoral votes from reliably “red” states.
Democratic candidates, mor eover, usually r eceive suppor t fr om the most rap - idly growing segments of the electorate—namely, minority v oters—along with
women and young people. Republicans, on the other hand, rely primarily on the v otes of white Americans, especially men,
who represent a declining fraction of the electorate. As recently as 1976, 89 per-
cent of the electorate was white, while in 2016 only about 69 per cent was white non-Hispanic.46 Clinton also enter ed
Donald Trump’s provocative cam- paign rhetoric, including a promise to build a wall at the U.S.–Mexico border, helped energize supporters and generate media coverage.
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 410 27/11/18 3:48 PM
the race with an enormous fund-raising edge o ver Trump. This ultimately allowed the former secretary of state to spend more than twice as much as her rival.
The Trump campaign was confident it could overcome the D emocrats’ advan- tages. Trump believed his appeal to blue-collar white voters, especially men, would make him competitiv e in D emocratic strongholds in M idwestern states. H e also calculated that he would incr ease R epublican suppor t among white v oters suffi- ciently to offset the Democratic edge among nonwhite v oters. Moreover, Trump hoped that his provocative style would continue to encourage extensiv e free media coverage, offsetting Clinton’s fund-raising advantage and ability to spend fr eely on paid campaign ads.
Early in the general-election race, sev eral tr ends emerged. F irst, Clinton and Trump w ere the two most disliked pr esidential nominees in modern American history. Both candidates had far lower favorability ratings than past presidential can- didates, and as scandals raged on thr oughout the general-election campaign, many Americans reported that the election left them feeling “disgusted.”47
Second, gender played a significant, though ultimately not decisive, role in 2016. Not only did this election see the first female presidential candidate r epresenting a major par ty, but gender issues w ere also headline ne ws throughout much of the election. Donald Trump made comments about women that many people deemed offensive and similar past comments of his were unearthed (discussed below). The Trump campaign counter ed that Clinton ’s husband had also tr eated women inappropriately. N onetheless, b y N ovember, exit polls sho wed a gender gap of 13 per centage points, with 54 per cent of women suppor ting Clinton compar ed with 41 percent of men.
Third, the media play ed an outsiz ed role in 2016. M any obser vers, including President Obama, criticized the media for focusing ex cessively on Trump, with the goal of making headlines and viral news. In the general election, Trump received more than double Clinton’s free media attention.48 He excelled on the campaign trail, tweeting his daily campaign messages and effectively writing his own headline news. At the same time, some people, including Trump himself, believed that the news media’s political bias favored Clinton. Trump began declaring that the main - stream media published and broadcast “fake news” and should be ignored.
And four th, money matter ed—and it didn ’t. Clinton raised and spent twice as much as the Trump campaign and had superior organization, with mor e field offices than Trump in almost ev ery state. However, Trump’s enormous free media coverage (estimated to be wor th as much as $2 billion) mor e than offset Clinton’s financial edge. Almost every morning, a ne w and ev er mor e outrageous Trump tweet or Facebook post would dominate the ne ws, leaving little space for Clinton to set the media agenda.
Personal Attacks, Scandal, and Campaign Strategy From the earliest years of the Republic, personal attacks hav e been an impor tant weapon in the arsenals of competing political for ces, but the 2016 campaign seemed to many obser vers to represent a new phase in aggressive mudslinging.
Leading up to the presidential election, Republicans in 2015 launched a congres- sional investigation of Hillary Clinton’s role in the deaths of U.S. embassy officials in Benghazi, Libya, and another investigation of Clinton’s use of a private email server to handle official State Department correspondence during her tenur e as secretary of state. D emocrats charged that the primar y purpose of these inv estigations was to damage Clinton’s reputation as the presumptive 2016 Democratic presidential
411THE 2016 AnD 2018 ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 411 27/11/18 3:48 PM
nominee. While the investigations did not lead to formal charges against Clinton, they served to convince many Americans that the former secr etary of state was dis- honest and untrustworthy. During the course of the race, WikiLeaks made available a large quantity of Democratic National Committee emails and stolen emails from Clinton’s campaign director, John Podesta. The emails revealed Clinton said differ- ent things in public and private, which, to some, showed she was disconnected from ordinary Americans. Democrats disputed the content of the leaks and suggested that WikiLeaks had been giv en its information b y the Russian government, which had launched hacks as part of an effort to influence the American election—a claim later proved to be true.
For their part, Democratic opposition researchers had begun to dev elop a dos- sier on Trump as soon as he emerged as a potential GOP candidate. D emocrats focused on his many contr oversial remarks—such as his comments about women and statements blaming undocumented immigrants for dr ugs, rape, and other crime—labeling them as offensive and Trump as xenophobic, racist, and sexist. On October 7, 2016, with one month before the November election, the Washing- ton Post released a video from 2005 that contained audio of Trump making lewd comments about women and boasting about ho w his celebrity status gav e him license to touch women inappr opriately—comments that many people felt con - doned sexual assault. The release of the tape was followed by allegations from more than a dozen women who reported having experienced unwanted sexual advances by Trump or who accused the candidate of sexual assault. M ost of these accounts concerned events that had taken place some years in the past, and Trump contested their veracity. However, an increasingly unflattering image of Trump emerged. The recording, which Trump could not dispute, created explosive negative media cover- age and a sharp drop in his polling numbers. Following these revelations, by mid- October most polls showed Clinton with a strong lead over Trump.
In October 2016 the Washington Post released a 2005 video in which Donald Trump was heard bragging that his fame gave him license to touch women inappropri- ately. After the video was released, multiple women—including Karena Virginia (right)—came forward to accuse Trump of sexual assault or unwanted sexual contact.
412 CHAPTER 10 CAmPA IgnS AnD ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 412 27/11/18 3:49 PM
Eleven days befor e the election, ho wever, scandal and personal attacks turned back on Clinton. FBI dir ector James Comey sent a letter to Congr ess saying his agency was investigating 650,000 newly discovered emails that could be pertinent to their earlier investigation of Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state. The letter effectively reopened the investigation of Clinton’s mis- handling of email communications and the possibility of a national security breach, and the Trump campaign capitaliz ed on the announcement as fur ther pr oof of Clinton’s alleged corruption. Two days before the election, Comey announced that the emails in fact did not support new charges; and as Americans went to the polls, most analysts gave Clinton a 70 to 80 percent chance of winning.
UNDERSTANDING THE 2016 RESULTS
In the end, the 2016 presidential election was a historic upset in which the national media and the polling for ecasts were mistaken. O n election night, the for ecasts swung wildly, from the earlier predictions of a safe Clinton victory to reports indi- cating a Trump victory by wide margins. Many Americans who had been following the opinion polls and media analyses before the election were stunned by Trump’s surprise win and b y the R epublicans’ success in r etaining control of both houses of Congress.
Trump swept every southern state and nearly all of the Midwest. He won most of the 15 battleground states that were considered competitive in the 2016 election, including the battleground states of Florida and Ohio. Trump’s unexpected success in the nor thern industrial states of M ichigan, Wisconsin, and P ennsylvania—all of which had gone to O bama in 2012—ultimately tipped the balance, leading to his victory in the electoral college (see Figure 10.5 and the “Who Are Americans?” feature). For only the fourth time in U.S. history the candidate who won a major- ity in the electoral college did not win the popular vote. Republicans also retained control of both houses of Congress as well as a majority of the state legislatures.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS In 2016 more Americans chose Hillary Clinton for president, but Donald Trump won the electoral college and thus the presidency. Should the electoral college system be replaced?
Two groups that were crucial to Trump’s success were men and white working-class voters. White working-class voters in particular were unhappy with the economy and turned to Trump to bring factory jobs back to the United States. Here, Trump supporters celebrate his victory on election night.
413THE 2016 AnD 2018 ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 413 27/11/18 3:49 PM
Voters’ Choices Trump’s popularity among working-class white Americans, espe- cially white men, was crucial to his winning coalition. This demographic group had the most negative views of the economy and was generally opposed to the trade poli- cies favored by the Democrats and mainstream conservatives. They looked to Trump to bring back factor y jobs that had mo ved overseas and saw Clinton as r epresent- ing Wall Street, government, and—as one Trump ad put it—“ more of the same. ” According to exit polls, Trump won 67 percent of the votes among whites without a college degr ee compared to just 28 per cent for Clinton—a 14 per centage point gain for Trump compared with the Republican vote from this group in 2012. This support enabled Trump to build a winning coalition that also included traditional Republican partisans. He won 90 per cent of the v otes among r egistered Republi- cans, 81 percent of the vote among ideological conservatives, and 81 percent among white born-again or ev angelical Christians. The exit polls revealed that Trump also earned more of the votes among men, white voters in general, and voters over age 45. Among r espondents who felt the countr y was “seriously off track,” Trump won almost 70 percent of their votes.49
Among those who felt the countr y was generally going in the right dir ection, Hillary Clinton won 90 per cent support. Clinton also r eceived a majority of v otes from women, African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and college-educated voters, although blacks and Latinos v oted at slightly lo wer rates for Clinton than they had for Obama four years earlier. She won 71 percent of the votes of minority college graduates and 75 percent among minorities without a college degree. Young voters favored Clinton (55 per cent compared to only 37 per cent for Trump), but high youth suppor t for thir d-party candidates (10 per cent, up fr om 3 per cent in 2012) meant lower support for the Democratic candidate. In the swing states of
FIGURE 10.5
Distribution of Electoral Votes in the 2016 Election NOTE: Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral college votes by congressional district. Donald Trump won one of Maine’s four electoral votes.
SOURCE: “Presidential Election Results: Donald J. Trump Wins,” New York Times, www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president (accessed 11/18/16).
CA 55
CT 7
NJ 14
RI 4
NY 29
VT 3
NH 4
WA 12
MI 16
OH 18
VA 13
WV 5
MN 10
IA 6
OR 7
MD 10
MA 11
ME 4
HI 4
IL 20
IN 11
WI 10
NM 5
AZ 11
NC 15
AK 3
CO 9
ID 4
UT 6
MT 3
WY 3
ND 3
SD 3
TN 11
NE 5
OK 7
TX 38
SC 9
NV 6
FL 29
AL 9
LA 8
GA 16
AR 6
KY 8
KS 6
MO 10
MS 6
PA 20
DC 3
DE 3
For Trump/Pence (R)For Clinton/Kaine (D)
414 CHAPTER 10 CAmPA IgnS AnD ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 414 27/11/18 3:49 PM
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS 1. Clinton won three of the �ve
states with the largest populations: California, New York, and Illinois. How are these states different from states with smaller popula- tions? What do these differences tell us about the political differences between more densely populated areas (urban areas) and those with lower populations (rural areas)?
2. What do you think causes the differences between urban and rural America? Do you think these differences will continue long into the future?
Donald Trump (R)
Hillary Clinton (D)
Election Results by State’s Population
55 California 38 Texas 29 Florida 29 New York 20 Illinois 20 Pennsylvania 18 Ohio 16 Michigan 16 Georgia 15 North Carolina 14 New Jersey 13 Virginia 12 Washington 11 Massachusetts 11 Indiana 11 Arizona 11 Tennessee
10 Maryland 10 Minnesota 10 Wisconsin 10 Missouri 09 Colorado 09 Alabama 09 South Carolina 08 Louisiana 08 Kentucky 07 Connecticut 07 Oregon 07 Oklahoma 06 Iowa 06 Nevada 06 Arkansas 06 Kansas 06 Mississippi
06 Utah 05 New Mexico 05 Nebraska 05 West Virginia 04 Hawaii 03 01 Maine 04 New Hampshire 04 Rhode Island 04 Idaho 03 Delaware 03 District Of Columbia 03 Vermont 03 Alaska 03 Montana 03 North Dakota 03 South Dakota 03 Wyoming
Votes in Electoral College
AK
HI
WA
OR
CA
NV UT
NM
TX
KS
NEWY
CO
AZ
MS AL
SD
IA
WI
MN
ILNDMT
ID
MD
VT
KY
IN
MI
TN
VA
FL
ME
NY
WV
LA
AR
MO
SC
GA
NC
PA
OH
OK
DE DC
NJ
RI CT
MA
NH
Donald Trump won enough votes in the electoral college to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, though he lost the popular vote. The map in Figure 10.5, to the left, shows who won each state; there, red clearly dominates. If we adjust the map to show each state in proportion to its population (below), red states still
Who Supported Trump in 2016?
WHO ARE AMERICANS?
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 415 27/11/18 3:49 PM
Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, votes for third-party candidates may have cost Clinton those very close races. To many Americans Trump seemed authentic— a candidate with a bold vision he was not afraid to asser t. He seemed to r epresent Americans who felt disenfranchised and left behind b y the social and economic changes buffeting the nation.
Russian Interference Soon after the conclusion of the campaign, Democrats charged that Trump had been helped by Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton emails and “trolls” mounting a social media campaign aimed at defeating Clinton. M ultiple reports from the national intelligence agen - cies confirmed the Russian government did seek to inter vene in the 2016 election. For example, in October 2018, Twitter released millions of tweets from some 3,400 accounts linked to a R ussian “troll farm” known as the I nternet Research Agency run by the Kremlin.50 At this agency, approximately 1,000 Russian agents, working 24 hours a day, spent more than a million dollars a week creating thousands of social media accounts impersonating Americans. These agents also purchased thousands of political ads promoting their posts on Facebook and other platforms. Russian groups also organiz ed campaign rallies in the U nited States on behalf of Donald Trump and sought to discredit Hillary Clinton, portraying her as a criminal and untrustworthy.
Analysis of the tweets and Facebook posts emanating from Russian sources sug- gests that the R ussian government’s main goal was to so w discord in the U nited States by promoting an inflammatory discourse on such matters as race, r eligion, gun control, and police shootings of black men. Often troll farm agents would tweet on both sides of the issue to stir up trouble. Beginning in 2015 when it became clear that Hillary Clinton was the likely Democratic presidential candidate, Russian tweets and social media pages became uniformly hostile to Clinton. And once Trump became the official Republican nominee, Russia’s propaganda campaign uni- formly condemned Clinton and backed Trump. After the 2016 election, R ussian interference r eturned to the familiar pattern of both praising and condemning Trump’s actions in or der to pr omote political conflict in the United States and to undermine popular confidence in the American electoral process. These activities continued during the 2018 election despite efforts b y social media platforms to identify and delete fictitious Russian accounts as well as accounts traced to Iran and other foreign governments.
Both Republicans and Democrats recognized the gravity of for eign government interference with American elections. F ormer House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) said, “The Russians engaged in a sinister and systematic attack on our political system. I t was a conspiracy to sub vert the pr ocess, and take aim at democracy itself,” while S enate D emocratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y .) said inv esti- gations had pr ovided “proof that [R ussian pr esident] Vladimir P utin dir ected a campaign to interfere with our elections, with the goal of tipping the outcome.”51
The fact that the Russians meddled in the 2016 election raised questions about whether the Trump campaign had kno wledge of Russian efforts or in any way worked with the Russians. To answer these questions, a probe led by Special Counsel and former FBI dir ector R obert Mueller was launched in M ay 2017. As a r esult of the M ueller pr obe, a half doz en Trump campaign officials have been indicted for v arious federal crimes and violations of campaign laws. P resi- dent Trump has vehemently denied allegations of impropriety and denounced the Mueller probe as a “witch hunt” organized by his political foes. At the time of this
416 CHAPTER 10 CAmPA IgnS AnD ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 416 27/11/18 3:49 PM
writing the r elationship between the Trump campaign and the R ussian govern- ment remains unclear.
Immediately after the 2018 national elections, P resident Trump requested and received the resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and named Sessions’s chief of staff, Matthew Whitaker, acting attorney general. Whitaker had frequently criti- cized the M ueller probe and had suggested r estricting its authority b y cutting its budget to stop the inv estigation of the pr esident. If Whitaker follows through on these ideas, the stage will be set for a tumultuous battle between the Trump admin- istration and congressional Democrats.
THE 2018 ELECTION: A BLUE WAVE MEETS A RED WALL
Generally speaking, American national elections follow a pattern, sometimes called the cycle of surge and decline. I n a presidential year like 2016, the par ty that cap- tures the White House also gains seats in the H ouse and S enate as many v oters, drawn to the polls b y the pr esidential contest, will also cast their ballots for other members of the president’s party. In the ensuing off-year election, however, some of these “extra” seats are almost sure to be lost.
This normal cycle might already have given Democrats reason for confidence as they considered their tactics for 2018. B ut Democrats had even more reason to be optimistic. In office, President Trump continued his practice of making bombastic, misleading, and divisive statements that seemed inconsistent with the gravitas that Americans expect of a pr esident. This behavior helped undermine Trump’s pub - lic approval which, throughout his presidency, hovered near historically low levels. Trump, moreover, engaged in a number of bitter str uggles with his opponents on such issues as immigration, environmental policy, and judicial appointments as he sought to implement programs based upon the promises presented in his campaign. These struggles helped energize Democrats to redouble their determination to take control of Congress and deal a setback to Trump’s agenda.
Unique factors help decide the elections in each state and congr essional dis - trict, but the 2018 election, mor e than most midterm contests, r evolved around the president. Trump’s outsized personality and fr equent inflammatory rhetoric inspired anger on the part of some voters and fierce loyalty on the part of others. Between 2016 and 2018, acr oss the nation, hundr eds of thousands of D emo- crats who had never previously been much involved in politics, especially women and young people, enter ed the political ar ena to oppose D onald Trump. These Democrats engaged in political activity by signing petitions, attending rallies and protests, and contacting public officials. Republicans were also active, but accord- ing to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey, Democrats were almost twice as likely to be politically engaged as R epublicans during this period. 52 I n M arch 2018, for example, nearly 800,000 protestors in Washington, D.C., and a million more around the nation demonstrated in favor of gun control measures and against the president’s failure to take action on the matter .53 In addition, an unusually large number of women launched campaigns for national and state office, usually as Democrats. Some were veterans of the Bernie Sanders campaign, but many others were newcomers, drawn to politics as a r esult of the #M eToo movement. These women saw the GOP, and President Trump in particular, as insufficiently attentive to issues of sexual harassment. This view was underscored by Republican support for Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the S upreme Cour t despite allegations of sexual assault made against him.
417THE 2016 AnD 2018 ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 417 27/11/18 3:49 PM
This grassroots enthusiasm gav e Democratic candidates a siz - able financial edge over the Republicans. Of course, major donors contributed hundr eds of millions of dollars to both sides, but, in another sign of Democratic grass-roots enthusiasm, a record- shattering 5 million or dinary individuals contributed money to Democratic candidates thr ough A ctBlue and other D emocratic fund-raising organizations. S ixty per cent of these donors w ere first-time contributors and more than half w ere women. 54 All these dev elopments led D emocrats to hope that a “blue wav e” would sweep the GOP fr om power in both H ouses of Congr ess and even from many state governments as an expression of anger at Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans.
While Democrats mobilized their blue wav e, the R epublicans also planned their campaigns. The same issues that energized Democrats also invigorated R epublicans. In particular, the battle over the Kav anaugh appointment convinced R epublicans that they needed to fight hard to r etain contr ol of Congr ess. While Democrats had generally believed the charges against Kav anaugh, Republicans saw them as false and politically motivated. President Trump made the Kav anaugh fight along with such other hot- button issues as Trump’s determination to stop a caravan of Central American immigrants from crossing the U.S. border major themes as he crisscrossed the country speaking to large and usually raucous Republican rallies in states and congr essional districts that he had carried in 2016 and wher e incumbents w ere now threatened. At his rallies and in his tweets, Trump also pointed with pride to the
strong economy, the renegotiation of U.S. trade deals, talks with North Korea, and to other achievements that pleased his political base. In 2016 many Republicans had been leer y of too close an association with Trump. Now, most embraced him. I n 2016, Trump had promised to build a wall on America’s southern border to hold back immigrants. That wall was never built, but now President Trump was attempting to build a red wall around GOP strongholds to hold back the Democrats’ blue wave.
The Outcome On November 6, 2018, the blue wave crashed against Trump’s red wall with mix ed r esults. D emocrats won contr ol of the U.S. H ouse of Representatives for the first time since 2010, while Republicans expanded their majority in the S enate. D emocrats won sev en governor’s races gained contr ol of handful of state legislatures, and also won four ne w state attorney general offices.55 The voter turnout in 2018 was 49 per cent—the highest lev el since 1966 and a strong increase over recent midterm elections. Youth voter turnout, which is histori- cally very hard to increase, soared by 10 percentage points to 31 per cent of voters aged 18–29.
In House races, D emocrats gained at least 38 seats for a 233-to-200 majority . (At the time of publication, two races w ere still undecided.) A number of close races were still to be decided in the days follo wing the election with some recounts possible. M any of these “flipped” seats w ere in competitiv e states like P ennsyl- vania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and I owa that had been carried b y Trump in 2016. Women were critical to Democratic victories. Women made up more than half the 2018 electorate and suppor ted Democratic candidates by margins of as much as 20 percentage points. The new 116th Congress will include over 100 women in the
After Donald Trump’s surprising win in 2016, Democrats across the country increased their efforts to organize and press for progress on key issues. In light of recent gun violence and what they saw as Trump administration inaction, in 2018 over 800,000 protestors in Washington, D.C., joined other protests around the country to push for stricter gun control regulation.
418 CHAPTER 10 CAmPA IgnS AnD ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 418 27/11/18 3:49 PM
House and more than 20 in the Senate, an all-time record. Two of the newly elected women, Democrats Rashida Tlaib of M ichigan and I lhan Omar of Minnesota, became the first Muslim women ever elected to the Congr ess. At the same time, Democrats Sharice Davids of Kansas and Debra Haaland of New Mexico were the first Native American women to win congressional elections.
In Senate races, Democrats began with a disadvantage. Of the 31 seats at stake in 2018, 23 were held by Democrats and only 8 by Republicans. This meant that the GOP had fewer seats to defend. Of the 23 Democratic seats, moreover, several were in “red” states where Republicans had the advantage. By the end of the night, Republicans had defeated D emocratic incumbents in thr ee r ed states—Indiana, Missouri, and N orth D akota—while staving off a surprisingly strong D emo- cratic challenge to S enator Ted Cruz in Texas. Two Senate seats pr eviously held by Republicans went to the D emocrats in N evada and Ariz ona. These outcomes guaranteed GOP control of the Senate with at least 52 seats.
Democrats were generally successful in gubernatorial contests, taking seven seats, including Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, and Wisconsin, from the Republicans. Results in three other states, ho wever, were disappointing to the D emocratic Party. In the battleground state of O hio, Republican Mike DeWine defeated Richar d Cordray, former head of the Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Democrats had also hoped to elect African American governors in Florida and Georgia for the first time with Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams. Both had raised large sums of money and drawn tremendous media attention. In closely fought races, ho wever, Gillum and Abrams were defeated. The margins were so close that recounts and court chal- lenges seemed likely, though both candidates ev entually conceded. Democrats did achieve a first in a gubernatorial race when Jared Polis won in Colorado to become the nation’s first openly gay governor.
Democratic gubernatorial victories in Kansas, Michigan, and Wisconsin were especially important because in these states both houses of the legislatur e remained in Republican hands. Generally speaking, when one par ty controls both houses of
After the 2018 elections there will be a record number of female members of Congress, most of them Democrats. Here, Sharice Davids (left) celebrates after ousting Republican Kevin Yoder. With this victory, Davids became Kansas’s first openly gay member of Con- gress and the first Native American woman elected to Congress. (She shares the latter distinction with New Mexico’s Deb Haaland, another Native American Democrat elected to Congress in 2018.)
419THE 2016 AnD 2018 ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 419 27/11/18 3:49 PM
the state legislature and the governor’s mansion it is likely to engage in partisan ger- rymandering, drawing state legislativ e and congr essional district boundaries that favor its own side. When control of a state government is divided, the two parties are often compelled to r each an agreement that protects incumbents on both sides of the aisle. New Democratic governors in Kansas, Michigan, and Wisconsin would likely prevent gerrymandering favorable to the Republicans after the 2020 census. At the same time, the Democrats won full control over state governments in Illinois, Maine, Nevada, and N ew Mexico and expected to be able to contr ol post-census redistricting in all four states, to their o wn party’s advantage. Overall, Republicans would have solid control of the go vernments in 21 states, D emocrats in 14 states, and in 13 states control would be divided between the two parties.
Ballot Measures In a number of states, v oters were also asked to decide ballot measures. G errymandering itself was on the ballot in some states. Voters in Colorado, M ichigan, and M issouri o verwhelmingly suppor ted ballot initiativ es creating independent commissions to draw district boundaries. S uch commissions were established in Ariz ona in 2000 and California in 2010 and hav e long been practiced in I owa. Supporters of the commission idea oppose gerr ymandering— whether partisan or bipartisan—and favor a level electoral playing field.
Voters in M ichigan and M issouri approved legalization of medical marijuana; voters in Arkansas and Missouri approved increases in the minimum wage; restric- tions on abortion carried in Alabama and West Virginia. In Massachusetts, voters rejected a measure that would have repealed a 2016 law prohibiting discrimination in public places based on gender identity . In North Carolina and Ar kansas, citi- zens approved state constitutional amendments requiring voters to present official photo IDs when casting ballots. A F lorida referendum restored voting rights for most ex-felons.
Interestingly, voters in some solidly r ed states approved progressive ballot initia - tives while voters in some solidly blue states approved initiatives generally associated with conservative forces. Voters in deeply r ed Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah approved
In 2018, Republicans increased their advantage in the Senate, winning critical races against vulnerable Democratic incumbents. Here, Republican Josh Hawley of Missouri celebrates his win over incumbent Democratic senator Claire McCaskill. This race was one of the most watched, and expensive, campaigns nationwide.
420 CHAPTER 10 CAmPA IgnS AnD ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 420 27/11/18 3:49 PM
referenda expanding M edicaid co verage, while v oters in solidly blue Washington turned back a ballot measure imposing a fee on industries responsible for greenhouse gas emissions.56 These results may appear peculiar, but ballot initiatives carry no party label. S tripped of par ty as a cue, v oters often stray fr om their expected behavior . Whether, as a result, they become more or less rational is an open question.
THE 2018 ELECTION AND AMERICA’S FUTURE
The mixed r esults of the 2018 election w ere something of a disappointment to Democrats who thought they would hand P resident Trump a more crushing defeat. As Democrats had hoped, however, voter turnout increased sharply in 2018. Some 114 million Americans or 49 per cent of the nation ’s eligible v oters par ticipated. In the last midterm election, 2014, v oter turnout was only 36 per cent. A majority of the nation ’s v oters, accor ding to exit polls, saw the election as a r eferendum on P resident Trump’s per formance in office. Given Trump’s lo w lev els of public approval, this should hav e helped the D emocrats and, indeed, many mor e voters said they cast their votes to oppose Trump than voted to support him. On a national basis, Democrats received a clear majority of the v otes cast in congr essional elec- tions, approximately 5 million more than were cast for Republicans.
The challenge, though, is that American elections are not national. They are a set of individual state b y state and district b y district contests. F or the most par t, the Democrats’ blue wave meant that opposition to Trump increased sharply in states and urban and suburban districts where the president was already unpopular, with- out having much impact upon states and districts in America’s small towns and rural areas, where the president drew his strongest support. Trump had spent the w eeks before the election bolstering GOP enthusiasm in those areas, building a red wall to hold back the Democrats’ blue wave.
Despite losses in the Senate, taking control of the House of Representatives was an important achievement. With control of the House, Democrats are in a position to block Trump’s legislative efforts and to conduct investigations into the president’s conduct as well as the activities of Trump appointees in the executive branch. Con- ceivably, House Democrats might wor k with the pr esident in some ar eas, but the chance of any significant cooperation seems low. Democrats are unlikely to see any reason to help the pr esident achieve anything for which he might claim cr edit in 2020. The president will almost certainly feel compelled to rely ever more heavily on executive orders and other forms of executive action that bypass the Congress. With the Senate firmly in Republican hands, Trump will continue to use his appointment powers to reshape the bureaucracy and the courts. The stage seems set for two more years of the partisan struggle that characterizes American democratic politics.
The 2018 elections also made clear that if the Republican Party is to r emain competitive nationally it must dev elop a message that appeals to v oters outside its current base of older white men in America ’s small to wns and r ural areas. The Democrats have built a coalition that includes women, minorities, and y oung peo- ple. It is no accident that the first Muslim and Native American women elected to Congress along with the first openly gay governor are all D emocrats. The Demo- cratic electorate is growing while the GOP’s base represents a shrinking percentage of the national electorate and ev en of the electorate in rapidly gr owing red states like Texas where as formidable a R epublican politician as Senator Ted Cruz had to scramble to avoid defeat. I f the Republican Party cannot find a way to expand its constituency, 2018 may be the last time the red wall can hold back the blue wave.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Given the factors that went into the 2018 elections, and the results, do you think Democrats or Republicans are more likely to control Congress going forward? Why?
421THE 2016 AnD 2018 ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 421 27/11/18 3:49 PM
Campaigns and Elections WHAT DO WE WANT? As politicians ponder the questions just discussed, individual Americans must think
about what the 2016 and 2018 elections might mean for them. Will Republican
economic policies create more jobs or leave Americans with less secure economic
futures? What will Republican plans to eliminate obamacare mean for Americans’
access to medical services? Will Republican national security policies make us more
or less safe? How will America’s diverse communities be affected by potential goP
efforts to crack down on illegal immigration? Should we be more critical consumers of
opinion polls and the political information circulated on social media?
Another question about elections concerns campaign finance and whose interests
will be represented in government. Donald Trump was a unique candidate who was
able to generate unprecedented free media coverage, but his campaign still raised and
spent hundreds of millions of dollars, much of it collected as small donations from
individuals. In a nation as large and diverse as the United States, to be sure, campaign
contributors represent many different groups and, often, clashing interests. The fact
remains, however, that those with more money will be able to give more and that, once
in office, elected officials can be expected to represent the interests of those who sup-
ported them. The “Who Participates?” feature on the facing page shows who donated to the 2016 presidential campaign.
Two trends in campaign finance may play a role in how elections are funded in the
future and, thus, who is elected to office and what policies are enacted. on the one
hand, recent decisions by the Supreme Court have overturned federal laws that sought
to set some limits on who could give and how much they could give. The laws existed
in hopes of limiting the influence of affluent interests over the electoral process and
government. But the Court has held that giving money is (in some circumstances) a
form of political speech that is essential to the country’s democratic process. Will
moneyed interests continue to play a large role in the election process? What new laws
may be needed to make the rules of the game fair? Will campaign spending increase
to the point that the citizens of tomorrow enact reform for public financing or free
media for all qualified candidates?
422 CHAPTER 10 CAmPA IgnS AnD ElECT IonS
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 422 27/11/18 3:49 PM
Your Views on Money in Politics
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
If you’re concerned about the role of money in politics, voice your opinion on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.
Track campaign contributions at the federal level at www.opensecrets.org and at the state level at www.followthemoney.org.
SOURCE: Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) 2016, www.electproject.org/2016P (accessed 11/20/17).
Percentage of Adults Who Donated, 2016* *To a political campaign, candidate, or organization
11% <$20k 15% $20−$40k 21% $40−$80k 30% $80k+
Income
17% 18−25 15% 26−44 22% 45−64 30% 65+
Age
12% High school or less 23% Some college 26% College diploma 37% Postgraduate degree
Education** **Highest level attained
Who Donates to Political Campaigns?
You can also contact groups working to raise awareness of the role of money in politics, such as Common Cause (www.commoncause.org), Move to Amend (www.movetoamend.org), or Democracy Is for People (www.democracyisforpeople.org).
WHO PARTICIPATES?
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 423 27/11/18 3:49 PM
Practice Quiz
1. An open primary is a primary election in which a) one’s vote is made public. b) only registered members of the party may vote. c) all registered voters, including independents,
are able to choose which party primary they will participate in.
d) only two candidates are allowed to run. e) voting is conducted by mail.
2. To win under the plurality system used in most American elections a candidate must receive a) more than 50 percent of the popular vote. b) more than 50 percent in the runoff election. c) more than two-thirds of the popular vote. d) more than 75 percent of the popular vote. e) more votes than his or her opponents, regardless of
the percentage.
3. If a voter supports candidates from more than one party in the same election, she is said to be engaging in a) retrospective voting. b) two-way voting. c) prospective voting. d) straight-ticket voting. e) split-ticket voting.
4. If a state has 10 members in the U.S. House of Representatives, how many votes in the electoral college does that state have? a) 2 b) 10 c) 12 d) 20 e) The number of votes cannot be determined from
this information.
American elections are subject to many specific rules. The responsibility for administering elections rests mainly with states and counties, and most elections in the United States today use the Australian ballot and operate under a plurality, rather than a majority or proportional representa- tion, system. The United States is also one of the few nations in the world to hold primary elections in addition to a general election. Unlike members of the House of Representatives, who are elected through a direct vote from districts that are redrawn every 10 years, presidents are elected indirectly by the electoral college.
Key Terms midterm elections (p. 381)
primary elections (p. 381)
general election (p. 382)
closed primary (p. 382)
open primary (p. 382)
majority system (p. 382)
runoff election (p. 382)
plurality system (p. 382)
proportional representation (p. 382)
straight-ticket voting (p. 383)
redistricting (p. 384)
gerrymandering (p. 385)
partisan gerrymandering (p. 385)
majority-minority district (p. 386)
retail politics (p. 387)
delegate (p. 388)
party platform (p. 389)
electoral college (p. 389)
ballot initiative (p. 392)
referendum (p. 392)
recall (p. 393)
Elections in America
Describe the major rules and procedures of elections in the United States (pp. 381–93)
CHAPTER 10 STUDY gU IDE424
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 424 27/11/18 3:49 PM
Practice Quiz
5. An incumbent is a candidate who a) does not currently hold office. b) has the support of both major parties. c) already holds the office he or she is running for. d) has won his or her party’s primary election. e) has been nominated at the party convention.
6. In nearly every election since 1980, the average amount of money spent by House incumbents to secure re-election has a) been about the same as the average amount of
money spent by challengers. b) been greater than the average amount of money
spent by challengers. c) been less than the average amount of money spent
by challengers. d) been $0 due to federal laws that provide campaign
funds for incumbents. e) been $1 million due to federal laws that provide
campaign funds for incumbents.
c) the right of individuals to spend their own money to campaign is constitutionally protected.
d) there is no limit to the number of candidates to whom an individual can contribute.
e) the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act is unconstitutional.
8. The main difference between a 527 committee and a 501(c)(4) committee is that a) a 527 is not legally required to disclose where it gets
its money while a 501(c)(4) is legally required to do so. b) a 501(c)(4) is not legally required to disclose where it
gets its money while a 527 is legally required to do so. c) a 527 can only contribute to one campaign while a
501(c)(4) can contribute to many. d) a 501(c)(4) can only contribute to one campaign
while a 527 can contribute to many. e) a 527 can legally coordinate its spending with a
candidate’s campaign while a 501(c)(4) cannot.
9. Public funding of presidential campaigns was a) outlawed by the Federal Election Campaign Act. b) declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in
McCutcheon et al. v. Federal Election Commission. c) accepted by both major-party presidential
candidates in 2016. d) rejected by all four major-party presidential
candidates in 2012 and 2016. e) limited to only $25 million in 2008, 2012, and 2016.
In order to successfully run for national or statewide office, candidates must create formal campaign organizations that employ a campaign manager, a media consultant, a pollster, a financial adviser, a press spokesperson, and a staff director. modern national political campaigns are expensive to run, and candidates must start raising money well before the election. Campaigns must decide on a message and a strategy for communicating that message to the voters they want to target.
Key Terms campaign (p. 393)
incumbent (p. 393)
grassroots campaigns (p. 396)
town hall meeting (p. 396)
modern political campaigns in the United States are enor- mously expensive, and candidates with the most money often win. Supreme Court cases since the mid-1970s have removed many restrictions on campaign finance. Candidates finance their campaigns with money from individual donors, political action committees, political parties, and the candidates’ own bank accounts. Election spending by Super PACs, 527s, 501(c)(4)s, and nonprofit groups must be independent of candidates’ campaigns. The Federal Elections Campaign Act also provides for public funding of presidential campaigns.
Key Terms political action committee (PAC) (p. 404)
527 committee (Super PAC) (p. 404)
501(c)(4) committees (dark money) (p. 404)
Practice Quiz
7. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court ruled that a) PAC donations to campaigns are constitutionally
protected. b) candidates cannot spend any of their own money to
run for office.
Election Campaigns
Money and Politics
Explain how campaigns are typically conducted (pp. 393–400)
Describe how candidates raise the money they need to run (pp. 400–405)
STUDY GU IDE 425
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 425 27/11/18 3:49 PM
Practice Quiz
10. When a voter decides which candidate to vote for based on imagined future performance, the voter is engaged in a) prospective voting. b) retrospective voting. c) introspective voting. d) straight-ticket voting. e) split-ticket voting.
11. The Consumer Confidence Index a) measures how business leaders rate the federal
government’s regulation of the economy during election years.
b) was a federal government program designed to increase economic growth during the Reagan administration.
c) has been an inaccurate predictor of presidential outcomes.
d) has been a fairly accurate predictor of presidential outcomes.
e) is based on government reports of objective economic indicators.
d) African Americans and more affluent voters e) latinos and young voters
14. Which of the following states flipped from Democratic to Republican in the 2016 election? a) Florida, ohio, and Pennsylvania b) California, new York, and massachusetts c) Texas, Alabama, and Kentucky d) West Virginia, missouri, and Kansas e) oregon, Washington, and Delaware
15. Which of the following statements is true about the 2018 elections? a) Youth turnout increased significantly. b) Democrats won control of the Senate. c) overall turnout was down from the 2014 midterm
elections. d) After 2018 most incoming female members of
Congress were Republicans. e) Republicans raised more money than Democrats in
the 2018 election cycle.
16. In 2018 the Republicans won Senate seats in which of the following states: a) Arizona and nevada b) Indiana, missouri, and north Dakota c) ohio and Pennsylvania d) California and new York e) new mexico, Virginia, and West Virginia
Three factors influence the decisions that voters make at the polls: partisan loyalty, issues and policy preferences, and candidate characteristics. Partisan attachments do not change frequently and are an important influence on which candidates a voter chooses to support. Voters may also consider the past and future behavior of competing parties and candidates. A candidate’s race, ethnicity, religion, gender, and social background are also weighed by voters on Election Day.
Key Terms prospective voting (p. 407)
retrospective voting (p. 407)
In a stunning upset, Donald Trump was elected president in 2016 over Hillary Clinton. After the elections, the Demo- crats regrouped and organized effectively to energize voters and win back the House of Representatives in 2018, though the Republicans retained control of the Senate. Voter turn- out was the highest in decades, and the incoming Congress will have more women members than ever.
Practice Quiz
12. In the 2016 general election, voters who said they felt the country and the economy were headed in the wrong direction were most likely to vote for a) Hillary Clinton b) Donald Trump c) Jill Stein d) gary Johnson e) Jeb Bush
13. In 2016, Trump and the Republicans received a majority of votes from a) whites and Asian Americans b) whites, latinos, and women c) whites and men
How Voters Decide
The 2016 and 2018 Elections
Identify the major factors that influence voters’ decisions (pp. 406–8)
Analyze the strategies, issues, and outcomes of the 2016 and 2018 elections (pp. 409–21)
CHAPTER 10 STUDY gU IDE426
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 426 27/11/18 3:49 PM
Dark Money www.opensecrets.org/dark-money/
Dark money refers to politically active organizations whose finances do not need to be disclosed. learn more about how dark money spending works and its growing influence on election campaigns.
ElectionMail.com www.electionmail.com
Are you thinking about running for office? Whether you aspire to be student government president or president of the United States, here you can find links to afford- able political printing, including political brochures, campaign literature, and campaign signs.
FairVote www.fairvote.org
FairVote is dedicated to open access to voting, equal representation, and a voice for all Americans. Read about some of their electoral reform proposals such as runoff elections, proportional representation, and alternatives to the electoral college.
Federal Election Commission www.fec.gov
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an indepen- dent government agency that was created in 1975 to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act. At the official FEC website you can read about the rules and regulations that govern the financing of federal elections and other topics of interest.
JibJab.com www.jibjab.com
This website became famous for its political video clips dur- ing the 2004 presidential campaign. For a good laugh check out some of the political jokes or rummage through the video archives to find one of the original Bush or Kerry clips.
maass, matthias. The World Views of the 2008 U.S. Presiden- tial Election. new York: Palgrave, 2009.
nelson, michael, ed. The Elections of 2008. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2009.
Polsby, nelson, Aaron Wildavsky, and David Hopkins. Presiden- tial Elections. 12th ed. new York: Rowman and littlefield, 2007.
Raymond, Allen, and Ian Spiegelman. How to Rig an Election. new York: Simon & Schuster, 2008.
Schier, Steven. You Call This an Election? Washington, DC: georgetown University Press, 2003.
Wayne, Stephen. Is This Any Way to Run a Democratic Election? 3rd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2007.
Abramson, Paul, John Aldrich, and David Rohde. Change and Continuity in the 2008 Elections. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2009.
Ackerman, Bruce, and Ian Avres. Voting with Dollars. new Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004.
Browning, graeme. Electronic Democracy. new York: Cyberage, 2002.
ginsberg, Benjamin, and martin Shefter. Politics by Other Means: Institutional Conflict and the Declining Significance of Elections in America. new York: W. W. norton, 1999.
Heilemann, John, and mark Halperin. Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime. new York: Harper, 2010.
Recommended Websites National Archives and Records Administration www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/index.html
The national Archives and Records Administration’s U.S. Electoral College page is a great resource on presidential elections. Find answers to frequently asked questions about our electoral system, read about how electors vote, or try predicting who will win the next presidential election with the electoral college calculator.
OpenSecrets.org www.opensecrets.org
Campaign funds come from a variety of sources, includ- ing individual donors, political action committees, self- contributions, independent spending, parties, and public funding. At this site you can research funding for all fed- eral officials, including your own members of Congress.
Pew Research Center, Election 2016 www.pewresearch.org/topics/2016-election/
Pew Research Center’s resource for the 2016 presidential election includes survey data, facts, figures, and public opinion.
Project Vote Smart www.votesmart.org
Project Vote Smart is a nonpartisan site dedicated to pro- viding citizens with information on political candidates and elected officials. Here you can easily view a candidate’s bio- graphical information, position on issues, and voting record so that you can make an informed choice on Election Day.
Voter Information Services www.vis.org
Voter Information Services is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to helping interested citizens learn about their elected members of Congress. Here you can obtain a congressional report card for your members of Congress and find out where they stand on the issues.
For Further Reading
STUDY GU IDE 427
wtp12e_ptr_ch10_378-427.indd 427 27/11/18 3:49 PM
Groups and Interests
111111 chapter
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS After graduating from college with a degree in physics, 25-year-old Ben Brown was work-
ing in New York City in the energy business when he
read a newspaper article quoting former senator Alan
Simpson, Republican of Wyoming. Simpson asserted
that young people would lack political power until a
young person “could walk into his office and say, ‘I’m
from the American Association of Young People. We
have 30 million members, and we’re watching you,
Simpson.’”1 He was referencing the political clout of
AARP, formerly known as the American Association of
Retired Persons, the largest membership organization
in the country. AARP is known for its formidable
defense of Social Security, Medicare, and other
issues of interest to older Americans.
In contrast, young Americans have not had a
broad-based membership group representing their
interests, and in 2016 Brown decided to found
one. Individuals can join the Association of Young
Americans (AYA) for $20 per year and enjoy dis-
counts on transportation and movies, much as AARP
members have long enjoyed travel and insurance
services. While those benefits are intended to entice
members, the real purpose of AYA is to lobby on
issues such as preserving net neutrality, stopping
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 428 27/11/18 3:49 PM
Interest groups have a strong influence in American political life, but whose interests do these groups serve? Young people have struggled to have a strong voice in politics, but Ben Brown founded the Association for Young Americans to change that.
unpaid internships, and protecting student debt
repayment programs. The organization has a weekly
newsletter and provides a “Contact Our Reps” tool
to “make it easy for anyone to connect with their
elected officials” and make their preferences
known. “We work to insert the voices of the 80 million
Americans ages 18 to 35 into everyday politics,”
the group’s website says.2 Since 2016, AYA has
grown to include 8,000 members. AYA demon-
strates interest groups in action.
Tens of thousands of organized groups have
formed in the United States, ranging from civic
associations to huge nationwide organizations such
as the National Rifle Association (NRA), whose chief
cause is opposition to restrictions on gun owner-
ship, and Common Cause, a public interest group
that advocates for such issues as limits on cam-
paign spending. Indeed, Alexis de Tocqueville, a
famous nineteenth-century French writer, once wrote
that America was “a nation of joiners.”3 This defin-
ing characteristic of American political life has not
changed since Tocqueville made his observation.
Americans are much more likely to join political and
social organizations than people in other countries,
and America has more organized interest groups
than other nations.
429
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 429 27/11/18 3:49 PM
★ Describe the major types of interest groups and whom they represent (pp. 431–39)
★ Describe how interest groups and social groups organize (pp. 439–45)
★ Analyze why the number of interest and advocacy groups has grown in recent decades (pp. 446–47)
★ Explain how interest groups try to influence government and policy (pp. 447–59)
CHAPTER GOAL
Many believe this unique trend has a positive impact on democracy. But
others worry that the power and money wielded by these groups can dominate
Congress, the president, and the political process—such as elections—at the
expense of average citizens and the public welfare. Another concern is that
despite the array of interest groups in American politics, not all interests—like
those of young people—are represented equally, and the results of compe-
tition among various interests are not always consistent with the common
good. In this chapter we will examine the nature and consequences of interest
group politics in the United States.
Despite the array of interest groups in American politics, however, not all
interests—like those of young people—are represented equally, and the
results of competition among various interests are not always consistent
with the common good. In this chapter we will examine the nature and
consequences of interest group politics in the United States.
430 CHAPTER 11 GROUPS AND INTeReSTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 430 27/11/18 3:49 PM
Defining Interest Groups The framers of the U.S. Constitu- tion feared the power that could be wielded by organiz ed inter ests. Yet they believ ed that inter est gr oups
thrived because of liberty—the freedom that all Americans have to organize and to express their vie ws. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, organiz ed groups were called “associations.” The Federalists and the anti-F ederalists themselves were organized gr oups of political elites that had different vie ws about ho w to cr eate America’s new demo cracy. Both the F ederalists and anti-F ederalists agreed that if the government were given the power to regulate or in any way to forbid efforts by organized interests to participate in the political process, it would in effect have the power to suppress individual liberty. The solution to this dilemma was presented by James Madison in the Federalist Papers no. 10:
Take in a greater variety of parties and interests [and] you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens. . . . [Hence the advantage] enjoyed by a large over a small republic.4
According to Madison, a good government encourages multitudes of interests so that no single inter est, which he called a “ faction,” can ever consistently dominate the others. The basic assumption is that all the competing interests will regulate one another, producing balance.5
Today, this M adisonian principle is called pluralism. Pluralism is a theor y of democracy based on the balancing of interests in society via groups that compete for policy outcomes from government. While an interest group may lose on one issue, it may win on the next; and o verall the vast majority of society will be r epresented in government. According to pluralist theory, all interests are and should be free to compete for influence in government and politics. Moreover, according to the the- ory of pluralism, the outcome of this competition is compr omise and moderation since no group is likely to be able to achieve any of its goals without accommodating itself to some of the views of its many competitors.6
Pluralism was long the dominant vie w of the U.S. political system, but critics point out that not all inter ests ar e equally r epresented in the competi - tion for political influence. Some interests speak with loud v oices (i.e., affluent corporations), while others can barely make themselves heard (i.e., Midwest farmers). P luralism does not guarantee political equality . I ndeed, impor tant research indicates that, through group politics, economic elites have considerably more influence than mass-based forces in the American political pr ocess.7 This version of pluralism is called elite pluralism and mor e accurately describes American politics.
An interest group is an organiz ed gr oup of people that lobbies go vernment to change public policy . This definition includes membership organizations (citizen groups) as w ell as businesses, corporations, univ ersities, labor unions, and other institutions that r estrict membership to par ticular occupational gr oups or other cate gories of persons. Individuals form groups to increase the chance that their views will be heard and their interests treated favorably by the government. Interest groups are sometimes negativ ely r eferred to as “lobbies, ” “special inter ests,” or “ pressure groups,” or posi tively discussed as advocacy organizations or citizen groups. They are
Describe the major types of interest groups and whom they represent
pluralism the theory that all interests are and should be free to compete for influence in the government; the outcome of this competition is compromise and moderation
interest group individuals who organize to influence the government’s programs and policies
431DeF IN ING INTeReST GROUPS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 431 27/11/18 3:49 PM
also sometimes confused with political action committees (PACs), which are groups that raise and distribute money for use in election campaigns (see Chapter 10). Many interest groups create PACs in their name to be the money-giving arm of the interest group. For example, the NRA Political Victory Fund donates money to political candidates and officeholders on behalf of the NRA, which represents the interests of gun owners.
One final distinction is that interest groups are also different from political par- ties: interest groups tend to focus on the policies of government, while parties tend to concern themselv es with the personnel of go vernment. Parties organize to win elected office and interest groups do not, although interest groups are increasingly engaged in political campaigns and seek to help candidates favorable to their policy goals win elections.
The number of interest gr oups in the U nited S tates is enormous, and mil - lions of Americans ar e members of one or mor e groups, at least to the extent of paying dues, attending an occasional meeting, follo wing a gr oup on social media, reading news from the group, or being on an email list. By representing the interests of such large numbers of people and encouraging political par tici- pation, organized groups can and do enhance American democracy . Organized groups educate their members on policy issues and mobiliz e their members for elections and grassr oots lobbying efforts using sophisticated social media cam - paigns, email listser vs, letters and ne ws r eports, media campaigns, and mor e. Groups lobby members of Congress and the executive, engage in litigation, and generally represent their members’ interests in the political arena. Interest groups also monitor government programs to make cer tain that these programs do not adversely affect their members. In all these ways, organiz ed interest groups help promote democratic politics.
Although public school teachers are a minority of the total population, they are an influential interest group in many states because they are highly informed and act as a group in support of issues related to their profession, including teachers’ salaries.
432 CHAPTER 11 GROUPS AND INTeReSTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 432 27/11/18 3:49 PM
Because not all interests are represented equally in society, interest group politics works to the adv antage of some and the disadv antage of others. H omeless people are generally not organiz ed, for example, while the N ational Realtors Association spends more than most organized lobbyists in Washington, D.C. Furthermore, not all organized interests are successful. Organized interest groups in the United States are predominantly economic groups. Groups working on behalf of businesses and industry far outweigh citizen groups in terms of their number of registered lobby- ists in Washington, D.C., and in state capitals, and of their financial resources to influence government and elections. The ability of economic groups to mobiliz e resources for elections often results in legislative victories when lawmakers win office and suppor t policies that benefit their industry. Examples of such gr oups include the oil and gas industries (who supported recent legislation that opened up drilling in Alaska), telecommunication firms (who supported repealing of “net neutrality” regulations), and pharmaceutical companies (who seek fe wer government regula- tions of drugs).
COMMON TYPES OF INTEREST GROUPS
Economic and Corporate Groups Interest groups come in as many shapes and sizes as the interests they represent. The most obvious are groups with a direct eco- nomic interest in governmental policy. Businesses and corporations make up o ver a third of the gr oups with lobbying offices in Washington, with trade associations comprising another 23 per cent and labor unions just 2 per cent of gr oups r egis- tered to lobby.8 Trade associations are generally supported by groups of producers or manufacturers in a par ticular economic sector, such as the N ational Association of Manufacturers or the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers. Trade asso- ciations care about br oad industrywide issues, and they lobb y and make financial contributions to gain access to elected officials. In addition to these br oadly repre- sentative groups, specific companies may be active in Washington on certain issues that are of particular concern to them. Combined, over 6 in 10 groups lobbying in Washington represent businesses, corporations, or trade associations.
Trade associations spent more than $716 million to lobby the federal government and Congress in 2017.9 Some of the biggest spenders included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Blue Cross Blue Shield, the American Medical Association, Boeing, and The National Association of Realtors.
Which industry spends the most money on lobbying activities? Table 11.1 lists the top spenders fr om 1998–18. A t the top of the list ar e finan- cial groups, insurance, the real estate industry, and the pharmaceutical industry, which has spent more than $4 billion lobbying lawmakers in an effort to maintain high drug prices and patent protection for their products.10
Labor Groups Labor organizations are also active in lobbying govern- ment. The AFL-CIO, the United Mine Workers, and the Teamsters all lobby on behalf of organized labor. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), represents 1.4 million members who work in public service and health care. AFSCME rep- resents its members on thousands of issues, from improving unemploy- ment benefits to raising the minimum wage. Labor unions represent all sectors of the American workforce, but according to one study, labor
Wealthy corporate interest groups usually find it easier to gain atten- tion from elected officials than do other types of groups. Here, Maine governor Paul LePage speaks at a news conference to discuss a report from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), an interest group representing biopharmaceutical companies and researchers.
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 433 27/11/18 3:49 PM
INDUSTRY TOTAL
Pharmaceuticals and health products $4,001,631,064
Insurance $2,751,743,572
electric utilities $2,384,646,037
electronics manufacturing and equipment $2,265,674,175
Business associations $2,254,317,913
Oil and gas $2,130,959,766
Miscellaneous manufacturing and distributing $1,711,453,232
education $1,651,855,249
Hospitals and nursing homes $1,628,529,677
Securities and investment $1,571,585,579
Real estate $1,560,196,283
Telecom services $1,559,003,678
Health professionals $1,473,898,726
Civil servants and public officials $1,455,196,910
Air transport $1,415,833,437
Health services and HMOs $1,116,511,600
Defense aerospace $1,114,819,742
Automotive $1,109,408,742
Miscellaneous issues $1,069,275,817
Television, movies, and music $1,049,917,835
SOURCE: Center for Responsive Politics, “Top Spenders,” www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=i&showYear=a (accessed 11/8/18).
TABLE 11.1
Top Spending on Lobbying by Industry, 1998–2018
434 CHAPTER 11 GROUPS AND INTeReSTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 434 27/11/18 3:49 PM
unions represent just 2 percent of the total number of inter est groups registered to lobby in Washington.11
Despite being out-lobbied, labor unions continue to ex ercise influence in Washington. Union members vote, and organized labor can have a significant impact upon elections. Few members of Congress can ignore labor’s power at the polls.
Professional Associations P rofessional lobbies such as the American B ar Asso - ciation and the American M edical Association hav e been par ticularly successful at furthering their members ’ interests in state and federal legislatur es. Trial lawyers are represented by the American Association for J ustice. Accountants, real estate agents, dentists, teachers and even college faculty have professional associations. Professional associations comprise just over 10 percent of the total number of gr oups lobbying in Washington. Financial institutions, represented by organizations such as the American Bankers Association and the N ational Savings and Loan League, although often less visible than other lobbies, also play an important role in shaping legislative policy.
Public Interest Groups Recent years have witnessed the growth of a powerful “public interest” lobby, purporting to represent the general good rather than its own economic interests. Public interest groups, or citizen groups, have been most visible in the consumer protection and envir onmental policy ar eas, although public inter est gr oups cover a broad range of issues. Citiz en groups comprise only 20 per cent of the gr oups with lobbying offices in Washington. However, a sur vey of 315 lobb yists and government officials, about 98 randomly selected policy issues, found that citizen groups were more likely to be mentioned as being influential in the debate than any other type of group.12
The Natural R esources D efense Council, the S ierra Club , the N ational Civic League, and Common Cause ar e all examples of public inter est gr oups. Claims to represent only the public inter est should be vie wed with caution, ho wever. It is not uncommon to find decidedly private interests seeking to hide behind the term public interest. For example, the benign-sounding Partnership to Protect Consumer Credit is a coalition of cr edit card companies fighting for less federal regulation of credit abuses, and Project Protect is a coalition of logging interests promoting increased timber cutting. 13 Economic interests often mask their financial interests by organizing public interest groups.
Ideological Groups and Advocacy Groups Closely r elated to and o verlapping with public inter est groups are ideological gr oups, organized in suppor t of a par - ticular political or philosophical perspectiv e. The National Right to Life and the Christian Coalition, for example, promote conservative values and social goals, such as opposing abor tion. The National Taxpayers Union and the Center for Ameri - can Progress campaign to reduce the size of the federal government and cut taxes. Liberal-leaning groups, including EMIL Y’s List and M oveOn.org, support causes such as protecting national parks and public lands, climate action, free college, and increasing the minimum wage.
Public-Sector Groups The perceived need for r epresentation on Capitol H ill has generated a public-sector lobb y in the past sev eral y ears, including the N ational League of Cities, the N ational Conference of State Legislatures, and the “research” lobby. The latter group comprises think tanks and univ ersities that hav e an inter - est in obtaining go vernment funds for r esearch and suppor t, and it includes such institutions as H arvard University, the B rookings I nstitution, and the American
public interest groups groups that claim they serve the general good rather than only their own particular interests
435DeF IN ING INTeReST GROUPS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 435 27/11/18 3:49 PM
Political scientists who study democracy around the world emphasize the important role society may play in shaping democracy. Interest groups are part of what is known more broadly as civil society: organizations outside the state that help people define and promote their interests. These groups play an important role in maintaining the overall health of democracy. Countries with an active civil society may be more likely to transition to democracy. South Africa’s strong
civil society played a major role in protesting for democracy against a repressive Apartheid regime. In contrast, civil society membership was heavily co-opted by authoritarian regimes in Germany and Japan; rebuilding the independence and engagement of these groups remains a major democratic challenge to this day. So, while de Tocqueville may have been writing about the United States as a “nation of joiners,” many other democracies have also joined this club.
Civil Society around the World
SOURCE: R. Inglehart et al., eds., “World Values Survey: Round Six—Country-Pooled Datafile Version,” 2014, www.worldvaluessurvey.org (accessed 5/28/18).
2
1%
1 4
4
4%
7
7 7
7
9 10
12
13 35
56
5%
5
Japan
South Africa
United States
3% 14
4 9
17
1% 6
2 8
7 50
0% 3
3%
2 4
8
6 5 6
8
14
14
15
Australia
Brazil
Germany
India
PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION THAT REPORTS AS ACTIVE MEMBERS OF INTEREST GROUPS
Consumer organization Professional association Environmental organization
Labor union Art, music, or educational organization Church or religious organization
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 436 27/11/18 3:49 PM
Enterprise Institute. These groups represent roughly 10 percent of the total number of groups lobbying in Washington.
WHAT INTERESTS ARE NOT REPRESENTED?
It is difficult to categorize unrepresented interests precisely because they are not organized and are not able to demonstrate to government their identity and their demands. The political scientist David Truman referred to these interests as “poten- tial interest groups.”14 He is undoubtedly correct that at any time, as long as there is freedom, it is possible that any interest shared by a lot of people can develop through “voluntary association” into a genuine interest group that can demand, usually suc- cessfully. But the fact remains that many widely shared interests are not represented by organized groups. Two such “potential” groups are the homeless and the poor. Both groups have shared interests in policy outcomes, such as job pr ograms and affordable housing. B ut the gr oups lack organization thr ough which to push for government policy to address these concerns.15
Unequal Representation and the Upper-Class Bias of Group Membership Despite the benefits of interest gr oups in terms of mobilizing and educating the public and the arguments in fav or of pluralism, ther e are concerns about the influence of special interests in the United States. One long-standing critic is E. E. Schattschneider, who argued in a famous quote, “The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a str ong upper-class accent.”16 Critics contend that pressure politics, or inter est group politics, is heavily ske wed in fav or of cor - porate, business, and upper-class gr oups, leaving those with lo wer socioeconomic status less able to participate in and influence politics.
Economic and upper class gr oups were strongly in favor of r educing corporate taxes and funded the election campaigns of R epublican lawmakers who shar ed their interest in major tax r eform. In December 2017 President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that reduced corporate tax rates fr om 35 to 21 per cent and reduced the top individual tax rate from nearly 40 to 37 percent, a sweeping tax cut
In a demonstration of the upper- class bias of interest group politics, Congress worked swiftly to relieve flight delays caused by budget cuts in 2013, prioritizing the issue over concerns about funding for public health and education affecting lower-income Americans.
437DeF IN ING INTeReST GROUPS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 437 27/11/18 3:49 PM
for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. The total cost to taxpayers of the tax bill is $448 billion in lost r evenue that will r esult in cuts to pr ograms that benefit primarily lower and middle-class Americans.17
People with higher incomes, more education, and management or professional occupations are much mor e likely to become members of gr oups than ar e those who occupy the lower rungs on the socioeconomic ladder.18 Well-educated, upper- income business and pr ofessional people are more likely to hav e the time, money, and skills needed to play a r ole in a gr oup or association or contribute financially to an organiz ed inter est. M oreover, for business and pr ofessional people, gr oup membership may pr ovide personal contacts, access to information that can help advance their careers, travel perks, discounted insurance, and many other financial benefits. At the same time, of course, corporate entities—businesses and the like— usually have ample resources to form or participate in groups that seek to advance their interests.
The result is that inter est gr oup politics in the U nited S tates tends to hav e a pronounced upper-class bias. Cer tainly, many inter est groups and political associ - ations have a working- or lower-class membership—labor organizations or w elfare rights organizations, for example—but the vast majority of interest groups and their members are drawn from the middle and upper-middle classes. Even when interest groups take opposing positions on issues and policies, the conflicting positions they take on policy issues usually reflect divisions among upper-income strata rather than conflicts between the upper and lower classes. Many policy issues critical to working and middle class people—quality public education, efficient transportation, afforda- ble housing, safe neighborhoods—ar e often ignor ed by government. Thus, when the political system is run by interest groups, democracy will be unequal and many issues important to average Americans will be ignored.
Schattschneider believed that in or der to hav e equal r epresentation in go vern- ment America needs str ong competitiv e, r esponsible political par ties willing and able to mobiliz e the lo wer classes and nonv oters. Interest groups are not enough. That is, citizens fr om the bottom rungs of the socioeconomic ladder must be organi zed on the massive scale associated with political parties. Competitive polit- ical parties pr ovide alternativ e choices so that the public can par ticipate in the
Though interest groups are prevalent in America, certain people do not have a strong voice in government. These include the homeless, the unemployed, and students. Often these groups have little financial backing to help them organize.
438 CHAPTER 11 GROUPS AND INTeReSTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 438 27/11/18 3:49 PM
government’s decision-making pr ocess. I nterest gr oups benefit from a limited scope, When political parties compete with one another to win elections, they have incentives to continually expand political discussion to nonv oting members of the electorate to gain a majority of voters. Finally, political parties must also act “respon- sibly” by informing the public of salient issues in the public interest, not narrow economic interests.
By r epresenting br oad public inter ests, competitiv e par ties could cr eate mor e equal representation in American politics. Thus, the relative importance of political parties and inter est groups in politics has far-ranging implications for the distri - bution of political po wer in the U nited S tates and for ho w w ell the inter ests of the lower and middle classes ar e represented. (It should be noted that some public interest and political advocacy groups discussed later seek to educate and inform the public and bring in new members, much like political parties.)
How Groups Organize Although inter est groups ar e many and v aried, most shar e cer tain key organizational components. These include leadership, money, an agency or office, and members.
Leadership and decision-making structure are critical for group organization. For some groups, this structure is very simple. For others, it can be quite elaborate and involve hundreds of local chapters that ar e melded into a national apparatus. P oli- tical entrepreneurs initially organize interest groups with a strong commitment to a particular set of goals. Such entrepreneurs see the formation of a group as a means both for achieving those goals and for enhancing their own influence in the political process. And just as is tr ue in the business world, successful gr oups often become bureaucratized; a paid professional staff replaces the initial entrepreneurial leadership.
For example, MoveOn.org initially formed in 1998 as an email gr oup by soft- ware entrepreneurs Joan B lades and Wes Boyd to push for the censur e, but not
Describe how interest groups and social groups organize
439HOW GROUPS ORGAN Ize
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 439 27/11/18 3:49 PM
impeachment, of President Bill Clinton so the country could “move on” to impor- tant national issues. B eginning as a ragtag band of liberal activists, M oveOn.org in the past two decades has raised millions of dollars for candidates and pr ogres- sive policy issues such as legislation protecting consumers, the environment, immi- grants, and the working class. Today MoveOn.org has millions of members and 250 local chapters in ev ery state. It is a significant player in the networ k of progressive organized interest groups in the United States.
Today every group needs a social media strategy . Both pr ogressive and conser - vative online adv ocacy groups often hav e a str eamlined staff structure with little bureaucracy. As computer scientist Clay S hirky explains in Here Comes Everybody, the internet has given rise to a proliferation of online organizations without formal organizing str uctures.19 An example is Wikipedia, whose content is pr ovided b y volunteers from around the world. But the real impact of the digital media r evolu- tion is the adv ent of new forms of organization. Leadership r emains a priority for online organizations. Entrepreneurship and leadership are important for all interest groups but especially so for those with little staff and formal organization as the leader holds the organization together.
The second key organizational component of interest gr oups is a financial structure capable of sustaining the organization and funding the gr oup’s activities. Because the cost of maintaining gr oups with a significant online presence is lower than for traditional lobbying groups, more and varied types of organized interests have been able to form and succeed. These groups often raise money via targeted email campaigns for v oluntary contributions rather than r egular annual member - ship dues. Many groups also sell some ancillary services to members, such as insur- ance and vacation tours. In addition, many groups establish an agency that actually carries out the group’s tasks, which may be a research organization, a public relations office, or a lobbying office in Washington or a state capital.
Finally, almost all interest groups must attract and keep members, whether mem- bership is defined formally or informally. Groups must persuade individuals to invest the money, time, energy , or effort r equired to take par t in the gr oup’s activities. Members play a larger role in some groups than in others. In membership associations,
membership association an organized group in which members play a substantial role, sitting on committees and engaging in group projects
MoveOn.org is one of America’s most influential liberal interest groups. They have claim millions of members and have 250 local chapters across the country. Here, MoveOn holds a rally encouraging Congress to reject President Trump’s nomination of Mike Pompeo for Secretary of State.
440 CHAPTER 11 GROUPS AND INTeReSTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 440 27/11/18 3:49 PM
group members actually ser ve on committees and engage in pr ojects. In the case of labor unions, members pay significant dues and attend rallies or march in picket lines. In the case of political or ideological gr oups, members may par ticipate in demon - strations and pr otests. I n another set of gr oups, staff organizations, a pr ofessional staff conducts most of the group’s activities while members ar e called on only to make contributions. Among the w ell-known public inter est groups, some, such as the National Organization for Women, are membership gr oups; others, such as the Children’s D efense F und, ar e staff organizations. Many online organiz ed inter ests do not require membership beyond signing up for an online newsletter or signing an online petition.
THE “FREE-RIDER” PROBLEM
Whether they need individuals to volunteer or merely to write checks, groups need to recruit and retain members. Yet many groups find this task difficult, even when it comes to recruiting members who agree strongly with the group’s goals. Why? As the economist Mancur Olson explains, the benefits of a group’s success are often broadly available and cannot be denied to nonmembers. 20 Such benefits are called collective goods. This term is usually associated with certain government benefits, but it can also be applied to beneficial outcomes of interest group activity.
Olson offers this example: suppose a number of private property owners live near a mosquito-infested swamp. Each owner wants this swamp cleared. But if one or a few of the owners were to clear the swamp alone, their actions would benefit all the other owners as w ell, without any effort on the par t of those other o wners. Each of the inactiv e owners would be a free rider on the efforts of the ones who clear ed the swamp. Thus, there is a disincentive for any of the owners to undertake the job alone. Since the number of concerned o wners is small in this par ticular case, they might eventually be able to organize themselves to share the costs as well as to enjoy the benefits of clearing the swamp.
But suppose the number of interested people is increased. Suppose the common concern is not the neighborhood swamp but polluted air or groundwater involving thousands or even millions of residents. National defense is the most obvious collec- tive good whose benefits are shared by all residents, regardless of the taxes they pay or the support they provide. As the number of involved persons increases or as the size of the group increases, the free-rider phenomenon becomes more of a problem. The group would no doubt be mor e influential if all concerned individuals were active members—if there were no free riders. This collective action problem is one of the major reasons why many groups do not form.
WHY JOIN GROUPS?
Individuals do not have much incentive to become active members of a group that is already working more or less on their behalf. To overcome this free-rider problem, groups offer members “selective benefits” available only to gr oup members. These benefits can be informational, material, solidary, purposiv e, or a combination of benefits. A community association, for example, can offer its members a sense of belonging (solidary benefit), involvement in community decision-making (purpo - sive benefit), and reduced rates on homeo wners’ insurance (material benefit) or a community swimming pool (material benefit). Table 11.2 giv es some examples of the range of benefits in each of these categories.
staff organization a type of membership group in which a professional staff conducts most of the group’s activities
collective goods benefits sought by groups that are broadly available and cannot be denied to nonmembers
free riders those who enjoy the benefits of collective goods but did not participate in acquiring or providing them
441HOW GROUPS ORGAN Ize
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 441 27/11/18 3:49 PM
Informational benefits are the most widespr ead and impor tant categor y of selec - tive benefits offered to gr oup members. I nformation is pr ovided thr ough online communication such as email, confer ences, training pr ograms, and ne wsletters and other periodicals sent automatically to those who hav e paid membership dues. Material benefits include anything that can be measur ed monetarily, such as gifts, discount purchasing, shared advertising, and, perhaps most v aluable of all, health and r etirement insurance. Solidary benefits include the friendship and networ king opportunities that membership pr ovides. E xtremely impor tant to many of the newer citizen groups is “consciousness-raising,” including the satisfaction of working toward a common goal with like-minded individuals. O ne example of this can be seen in the claims of many women’s organizations that active participation conveys to each member an enhanced sense of her own value and a stronger ability to advance individual as w ell as collectiv e rights. Members of associations based on ethnicity , race, or religion also derive solidary benefits from interacting with individuals they perceive as sharing their own backgrounds, values, and perspectives.
A fourth type of benefit involves the appeal of the purpose of an inter est group. An example of these purposive benefits is businesses joining trade associations to
informational benefits special newsletters, periodicals, training programs, conferences, and other information provided to members of groups to entice others to join
material benefits special goods, services, or money provided to members of groups to entice others to join
solidary benefits selective benefits of group membership that emphasize friendship, networking, and consciousness-raising
CATEGORY BENEFITS
Informational benefits Conferences
Professional contacts
Publications
Coordination among organizations
Research
Legal help
Professional codes
Collective bargaining
Material benefits Travel packages
Insurance
Discounts on consumer goods
Solidary benefits Friendship
Networking opportunities
Purposive benefits Advocacy
Representation before government
Participation in public affairs
SOURCE: Adapted from Jack Walker, Jr., Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991), 86.
TABLE 11.2
Selective Benefits of Interest Group Membership
purposive benefits selective benefits of group membership that emphasize the purpose and accomplishments of the group
442 CHAPTER 11 GROUPS AND INTeReSTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 442 27/11/18 3:49 PM
further their economic interests. Similarly, individuals join consumer, environmen- tal, or other civic gr oups to pursue goals impor tant to them. M any of the most successful interest groups of the past 20 y ears have been citiz en groups or public interest groups organized largely around shared ideological goals, including govern- ment reform, civil rights, economic equality , “family values,” and even opposition to government itself.
DIGITAL COMMUNICATION AND INTEREST GROUPS
Digital communication is changing ho w interest groups encourage par ticipation in politics and sustained collective action by citizens. Political scientist and former vice president of the S ierra Club David Karpf has argued that digital media and social media hav e created a ne w kind of inter est group politics in America that has revolutionized political adv ocacy. For example, liberal-leaning M oveOn.org and conservative-leaning Americans for P rosperity have arisen over the past two decades to play an incr easingly impor tant r ole in citiz en par ticipation in poli - tics. These grassroots online activist organizations hav e r edefined membership and fund-raising practices via inno vative methods for communicating with their members, measuring the opinions of their members, and mo ving their mem - bers into action—in terms of influencing public opinion, contributing money to campaigns, and working on behalf of the organization.21
Traditional interest groups are expensive to organiz e (one r eason why gr oup membership has an upper-class bias), and they rely on professional advocates and direct mail. They are also slo w to change. B y contrast, many of today ’s adv o- cacy groups are relatively inexpensive to organize and quick to adapt to an ev er- changing world of politics. Rather than r equiring an annual membership fee to join, membership is free and defined by receiving communication from the group or working on behalf of the group. Targeted fund-raising drives—over local, state, or federal government legislation; over a salient ev ent, such as raising money for victims of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico; or over an election—is how the organ- ization raises funds to maintain itself . While most traditional inter est groups are focused on a single issue—for instance, the S ierra Club seeks pr otection of the environment while AARP advocates on behalf of older Americans—online advo- cacy gr oups ar e often issue generalists that hav e a wide umbr ella of issues for which they lobby.
Advocacy gr oups with a significant online structure ar e less expensiv e to organize because they have a streamlined staff structure with fewer staff who often work fr om vir tual offices. In contrast, traditional inter est gr oups must main - tain offices in Washington, D.C., and other regional locations. The modified staff structure engages in different work routines that prioritize communication with members thr ough email, Twitter, and other digital platforms rather than mailing expensive glossy newsletters or engaging in dir ect lobbying of members of Congress.
Today’s advocacy groups employ grassroots strategies to pressure elected officials. These strategies may include the use of social media to organize rallies, generate news headlines, and promote fund-raising events, letter-writing campaigns, boycotts, and protests. Online advocacy groups may improve representation for citizens, counter- acting the disproportionate influence of business and corporate interests in Wash- ington. Liberal and conservative groups, as well as economic interest groups, have
443HOW GROUPS ORGAN Ize
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 443 27/11/18 3:49 PM
been better able to organize and affect government policy in the past decade with the help of the internet and social media.
APPROACHES TO INTEREST GROUP MEMBERSHIP: TWO CASE STUDIES
Online advocacy organizations may also differ from traditional groups in the types of benefits they offer members, as the cases of MoveOn and AARP illustrate.
MoveOn Rather than offering members material selective incentives to join the group, online activist gr oups like M oveOn offer informational selective benefits to members via daily or w eekly news updates and solidar y benefits of volunteer- ing or donating money on behalf of the organization. U nlike mainstr eam ne ws organizations, online adv ocacy groups are decidedly par tisan in the information they pr ovide members. I n addition, the gr oup offers their members purposive benefits—the knowledge that one is contributing to a dearly held cause. Purposive benefits may be the most important of all in maintaining the ne w online citiz en advocacy groups.
AARP One group that has been extremely successful in recruiting members and mobilizing them for political action is AARP . The organization was founded as the American Association of Retired Persons in 1958 as a result of the efforts of a r etired California high school principal, E thel Percy Andr us, to find afford- able health insurance for herself and the thousands of members of the N ational Retired Teachers Association. For the insur er, it pr ovided an expanded mar ket; for Andr us, it was a way to ser ve the ev er-growing elderly population, whose problems and needs w ere expanding along with their numbers and their life
MoveOn.org pioneered a new model of interest group membership and operations. Founded in 1998 and claiming 2 million members, MoveOn seeks to leverage technology to lower the barriers to political participation. In 2018, MoveOn, along with pro- choice groups like NARAL, helped organize online to protest the confir- mation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
444 CHAPTER 11 GROUPS AND INTeReSTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 444 27/11/18 3:49 PM
expectancy. Today, AARP is a large and po werful organization with 38 million members and an annual income of $900 million.22
How did this large organization o vercome the fr ee-rider pr oblem and r ecruit 38 million older people as members? F irst, no other organization has ev er more successfully provided the selective benefits necessary to overcome the free-rider problem. It helps that AARP began as an organization to pr ovide affordable health insurance for aging members rather than as an organization to influence public policy. But that fact only str engthens the argument that members need shor t-term individual benefits if they are to invest effort in a longer-term and less concr ete set of benefits. As AARP evolved into a political inter est group, its leadership added more selective benefits for individual members. It provided guidance against con - sumer fraud, offered low-interest credit cards, evaluated and endorsed products that were deemed valuable to members, and pr ovided auto insurance and a discounted mail-order pharmacy.
The resources of AARP are so extensive that its leadership has been able to mobiliz e itself on issues of impor tance to the gr oup. O ne of its most successful methods of mobilization for political action is a “ telephone tr ee,” with which AARP leaders can quickly mobiliz e thousands of members for and against pr oposals that affect Social S ecurity, Medicare, and other questions of security for the aging. A “ telephone tree” in each state enables the state AARP chair to phone all of the AARP district directors, who then can phone the presidents of the doz ens of local chapters, who can call their local officers and individual members. Within 24 hours, thousands of individual AARP mem - bers can be contacting local, state, and national officials to express their oppo - sition to proposed legislation. Other organizations have borrowed strategy from AARP, cr eating digital v ersions of the telephone tr ee using social media and email to allow members to contact their electiv e representatives over important policy issues.
AARP is one of the largest interest groups in the country. One way that AARP attracts members is through selective benefits, such as hotel discounts, credit and iden- tity theft prevention, free health tests, and all types of affordable insurance coverage.
445HOW GROUPS ORGAN Ize
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 445 27/11/18 3:49 PM
The Growth of Interest and Advocacy Groups
Interest groups and concerns about them are not ne w. As long as ther e is go vernment, as long as go vern- ment makes policies that add v alue or impose costs, and as long as there
is freedom to organize, interest groups will abound. If government expands, so will interest groups. There was, for example, a spur t of growth in the national go vern- ment during the 1880s and ’90s, arising largely fr om the first government efforts at economic intervention to fight large monopolies and to regulate some aspects of interstate commerce. In response, a parallel spur t of gr owth occurred in national interest gr oups. M any gr oups organiz ed ar ound specific agricultural products as well. This period also marked the beginning of the expansion of trade unions as interest groups. Later, in the 1930s, inter est groups with headquarters in Washington began to grow significantly, concurrent with that decade’s historic and sustained expansion of the national government (see Chapter 3).
Over the past half-century there has been an even greater increase both in the number of inter est groups seeking to play a r ole in the American political pr o- cess and in their ability to influence that process. Interest and adv ocacy groups have become much more numerous, more active, and more influential in Ameri- can poli tics, with lobby groups and Super PACs playing major roles in Congress and in electoral politics. This explosion of interest group activity has two basic origins: first, the expansion of the role of government during this period and, second, the coming-of-age of a ne w and dynamic set of political for ces in the United S tates—forces that hav e r elied heavily on “ public inter est” gr oups to advance their causes.
THE EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT
Modern governments’ extensive economic and social programs have powerful poli- ticizing effects, often sparking the organization of new groups and interests. Interest group activity is often a consequence of go vernment. Government involvement in any area can be a po werful stimulus for political organization and action b y those whose interests are affected.
For example, during the 1970s expanded federal r egulation of the automobile, oil, gas, education, and health care industries compelled each of these industries to increase substantially its efforts to influence the government’s laws and regulations. These efforts, in turn, spurred the organization of other groups to counter the activ- ities of the first.23 Similarly, federal social programs have sparked political organiza- tion. For example, federal pr ograms and cour t decisions in such ar eas as abor tion and school pray er were one factor leading to the rise of fundamentalist r eligious groups. Thus, the expansion of government in r ecent decades has also stimulated increased group activity and organization.
Like the federal government, the states too have expanded their scope of govern- ment and have likewise witnessed a growth in the number and div ersity of interest groups. But interest group activity isn’t uniform across the states. One study, for example, found that large-population, affluent states with higher per capita income
Analyze why the number of interest and advocacy groups has grown in recent decades
446 CHAPTER 11 GROUPS AND INTeReSTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 446 27/11/18 3:49 PM
and higher go vernment expenditur es hav e mor e trade associations than other states. These large-population, affluent states legislate on more policy ar eas, and thus activate the business community to lobby to protect their economic interests. Economists call this “rent seeking.”24
GROWTH OF PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS IN THE 1960S AND ’70S
The second factor accounting for the explosion of interest group activity was the emergence of a ne w set of for ces in American politics that can collectiv ely be called the “New Politics movement,” which began in the 1960s and ’70s. For this cohort of upper-middle-class professionals, the civil rights and antiwar mo vements were formative political experiences. They formed groups to cr usade against racial discrimination and the Vietnam War, and this experience taught them the political efficacy of organized group activity to affect politics. In more recent years, these citizens have focused attention on issues such as environmental protec- tion, social and economic inequality , women’s rights, and rights for the L GBTQ community. Members of this mo vement founded or str engthened public inter est groups such as Common Cause, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, and NOW. Such groups were able to influence the media, Congress, and even the judiciary, and enjo yed a r emarkable degr ee of success during the late 1960s and early ’70s in securing the enactment of environmental, consumer, and occupational health and safety legislation.
A host of adv ocacy organizations also exist for the ideological right and hav e been equally successful. F ounded in 1964, the American Conser vative Union was one of the first public interest groups to form to advocate for conser vative issues. Their primary concerns are liberty, personal responsibility rather than government welfare programs, traditional values, and national defense. Other examples include the American F amily Association, one of the leading national Christian adv ocacy organizations concerned with the moral foundations of American cultur e, which lobbies for policies that strengthen traditional families; and Citizens United, which uses a combination of education, adv ocacy, and grassr oots organization to seek to restore traditional American v alues of limited go vernment, fr ee mar kets, str ong families, and national security. These organizations are also active in electoral cam- paigns, running ads to adv antage Republican candidates and against D emocratic candidates for public office.
Interest Group Strategies Interest gr oups wor k to impr ove the likelihood that their policy interests will be hear d and tr eated favorably by the go vernment. The
quest for political influence or power takes many forms. Insider strategies include access to key decision makers, lobb ying, and litigating cases in cour ts. Outsider strategies include going public and using electoral poli tics. These strategies do not
Explain how interest groups try to influence government and policy
Public interest groups often advocate for interests that are not addressed by traditional lobbies. For example, in addition to many other activities, the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) publishes an annual toy safety report to help protect consumers and to encourage policy makers to address problems in this area.
447I NTeReST GROUP STRATeG IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 447 27/11/18 3:49 PM
exhaust all the possibilities, but they paint a broad picture of ways that groups use their resources in the fierce competition for power (see Figure 11.1).
Many groups employ a mix of insider and outsider strategies. F or example, environmental groups such as the S ierra Club lobb y members of Congress and key congressional staff members, participate in bureaucratic rule making by offering comments and suggestions to agencies on new environmental rules, and bring lawsuits under various environmental acts such as the Endangered Species Act, which authorizes groups and citizens to come to court if they believe the act is being violated. At the same time, the Sierra Club attempts to influence public opinion thr ough media campaigns and to influence electoral politics by sup - porting candidates who it believ es share its environmental views and by oppos- ing candidates it vie ws as foes of environmentalism. While most groups win sometimes and lose sometimes when advocating for their policy goals, in general groups that are well organized and have resources, including citizen groups, are more effective.
FIGURE 11.1
How Interest Groups Influence Congress
Activate constituents whose jobs or businesses are affected; provide them with information and arguments; help them organize, write letters, leaflets, etc.
Alliances and logrolls
Media
PAC funds, endorsements, information campaigns,
testimony
Letters, emails, phone calls,
letters to news editors, visits to
Washington, work in elections
Gain access— information, develop personal contacts and ties, favors
Advice
Direct lobbying
Mobilize public opinion— release favorable research findings, news releases, public relations campaigns, tips to reporters
News stories and editorials favorable
to interest group
Congressional staff
Targeted members of Congress
Constituents
Interest group
Other members of Congress
448 CHAPTER 11 GROUPS AND INTeReSTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 448 27/11/18 3:49 PM
DIRECT LOBBYING
Lobbying is an attempt by a gr oup to influence the policy process through persua- sion of government officials. Most Americans tend to believe that interest groups exert their influence through direct contact with members of Congr ess, but lobby- ing encompasses a br oad range of activities that gr oups engage in with all sor ts of government officials and the public as a whole.
The 1946 Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act defines a lobbyist as “any person who shall engage himself for pay or any consideration for the purpose of attempting to influence the passage or defeat of any legislation of the Congress of the U nited States.” The 1995 Lobbying D isclosure A ct r equires all organizations emplo ying lobbyists to register with Congress and to disclose whom they represent, whom they lobby, what they are looking for, and how much they are paid. Approximately 9,443 lobbyists are currently registered, down from a height of over 14,000 in 2007.25
Lobbying involves a great deal of activity on the part of someone speaking for an interest, and lobbyists attempt to influence the policy process in a variety of ways.26 Lobbyists first and foremost pr ovide information to lawmakers, administrators, and committee staff about their interests and the legislation at hand. They often testify on behalf of their clients at congr essional committee and agency hearings. Lobbyists talk to r eporters, place ads in ne wspapers, and organiz e letter-writing, phone call, and email campaigns. Many lobbying efforts occur in private meetings with lawmakers and campaign leaders, and behind closed doors. They also play an important role in fund-raising, helping to dir ect clients’ contributions to cer tain members of Congress and presidential candidates.
Lobbying Congress Traditionally, the term lobbyist referred mainly to individuals who sought to influence the passage of legislation in Congress. The First Amend- ment to the Constitution pr ovides for the right to “ petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” But as early as the 1870s, lobbying became the common term for petitioning. And since petitioning cannot take place on the floor of the House or Senate, petitioners must confront members of Congress in the lobbies of the legisla- tive chamber—hence the term lobbying.
Sophisticated lobbyists win influence by providing information about policies to busy members of Congress. Although interest groups do not necessarily buy v otes, they do buy time, expertise, and influence. Studies have found that those interest groups provid- ing the most money to representatives are more likely to be consulted by that represent- ative and asked to pr ovide information and exper tise in discussing a bill per taining to that group’s area of interest. This, in essence, gives interest groups a voice in shaping how legislation is written; and while it cannot ensure votes for laws preferred by the group, by participating in the policy process, organized interests are influencing policy.
The influence of lobbyists, in many instances, is based on personal r elationships and the behind-the-scenes ser vices they ar e able to per form for lawmakers. M any of Washington’s top lobbyists have close ties to important members of Congress or were themselves impor tant political figures, thus vir tually guaranteeing that their clients will have dir ect access to congr essional leaders. S ome important lobbyists have more than a business relationship to lawmakers: quite a few, in fact, are married to prominent political figures.
Through their lobbyists, interest groups also have substantial influence in set- ting the legislative agenda. They help to craft specific language in legislation and build coalitions and compr ehensive campaigns ar ound particular policy issues. 27
lobbying a strategy by which organized interests seek to influence the passage of legislation by exerting direct pressure on government officials
449I NTeReST GROUP STRATeG IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 449 27/11/18 3:49 PM
These coalitions do not rise from the grassr oots but instead ar e put together by Washington lobb yists who launch compr ehensive campaigns that combine simulated grassroots activity with information and campaign funding for members of Congress.
What happens to inter ests that do not engage in extensiv e lobbying? They often find themselves “Microsofted”; that is, marginalized in the political process. In 1998 the software giant was facing antitr ust action from the Justice Department and had few friends in Congr ess. One member of the H ouse, Representative B illy Tauzin (R-La.), told M icrosoft’s chair, Bill Gates, that without an extensiv e investment in lobbying, the corporation would continue to be “ demonized.” Gates responded by quadrupling Microsoft’s lobbying expenditures and hiring lobbyists with strong ties to Congress. The result was congressional pressure on the Justice Department that led to a settlement of the Microsoft suit on terms favorable to the company.28 Today mas- sive companies like Amaz on and Facebook may be in a situation similar to M icro- soft’s in the ’90s in that they need to incr ease lobbying efforts. President Trump and other leaders publically criticized Amazon for becoming too large in terms of market share and Facebook for not protecting the privacy of its members’ information.
Lobbying the President So many individuals and groups clamor for the president’s time and attention that only the most skilled and best-connected members of the lobbying community can hope to influence presidential decisions. Typically, a presi- dent’s key political advisers and fund-raisers will include individuals with ties to the lobbying industry who can help their friends gain access to the White House.
Lobbying the pr esident took an odd twist in 2018 when D onald Trump’s per- sonal lawyer, Michael Cohen, was widely criticized for accepting millions of dollars from corporations including AT&T and international drug companies for “insights” on the president’s decision making, although Cohen is not r egistered as a lobbyist. Cohen is under inv estigation by the federal pr osecutor for bank fraud, wir e fraud, and campaign finance violations; crimes to which he plead guilty in August 2018.
Lobbying the Executive Branch Even when an inter est gr oup is successful at getting its bill passed by Congress and signed by the president, the prospect of full and faithful implementation of that law is not guaranteed. O ften a gr oup and its allies do not pack up and go home as soon as the pr esident turns the new law they
Like many of their colleagues, John Boehner (R-Ohio, left) and Mary Landrieu (D-La., right) worked as lobbyists after leaving Congress. Members of Congress have knowl- edge and contacts that make them particularly attractive to lobbying firms.
450 CHAPTER 11 GROUPS AND INTeReSTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 450 27/11/18 3:49 PM
lobbied for over to the appr opriate agency. In some respects, interest group access to the executive branch is facilitated b y federal law. The Administrative Procedure Act, first enacted in 1946 and frequently amended in subsequent y ears, r equires most federal agencies to pr ovide notice and an oppor tunity for comment befor e implementing proposed new rules and regulations. This “notice and comment rule making” is designed to allo w interests an oppor tunity to make their vie ws known and to par ticipate in the implementation of federal legislation that affects them. Congress enacted the Negotiated Rulemaking Act in 1990 to encourage administra- tive agencies to engage in direct and open negotiations with affected interests when developing new regulations. These two pieces of legislation have played an impor- tant r ole in opening the bur eaucratic process to inter est group influence. Today, few federal agencies would consider attempting to implement a ne w rule without consulting affected interests, known in Washington as “stakeholders.”29
How Interest Groups Make Policy; Iron Triangles and Issue Networks The development of government policy is the product of the so-called iron triangle, which has one angle in an executive branch program (bureaucratic agency), another angle in a Senate or House committee or subcommittee, and a third angle in some highly stable and well-organized interest group. In policy areas such as farming and agricul- ture policy or energy policy, interest groups, government agencies, and congressional committees routinely work together for mutual benefit. The interest group provides campaign contributions for members of Congress, lobbies for larger budgets for the agency, and pr ovides policy exper tise to lawmakers. The agency, in turn, pr ovides government contracts for the inter est group and constituency ser vices for friendly members of Congress. The congressional committee or subcommittee, meanwhile, supports the agency’s budgetary requests and the programs the interest group favors. Together the thr ee actors that make up the angles in the triangle cr eate a mutu - ally supportive relationship that can last o ver a long period of time, especially if a committee member has considerable seniority in Congress. An interest cannot feel
iron triangle the stable, cooperative relationship that often develops among a congressional committee, an administrative agency, and one or more supportive interest groups; not all of these relationships are triangular, but the iron triangle is the most typical
Business leaders are often able to gain special access to elected officials. Here, Maximo Alvarez, president of Sunshine Gasoline Distributors (left), and Irina Vilarino, owner of Las Vegas Cuban Cuisine (right), meet with President Trump to discuss tax cuts for small businesses.
451I NTeReST GROUP STRATeG IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 451 27/11/18 3:49 PM
comfortable about its access to Congress until it has one or more of its “own” people with 10 or more years of continuous service on the relevant committee or subcom- mittee. Figure 11.2 illustrates an important iron triangle in recent American politi- cal history: that of the defense industry.
A number of important policy domains, such as the environment, tax policy, and immigration policy, are controlled not by highly structured and unified iron trian- gles but by broader issue networks. These networks consist of like-minded politicians, consultants, public officials, activists, and interest groups that care about the issue in question. Activists and interest groups recognized as being inv olved in the issue (the stakeholders) are customarily invited to testify before congressional committees or give their views to government agencies considering action in their domain. Issue networks and iron triangles may be overlapping and may coexist.
REGULATING LOBBYING
Sometimes the actions of lobb yists ar e outside of the law . In 2005 a pr ominent Washington lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, was indicted on numerous charges of fraud and violations of federal lobb ying laws. D uring the inv estigation of his activities, it was r evealed that A bramoff, along with his associate Michael Scanlon, had col - lected tens of millions of dollars fr om several American Indian tribes that operated lucrative gambling casinos. (I ndian gambling is curr ently a $30 billion industr y in the U nited S tates.) What A bramoff provided in ex change was access to key Republican members of Congress, who helped his clients shut down rival casino operators. Abramoff was closely associated with several House members, including the former House majority leader Tom DeLay. Millions of tribal dollars found their way into the campaign war chests of Abramoff’s friends in Congress. Thus, through
issue network a loose network of elected leaders, public officials, activists, and interest groups drawn together by a specific policy issue
FIGURE 11.2
The Iron Triangle in the Defense Sector Defense contractors are powerful actors in shaping defense policy; they act in concert with defense committees and subcommittees in Congress and executive agencies concerned with defense.
Congress
House National Security and Senate Armed Services committees, and Defense
Appropriations subcommittees; Joint Committee on Defense Production; Joint Economic Committee; House and
Senate members from districts with interests in defense industry
Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman,
Raytheon, General Dynamics
Executive Agencies
Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, Department of Energy
Defense Contractors
452 CHAPTER 11 GROUPS AND INTeReSTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 452 27/11/18 3:49 PM
a well-connected lobbyist, money had effectively purchased access and influence. Abramoff and several of his associates subsequently pleaded guilty to federal bribery and fraud charges, and Abramoff was sentenced to more than five years in prison.
Because lobbyists are so influential in Washington, D.C., Congress has tried to limit their r ole by adopting stricter guidelines. H owever, the effectiveness of the new rules is unclear. For example, businesses may no longer deduct lobb ying costs as a business expense. Trade associations must report to members the proportion of their dues that goes toward lobbying, and that proportion of the dues may not be reported as a business expense. The most important new regulation was the 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act, which expanded the definition of the organization and individuals that must register to lobby.
In 1996, Congress passed legislation limiting the size of gifts to its own members and banned the practice of honoraria for giving speeches, which special inter ests had used to supplement congressional salaries. In 2007 new rules prohibited lobby- ists from paying for most meals, trips, par ties, and gifts for members of Congr ess. Lobbyists were also required to disclose the amounts and sources of small campaign contributions they collected fr om clients and “bundled ” into large contributions. And interest groups were required to disclose the funds they used to rally voters to support or oppose legislative proposals. According to the Washington Post, however, within a few weeks, lobbyists had learned how to circumvent many of the new rules, and lobbying firms were as busy as ever.30
USING THE COURTS
Interest groups sometimes turn to litigation when they lack access or when they feel they have insufficient influence to change a policy. Interest groups can use the courts to affect public policy in at least three ways: (1) b y bringing suit dir ectly on behalf of the group itself, (2) by financing suits brought by individuals, or (3) by filing a companion brief as an amicus curiae (literally “friend of the court”) to an existing cour t case (see Chapter 15 for a discussion of amicus briefs).
Among the best-kno wn illustrations of using the cour ts for politi - cal influence is found in the history of the N ational Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the U.S. Supreme Court held that legal segregation of the schools was unconstitutional.31 Later, extensive litigation accompanied the women’s rights movement in the 1960s and the mo vement for rights for gays and lesbians in the 1990s. In 2015 the case of Obergefell v. Hodges illus- trated the success of this litigation strategy as the Supreme Court declared that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited states from refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.32
The 1973 Supreme Cour t case of Roe v. Wade, which took away a state’s po wer to ban abor tions, spar ked a contr oversy that organiz ed conservatives nationwide.33 Since 1973, conser vative groups have made extensive use of the cour ts to whittle away at the scope of the priv acy doctrine initially defined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. They obtained rulings, for example, that pr ohibit the use of federal funds to pay for voluntary abortions. And in 1989 right-to-life gr oups were able to use the case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services to restore the right of states to place r estrictions on abor tion, thus undermining the
When the Food and Drug Admini- stration (FDA) required cigarette packages to carry new warning labels such as the one below, a coalition of tobacco companies sued the government, claiming the labels violated First Amendment rights. The companies won their suit. In response, anticigarette groups such as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free kids are urging the FDA to develop new warnings.
453I NTeReST GROUP STRATeG IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 453 27/11/18 3:49 PM
Roe v. Wade decision (see Chapter 4). 34 The Webster case br ought more than 300 interest groups on both sides of the abor tion issue to the S upreme Court’s door. On the other side of the political spectr um, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) regularly uses litigation to challenge state and federal laws that restrict the rights of individuals and groups. This includes recent successful challenges to laws ending affirmative action in the states.
Litigation involving large businesses is voluminous in such areas as taxation, anti- trust, interstate transpor tation, patents, and pr oduct quality and standar dization. Often a business is brought to litigation against its will by virtue of initiatives taken against it by other businesses or by government agencies. But many individual busi- nesses bring suit themselves to influence government policy, and business groups also frequently use the courts because of the number of government programs applied to them. Major corporations and their trade associations pay tremendous amounts of money each year in fees to the most prestigious Washington law firms. Much of this money is used to keep the best and most experienced lawyers prepared to represent the corporations in court or before administrative agencies when necessary.
MOBILIZING PUBLIC OPINION
Going public is a strategy to mobilize the widest and most favorable public opinion for an issue or societal pr oblem, and a favored strategy of citizen groups, member- ship groups, and online adv ocacy groups. Many groups consider it imperativ e to maintain this climate at all times. As early as the 1930s, political analysts w ere dis- tinguishing between the “old lobby” of direct group representation before Congress and the “new lobby” of public-relations professionals addressing the public at large as a way to ultimately reach Congress.35
One of the best-known ways of going public is the use of institutional advertising. A casual scanning of websites, newspapers, and television ads will provide numerous examples of expensiv e and w ell-designed ads b y the major oil and gas companies, automobile and steel companies, other large corporations, and trade associations. The ads attempt to show how much these organizations ar e doing for the countr y. Their purpose is to create and maintain a positive association between an organization
institutional advertising advertising designed to create a positive image of an organization
Throughout American history, groups have staged mass protests to bring greater attention to their causes. These have included (from left) the Selma to Montgomery march for civil rights, organized by Martin Luther King, Jr., and others in 1965; Tea Party rallies for lower taxes and smaller government, which erupted in 2009; the Occupy Wall Street movement of 2011, which protested income inequality; and the Black Lives Matter move- ment, which began in 2013 in response to the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman.
454 CHAPTER 11 GROUPS AND INTeReSTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 454 27/11/18 3:49 PM
and the community at large in the hope of drawing on these fav orable feelings as needed for specific political campaigns later on.
As discussed earlier, citizen groups and advocacy groups rely heavily on mobiliz- ing the public opinion of their members via social media, such as Twitter campaigns and targeted email messages. On any given day a new viral media story may become headline news, and in most cases an interest group is behind the story. Such groups span the ideological spectrum from liberal to conservative and can wield significant pressure on elected officials to act.
Protests and Demonstrations Many groups resort to going public because they lack the r esources, the contacts, or the experience to use other political strategies. The sponsorship of boycotts, sit-ins, mass rallies, and marches by Martin Luther King, Jr .’s, S outhern Christian Leadership Confer ence and r elated organizations during the 1950s and ’60s is one of the most significant and successful cases of going public to create a more favorable climate of opinion by calling attention to abuses. The success of these events inspired similar efforts by women’s groups.
The 2010 Republican takeover of the H ouse of R epresentatives began with the spontaneous self-organization of the Tea Party movement in 2009 as an angry response to the Obama administration’s health care initiatives. In 2011 the Occupy Wall Street movement sparked demonstrations across America and around the world, giving voice to those who ar e outraged b y economic inequality. In 2013 the B lack Lives Matter movement took off after the shooting of an unarmed black teenager by a member of the local neighborhood watch and quickly spr ead across the nation. S hootings of black people by police and vigilantes acr oss the country have led to major demon - strations protesting institutionalized racism, and calling in par ticular for the elimi- nation of racial inequality in the criminal justice system.
Grassroots Mobilization Another form of going public is grassroots mobilization, in which a lobby group mobilizes its members and their families throughout the coun- try to call or email their elected r epresentatives in suppor t of the gr oup’s position. Among the most effective users of the grassroots effort in contemporary American politics is the religious right. Networks of evangelical churches have the capacity to generate hundreds of thousands of letters, phone calls, and emails to Congr ess and
grassroots mobilization a lobbying campaign in which a group mobilizes its membership to contact government officials in support of the group’s position
455I NTeReST GROUP STRATeG IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 455 27/11/18 3:49 PM
the White House. S imilarly, the NRA maintains a powerful grassroots lobbying effort, spending more on mobilization of its members than on pr ofessional lobby- ists. The NRA’s 5 million dues-paying members can be mobilized to flood congres- sional offices with letters and phone calls, and few members of Congr ess are eager to pick a fight with the group.36 The interests of the NRA were seriously challenged in 2018 when, in the aftermath of a mass shooting at a high school in P arkland, Florida, in February 2018, students there used social media to mobiliz e Americans across the nation in support of stronger gun laws. Under the label “March for Our Lives,” these students successfully coor dinated a mass rally in Washington, D.C., as well as rallies ar ound the countr y. Largely as a r esult of their efforts, and those of suppor ters they attracted, sev eral states enacted tougher gun laws. G rassroots campaigns have been so effective in recent years that a number of Washington con- sulting firms have begun to specialize in this area.37
Sometimes, what initially appears to be an upswelling of grassroots mobiliza- tion is not in fact a genuine grassr oots campaign but instead r epresents “Astroturf lobbying” (a play on the name of the ar tificial grass used on many sports fields). Such campaigns, often using email, have increased in frequency in recent years, yet members of Congr ess often continue to r espond more to lobb yists than to public demonstrations of support for specific policy issues.
USING ELECTORAL POLITICS
In addition to attempting to influence members of Congress and other government officials, interest groups seek to use the electoral process to elect the right legislators in the first place and to ensure that those who are elected will owe them a debt of grati- tude for their support. If we view matters in perspective, groups invest more resources in lobbying than in electoral politics. N evertheless, financial support and campaign activism can be impor tant tools for organiz ed inter ests. The NRA, for example, dramatically increased its spending in the 2016 election, spending $30 million to support Trump.38
Political Action Committees and Super PACs By far the most common elec - toral strategy emplo yed by inter est groups is that of giving financial support to political par ties or specific candidates running for office. But such suppor t can easily cr oss the thr eshold into outright briber y. Therefore, Congr ess has occa - sionally attempted to r egulate this strategy, but with limited success. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (amended in 1974) requires that each candidate or campaign committee itemize the full name and address, occupation, and principal business of each person who contributes mor e than $100. These provisions create an open record of which organizations and individuals fund the campaigns of can- didates for public office.
The 1972 Watergate scandal was trigger ed by the illegal entr y of a gr oup of clan- destine agents employed by the president’s re-election committee into the office of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate apartment and hotel complex. An investigation quickly revealed numerous violations of campaign finance laws, involv- ing millions of dollars in unregistered cash from corporate ex ecutives to P resident Nixon’s r e-election committee. R eaction to Watergate pr oduced fur ther legislation on campaign finance in 1974 and 1976, but the effect was to restrict individuals rather than interest group campaign activity. In the 2017–18 election cycle, individ- uals could contribute no more than $2,700 to any candidate for federal office in any
456 CHAPTER 11 GROUPS AND INTeReSTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 456 27/11/18 3:49 PM
SOURCE: Center for Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org/pacs/ (accessed 11/21/17).
Agribusiness $26.1M
Finance, insurance, and real estate $33.1M
26% 74%36% 64%
Ideology/single issue $19.4M
Health $18.3M
46% 53% 39% 61%
Labor $17.6M
76% 24%
Energy/natural resources $11.0M
Communications/electronics $10.3M
Transportation $9.3M
Miscellaneous business $15.2M
34% 24% 43% 33%
67%56% 65%
76%
Construction $5.2M
Defense $7.5M
Lawyers/lobbyists $4.7M
22% 78%35% 64% 52% 48%
Democratic candidates Republican candidates
PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates, 2016
In the 2016 election cycle, political action committees (PACs) spent a grand total of $1.7 billion to elect and defeat political candidates. PACs representing the �nancial sector spent the most, followed closely by agribusiness. For many sectors, the amount donated to Republican candidates exceeded that donated to Democratic candidates.
Who Is Represented by PACs?
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS 1. Business PACs are the biggest spenders. What effect might this have on which candidates get elected and what policies they pass?
2. Why do you think PACs are more likely to donate to Republican candidates than
to Democratic candidates?
WHO ARE AMERICANS?
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 457 27/11/18 3:49 PM
primary or general election. A political action committee (PAC), however, can contribute $5,000, provided it contributes to at least five different federal candidates each y ear. (Campaign finance regulations are discussed in more detail in Chapter 10.) The laws permit corporations, unions, and other interest groups to form PACs. PACs represent interest groups in electoral politics. The option to form a PAC was made available by law in the early 1970s. Before then it was difficult, if not downright illegal, for corpo- rations, including unions, to get directly involved in elections by supporting parties and candidates.
The flurry of reform legislation in the 1970s attempted to r educe the influence that interest groups have over elections, but the effect has been almost the exact opposite. Electoral spending by interest groups has been increasing dramatically.
Given the enormous costs of r unning political campaigns, most politicians ar e eager to r eceive contributions and at least willing to giv e a friendly hearing to the needs and interests of contributors. While most politicians do not “ sell out” to the interests that fund their campaigns, there is evidence that interest groups’ campaign contributions do influence the overall pattern of political behavior in Congr ess and in the state legislatur es, and that lawmakers r epresent affluent individuals and groups more than the middle class.39 (See the “Who Are Americans?” feature for one depiction of who is represented by PACs.)
Concern about P ACs gr ew thr ough the 1980s and ’90s, cr eating a constant drumbeat for reform of federal election laws. Proposals to abolish PACs were intro- duced in Congress on many occasions, with perhaps the most celebrated being the “McCain-Feingold bill ” (the B ipartisan Campaign R eform A ct of 2002). When originally proposed in 1996, McCain-Feingold was aimed at reducing or eliminat- ing PACs. But in a stunning about-face, when the act was adopted in 2002, it did not restrict PACs in any significant way.
One consequence of this r eform, was the cr eation of new organizations, to fund candidates: Super PACs and 527 committees. As we saw above, a PAC has a maximum contribution limit of $5,000 per candidate in each election cy cle. Super PACs, on the other hand, cannot donate to candidates or par ties directly, but they can spend unlimited sums of money on campaigns to influence an election in favor of candi - dates or parties as long as their activity (for example, campaign ads or mobilization efforts) is not coordinated with the candidates or parties. Because there are no limits on the amount of money S uper PACs may raise fr om corporations, unions, and interest gr oups, they hav e become mor e impor tant than P ACs and hav e had the effect of strengthening interest groups. As long as a gr oup’s campaign expenditur es are not coordinated with those of a candidate’s campaign, the group is free to spend as much money as it wishes. Such expenditures are viewed as “issue advocacy” and are protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court’s landmark decision Cit- izens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) dramatically incr eased the flow of money fr om interest groups, 527s, and S uper PACs into politics and electoral campaigns. Citizens United removed r estrictions on corporate and union political spending.40
In the 2016 presidential election, independent expenditures (commonly referred to as outside spending) totaled about $1.3 billion, of which $594 million came from Super PACs. Candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump raised $1.5 bil - lion total, and the Super PACs supporting them raised $618 million, accor ding to the Center for R esponsive Government.41 Super PAC financing of U.S. elections represents a significant amount of all dollars spent on electoral campaigns. In 2016, Super PACs spent more than $1.1 billion on House and Senate races.42 In the 2018
political action committee (PAC) a private group that raises and distributes funds for use in election campaigns
527 committee (Super PAC) a nonprofit independent political action committee that may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, and individuals but is not permitted to contribute to or coordinate directly with parties or candidates
458 CHAPTER 11 GROUPS AND INTeReSTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 458 27/11/18 3:49 PM
election ther e w ere 2,224 S uper P ACs, which together spent $815 million.43
Campaign Activism Financial support is not the only way that organized groups seek influence through electoral politics. Some- times activism can be ev en more important than campaign con - tributions. Campaign activism on the par t of conservative groups played a v ery impor tant r ole in bringing about the R epublican capture of both houses of Congr ess in 1994. For example, Chris- tian Coalition activists played a role in many races, including those in which Republican candidates were not strongly identified with the r eligious right. O ne postelection study suggested that mor e than 60 percent of the more than 600 candidates supported by the Christian right w ere successful in state, local, and congr essional races in 1994, especially in the S outh.44 I n many congr essional districts, Christian Coalition efforts were augmented by grassroots campaigns launched b y the NRA, which had been outraged b y Democratic support for gun contr ol legislation. Both gr oups are well organized at the local level and were able to mobiliz e their members acr oss the countr y to par - ticipate in congressional races. In the 2012 presidential elections, prochoice groups mobilized their supporters to turn out and v ote for Democratic candidate Obama via telephone get-out-the-vote drives.
Ballot Initiatives Another political tactic that inter est groups use is sponsorship of ballot initiatives at the state level. The initiative, available in half the states allows proposed laws to be placed on the general election ballot and submitted dir ectly to the v oters, bypassing the state legislatur e and the go vernor. The initiative was originally pr omoted b y late-nineteenth-centur y P opulists and P rogressives as a mechanism that would allow the people to govern directly—an antidote to interest group influence in the legislative process.
Some studies have suggested that, ironically, many initiative campaigns today are actually sponsored by interest groups seeking to circumvent legislative opposition to their goals. In recent years, for example, initiative campaigns have been sponsored by the insurance industr y, the automobile industry, trial lawyers’ associations, and tobacco companies.45 The success of business groups promoting successful tax lim- itation ballot measur es in the 1970s and 1980s has led liberal activists to dev elop their own issue campaigns. Liberal activists established the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center to pr ovide national coor dination for these efforts, which led to successful statewide ballot measur es to raise the minimum wage, pr otect the envir onment in Colorado, and incr ease taxes for corporations and high-income wage earners in Oregon and California. Both corporate and grassroots groups have had success with ballot initiatives over the past two decades.
But while businesses may sponsor ballot initiatives, such measur es are much more likely to be r ejected b y v oters on E lection D ay than initiativ es sponsor ed by citizen groups. In an important study, political scientist Elisabeth Gerber finds that citizen groups and unions ar e the most effective at sponsoring ballot meas - ures, whereas businesses, trade associations, and professional associations are more effective at lobbying state legislatures. The implication is that mechanisms of direct democracy, like the initiativ e process, favor citizen interests while lobbying favors economic interests.46
The amount of money spent by organized interests on elections has increased dramatically in the last decade. This cartoon raises the con- cern that influence in government is for sale and only the extremely wealthy can buy it.
459I NTeReST GROUP STRATeG IeS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 459 27/11/18 3:49 PM
Interest Groups WHAT DO WE WANT? We would like to think that government policies are products of legislators represent-
ing the public interest. The truth of the matter is that few programs and policies ever
reach the public agenda without the vigorous efforts of important national interest
groups. In the realm of economic policy, social policy, and international trade policy, the
activity of interest groups is of critical importance.
James Madison wrote that “liberty is to faction as air is to fire.”47 By this he meant
that the organization and proliferation of interests are inevitable in a free society. As
long as competition among different interests was free, open, and vigorous—that is,
as long as pluralism thrived—there would be some balance of power among them,
and no one interest would be able to dominate the political or governmental process.
Indeed, there is considerable competition among organized groups in the United
States. Prochoice and antiabortion forces, for example, continue to be locked in a bitter
struggle, as are the NRA and gun control groups. Nevertheless, interest group politics
is not as balanced as Madison’s theory and pluralism might suggest. Although the weak
and poor do occasionally become organized to assert their interests, interest group poli-
tics is generally a form of political competition best suited to the wealthy and powerful.
Moreover, although groups sometimes organize to promote broad public concerns,
they more often represent relatively narrow, selfish interests. Small groups seeking nar-
row interests can be organized much more easily than large and diffuse collectives. The
members of relatively small groups—say, bankers or hunting enthusiasts—are usually
able to recognize their shared interests and the need to pursue them in the political
arena. Members of large and diffuse groups—say, consumers or the unemployed—
often find it difficult to recognize their shared interests or the need to engage in collec-
tive action to achieve them.48 Whether Ben Brown’s new Association of Young Americans
can grow and achieve legislative success remains to be seen, as younger Americans’
activism may be undercut by the diverse array of interests they have and by the many
immediate concerns that dominate their time (school, work, and family, among others).
Organized interest groups sometimes seem to have a greater impact than voters
on the government’s policies and programs, especially through lobbying and financial
contributions to political candidates. (The “Who Participates?” feature on the facing page shows how much major groups spend on lobbying activities). Yet, before we
decide that we should do away with interest groups, we should think carefully: If there
were no organized interests, would the government pay more attention to ordinary
voters? Would young people be better or worse off if there were no interest groups in
the United States? Or would the government simply pay less attention to everyone?
In his work Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville argued that the proliferation
of groups promoted democracy by encouraging governmental responsiveness. Does
group politics foster democracy or impede democracy? It does both.
460 CHAPTER 11 GROUPS AND INTeReSTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 460 27/11/18 3:49 PM
SOURCE: Center for Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org/lobby (accessed 11/21/17).
U.S. Chamber of Commerce $103,950,000
National Association of Realtors $64,821,111
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $25,006,109
American Hospital Association
$22,006,109 Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America
$19,730,000 American Medical Association
$19,410,000 Boeing Co. $17,020,000
National Association of Broadcasters
$16,438.000 AT&T Inc. $16,370,000
Business Roundtable $15,700,000
Alphabet Inc. $15,430,000
Comcast Corp. $14,330,000
Dow Chemical $13,635,982
Lockheed Martin $13,615,811
ExxonMobil Amazon.comFedEx Corp. $12,541,000
Northrop Grumman 12,050,000 $11,840,000 $11,354,000
Find an interest group that appeals to you at votesmart.org/interest-groups, then follow that group on Facebook or Twitter.
on your campus. Many groups will gladly help students start campus chapters.
Get Involved with Interest Groups and Lobbying
Find out which groups give the most money to your representatives in Congress by clicking “Congress” at www.opensecrets.org/politicians. You can look up your representatives by zip code.
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
The Internet & Television Association (NCTA)
$13,420,000
Southern Co. $13,900,000
= $1,000,000Lobbying Expenditures, 2016 (top spenders)
How Much Do Major Groups Spend?
WHO PARTICIPATES?
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 461 27/11/18 3:49 PM
Practice Quiz
3. Benefits sought by groups that are broadly available and cannot be denied to nonmembers are called a) purposive benefits. b) informational benefits. c) solidary benefits. d) material benefits. e) collective goods.
4. Friendship and networking are examples of a) purposive benefits. b) informational benefits. c) solidary benefits. d) material benefits. e) collective goods.
5. Discount purchasing and health insurance are examples of a) purposive benefits. b) informational benefits. c) solidary benefits. d) material benefits. e) collective goods.
Almost all interest groups share a similar set of organiza- tional components, including leadership, money, an office, and members. In order to overcome the free-rider problem, interest groups attempt to provide their potential mem- bers with informational, material, solidary, and purposive benefits. Online advocacy groups have established new approaches to organization and membership.
Key Terms membership association (p. 440)
staff organization (p. 441)
collective goods (p. 441)
free riders (p. 441)
informational benefits (p. 442)
material benefits (p. 442)
solidary benefits (p. 442)
purposive benefits (p. 442)
How Groups Organize
Practice Quiz
1. The theory that competition among organized interests will produce balance and compromise, with all the interests regulating one another, is a) pluralism. b) elite power politics. c) democracy. d) socialism. e) libertarianism.
2. The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the National Civic League, and Common Cause are all examples of a) membership associations. b) public interest groups. c) professional associations. d) ideological groups. e) public-sector groups.
An interest group is an organized group of people that makes policy-related appeals to government. Common types of interest groups include economic and corporate groups, labor groups, and citizen (or public interest) groups. Well-educated, upper-income, professional people are more likely to have the time, money, and skills to participate in interest groups. As a result, interest groups tend to skew in favor of corporate, business, and upper-class interests, leaving those with lower socioeconomic status less able to participate in and influence politics.
Key Terms pluralism (p. 431)
interest group (p. 431)
public interest groups (p. 435)
Defining Interest Groups
Describe the major types of interest groups and whom they represent (pp. 431–39)
Describe how interest groups and social groups organize (pp. 439–45)
CHAPTER 11 STUDY GU IDe462
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 462 27/11/18 3:49 PM
b) Federal law allows lobbying but only if the lobbyists receive no monetary compensation for their lobbying.
c) Federal law strictly prohibits any form of lobbying. d) Federal law requires all organizations employing
lobbyists to register with Congress and to disclose whom they represent, whom they lobby, what they are looking for, and how much they are paid.
e) There are no laws regulating lobbying because the federal government has never passed any legislation on the legality of the activity.
8. A loose network of elected leaders, public officials, activists, and interest groups drawn together by a public policy issue is referred to as a) an issue network. b) a public interest group. c) a political action committee. d) pluralism. e) an iron triangle.
9. Which of the following is a way that interest groups use the courts to influence public policy? a) supplying judges with solidary benefits b) joining an issue network c) creating an iron triangle d) forming a political action committee e) filing amicus curiae briefs
b) the increase in the size and activity of government during the last few decades
c) the increase in the amount of soft money in election campaigns in recent decades
d) the increase in legal protection provided to interest groups as a result of the Supreme Court’s evolving interpretation of the First Amendment
e) the increase in the number of people identifying themselves as independent in recent decades
Interest groups take action to improve the probability that their policy interests will be treated favorably by all branches and all levels of government. These actions often take many different forms. Insider strategies include direct lobbying, cultivating access to decision makers, and using the court system. Outsider strategies include mobilizing public opinion and using electoral politics.
Key Terms lobbying (p. 449)
iron triangle (p. 451)
issue network (p. 452)
institutional advertising (p. 454)
grassroots mobilization (p. 455)
political action committee (PAC) (p. 458)
527 committee (Super PAC) (p. 458)
Practice Quiz
7. Which of the following best describes the federal government’s laws regarding lobbying? a) Federal law allows lobbying but only on issues
related to taxation.
In recent decades there has been a significant growth in the number of interest groups seeking to influence the American political process. One reason for this change has been the dramatic expansion of the role of American government over the last four decades. Another reason for this change has been the emergence of a new set of political forces in the United States called the “New Politics” movement.
Practice Quiz
6. Which of the following is an important reason for the enormous increase in the number of groups seeking to influence the American political system? a) the decrease in the size and activity of government
during the last few decades
Interest Group Strategies
The Growth of Interest and Advocacy Groups
Explain how interest groups try to influence government and policy (pp. 447–59)
Analyze why the number of interest and advocacy groups has grown in recent decades (pp. 446–47)
STUDY GU IDE 463
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 463 27/11/18 3:49 PM
Karpf, David. The MoveOn Effect: The Unexpected Transforma- tion of American Political Advocacy. New York: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2012.
Lessig, Lawrence. Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It. New York: Twelve/Hachette Book Group, 2011.
Lowi, Theodore J. The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 1979.
Moe, Terry M. The Organization of Interests: Incentives and the Internal Dynamics of Political Interest Groups. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Nownes, Anthony. Total Lobbying: What Lobbyists Want and How They Try to Get It. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Olson, Mancur, Jr. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965.
Shirky, Clay. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations. New York: Penguin Press, 2008.
Strolovitch, Dara. Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.
Alexander, Robert, ed. The Classics of Interest Group Behavior. New York: Wadsworth, 2005.
Baumgartner, Frank, Jeffrey M. Berry, Beth L. Leech, David C. Kimball, and Marie Hojnacki. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.
Berry, Jeffrey. Interest Group Society. 5th ed. New York: Longman, 2008.
Cigler, Allan J., and Burdett A. Loomis, eds. Interest Group Politics. 9th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2015.
Drutman, Lee. The Business of America Is Lobbying: How Corporations Became Politicized and Politics Became More Corporate. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Goldstein, Kenneth. Interest Groups, Lobbying, and Participa- tion in America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Herrnson, Paul, and Christopher Deering. Interest Groups Unleashed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2012.
Holyoke, Thomas. Interest Groups and Lobbying: Pursuing Political Interests in America. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2014.
Kaiser, Robert. So Damn Much Money: The Triumph of Lobbying and the Corrosion of American Government. New York: Vintage, 2010.
12. One of the major differences between PACs and Super PACs is that a) a PAC has a maximum contribution limit of $500
per candidate in each election cycle while a Super PAC has a maximum contribution limit of $1,000.
b) a PAC has a maximum contribution limit of $1,000 per candidate in each election cycle while a Super PAC has a maximum contribution limit of $5,000.
c) a PAC has a maximum contribution limit of $5,000 per candidate in each election cycle while a Super PAC has a maximum contribution limit of $10,000.
d) a PAC has a maximum contribution limit of $5,000 per candidate in each election cycle while a Super PAC cannot donate to candidates directly.
e) a Super PAC has a maximum contribution limit of $5,000 per candidate in each election cycle while a PAC cannot donate to candidates directly.
10. Which of the following are examples of the “going public” strategy? a) free riding, pluralism, and issue networking b) donating money to political parties, endorsing
candidates, and sponsoring ballot initiatives c) institutional advertising, grassroots advertising, and
protests and demonstrations d) providing informational benefits, providing solidary
benefits, and providing material benefits e) filing an amicus brief, bringing a lawsuit, and
financing those who are filing a lawsuit
11. Which of the following is not an activity in which interest groups frequently engage? a) starting their own political party b) litigation c) sponsoring ballot initiatives at the state level d) lobbying e) contributing to campaigns
For Further Reading
CHAPTER 11 STUDY GU IDe464
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 464 27/11/18 3:49 PM
AARP www.aarp.org
AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons) is one of the largest and most significant interest groups in the United States. Read about the history of this organization, its group benefits, and how it is affecting political issues and elections.
AFL-CIO Legislative Alerts www.aflcio.org/Legislation-and-Politics/Legislative-Alerts
Created in 1955, the AFL-CIO represents more than 10 million working men and women. See how this influential labor group is active and involved in political issues.
American Civil Liberties Union www.aclu.org
American Conservative Union www.conservative.org
The American Civil Liberties Union and the American Conservative Union are two of the nation’s largest and most influential ideological interest groups. See what these opposing groups have to say about our govern- ment and current political issues.
American Israel Public Affairs Committee www.aipac.org
Due to globalization, interest groups cannot limit their activities to one country. Decisions made in Washington, D.C., can affect countries around the world. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee works with Republicans and Democrats to maintain a strong relationship between the United States and Israel.
Recommended Websites MoveOn www.moveon.org
This progressive interest group is dedicated to bring- ing ordinary citizens back into the political process and electing liberal members of government. See how this group uses electoral politics, via political action commit- tees and campaign activism, to achieve its agenda.
National Rifle Association www.nra.org
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence www.csgv.org
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence www.bradycampaign.org
Lobbying is an attempt by a group to influence the policy process by persuading government officials. These three groups employ a variety of lobbying techniques on the issue of gun control.
U.S. Public Interest Research Group www.uspirg.org
This public interest group stands up for ordinary citizens. Its special emphasis is on consumer rights and the environment. U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) mobilizes public opinion via institutional advertising, social move- ments, and grassroots efforts. U.S. PIRG chapters can be found in most states and at many colleges and universities.
World Wildlife Fund www.wwf.org
The World Wildlife Fund is dedicated to protecting nature. It provides information to policy makers about conservation and advocates for policies to help preserve the natural environment.
STUDY GU IDE 465
wtp12e_ptr_ch11_428-465.indd 465 27/11/18 3:49 PM
Congress
121212 chapter
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS As the nation’s chief legislative body, Congress affects Americans every day with its
decisions. Guy Berkebile, founder of the Guy Chemi-
cal company of Somerset, Pennsylvania, was thrilled
with the Tax Cut and Jobs Act passed by Congress
in late 2017. The bill lowers taxes for both large
corporations and small businesses like Guy Chemi-
cal, which manufacturers silicone and epoxy adhe-
sives. Berkebile noted that high business taxes had
presented a challenge for him as a small business
owner. “I did not draw a salary from my company
for five years when I started it because the survival
of my business in paying my employees was always
more important than how much I was making at the
time,” noted Berkebile, who mortgaged his house
seven times to help finance the business. He will
face a lower tax rate under the new law.1
Congressional inaction affects Americans as well.
Hazel Hoffman is a 5-year-old Illinois girl who suf-
fers from a severe form of epilepsy which frequently
sends her to the hospital with powerful seizures
and which requires expensive medications. Adding
Hoffman to her mother’s health insurance at work
would cost $6,000 per year and would only cover
half her health care costs. Instead, Hoffman is
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 466 27/11/18 12:33 PM
In addition to its lawmaking powers, Congress plays a critical role in American democracy as a representative institution. The members of Congress—100 senators and 435 representatives—represent the voices of the people across America. Yet some observers worry that Congress does not represent all voices equally.
enrolled in the Children’s Health Insurance Program
(CHIP), created in 1997 to cover children in families
with incomes too high for Medicaid but who can’t
afford private coverage. It has widely been viewed
as a success, insuring nearly 9 million children for
$13.6 billion in 20162 (In contrast, Medicare for
older people and the permanently disabled insures
57 million people for $588 billion—6 times the peo-
ple for 43 times the cost).3 CHIP was due for renewal
in September 2017, but Congress declined to take
action for months, unable to agree on a spending bill
and contemplating a federal government shutdown.
With CHIP money running out, officials in a number
of states were forced to draft letters to families
terminating their coverage. Finally, in January 2018
Congress broke its logjam and reauthorized CHIP
for six years, but not before sending families into a
panic about what they would do for health insurance
if CHIP collapsed.
Congress has vast authority over many aspects
of American life. Laws related to federal spending,
taxing, regulation, and federal judicial appointments
all pass through Congress. While the debates over
these laws may seem hard to follow because they
are often complex and technical or because heated,
partisan struggles distract from the substance of the
467
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 467 27/11/18 12:33 PM
issue, it is important for the American people to learn about what Congress
is doing. As the example of the near government shutdown indicates, actions
taken—or not taken—in Congress affect the everyday experiences we take for
granted. With its power to spend and tax, Congress also affects the choices
that people face and the opportunities they can expect in life. With so much
information about Congress available on the internet, it is not hard to get
beyond the heated rhetoric and simplistic headlines and ask your own ques-
tions about a proposed law. How will it affect my life and the lives of people
I care about? What is the impact on my country? Making laws is a complex
and often messy process. Even so, it is vital for citizens to monitor what
Congress does because the laws it passes are so central to their lives.
★ Describe who serves in Congress and how they represent their constituents (pp. 469–82)
★ Explain how party leadership, the committee system, the staff system, and caucuses help structure congressional business (pp. 482–89)
★ Outline the steps in the process of passing a law (pp. 489–94)
★ Analyze the factors that influence which laws Congress passes (pp. 494–502)
★ Describe Congress’s influence over other branches of government (pp. 502–5)
CHAPTER GOALS
468 CHAPTER 12 ConGrESS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 468 27/11/18 12:33 PM
Congress: Representing the American People
Congress is the most impor tant representative institution in Ameri- can go vernment. Each member ’s primary responsibility in theor y is to the district, to his or her constituency,
not to the congr essional leadership , a par ty, or ev en Congr ess itself . Yet the task of representation is not a simple one. Views about what constitutes fair and effective representation differ, and constituents may hav e very different expectations of their representatives. Members of Congress must consider these diverse views and expecta- tions as they represent their districts.
HOUSE AND SENATE: DIFFERENCES IN REPRESENTATION
The framers of the Constitution provided for a bicameral l egislature—that is, a legislative body consisting of two chambers. As w e saw in Chapter 2, the framers intended each of these chambers, the H ouse of Representatives and the S enate, to serve a different constituency. Members of the S enate, appointed b y state legisla - tures for six -year terms, w ere to r epresent society’s elite. Today, members of both the House and the S enate ar e elected dir ectly b y the people. The 435 members of the H ouse ar e elected fr om districts appor tioned accor ding to population; the 100 members of the Senate are elected in a statewide vote, with two senators from each state. Senators continue to have much longer terms in office and usually represent much larger and more diverse constituencies than do their counterparts in the House (see Table 12.1).
The House and Senate play different roles in the legislativ e process. In essence, the Senate is the more deliberative of the two bodies—the forum in which any and all ideas that senators raise can r eceive a thorough public airing. The House is the
Describe who serves in Congress and how they represent their constituents
constituency the residents in the area from which an official is elected
bicameral having a legislative assembly composed of two chambers or houses, distinguished from unicameral
HOUSE SENATE
Minimum age of member 25 years 30 years
U.S. citizenship At least 7 years At least 9 years
Length of term 2 years 6 years
number representing each state 1-53 per state (depends on population)
2 per state
Constituency Local Statewide
TABLE 12.1
Differences between the House and the Senate
469ConGrESS : rEPrESEnT InG THE AMEr ICAn PEoPLE
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 469 27/11/18 12:33 PM
more centralized and organized of the two bodies—better equipped to play a routine role in the governmental process. In part, this differ- ence stems from the different rules governing the two bodies. These rules give House leaders more control over the legislative process and allow House members to specializ e in cer tain legislative areas. The rules of the much smaller S enate give its leadership r elatively little power and discourage specialization.
Both formal and informal factors contribute to differences between the two chambers of Congr ess. Differences in the length of terms and requirements for holding office, specified by the Consti- tution, generate differences in ho w members of each body dev elop their constituencies and exercise their powers of office. For the House, the small siz e and r elative homogeneity of their constituen - cies and the frequency with which they must seek re-election—every two years—make members mor e attuned to the legislativ e needs of local interest groups. The result is that members of the House most effectively and fr equently serve as the agents of w ell-organized local interests with specific legislative agendas—for instance, used-car deal- ers seeking relief from regulation, labor unions seeking mor e favora-
ble legislation, or farmers looking for higher subsidies. B ecause H ouse members seek re-election every two years, they are interested in doing what their constituents want right now.
Senators, on the other hand, serve larger and more heterogeneous constituencies. As a result, they are somewhat better able than members of the House to act as the agents for groups and interests organized on a statewide or national basis. Moreover, with longer terms in office (six years), senators hav e more time to consider “ new ideas” or to bring together ne w coalitions of inter ests rather than simply ser ving existing ones.
TRUSTEE VERSUS DELEGATE REPRESENTATION
For the F ounders, Congr ess was the national institution that best embodied the ideals of r epresentative democracy. But what is the r ole of a representative? A member of Congress can interpret her job as representative in two different ways: as a delegate, acting on the express preferences of her constituents, or as a trustee, more loosely tied to constituents and empowered to make the decisions she thinks best. The delegate role appears to be the more democratic because it forces representatives to heed the desires of their constituents. But this requires the representative to be in constant touch with constituents; it also requires constituents to follow each policy issue very closely. The problem with this form of representation is that most people do not follow every issue so carefully; instead, they focus only on the issue or issues of par ticular interest to them. M any people ar e too busy to get the information necessary to make informed judgments even on issues they care about. Thus, adher- ing to the delegate form of representation runs the risk that the voices of only a few active and informed constituents get hear d. Although it seems mor e democratic at first glance, the delegate form of representation may actually open Congr ess up to even more influence by special interests.
When congressional members act as trustees, on the other hand, they may not pay sufficient attention to the wishes of their constituents. In this scenario, the only way the public can ex ercise influence is by voting every two years for representatives
delegate a representative who votes according to the preferences of his or her constituency
trustee a representative who votes based on what he or she thinks is best for his or her constituency
For its first 128 years, Congress was a decidedly masculine world. In 1917, Jeanette Rankin (R-Mont.; pictured back row, far right) became the first woman to serve in the House or Senate. As of 2016, a total of 297 women had served as U.S. representatives or senators, while 11,804 men have served.
470 CHAPTER 12 ConGrESS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 470 27/11/18 12:33 PM
and every six years for senators. In fact, most members of Congress take this elec- toral check v ery seriously. They try to anticipate the wishes of their constituents even when they don ’t know exactly what those wishes ar e because they kno w that unpopular decisions can be used against them in the coming election.
SOCIOLOGICAL VERSUS AGENCY REPRESENTATION
We have become so accustomed to the idea of r epresentative government that w e tend to forget what a peculiar concept r epresentation r eally is. A r epresentative claims to act or speak for some other person or gr oup. But how can one person be trusted to speak for another? H ow do we know that those who call themselv es our representatives are actually speaking on our behalf, rather than simply pursuing their own interests?
There ar e two cir cumstances under which one person r easonably might be trusted to speak for another. The first occurs if the two individuals are so similar in background, character, interests, and perspectives that anything said b y one would very likely reflect the views of the other as w ell. This principle is at the hear t of what is sometimes called sociological representation—the sort of representation that takes place when r epresentatives have the same racial, gender , ethnic, r eligious, or educational backgrounds as their constituents. The assumption is that sociological similarity helps to promote good representation; thus, the composition of a properly constituted representative assembly should mirror the composition of society.
The second circumstance under which one person might be tr usted to speak for another occurs if the two ar e formally bound together so that the r epresentative is in some way accountable to those he is supposed to r epresent. If representatives can somehow be punished for failing to speak pr operly for their constituents, then w e know they have an incentive to provide good representation even if their o wn per- sonal backgrounds, views, and inter ests differ from the backgr ounds of those they represent. This principle is called agency representation—the sort of representation that takes place when constituents have the power to hire and fire their representatives.
Both sociological and agency representation play a role in the relationship between members of Congress and their constituencies, but in many ways, members of Congress do not reflect the American population (see the “Who Are Americans?” feature on p. 473).
The Social Composition of the U.S. Congress The extent to which the U.S. Congress is representative of the American people in a sociological sense can be seen by examining social characteristics of the House and Senate today. For example, the religious affiliations of members of both the House and Senate are overwhelmingly Protestant—the distribution is very close to the proportion in the population at large. Catholics ar e the second -largest categor y of r eligious affiliation and Jews a much smaller, third category.4 Religious affiliations directly affect congressional debate on a limited range of issues where different moral views are at stake, such as abortion.
African Americans, women, Latinos, and Asian Americans hav e incr eased their congressional r epresentation in the past two decades (see F igure 12.1), but the representation of minorities in Congress is still not comparable to their propor- tions in the general population. After the 2018 elections, Congr ess was 9 per cent African American, 7 percent Latino, and 3 percent Asian American. By contrast, the American population was far mor e diverse, with 13.3 per cent African Americans, 17.6 percent Latinos, and 5.6 per cent Asian Americans. 5 As the U nited States has
sociological representation a type of representation in which representatives have the same racial, gender, ethnic, religious, or educational backgrounds as their constituents; it is based on the principle that if two individuals are similar in background, character, interests, and perspectives, then one can correctly represent the other’s views
agency representation a type of representation in which a representative is held accountable to a constituency if he or she fails to represent that constituency properly; this is incentive for the representative to provide good representation when his or her personal backgrounds, views, and interests differ from those of his or her constituency
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Why is sociological representation important? If congressional representatives have racial, religious, or educational backgrounds similar to those of their constituents, are they better representatives? Why or why not?
471ConGrESS : rEPrESEnT InG THE AMEr ICAn PEoPLE
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 471 27/11/18 12:33 PM
become more diverse, Congress has lagged behind in sociological r epresentation. Similarly, the number of women in Congr ess continues to trail far behind their proportion of the population. I n 2006, N ancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) became the first female Speaker of the House. Following the 2018 elections, the 116th Congr ess (2019–21) included at least 102 women in the House and 23 women in the Senate, an all-time high. S ince many impor tant contemporary issues cut along racial and
FIGURE 12.1
Number of Women, African Americans, and Latinos in the U.S. Congress, 1971–2019 Congress has become much more socially diverse since the 1970s. After a gradual increase from 1971 to 1990, the number of female and African American members grew quickly during the first half of the 1990s. Do you think these numbers will rise in the future? Why or why not?
SOURCES: Harold W. Stanley and Richard G. Niemi, eds., Vital Statistics on American Politics 2003-2004 (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2003), 207, Table 5-2; Jennifer E. Manning, Membership of the 113th Congress: A Profile, Congressional Research Service 7-5700, January 13, 2014, www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42964.pdf (accessed 2/24/14); Jennifer E. Manning, Membership of the 114th Congress: A Profile, Congressional Research Service, 7-5700 September 17, 2015, www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43869.pdf (accessed 9/28/15); R. Eric Petersen, Representatives and Senators: Trends in Member Characteristics since 1945, Congressional Research Service 7-5700, February 17, 2012, www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42365.pdf (accessed 9/28/15); 2019 data were calculated by the authors.
Women
African Americans
Latinos
70
80
90
100
60
50
40
1971 2003 2007 2011 2015 20191999199519911987198319791975
30
20
10
0
110
120
130
Asian Pacific Islander
472 CHAPTER 12 ConGrESS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 472 27/11/18 12:33 PM
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS 1. Does it matter if the backgrounds of members of Congress re�ect the population as a whole? Can members still represent their constituents effectively if they do not come from similar backgrounds?
2. Visit www.house.gov and www.senate.gov to identify your representatives in Congress and visit their web pages. How similar are their backgrounds to yours? How closely do their policy positions, as expressed on their web pages, match your own?
Although the number of women, African Americans, and Latinos in Congress has increased in recent decades, Congress is still much less diverse than the American population. Members of Congress are predominantly male, white, Protestant, and a large percentage hold a law degree. These data compare the 116th Congress, which took of�ce in 2019, with the U.S. population as a whole.
Female
Male
Gender
51%
49%
U.S. pop.
23%
77%
House
24%
76%
Senate
Party Key U.S. population
House of Representatives
Senate
Average age U.S. population 37House 57Senate 61
Republican
Democratic
Independent
U.S. pop.*
25%
33%
36%
Senate
51%
46%
2%
House
45%
52%
0%
Religion
Protestant
Catholic
Jewish
Mormon
All others
U.S. pop.
51%
24%
2%
2%
21%
House
55%
33%
5%
2%
5%
Senate
60%
22%
9%
5%
4%
Race
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Native American
U.S. pop.*
64%
13%
16%
5%
1%
House
77%
11%
9%
3%
1%
Senate*
90%
3%
4%
3%
0%
Foreign birth
Senate
House
U.S. population
1%
3%
13%
Holds a law degree
Senate
House
U.S. population
55%
38%
0.5%
Military service
Senate
House
U.S. population
16%
17%
13%
*Percentages do not sum to 100 because some Americans identify with other categories. SOURCES: Jennifer E. Manning, “Membership of the 115th Congress: A Pro�le,” Congressional Research Service, www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43869.pdf (accessed 11/12/18); U.S. Census Bureau, www.census.gov/population/age/- data/2012comp.html (accessed 3/19/14); and author's updates.
NOTES: As of November 13, 2018, 10 House races and 2 Senate races remain undecided. Data for religion are from the 115th Congress.
WHO ARE AMERICANS?
Who Are the Members of Congress?
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 473 27/11/18 12:33 PM
gender lines, pressure for reform in the r epresentative process is likely to continue until all groups are fully represented.
The occupational backgrounds of members of Congr ess hav e always been a matter of interest because many issues split along economic lines that are relevant to occupations and industries. The legal profession is the dominant career of most members of Congress prior to their election, and public ser vice or politics is also a significant background. In addition, many members of Congr ess have impor- tant ties to business and industr y.6 M oreover, members of Congr ess ar e much more highly educated than most Americans. M ore than 9 in 10 members hold university degrees, and mor e than one -third of them hav e law degr ees.7 This is not a portrait of the U.S. population; Congress is not a sociological microcosm of American society.
Can Congress still legislate fairly or take account of a diversity of views and inter- ests if it is not a sociologically r epresentative assembly? There is reason to believe it can. Representatives, as we shall see shortly, can serve as the agents of their constitu- ents even if they do not precisely mirror their sociological attributes. Yet sociological representation is a matter of some impor tance. At the least, the social composition of a representative assembly is important for symbolic purposes: to demonstrate to groups in the population that the go vernment takes them seriously. If Congress is not representative symbolically, then its own authority, and indeed that of the entire government, is reduced.8
Representatives as Agents A good deal of evidence indicates that whether or not members of Congr ess share their constituents’ sociological characteristics, they do work very hard to speak for their constituents ’ views and to ser ve their constituents’ interests. The idea of representative as agent is similar to the r ela- tionship of lawyer and client. True, the relationship between the House member and an average of 710,767 “clients” in the district, or the senator and millions of “clients” in the state, is v ery different from that of the lawy er and client. But the criteria of per formance are comparable. O ne expects at the v ery least that each representative will constantly seek to discover the interests of the constituency and take those inter ests into account as she go verns. Whether members of Congr ess always represent the interests of their constituents is another matter, as we will see later in this chapter.9
To more effectively promote a legis- lative agenda addressing issues that disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minority groups, members of Congress from those groups have formed caucuses. Here, Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-N. Mex.), former chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, speaks out about Donald Trump’s proposed changes to immigration policies.
474 CHAPTER 12 ConGrESS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 474 27/11/18 12:33 PM
There is constant communication between constituents and congressional offices, and the volume of email from constituents and advocacy groups has grown so large so quickly that congressional offices have struggled to find effective ways to respond in a timely manner.10 At the same time, members of Congress have found new ways to communicate with constituents. They have created websites describing their achieve- ments, established a pr esence on social networ king sites, and issued e -newsletters that aler t constituents to curr ent issues. M any also hav e set up blogs and Twitter accounts to establish a more informal style of communication with constituents.
The seriousness with which members of the House attempt to behav e as r ep- resentatives can be seen in the amount of time they spend on behalf of their con - stituents. One way to measur e the amount of time members of Congr ess devote to constituency ser vice (called “casework”) is to look at the per centage of personal House and Senate staff (personal staff being non-committee member staff) assigned to district and state offices. In 1972, 22.5 percent of House members’ personal staff were located in district offices; by 2016 the number had gr own to 47.3 per cent. For the Senate, the staff in state offices grew from 12.5 percent in 1972 to 43.2 percent in 2016. 11 The service that these offices provide is not mer ely a matter of handling correspondence. It includes talking to constituents; providing them with minor services; presenting special bills for them; attempting to influence decisions by regulatory commissions on their behalf; helping them apply for federal benefits such as Social Security and Small Business Administration loans; and assisting them with immigration cases. For example, during his fight for re-election in 2014, Senate Minority Leader M itch McConnell (R -Ky.) ran a campaign ad featuring N oelle Hunter, a Kentucky resident whose ex-husband abducted their daughter and took her to Africa. According to Hunter, McConnell “took up my cause personally” and worked with the S tate Department to bring her daughter back home. S enator Pat Roberts (R-Kans.) struck a similar tone when touting his success in helping Kate Forristall, a Kansan whose daughter was taken hostage while teaching E nglish in Ethiopia. Roberts says in the ad, “We got the call. Top priority. We went to work.”12
In many districts, ther e are two or thr ee issues that ar e top priorities for con - stituents and, ther efore, for the r epresentatives. For example, r epresentatives from districts that gr ow wheat, cotton, or tobacco will likely giv e legislation on these subjects great attention. In oil-rich states such as Oklahoma and Texas, senators and members of the H ouse are likely to be leading adv ocates of oil inter ests. For one thing, representatives are probably fearful of v oting against their district inter ests; for another, the districts are unlikely to have elected representatives who would want to vote against them. On the other hand, on many issues, constituents do not have very strong vie ws, and r epresentatives are fr ee to act as they think best. F oreign policy issues often fall into this category.
The influence of constituencies is so pervasive that both par ties generally agr ee that nothing should be done to endanger the r e-election chances of any member . Party leaders obey this rule fairly consistently by not asking any member to vote in a way that might conflict with a district interest.
THE ELECTORAL CONNECTION
The sociological composition of Congress and the activities of representatives once they are in office are very much influenced by electoral considerations. Three factors related to the U.S. electoral system affect who gets elected and what they do once in office. The first factor concerns who decides to run for office and which candidates have an
475ConGrESS : rEPrESEnT InG THE AMEr ICAn PEoPLE
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 475 27/11/18 12:33 PM
edge over others. The second issue is that of incumbency advantage. Finally, the way congressional district lines are drawn can greatly affect the outcome of an election. Let us examine more closely the impact that these considerations have on representation.
Who Runs for Congress Voters’ choices are restricted from the start by who decides to run for office. In the past, decisions about who would run for a particular elected office were made by local party officials. A person who had a record of service to the party, who was owed a favor, or whose “turn” had come up might be nominated by party leaders. Today, few party organizations hav e the po wer to slate candidates in this way. Instead, parties try to ensur e that w ell-qualified candidates run for Con - gress. During the 1990s the R epublican Party developed “farm teams” of local offi- cials who were groomed to run for Congress. Their success led Democrats to attempt a similar strategy. Even so, the decision to r un for Congr ess is a personal one, and one of the most important factors determining who r uns for office is an individual candidate’s ambition.13 A potential candidate may also assess whether he can attract enough money to mount a credible campaign. The ability to raise money depends on connections with other politicians, interest groups, and national party organizations.
Features distinctive to each congr essional district also affect the field of candi- dates. For example, the way the congressional district overlaps with state legislative boundaries may affect a candidate’s decision to r un. A state -level legislator who is considering r unning for the U.S. Congr ess is mor e likely to assess her pr ospects favorably if her state district coincides with the congr essional district (because the voters will already know her).
Incumbency Incumbency plays a very important role in the American electoral system and in the kind of r epresentation citizens get in Washington. Once in office, mem- bers of Congress gain access to an array of tools they can use to stack the deck in favor of their re-election. Their success in winning re-election is evident in the high rates of re-election for congressional incumbents: as high as 98 percent for House members and 90 percent for members of the Senate in recent years (see Figure 12.2). It is also evident in what is called “sophomore surge”—the tendency for candidates to win a higher per centage of the v ote when seeking subsequent terms in office. In 2018 approximately 93 percent of incumbents in the House and 86 percent in the Senate were re-elected.14 Furthermore, incumbents often win by large margins: in 2018 only 76 of the 435 House races were decided by a margin of less than 10 percent.15
Incumbency can help a candidate b y scaring off potential challengers. In many races, potential candidates may decide not to r un because they fear that the incumbent simply has too much money or is too well liked or too well known or that a district’s partisan leanings are too unfavorable. The efforts of incumbents to raise funds to ward off potential challengers start early. In addition to incumbents’ own efforts, each political party makes a special effort to reelect incumbents viewed as especially vulnerable. The Democratic Congr essional Campaign Committee (DCCC) places vulnerable incumbents in its “F rontline” program to r eceive extra funding, choice committee assignments, and high -profile speaking engagements. For the 2018 midterm elections, the DCCC placed 19 incumbents on its Frontline list, many of whom had won in 2016 in districts carried by Trump. For its part, the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee (R CCC) named 10 members to its own incumbent protection program.16
The advantage of incumbency thus tends to preserve the status quo in Congress. This fact has implications for the social composition of Congress. For example,
incumbency holding the political office for which one is running
476 CHAPTER 12 ConGrESS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 476 27/11/18 12:33 PM
incumbency adv antage makes it har der for women to incr ease their numbers in Congress because most incumbents are men. Women who run for open seats—that is, seats for which there are no incumbents—are just as likely to win as male candi- dates.17 Supporters of term limits argue that such limits are the only way to get ne w faces into Congress. They believe that incumbency advantage and the tendency of many legislators to view politics as a career mean that very little turnover will occur in Congress unless limits are imposed on the number of terms a legislator may serve.
Yet the percentage of incumbents who ar e returned to Congress after each elec - tion also depends on ho w many members decide to r un again. B ecause each y ear some members decide to retire, turnover in Congress is greater than the re-election rates of incumbents suggest. On average, 10 percent of the House and Senate decide to retire each election.
The precarious economy and the backlash against the par ty in po wer made 2008 and 2010 difficult election years for some incumbents, par ticularly Demo- crats, given that their party controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress in a y ear when economic woes contributed to str ong anti-incumbent sentiment.18 Incumbents have fared better in recent elections. In 2016, Trump’s surprise victory in the pr esidential race benefited Republican incumbents, who appear ed to be in danger of losing their seats. I n 2018, 5 incumbents in the S enate and o ver 20 incumbents in the House lost their seats.
Apportionment and Redistricting The final factor affecting who wins a seat in the House is the way congressional districts are drawn. Every 10 years, state legislatures must redraw congressional districts to r eflect population changes. Because the num- ber of congressional seats has been fixed at 435 since 1929, redistricting is a zero- sum process: in order for one state to gain a seat, another must lose one. The process of allocating congr essional seats among the 50 states is called apportionment. S tates with population growth gain additional seats; states with a population decline or with less population growth lose seats. Over the past several decades, the shift of the Ameri- can population to the South and the West has greatly increased the size of the congres- sional delegations from those regions. This trend continued after the 2010 census and
term limits legally prescribed limits on the number of terms an elected official can serve
apportionment the process, occurring after every decennial census, that allocates congressional seats among the 50 states
FIGURE 12.2
The Power of Incumbency Members of Congress who run for re-election have a very good chance of winning. Has the incumbency advantage generally been greater in the House or in the Senate? What are the consequences of the incumbency advantage for who serves in Congress?
SOURCES: Norman J. Ornstein et al., eds., Vital Statistics on Congress, 1999-2000 (Washington, DC: AEI Press, 2000), 57-8; “Reelection Rates over the Years,” opensecrets.org; and authors’ update.
House
Senate
PERCENTAGE RE-ELECTED
100%
90
80
70
60
50
40 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Increased political competition in the post-Watergate era created a large turnover in the Senate between 1974 and 1980.
Voter dissatisfaction with the Iraq War caused incumbents to lose ground in 2006, although the overwhelming majority were re-elected.
477ConGrESS : rEPrESEnT InG THE AMEr ICAn PEoPLE
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 477 27/11/18 12:33 PM
will likely continue after 2020 (see Figure 12.3). Texas is likely to gain three seats (after gaining four after 2010), and Florida will likely gain two. States in the Northeast and “rust belt” are likely to lose seats. Latino v oters are nearly three times as pr evalent in states that gained seats than in states that lost seats, suggesting that the gr owth of the Latino population is a major factor in the American political landscape.19
States that gain or lose seats must then redraw their congressional district borders. Not surprisingly, redistricting is a highly political process: districts are shaped to create an advantage for the par ty with a majority in the state legislatur e, which contr ols the redistricting process in most states. In this complex process, those charged with drawing districts use sophisticated computer technologies to come up with the most favorable district boundaries. Redistricting can create open seats and may pit incum- bents of the same par ty against one another , ensuring that one of them will lose. Redistricting can also give an advantage to one party by clustering voters with some ideological or sociological characteristics in a single district or b y separating those voters into two or more districts. The manipulation of electoral districts to serve the interests of a particular group is known as gerrymandering (see Chapter 10).
Some analysts claim that Republicans have benefited from partisan gerrymander- ing since the 2010 r edistricting cycle because they contr olled the majority of state legislatures at the time. To support this argument, they point to the 2012 congr es- sional election, in which the Republican Party maintained its majority in the House despite winning 1.4 million fe wer votes than Democratic House candidates.20 But others question whether districting that favors Republicans is a product of deliber- ate gerrymandering. They argue that these districts may reflect the natural clustering of Democrats in urban areas, not deliberate bias.21 Even so, concern about partisan gerrymandering has led some states to take redistricting power away from state leg- islatures and giv e it to independent commissions. I n the 2010 r edistricting cycle,
redistricting the process of redrawing election districts and redistributing legislative representatives; this happens every 10 years to reflect shifts in population or in response to legal challenges to existing districts
gerrymandering the apportionment of voters in districts in such a way as to give unfair advantage to one racial or ethnic group or political party
FIGURE 12.3
Projected Congressional Reapportionment, 2020 States in the South and the West will likely be the big winners in the reapportionment of House seats following the 2020 census. The old manufacturing states in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions will be the biggest losers. Is this shift likely to favor Democrats or Republicans?
SOURCE: Rebecca Tippett, “2020 Congressional Reapportionment: An Update,” December 21, 2017, Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina, demography.cpc.unc.edu (accessed 6/8/18).
MT 1
ID 2
UT 4
CO 8
NM 3
AZ 10
NV 4
WY 1
WA 10
OR 6
CA 53
ND 1
KS 4
OK 5
TX 39
MN 7
IA 4
WI 8
IL 17
AR 4 AL
6MS4LA 6
MI 13
IN 9
MO 8
NE 3
SD 1
VT 1
NH 2
MA 9
RI 1 CT 5
NJ 12
MD 8 DE 1
GA 14
FL 29
SC 7
NC 14
OH 15
KY 6
TN 9
VA 11
PA 17
NY 26
2 WV
ME 2
Gain 2 seats Gain 1 seat No change Lose 1 seat
Gain 3 seatsAK 1 HI
2
478 CHAPTER 12 ConGrESS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 478 27/11/18 12:33 PM
six states—California, Arizona, Idaho, New Jersey, Washington, and Montana— required district lines to be drawn b y commissions. 22 In 2015 a challenge to the use of commissions failed when the S upreme Cour t upheld the legality of r ely- ing on commissions to draw congr essional district lines. 23 In 2018 the S upreme Court declined to rule on cases arising from charges of partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin and Maryland. In the Wisconsin case, challengers had asked the Cour t to rule that the legislativ e districting of the state as a whole was designed to giv e Republicans a lopsided majority of congr essional seats. The case was sent back to lower courts for further review.24 The Supreme Court is, however, expected to rule on a N orth Carolina case wher e the R epublican state official who led the state’s recent redistricting efforts announced that the congressional map was drawn to give the GOP a large majority of the state’s congressional seats.
As w e saw in Chapter 10, since the passage of the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights A ct of 1965, race has become a major , and contr oversial, consider- ation in drawing v oting districts. These amendments, which encouraged the cre- ation of districts in which members of racial minorities have decisiv e majorities, have greatly increased the number of minority representatives in Congress. After the 1990 redistricting cycle, the number of pr edominantly minority districts doubled, rising from 26 to 52. Among the most fer vent supporters of the new minority dis- tricts were white R epublicans, who used the oppor tunity to cr eate more districts dominated by white Republican voters. These developments raise thorny questions about r epresentation. S ome analysts argue that the system may grant minorities greater sociological r epresentation but has made it mor e difficult for minorities to win substantive policy goals, while others dispute this argument.25
In the case of Miller v. Johnson (1995), the S upreme Court limited racial r edis- tricting by ruling that race could not be the predominant factor in creating electoral districts.26 The distinction between race being the “predominant” factor and its being one factor among many is hazy. As a result, concerns about redistricting and repre- sentation have not disappeared.27 Questions about minority representation emerged in 2011 in Texas, which gained four ne w seats as a r esult of reapportionment. The Republican legislature drew a map that advantaged Republicans in three of those
Redrawing legislative districts is a difficult task because it has implications for who will be elected. Here, the attorney for Arizona’s Independent Redistricting Commis- sion discusses a possible layout with a city council member from Casa Grande. Arizona gained one congressional seat following the 2010 census.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS How does redistricting alter the balance of power in Congress? Why do political parties care so much about the redistricting process?
479ConGrESS : rEPrESEnT InG THE AMEr ICAn PEoPLE
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 479 27/11/18 12:33 PM
districts. But the plan drew a legal challenge on the grounds that it underrepresented Hispanic voters, who accounted for most of the state’s population growth. Although federal judges dr ew a map mor e fav orable to minorities (and D emocrats), the Supreme Court ruled that the state did not hav e to use the map drawn b y judges. The state ultimately agreed to a map that added two Latino -dominated districts. However, federal cour ts r uled that this map also w eakened Latino and African American political power by creating too few minority districts.
The future of race in redistricting became more uncertain after the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder. That decision invalidated a section of the Voting Rights Act requiring that the J ustice Department approve the r edistricting plans of jurisdictions with a histor y of racial discrimination. 28 M any D emocrats expressed disappointment with the decision, fearing that the pr eviously co vered states, several of which are controlled by Republican majorities, might try to redraw district lines to par tisan ends and fur ther bias districts to ward Republicans.29 In 2015, Alabama’s black legislators challenged that state’s redistricting under the Vot- ing Rights A ct. They charged that the Republican legislature had diluted the v ote of African Americans by packing black voters into districts that alr eady had strong minority representation, thus enhancing the chances of white Republican candidates in the remaining districts. The legislature claimed, on the contrary, that it was acting in accordance with the Voting Rights Act by concentrating black voters. Although the Supreme Court did not declare the districting unconstitutional, it ruled that the lower court had erred in approving the districts.30 The ruling signaled that state leg- islatures would not be able to use the Voting Rights Act to justify packing minority voters into districts. Because the drawing of district boundaries affects incumbents as well as the field of candidates who decide to run for office, it continues to be a key battleground on which political parties fight about the meaning of representation.
DIRECT PATRONAGE
As agents of their constituents, members of Congress have numerous oppor tunities to provide direct benefits, or patronage, for their districts. The most important such opportunity for direct patronage is in so-called pork-barrel legislation, which specifies a project to be funded within a particular district. Many observers of Congress argue that pork-barrel bills are the only ones that some members are serious about moving toward actual passage because they are seen as so important to members’ re-election bids.
A common form of pork-barreling is the “earmark,” by which members of Con- gress insert into bills language that pr ovides special benefits for their own consti- tuents. When the Democrats took over Congress in 2007, they vowed to limit the use of earmarks, which had grown from 1,439 per year in 1995 to 15,268 in 2006. More troubling, earmarks were connected to congr essional scandals. For example, the Republican House member Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.) was sent to jail in 2005 for accepting bribes by companies hoping to receive earmarks in return.31 The House passed a ne w rule requiring that those r epresentatives supporting each earmark identify themselves and guarantee that they have no personal financial stake in the requested project. A new ethics law applied similar provisions to the Senate. Though the new requirements appear to have had some impact, nonetheless, in the midst of the sharp economic downturn in 2009, Congress passed an economic stim- ulus bill that contained more than 8,000 earmarks. In his 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama called for Congress to publish a list of all earmark requests on a single website. Congress not only failed to enact such legislation but in 2010 set
patronage the resources available to higher officials, usually opportunities to make partisan appointments to offices and to confer grants, licenses, or special favors to supporters
pork barrel (or pork) appropriations made by legislative bodies for local projects that are often not needed but that are created so that local representatives can win re- election in their home districts
480 CHAPTER 12 ConGrESS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 480 27/11/18 12:33 PM
a new record by passing 11,320 earmarks worth $32 billion. Still, in 2011 the House and the Senate agreed to a two-year moratorium on earmarks in spending bills and renewed the ban for the 113th, 114th, and 115th Congr esses.32 In 2018, President Trump suggested to Congr ess that it should consider r estoring earmarks as a way of enhancing congressional power vis à vis the bureaucracy and to help “grease” the legislative wheels b y giving members an incentiv e to suppor t legislative programs. Trump’s comments were greeted favorably by many congressional leaders.33
Some analysts claim that the lack of earmar ks contributes to congressional grid- lock. They argue that earmarks pr ovide congr essional leaders with incentiv es to promote compromise among members. S upporters of this position contend that earmarks are not inher ently an abuse of power and note that they often suppor t legitimate district projects, such as transportation and parks.34
There are a few other types of direct patronage (see Figure 12.4). One important form of constituency service is intervention with federal administrative agencies on behalf of constituents. M embers of the H ouse and S enate and their staff spend a great deal of time on the telephone and in administrativ e offices seeking to secure favorable treatment for constituents and supporters. For example, members of Con- gress can assist senior citiz ens who ar e having S ocial Security or M edicare benefit eligibility problems. Most members of Congr ess have a “constituent services” sec- tion on their w ebsites, providing information about what they can and cannot do to assist their constituents.
A different form of patronage is the private bill. Unlike a public bill, which is sup- posed to deal with general rules and categories of behavior, people, and institutions, a private bill proposes to grant some kind of relief, special privilege, or exemption to the person named in the bill. As many as 75 per cent of all private bills introduced (and one-third of those that pass) are concerned with obtaining citizenship for
private bill a proposal in Congress to provide a specific person with some kind of relief, such as a special exemption from immigration quotas
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Would Congress work more effectively if it brought back earmarks? Why are earmarks so difficult to eliminate?
FIGURE 12.4
How Members of Congress Represent Their Districts
Solving problems with government agencies
Providing jobs
Sponsoring private bills
Sponsoring appointments to service academies
Answering complaints
Providing information
Introducing legislation
Intervening with regulatory agencies
Obtaining federal grants and contracts
Helping importing or exporting
Helping secure favorable tax status
Making promotional speeches
Making symbolic gestures
Obtaining federal projects for district
Obtaining grants and contracts that promote employment in district
Supporting policies that enhance district’s
economic prosperity, safety, cultural resources, etc.
Participating in state and regional caucuses
Individual constituents
Organized interests
District as a whole
Members of Congress
REPRESENT
BY
REPRESENT
BY
REPRESENT
BY
481ConGrESS : rEPrESEnT InG THE AMEr ICAn PEoPLE
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 481 27/11/18 12:33 PM
foreign nationals who do not have resident status in the United States. Other private bills address a diverse set of issues involving a claim against the federal government, such as pr oblems with v eterans’ benefits or taxation. Private legislation is a con - gressional privilege that can be abused, but it is impossible to imagine members of Congress completely giving up one of the easiest, cheapest, and most effective forms of patronage available to them. I t can be defended as an indispensable par t of the process by which members of Congress seek to fulfill their role as representatives. And obviously they like the privilege because it helps them win re-election.
The Organization of Congress The U.S. Congress is not only a representative assembly but also a legislativ e body . To ex ercise its power to make laws, Congr ess must first bring about something close to an organizational miracle.
The building blocks of congressional organization include the political par ties, the committee system, congr essional staff, the caucuses, and the parliamentary rules of the House and Senate. Each of these factors plays a key r ole in the organ - ization of Congr ess and in the pr ocess thr ough which Congr ess formulates and enacts laws.
PARTY LEADERSHIP IN THE HOUSE
Every two y ears, at the beginning of a ne w Congress, the members of each par ty gather to elect their H ouse leaders. H ouse R epublicans call their gathering the conference. House Democrats call theirs the caucus. The elected leader of the major- ity party is later pr oposed to the whole H ouse and is automatically elected to the position of Speaker of the House, with v oting along straight par ty lines. The House majority conference or caucus then also elects a majority leader. The minority party goes through the same pr ocess and selects a minority leader. Each par ty also elects a whip to line up par ty members on important votes and to relay voting information to the leaders.
Next in or der of impor tance for each par ty after the S peaker and majority or minority leader is what D emocrats call the S teering and P olicy Committee— Republicans have a separate steering committee and a separate policy committee— whose tasks are to assign new legislators to committees and to deal with the r equests of incumbent members for transfers from one committee to another. At one time, party leaders strictly contr olled committee assignments, using them to enfor ce party discipline. Today, in principle, r epresentatives receive the assignments they want. But often several individuals seek assignments to the most important committees, which giv es the leadership an oppor tunity to cement alliances when it r esolves conflicting requests.
Generally, r epresentatives seek assignments that will allo w them to influence decisions of special importance to their districts. Representatives from farm districts, for example, may request seats on the Agricultur e Committee.35 Seats on powerful committees such as Ways and Means, which is r esponsible for tax legislation, and Appropriations are especially popular.
Explain how party leadership, the committee system, the staff system, and caucuses help structure congressional businessconference a gathering of House
republicans every two years to elect their House leaders; Democrats call their gathering the “caucus”
caucus (political) a normally closed political party business meeting of citizens or lawmakers to select candidates, elect officers, plan strategy, or make decisions regarding legislative matters
Speaker of the House the chief presiding officer of the House of representatives; the Speaker is the most important party and House leader and can influence the legislative agenda, the fate of individual pieces of legislation, and members’ positions within the House
majority leader the elected leader of the majority party in the House of representatives or in the Senate; in the House, the majority leader is subordinate in the party hierarchy to the Speaker of the House
minority leader the elected leader of the minority party in the House or Senate
whip a party member in the House or Senate responsible for coordinating the party’s legislative strategy, building support for key issues, and counting votes
482 CHAPTER 12 ConGrESS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 482 27/11/18 12:33 PM
PARTY LEADERSHIP IN THE SENATE
Within the Senate, the majority par ty usually designates a member with the gr eat- est seniority to serve as president pro tempore, a position of primarily ceremonial leader ship. Real power is in the hands of the majority leader and minority leader , each elected b y par ty confer ence. Together they contr ol the S enate’s calendar, or agenda for legislation. Each par ty also elects a policy committee, which advises the leadership on legislative priorities. The structure of majority party leadership in the House and the Senate is shown in Figures 12.5 and 12.6.
THE COMMITTEE SYSTEM
The committee system is central to the operation of Congress. At each stage of the legislative process, Congress relies on committees and subcommittees to do the hard work of sor ting through alternatives and writing legislation. There are several dif- ferent kinds of congressional committees: standing committees, select committees, joint committees, and conference committees.
Standing Committees The most important arenas of congressional policy making are standing committees. These committees remain in existence fr om one session of Congress to the next; they have the power to propose and write legislation. The juris- diction of each standing committee covers a particular subject matter, which in most cases parallels a major department or agency in the executive branch (see Table 12.2). Among the most impor tant standing committees ar e those in charge of finances. The House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee are powerful because of their jurisdiction o ver taxes, trade, and expensiv e entitlement programs such as S ocial Security and Medicare. The Senate and House Appropria- tions committees also play impor tant ongoing roles because they decide ho w much funding various programs will actually r eceive; they also determine exactly ho w the money will be spent. A seat on an appropriations committee allo ws a member the opportunity to direct funds to a favored program—perhaps one in his home district.
standing committee a permanent committee with the power to propose and write legislation that covers a particular subject, such as finance or agriculture
FIGURE 12.5
Majority Party Structure in the House of Representatives *Includes Speaker, majority leader, chief and deputy whips, caucus chair, chairs of five major committees, members elected by regional caucuses, members elected by recently elected representatives, and at-large members appointed by the Speaker.*
Members of majority party in House
Majority leader
Whip
Speaker Budget
committee Rules
committee
Committee members
and chairpersons
Policy committee*
NOMINATES
Campaign committee
NOMINATES
APPOINTS
ELECT ELECTELECT
ELECT ELECT
ELECT
483THE orGAn IzAT Ion oF ConGrESS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 483 27/11/18 12:33 PM
Except for the H ouse Rules Committee, all standing committees r eceive pro- posals for legislation and pr ocess them into official bills. The House Rules Com- mittee decides the order in which bills come up for a vote on the House floor and determines the specific rules that govern the length of debate and oppor tunity for amendments. The Senate, which has less formal organization and fe wer rules, does not have a rules committee.
Select Committees Select committees are usually not permanent and usually do not have the power to present legislation to the full Congr ess. (The House and Senate Select I ntelligence committees ar e permanent, ho wever, and do hav e the po wer to report legislation, which means they can send legislation to the full H ouse or Senate for consideration.) These committees hold hearings and serve as focal points for the issues they ar e charged with considering. Congr essional leaders form select committees when they want to take up issues that fall outside the jurisdictions of existing committees, to highlight an issue, or to investigate a particular problem. For example, the Senate set up the Senate Watergate Committee in 1973 to investigate the Watergate break-in and cover-up. More recently, the House Select Committee on Benghazi was established to investigate the 2012 attack on the U.S. Embassy in B enghazi, Lib ya. I n 2015 the committee held hearings to inv estigate H illary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.
Select committees set up to highlight ongoing issues hav e included the H ouse Select Committee on Hunger, established in 1984, and the House Select Commit- tee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, created in 2007 but abolished in 2011, when Republicans assumed control of the House. In 2003 an important select committee, the H ouse S elect Committee on H omeland S ecurity, was cr eated to oversee the new Department of Homeland Security. Unlike most select committees,
select committees (usually) temporary legislative committees set up to highlight or investigate a particular issue or address an issue not within the jurisdiction of existing committees
FIGURE 12.6
Majority Party Structure in the Senate
Members of majority party in Senate
Whip (floor
leader)
Deputy whips
Majority leader
Campaign committees
Budget committee
NOMINATES
NOMINATES
APPOINTS
ELECT ELECT
ELECTELECT
Policy committee
Steering committee
Standing committee
members and chairpersons
Selects committee
members and chairpersons
484 CHAPTER 12 ConGrESS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 484 27/11/18 12:33 PM
this one had the ability to pr esent legislation. I nitially the committee had only temporary status. It was made a regular permanent committee in 2005.
Joint Committees Joint committees involve members from both the Senate and the House. There are four such committees: economic, taxation, librar y, and printing. These joint committees are permanent, but they do not hav e the po wer to pr es- ent legislation. The Joint Economic Committee and the Joint Taxation Committee have often play ed important roles in collecting information and holding hearings on economic and financial issues.
Conference Committees Finally, conference committees are temporary committees whose members are appointed by the Speaker of the House and the presiding officer of the Senate. These committees are charged with reaching a compromise on legisla- tion once it has been passed b y the House and the Senate. Conference committees play an extr emely important role in determining the laws that ar e actually passed
joint committees legislative committees formed of members of both the House and Senate
conference committees joint committees created to work out a compromise on House and Senate versions of a piece of legislation
HOUSE COMMITTEES
Agriculture Financial Services oversight and Government reform
Appropriations Foreign Affairs rules
Armed Services Homeland Security Science, Space, and Technology
Budget House Administration Small Business
Education and the Workforce Intelligence Transportation and Infrastructure
Energy and Commerce Judiciary Veterans’ Affairs
Ethics natural resources Ways and Means
SENATE COMMITTEES
Agriculture, nutrition, and Forestry Energy and natural resources Intelligence
Appropriations Environment and Public Works Judiciary
Armed Services Finance rules and Administration
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Foreign relations Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Budget Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Veterans’ Affairs
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
TABLE 12.2
Permanent Committees of Congress
485THE orGAn IzAT Ion oF ConGrESS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 485 27/11/18 12:33 PM
because they must reconcile any differences in the legislation passed by the House and Senate.
When contr ol of Congr ess is divided betw een two par ties, each is guaranteed significant representation in confer ence committees. When a single par ty controls both houses, the majority par ty is not obligated to offer such representation to the minority party. In 2003, D emocrats complained that R epublicans took this po wer to the extr eme by excluding them and adding ne w provisions to legislation at the conference committee stage. Democrats even prevented several conference commit- tees from convening to protest their near exclusion from conference committees on major energy, health care, and transpor tation laws. After they r eturned to power in 2007, the D emocrats also largely b ypassed the confer ence committees; when their early efforts to reach compromises in committee were derailed by partisan differences, the D emocrats began making closed -door agr eements betw een top leaders in the House and the Senate. Although the process facilitated compromises across the two chambers, it meant that important changes to bills were made in private, without the transparency that would hav e been part of the confer ence committee process. After 2010, Congress continued to avoid conference committees. Instead, the Republican House and Democratic Senate exchanged amendments as they sought to reach agree- ment on the final version of a bill, a practice known informally as “ping-pong.”36
Politics and the Organization of Committees Within each committee, hierar- chy has usually been based on seniority, determined by years of continuous service on that particular committee. In general, each committee is chair ed by the most senior member of the majority party. But the principle of seniority is not absolute. When the Republicans took over the House in 1995, they violated the principle of seniority in the selection of key committee chairs. House Speaker Newt Gingrich defended the ne w practice, saying, “ You’ve got to carr y the moral r esponsibility of fielding the team that can win or you cheat the whole confer ence.”37 S ince then, Republicans have continued to depar t from the seniority principle, often choosing committee chairs on the basis of lo yalty or fund-raising abilities rather than seniority. In 2007, Democrats returned to the seniority principle for choos - ing committee chairs but alter ed traditional practices in other ways b y offering freshmen Democrats choice committee assignments to incr ease their chances of re-election.38
seniority the ranking given to an individual on the basis of length of continuous service on a committee in Congress
Committees hold hearings to gather information for legislation or investi- gate the activities of government agencies. Here, President Trump’s first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, testifies in front of the House Judiciary Committee.
486 CHAPTER 12 ConGrESS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 486 27/11/18 12:33 PM
Over the years, Congress has reformed its organizational structure and operating procedures. Most changes have been made to improve efficiency, but some reforms have also been a r esponse to political considerations. F or example, the R epublican leadership of the 104th Congress (1995–97), seeking to concentrate more authority in the party leadership, reduced the number of subcommittees and limited the time committee chairs could serve to three terms. They made good on this in 2001, when they replaced 13 committee chairs.
As a consequence of these changes, committees no longer have the central role they once held in policy making. Furthermore, sharp partisan divisions have made it difficult for committees to deliberate and bring bipartisan expertise to bear on policy making as in the past. With committees less able to engage in effective decision making, they typically do not deliberate for very long or call witnesses, and it has become more common in recent years for party-driven legislation to go directly to the floor, bypassing committees altogether.39 Nonetheless, committees continue to play a r ole in the legislativ e process, especially on issues that ar e not sharply partisan.40
THE STAFF SYSTEM: STAFFERS AND AGENCIES
The congressional institution second in impor tance only to the committee system is the staff system. Every member of Congress employs many staff mem- bers whose tasks include handling constituent r equests and, to a large extent, dealing with legis lative details and the activities of administrative agencies. Staff- ers often bear the primar y r esponsibility for formulating and drafting pr opos- als, organizing hearings, dealing with administrativ e agencies, and negotiating with lobbyists. Indeed, legislators typically deal with one another thr ough staff, rather than thr ough direct personal contact. S taffers even develop policy ideas, draft legislation, and, in some instances, hav e a good deal of influence over the legislative process. Representatives and senators together employ roughly 11,500 staffers in their Washington and home offices. In addition, Congr ess emplo ys more than 2,000 committee staffers.41 These individuals make up the perma- nent staff that stays attached to every House and S enate committee r egardless of turnover in Congr ess and that is r esponsible for organizing and administer - ing the committee ’s wor k, including doing r esearch, scheduling, organizing hearings, and drafting legislation. Committee staffers can play key roles in the legislative process.
Not only does Congr ess emplo y personal and committee staff, but it has also established staff agencies designed to provide the legislativ e branch with r esources and exper tise independ - ent of the ex ecutive branch. These agencies enhance Congress’s capacity to oversee administrative agencies and to ev aluate pres- idential pr ograms and proposals. They include the Congr es- sional Research Service, which per forms research for legislators who wish to kno w the facts and competing arguments r elevant to policy proposals or other legislative business; the Government Accountability Office, through which Congr ess can inv esti- gate the financial and administrative affairs of any government agency or program; and the Congressional Budget Office, which assesses the economic implications and likely costs of pr oposed federal programs.
staff agencies legislative support agencies responsible for policy analysis
Members of Congress rely heavily on their personal staffs and on committee staffs, who often play an important role in the legislative process.
487THE orGAn IzAT Ion oF ConGrESS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 487 27/11/18 12:33 PM
Women’s Parliamentary Representation Worldwide In April 2018 a special election in Arizona propelled republican Debbie Lesko into the House, raising the number of women in Congress to 107.a This marked the first time in U.S. history that women comprised 20 percent of Congress, with 19.3 percent of the House and 23 percent of the Senate being women. While this may seem an impressive achievement, when we look around the world we find that the United States lags behind many countries in gender representation in government. As of 2018, the Inter-Parliamentary Union ranked the United States as 102 (out of 188) in women’s parliamentary representation. Examining the lower house of parliament only (since not all countries have an upper house) reveals that the United States ranks between Saudi Arabia (19.9 percent) and Kyrgyzstan (19.2 percent).
Past research on women’s global representation offers a few suggestions for why the U.S. percentage is so low, with the main explanations focusing on election rules and party systems.b Women candidates benefit from gender quotas and may be at a disadvantage in “winner-take-all” elections like those in the United States. In rwanda, women comprise 61 percent of parliament, and there is both a gender quota (30 percent of the legislature is required to be women) and proportional representation (election rules where parties receive seats based on the percentage of the vote they received). Party recruitment also plays a major role, as cross- country research has found that “new left” parties (parties that favor environmental and social justice issues) also more actively recruit women into running for public office.
a The Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP), “With Election of Debbie Lesko (AZ-08), Record Number of Women in Congress,” April 24, 2018, cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/ default/files/resources/18.4.24_pr_lesko_az08.pdf (accessed 5/18/18). b Lena Wängnerud, “Women in Parliaments: Descriptive and Substantive Representation,” Annual Review of Political Science, 12 (2009): 51–69.
SOURCE: The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), “Women in National Parliaments,” April 1, 2018, archive.ipu.org (accessed 5/18/18).
Very low (0–15%) Low (15.1–30%) Medium (30.1–45%) High (45.1%+) No data available
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 488 27/11/18 12:33 PM
INFORMAL ORGANIZATION: THE CAUCUSES
In addition to the official organization of Congress, an unofficial organizational structure also exists: the caucuses. Caucuses are groups of senators or representatives who share certain opinions, inter ests, or social characteristics. A large number of caucuses ar e composed of legislators r epresenting par ticular economic or policy interests, such as the Travel and Tourism Caucus, the Steel Caucus, and Concerned Senators for the Arts. Legislators who share common backgrounds have organized caucuses such as the Congr essional Black Caucus, the Congr essional Caucus for Women’s Issues, and the Congr essional Hispanic Caucus. All these caucuses seek to adv ance the inter ests of the gr oups they r epresent b y pr omoting legislation, encouraging Congress to hold hearings, and pr essing administrative agencies for favorable tr eatment. I n r ecent y ears, some caucuses hav e ev olved into po werful lobbying organizations, w ell funded b y interest groups. For example, the S ports- men’s Caucus receives funds from a nonprofit foundation that itself benefits from donations from the N ational Rifle Association, sports equipment manufactur ers, and firearms manufacturers. In 2010 conser vative Republicans in the H ouse and Senate formed the Tea Party Caucus (now called the Freedom Caucus) to advance antispending policies.
Rules of Lawmaking: How a Bill Becomes a Law
The institutional structure of Con - gress is a key factor in shaping the legislative pr ocess. A second and equally impor tant set of factors is
the rules of congressional procedure. These rules govern everything from the intro- duction of a bill through its submission to the president for signing (see Figure 12.7). Not only do these r egulations influence the fate of every bill, but they also help determine the distribution of power in the Congress.
COMMITTEE DELIBERATION
The first step in getting a law passed is drafting legislation. Members of Congress, the White House, and federal agencies all take roles in developing and drafting ini- tial legislation. Bills can originate in the H ouse or the S enate, but only the H ouse can introduce “money bills,” those that spend or raise revenues. The framers inserted this provision in the Constitution because they believed that the chamber closest to the people should ex ercise greater authority o ver taxing and spending. The bill is then officially submitted by a senator or r epresentative to the clerk of the House or Senate and r eferred to the appr opriate committee for deliberation. D uring the course of its deliberations, the committee typically refers the bill to one of its sub- committees, which may hold hearings, listen to exper t testimony, and amend the proposed legislation before referring it to the full committee for consideration. The full committee may then accept the recommendation of the subcommittee or hold its own hearings and prepare its own amendments.
The next steps in the process ar e the committee markup sessions, in which committees r ewrite bills to r eflect changes discussed during the hearings. In the
caucuses (congressional) associations of members of Congress based on party, interest, or social group, such as gender or race
Outline the steps in the process of passing a law
bill a proposed law that has been sponsored by a member of Congress and submitted to the clerk of the House or Senate
committee markup the session in which a congressional committee rewrites legislation to incorporate changes discussed during hearings on a bill
489rULES oF LAWMAK InG : HoW A B I LL BECoMES A LAW
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 489 27/11/18 12:33 PM
partisan fighting that has characterized Congress in recent years, the minority party has charged that its members ar e often not giv en enough time to study pr oposed legislation before markup. In 2003 conflict over this issue drew the Capitol police to the House and almost resulted in a fistfight among representatives when Democrats protested their tr eatment b y the H ouse Ways and M eans Committee. Charging that they had been giv en a complex pension bill only 10 hours befor e mar kup, House Democrats walked out. The ensuing commotion, with Republicans calling the police and a D emocratic congressperson threatening a R epublican, presented a sorr y spectacle for the ev ening ne ws. Though the committee chair apologized,
FIGURE 12.7
How a Bill Becomes a Law *Points at which a bill can be amended. **If the president neither signs nor vetoes a bill within 10 days, it automatically becomes law. †Points at which a bill can die by vote.
Speaker of House receives bill
Committee*
Subcommittee*
Hearings Committee markup*†
Committee*
Subcommittee*
Hearings Committee markup*†
President of Senate receives bill
Rules Committee*Speaker*
House floor*† House Bill
House amends Senate bill
House floor Senate floor
Senate amends House bill
Senate Bill
Senate floor*†
Majority leader*
Conference committee*
Conference report*†
Adoption by both houses
House approves Senate amendment
Senate approves House amendment
White House**
Approve
House and Senate floor*
Veto override
Law
Veto
490 CHAPTER 12 ConGrESS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 490 27/11/18 12:33 PM
Democrats lost a resolution to censure the committee for its actions. At every stage of the legislativ e pr ocess, members pr otest that they ar e not giv en enough time to read proposals. In March 2018, members w ere handed a 2,200 -page omnibus appropriations bill which would come to a vote in just 52 hours. Not allowing much time for readings of committee mar kups or bills themselv es is usually a leadership tactic designed to push legislation for ward befor e members can find items with which to disagree.
Frequently, the committee and subcommittee do little or nothing with a bill that has been submitted to them. M any bills are simply allowed to “die in committee” without serious consideration. O ften, members of Congr ess introduce legislation that they neither expect nor ev en desire to see enacted into law but pr esent mainly to please a constituency gr oup by taking a stand. M any such bills ar e of narr ow interest or stand little chance of passing giv en the political climate. F or example, Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced the Department of Peacebuilding Act of 2015 to establish a “D epartment of Peacebuilding” in the executive branch, dedicated to promoting peace in international affairs.
As with most bills that are not reported out of committee, Lee’s bill attracted little serious interest and only 26 cosponsors.42 These bills die a quick and painless death. Other pieces of legislation have ardent supporters and die in committee only after a long battle. But in either case, most bills are never reported out of the committees to which they are assigned. In a typical congressional session, 80 to 90 per cent of the more than 10,000 bills introduced die in committee.43
In the H ouse, the r elative handful of bills that ar e presented out of committee must pass one last hur dle within the committee system—the R ules Committee, which determines the rules that will govern action on the bill on the House floor. In particular, the Rules Committee allots the time for debate and decides to what extent amendments to the bill can be proposed from the floor. A bill’s supporters generally prefer a closed rule, which puts severe limits on floor debate and amendments. Oppo- nents of a bill usually pr efer an open rule, which permits potentially damaging floor debate and makes it easier to add amendments that may cripple the bill or weaken its chances for passage. Thus, the outcome of the Rules Committee’s deliberations can be extremely important, and the committee ’s hearings can be an occasion for sharp conflict. In recent years, the Rules Committee has become less powerful because the House leadership exercises so much influence over its decisions.
DEBATE
The next step in getting a law passed is debate on the floor of the House and Senate. Party control of the agenda is reinforced by the rule giving the Speaker of the House and the president of the Senate the power of recognition during debate on a bill. Usually the chair knows the purpose for which a member intends to speak well in advance of the occasion. Spontaneous efforts to gain recognition are often foiled. For example, the Speaker may ask, “For what purpose does the member rise?” before deciding whether to grant recognition.
In the House, virtually all the time allotted b y the Rules Committee for debate on a giv en bill is contr olled by the bill ’s sponsor and b y its leading opponent. I n almost every case, these two people are the committee chair and the ranking minor- ity member of the committee that processed the bill—or those they designate. These two participants are, by rule and tradition, granted the po wer to allocate most of the debate time in small amounts to members who are seeking to speak for or against
closed rule a provision by the House rules Committee limiting or prohibiting the introduction of amendments during debate
open rule a provision by the House rules Committee that permits floor debate and the addition of new amendments to a bill
491rULES oF LAWMAK InG : HoW A B I LL BECoMES A LAW
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 491 27/11/18 12:33 PM
the measure. Preference in the allocation of time goes to the members of the com - mittee whose jurisdiction covers the bill.
Filibuster In the S enate, the leadership has much less contr ol over floor debate. Indeed, the S enate is unique among the world ’s legislative bodies for its commit - ment to unlimited debate. Once given the floor, a senator may speak as long as she wishes. On a number of memorable occasions, senators have used this opportunity to prevent action on legislation that they opposed. Through this tactic, called the filibuster, small minorities or even one individual in the Senate can force the majority to give in. Filibusters can be ended by a Senate vote to cut off debate, called cloture. From 1917 to 1975, it took two -thirds of the S enate or 67 v otes to end a filibus- ter. In 1975 the S enate changed the r ules to thr ee-fifths of the Senate or 60 v otes needed for cloture. The threat of a filibuster ensures that, in crafting legislation and proposing judicial appointments, the majority takes into account the vie wpoint of the political minority.
For much of American histor y, senators only rar ely used the filibuster, though during the 1950s and ’60s, opponents of civil rights legislation often used filibusters to block its passage. In the last 20 years, the filibuster has become so common that observers routinely note that it takes 60 votes to get anything passed in the Senate. The 113th Congress (2013–15) br oke the r ecord with 218 clotur e v otes.44 The 115th Congress held 192 cloture votes as of November 1, 2018.
In 2013 the Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid (Nev.) mobilized his party to alter the filibuster rules for the first time in many decades. Frustrated by the repeated failure of the Senate to vote on many of the president’s nominees to fill positions in the executive branch, as well as judgeships to important federal courts, Reid invoked what senators had come to call “the nuclear option,” a change to the filibuster rules. Under the new rules, nominees for positions in the executive branch and the federal courts—except the Supreme Court—could not be filibustered. This means that they can be appr oved by a simple majority v ote. Not surprisingly, the two par ties had different views on the decision. Reid defended it as necessary, due to what he called “unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction.” Republicans denounced the ne w rule, stating, in the words of Pat Roberts (R-Kans.), “We have weakened this body per - manently.”45 After winning control of both houses of Congress and the White House in 2016, however, Republicans expanded Reid’s rule to include Supreme Court jus- tices and so were able to secure the appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch, who would undoubtedly have been blocked by Senate Democrats under the old r ules. Legisla- tion is still subject to filibuster, though some R epublicans, along with P resident Trump, have declared that it is time to bring an end to the filibuster altogether.
Amendments and Holds The filibuster is not the only technique used to block Senate debate. U nder S enate r ules, members hav e vir tually unlimited ability to propose amendments to a pending bill. Each amendment must be voted on before the bill can come to a final vote. The introduction of new amendments can be stopped only by unanimous consent. This, in effect, can permit a determined minor- ity to filibuster by amendment, indefinitely delaying the passage of a bill. Senators can also place “holds, ” or stalling devices, on bills to delay debate. S enators place holds on bills when they fear that openly opposing them will be unpopular. Because holds ar e kept secr et, the senators placing the holds do not hav e to take public responsibility for their actions. There have been several efforts to eliminate holds. In 2007 reformers succeeded in passing the Honest Leadership and Open Government
filibuster a tactic used by members of the Senate to prevent action on legislation they oppose by continuously holding the floor and speaking until the majority backs down; once given the floor, senators have unlimited time to speak, and it requires a vote of three-fifths of the Senate to end a filibuster
cloture a rule or process in a legislative body aimed at ending debate on a given bill; in the U.S. Senate, 60 senators (three-fifths) must agree in order to impose a time limit and end debate
Once a senator is granted the floor, Senate rules permit him to speak for as long as he wishes. Although “talking filibusters” are rare today, in May 2015 Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) spoke continuously for 101/2 hours, challenging the legality of government surveillance in his opposition to renew the Patriot Act.
492 CHAPTER 12 ConGrESS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 492 27/11/18 12:33 PM
Act. Although the new law did not eliminate holds, it contained pr ovisions requir- ing senators who imposed a hold to identify themselv es in the Congressional Record after six days and state the reasons for the hold.46 Even with this provision, senators continued to impose holds on legislation and especially on pr esidential appointees. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) aroused the ire of the White House in 2013 for threatening to use holds on all of P resident Obama’s nominees unless the adminis - tration made survivors of the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, available to Congress for questioning.47
Voting Once a bill is debated on the floor of the House and the Senate, the leaders schedule it for a vote on the floor of each chamber. Leaders do not bring legislation to the floor unless they are fairly certain it is going to pass. O n rare occasions, the last moments of the floor vote can be very dramatic as each par ty’s leadership puts its whip organization into action to make sure that wavering members vote with the par ty. In 2015 the H ouse of R epresentatives failed to pass a spending bill to fund the D epartment of H omeland Security hours befor e the agency was to r un out of money and begin to shut do wn. Despite having a majority in the chamber and an early v ote that suggested that the bill would pass easily , House Republican Party leaders failed to pr event the most conser vative members of the par ty from suddenly abandoning the bill o ver objections that it left out pr ovisions to block President Obama’s executive actions on immigration. As midnight approached, the House agreed on a one-week extension to keep the department open.48 Leaders later secured sufficient support to enact longer-term funding for Homeland Security. The importance of being able to attract wavering members with “pork” for their districts is one reason President Trump urged Congress in 2018 to r estore earmarks, which have been banned since 2011.
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE: RECONCILING HOUSE AND SENATE VERSIONS OF LEGISLATION
Getting a bill out of committee and thr ough both houses of Congr ess is no guar - antee that the bill will be enacted into law; it must be consider ed by a conference committee. Frequently, bills that begin with similar pr ovisions in both chambers emerge with little resemblance to each other. Alternatively, a bill may be passed by one chamber but undergo substantial revision in the other chamber. In such cases, a conference committee composed of the senior members of the committees or sub - committees that initiated the bill may be r equired to iron out differences between the two now dissimilar pieces of legislation. Sometimes members or leaders will let objectionable provisions pass on the floor, knowing that they will get the chance to make changes in confer ence. Usually, conference committees meet behind closed doors. Agreement requires a majority of each of the two delegations. Legislation that emerges successfully from a conference committee is more often a compromise than a clear victory for one side. In recent years, as we have seen, polarization in Congress has led to much less reliance on conference committees. Instead, leaders exchange amendments in the hope of reaching agreement.
When a bill comes out of conference, it faces one more hurdle. Before it can be sent to the president for signing, the House-Senate conference committee’s version of the bill must be approved on the floor of each chamber. Usually such approval is given quickly. Occasionally, however, a bill ’s opponents use this r ound of approval as one last opportunity to defeat a piece of legislation.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Two of Congress’s chief responsibilities are representation and lawmaking. How do these responsibilities support and reinforce each other? How might they also conflict with each other?
493rULES oF LAWMAK InG : HoW A B I LL BECoMES A LAW
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 493 27/11/18 12:33 PM
PRESIDENTIAL ACTION
The final step in passing a law is presidential approval. Once adopted by the House and Senate, a bill goes to the president, who may choose to sign the bill into law or veto it. If the president does not sign the bill or veto it within 10 days and Congress is in session, the bill automatically becomes law. The veto is the pr esident’s consti- tutional power to reject a piece of legislation. To veto a bill, the president returns it unsigned within 10 days to the house of Congr ess in which it originated. I f Con- gress adjourns during the 10-day period and the president has taken no action, the bill is also consider ed to be v etoed. This latter method is known as the pocket veto. The possibility of a presidential veto affects how willing members of Congress are to push for different pieces of legislation at different times. If they think a proposal is likely to be vetoed, they might shelve it until a later time.
A presidential veto may be o verridden by a two-thirds vote in both the H ouse and S enate. A v eto o verride says much about the suppor t that a pr esident can expect from Congress, and it can deliv er a stinging blow to the ex ecutive branch. Presidents will often back do wn from a v eto threat if they believ e that Congr ess will override the veto.
How Congress Decides What determines the kinds of leg - islation that Congr ess ultimately produces? According to the simplest theories of representation, members
of Congress respond to the views of their constituents. In fact, the process of creat- ing a legislative agenda, drawing up a list of possible measures, and deciding among them is a very complex one, in which a variety of influences from inside and outside government play important roles. External influences include a legislator’s constitu- ency and various interest groups. Influences from inside government include party leadership, congressional colleagues, and the president. Let us examine each of these influences individually and then consider how they interact to pr oduce congres- sional policy decisions.
CONSTITUENCY
Because members of Congr ess, for the most par t, want to be re-elected, we would expect the vie ws of their constituents to be a primary influence on the decisions that they make. Yet constituency influence is not so straightforward. In fact, most constituents pay little attention to politics and often do not even know what policies their r epresentatives suppor t. N onetheless, members of Congr ess spend a lot of time worr ying about what their constituents think because they realize that the choices they make may be scr utinized in a future election and used as ammunition b y an opposing candidate. Because of this possibility, members of Congress do try to anticipate their constituents’ policy vie ws, especially if they think that v oters will take them into account during elections.49 In this way, constitu- ents may affect congressional policy choices even when there is little direct evidence of their influence. In October 1998, for example, 31
veto the president’s constitutional power to turn down acts of Congress; a presidential veto may be overridden by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress
pocket veto a presidential veto that is automatically triggered if the president does not act on a given piece of legislation passed during the final 10 days of a legislative session
Analyze the factors that influence which laws Congress passes
Representatives spend a lot of time meeting with constituents in their districts to explain how they have helped their district and learn what issues their constitu- ents care about. Such meetings are often informal events at local restaurants or fairs, or town halls where constituents can ask ques- tions. Here, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) meets with constituents.
494 CHAPTER 12 ConGrESS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 494 27/11/18 12:33 PM
House Democrats broke party ranks and voted in favor of an impeachment inquiry against P resident Clinton because they believ ed a “ no” v ote could cost them r e- election that N ovember. In 2017, despite a personal effort by President Trump to persuade dissident Republicans, the House GOP leadership could not muster enough Republican votes to pass a measur e that would hav e repealed Obamacare. Some Republicans from swing districts fear ed upsetting constituents who fav ored Obamacare, while mor e conser vative Republicans thought the bill did not go far enough in dismantling government-sponsored health insurance. Then-White House press secretary Sean Spicer said, “This isn’t a dictatorship and w e’ve got to expect members to ultimately vote how they will according to what they think.”50
INTEREST GROUPS
Interest groups are another impor tant external influence on congressional policies. Members of Congr ess pay close attention to interest groups for a number of r ea- sons: interest groups can mobilize constituents, serve as watchdogs on congressional action, and supply candidates with money. When members of Congress are making voting decisions, those interest groups that have some connection to constituents in particular districts are most likely to be influential, and those groups with the abil - ity to mobiliz e followers in many congr essional districts may be especially influen- tial. In recent years, Washington-based interest groups with little grassroots strength have r ecognized the impor tance of locally generated activity . A ccordingly, they have sought to simulate grassr oots pressure with so -called Astroturf lobbying (see Chapter 11). Such campaigns encourage constituents to sign form letters, postcards, or emails, which are then sent to congressional representatives. Lobbying campaigns set up toll-free telephone numbers for a system in which simply reporting your name and addr ess to the listening computer will generate a letter to y our congres- sional representative. One Senate office estimated that such organized campaigns to demonstrate “grassroots” support account for two-thirds of the mail the office received. As such campaigns increase, however, they become less influential because members of Congress are aware of how rare real constituent interest actually is.51
Many interest groups also use legislativ e “scorecards” that rate how members of Congress vote on issues of impor tance to that gr oup. A high or lo w rating b y an important interest group may provide a potent weapon in the next election. Interest groups can increase their influence over a particular piece of legislation by signaling their intention to include it in their scoring. Among the most influential groups that use scorecards, often posting them on their websites for members and the public to see, are the National Federation of Independent Business, the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), National Right to Life, the League of Conservation Voters, and the National Rifle Association.
Interest groups also have substantial influence in setting the legislative agenda and in helping to craft specific language in legislation. Today, sophisticated lobbyists win influence by providing information about policies, as well as cam- paign contributions, to busy members of Congr ess. The $1.1 trillion end-of- year spending bill passed at the end of 2014 included an amendment exempting many financial transactions from federal regulation under the Dodd-Frank Act. The amendment language was taken from a bill originally written b y Citigroup lobbyists, with 70 of 85 lines of the bill dir ectly copying Citigroup’s language.52 After fur ther lobb ying b y the banking industr y, legislation enacted in 2018 loosened a number of D odd-Frank r ules and ex empted r egional banks fr om a
495HoW ConGrESS DEC IDES
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 495 27/11/18 12:33 PM
number of r emaining rules. In recent years, interest groups have also begun to build br oader coalitions and compr ehensive campaigns ar ound par ticular pol - icy issues. These coalitions do not rise from the grass r oots but instead ar e put together b y Washington lobbyists, who launch compr ehensive lobbying cam- paigns that combine simulated grassr oots activity with information and cam - paign funding for members of Congress.
Close financial ties between members of Congr ess and inter est group lobbyists often raise eyebrows because they suggest that inter est groups get special treatment in exchange for political donations. Concerns about the influence of lobbyists in Congress mounted in the early 2000s when Republicans launched the K Street Project, named after the str eet in Washington where many high-powered lobbyists have offices. The K Street Project placed former Republican staffers in key lobbying positions and ensur ed a large and steady flow of corporate cash into R epublican coffers. Congressional r elationships to lobb yists came under close scr utiny when the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a self-proclaimed big supporter of the K Street Project, pleaded guilty in early 2006 to charges of conspiracy, mail fraud, and tax evasion.
Concern o ver such corr uption led Congr ess to enact ne w ethics legislation in 2007. Now lobbyists are required to disclose the names of the individual contributors to these political donations. Although the new law provides additional transparency, revealing more about the relationship between lobbyists and members of Congress, it is widely viewed as lacking sufficient authority to go after those who are suspected of ethics violations. Moreover, the large sums of cash raised by “Super PACs” (political action committees)—discussed in Chapter 10—have introduced a whole new set of questions about the r ole of special inter ests in politics, especially because donors to Super PACs can remain anonymous. Although they cannot openly coor dinate with candidates, Super PACs can endorse candidates by name and are often run by people close to the candidates they suppor t. In 2016, S uper PACs poured unprecedented sums of money into the race for pr esident, but they also targeted key congr essional contests in an effort to affect the balance of power between the par ties in Cong ress. In 2018, 10 individuals—5 D emocrats and 5 R epublicans—collectively con - tributed several hundred million dollars to S uper PACs suppor ting congressional candidates all across the country as the two parties fought for control of Congress.53
PARTY
In both the House and Senate, party leaders have a good deal of influence over the behavior of their party members. This influence, sometimes called “party discipline,” was once so po werful that it dominated the lawmaking pr ocess. In the late 1800s, party leaders could often command the allegiance of more than 90 percent of their members. A vote in which half or more of the members of one party take one posi- tion while at least half of the members of the other party take the opposing position is called a party unity vote. At the beginning of the twentieth century, nearly half of all roll-call votes in the House of Representatives were party votes. For much of the twen- tieth century, the number of par ty votes declined as bipar tisan legislation became more common. The 1990s witnessed a return to strong party discipline as partisan polarization drew sharper lines between Democrats and Republicans, and congres- sional party leaders aggr essively used their po wers to promote party discipline. By 2015 party discipline has been at an all-time high.
Typically, par ty unity is gr eater in the H ouse than in the S enate. House rules grant greater procedural control of business to the majority par ty leaders, which
party unity vote a roll-call vote in the House or Senate in which at least 50 percent of the members of one party take a particular position and are opposed by at least 50 percent of the members of the other party
roll-call vote a vote in which each legislator’s yes or no vote is recorded as the clerk calls the names of the members alphabetically
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS How does congressional ethics legislation address concerns about corruption? Why is it important that lawmakers identify the earmarks they add to legislation?
496 CHAPTER 12 ConGrESS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 496 27/11/18 12:33 PM
FIGURE 12.8
Party Unity Votes by Chamber Party unity votes are roll-call votes in which a majority of one party lines up against a majority of the other party. Party unity votes in- crease when the parties are polari- zed and when the party leadership can enforce discipline. Why did the percentage of party unity votes decline in the 1970s? Why has it risen in recent years?
SOURCES: CQ Roll Call’s Vote Studies, http:// media.cq.com/votestudies (accessed 6/9/14); Eliza Newlin Carney, “Standing Together against Any Action,” CQ Weekly (March 16, 2015); and “2015 Vote Studies: Party Unity Remained Strong,” CQ Weekly (February 8, 2016); Vital Statistics, “Table 8-3 Party Unity Votes in Congress, 1953–2016,” Brookings, May 21, 2018, www .brookings.edu/multi-chapter-report/vital -statistics-on-congress/ (accessed 11/9/18).
1955
House
Senate
PERCENTAGE OF ALL VOTES
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
50
80%
70
60
40
30
20
During the 1970s, weaker party leadership was one reason that relatively few votes pitted the parties against one another.
Party unity votes have increased as partisan polarization in Congress has increased.
gives them more influence over House members. In the Senate, however, the leader- ship has few sanctions o ver its members. The former Senate minority leader Tom Daschle once observed that a Senate leader seeking to influence other senators has as incentives “a bushel full of carrots and a few twigs.”54
Though it has not reached nineteenth -century levels, party unity has been on the rise in r ecent years because the divisions betw een the par ties have deepened on many high -profile issues such as abortion, health car e, and financial reform (see Figure 12.8). Party unity scores rise when congressional leaders try to put a partisan stamp on legislation. F or example, in 1995 then -Speaker Newt Gingrich sought to enact a R epublican “Contract with America ” that fe w Democrats suppor ted. The result was more party unity in the H ouse than in any y ear since 1954. S ince then, the polarization of political par ties has r esulted in v ery high par ty unity scor es. In 2016, House Democrats voted with the majority 96 percent of the time, marking an all-time high, at least in modern times. That year Senate Democrats voted with their caucus 92 percent of the time, seven points below the record set in 2014. Republicans were also very united. In 2016, House Republicans voted with their party 96 per- cent of the time, an all -time record high; Senate Republicans voted with their party 86 percent of the time, only five points below the record set in 2015.55
To some extent, par ty unity is based on ideology and backgr ound. Republican members of the House are more likely than Democrats to have been elected by rural or suburban districts. D emocrats are likely to be more liberal on economic and social questions than their Republican colleagues in both houses. These differences certainly help to explain r oll-call divisions betw een the two par ties. Ideology and background, however, are only par t of the explanation for par ty unity. The other part has to do with par ty organization and leadership . Among the r esources that
497HoW ConGrESS DEC IDES
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 497 27/11/18 12:33 PM
party leaders have at their disposal to reward loyal members who vote with the party are (1) leadership PACs, (2) committee assignments, (3) access to the floor, (4) the whip system, (5) logrolling, and (6) the presidency.
Leadership PACs Leaders hav e increased their influence over members in r ecent years with aggressive use of leadership PACs. Leadership PACs are organizations that members of Congress use to raise funds that they then distribute to other members of their party running for election. Republican congressional leaders pioneered the aggressive use of leadership PACs to win their congressional majority in 1995, and the practice has spread widely since that time. The former House majority leader Tom DeLay was especially aggressive in raising funds, creating several impor tant PACs, including Americans for a R epublican M ajority (ARMPAC), R etain O ur Majority Program (ROMP), and the R epublican Majority I ssues Committee. I n recent years, Democrats have also formed well-funded leadership PACs. Money from leadership PACs can be directed to the most vulnerable candidates or to can - didates who are having trouble raising money. For example, Kirsten Gillibrand, the junior Democratic senator from New York, has used her leadership PAC to promote Democratic women candidates running for Congress. In 2016 the PAC, which she named Off the Sidelines, supplied funds to 61 candidates r unning for seats in the House and 10 for the Senate, all of them women.56
Committee Assignments Party leaders can create debts among members by help- ing them get fav orable committee assignments. These assignments are made early in the congr essional careers of most members and cannot be taken fr om them if they later balk at party discipline. Nevertheless, if the leadership goes out of its way to get the right assignment for a member , this effort is likely to cr eate a bond of obligation that can be called on without any other payments or fav ors. This is one reason the R epublican leadership gav e fr eshmen favorable assignments when the Republicans took over Congress in 1995. When Nancy Pelosi assumed the position of Speaker in 2007, she sought to spread power more widely by limiting the number of committees that any one member could chair. She also gave freshmen representa- tives access to key committees that would raise their political statur e.57 By offering attractive committee assignments to members in competitive races, especially to new members, she sought to boost her party’s chances in the next elections. And she engendered loyalty to the party among its new members.
Access to the Floor The most important everyday resource available to the par ties is control over access to the floor. With thousands of bills awaiting passage and most members clamoring for access in order to influence a bill or publicize themselves, floor time is precious. Floor time is allocated in both houses of Congr ess by the majority and minority leaders. M ore important, the S peaker of the H ouse and the majority leader in the S enate possess the po wer of r ecognition. This seemingly insubstantial authority is, in fact, quite formidable and can be used to stymie a piece of legis lation completely or frustrate a member’s attempts to speak on a particular issue. Because the power is significant, members of Congress usually attempt to stay on good terms with the Speaker and the majority leader to ensure they will continue to be recognized.
As House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi was par ticularly generous in offering freshmen Democrats and other especially vulnerable Demo crats an opportunity to speak on the floor. When Republicans assumed control of the H ouse in 2010, they like wise ensured that the voices of freshmen Republicans were heard on the House floor.58 As
498 CHAPTER 12 ConGrESS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 498 27/11/18 12:33 PM
we saw above, each party makes an effort to protect potentially vulnerable members, and freshmen are often high on that list.
The Whip System Some influence accrues to par ty leaders through the whip sys - tem, which is primarily a communications network for conveying the leaders’ wishes and plans to the members. Between 12 and 20 assistant and regional whips are selected to operate at the direction of the majority or minority leader and the whip. They poll all the members to learn their intentions on specific bills, enabling the leaders to know if they have enough support to allow a vote as well as whether the vote is so close that they will need to put pressure on undecided members. In those instances, the Speaker or a lieutenant will go to a few party members who have indi- cated they will switch if their vote is essential—an expedient that the leaders try to limit to a few times per session.
The whip system helps maintain party unity in both houses of Congr ess, but it is par ticularly critical in the H ouse of R epresentatives because of the large num - ber of legislators whose positions and v otes must be accounted for . The majority and minority whips and their assistants must be adept at inducing compr omise among legislators who hold widely differing viewpoints. In 2015 a group of conser- vative Republicans, organized into the House Freedom Caucus, regularly disputed the positions of the party leadership. Frustrated with the lack of discipline, House majority whip S teve Scalise (R -La.) expelled sev eral members fr om his whip team for failing to suppor t party positions.59 Indeed, conflict with these same rebellious Republicans prompted Speaker John Boehner to make the stunning announcement in September 2015 of his retirement from the speakership and from the House.
Logrolling An agreement between two or more members of Congress who have noth- ing in common except the need for support is called logrolling. The agreement states, in effect, “You support me on bill X, and I’ ll support you on another bill of y our choice.” Since party leaders are the center of the communications networ ks in the two chambers, they can help members create large logrolling coalitions. Hundreds of logrolling deals are made each year, and although there are no official record-keeping books, it would be a poor party leader whose whips did not know who owed what to whom. In some instances, logrolling produces strange alliances. A most unlikely alliance emerged in Congr ess in October 1991, an alliance that one commentator dubbed “the corn for porn plot. ”60 The alliance joined Senate suppor ters of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) with senators seeking limits on the cost of grazing rights on federal lands. The NEA, which provides federal funding to the arts, had been under fire from the conservative senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) for fund- ing some controversial artists whose work Helms believed to be indecent. In an effort to block federal support for such works, Helms attached a provi- sion to the NEA’s funding that would have prohibited the agency from awarding grants to any work that in a “patently offensive way” depicted “sexual or ex cretory activities or organs. ” Supporters of the NEA con - demned such r estrictions as a violation of fr ee speech and pointed out that many famous works of art could not have been funded under such restrictions. When it appear ed that the amendment would pass, NEA supporters offered western senators a deal. I n exchange for voting down the Helms amendment, they would eliminate a planned increase in graz- ing fees. Republican senators from 16 western states switched their v otes and defeated the H elms amendment. Although H elms called his defeat
logrolling a legislative practice whereby agreements are made between legislators in voting for or against a bill; vote trading
When John Boehner became Speaker of the House in 2010, he was overwhelmingly backed by House Republicans. By 2015, the most conservative factions of the party, frustrated that Boehner hadn’t been more effective against the Obama administration, pressured him to resign.
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 499 27/11/18 12:33 PM
the pr oduct of “back -room deals and parliamentar y flimflam,” his amendment was simply the victim of the time -honored con- gressional practice of logrolling.61
The Presidency Of all the influences that maintain the clarity of party lines in Congress, the influence of the presidency is probably the most impor tant. I ndeed, the office is a touchstone of party discipline in Congress. Since the late 1940s, under President Harry Truman, presidents each year have identified a number of bills that they want to be considered part of their administration’s program.
By the mid-1950s both parties in Congress began to look to the pr esident for these proposals, which became the most significant part of Congress’s agenda. The presi- dent’s support is a criterion for par ty loyalty, and par ty leaders ar e able to use it to rally some members. Though President Trump was personally unpopular with many members of Congress, legislators still looked to him to set the agenda and most of the major legislative initiatives of 2017 and 2018, including bor der security, immi- gration, the repeal of Obamacare, and tax reform originated in the White House.
WHEN CONGRESS CAN’T DECIDE
We’ve considered the major factors that influence congressional decisions, but what happens if Congress as a whole can’t decide and fails to act? Some recent congresses have been notable for their inability to pass laws. The 114th Congress (2015–17), 113th Congress (2013–15), and the 112th Congress (2011–13) were the three least productive Congresses in modern history.62
As the end of its second session near ed, the 115th Congr ess seemed likely to become the least pr oductive Congress in modern histor y in terms of number of new laws enacted. A number of those ne w laws, ho wever, were impor tant. These included a sanctions law targeting Russia, Iran, and North Korea; the enactment of a major revision of the tax code; a budget bill that averted a government shutdown; and bills o verturning a number of O bama-era r egulations.63 The Republican- controlled Senate also approved the appointment of two conservatives, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, to the Supreme Court. These appointments are likely to affect Supreme Court decisions for years to come.
In 2018, P resident Trump and congr essional leaders agr eed on a spending bill that provided for increased defense and domestic social spending. Though the bill was opposed by Republican “deficit hawks,” and by some Democrats who demanded legislation to pr otect undocumented immigrants, a majority of R epublicans and more than 73 House Democrats supported the legislation. In the Senate, Rand Paul (R-Ky.) briefly filibustered the bill, but it was ultimately passed b y a large majority and signed into law. By increasing overall spending levels, Trump and congressional leaders provided funding for programs that each par ty suppor ted. The GOP got more money for the militar y, and the D emocrats won mor e money for domestic programs.64 It was the sort of classic logroll hated by ideological purists but necessary in a democratic legislature.
Congressional Polarization Congress’s fr equent inability to decide r eflects the deep ideological differences that separate the two par ties. Efforts to measur e the ideological distance betw een the two par ties sho w that since the mid -1970s
After Democrats took control of the House of Representatives in November 2018, former House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was poised to take over the role of Speaker of the House from retiring Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). She had previously served in the same position from 2007–11.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Why has it become so difficult for members of Congress to compromise? How is American democracy harmed when Congress is unable to agree on major pieces of legislation?
500 CHAPTER 12 ConGrESS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 500 27/11/18 12:33 PM
Republicans and Democrats have been diverging sharply and ar e now more polar- ized than at any time in the last centur y. Democrats have become more liberal and Republicans have become more conservative on issues r elated to the economy and the role of government.65 But as Figure 12.9 shows, the Republican Party has experi- enced the greatest ideological shift, becoming sharply more conservative. Moreover, because congr essional districts ar e incr easingly homogeneous in their ideology— in part due to gerrymandering but mainly because of natural clustering of the population—most members of Congress are in safe seats. Their constituents will not punish them for failing to compromise. Moreover, active mobilization by organiza- tions on the right, such as the Club for G rowth, means that R epublican members of Congress who support compromises might be punished. These outside organiza- tions have financed alternative candidates to challenge members who v ote against
FIGURE 12.9
Polarization in Congress In recent decades Democrats and Republicans in Congress are increasingly polarized as Democrats have become more liberal and Republicans more conservative. One way of measuring polarization is to estimate the ideology of members of Congress based on their roll-call votes and then graph the ideologies of each party’s members. As the graph shows, polarization was lower in the 1940s and 1950s, with some Democrats and some Republicans even overlapping in their ideologies.
SOURCE: Voteview, http://voteview.com/dwnl.htm (accessed 10/15/18).
53rd (1893–94)
60th (1907–08)
70th (1927–28)
80th (1947–48)
90th (1967–68)
100th (1987–88)
110th (2007–08)
115th (2017–18)
Democratic Party median Republican Party median
IDEOLOGY SCORES IN CONGRESS
–0.5
–0.25
–0.75
1.0
0.5
0.25
0.75
0
M or
e co
ns er
va tiv
e M
or e
lib er
al
501HoW ConGrESS DEC IDES
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 501 27/11/18 12:33 PM
the organizations’ positions. D espite rebukes by Republican congressional leader- ship, groups such as the Club for G rowth actively worked to r ecruit and suppor t candidates in the 2016 election.66
However, congr essional polarization is her e to stay so long as v oters elect representatives with sharply different views about what go vernment should and shouldn’t do. Until there is more agreement about the role of government and the best way to manage the budgetary challenges that face the country, congressional stand-offs on major legislation will remain a regular feature of American politics.
Beyond Legislation: Other Congressional Powers
In addition to the po wer to make the law , Congr ess has at its dis - posal an array of other instr uments through which to influence the pro-
cess of government. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve treaties and appointments. And Congress has a number of other powers through which it can share with the other branches the capacity to administer the laws.
OVERSIGHT
Oversight, as applied to Congr ess, refers to the effort to oversee or to super vise how the executive branch carries out legislation. Ov ersight is carried out b y commit - tees or subcommittees of the S enate or the H ouse, which conduct hearings and investigations to analyze and evaluate bureaucratic agencies and the effectiveness of their programs. Their purpose may be to locate inefficiencies or abuses of power, to explore the r elationship between what an agency does and what a law intends, or to change or abolish a program. Most programs and agencies are subject to some oversight every year during the course of hearings on appropriations, the funding of agencies and government programs.
Committees or subcommittees have the power to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, cross-examine, compel testimony, and bring criminal charges for contempt (refusing to cooperate) and perjury (lying under oath). Hearings and investigations are similar in many ways, but they differ on one fundamental point. A hearing is usually held on a specific bill, and the questions asked are usually intended to build a record with regard to that bill. In an investigation, the committee or subcommittee does not begin with a particular bill but examines a broad area or problem and then concludes its investigation with one or more proposed bills.
In recent years, congressional oversight power has increasingly been used as a tool of partisan politics. The Republican Congress aggressively investigated President Clinton but failed to scrutinize seriously the actions of the George W. Bush administration during Bush’s first six years in office. The investigation into the abuse of prisoners in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, for example, entailed only 12 hours of sworn testimony.
When the D emocrats took contr ol of Congr ess in 2007, congr essional o ver- sight increased dramatically. To highlight the impor tance of o versight, Democrats renamed the House Government Reform Committee, calling it the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and added four new subcommittees dedicated to oversight. They also hired more than 200 new investigative staffers.67 Armed with
Describe Congress’s influence over other branches of government
oversight the effort by Congress, through hearings, investigations, and other techniques, to exercise control over the activities of executive agencies
appropriations the amounts of money approved by Congress in statutes (bills) that each unit or agency of government can spend
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS How does polarization contribute to congressional gridlock? How has the use of congressional procedures made it more difficult to enact legislation in recent years?
502 CHAPTER 12 ConGrESS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 502 27/11/18 12:33 PM
these resources, the Democratic Congress held 942 oversight hearings during its first six months in power, compared with 579 for the same period when Republicans con- trolled Congress in 2005.68 Congressional leaders are quite aware of oversight hear- ings as political tools. After 2010 the Republican House used the oversight power to highlight the politically weak points in President Obama’s record, holding extensive hearings on the Affordable Care Act and on the militant attack of the American con- sulate in Benghazi, Libya, that resulted in American deaths.69 First convened in 2014, the Select Committee on B enghazi became enmeshed in par tisan contention after Hillary Clinton, secretary of state during the attacks, announced that she would run for president. In 2015, as revelations emerged that Clinton had used a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state, the committee began to investigate whether appropriate procedures had been followed and whether national security was compromised.70 When the FBI undertook an investigation into the matter in 2016, FBI director James Comey r ecommended no criminal charges against Clinton but also questioned her judgment and called her actions “extremely careless.”
Almost as soon as Donald Trump took office in 2017, Democrats called for inves- tigations into allegations the Trump administration had colluded with Russian opera- tives to help Trump win the 2016 election. House and Senate committees, chaired by Republicans, failed to find evidence of presidential wrongdoing. Democrats, however, demanded the appointment of a special counsel after P resident Trump’s firing of FBI director James Comey. Over the course of the investigation, the special counsel indicted several close Trump aides for impr oper contacts with R ussian officials. As of October 2018, four former Trump aides—George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, and Michael Flynn—had pleaded guilty to a variety of crimes related to the investigation.
ADVICE AND CONSENT: SPECIAL SENATE POWERS
The Constitution has given the Senate another special power, one that is not based on lawmaking. The president has the po wer to make tr eaties and to appoint top executive officers, ambassadors, and federal judges—but only “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” (Article II, Section 2). For treaties, two-thirds of those pres- ent must concur; for appointments, a simple majority is required.
The power to approve or reject presidential requests includes the power to set conditions. In fact, the Senate only occasionally exercises its power to reject treaties and appointments, and despite recent debate surrounding judicial nominees, only a small number of judicial nominees hav e been rejected by the Senate or withdrawn by the president to avoid rejection during the past century, whereas hundreds have been approved. However, the recent increase in use of the filibuster to block judicial nominees led the D emocratic S enate to bar the filibuster in deliberations about judicial and executive branch appointments.
Most pr esidents make ev ery effort to take potential S enate opposition into account in treaty negotiations with foreign powers. Instead of treaties, presidents fre- quently resort to executive agreements that do not need Senate approval. The Supreme Court has held that such agr eements are equivalent to treaties.71 In the past, presi- dents sometimes concluded secr et agreements without informing Congr ess of the agreements’ contents or even their existence. For example, American involvement in the Vietnam War grew in part out of a series of secr et arrangements made between American presidents and the S outh Vietnamese during the 1950s and ’60s. Con - gress did not ev en learn of the existence of these agr eements until 1969. I n 1972,
executive agreement an agreement, made between the president and another country, that has the force of a treaty but does not require the Senate’s “advice and consent”
503BEyonD LEG ISLAT Ion : oTHEr ConGrESS IonAL PoWErS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 503 27/11/18 12:33 PM
Congress passed the Case A ct, which r equires that the pr esident inform Congr ess of any executive agreement within 60 days of its having been reached. This provides Congress with the oppor tunity to cancel agreements it opposes. In addition, Con- gress can limit the pr esident’s ability to conduct for eign policy thr ough executive agreement by refusing to appropriate the funds needed to implement an agreement. In this way, for example, Congress can modify or even cancel executive agreements to provide American economic or military assistance to foreign governments.
IMPEACHMENT
The Constitution also grants Congress the power of impeachment over the president, vice president, and other executive officials. Impeachment means to charge a govern- ment official (president or otherwise) with “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” and bring him before Congress to determine guilt. Impeach- ment is thus like a criminal indictment in which the House of Representatives acts like a grand jur y, voting (by simple majority) on whether the accused ought to be impeached. I f a majority of the H ouse votes to impeach, the impeachment trial moves to the Senate, which acts like a trial jury by voting whether to convict and forcibly remove the person from office (which requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate). The impeachment power is a considerable one; its v ery existence in the hands of Congr ess is a highly effective safeguard against the ex ecutive tyranny so greatly feared by the framers of the Constitution. The House has initiated impeach- ment proceedings more than 60 times in U.S. histor y. Fewer than 20 officials were ultimately impeached, and only eight—all federal judges—w ere convicted b y the Senate and removed from office.72
Controversy over Congress’s impeachment power has arisen over the grounds for impeachment, especially the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” A strict reading of the Constitution suggests that the only impeachable offense is an actual crime. But a mor e common wor king definition is that “an impeachable offense is whatever the majority of the H ouse of Representatives considers it to be at a giv en moment in histor y.”73 In other words, impeachment, especially impeachment of a president, is a political decision.
The political nature of impeachment was very clear in the two instances of presi- dential impeachment that have occurred in American history. In the first, in 1867, President Andrew Johnson, a southern D emocrat who had battled a congr essional Republican majority over Reconstruction, was impeached b y the House but saved
impeachment the formal charge by the House of representatives that a government official has committed “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”
The Constitution provides the Senate with the power to confirm executive branch appointments such as Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch (left). Congress also has the power to approve or reject treaties made by the President. Secretary of State John Kerry (bottom right) and other members of President Obama’s cabinet testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on behalf of a nuclear weapons agreement with Iran.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Under what circumstances should Congress exercise its power of impeachment? Why has impeachment been used so rarely in U.S. history?
504 CHAPTER 12 ConGrESS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 504 27/11/18 12:33 PM
from conviction by one vote in the Senate. In 1998 the House impeached President Bill Clinton on two counts, for lying under oath and obstructing justice during the investigation into his sexual affair with the White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The vote was highly partisan, with only five Democrats voting for impeachment on each charge. In the Senate, where a two-thirds majority was needed to convict the president, only 45 senators voted to convict on the first count of lying and 50 voted to convict on the second charge of obstructing justice. As in the House, the vote for impeachment was highly par tisan, with all D emocrats and only five Republicans supporting the president’s ultimate acquittal.
Congress WHAT DO WE WANT? Much of this chapter has described the major institutional components of Congress
and has shown how they work as Congress makes policy. But what do these institu-
tional features mean for how Congress represents the American public? As we saw
with Guy Berkebile and Hazel Hoffman at the beginning of the chapter, congressional
actions—and inaction—have profound effects on Americans’ lives. Does the organi-
zation of Congress promote the equal representation of all Americans? or are there
institutional features of Congress that allow some interests more access and influ-
ence than others? What can we learn from a tax cut that passes congress and a CHIP
reauthorization that almost fails?
As we noted at the beginning of this chapter, Congress instituted a number of
reforms in the 1970s to make itself more accessible and to distribute power more
widely within the institution. These reforms sought to respond to public views that
The Senate possesses the power to impeach federal officials. In American history, 16 federal officials have been impeached, including two presidents. Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 for improperly removing the Secretary of War. In 1998 the House impeached President Bill Clinton for lying under oath about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
505ConGrESS : WHAT Do WE WAnT?
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 505 27/11/18 12:33 PM
Congress had become a stodgy institution ruled by a powerful elite that made
decisions in private. We have seen that these reforms increased the number of
subcommittees, prohibited most secret hearings, and increased the staff support for
Congress. These reforms spread power more evenly throughout the institution and
opened new avenues for the public to contact and influence Congress.
But the opening of Congress ultimately did not benefit the broad American public
as reformers had envisioned. In fact, the congressional reforms enacted during the
1970s actually made Congress less effective and, ironically, more permeable to spe-
cial interests. open committee meetings made it possible for sophisticated interest
groups to monitor and influence every aspect of developing legislation. The unan-
ticipated, negative consequences of these reforms highlighted the trade-off between
representation and effectiveness in Congress.74 Efforts to improve representation by
opening Congress up made it difficult for Congress to be effective.
When Congress is ineffective, American democracy suffers. As we have seen in this
chapter, prolonged stalemates in Congress have led to a reduction in America’s credit
rating and a costly government shutdown. Moreover, Americans have lost confidence
in Congress as it has lurched from crisis to crisis. Is it time for some major changes
to make Congress work better? Disillusionment with congressional gridlock has led
some to say that the United States should become a parliamentary system, where the
winning party can enact the legislation it promised in its party platform. Such a system
is more accountable to voters and less prone to stalemate. But Americans would have
to jettison the presidency and become a unicameral body to operate as a true parlia-
mentary system, like that of Britain.
Changes in the way Congress conducts its business could also promote more
bipartisan decision making. For example, former House Speaker John Boehner
decided that he would only bring legislation to the floor if a majority of republicans
supported it. Speaker Paul ryan also followed the same practice. The “Hastert rule,”
as this practice is called, could easily be abandoned, allowing bipartisan majorities
to enact legislation. Another significant change—eliminating the filibuster in the
Senate—would heighten partisan differences but ease gridlock. As we have seen,
the Senate voted to eliminate the filibuster for executive branch appointments and
judicial candidates in 2013 and for the Supreme Court in 2017. Abandoning the
filibuster altogether would allow legislation to move more smoothly through the
Senate. Will any of these changes—or other measures—be adopted? Each carries
risks to political parties and to politicians. yet, gridlock also carries political risks,
as the public grows frustrated with congressional inaction on important policy areas.
What areas of public policy might suffer if Congress continues its inability to decide?
How politicians weigh these different choices will shape how—and whether—
Congress fills its central position in American democracy.
Gridlock and bitter disagreements in Congress turn some Americans off to politics.
However, as the core representative institution of government, Congress is supposed
to represent all Americans. As the “Who Participates?” feature on the facing page
shows, the electorate that turns out to vote for Congress is on average older, whiter,
and more affluent than the average American.
506 CHAPTER 12 ConGrESS
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 506 27/11/18 12:33 PM
Know Your Members of Congress
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
Discover what bills are currently under consideration in Congress by visiting www.congress.gov.
Vote in the next congressional election. If you haven’t registered, see page 329 for instructions on how to do so.
Contact your member of Congress to state your opinion. Go to www.house.gov and enter your ZIP code to �nd your representative. Go to www.senate.gov and �nd your state in the drop-down menu to �nd your two U.S. senators.
SOURCES: CNN House Exit Polls, www.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls (accessed 11/12/18); U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 American Community Survey, www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/ data.html (accessed 10/22/15).
*Numbers may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
2018 Voters as Compared with U.S. Population U.S. population
Electorate
Women
Men
51%
49%
52%
48%
Gender U.S. pop. Electorate
18−29
30−44
22%
25%
13%
22%
45−64 34% 39%
65+ 19% 26%
Age U.S. pop. Electorate
White
Black
62%
13%
72%
11%
Latino 17% 11%
Asian 5% 3% $100−$200k 6% 25%
Other 3% 3%
Race U.S. pop. Electorate
Under $30k
$30−$50k
52%
20%
17%
21%
$50−$100k 20% 29%
Over $200k 2% 9%
Income U.S. pop. Electorate*
WHO PART IC IPATES?
Who Elects Congress?
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 507 27/11/18 12:34 PM
2. What type of representation is described when constituents have the power to hire and fire their representative? a) agency representation b) sociological representation c) philosophical representation d) ideological representation e) economic representation
3. Which of the following statements best describes the social composition of the U.S. Congress? a) The majority of representatives do not have
university degrees. b) Men and women are equally represented in
Congress. c) Most members of Congress do not affiliate with any
specific religion. d) The legal profession is the dominant career
of most members of Congress prior to their election.
e) The number of African American, Latino, and Asian American representatives has decreased over the last 20 years.
4. The Supreme Court has ruled that a) only the House of representatives has the
constitutional authority to redraw congressional district lines.
b) race can be the predominant factor in drawing congressional districts.
c) race cannot be the predominant factor in drawing congressional districts.
d) states cannot use unelected, nonpartisan committees to draw congressional districts.
e) only the Senate has the constitutional authority to redraw congressional district lines.
5. An earmark is a) a rule in the House of representatives
that limits who can be heard during legislative debates.
b) a congressional district drawn to advantage candidates from a certain racial or ethnic group.
c) a law that grants some special privilege or exemption to a single individual.
d) language inserted into a bill by a member of Congress that provides special benefits for the member of Congress’s constituents.
e) a weekly, informal meeting between members of Congress and their constituents.
A member of Congress’s primary responsibility is to his or her constituency. While the number of African Americans, women, Latinos, and Asian Americans in Congress has increased over the last two decades, these groups are still significantly underrepresented relative to their proportions in the general population. regardless of whether members of Congress share their constituents’ sociological characteristics, however, representatives do work hard to speak for their constituents’ views and to serve their constituents’ interests. Generally speaking, there are three factors related to the U.S. electoral system that affect who gets elected and what they do once in office: who decides to run for Congress, the incumbency advantage, and the way congressional districts are drawn.
Key Terms constituency (p. 469)
bicameral (p. 469)
delegate (p. 470)
trustee (p.470)
sociological representation (p. 471)
agency representation (p. 471)
incumbency (p. 476)
term limits (p. 477)
apportionment (p. 477)
redistricting (p. 478)
gerrymandering (p. 478)
patronage (p. 480)
pork-barrel (or pork) (p. 480)
private bill (p. 481)
Practice Quiz
1. Which of the following is a way in which the House and the Senate are different? a) The House is a more deliberative legislative body
than the Senate. b) The House is more centralized and organized than
the Senate. c) Senators serve smaller and more homogeneous
constituencies than members of the House. d) Senators are often more attuned to the legislative
needs of local interest groups than members of the House.
e) There are no important differences between the House and the Senate.
Congress: Representing the American People
Describe who serves in Congress and how they represent their constituents (pp. 469–82)
CHAPTER 12 STUDy GU IDE508
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 508 27/11/18 12:34 PM
conference committees (p. 485)
seniority (p. 486)
staff agencies (p. 487)
caucuses (congressional) (p. 489)
Practice Quiz
6. Which of the following types of committees include members of both the House and the Senate? a) standing committee b) select committee c) conference committee d) rules committee e) no committees include both House members
and senators.
7. A series of reforms instituted by Congress in the 1970s, including an increase in the number of subcommittees and greater autonomy for subcommittee chairs, had the effect of a) reducing the power of committee chairs. b) increasing the power of committee chairs. c) eliminating the incumbency advantage in
congressional elections. d) ending the filibuster. e) expanding the number of joint committees in Congress.
Practice Quiz
8. What is the difference between a closed rule and an open rule in the House? a) A closed rule puts severe limits on floor debate and
amendments, whereas an open rule permits floor debate and makes amendments easier.
b) An open rule puts severe limits on floor debate and amendments, whereas a closed rule permits floor debate and makes amendments easier.
c) A closed rule allows journalists and members of the public to listen to debates about a bill, whereas an open rule prevents journalists and members of the public from listening to debates about the bill.
d) An open rule allows journalists and members of the public to listen to debates about a bill, whereas a closed rule prevents journalists and members of the public from listening to debates about the bill.
e) A closed rule prevents the federal judiciary from declaring a bill unconstitutional once passed, whereas an open rule allows the federal judiciary to declare a bill unconstitutional.
Congress is not only a representative body but also a lawmaking institution. The political parties, the committee system, congressional staff, the caucuses, and the parlia- mentary rules of the House and Senate play key roles in the process by which Congress formulates and enacts law. The committee system is particularly important because Con- gress relies on committees and subcommittees to do the difficult work of sorting through alternatives and writing bills.
Key Terms conference (p. 482)
caucus (political) (p. 482)
Speaker of the House (p. 482)
majority leader (p. 482)
minority leader (p. 482)
whip (p. 482)
standing committee (p. 483)
select committees (p. 484)
joint committees (p. 485)
The rules of congressional procedure influence the fate of every bill and determine the distribution of power in Congress. Debate over bills is much less restricted in the Senate than in the House, and the filibuster gives tremen- dous power to individual senators. The president’s veto power also exerts an important influence on Congress’s lawmaking because the possibility of a presidential veto affects how willing members of Congress are to push for different pieces of legislation.
Key Terms bill (p. 489)
committee markup (p. 489)
closed rule (p. 491)
open rule (p. 491)
filibuster (p. 492)
cloture (p. 492)
veto (p. 494)
pocket veto (p. 494)
The Organization of Congress
Rules of Lawmaking: How a Bill Becomes a Law
Explain how party leadership, the committee system, the staff system, and caucuses help structure congressional business (pp. 482–89)
Outline the steps in the process of passing a law (pp. 489–94)
STUDY GU IDE 509
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 509 27/11/18 12:34 PM
d) nominees for positions in the executive branch and the federal courts cannot currently be filibustered.
e) Filibusters were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2013.
9. Which of the following statements about the filibuster is most accurate? a) The filibuster was first used in 1975. b) The votes of 67 senators are currently required to
end a filibuster. c) The filibuster was used far more frequently in the 1930s
and 1940s than it has been in the last two decades.
b) interest groups are forbidden from lobbying during legislative votes.
c) most constituents pay close attention to what’s going on in Congress at all times.
d) they worry that their voting record will be scrutinized at election time.
e) they can be impeached if they go against their constituents’ policy preferences.
11. Which of the following is not a resource that party leaders in Congress use to create party discipline? a) leadership PACs b) committee assignments c) access to the floor d) the whip system e) party unity votes
12. An agreement between members of Congress to trade support for each other’s bills is known as a) oversight. b) filibuster. c) logrolling. d) patronage. e) cloture.
Key Terms oversight (p. 502)
appropriations (p. 502)
executive agreement (p. 503)
impeachment (p. 504)
Practice Quiz
13. When Congress conducts an investigation to explore the relationship between what a law intended and what an executive agency has done, it is engaged in a) oversight. b) advice and consent. c) appropriations.
A variety of influences from inside and outside government play a role in congressional decision making. External influences include the policy preferences of the legislator’s constituency and the lobbying of various interest groups. Party leaders within Congress use many methods, including leadership PACs, logrolling, and the president’s support, to influence how representatives behave. The growing polariza- tion of Democrats and republicans has significantly hindered the legislative productivity of Congress in recent years.
Key Terms party unity vote (p. 496)
roll-call vote (p. 496)
logrolling (p. 499)
Practice Quiz
10. Members of Congress take their constituents’ views into account because a) the Supreme Court can invalidate laws passed
without majority support in the public.
Congress has many other powers than simply lawmaking. Using hearings, investigations, and other techniques, Congress exercises control over the agencies of the executive branch. Under the Constitution, the president can only make treaties and appoint top executive officers, ambassadors, and federal judges “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” The Constitution also grants Congress the power of impeachment over the president, vice president, and other executive officials.
How Congress Decides
Beyond Legislation: Other Congressional Powers
Analyze the factors that influence which laws Congress passes (pp. 494–502)
Describe Congress’s influence over other branches of government (pp. 502–5)
CHAPTER 12 STUDy GU IDE510
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 510 27/11/18 12:34 PM
Cook Political Report www.cookpolitical.com
The Cook Political report, by Charlie Cook, is a nonpartisan analysis of electoral politics. Check out current House and Senate races for an in-depth analysis of past elections and previews of future congressional elections.
Roll Call www.rollcall.com
Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill, provides daily coverage on the members, legislation, and events taking place in and around the U.S. legislature.
Lee, Frances E. Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Par- tisanship in the U.S. Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.
Mann, Thomas E., and norman J. ornstein. It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. new york: Basic Books, 2012.
Mayhew, David r. Congress: The Electoral Connection. new Haven, CT: yale University Press, 1974.
Palmer, Barbara, and Denise Simon. Breaking the Political Glass Ceiling: Women and Congressional Elections. 2nd ed. new york: routledge, 2008.
Schickler, Eric, and Frances E. Lee. The Oxford Handbook of the American Congress. new york: oxford University Press, 2011.
Tate, Katherine. Concordance: Black Lawmaking in the U.S. Congress from Carter to Obama. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2014.
Wawro, Gregory J., and Eric Schickler. Filibuster: Obstruction and Lawmaking in the U.S. Senate. Princeton, nJ: Princeton University Press, 2006.
Adler, E. Scott, and John D. Wilkerson. Congress and the Politics of Problem Solving. new york: Cambridge University Press. 2013.
Chafetz, Josh. Congress’s Constitution: Legislative Authority and the Separation of Powers. new Haven, CT: yale University Press, 2017.
Connelly, William F., John J. Pitney, and Gary Schmitt, eds. Is Congress Broken? The Virtues and Defects of Partisanship and Gridlock. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2017.
Dodd, Lawrence C., and Bruce I. oppenheimer, eds. Congress Reconsidered. 10th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2012.
Dodson, Debra L. The Impact of Women in Congress. new york: oxford University Press, 2006.
Fenno, richard F. Homestyle: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown, 1978.
Fiorina, Morris. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Estab- lishment. 2nd ed. new Haven, CT: yale University Press, 1989.
Koger, Gregory. Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.
Recommended Websites The Sunlight Foundation and Taxpayers for Common Sense Open Congress www.opencongress.org
Informative and very user-friendly means to explore legislation passed and proposed, compare legislators, and keep up with recent action on bills.
U.S. House of Representatives www.house.gov
U.S. Senate www.senate.gov
These are the official websites for the U.S. House of representatives and the U.S. Senate. Here you can find information on your members of Congress, key congres- sional leaders, bills currently under consideration, and legislative committees.
For Further Reading
c) The House of representatives decides by simple majority vote whether the accused ought to be impeached.
d) The Senate decides whether to convict and remove the person from office.
e) There have only been two instances of presidential impeachment in American history.
d) executive agreement. e) direct patronage.
14. Which of the following statements about impeachment is not true? a) The president is the only official who can be
impeached by Congress. b) Impeachment means to charge a government
official with “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
STUDY GU IDE 511
wtp12e_ptr_ch12_466-511.indd 511 27/11/18 12:34 PM
The Presidency
131313 chapter
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS Kevin Hartley of Tennessee was 21 years old in April 2017 when he collapsed and died
from cardiac arrest after using methylene chloride to
strip paint from a bathtub during a renovation job.
Although the chemical was associated with dozens
of deaths dating back to the 1940s, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, established in 1970, had
lacked the regulatory teeth to remove such widely
available products from the market. Wendy Cleland-
Hamnett, the EPA’s top official overseeing pesticides
and toxic chemicals, lamented, “How is it possible
that you can go to a home improvement store and
buy a paint remover that can kill you?”1
In summer 2016, Congress passed and Presi-
dent Obama signed a reform of the Toxic Substances
Control Act of 1976, giving the EPA more power to
regulate toxic chemicals. Passed with bipartisan
support, the new law required the EPA to evalu-
ate both new and existing chemicals, including the
10 most toxic chemicals in wide use. In the
last days of the Obama administration in January
2017, after 10 years of research, the EPA pro-
posed banning certain uses of methylene chloride,
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 512 27/11/18 12:35 PM
While presidents inherit policies and regulations implemented during previous administrations, they are empowered to reverse or alter them according to their beliefs. As a former businessman, President Trump rejected the regulations put in place by the Obama administration that could put restraints on some businesses.
513
especially by ordinary consumers and non-industrial
businesses.
But as presidential administrations switched from
Obama to Trump, these new rules remained mere
proposals. As a candidate Donald Trump said that he
wanted to eliminate two regulations for every one that
his agencies enacted. And when the Trump Administra-
tion took office in January 2017, it froze rules and pro-
posed regulations across government, including those
at the EPA. Kevin Hartley died three months later.
The Trump EPA did release new rules about
toxic chemicals in summer 2017. They were written
by Nancy Beck, a toxicologist who, between stints
at the EPA under Presidents George W. Bush
and Trump, had worked for the American Chemistry
Council, contesting EPA regulations over what she
called “phantom risks.” The new rules reflected
changes that had been requested by the chemical
industry and did not include a ban on methylene
chloride. The new leadership at the EPA also over-
turned Cleland-Hamnett’s recommendation to ban
the use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos, associated
with development disabilities in children, and under-
mined tracking of the health effects of a chemical
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 513 27/11/18 12:35 PM
once used in nonstick pans associated with birth defects and kidney cancer.
Recognizing that the agency’s leadership was going in a different direction,
Cleland-Hamnett, who had worked for the EPA since 1979, under presidents
of both parties, announced her retirement. “It’s time for me to go.” In the face
of continued public concern over toxic paint strippers, then-EPA head Scott
Pruitt indicated in May 2018 that the agency would implement the methylene
chloride ban. But months of inaction passed, and in October 2018 a coali-
tion of consumer groups threatened to sue the EPA for delaying the ban after
four more people died.
In this chapter, we examine the foundations of the American presidency
and assess the origins and character of presidential power. Presidents are
empowered by democratic political processes and, increasingly, by their ability
to control and expand the institutional resources of the office. They sit atop
the executive branch, a large bureaucracy of departments and agencies such
as the EPA. They influence policy with their appointments to the Cabinet, the
White House staff, and to the Executive Office of the President, choosing
officials who are sympathetic to their policy goals and using regulatory review
as with the EPA and executive orders to make policy. They set the tone for
government as well, as the sole elected official representing the entire
country. But, as we will see, presidential power is not without limit, nor should
it be. The U.S. Constitution emphasizes checks and balances among the
branches of government, not unlimited power. The framers thought a powerful
and energetic president would make the U.S. government more effective but
knew that presidential power needed to be subject to constraints to prevent it
from becoming a threat to citizens’ liberties.
★ Understand the expressed, implied, delegated, and inherent powers of the presidency (pp. 515–29)
★ Identify the institutional resources presidents have to help them exercise their powers (pp. 529–33)
★ Explain how modern presidents have become even more powerful (pp. 533–43)
CHAPTER GOALS
514 CHAPTER 13 THE PRES IDENCy
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 514 27/11/18 12:35 PM
The Constitutional Powers of the Presidency
The presidency was established b y Article II of the Constitution, which begins b y asser ting that “The executive power shall be v ested in a President of the U nited S tates of
America.” This language is known as the Constitution ’s “ vesting clause. ” The president’s executive power is underscored in Section 3 of Ar ticle II, the “take care clause,” which confers upon the pr esident the duty to “ take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The president’s oath of office at the end of Section 1, mor e- over, obligates—and thus empowers—the chief executive to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the U nited States.” This language seems to require the president to take action, without specifying any limits to that action, if consti - tutional government is thr eatened. President A braham Lincoln cited his oath of office as justification for suspending the writ of habeas corpus in 1861. He declared that his oath would be br oken if the go vernment was o verthrown. S uspension of the writ, he said, was necessar y to pr event that calamity fr om taking place. B y vesting the executive power in the president, Article II also implies that the president serves as America’s head of state and is, therefore, entitled to special deference and respect. In Europe, the chief ex ecutives and heads of state w ere monarchs. While presidents are not monarchs, as the holders of executive power, they might appear to be entitled to the kingly r espect due a head of state. O n the basis of Ar ticle II, presidents make use of three types of powers. These are called the expressed powers of the office, implied powers, and delegated po wers. A four th type of po wer claimed by pr esidents does not appear in Ar ticle II. This is called the inherent power of the office.
Understand the expressed, implied, delegated, and inherent powers of the presidency
Abraham Lincoln, like many other presidents, cited the presidential oath of office as providing the president the authority to take all the necessary actions to protect the nation.
515THE CONST I TUT IONAl POWERS Of THE PRES IDENCy
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 515 27/11/18 12:35 PM
EXPRESSED POWERS
The expressed powers of the pr esidency ar e those specifically established by the language of the Constitution. These fall into several categories:
1. Military. Ar ticle II, S ection 2, pr ovides for the po wer as “Commander in Chief of the Army and N avy of the U nited States, and of the M ilitia of the several States, when called in to the actual Service of the United States.”
2. Judicial. Ar ticle II, S ection 2, also pr ovides the po wer to “ grant R eprieves and P ardons for Offences against the United S tates, ex cept in Cases of Impeachment.”
3. Diplomatic. Ar ticle II, S ection 2, fur ther provides the po wer “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties.” Article II, Section 3, provides the power to “receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.”
4. Executive. Article II, Section 3, also authorizes the president to see to it that all the laws are faithfully executed; Section 2 gives the chief ex ecutive power to appoint, remove, and supervise all executive officers and to appoint all federal judges.
5. Legislative. Article I, Section 7, and Article II, Section 3, give the president the power to participate authoritatively in the legislative process.
Military Power The president’s military powers are among the most important exer- cised by the chief executive. The position of commander in chief makes the president the highest military authority in the United States, with control of the entire defense establishment. The president is also head of the nation’s intelligence network, which includes not only the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) but also the National Secu- rity Council (NSC), the National Security Agency (NSA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and a host of less w ell-known but very powerful international and domestic security agencies.
Military Sources of Domestic Power The president’s military powers extend into the domestic spher e. Ar ticle IV, Section 4, pr ovides that the “U nited States shall [protect] every State . . . against . . . Invasion . . . and . . . domestic Violence.” Congress has made this an explicit presidential power through statutes directing the president as commander in chief to discharge these obligations. 2 The Constitution restrains the president’s use of domestic for ce by providing that a state legislatur e (or go v- ernor when the legislatur e is not in session) must r equest federal troops before the president can send them into the state to provide public order. Yet this proviso is not absolute. F irst, presidents are not obligated to deplo y national tr oops merely because the state legislature or governor makes such a request. More important, the president may deplo y troops in a state or city without a specific request from the state legislature or go vernor if the pr esident considers it necessar y to maintain an essential national ser vice during an emergency , enforce a federal judicial or der, or protect federally guaranteed civil rights.3
One historic example of the unilateral use of presidential emergency power, even when the states don’t request it, is the decision by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1957 to send tr oops into Little R ock, Arkansas, against the wishes of the state of Arkansas, to enforce court orders to integrate Little Rock’s Central High School. The governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus, had posted the Arkansas National Guard at the entrance to Central H igh School to pr event the cour t-ordered admission
expressed powers specific powers granted by the Constitution to Congress (Article I, Section 8) and to the president (Article II)
commander in chief the role of the president as commander of the national military and the state National Guard units (when called into service)
516 CHAPTER 13 THE PRES IDENCy
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 516 27/11/18 12:35 PM
of nine black students. After an effort to negotiate with G overnor Faubus failed, President E isenhower r eluctantly sent 1,000 paratr oopers fr om the U.S. Army ’s 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock; they stood watch while the black students took their places in the all-white classrooms.
In most instances of domestic disor der, whether fr om human or fr om natural causes, presidents tend to ex ercise unilateral po wer by declaring a “ state of emer - gency,” as President Trump did in response to the three hurricanes striking America in 2017, thereby making available federal grants, insurance, and direct aid.
Judicial Power The presidential po wer to grant r eprieves, par dons, and amnesty involves power over all individuals who may be a thr eat to the security of the United States. Presidents may use this power on behalf of a particular individual, as did Gerald Ford when he par doned Richard Nixon in 1974 “ for all offenses against the United States which he . . . has committed or may hav e committed.” Or they may use it on a large scale, as did P resident Andrew Johnson in 1868, when he gav e full amnesty to all southerners who had par ticipated in the “Late R ebellion.” Presidents’ use of the pardon power can be very controversial. President Trump was criticized for pardoning former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio after Arpaio was found guilty of criminal contempt for ignoring a cour t order that directed his office to halt illegal racial profiling prac- tices. The pardon was criticized because Trump did not first consult with the Justice Department’s office of pardons and it was issued before Arpaio had been sentenced.
Diplomatic Power The president is America’s “head of state,” its chief r epresenta- tive in dealings with other nations, having the power to make treaties for the United States (with the advice and consent of the Senate) as well as the power to “recognize” other countries. Diplomatic recognition means that the United States acknowledges a government’s legitimacy and territorial claims. In 2015, President Obama restored American diplomatic ties with Cuba, which had been severed by President Eisenhower in 1961 after the U nited States’ relations with the Castr o regime deteriorated. I n 2017, after sev eral staffers at the U.S. embassy in Cuba demonstrated neur ologi- cal symptoms after being exposed to strange sounds, some blamed these “ sonic attacks” on the C uban government, which pr ompted President Trump to r evisit newly restored American ties with Cuba. In 2018, President Trump met with North
One of the president’s responsibili- ties is the maintenance of public order in times of crisis. In 1951, President Eisenhower used this to justify sending the troops to Little Rock to enforce racial integration of public schools (left). President Trump sent troops to Puerto Rico to assist in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria in 2017.
517THE CONST I TUT IONAl POWERS Of THE PRES IDENCy
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 517 27/11/18 12:35 PM
Korean leader, Kim Jong-un in an effort to defuse tensions on the Korean Peninsula. Earlier in the year, North Korea and America had exchanged threats in the wake of North Korean nuclear missile tests.
In recent years, presidents have expanded the practice of using ex ecutive agree- ments instead of tr eaties to establish r elations with other countries. 4 An executive agreement is exactly like a tr eaty because it is a contract betw een two countries, but it does not require Senate approval. There are actually two types of executive agree- ments. One is the executive–congressional agreement. For this type of agreement, the president will submit the pr oposed arrangement to Congress for a simple majority vote in both houses, usually easier for presidents to win than the two-thirds approval of the Senate that is required for a treaty. The United States’ 2015 accord with Iran is a recent example of an executive–congressional agreement. The other type of executive agreement is the sole executive agreement, which is simply an understand - ing between the president and a foreign state and is not submitted to Congress for approval. In the past, sole executive agreements were used to flesh out commitments already made in tr eaties or to arrange for matters w ell below the lev el of policy . Since the 1930s, however, presidents have entered into sole executive agreements on impor tant issues when they w ere uncer tain about their pr ospects for securing congressional approval. For example, the G eneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), one of the cornerstones of U.S. international economic policy in the post– World War II era, was based on an ex ecutive agreement. The courts have held that executive agreements have the force of law, as though they were formal treaties.
Executive Power The Constitution focuses executive power and legal responsibility on the president. The most important basis of the president’s power as chief execu- tive is found in Ar ticle II, Section 3, of the Constitution, which stipulates that the president must see that all the laws are faithfully executed, and Section 2, which pro- vides that the president will appoint and supervise all executive officers and appoint all federal judges (with Senate approval; after some early controversy, presidents’ sole power to remove executive branch officials was accepted). The power to appoint the
executive agreement an agreement, made between the president and another country, that has the force of a treaty but does not require the Senate’s “advice and consent”
As the head of state, the president is America’s chief representative in dealings with other countries. Here, President Trump meets with North Korea’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un in 2018 to discuss nuclear disarma- ment on the Korean Peninsula.
518 CHAPTER 13 THE PRES IDENCy
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 518 27/11/18 12:35 PM
principal executive officers and to require each of them to report to the president on subjects relating to the duties of their departments makes the pr esident the tr ue chief ex ecutive officer (CEO) of the nation. The president is subject to some limitations because the appointment of all such officers, including ambassadors, ministers, and federal judges, is subject to a majority appr oval by the Senate. But these appointments ar e at the discr etion of the pr esident, and the loyalty and the responsibility of each appointee are presumed to be directed toward the president.
Another component of the pr esident’s power as chief ex ecutive is executive privilege, the claim that confidential communications between a president and close advis - ers should not be revealed without presidential consent. Presidents have made this claim ever since G eorge Washington refused a r equest from the House of Repre- sentatives to deliver documents concerning negotiations of an important treaty. Washington refused (successfully) on the grounds that, first, the House was not constitutionally part of the treaty-making process and, second, diplomatic negotia- tions required secrecy.
Although many pr esidents hav e claimed ex ecutive privilege, the concept was not tested in the cour ts until the 1971 “ Watergate” affair, when President Richard Nixon refused congressional demands that he turn o ver secret White House tapes that congressional investigators suspected would establish his complicity in illegal activities. In United States v. Nixon (1974), the S upreme Court ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes.5 The president complied with the order and was forced to resign from office. The United States v. Nixon case is often seen as a blo w to pr esidential power, but in actuality , the Cour t’s r uling r ecognized for the first time the legal validity of executive privilege, though holding that it did not apply in this particular instance. Subsequent presidents have cited United States v. Nixon in support of their claims of executive privilege. The Obama administration invoked executive privilege once, in response to congressional demands for records from Attorney General Eric Holder relating to Operation Fast and Furious, an arms-trafficking sting operation that went awry, with federal agents losing track of hundr eds of guns they sold to suspected gun smugglers.
Legislative Power The president plays a r ole not only in the administration of government but also in the legislative process. Two constitutional provisions are the primary sources of the president’s power in the legislative arena. The first of these is the portion of Article II, Section 3, providing that the president “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such M easures as he shall judge necessar y and expedient.” Delivering a “State of the Union” address may at first appear to be little more than the president’s obligation to make recommendations for Congress’s consideration. But as political and social conditions began to fav or an incr easingly pr ominent presidential role, each president, especially since FDR, began to r ely on this pr o- vision in order to become the primary initiator of proposals for legislative action in Congr ess and the most impor tant single par ticipant in legislativ e decision making, as well as the principal source for public awareness of national issues.6
The second of the president’s legislativ e powers is the v eto power assigned b y Article I, Section 7.7 The veto is the president’s constitutional power to r eject acts of Congress (see Figure 13.1), making the president the most important single leg- islative leader.8 No bill vetoed by the president can become law unless both the
executive privilege the claim that confidential communications between a president and close advisers should not be revealed without the consent of the president
veto the president’s constitutional power to turn down acts of Congress; a presidential veto may be overridden by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress
The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Nixon is often seen as a blow to presidential power because Nixon was required to turn over secret tapes related to the Watergate scandal, despite his claims of executive privilege. Here, Nixon points to transcripts of the tapes that he is turning over to House impeachment investigators.
519THE CONST I TUT IONAl POWERS Of THE PRES IDENCy
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 519 27/11/18 12:35 PM
House and Senate override the veto by a two-thirds vote. In the case of a pocket veto, Congress does not hav e the option of o verriding the v eto but must r eintroduce the bill in the next session. U sually, if a president is presented with a bill and does not sign it within 10 days, it automatically becomes law. But this is true only while Congress is in session. If a president chooses not to sign a bill presented within the last 10 days of a legislativ e session and Congress is out of session when the 10 -day limit expires, instead of becoming law, the bill is vetoed.
Use of the v eto varies according to the political situation each pr esident con - fronts. During his last two years in office, when Democrats had control of both houses of Congress, Republican president George W. Bush vetoed 10 bills, includ- ing legislation designed to prohibit the use of harsh interr ogation tactics, saying it “would take away one of the most v aluable tools in the war on terr or.”9 Similarly, 10 of President Obama’s 12 vetoes occurred during his last two years in office, when Republicans held the majority in both H ouses. Among O bama’s most significant vetoes was his 2015 decision to veto a bill authorizing construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline that would have carried oil from Canada to U.S. refineries. The bill had been opposed by environmentalists and other interests. An attempt to override
pocket veto a presidential veto that is automatically triggered if the president does not act on a given piece of legislation passed during the final 10 days of a legislative session
FIGURE 13.1
The Veto Process *PL 5 public law; 107 5 number of Congress (107th was 2001–02); 999 5 number of the law.
Bill passes Congress
Presented to the
president
Bill dies (pocket veto)
No action after 10 working days
while Congress is adjourned
• Office of Management and Budget
party
Bill reviewed by • Special assistants
• Relevant department head • Key legislative leaders in president’s
• Key lobbyists close to president • Justice Department
Bill acceptable to the president
Veto recommended,
goes to
• Staff assistants • Relevant department • Speechwriters
Veto
Returned to Congress. Override requires two-thirds
vote of both houses
Bill becomes law and is given legal
designation (e.g., PL-107-999*)
President signs, usually in a public ceremony in
presence of key sponsors and supporters. Several
pens are used as souvenirs
Bill lives
Bill dies
Override
Failure to override
No action after 10 working days while Congress is
in session
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS How might the anticipation of a veto affect the behavior of Congress? And how might the anticipation of a congressional override affect the president’s behavior?
520 CHAPTER 13 THE PRES IDENCy
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 520 27/11/18 12:35 PM
the president’s veto failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress. Since the time of George Washington, presidents have used their veto power over 3,000 times, and on only 111 occasions has Congress overridden them. As of November 2018, despite several threats to use his veto power, President Trump had not vetoed a single bill.
Though not explicitly, the Constitution provides the president with the power of legislative initiative—the implied power to bring a legislative agenda before Congress. The framers of the Constitution clearly saw legislative initiative as one of the keys to executive power. Initiative implies the ability to formulate proposals for important policies, and the president, as an individual with a great deal of staff assistance, is able to initiate decisive action more frequently than Congress, with its large assem- blies that have to deliberate and debate before taking action. With some important exceptions, Congress depends on the pr esident to set the agenda of public policy . For example, under the terms of the 1921 Budget and Accounting Act, the president is required to submit a budget to the Congress. In the case of the budget and other matters, initiative confers the power of being able to set the terms of discourse in the making of public policy.
For example, during the weeks immediately following September 11, George W. B ush took many pr esidential initiativ es to Congr ess, and each was giv en almost unanimous support. President Obama made health care his chief domes- tic priority and engaged in sharp battles with congr essional R epublicans to bring about the enactment of the Affordable Car e A ct, informally kno wn as “Obamacare.” President Trump sought to lead Congr ess in the elimination of Obamacare and in a massiv e tax r eform effort but found it difficult to unite the fractious Republicans behind his agenda. Congress was unable to muster a majority for the repeal of Obamacare but did enact a sweeping reform of the tax system and a major new budget that substantially lifted spending on military and domestic programs.
legislative initiative the president’s inherent power to bring a legislative agenda before Congress
In his 2018 State of the Union address, President Trump empha- sized the need to tighten immi- gration laws and highlighted the importance of recently passed tax-overhaul legislation.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Although Congress passes laws, the president has influence too. What is the president’s role in the legislative process?
521THE CONST I TUT IONAl POWERS Of THE PRES IDENCy
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 521 27/11/18 12:35 PM
IMPLIED POWERS
The list of expressed pr esidential po wers is brief , but each expr essed po wer has become the foundation of a second set of presidential powers, the so-called implied powers of the office. An implied power is one that can be said to be necessar y to allow presidents to ex ercise their expr essed power. For example, the Constitution expressly gives the president the power to appoint “all other officers of the United States . . . which shall be established b y law.” Article II does not, ho wever, expressly grant the president the power to remove such officials from office. There is no rea- son to assume a priori that the power to appoint necessarily indicates the power to remove an official. The president of France appoints the prime minister but only the national legislature can r emove that official from office. From the earliest y ears of the Republic, though, presidents claimed that the removal power was implied by the appointment power. This claim was generally accepted until 1867 when, during its struggles with President Andrew Johnson, Congress enacted the Tenure of Office Act (repealed in 1887) r equiring the president to obtain senatorial appr oval to remove officials whose appointments had required Senate confirmation. Johnson’s refusal to comply with this A ct led to the pr esident’s 1868 impeachment and trial. J ohnson escaped his own removal from office by a one-vote margin. Fifty years later, the U.S. Supreme Court held in the case of Myers v. United States that the removal power was, indeed, implied by the appointment power.10
Presidents have also made much of the v ery first sentence of Article II, which declares, “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” This grant of power, along with the subsequent admonition to presidents to see to it that the laws ar e faithfully ex ecuted, as w ell as the pr esident’s oath of office, have been cited b y successive White Houses as justifications for actions not expressly sanctioned by the Constitution. In recent years, the vesting clause has been said by presidents and their advisers to suppor t what has come to be kno wn as the “theory of the unitary executive.”11
Unitary executive theory holds that all ex ecutive power inheres in the president except as explicitly limited b y the Constitution.12 Thus, according to this view, the president is a so vereign subject to some r estraints, such as Congr ess’s contr ol of revenues, its impeachment power, and its power to override presidential vetoes. Some proponents of unitary executive theory also maintain that presidents have their own power to interpret the Constitution as it applies to the ex ecutive branch and need not necessarily defer to the judiciary. This claim was advanced by President George W. Bush when he signed a D efense Appropriation Bill that included language on the treatment of terrorist suspects—the so-called anti-torture provision introduced by Senator John McCain—that the president had opposed. In his signing statement, Bush declared that he would constr ue the por tion of the act r elating to the tr eat- ment of detainees, “in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.”13 The president was claiming, in other words, that particularly in the military realm, he possessed the authority to execute acts of Congress according to his own understanding of the law and the nation’s interests. He also seemed to be claiming that the authority of the courts to interfere with his actions was limited.
Unitary executive theory particularly holds that the president controls all policy making by the executive branch with Congress wielding only limited, if any, direct power over executive agencies. Only presidents, say unitary executive theorists, may
implied powers powers derived from the necessary and proper clause of Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution; such powers are not specifically expressed but are implied through the expansive interpretation of delegated powers
522 CHAPTER 13 THE PRES IDENCy
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 522 27/11/18 12:35 PM
exercise discretionary authority over the actions of these agencies. This idea has been the basis for such presidential programs as “regulatory review,” to be discussed below, which has been used by every president since Ronald Reagan to guide rule making by the various federal agencies, sometimes using this process to write authoritativ e rules when they could not persuade Congress to enact laws they sought.14
The president is, of course, a unitary chief executive. But the principle of consti- tutional checks and balances would appear to pr ovide Congress with powers over the many impor tant agencies of the ex ecutive branch thr ough what has come to be called “congressional oversight” of the ex ecutive. Article I of the Constitution gives Congr ess a number of po wers, including the po wer to appr opriate funds, to raise and support armies and navies, to regulate interstate commerce, and to impeach officials of the executive branch. Article I also gives Congress the authority “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.” Congressional oversight, which includes legislative hearings, investigations, studies, and r eports, is arguably implied b y this language. I f Con- gress is to carr y out its constitutional r esponsibilities, it must possess the ability to obtain information r egarding the activities of ex ecutive branch agencies and officials. Thus, the stage is set for conflict between the implied powers of Congress and those of the president.
DELEGATED POWERS
Many of the po wers exercised by the pr esident and the ex ecutive branch ar e not found in the Constitution but ar e delegated powers, the pr oducts of congr essional statutes and resolutions. Over the past centur y, Congress has voluntarily delegated a great deal of its own legislative authority to the executive branch. To some extent, this delegation of power has been an almost inescapable consequence of the expan- sion of go vernment activity in the U nited States since the N ew Deal. Given the vast range of the federal government’s responsibilities, Congress cannot execute and administer all of the programs it creates and the laws it enacts. Inevitably, Congress must turn to the hundreds of departments and agencies in the executive branch or, when necessary, create new agencies to implement its goals. Thus, for example, in 2002, when Congress sought to protect America from terrorist attacks, it established the D epartment of H omeland Security, with br oad powers in the r ealms of law enforcement, public health, and immigration.
As they implement congr essional legislation, federal agencies collectiv ely develop thousands of rules and regulations and issue thousands of orders and find- ings ev ery y ear. Agencies interpr et Congr ess’s intent, pr omulgate r ules aimed at implementing that intent, and issue orders to individuals, firms, and organizations to impel them to conform to the law. When it establishes an agency, Congress sometimes grants it only limited discr etionary authority, providing v ery specific guidelines and standards that must be followed by the administrators charged with the program’s implementation. Take the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), for exam- ple. Most Americans view the IRS as a powerful agency whose dictates can have an immediate and sometimes unpleasant impact on their lives. In fact, congressional tax legislation is v ery specific and detailed, leaving little to the discretion of IRS administrators.15 The agency certainly develops numerous rules and procedures to enhance tax collection. It is Congress, however, that establishes the structure of the tax liabilities, tax ex emptions, and tax deductions that determine each taxpay er’s burdens and responsibilities.
delegated powers constitutional powers that are assigned to one governmental agency but that are exercised by another agency with the express permission of the first
523THE CONST I TUT IONAl POWERS Of THE PRES IDENCy
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 523 27/11/18 12:35 PM
Executive Branches in Comparison All democracies have an executive branch, but the specific form it takes varies. In presidential systems, such as the United States, the position of the head of state (the symbolic leader of a country) and the head of government (the leader in charge of the day-to-day running of the government) is combined into one position—the president. In parliamentary systems, these roles are often held by different people, with the head of government being the more powerful position. for example, in Germany, the head of government is the prime minister (called the chancellor), while the head of state is the president, who plays a largely ceremonial role similar to the United Kingdom’s queen.
Most democracies use parliamentary executive systems, though presidential systems are common in the Americas, in part due to the historical influence of the United States. Political scientists have long debated which system is “best,” contrasting parliamentary and presidential systems on their effectiveness, stability, and representativeness. In
presidential systems, for example, the separation of powers may protect against the “tyranny of the majority,” in which a majority pursues its interests without regard to those of minority groups (see Chapter 2), but it can also lead to deadlock, policy inefficiencies, and polarization.
A small but growing group of countries uses a hybrid “semipresidential” system. france, for instance, divides the executive between a powerful head of state (the president) and the head of government (the prime minister) who have different but (theoretically) equal powers. While this arrangement is intended to combine the best of both systems, conflict can emerge in semi-presidential systems between the prime minister and president over differences in legislation or constitutional authority. In most semi-presidential systems, the president holds the majority of the power, including the power to appoint and dismiss the prime minister. Occasionally, presidents in these systems can use their power advantage to undermine the legislature and threaten democracy.
PRESIDENTIAL PARLIAMENTARY
Examples United States, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Ghana, South Korea
United Kingdom, India, Germany, Japan, Canada, Austria, Norway
Executive title President Prime Minister, Chancellor, etc.
Is the executive the . . . Head of state? Head of government?
yes yes
No yes
Executive elected by . . . Voters* Parliament
Term in office fixed by law Subject to support of the parliament
Separation of powers yes No; the Prime Minister is a member of the parliament
Executive role in legislating Veto power Initiates most bills
*In the United States, the president is elected by the Electoral College, not by the voters directly. Other presidential systems have the voters directly elect the president.
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 524 27/11/18 12:35 PM
In most instances, though, congressional legislation is not very detailed. Often, Congress defines a broad goal or objectiv e and delegates enormous discr etionary power to administrators to determine ho w that goal is to be achiev ed. Agency administrators have the po wer to draft r ules and r egulations that hav e the effect of law. Indeed, the cour ts treat these administrativ e rules like congr essional stat- utes. For all intents and purposes, when Congr ess creates an agency such as the Department of H omeland S ecurity, giving it a br oad mandate to achiev e some desirable outcome, it transfers its own legislative power to the executive branch.
At least since the N ew D eal, Congr ess has tended to giv e ex ecutive agencies broad mandates and to draft legislation that offers few clear standards or guidelines for implementation b y the ex ecutive. For example, the 1933 N ational Industrial Recovery Act gave the president the authority to set rules to bring about fair compe- tition in key sectors of the economy without ev er defining what the term meant or how it was to be achieved.16 This pattern of broad delegation became typical in the ensuing decades. The 1972 Consumer Product Safety Act, for example, authoriz es the Consumer Product Safety Commission to reduce unreasonable risk of injury from household products but offers no suggestions to guide the commission’s deter- mination of what constitutes r easonable and unr easonable risks or ho w these ar e to be r educed.17 This means the executive branch, under the pr esident’s direction, has wide discretion to make r ules that impact American citiz ens and businesses. A recent example of the executive branch’s role is the 2010 Affordable Care Act. After the law passed, several members of Congress admitted that they did not fully under- stand how the act would work and were depending upon the Department of Health and Human Services, the agency with primary administrative responsibility for the act, to explain it to them. The case of the Affordable Care Act is fairly typical. As administrative scholar Jerry L. Nashaw has observed, “Most public law is legislative in origin but administrative in content.”18
In the nineteenth century there were relatively well-defined congressional guidelines for administrators. During much of the nineteenth centur y, the federal go vernment had relatively few domestic r esponsibilities, and Congr ess could pay close attention to details. Today, the operation of an enormous ex ecutive establishment and literally thousands of programs under varied and changing circumstances requires that admin- istrators be allowed some considerable measur e of discr etion to carr y out their jobs. Nevertheless, the end result is to shift power from Congress to the executive branch.
INHERENT POWERS
Presidents have also claimed a fourth source of power. These are powers not specified in the Constitution but said to stem fr om “the rights, duties and obligations of the presidency.” These are referred to as inherent powers and ar e most often asser ted by presidents in time of war or national emergency. President Lincoln relied upon a claim of inherent power to raise an army after the fall of Fort Sumter. Similarly, Presidents Roosevelt (World War II), Truman (Korean War), and both Presidents Bush (Persian Gulf and Middle East wars) claimed inherent powers to defend the nation. Since the Korean War, presidents have used their claim of inher ent powers along with their constitutional power as Commander in Chief to bypass the constitutional provision giving Congress the power to declare war. Congress declared war after the J apanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Since that time, American forces have been sent to fight foreign wars on mor e than one hundr ed occasions but not once was Congress asked for a Declaration of War. In 1973, Congress passed the War
inherent powers powers claimed by a president that are not expressed in the Constitution but are inferred from it
The influence of the president and the executive branch is widespread as the executive is responsible for the implementation of many laws that Congress passes. For example, after Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, it was up to the executive branch to orchestrate the health insurance enrollment process for millions of Americans.
525THE CONST I TUT IONAl POWERS Of THE PRES IDENCy
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 525 27/11/18 12:35 PM
Powers Resolution designed to restore its role in military policy. Presidents, however, have regarded the resolution as an improper limitation on the inherent powers of the presidency and have studiously ignored the provisions of the War Powers Resolution.
The difference between inherent and implied powers is often subtle and the two are fr equently jointly claimed in suppor t of pr esidential action. I mplied po wers can be traced to the po wers expressed in the actual language of the Constitution. 19 Inherent powers, on the other hand, derive from national sovereignty. Under inter- national law and custom, so vereign states possess a number of inher ent rights and powers. The most important of these are the right to engage in relations with other nations, the right of self -defense against attacks fr om other states, and the right to curb internal violence and unrest. Who is actually to act to give effect to the nation’s various rights and powers? The executive power is vested by the Constitution in the president, who is acknowledged to have the power to “make” if not “declare” war, to negotiate tr eaties with other nations and to see to it that the laws ar e faithfully executed. Thus, it might be said to be constitutionally implied that it is the president who possesses the inherent power to act to defend the nation, to conduct its foreign relations, and to safeguard law and order.
Most presidents believe that they and only they ar e constitutionally authoriz ed to manage the nation’s relations with foreign states. If challenged, presidents and their aides will cite the words of John Marshall’s 1800 speech to the House of Representatives where the future Chief Justice called the president, “the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.”20 According to constitutional scholar Louis Fisher, Marshall meant that the president was the sole organ in implement- ing, not making, foreign policy.21 Yet, the Supreme Court took the more expansive view in its famous Curtiss-Wright decision, which cites Marshall in support of the idea that the president possesses broad inherent power in the making of foreign policy.22
A number of presidents have claimed that the presidency also possessed inher- ent powers in military affairs and in dealing with domestic emergencies—powers that were not necessarily spelled out in the Constitution or sanctioned b y law.23 In 1861, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, ordered martial law in a number of ar eas, called out the state militias, withdr ew funds fr om the Treasury, and or dered a nav al blockade of S outhern por ts, all without congr es- sional authorization.
No president has acted so frequently on the basis of inherent powers as President George W. Bush. He claimed that the inher ent powers of the presidency gave him the authority to create military commissions, designate U.S. citizens as enemy com- batants, engage in “ extraordinary renditions” of captur ed suspects who would be moved to unknown facilities in unnamed countries for interr ogation, and author - ize the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor phone conv ersations between the United States and other nations. 24 When challenged, some but not all of these actions were overturned by the cour ts. We will examine these decisions in some detail in Chapter 15. I t is wor th noting, however, that the decisions har dly put to rest the idea of inherent power. Indeed, Bush’s successor, President Barack Obama, continued to rely on the concept of inherent power in ordering drone strikes against suspected terrorists and or dering American air strikes in Lib ya. Testifying befor e Congress in 2014, Attorney General Eric Holder defended the president’s unilateral actions, saying, “G iven what the pr esident’s r esponsibility is in r unning the ex e- cutive branch, I think there is an inherent power there for him to act in the way that he has.”25 In 2017, President Trump’s order banning travelers from several Muslim
526 CHAPTER 13 THE PRES IDENCy
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 526 27/11/18 12:35 PM
NOTE: Grover Cleveland served as America’s 22nd and 24th presidents. He is counted only once in the demographic data here, thus the total number of people who have served as U.S. president is 44.
*Some presidents switched parties during their political careers, thus the numbers sum to more than 44.
**This chart re�ects the top nonpolitical careers of U.S. presidents. (All presidents except George Washington and Donald Trump had previous political and/or public service experience.) Presidents may have had more than one occupation, and some occupations do not appear on this list, thus the numbers do not sum to 44.
† Andrew Jackson was born in the Waxhaw area, on the North Carolina–South Carolina border.
SOURCES: Roper Center, www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/common/pop_vote.html; David Leip, http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/; the American Presidency Project, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1840; Miller Center, University of Virginia, http://millercenter.org/president (accessed 3/17/14).
Party*
Republican 19 Unionist 1
Whig 6
Democratic 16
Federalist 3 Democratic-Republican 4
Top Occupations**
5
20
25
15
N um
be r
of p
re si
de nt
s
10
Occupation before elected president Age of president when �rst elected
Lawyer TeacherMilitary Business/ merchant
Farmer40 5045 60 65 7055
1
4
5
3
N um
be r
of p
re si
de nt
s
2
Age
Male 44 Female 0
Gender
Race
White 43 African American 1
CA
TX
NE IA
MO
AK
IL
GA
NC KY
OH
VT
NH
CT
NJ
MA
HI
NY
VA
PA
NY
2
1
0
4
5
7
8
Presidents
Region†
American presidents have all been men. Until the election of Barack Obama in 2008, they had all been white. As the data show, a majority of presidents have come from the eastern United States, with Virginia producing the most American presidents, especially in the nation’s �rst decades.
Who Are America’s Presidents?
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS 1. Why do you think all presidents have been men and all but one have been white? Do you think this is likely to change in coming years? 2. Why do you think so many presidents have come from the South and the East? What electoral or historical factors may have produced this trend?
WHO ARE AMERICANS?
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 527 27/11/18 12:35 PM
Governors must ask the federal government for help in an emer- gency, as Governor Greg Abbott did in the face of Hurricane Harvey. However, some say decisions whether or not to provide support are largely driven by politics.
countries was based mainly on a claim that the president had the inherent power to bar any class of immigrants whom he thought to be a threat to the United States.
Congress has endeavored to place some limits on powers that presidents claim to be inherent. One example is the case of emergency po wers. Presidents believe they have the inher ent power to deal with emergencies. But Congr ess has, b y statute, sought to circumscribe and guide the use of these powers. Under the 1976 National Emergencies Act, which was built upon prior enactments, the president is authorized to declare a national emergency in the ev ent of major thr eats to America’s national security or economy.26 An emergency declaration r elating to for eign threats allows the president to embargo trade, seiz e foreign assets, and pr ohibit transactions with whatever foreign nations are involved. During a state of emergency, constitutional rights, including the right of habeas corpus, may be suspended. An emergency dec - laration, however, does not r emain in force indefinitely. Such a declaration r emains in force for only one y ear unless it is r enewed by the president. Several declarations have been renewed annually for quite some time. President Carter’s 1979 declaration of an emergency during the I ranian hostage crisis has been r enewed every year, as has been President Bush’s 2001 emergency declaration follo wing the September 11 terror attacks. These declarations have provided a basis for v arious trade embargoes, asset freezes, and restrictions on money transfers or dered by successive presidents.27 Congress may, by a joint resolution of the two houses, terminate a state of emergency.
A closely related area in which Congress has sought to regulate matters that presi- dents tend to vie w as inv olving their o wn inherent power is the nation’s response to natural disasters. U nder the 1988 S tafford Act, the go vernor of a state affected by a disastr ous flood, hurricane, earthquake, or other calamitous ev ent must ask the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for a determination that the scope of the disaster is bey ond the abilities of state and local authorities to handle. The president may then declar e a disaster and make the state eligible for federal funds and r elief. The purpose of the Stafford Act was to ensur e that pr esidential disaster declarations w ere governed by statutory criteria. I n recent years, however,
528 CHAPTER 13 THE PRES IDENCy
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 528 27/11/18 12:35 PM
critics hav e charged that pr esidential determinations and funding authorizations seemed, nevertheless, to be driven by political motivations.28
The Presidency as an Institution After considering and r ejecting the idea of a three-person executive or a multi-headed executive council, the framers of the Constitution created a unitary, or one-person, executive
because they thought this would make the presidency a more energetic institution, better able to deal efficiently with the nation’s concerns. N evertheless, since the ratification of the Constitution, the president has been joined by thousands of offi- cials and staffers who work for, assist, or advise the chief executive (see Figure 13.2). Collectively, these individuals could be said to make up the institutional presidency and to giv e the pr esident a capacity for action that no single individual, ho wever energetic, could duplicate. The first component of the institutional presidency is the president’s Cabinet.
Identify the institutional resources presidents have to help them exercise their powers
FIGURE 13.2
The Institutional Presidency
THE PRESIDENT
THE CABINET Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Defense Department of Education Department of Energy Department of Health and Human Services Department of Homeland Security Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior Department of Justice Department of Labor Department of State Department of Transportation Department of the Treasury Department of Veterans Affairs
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Council of Economic Advisers Council on Environmental Quality National Security Council Office of Administration Office of Management and Budget Office of National Drug Control Policy
Office of Science and Technology Policy Office of the United States Trade Representative President's Intelligence Advisory Board and Intelligence Oversight Board White House Military Office White House Office
Includes: Chief of Staff Press Secretary Senior Advisers Special Assistants
THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF
Includes: Central Intelligence Agency Environmental Protection Agency Federal Labor Relations Authority General Services Administration
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES AND GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS
529THE PRES IDENCy AS AN INST I TUT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 529 27/11/18 12:35 PM
THE CABINET
In the American system of go vernment, the Cabinet is the traditional but informal designation for the heads of all the major federal go vernment depar tments. The Cabinet has no constitutional status. U nlike in Great Britain and many other par - liamentary countries, wher e the cabinet is the government, the American Cabinet is not a collective body. It meets but makes no decisions as a gr oup. Each appoint- ment must be approved by the Senate, but Cabinet members are not responsible to the Senate or to Congr ess at large. H owever, cabinet secretaries and their deputies frequently testify befor e congr essional committees to justify budgets and policy objectives, or explain policies or recent major events or issues.
All U.S. Cabinet departments, and about half the other agencies, were created by acts of Congr ess. The remaining agencies w ere created by executive order, the orders of depar tment secr etaries, or thr ough the r eorganization of existing agen - cies.29 Major agencies created by executive order include the Environmental Protec- tion Agency (EPA), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). P residents have claimed the po wer to create agencies and Congress has acquiesced by providing funding.
Each of the 15 go vernment departments is led b y a secretary who is a member of the pr esident’s Cabinet. R eporting to the secr etary is a deputy secr etary, while individual offices and activities are led by undersecretaries and assistant secretaries. The major independent agencies, such as the Social Security Administration, are usually headed by a senior official whose title might be commissioner, administra- tor, or dir ector and who is in turn suppor ted by deputies and assistant deputies. Government depar tments range in siz e from the tiny D epartment of E ducation, which employs only about 4,200 individuals, to the massive Department of Defense (DoD), which oversees some 700,000 civilian emplo yees and 1.3 million militar y personnel. The DoD is also r esponsible for maintaining the militar y readiness of 1.1 million reserve and National Guard troops.
The independent agencies also vary in siz e. The Social Security Administration employs about 60,000 individuals, while some of the smaller agencies are staffed by only a few dozen individuals.
THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF
The White House staff is composed mainly of analysts and advisers.30 Although many of the top White House staff members hold such titles as “ adviser to the pr esi- dent,” “assistant to the pr esident,” “deputy assistant,” and “ special assistant” for a particular task or sector, the judgments and advice they are supposed to provide are a good deal broader and more generally political than those coming from the Execu- tive Office of the President or from the Cabinet depar tments. The members of the White House staff also tend to be more closely associated with the president than are other presidentially appointed officials. This is especially true in the Trump White House, where the pr esident’s daughter I vanka is an assistant to the pr esident, and her husband, Jared Kushner, is a senior adviser to the president.
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Created in 1939, the Executive Office of the President (EOP) is a major par t of the institutional pr esidency. Somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 highly specializ ed people wor k for EOP agencies. 31 The importance of each agency in the EOP
Cabinet the secretaries, or chief administrators, of the major departments of the federal government; Cabinet secretaries are appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate
White House staff analysts and advisers to the president, each of whom is often given the title “special assistant”
Executive Office of the President (EOP) the permanent agencies that perform defined management tasks for the president; created in 1939, the EOP includes the OMB, the CEA, the NSC, and other agencies
530 CHAPTER 13 THE PRES IDENCy
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 530 27/11/18 12:35 PM
varies according to the personal orientation of each president. The most important and the largest EOP agency is the Office of Management and B udget (OMB). I ts roles in preparing the national budget, designing the pr esident’s program, reporting on agency activities, and overseeing regulatory proposals connect the OMB to every conceivable presidential responsibility. The status and power of the OMB have grown in importance with each successiv e president, and the dir ector of the OMB is no w one of the most powerful officials in Washington. At one time the process of budget- ing was a “bottom -up” procedure, with expenditur e and pr ogram requests passing from the lowest bureaus through the departments to “clearance” in the OMB and thence to Congress, where each agency could be called in to explain what its “original request” was before the OMB revised it. Now the budgeting process is “top-down”: the OMB sets the terms of discourse for agencies as well as for Congress.
The staff of the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) constantly analyz es the economy and economic trends in or der to help the pr esident anticipate ev ents rather than waiting and r eacting to them. The Council on Environmental Qual- ity was designed to do for envir onmental issues what the CEA does for economic issues. The National Security Council (NSC) is composed of designated Cabinet offi- cials who meet r egularly with the pr esident to giv e advice on the large national security pictur e. The staff of the NSC assimilates and analyzes data fr om all intelligence-gathering agencies (CIA, etc.). In some administrations, the head of the NSC, the president’s national security adviser , has held the president’s confi- dence and been a mor e impor tant figure in the making of American for eign and military policy than the cabinet secr etaries in these domains. H enry Kissinger , President Nixon’s national security adviser , was such an individual. O ther national security advisers have been disappointments to the pr esidents who appointed them. For example, General Michael Flynn, President Trump’s first national security adviser, was forced to resign amid charges of improper relations with Russian officials.
THE VICE PRESIDENCY
The vice presidency is a constitutional anomaly, even though the office was created along with the pr esidency by the Constitution. The vice president exists for two purposes only: to succeed the pr esident in case of death, r esignation, or incapacity, and to preside over the Senate, casting a tie-breaking vote when necessary.32
The main value of the vice president as a political resource for the president is electoral. Traditionally, presidential candidates choose running mates who can win the support of at least one state (preferably a large one) that may not otherwise support the ticket. It is very doubtful that John Kennedy would have won in 1960 without his vice-presidential candidate, Lyndon Johnson, and the contribution Johnson made to winning in Texas. Another traditional guideline holds that the vice-presidential nomi- nee should provide some regional balance and, wherever possible, ideological or ethnic balance as well. In 2016, Donald Trump chose Governor Mike Pence of Indiana as his running mate for a number of reasons. First, Pence, a former host of conservative radio and television talk shows, was well known among conservatives. Second, Pence served in Congress for 12 years. He worked to reassure skeptical party leaders that Trump was a qualified candidate. Third and most impor tant, Pence is a devout Christian who is very well regarded by social conservatives. As vice president, Pence is often the person Trump relies on to smooth relations with Republican members of Congress.
The vice president is also impor tant because, in the ev ent of the death or inca - pacity of the president, he or she will succeed to the nation’s highest office. During
National Security Council (NSC) a presidential foreign policy advisory council composed of the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, and other officials invited by the president
531THE PRES IDENCy AS AN INST I TUT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 531 27/11/18 12:35 PM
the course of American history, eight vice presidents have had to replace presidents who died in office. One vice president, Gerald Ford, found himself at the head of the nation when P resident Richard Nixon was for ced to r esign as a r esult of the Watergate scandal.
Until the ratification of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment in 1965, the succession of the vice president to the pr esidency was a tradition, launched b y John Tyler when he assumed the presidency after William Henry Harrison’s death, rather than a con- stitutional or statutor y r equirement. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment codified this tradition by providing that the vice pr esident would assume the pr esidency in the event of the chief ex ecutive’s death or incapacity and setting for th the pr ocedures that would be followed. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment also provides that if the vice presidency becomes vacant, the president will nominate an individual who must be confirmed by a majority vote of both houses of Congress. Thus, in 1973 when Vice President Spiro Agne w was for ced to r esign, President Nixon nominated G erald Ford, who was confirmed. Later, when Nixon was forced to resign, Ford became president. In the ev ent that both the pr esident and vice pr esident are killed, the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 establishes an or der of succession, beginning with the Speaker of the House and continuing with the president pro tempore of the Senate and the Cabinet secretaries. This piece of legislation, adopted during the Cold War and prompted by fear of a nuclear attack, has taken on ne w importance in an age of global terrorism.
THE FIRST SPOUSE
The president serves as both chief executive and chief of state—the equivalent of Great Britain’s prime minister and monarch rolled into one, simultaneously leading the government and representing the nation at official ceremonies and functions.
Because they are generally associated exclusively with the head-of-state aspect of America’s presidency, presidential spouses ar e usually not subject to the same sor t of media scr utiny or par tisan attack as that aimed at the pr esident. Traditionally,
Mike Pence, who served as a member of Congress and then governor of Indiana, is devoutly Christian and socially conservative. He helped improve Donald Trump’s electoral appeal among social conservatives and establishment Republicans.
532 CHAPTER 13 THE PRES IDENCy
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 532 27/11/18 12:35 PM
most first ladies have limited their activities to the cer emonial portion of the presi- dency: greeting foreign dignitaries, visiting other countries, and attending impor - tant national ceremonies.
Some first spouses, however, have had considerable influence over policy. Franklin Roosevelt’s wife, E leanor, was widely popular but also widely criticiz ed for her activ e role in many elements of her husband ’s presidency. During the 1992 campaign, B ill Clinton often implied that his wife would be activ e in the administration; he joked that voters would get “two for the price of one.” And indeed, after the election, Hillary Clinton took a leading role in many policy areas, most notably heading the administra- tion’s health care reform effort. She also became the first first lady to seek public office on her own, winning a seat in the U.S. Senate in 2000 and then running for president in 2008 and 2016, having served in between as President Obama’s secretary of state.
Melania Trump is the first foreign-born first lady in almost 200 years. With no political or public affairs experience, Mrs. Trump said that she would be a traditional first lady. Given the curr ent expectation that the first spouse should assume some public responsibility, however, Mrs. Trump may become a visible advocate for an important social cause. Thus far, she has spoken out against online bullying.
The Contemporary Bases of Presidential Power
During the nineteenth centur y, Congress was America ’s dominant institution of go vernment, and members of Congr ess sometimes
treated the pr esident with disdain. Today, however, no one would asser t that the presidency is unimpor tant. Presidents seek to dominate the policy -making process and claim the power to lead the nation in time of war. The expansion of presidential power over the course of the past century has come about not by accident but as the result of an ongoing effort by successive presidents to enlarge the powers of the office.
Explain how modern presidents have become even more powerful
First Lady Melania Trump is an immigrant from Slovenia and a former model. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Mrs. Trump campaigned for her husband, speaking at the Republican National Convention and occasionally at rallies.
533THE CONTEMPORARy BASES Of PRES IDENT IAl POWER
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 533 27/11/18 12:35 PM
Generally, pr esidents can expand their po wer in two primar y ways: thr ough popu lar mobilization and thr ough the administration. F irst, pr esidents may use popular appeals to cr eate a mass base of suppor t that will allow them to dominate their political foes, a tactic called “ going public.”33 Second, presidents may seek to bolster their control of established ex ecutive agencies or to cr eate new administra- tive institutions and procedures that will reduce their dependence on Congress and give them a more independent governing and policy-making capability. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is the use of executive orders to achieve policy goals in lieu of seeking to persuade Congress to enact legislation.
Presidents do have a third, less reliable tool: their political party. Most presidents have r elied on their o wn par ty to implement their legislativ e agenda. F or exam - ple, in 2009–10, P resident Obama relied on congr essional Democrats to pass the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) in the face of vir tually unanimous Republican opposition. However, the president does not control his party; party members have considerable auto nomy. President Trump was unable to rally enough R epublican legislators to repeal Obamacare, although he was able to bring about the enactment of tax reform. Consequently, although the party is valuable to chief executives, it has not been a fully reliable presidential tool.
Moreover, in America ’s system of separated po wers, the pr esident’s par ty may be in the minority in Congr ess and unable to do much for the chief ex ecutive’s programs. As a result, contemporary presidents are more likely to use the two other methods, popular mobilization and executive administration, to achieve their political goals.
GOING PUBLIC
In the nineteenth century, it was considered inappropriate for presidents to engage in personal campaigning on their o wn behalf or in suppor t of programs and poli - cies. When Andrew Johnson broke this unwritten rule and made a series of speeches vehemently seeking public suppor t for his R econstruction program, even some of his supporters were shocked at what they saw as his lack of decor um and dignity. The president’s opponents cited his “inflammatory” speeches in one of the articles of impeachment drafted by the Congress.34
In the tw entieth centur y, though, popular mobilization became a fav ored weapon in the political arsenals of most presidents. The first to make systematic use of appeals to the public w ere Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, but the president who used public appeals most effectively was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR was “firmly persuaded of the need to form a direct link between the executive office and the public.”35 He developed a number of tactics for forging such a link. He often embarked on speaking trips ar ound the nation to pr omote his programs. On one such tour, he told a crowd, “I regain strength just by meeting the American people.”36 In addition, FDR made effective use of a ne w electronic medium, the radio, to reach millions of Americans. In his famous “fireside chats,” the president’s voice could be heard in every living room in the country, discussing programs and policies and generally assuring Americans that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was aware of their difficulties and working diligently toward solutions.
Roosevelt was also an innovator in the realm of what now might be called press relations. When he enter ed the White House, FDR faced a mainly hostile pr ess, typically controlled by conser vative members of the business establishment. 37 To circumvent the editors and publishers who w ere generally unsympathetic to his
534 CHAPTER 13 THE PRES IDENCy
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 534 27/11/18 12:35 PM
goals, the president worked to cultivate the reporters who covered the White House. FDR made himself av ailable for biweekly press conferences, where he offered candid answ ers to r eporters’ ques - tions and made cer tain to make impor tant policy announcements that would pr ovide the r eporters with significant stories for their papers.38 F ranklin R oosevelt’s pr ess secr etary, S tephen Early, was charged with organizing press conferences and making certain that reporters obser ved the informal r ules distinguishing those pr esi- dential comments that could be attributed directly to the president from those that were off the record.
Every pr esident since FDR has sought to craft a public - relations strategy that would emphasize the incumbent’s str engths and maxi mize his popular appeal. F or John F. Kennedy, who was handsome and quick-witted, the televised press conference was an excellent public-relations vehicle. Both Bill Clinton and B arack Obama held televised town meetings—carefully staged events that gave these presidents opportunities to appear to consult with rank- and-file citizens about their goals and policies without having to face the sorts of pointed questions preferred by reporters.
Bill Clinton introduced an innovation that continued to be used by Bush, Obama, and Trump. This was to make the White House Communications Office an important institution within the EOP. The Communications Office became responsible not only for r esponding to r eporters’ queries but also for dev eloping and implementing a coordinated communications strategy—promoting the president’s policy goals, developing responses to adverse news stories, and making cer tain that a favorable image of the president would, insofar as possible, dominate the news.
Going Public Online President Obama was the first chief executive to make full use of another ne w communication medium—the internet. D rawing on the interactiv e tools of the w eb, Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns changed the way politicians organize suppor ters, adv ertise to v oters, defend against attacks, and communi - cate with their constituents. 39 I n the 2016 pr esidential campaign, candidates Hillary Clinton and especially D onald Trump made par ticular use of Twitter to communicate with millions of v oters, b ypassing traditional media. Trump usu - ally tw eeted many times a day , often making outrageous claims that guaran - teed that he would dominate media co verage as r eporters r ushed to analyz e and criticiz e Trump’s asser tions. Trump did not car e if the media criticiz ed him or r efuted his claims—his goal was to dominate co verage. During the course of the campaign, Trump r eceived a quantity of fr ee co verage that would hav e cost several billion dollars if he had pur chased advertising time. The Clinton campaign spent much mor e money than Trump, but Trump’s clever use of Twitter and his manipulation of the media gave him an enormous air-time advantage.
The internet has changed not only the way modern presidents campaign but also how they go vern. The Whitehouse.gov website keeps the pr esident’s constit - uents abreast of his policy agenda with a w eekly str eaming video addr ess by the president, press briefings, speeches and remarks, a daily blog, photos of the pr esi- dent, the White House schedule, and other information. Virtually everything the president does is r ecorded online. YouTube air ed Obama’s pr ess confer ences and public appearances on a daily basis. Every presidential address is now streamed live
Over the last century, presidents and candidates have made more and more used of direct appeals to the American people. President Franklin Roosevelt made effective use of radio to build public support for his programs (top). Donald Trump (bottom) has likewise used Twitter to promote his message, both as a candidate and as president.
535THE CONTEMPORARy BASES Of PRES IDENT IAl POWER
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 535 27/11/18 12:35 PM
online. Obama also created a website that allowed citizens to submit petitions to the White House. Any petition r eceiving 100,000 signatur es was slated for r eview by the administration and a response issued. For example, in 2015 the president issued extensive comments on the death of Michael Brown, a black man shot b y a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, in r esponse to citiz en petitions demanding a federal investigation of the incident.
Circumventing television and other traditional media, the internet allo ws the president to broadcast his policy ideas directly to the citizens. Every Trump legisla- tive initiative and policy direction is preceded by a flurry of tweets repeated by the broadcast and print media. And, Trump’s language seems tailored to the twitter age. Calling North Korean leader Kim Jong-un “Little Rocket Man” in his tweets allowed Trump to boil down his sense of contempt and harsh posture toward North Korea into a tweet-sized threat to use force.
The Limits of Going Public Some presidents have been able to make effective use of popular appeals to overcome congressional opposition. Popular support, though, has not been a firm foundation for presidential power: President George W. Bush maintained an approval rating of over 70 percent for more than a year following the September 11 terr orist attacks. B y the end of 2005, ho wever, Bush’s approval rat- ing had dropped to 39 percent as a result of the growing unpopularity of the Iraq War, the administration’s inept handling of hurricane relief, and a number of White House scandals, including the conviction of Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff on charges of lying to a federal grand jury. Between the time President Obama took office in January 2009 and M ay 2016, his public appr oval ranged fr om a high of 76 percent in January 2009 to a low of 36 percent in the fall of 2014.40 Such declines in popular appr oval during a pr esident’s term in office are nearly inevitable and follow a pr edictable pattern. 41 Both befor e and after they ar e elected, pr esidents generate popular support by promising to undertake important programs that will contribute directly to the well-being of large numbers of Americans. Almost without exception, pr esidential per formance falls shor t of pr omises and popular expecta - tions, leading to a decline in public support and the ensuing weakening of presiden- tial influence.42 It is a rare American president, such as Bill Clinton, who exits the White House more popular than when he went in. Donald Trump’s approval rating had risen to 45 percent by June 2018, after hitting a low of 35 percent in 2017.43
THE ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY
Contemporary presidents have increased the administrative capabilities of their office in three ways. First, they hav e enhanced the r each and power of the EOP. Second, they have sought to increase White House control over the federal bur eaucracy. Third, they have expanded the role of executive orders and other instruments of direct presidential governance. Taken together, these thr ee components of what might be called the White House “administrative strategy” have given presidents a capacity to achieve their programmatic and policy goals even when they are unable to secure congressional approval. Indeed, some recent presidents have been able to accomplish a great deal with remarkably little congressional, partisan, or even public support.
The Growth of the EOP The EOP has grown from six administrative assistants in 1939 to several hundred employees working directly for the president in the White House office, along with some 2,500 individuals staffing the several divisions of the
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS What are the advantages and disadvantages of presidents governing via digital media? How do these pros and cons compare with “going public” in the age of television?
536 CHAPTER 13 THE PRES IDENCy
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 536 27/11/18 12:35 PM
Executive Office. The creation and growth of the White House staff have given the president an enormously enhanced capacity to gather information, plan pr ograms and strategies, communicate with constituencies, and ex ercise supervision over the executive branch. The staff multiplies the president’s eyes, ears, and arms, becoming a critical instrument of presidential power.44
In particular, the OMB, an agency within the EOP, serves as a potential instru- ment of presidential control over federal spending and hence a mechanism through which the White House has greatly expanded its power. The OMB has the capacity to analyze and approve all legislative proposals, not only budgetar y requests, ema- nating from all federal agencies before being submitted to Congress. This procedure, now a matter of r outine, gr eatly enhances the pr esident’s control over the entir e executive branch. All legislation originating in the White House as well as all execu- tive orders also go through the OMB.45 Thus, through one White House agency, the president has the means to ex ert major influence over the flow of money and the shape and content of national legislation.
Regulatory Review A second instrument that presidents have used to increase their power and reach is an agency within OMB called the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which supervises the pr ocess of r egulatory r eview through which pr esidents hav e sought to seiz e contr ol of r ule-making b y the agencies of the executive branch. Whenever Congress enacts a statute, its actual implementation requires the pr omulgation of hundr eds of r ules by the agency charged with administering the law and giving effect to the will of Congress. For example, if Congr ess wishes to impr ove air quality , it must delegate to an agency—say the E nvironmental P rotection Agency (EP A)—the po wer to establish numerous rules and regulations that will govern the actions of the government agencies, firms, and individuals whose conduct may have an impact upon the atmosphere. The agency rule-making process is, itself , governed by a number of statutory requirements concerning public notice (most impor tantly publication in the Federal Register), hearings, and appeals, but once completed and published in the massiv e Code of Federal Regulations, administrative rules have the effect of law and will be enforced by the federal courts.
The discretion Congress delegates to administrative agencies has provided recent presidents with an important avenue for expanding their own power. Beginning with little fanfare during the Nixon administration, presidents—through regulatory review—gradually have endeavored to take control of the rule-making process and to use it as a quasi -legislative mechanism thr ough which they can engage in law - making without the interference of the legislature.
For example, during the course of his presidency, Clinton issued 107 directives to administrators, or dering them to pr opose specific rules and r egulations and, pursuant to the r equirements of the A dministrative Procedures Act, to publish them in the Federal Register for public commentar y. Clinton’s presidential rule- making directives covered a wide variety of topics. For example, Clinton ordered the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to develop rules designed to restrict the marketing of tobacco products to children.46 President George W. Bush continued the Clinton-era practice of issuing presidential directives to agencies to spur them to issue ne w r ules and r egulations. The Obama administration not only issued a number of major r egulatory directives to federal agencies but also launched a “look back” program. Under this pr ogram, the administration sought to elimi - nate several hundred existing rules it deemed obsolete.47 In 2015, Obama sought
537THE CONTEMPORARy BASES Of PRES IDENT IAl POWER
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 537 27/11/18 12:35 PM
new regulations governing power plant emissions, o vertime pay for wor kers, the educational practices of car eer (for-profit) colleges, and a host of other matters. President Trump moved aggressively to reverse these and other directives by issu- ing new rules or repealing existing ones to roll back environmental regulations, reduce banking r egulations, eliminate wor kplace safety r egulations, and r emove protections for transgender workers, among others. Most notably, in the first year of his presidency, Trump eliminated nearly 70 environmental regulations.48
Governing by Decree: Executive Orders and Memoranda A third mechanism through which contemporary presidents have sought to enhance their power to gov- ern unilaterally is through the use of executive orders and other forms of presidential decrees, including ex ecutive agreements, national security findings and directives, proclamations, reorganization plans, and memoranda.
An executive order is a direct presidential directive to the bureaucracy to undertake some action, bypassing Congress and the legislative process. Executive orders have a long history in the United States and have been the instruments for a number of important policies, including the pur chase of Louisiana, the annexation of Texas, the emancipation of the slaves, the wartime internment of Japanese Americans, the desegregation of the military, the initiation of affirmative action, and the creation of a number of federal agencies including the E nvironmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Peace Corps.49
Historically, ex ecutive or ders w ere most often used during times of war or national emergency. President Lincoln relied heavily on executive orders in the early months of the Civil War to mobiliz e troops, purchase warships, and obtain funds from the U.S. Treasury.50 During World War II, President Roosevelt issued 286 executive orders, establishing wartime agencies and authorizing the go vernment to take control of factories and property for wartime needs.51 In recent years, though, executive orders have become routine instruments of presidential governance rather than emergency wartime measures (Figure 13.3).
President George W. Bush issued more than 300 executive orders, many relating to the war on terrorism but others pertaining to domestic policy matters, such as his ban on the use of federal funds to suppor t international family planning gr oups and his prohibition of the use of embr yonic stem cells in federally funded r esearch projects. President Obama issued an executive action halting the deportation of undocumented immigrants who had come to the United States as children, prohibiting federal agen- cies and contractors from discriminating against transgender employees, and declaring more than 700,000 squar e miles of the central Pacific Ocean off-limits to fishing. President Trump rescinded most of O bama’s orders on immigration and opened the way for the depor tation of those who had been protected by the previous president’s orders. Trump also issued a number of or ders, including a contr oversial “travel ban” decree seeking to prevent travelers from several majority-Muslim countries from enter- ing the United States. Trump’s orders led to a number of lawsuits, but the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the ban.
Presidential use of executive orders is constrained by law. When presidents issue executive orders, in principle they do so pursuant to the powers granted to them by the Constitution or delegated to them by Congress. When presidents issue orders they generally must state the constitutional or statutor y basis for their actions. For example, when P resident J ohnson or dered U.S. go vernment contractors to initiate programs of affirmative action in hiring, he said the or der was designed to implement the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibited employment discrimination.
executive order a rule or regulation issued by the president that has the effect and formal status of legislation
538 CHAPTER 13 THE PRES IDENCy
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 538 27/11/18 12:35 PM
Washington (1) J. Adams (0.25)
J. Q. Adams (0.75)
Jefferson (0.5)
Madison (0.125) Monroe (0.125)
Jackson (2) van Buren (3)
Harrison (0) Tyler (4) Polk (5)
Taylor (3)
Fillmore (6) Pierce (9)
Buchanan (4) Lincoln (12)
Johnson (20) Grant (27)
Hayes (23)
Garfield (12) Arthur (27) Cleveland (28)
Harrison (36) Cleveland (35)
McKinley (46) T. Roosevelt (135)
F. D. Roosevelt (282)
Taft (181) Wilson (225)
Harding (209) Coolidge (219)
Hoover (242)
Truman (60)
Eisenhower (61) Kennedy (71)
Johnson (46)
Nixon (31) Ford (48)
Carter (80)
Reagan (48) G. H. W. Bush (42)
G. W. Bush (36)
Obama (33)
Trump (77)**
Clinton (46)
FIGURE 13.3
Presidential Executive Orders* Executive orders are a tool presidents have for influencing policy. Their use has varied considerably over time. Each bar in the graph shows the average number of executive orders each president issued per year in office. Which presidents issued the most executive orders? What events in U.S. history were occurring when those presidents were in office?
*Does not include memoranda or other forms of executive action **As of October 2018.
SOURCE: Gerhard Peters, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php (accessed 10/1/18).
539THE CONTEMPORARy BASES Of PRES IDENT IAl POWER
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 539 27/11/18 12:35 PM
Where the courts have found no constitutional or statutor y basis for a pr esidential order they have invalidated it. Such cases, however, are rare. Generally, the judiciary has accepted executive orders as the law of the land.
Executive orders are one form of pr esidential decree. Others include adminis - trative or ders, national security dir ectives, pr esidential memoranda, pr esidential proclamations, and presidential findings.52 Like executive orders, the other instr u- ments establish policy and hav e the for ce of law , and pr esidents often use them interchangeably. Generally speaking, though, administrative orders apply to matters of administrativ e pr ocedure and organization; dir ectives seem most often associ - ated with national or homeland security; memoranda ar e used to clarify or modify presidential positions and orders; and proclamations are usually used to give empha- sis to an especially impor tant presidential decree, such as Lincoln ’s proclamation emancipating all slaves.
Congress is not entirely without power vis-à-vis executive decrees. Legislators can overturn presidential orders that w ere based on the pr esident’s legislative author - ity (as opposed to constitutional authority) via legislation declaring that the or der “shall not have legal effect,” or actually repeal the statute upon which the order was based. In 1993, for example, Congr ess revoked an or der by President George H. W. Bush to the secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a human fetal tissue bank for research purposes. Congress directed that “the provisions of Execu- tive Order 12806 shall not hav e any legal effect.”53 Efforts to o verturn the or ders of sitting pr esidents ar e, ho wever, hinder ed b y the fact that any such legislation can be v etoed by the pr esident. Thus, two-thirds of the members of both houses of Congress would have to agree to the move. One study indicates that only about 4 percent of all pr esidential orders have ever been r escinded by legislation.54 Even these were almost always or ders issued by presidents no longer in office.55 Usually, the best Congr ess can do is inhibit the implementation of an ex ecutive order by preventing funds fr om being spent to implement the or der. This, too, is relatively unusual.56 Failure by Congress to act, mor eover, strengthens the legal v alidity of a presidential order. The Supreme Court has held that congressional inaction tends to validate an order by indicating congressional “acquiescence” to the president’s deci- sion.57 This idea begs an important question. Many presidential orders take the form of secret national security directives and findings of which Congress is unaware. Can Congress be said to acquiesce in presidential decisions made without its knowledge?
Signing Statements To negate congr essional actions to which they objected, recent presidents have made frequent and calculated use of presidential signing state- ments when signing bills into law.58 The signing statement is an announcement made by the pr esident, at the time of signing a congr essional enactment into law , that offers the pr esident’s interpretation of the law and usually innocuous remarks predicting the many benefits the new law will bring to the nation. O ccasionally, presidents have used signing statements to point to sections of the law they have deemed improper or even unconstitutional, and to instruct executive branch agen- cies how to execute the law.59 In 2013, for example, President Obama signed a bill containing a provision requiring the president to notify Congress before transferring any prisoner from Guantánamo Bay. In his signing statement Obama declared that the provision was unconstitutional and ignored the legislation.
Presidential Nonenforcement of Laws A final instrument of direct presiden- tial governance is nonenforcement of statutes. Congr ess may make the law , but
signing statements announcements made by the president when signing bills into law, often presenting the president’s interpretation of the law
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS In recent years, presidents have expanded their power through increased use of executive orders, executive agreements, and other unilateral instruments. Is the United States becoming a “presidential republic”? Is this a development to be feared or welcomed?
540 CHAPTER 13 THE PRES IDENCy
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 540 27/11/18 12:35 PM
presidents implement and enforce it. If the president decides that a particular law is not to his liking and r efuses to enforce it, Congress may find that its intent is stymied. President Obama, for example, suspended enfor cement of por tions of the Affordable Care Act when the rollout of “Obamacare” produced public con- fusion and inefficient implementation. President Trump, in an effort to undercut the ACA, has effectively ordered the IRS to not enforce a provision of the Afford- able Care Act requiring taxpayers to indicate on their tax r eturns that they had health insurance—a major blo w to the law ’s mandate. S ince the pr esident is the nation’s chief law enforcer, refusal to enforce a law can become a unilateral negation of its effects.
The Advantages of the Administrative Strategy Through the course of Ameri can histor y, par ty leadership and popular appeals hav e played impor tant roles in presidential efforts to overcome political opposition, and both continue to be instruments of presidential power. Yet, as we have seen, in the modern era presidents have not always been able to r ely upon suppor t from their own par- ties, and the effects of popular appeals have often proven evanescent. The limita- tions of the alternativ es have increasingly impelled pr esidents to tr y to expand the administrative capabilities of the office and their own capacity for unilateral action as means of achieving their policy goals. In recent decades, the expansion of the E xecutive Office, the development of r egulatory r eview, and the use of executive orders and signing statements have given presidents a substantial capac- ity to achieve significant policy results despite congressional opposition to their legislative agendas.
In principle, perhaps, Congress could respond more vigorously to unilateral pol- icy making b y the pr esident than it has. Cer tainly, a Congr ess willing to impeach a president should have the mettle to overturn the chief executive’s administrative directives. But the president has significant advantages in such struggles with Con- gress. In battles over presidential directives and orders, Congress is on the defensive, reacting to presidential initiatives. The framers of the Constitution saw “energy,”
In 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order on health care. The administration claimed this order would provide patients expanded options for health insurance, though many felt it would undermine the stability of Obamacare.
541THE CONTEMPORARy BASES Of PRES IDENT IAl POWER
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 541 27/11/18 12:35 PM
or the ability to take the initiativ e, as a key feature of executive power.60 When the president takes action b y issuing an or der or an administrativ e directive, Congress must respond through the cumbersome and time -consuming lawmaking pr ocess, overcome internal divisions, and enact legislation that the president may ultimately veto. Moreover, as the political scientist Terry Moe has argued, in such battles Con- gress faces a significant collective action pr oblem: members ar e likely to be mor e sensitive to the substance of a president’s actions and its short-term effects on their constituents than to the more general long-term implications of presidential power for the vitality of their institution.61
THE LIMITS OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER: CHECKS AND BALANCES
From the Constitution, presidents derive expressed, implied, and delegated powers. Claims of inherent powers are derived from the basic principles of national so ver- eignty coupled with the constitutional grant of executive power. But while the fram- ers sought an energetic ex ecutive, they w ere also concerned that ex ecutive power could be abused and might stifle citizens’ liberties. To guard against this possibility, the framers contrived a number of checks on executive power. The president’s term is limited to four years, though with the possibility of reappointment. The Congress is empowered to impeach and remove the president, to reject presidential appoint- ments and refuse to ratify treaties, to refuse to enact laws requested by the president, to deny funding for the president’s programs, and to override presidential vetoes of congressional enactments.
The framers viewed the thr eat of impeachment as an impor tant check upon execu tive power. The Constitution provides that a president may be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Such offenses are to be charged by the House and tried in the S enate, with the Chief J ustice presiding and a two -thirds vote needed for conviction. During the course of American history, only two presidents, Andrew Johnson and B ill Clinton, hav e been impeached though neither was convicted. Johnson’s impeachment was, as noted earlier, triggered by his veto of the Tenure in Office Act; and Clinton’s by charges of sexual impr oprieties and lying under oath about them. A third president, Richard Nixon, would almost certainly have been impeached for his misdeeds in the Watergate affair, but N ixon chose to r esign to avoid the impeachment process.
The requirement that the Senate concur in treaties and presidential appointments was seen by the framers as another impor tant check on ex ecutive power. However in recent years severe partisan disagreements often have led presidents to r esort to “recess appointments.” These are authorized by Article II, S ection 2, which states, “The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” Until recent years, recess appointments were made only between Sen- ate sessions or when the Senate was adjourned for lengthy periods. However, recess appointments have become mor e frequent and the S enate has r esorted to a strat - egy similar to the one employed to prevent pocket vetoes. One senator is assigned the task of calling the chamber to or der for a fe w moments ev ery day for a pr o forma session during periods of recess so that the president cannot claim the Senate was closed for business. Presidents have viewed this procedure as nothing more than a subterfuge since the Senate is incapable of actually conducting business during these periods.
542 CHAPTER 13 THE PRES IDENCy
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 542 27/11/18 12:35 PM
And, of course, under the Constitution, only the Congr ess would hav e the power to enact legislation or to levy tax es or to appr opriate funds. I ndeed, so many were the constitutional checks on ex ecutive power that some delegates to the Constitutional Convention feared that the ex ecutive would be too w eak and the potential energy of ex ecutive power lost. As w e can see, ho wever, from the many actions of pr esidents in recent years, presidential power has grown signifi- cantly beyond the framers’ vision.
Presidential Power WHAT DO WE WANT? The framers of the Constitution created a system of government in which the
Congress and the executive branch were to share power. At least since the New
Deal, however, the powers of Congress have waned, whereas those of the presi-
dency have expanded dramatically. There is no doubt that Congress continues to
be able to confront presidents and even, on occasion, hand the White House a
sharp rebuff.
In the larger view, however, presidents’ occasional defeats, however dramatic, have
to be seen as temporary setbacks in a gradual but decisive shift toward increased
presidential power. louis fisher, a leading authority on the separation of powers,
recently observed that in what are arguably the two most important policy arenas,
national defense and the federal budget, the powers of Congress have been in decline
for at least the past 50 years.62
What might the growth of executive power mean to students reading this book
today? It might mean, on the one hand, that policies they favor can more easily
become the law of the land. Congress works slowly while the president can work quickly,
making law by the stroke of a pen or an instruction to the federal bureaucracy. Presi-
dential strength works both ways, however: for those who oppose a particular policy or
have qualms about some aspect of it, the stroke of the presidential pen might seem
hasty and autocratic. The consequences can even be deadly, as we saw in the chapter
opener, when a ban on a toxic chemical is at stake.
Today’s students should also consider one of the chief concerns about presidential
power expressed by the framers of the Constitution. The framers feared that execu-
tives were often too ready to go to war. legislatures, they thought, were more likely to
consider the costs and sacrifices entailed by war. Accordingly, the war power was given
to Congress to “leash the dogs of war.”63 The framers possessed a good deal of practi-
cal experience, and their views merit consideration. Does presidential unilateralism or
congressional deliberation offer better protection from the dogs of war so feared by the
framers? In an era of significant international tension and trouble spots, including Iran,
North Korea, Iraq, Syria, libya, and Ukraine, the ease with which the country’s leaders
enter armed conflict may be a real concern.
A powerful presidency, a weak Congress, and a partially apathetic electorate make
for a dangerous mix. Who we vote into the office of the president matters, as the
543PRES IDENT IAl POWER : WHAT DO WE WANT?
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 543 27/11/18 12:35 PM
example of EPA policy on toxic chemicals demonstrates. (The “Who Participates?”
feature on the facing page shows who voted for Donald Trump in 2016.)
Presidents have increasingly asserted the right to govern unilaterally. Presidential
power, to be sure, can be a force for good. To cite one example from the not-so-distant
past, it was President lyndon Johnson, more than Congress or the judiciary, who
faced up to the task of smashing America’s racial apartheid system. yet, as the fram-
ers knew, unchecked power—whether executive or legislative—is always dangerous.
The framers of the Constitution believed that liberty required checks and balances.
However useful presidential power may seem, we should always be mindful of the
framers’ concern.
544 CHAPTER 13 THE PRES IDENCy
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 544 27/11/18 12:35 PM
WHO PARTICIPATES?
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
Watch a few recent presidential speeches, including this year’s State of the Union address, on YouTube. Share your views with your fellow students, friends, and family.
Contact the White House
After he or she is elected, the president is expected to represent all Americans. Ask a question or share your view on a policy with the president and White House staff via www.whitehouse.gov/contact.
Create a petition at http://petitions.whitehouse.gov regarding an issue you care about, and try to get as many signatures as possible.
SOURCE: "2016 Election Exit Polls," Washington Post, November 10, 2016, www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/exit-polls/ (accessed 11/10/16).
18−29 30−44 45−64 65+
53% 45%37% 55% 42% 50% 53% 44%
Age
White African American Hispanic
58% 37% 29% 65%
Asian American Other
29% 65% 37% 56%8% 88%
Race
<$50,000 $50,000−$99,999 $100,000+
41% 52% 50% 46% 48% 47%
Income
Men Women
53% 41% 42% 54%
Sex
Other candidates
Clinton
Trump
Who Voted for Donald Trump in 2016?
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 545 27/11/18 12:35 PM
d) Nixon did not have to turn his secret White House tapes over to congressional investigators but, in general, presidents do not have the power of executive privilege.
e) All presidents are immune from criminal investigations and cannot, therefore, be tried in any court of law.
3. What are the requirements for overriding a presidential veto? a) 50 percent plus one vote in both houses of
Congress b) two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress c) two-thirds vote in the Senate only d) three-fourths vote in both houses of Congress e) A presidential veto cannot be overridden by
Congress.
4. The Supreme Court has ruled that a) the power to remove executive appointees belongs
exclusively to the Senate. b) the power to remove executive appointees belongs
exclusively to the House of Representatives. c) the power to remove executive appointees belongs
exclusively to the president. d) the power to remove executive appointees belongs
exclusively to the federal judiciary. e) executive appointees can only be removed from
office through formal impeachment hearings in both houses of Congress.
5. The “theory of the unitary executive” argues that a) Congress should control all policy making by the
executive branch and the president should wield only limited power over executive agencies.
b) the president should control all policy making by the executive branch and Congress should wield only limited power over executive agencies.
c) all executive agencies should be independent from the influence of both the president and Congress.
d) presidents should be limited to serving only a single term in office.
e) the presidency should be replaced by a three- person executive council.
6. A system in which the positions of head of state and head of government are held by a single individual is referred to as a) a presidential system. b) a parliamentary system. c) a semi-parliamentary system. d) a semi-presidential system. e) a plural executive system.
Presidents have four kinds of powers: expressed, implied, delegated, and inherent. The president’s expressed powers, as defined by Article II of the Constitution, include military, judicial, diplomatic, executive, and legislative powers. The expressed powers also entail a set of implied powers, which can be considered necessary in order to carry out the expressed powers. The president’s delegated powers are not found in the Constitution but are, instead, the product of congressional statutes and resolutions. The president’s inherent powers grow from “the rights, duties and obliga- tions of the presidency” that presidents often assert during times of war and national crisis.
Key Terms expressed powers (p. 516)
commander in chief (p. 516)
executive agreement (p. 518)
executive privilege (p. 519)
veto (p. 519)
pocket veto (p. 520)
legislative initiative (p. 521)
implied powers (p. 522)
delegated powers (p. 523)
inherent powers (p. 525)
Practice Quiz
1. Which of the following does not require the Senate’s approval? a) a sole executive agreement b) a treaty c) an appointment of an ambassador d) a Supreme Court nomination e) an appointment of an executive officer
2. What did the Supreme Court rule in United States v. Nixon? a) Nixon had to turn his secret White House tapes over
to congressional investigators because presidents do not have the power of executive privilege.
b) Nixon did not have to turn his secret White House tapes over to congressional investigators because, in general, presidents have the power of executive privilege.
c) Nixon had to turn his secret White House tapes over to congressional investigators but, in general, presidents have the power of executive privilege.
The Constitutional Powers of the Presidency
Understand the expressed, implied, delegated, and inherent powers of the presidency (pp. 515–29)
CHAPTER 13 STUDy GU IDE546
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 546 27/11/18 12:35 PM
10. Approximately how many people work for agencies within the Executive Office of the President? a) 25 to 50 b) 700 to 1,000 c) 1,500 to 2,000 d) 4,500 to 5,000 e) 25,000 to 30,000
11. Which of the following statements about vice presidents is not true? a) The vice president succeeds the president in case
of death, resignation, or incapacitation. b) The vice president casts the tie-breaking vote in the
Senate when necessary. c) The vice president serves as an honorary member
of the Supreme Court. d) Eight vice presidents have had to replace American
presidents who died in office. e) Presidential candidates often select a vice-
presidential candidate who is likely to bring the support of a state that would not otherwise support the ticket.
b) Once the president has declared a state of national emergency, constitutional rights, including the right of habeas corpus, may be temporarily suspended.
c) A declaration of national emergency in response to foreign threats allows the president to embargo trade, seize foreign assets, and prohibit transac- tions with whatever foreign nations are involved.
d) Declarations of national emergency remain in force for only one year unless they are renewed by the president.
e) Congress may, by a joint resolution of the two houses, terminate a declaration of national emergency.
The institutionalized presidency is made up of the cabinet, the White House staff, the Executive Office of the Presi- dent, the vice presidency, and the first spouse. Through their advice and assistance, these thousands of individuals give the president a capacity for action that he could never have by himself. When coupled with the president’s formal powers, the institutionalized presidency makes the chief executive an important player in the country’s policy-making process.
Key Terms Cabinet (p. 530)
White House staff (p. 530)
Executive Office of the President (EOP) (p. 530)
National Security Council (NSC) (p. 531)
Practice Quiz
9. The EOP agency responsible for preparing the national budget, designing the president’s program, and overseeing regulatory proposals is called a) the Office of Management and Budget. b) the National Security Council. c) the Council of Economic Advisers. d) the Congressional Budget Office. e) the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
7. President Harry S. Truman justified his attempt to seize the nation’s steel mills during the Korean War on the basis of a) the president’s expressed powers to deal with
national emergencies. b) the president’s inherent powers to deal with
national emergencies. c) the president’s delegated powers to deal with
national emergencies. d) the president’s implied powers to deal with national
emergencies. e) the president’s imperial powers to deal with
national emergencies.
8. Which of the following statements about presidential declarations of national emergency is not accurate? a) Presidents can only declare a state of national
emergency in response to foreign threats with the approval of Congress.
The Presidency as an Institution
Identify the institutional resources presidents have to help them exercise their powers (pp. 529–33)
STUDY GU IDE 547
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 547 27/11/18 12:35 PM
Nelson, Michael. The Presidency and the Political System. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2013.
Neustadt, Richard E. Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan. Rev. ed. New york: free Press, 1990.
Ragsdale, lyn. Vital Statistics on the Presidency. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2014.
Schlesinger, Arthur. The Imperial Presidency. Reprint, New york: Mariner, 2004.
Skowronek, Stephen. The Politics Presidents Make: Leader- ship from John Adams to Bill Clinton. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1997.
Suri, Jeremy. The Impossible Presidency. New york: Basic Books, 2017.
Tulis, Jeffrey K. The Rhetorical Presidency. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017.
John yoo. The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.
Edwards, George. Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America. New Haven, CT: yale University Press, 2004.
fisher, louis. Constitutional Conflicts between President and Congress, 6th ed. lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2014.
Gellman, Barton. Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency. New york: Penguin, 2008.
Gerhardt, Michael J. The Forgotten Presidents: Their Untold Con- stitutional Legacy. New york: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Ginsberg, Benjamin. Presidential Government. New Haven, CT: yale University Press, 2016.
Griffin, Stephen. Long Wars and the Constitution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013.
Hendrickson, Ryan. Obama at War. lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2015.
Kumar, Martha J. Managing the President’s Message: The White House Communications Operation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010.
Milkis, Sidney. The American Presidency: Origins and Development. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2011.
c) using popular appeals and loosening their control of executive agencies
d) avoiding popular appeals and bolstering their control of executive agencies
e) weakening national partisan institutions and bolstering their control of executive agencies
13. The Environmental Protection Agency and the food and Drug Administration were created through the use of a) a pocket veto. b) an executive-congressional agreement. c) a sole executive agreement. d) an executive order. e) executive privilege.
14. When the president makes an announcement about his interpretation of a congressional enactment that he is signing into law, it is called a) a signing statement. b) a line-item veto. c) an executive order. d) legislative initiative. e) regulatory review.
Although Congress was the dominant institution in the American political system throughout the nineteenth century, modern presidents have expanded the policy-making power of their office in a number of ways. While some presidents have relied primarily on the support of party members to advance their legislative goals, contemporary presidents more commonly turn to popular mobilization and executive administration in pursuing policy change.
Key Terms executive order (p. 538)
signing statements (p. 540)
Practice Quiz
12. What are two primary ways that presidents can expand their power? a) avoiding popular appeals and loosening their control
of executive agencies b) using popular appeals and bolstering their control of
executive agencies
The Contemporary Bases of Presidential Power
Explain how modern presidents have become even more powerful (pp. 533–43)
For Further Reading
CHAPTER 13 STUDy GU IDE548
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 548 27/11/18 12:35 PM
The American Presidency Project www.americanpresidency.org
Directed by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley at the University of California Santa Barbara, this site contains over 88,000 documents related to the study of the presidency, including party platforms, candidates’ remarks, statements of administration policy, docu- ments released by the Office of the Press Secretary, and election debates. This site is also an excellent resource for data related to the study of the presidency.
Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections www.uselectionatlas.org
for information on upcoming and past presidential elections, refer to this website. Experiment with the electoral college calculator to see how your state could affect the electoral outcome.
The National Archives: Executive Branch www.archives.gov/executive
Research official executive branch documents at the Executive Branch website, provided by the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.
Recommended Websites The White House www.whitehouse.gov
This is the official website of the White House. Here you can read about current presidential news, the president’s Cabinet, executive orders, and presidential appointments.
White House Historical Association www.whitehousehistory.org
The White House Historical Association is dedicated to the understanding, appreciation, and preservation of the White House. At its website you can find historical facts and take a detailed online tour of the numerous rooms and the property.
The White House: Past First Ladies www.whitehouse.gov/history/firstladies/
The first lady is an important resource for the president in his role as head of state. Read about the current and past first ladies on this website.
STUDY GU IDE 549
wtp12e_ptr_ch13_512-549.indd 549 27/11/18 12:35 PM
141414 chapter
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS Lee Ann Walters couldn’t figure out what was wrong with her 4-year-old twins. They had just
moved to a new house in Flint, Michigan, and had rashes
all over their bodies. One doctor thought it was contact
dermatitis, another eczema. The prescribed creams
had no effect. Yet another doctor suspected scabies,
but tests were negative. Then Walters had an epiphany:
every time her sons swam in the kiddie pool in the yard,
or took a bath, the rash flared up. She told her family
to stop drinking the tap water, which was orange-brown
even after running through a filter she had installed.
That was December 2014. Eight months earlier,
the cash-strapped city of Flint, under a state-appointed
emergency manager, had switched its water supply
to save money. Rather than draw water from the
Detroit system, the city switched to the Flint River,
which had been an industrial dumping ground for
years. Soon, the local General Motors engine plant
stopped using the river water, which was corroding
the auto parts. Walters had the city test her tap
water: the lead count was 104 parts per billion (ppb);
the legal limit is 15. A follow-up test a week later:
397 parts per billion. Flint’s utility administrator told
her not to use the water. A researcher from Virginia
Tech began testing water around the city: one-third of
the samples had elevated lead levels, one as high as
13,200 ppb. A local pediatrician announced a spike
Bureaucracy in a Democracy
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 550 27/11/18 12:37 PM
Government bureaucracies affect ordinary Americans in countless ways. The Flint water crisis, exposed by Lee Ann Walters, demonstrates how the failures of bureaucracy on every level of government can affect citizens’ lives directly.
in lead levels among young children. Lead exposure
can cause developmental delays and disability in
children. The damage is permanent.
Walters tracked down an EPA drinking water
expert who discovered that in switching to the Flint
River, city officials had failed to add anti-corrosive
chemicals to the water (despite a federal regulation
requiring corrosion control). Running through old
pipes, the untreated river water was leaching lead
into the drinking supply. An official from Michigan’s
Department of Environmental Quality assured the
EPA that there was corrosion control in place. Mean-
while, the city had been testing for lead but tell-
ing residents to flush their water before collecting
their samples and retesting in houses where the
initial lead levels were low, not high.1
Finally, in January 2016, in the face of growing
outcry from city residents, researchers, and advocates
such as the ACLU, the EPA declared a state of emer-
gency in Flint and took over lead testing in the city.
In March 2016 the Flint Water Advisory Task Force,
appointed by Michigan governor Rick Snyder to exam-
ine the crisis, issued its final report. The report cited a
“series of government failures” at all levels: the local
water department rushed to switch the water supply
without corrosion control; the state Departments of
Environmental Quality and Health and Human Services
ignored mounting evidence of unsafe water; the
551
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 551 27/11/18 12:37 PM
federal EPA delayed enforcement of the Safe Water Drinking Act and Lead and
Copper Rule; and the governor’s office failed to reverse the poor decisions
of the emergency manager and state agencies despite the urgings of senior
staff members.2
The Flint water crisis is a dramatic example of bureaucratic failure. Ameri-
cans depend on public bureaucracies for providing services they use every
day and in emergencies. On a typical day, a college student might check the
weather forecast, drive on an interstate highway, mail the rent check, drink
from a public water fountain, check the calories on the side of a yogurt con-
tainer, attend a class, go online, and meet a relative at the airport. Each of
these activities is possible because of the work of a government bureau-
cracy: the U.S. Weather Service, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the
U.S. Postal Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug
Administration, the student loan programs of the U.S. Department of Educa-
tion, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (which developed the internet in
the 1960s), and the Federal Aviation Administration. Without the ongoing work
of these agencies, many of these common activities would be impossible,
unreliable, or more expensive. When bureaucracies work well, we barely notice.
But when they fail, the results can be truly alarming, like the Flint crisis, or
the September 11 terror attacks, widely viewed as a failure of the national
security bureaucracy.3 Such failures play into Americans’ ambivalence about
the role of government. Some disasters prompt politicians to promise that
they will slash the bureaucracy, especially at the federal level. Yet others
result in an increase in the bureaucracy, like the creation of the federal
Department of Homeland Security after September 11. Each instance raises
a number of questions: should the bureaucracy be smaller or larger? How can
it become more efficient and effective? How can the bureaucracy be made
more responsive to the needs of the American people?
★ Define bureaucracy, and describe the basic features of the executive branch (pp. 553–62)
★ Describe the major goals we expect federal agencies to promote (pp. 563–73)
★ Evaluate some of the ways politicians have tried to make the bureaucracy more efficient (pp. 573–79)
★ Explain why it is often difficult to control the bureaucracy (pp. 579–83)
CHAPTER GOALS
552 CHAPTER 14 BUREAUCRACY In A DEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 552 27/11/18 12:37 PM
Bureaucracy and Bureaucrats Although Congr ess, the pr esident, and the cour ts may garner mor e attention in the American system as they make policy, the bureaucracy plays a crucial role in administering
public policy on the ground. Bureaucrats carry out the normal work of government, implementing the policies that Congr ess and the pr esident have passed and that the court system may have adjudicated. The teachers you had in elementary school, the Social Security officer who approved your grandmother’s retirement pension, the air traffic controller who guided the plane on your last vacation, the engineers who designed the r oads that carried y ou to class, and the inspector who appr oved the meat in this morning’s breakfast sausage are all bureaucrats.
At its best, bur eaucracy ensures fair, accountable administration per formed by expert professionals. To provide services, government bureaucracies employ special- ists such as meteorologists, doctors, and scientists. To do their jobs effectively, these specialists r equire r esources and tools (ranging fr om paper to complex computer software). They must coordinate their work with others (for example, traffic engi- neers must communicate with constr uction engineers). And they must effec- tively reach out to the public (for example, doctors must be made awar e of health warnings). Bureaucracy is a means of coor dinating the many different par ts that must work together for the government to provide useful services.
When bur eaucracy r uns w ell, it can be vir tually invisible. When it fails, the results can be spectacularly public, as when Hurricane Katrina breached levies built by the Army Corps of E ngineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency reacted ineffectually, or when the D epartment of Veterans Affairs was criticized in 2014 for long waiting lists for veterans seeking medical care and even blamed for veteran deaths in Phoenix.4 How bureaucrats carry out their responsibilities shapes individuals’ experiences of government in profound ways.
WHAT BUREAUCRATS DO
Bureaucrats execute and implement laws, determining who is eligible for Medi- care, studying whether a ne w medicine is safe and effective. They deliver mail, tell national park campers that they can build a fire here but not there, calculate how long it would take a spacecraft to r each the edge of the solar system. They gather data and conduct research. S ome, like customs officials, are “ street-level bureaucrats” who regularly interact with the public. Yet others, like researchers at the National Institutes of Health, work in specialized facilities with other exper ts. As they carry out their responsibilities, implementing and enforcing laws, making rules, and innovating, they ex ercise discretion and help define how public policy gets expressed.
Bureaucrats Implement Laws Congress is responsible for making the laws, but in most cases legislation only sets the broad parameters for government action. Bureau- cracies are responsible for filling in the blanks by determining how the laws should be implemented. This requires bureaucracies to draw up detailed r ules that guide the process of implementation and to play a key r ole in enforcing the laws. Congress needs the bur eaucracy to engage in r ule making and implementation for sev eral
Define bureaucracy, and describe the basic features of the executive branch bureaucracy the complex
structure of offices, tasks, rules, and principles of organization that is employed by all large-scale institutions to coordinate the work of their personnel
implementation the efforts of departments and agencies to translate laws into specific bureaucratic rules and actions
553BUREAUCRACY AnD BUREAUCRATS
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 553 27/11/18 12:37 PM
reasons. One is that bureaucracies employ people who have much more specialized expertise in specific policy areas than do members of Congress. Decisions about how to achieve many policy goals—from managing the national parks to regulating air quality to ensuring a sound economy—rest on the judgment of specialized experts. A second reason that Congress needs bureaucracy is that because updating legisla - tion can take many y ears, bureaucratic flexibility can ensure that laws are adminis- tered in ways that take new conditions into account. Finally, members of Congress often prefer to delegate politically difficult decision-making to bureaucrats.
Bureaucrats Make Rules One of the most important activities that government agencies do is issue r ules that pr ovide mor e detailed and specific indications of what a giv en congressional policy will actually mean. F or example, the Clean Air Act empowers the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess whether cur - rent or pr ojected levels of air pollutants pose a thr eat to public health, determine whether motor vehicle emissions are contributing to such pollution, and create rules designed to r egulate these emissions. After the S upreme Court ruled in 2007 that the EPA had the authority to r egulate auto emissions, the agency in the O bama administration imposed new emission standar ds for automobiles, which would raise the average fuel economy for new vehicles to 35.5 miles per gallon starting in 2016, a standard later boosted to 54.4 miles per gallon by 2025.5 In 2014 the EPA extended its reach to regulate factories and power plants that emit greenhouse gases. Especially controversial was the Clean Power Plan, requiring power plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions b y 32 per cent by 2030. The plan never went into effect due to lawsuits filed by a number of states, and in 2017 the head of the EPA in the Trump administration repealed the plan.6
The rule-making process is thus a highly political one. Once a new law is passed, the relevant agency studies the legislation and proposes a set of rules to guide imple- mentation. These proposed rules are then open to comment by anyone who wishes to weigh in. R epresentatives for the r egulated industries and adv ocates of all sor ts commonly submit comments. But anyone who wishes to can go to the website www .regulations.gov to read proposed rules, enter comments, and view the comments of others. Once rules are approved, they are published in the Federal Register and have the force of law. That said, the Trump administration’s repeal of the O bama EPA’s Clean Power Plan demonstrates the fragility of go vernment by bureaucratic rule- making, compared to government by congressional legislation.7 If Congress passes a new law, changing it usually requires another congressional action, while rules made by the bureaucracy in one administration can be easily reversed by the next.
During the 1970s and ’80s, the length of time r equired to dev elop an admin - istrative r ule fr om a pr oposal to actual publication in the Federal R egister (when it takes on full legal status) gr ew from an av erage of 15 months to an av erage of 35 to 40 months. I nefficiency? No. Most of the incr eased time is attributable to new procedures requiring more public notice, more public hearings in Washington and else where, mor e cost-benefit analysis, and stronger legal obligations to pr e- pare “environmental impact statements ” demonstrating that the pr oposed rule or agency action will not hav e an unacceptably large negativ e impact on the human or physical envir onment.8 Thus, a great deal of what is popularly decried as the lower efficiency of public agencies can be attributed to the political, judicial, legal, and public-opinion r estraints and extraor dinarily high expectations imposed on public bureaucrats. If a priv ate company such as A pple were required to open up all its decision processes and management practices to full view by the media, its
554 CHAPTER 14 BUREAUCRACY In A DEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 554 27/11/18 12:37 PM
competitors, and all inter ested citiz ens, Apple—despite its pr ofit motive and the pressure of competition—would likely appear far less efficient, perhaps no more efficient than public bureaucracies.
Bureaucrats Enforce Laws I n addition to r ule making, bur eaucracies play an essential role in enforcing the laws, thus exercising considerable power over private actors. In 2015 the EP A charged Volkswagen with cheating on emissions tests of its diesel v ehicles. For over sev en y ears, the company had installed softwar e that showed emissions at legal levels during testing conditions, but once the cars were on the road emissions were actually 10 to 40 percent higher. After the EPA threatened to bar the company from selling some of its 2016 cars in the U nited States, Volks- wagen admitted that it had cheated. The financial repercussions for the company will be long-lasting. In 2016 the company agreed to a $15.8-billion settlement that required it to buy back the faulty v ehicles and compensate o wners. As par t of the settlement, Volkswagen also agr eed to fund sev eral clean air pr ograms. Even with these payments, Volkswagen faced additional lawsuits from states and investors.9
Bureaucrats Innovate A good case study of the impor tant role agencies can play is the stor y of ho w ordinary federal bur eaucrats created the internet. Yes, it’s true: what became the internet was developed largely by the U.S. Department of Defense, and defense considerations still shape the basic str ucture of the internet. In 1957, immediately follo wing the pr ofound American embarrassment o ver the Soviet Union’s launching of Sputnik, the first satellite to orbit the Earth, Congress authorized the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) to develop, among other things, a means of maintaining communications in the event of a strategic attack on the existing telecommunications network (the telephone system). Since the telephone network was highly centralized and therefore could have been completely disabled by a single attack, ARPA developed a decentralized, highly redundant network with an impr oved probability of functioning after an attack. The full design, called ARPANET, took almost a decade to create. By 1971 around
An example of bureaucratic rules that affect Americans both posi- tively and negatively are the regula- tions set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). When President Obama extended the EPA’s authority to regulate green- house gas emissions in 2014, many people applauded the benefits to the environment, but at the same time, thousands lost jobs because of the new rules.
555BUREAUCRACY AnD BUREAUCRATS
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 555 27/11/18 12:37 PM
20 universities were connected to the ARPANET. The forerunner to the internet was born.10
WHO ARE BUREAUCRATS?
Bureaucrats are considered members of the “civil service” and work under the merit system created by the Civil Service Act of 1883. With this act, the federal go vern- ment attempted to imitate business b y r equiring appointees to public office be qualified for the job to which they were appointed. The goal was to end political appointments under the “ spoils system,” which awar ded jobs based on political connections, and to cr eate a system of competitiv e examinations thr ough which the v ery best candidates w ere to be hir ed for ev ery job . As a fur ther safeguar d against political inter ference, merit-system employees were given legal pr otection against being fired without a show of cause. Reasonable people may disagree about the value of such job security and how far it should extend in the civil service, but the justifiable objective of this job protection, cleansing bureaucracy of political interference while upgrading performance, cannot be disputed. At the higher levels of government agencies, including such posts as cabinet secr etaries and assistant secretaries, many jobs ar e filled with political appointees and are not par t of the merit system.
merit system a product of civil service reform, in which appointees to positions in public bureaucracies must objectively be deemed qualified for those positions
The State Department’s foreign service officer corps represents U.S. interests abroad. To become a for- eign service officer, you must take both a written and an oral exam. Approximately 75 percent of the 20,000 or so applicants who take the exam each year do not pass.
556 CHAPTER 14 BUREAUCRACY In A DEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 556 27/11/18 12:37 PM
NOTE: Numbers may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. The category of "other" has been omitted. SOURCES: American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, www.fact�nder.census.gov (accessed 3/9/18); Gallup, news.gallup.com (accessed 3/9/18).
Bureaucrats are often stereotyped as being more concerned with procedure and forms than with helping people. But the reality is that the millions of executive branch employees that work in agencies in D.C. and around the country are essential to keeping America running smoothly. Bureaucrats manage everything from national security and veterans services to providing help for needy families and ensuring that Americans have clean and safe drinking water. But who are bureaucrats? How is the bureaucracy similar to the American population? How is it different?
Executive Branch Employees, 2017
Yes No
Sex
50%
71%29%
Executive branch employees
U.S. population
Executive branch employees
U.S. population
30%6%1% 12%
27% 12%28% 21%13%
Less than high school High school degree Some college College degree Postgraduate degree
Female Male White Black Latino Asian
Education
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS 1. How do the demographics of the United States compare to the demographics of the bureaucracy? What do you think explains the differences?
2. With 2 million people working for the executive branch, mostly outside of the Washington, D.C., area, how can Congress and the president be sure that they are serving the public’s interests?
Location, 2017
1,635,337 79% — OTHER
434,710 21%
WASHINGTON, D.C., AREA
Military service
Race / ethnicity
92%8%
45%55% 18%
6% 3%
73% 12%
16%
4%
64%49%51%
Executive branch employees
U.S. population Executive branch employees
U.S. population
Who Are “Bureaucrats”?
WHO ARE AMERICANS?
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 557 27/11/18 12:37 PM
Today’s federal bureaucrats are distributed around the country—nearly 4 out of 5 federal employees work outside of Washington, D.C. For example, California has over 141,000 federal wor kers, and Texas has mor e than 114,000. 11 Compared to private sector workers, members of the full-time civilian federal workforce are more educated—more hold college and advanced degrees—and are more likely to hold professional occupations in science, engineering, diplomacy , and other adv anced fields.12 Federal workers are more diverse than the priv ate workforce: as of 2017, 36.7 percent were minority group members, 18.2 percent black, 8.8 percent Hispanic, 6 per cent Asian, 2.2 per cent Native H awaiian/Pacific Islander/American I ndian/ Alaska Native, and 1.5 percent non-Hispanic multiracial. Federal workers are more likely to be male than private sector workers (57 percent compared to 54 percent in the private sector),13 and nearly one-third of federal workers are veterans.14
The size of the federal ser vice has been a subject of political contention for decades. Particularly in the post–W atergate era of lo w trust in go vernment, poli - ticians from both par ties, from Reagan to Clinton, hav e asser ted that the federal government is too big. P resident Barack Obama struck a different note in his first inaugural address, saying, “The question we ask today is not whether our go vern- ment is too big or too small, but whether it works.”15 President Trump’s first budget proposed major decr eases in federal depar tments outside of D efense and H ome- land Security. Despite fears of bur eaucratic growth getting out of hand, ho wever, the federal ser vice has har dly grown at all during the past 35 y ears; it r eached its peak postwar level in 1968, with 3.0 million civilian emplo yees plus an additional 3.6 million military personnel (a figure swollen by the war in Vietnam). The number of civilian federal employees has since fallen to fewer than 2.7 million in 2017; the number of military personnel totals 1.29 million.16
The growth of the federal ser vice over the past 50 y ears is even less imposing when placed in the context of the total workforce and when compared with the size of state and local public emplo yment. Figure 14.1 indicates that since 1950 the ratio of federal employment to the total workforce has in fact declined slightly in the past 60 years. Figure 14.2 shows that although the dollar increase in federal spending shown by the bars is impressive, the trend line indicating the relation of federal spending to the gross domestic product remained close to what it had been in 1960 (that is, the siz e of the federal go vernment as a pr oportion of the total economy has been flat). Meanwhile, state and local emplo yment has grown: in 1950 ther e were 4.3 million state and local civil ser vice employ- ees (about 6.5 per cent of the countr y’s workforce). In 2015 ther e were roughly 19.3 million state and local employees (nearly 14 percent of the nation’s employed workforce).17 Federal employment, in contrast, exceeded 6 percent of the work- force only during World War II, and almost all of that temporar y growth was military. That said, the number of federal contractors has grown considerably, as we shall see below.
In sum, the national government is indeed “very large,” but it has not been grow- ing any faster than the economy or society. Bureaucracy keeps pace with society, despite people’s seeming dislike of it, because the airport control towers, the prisons, the Social Security system, and other essential elements of modern-day society can- not be operated without bur eaucracy. I ndeed, the r ecent gr owth of go vernment spending does not r eflect a growth in the federal bur eaucracy or ev en growth in federal contractors but rather an increase in payments to individuals for valued social programs such as Social Security and Medicare (which provides health care for people over age 65).
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS How has the size of the federal service changed over the past six decades? How are calls for smaller government related to the size of the federal service?
558 CHAPTER 14 BUREAUCRACY In A DEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 558 27/11/18 12:37 PM
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Cabinet departments, agencies, and bureaus are the operating parts of the bureau- cratic whole. At the top is the head of the department, who in the United States is called the “secretary” of the department.18 Below the secretary and the deputy secretary is a second tier of “ undersecretaries,” who hav e management r espon- sibilities for one or mor e operating agencies. Those operating agencies are the third tier of the depar tment, yet they ar e the highest lev el of r esponsibility for the actual pr ograms ar ound which the entir e depar tment is organiz ed. This third tier is generally called the “bureau level.” Each bureau-level agency usually operates under a statute, enacted b y Congress, that set up the agency and gav e it its authority and jurisdiction. The names of these bureau-level agencies are often quite w ell known to the public—the F orest Service and the F ood Safety and Inspection Service, for example. These are the so-called line agencies, those that deal dir ectly with the public. S ometimes these agencies ar e officially called “bureaus,” such as the F ederal Bureau of I nvestigation (FBI), which is par t of the third tier of the D epartment of Justice. But bureau is also the conv entional
department the largest subunit of the executive branch; the secretaries of the 15 departments form the Cabinet
FIGURE 14.1
Employees in the Federal Service as a Percentage of the National Workforce, 1950–2018 Since 1950, the ratio of federal employment to the total workforce has gradually declined. Today, federal employees make up less than 2 percent of the total workforce in the United States. Even at its height, federal employees made up less than 6 percent. What do these numbers suggest about the size of the federal government today?
NOTE: Employment numbers are for December of each year; 2018 numbers are from September.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics, “Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics Survey (National),” https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9091000001 (accessed 10/13/18).
1950
6%
5
4
3
2
1
0 1970 1990 2018
559BUREAUCRACY AnD BUREAUCRATS
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 559 27/11/18 12:37 PM
term for this lev el of administrativ e agency , ev en though many agencies or their supporters have preferred over the years to adopt a mor e politically palat - able designation, such as “service” or “administration.” Each bureau is, of course, even fur ther subdivided into divisions, offices, or units—all are par ts of the bureaucratic hierarchy.
Not all government agencies are part of Cabinet departments. Some independent agencies are set up b y Congress outside the departmental structure altogether, even
independent agency agency that is not part of a Cabinet department
FIGURE 14.2
Annual Federal Outlays, 1950–2018* As the bars in the figure indicate, when measured in dollars, federal government spending has gone up over time, from $423 billion in 1950 to over $3 trillion in 2017. (The amounts here are measured in constant 2009 dollars, which means the numbers have been adjusted for inflation.) But as the red line shows, federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) has moved up and down just slightly over time. Thus, while government spending has grown, it has basically kept pace with the growing size of the U.S. economy.
*Data for 2017–18 are estimated.
SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget, “Table 1.3—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits in Current Dollars, Constant (FY 2009) Dollars, and as Percentages of GDP: 1940–2023,” www.whitehouse.gov/ omb/budget/historicals (accessed 10/13/18).
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50%
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
$4,000
$ billions (right scale)
% of GDP (left scale)
560 CHAPTER 14 BUREAUCRACY In A DEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 560 27/11/18 12:37 PM
though the president appoints and directs the heads of these agencies. Independ- ent agencies usually have broad powers to provide public services that are either too expensive or too impor tant to be left to priv ate initiatives. Some examples of independent agencies ar e the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Central I ntelligence Agency (CIA), and the EP A. Government corporations ar e a thir d type of go vernment agency but ar e mor e like priv ate businesses in performing and charging for a mar ket service, such as transpor ting railroad passengers (Amtrak).
Yet a fourth type of agency is the independent regulatory commission, given broad discretion to make rules. The first regulatory agencies established by Con- gress, beginning with the I nterstate Commerce Commission in 1887, w ere set up as independent r egulatory commissions because Congr ess r ecognized that regulatory agencies ar e “mini-legislatures,” whose rules are exactly the same as legislation but require the kind of expertise and full-time attention that is beyond the capacity of Congr ess. Until the 1960s most of the r egulatory agencies set up by Congress, such as the F ederal Trade Commission (1914) and the F ederal Communications Commission (1934), were independent r egulatory commis - sions. But beginning in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, all new regulatory pro- grams, with two or three exceptions (such as the Federal Election Commission), were placed within existing depar tments and made dir ectly r esponsible to the president. After the financial crisis that began in 2008, Congress passed legis - lation to improve regulation of banks and other nonbank financial institutions. The legislation also created an impor tant new regulatory agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The bureau enforces consumer protection laws, for example, regulating bank practices that affect credit cards and mor tgages. The agency aims to eliminate deceptiv e practices and act as the v oice of consumers. Its w ebsite (www.consumerfinance.gov) also takes complaints fr om consumers and provides easy-to-understand information on many topics, including student debt repayment.
government corporation government agency that performs a market-oriented public service and raises revenues to fund its activities
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), an independent agency of the federal government, was established by President Eisenhower in 1958. Its mission is “To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.” Here, NASA public affairs officer Dwayne Brown announces the presence of water on Mars.
561BUREAUCRACY AnD BUREAUCRATS
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 561 27/11/18 12:37 PM
As one of the world’s largest and most populous countries, the United States has a vast bureaucracy to run government programs and services. However, as a percentage of the labor force, the number of government employees in the United States is not especially high. As the first graph below shows, the size of government bureaucracies, relative to each country’s work force, varies widely. For example, the norwegian government employs nearly 30 percent of the labor force, whereas only around 8 percent of Japanese workers work for the government.
We can also see differences in whether most government employees work at the national level or the subnational level in each country. In the United States, most government employees work at the state or local level, rather than the national level. In other countries, such as Turkey, most bureaucrats work for the national government. What do you think accounts for these differences? How does federalism influence American bureaucracy, and what differences do we see in countries like Turkey or Ireland that do not have federalism?
Bureaucracy in Comparison
SOURCE: OECD, “Public employment and Pay,” Government at a Glance, 2017, www.stats.oecd.org (accessed 4/16/18).
TOTAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE LABOR FORCE MARKET
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT
Japan Mexico*
Brazil* Turkey* Ireland
United States Spain
Czech Republic South Africa*
Greece Canada Norway 30%
18 18
17 16 16 16
15 12 12 12
8
National
NOTE: Includes national and sub-national government employees.
*Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey data are from 2014.
*Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa data are from 2013.
Subnational
Canada
Brazil*
Japan
United States
Spain
Mexico*
South Africa*
Norway
Czech Republic
Greece
Ireland
Turkey 91% 8%
10
20
54
63
70
70
80
81
86
88
88
90
77
45
37
30
30
20
19
14
12
12
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 562 27/11/18 12:37 PM
Goals of the Federal Bureaucracy The different agencies of the execu- tive branch can be classified into three main groups b y the services they provide to the American pub -
lic. The first category of agencies provides services and products that seek to promote the public welfare. The second group of agencies works to promote national security. The third group provides services that help maintain a strong economy. Let us look more closely at what each set of agencies offers to the American public.
PROMOTING PUBLIC WELL-BEING
One of the most impor tant activities of the federal bur eaucracy is to pr omote the public good b y providing ser vices, building infrastr ucture, and enfor cing r egula- tions that ser ve citiz en needs. D epartments that hav e impor tant r esponsibilities for promoting public w ell-being include the D epartments of Housing and Urban Development, Health and H uman Services, Veterans Affairs, the Interior, Educa- tion, and Labor . Ensuring the public w elfare is also the main activity of agencies in other departments, such as the Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service, which administers the federal school lunch pr ogram and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance P rogram (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps). In addition, multiple independent regula- tory agencies enfor ce regulations that aim to safeguar d the public health and welfare.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) admini- sters the cash assistance program Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Yet this program is one of the smallest activities of the depar tment. HHS also o versees the N ational Institutes of Health (NIH), which is responsible for cutting-edge biomedical research, and the two major health pr ograms of the federal go v- ernment: M edicaid, which pr ovides health car e for lo w-income families and for many elderly and disabled people; and M edicare, which is the health insurance available to most elderly people in the United States.
A different notion of public w ell-being, but one highly v alued by most Americans, is provided by the National Park Service, under the Department of the Interior. First created in 1916, the National Park Service is responsible for the care and upkeep of national parks. Since the nineteenth century, Americans have seen protection of the natural environment as an impor tant public goal and hav e looked to federal agencies to implement laws and administer programs that preserve natural areas and keep them open to the public.
The federal bureaucracy also promotes the public good through the watchdog activities of many regulatory agencies. These include the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), within the HHS; the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), in the Department of Labor; as w ell as numer ous independent r egula- tory commissions, such as the Consumer P roduct S afety Com - mission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the EPA.
Describe the major goals we expect federal agencies to promote
regulatory agency department, bureau, or independent agency whose primary mission is to impose limits, restrictions, or other obligations on the conduct of individuals or companies in the private sector
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is an example of a federal bureaucracy that promotes the public welfare by conducting cutting-edge biomedical research. NIH research has helped doctors to treat diabetes and cardiovas- cular disease, among many other illnesses. This scientist is studying pancreatic beta cells, which play a role in diabetes.
563GOALS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 563 27/11/18 12:37 PM
An agency or commission is r egulatory if Congr ess delegates to it r elatively broad powers over a sector of the economy or a type of commercial activity and authorizes it to make rules within that jurisdiction. Rules made by regulatory agencies have the force and effect of law.
Bureaucracies, Clienteles, and the Public Some of the public agencies that pro- vide ser vices ar e tied to a specific group or segment of American society that is often thought of as the main clientele of that agency. For example, the Department of Agriculture was established in 1862 to pr omote the inter ests of farmers. Like - wise, the Department of Veterans Affairs has strong links to veterans’ organizations such as the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The Department of Education relies on teachers’ organizations for support. Figure 14.3 is a representa- tion of this type of politics. This configuration is known as an iron triangle, a pattern of stable r elationships among an agency in the ex ecutive branch, a congr essional committee or subcommittee, and one or more organized groups of agency clientele. (Iron triangles are discussed in detail in Chapter 11.)
These relationships with particular clienteles ar e often impor tant in pr eserving agencies from political attack. During his 1980 campaign, Ronald Reagan promised to dismantle the Department of Education as part of his commitment to get govern- ment “off people’s backs.” After his election, R eagan even appointed a secr etary of
FIGURE 14.3
Iron Triangles SOURCES: Reprinted from Theodore J. Lowi, Incomplete Conquest: Governing America, 2nd ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1981), 139.
American Legion; Veterans of Foreign Wars
National Rivers & Harbors Congress; Mississippi Valley Association
National Cotton Council; National Association of Wheat Growers
Department of Veterans
Affairs
House Veterans’ Affairs Committee
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Army Corps of Engineers
Farm Service Agency
House Agriculture Committee
Program or Agency
Special Congressional Access Point
Group Support
564 CHAPTER 14 BUREAUCRACY In A DEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 564 27/11/18 12:37 PM
the department who was publicly committed to eliminating it. Yet by the end of his administration, the Department of Education was still standing and barely touched. In 1995 the Republican Congress vowed to eliminate the Department of Education, along with two other departments; but it, too, failed. The educational constituency of the department (its clientele) mobilized to save it each time. Teachers’ unions and educational administrators formed a po werful alliance to defend the depar tment. Trump administration E ducation Secretary Betsy DeVos has not pr oposed elimi- nating the department but has clashed with teacher unions over her promotion of charter schools and private school choice initiatives.19
Indeed, the ability of clientele gr oups to get their way is not automatic, as agen - cies have to balance limited r esources, competing inter ests, and political pr essures. For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs long resisted the efforts of Vietnam veterans to be compensated for exposure to Agent Orange, a chemical defoliant used extensively during the Vietnam War. Veterans charged that exposure to Agent Orange had left them with a variety of diseases ranging from cancer to severe birth defects in their childr en. Only after decades of lobb ying, lawsuits, and federally sponsor ed studies did the Department of Veterans Affairs provide assistance to affected veterans.
PROVIDING NATIONAL SECURITY
One of the remarkable features of American federalism is that the most vital agen - cies for providing security for the American people (namely, the police) are located in state and local go vernments. But some agencies vital to maintaining national security are located in the national government, and they can be grouped into two categories: agencies to confront threats to internal national security and agencies to defend American security from external threats. The departments of greatest influ- ence in these areas are Homeland Security, Justice, Defense, and State.
Agencies for Internal Security The task of maintaining domestic security changed dramatically after the terr orist attacks of S eptember 11, 2001. The creation of the
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is tasked with the broad goal of keeping America safe. Its 240,000 employees work in jobs as diverse as aviation security, emergency response, and chemical facility inspection. The DHS also provides security for the Super Bowl.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS What is the impact of iron triangles on government services in the United States? Do the ties among agencies, congressional committees, and organized groups promote the efficient provision of government services?
565GOALS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 565 27/11/18 12:37 PM
Department of H omeland S ecurity in late 2002 signaled the high priority that domestic security would now have. The orientation of domestic agencies also shifted as agencies geared up to pr event terrorism, a v ery different task from their former charge of investigating crime. With this shift in responsibility came broad new powers, many of them controversial, including the power to detain terrorist suspects and to engage in extensive domestic intelligence gathering about possible terrorists.
Before September 11, most of the effort put into maintaining internal national security took the form of legal work related to prosecuting federal crimes. The larg- est and most impor tant unit of the J ustice Department is the C riminal Division. Lawyers in the C riminal D ivision r epresent the U.S. go vernment when it is the plaintiff enforcing federal criminal laws, ex cept for those cases (about 25 per cent) specifically assigned to other divisions or agencies. Criminal litigation is handled by U.S. attorneys, who ar e appointed by the president. There is one U.S. attorney in each of the 94 federal judicial districts; he or she supervises the work of a number of assistant U.S. attorneys.
The Civil Division of the Justice Department deals with litigation in which the United States is the defendant being sued for injury and damages allegedly inflicted by a government official or agency. The missions of the other divisions of the Justice Department—Antitrust, Civil Rights, E nvironment and N atural R esources, and Tax—are described by their names.
In 2002 the ne w Department of Homeland Security joined the Justice Depart- ment as the major bureaucracy charged with domestic security. The department took over some of the security-oriented agencies pr eviously controlled by other depar t- ments. (See Table 14.1 for a look inside the D epartment of H omeland Security.) Growing pains w ere evident in H omeland Security’s first years. Different bureau- cratic cultures, now par t of a single operation, quickly became embr oiled in tur f battles with one another and with the FBI (which r emained in the Justice Depart- ment) as the two departments attempted to sort out their respective responsibilities. These early problems signaled deeper challenges that the Department of Homeland Security has continued to face thr oughout its existence. DHS has been unable to establish itself as a strong institutionally coherent presence capable of coordinating government action. Part of the problem is that its portfolio of responsibilities is both large and vague. It is responsible for all kinds of internal security including terrorist attacks, border security, natural disasters, and food safety . Under President Trump DHS has new visibility in implementing the president’s travel bans on certain visi- tors and arr esting undocumented immigrants, and his first two budget proposals called for increased funding for the department.20
Agencies for External National Security Two departments occupy center stage in maintaining external national security: the Departments of State and Defense.
The State Department’s primary mission is diplomacy. As the most visible pub - lic representative of American diplomacy, the secr etary of state wor ks to pr omote American perspectives and inter ests in the world. F or example, P resident Trump’s first Secretary of State Rex Tillerson traveled to Moscow in 2017 in a bid to weaken Russia’s support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad amid concerns about his use of chemical weapons.21Although diplomacy is the primary task of the State Depart- ment, diplomatic missions are only one of its organizational dimensions. As of 2016 the State Department comprised sev eral dozen bureau-level units, each under the direction of an undersecretary, although Tillerson proposed a departmental reorga- nization. Considering the depar tment too bloated, Tillerson froze hiring, pushed
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Why was the Department of Homeland Security created? What problems has the new department faced?
566 CHAPTER 14 BUREAUCRACY In A DEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 566 27/11/18 12:37 PM
SELECTED OFFICES FUNCTION 2018 BUDGET, IN BILLION $
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Responsible for securing America’s borders to protect the United States against terrorist threats and prevent the illegal entry of inadmissible persons and contraband, while facilitating lawful travel, trade, and immigration
14 59,753
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
The principal investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security
7.1 21,289
Transportation Security Administration
Provides security for the nation’s transportation system
7.9 52,956
Coast Guard Safeguards our nation’s maritime interests and natural resources on our rivers, in U.S. ports, on the high seas, and in the maritime domain around the world
12.1 14,117
U.S. Secret Service Protects national leaders and safeguards the nation’s financial infrastructure and payment systems
1.99
national Protection and Programs Directorate
Combats cyber-attacks and foreign espionage by enhancing infrastructure and preventing hacking
1.9
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Manages and coordinates the federal response to and recovery from major domestic disasters and emergencies of all types
7.9
SOURCE: U.S. House Appropriations Committee, “FY 2018 Omnibus: Homeland Security,” March 21, 2018, https://appropriations.house.gov (accessed 3/29/18); House Appropriations Committee, “Fiscal Year 2018 Homeland Security Bill,” March 21, 2018, https://appropriations.house.gov (accessed 3/29/18).
TABLE 14.1
Department of Homeland Security
out top car eer officials, and limited promotions, steps that earned criticism fr om some in Congress.22 Secretary of State Mike Pompeo lifted Tillerson's hiring freeze, although many positions remain unfilled.
These bureaus suppor t the r esponsibilities of the elite for eign-service officers, who staff U.S. embassies around the world and who hold almost all of the most powerful positions in the department below the rank of ambassador.23 The ambas- sadorial positions, especially the plum positions in the major capitals of the world, are filled by presidential appointees, many of whom get their posts b y having been important donors to victorious political campaigns.
Despite the impor tance of the S tate Department in for eign affairs, fewer than 20 percent of all U.S. go vernment employees working abroad are dir ectly under its authority. By far the largest number of career government professionals working abroad are under the authority of the Defense Department.
The Defense Department is charged with pr oviding the militar y forces needed to deter war and pr otect the nation. Headquartered in the Pentagon, across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C., the Department of Defense (DoD) is one of the largest bureaucracies in the world, composed of 2 million people acr oss five sets of institutions.24 The president, as commander-in-chief, appoints the Secretary
567GOALS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 567 27/11/18 12:37 PM
of Defense, whose Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) plans and carries out the nation’s security policies as dir ected by the secr etary and pr esident. The OSD provides civilian oversight of the military. The second institution is the Joint Chiefs of Staff, consisting of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of S taff, who is the presi- dent’s principal military adviser, and the five military service chiefs (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and National Guard; the Coast Guard is in the Department of Homeland Security except in wartime). Third, there are three military departments, each with its o wn civilian secretary and militar y secretary (Army, Navy, Air Force; the Marine Corps is par t of the D epartment of the N avy). The military depar t- ments train and equip military forces. Fourth, the Unified Combatant Commands (COCOMs) are the entities that execute military operations. There are six regional COCOMs (Africa Command; E uropean Command; Central Command; N orth- ern Command; Southern Command; and Pacific Command) and three functional COCOMS (Strategic Command; Special Operations Command; and Transporta- tion Command). Finally there are the defense agencies that per form supply or ser- vice activities that ar e common to mor e than one militar y depar tment. There are currently 20 such defense agencies. 25
The Department of Defense is an enormously complex organization, and has been reformed several times to increase efficiency and effectiveness. The contempo- rary DoD was created in 1947, after concerns ar ose during World War II that the Departments of War and N avy, then separate entities, w ere insufficiently integrated to fight effectively. Another major reorganization came in 1986, when the Goldwater- Nichols Defense Reform Act made the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff the president’s main military adviser, rather than the service chiefs. Also, operational control was mo ved from the ser vice chiefs to the unified commands, permitting those commanders to use all military assets available on an integrated basis. More recently, the Budget Control Act of 2011 (see “sequestration,” discussed later in this chapter) reduced annual defense appropriations (outside of current military opera- tions) by 5 per cent from 2013 on, pr ompting fur ther efforts to prioritiz e DoD’s many tasks.26 However, the 2018 federal spending bill signed by President Trump in
The Departments of Defense and State are the most important parts of the federal bureaucracy focused on national security. Secretary of Defense James Mattis (left) is the civilian head of the military (reporting to the president as com- mander in chief). Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (center right) is the United States’ chief diplomat. He is pictured meeting with Qatari foreign minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani in 2018. The State Department runs embassies around the world. U.S. embassy to Grenada principal officer Stephen Frahm (right) speaks with U.S. citizens in Grenada about how to access government services in case of emergency.
568 CHAPTER 14 BUREAUCRACY In A DEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 568 27/11/18 12:37 PM
March 2017 raised the sequestration caps and increased both defense and domestic spending.
National Security and Democracy Of all the agencies in the federal bureaucracy, those charged with providing national security most often come into conflict with the norms and expectations of American democracy. Two issues in particular arise as these agencies work to ensure national security: (1) the trade-offs between respecting the personal rights of individuals v ersus protecting the general public, and (2) the need for secr ecy in matters of national security v ersus the public ’s right to kno w what the government is doing. Needless to say, Americans often disagree about what activities the government should be able to pursue to defend U.S. national security.
When national security is at stake, federal agencies have taken actions that ar e normally consider ed incompatible with individual rights. F or example, during World War II President Franklin Roosevelt ordered thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent to be r elocated to internment camps due to national security concerns. Although the Supreme Court approved this action, the federal govern- ment has since acknowledged that it constituted unjustified discrimination and has offered reparations to those who were interned.
Protecting national security often requires the government to conduct its activi- ties in secret. Yet, as Americans have come to expect a more open government, many believe that federal agencies charged with national security keep too many secr ets from the American public. The effort to make information related to national secu- rity more available began in 1966 with the passage of the F reedom of Information Act (FOIA). S trengthened in 1974 after Watergate, the act allo ws any person to request classified information from any federal agency . The information obtained often reveals unflattering or unsuccessful aspects of national security activities. One private organization, the N ational Security Archive, makes extensiv e use of FOIA requests to obtain information about the activities of national security agencies; it has published many of these documents on its w ebsite and maintains an archive in Washington, D.C., that is open to the public. The website’s “The Torture Archive,”
569GOALS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 569 27/11/18 12:37 PM
for example, is a searchable database of documents related to the authorized use of torture by the American government.
With the advent of the war on terrorism, the government gained unprecedented powers to detain for eign suspects, carr y out wir etaps and sear ches, conduct secr et military tribunals, and build an integrated law-enforcement and intelligence system. Congress hastily enacted many of these sweeping provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act several weeks after the terrorist attacks, with little debate.
The threat of terr orism also dramatically sharpened the tension betw een secrecy and democracy. After the September 11 attacks, access under the FOIA was curtailed, and the range of information deemed sensitiv e gr eatly expanded. S ome analysts worried that secr ecy would pr event Congress from carrying out its basic o versight responsibilities. They also claimed that much of the secrecy had nothing to do with national security. President Obama ordered federal agencies to administer the FOIA law more liberally and signed an executive order to speed declassification of secret documents. However, Obama’s campaign to make government more transparent was challenged by national security contract wor ker Edward Snowden’s leak of sensitiv e national security documents in 2013. The Snowden documents exposed the extent, and potential illegality, of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) global surveillance operations. Following the r evelation that the NSA was collecting priv ate data on millions of Americans and foreign nationals—tracking not only phone calls but also email messages, w eb br owser histories, and personal contacts—concern mounted among the American public, go vernment watchdog gr oups, and r epresentatives in Congress, while foreign allies threatened to suspend cooperation on global antiterror- ism efforts.27 A panel of intelligence experts appointed by President Obama to assess the NSA’s activities concluded that its massiv e data collection “made only a modest contribution to the nation ’s security.” They recommended, among doz ens of other reforms, that the government stop the collection program and relinquish the files to a third party.28 Congress barred the bulk collection of telephone data and instituted other limits on government surveillance in the 2015 USA Freedom Act. The restric- tions in the ne w legislation sought to ensur e security without jeopar dizing privacy, although critics remain concerned about the scope of government surveillance.29
The U.S. media have used Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain important information, such as federal drug safety reports and conditions at local jails. Americans are likely to always debate just how much secrecy their government is entitled to.
570 CHAPTER 14 BUREAUCRACY In A DEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 570 27/11/18 12:37 PM
MAINTAINING A STRONG ECONOMY
In our capitalist economic system, the go vernment does not dir ectly run the eco - nomy. Yet many federal go vernment activities ar e critical to maintaining a str ong economy. Foremost among these are the agencies responsible for fiscal and monetary policy. Other agencies, such as the I nternal Revenue Service (IRS), collect priv ate resources into use for public purposes. Tax policy may also strengthen the economy through decisions about whom to tax, how much, and when. F inally, the federal government, thr ough such agencies as the D epartment of Transportation, the Commerce Department, and the Energy Department, may directly provide services or goods that bolster the economy.
Fiscal and Monetary Agencies Fiscal policy can r efer to any go vernment policy having to do with public finance. However, Americans often reserve fiscal for taxing and spending policies and use monetary for policies having to do with banks, credit, and currency.
While the responsibility for making fiscal policy lies with Congress, the admini- stration of fiscal policy occurs primarily in the Treasury Department. In addition to collecting income, corporate, and other taxes, the Treasury manages the national debt: $21 trillion in 2018.30 The Treasury Department is also responsible for print- ing U.S. currency, but currency is only a tiny proportion of the entire money eco- nomy. Most of the trillions of dollars used in the transactions of the priv ate and public sectors of the U.S. economy exist virtually—in computerized accounts rather than as actual currency. The Treasury Department also performs tax and economic policy analysis, as does the Council of E conomic A dvisors, located within the Executive Office of the President.
A key monetary agency is the Federal Reserve System (called simply the Fed), which is headed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Fed has authority over the interest rates and lending activities of the nation ’s most impor tant banks. Congr ess estab- lished the F ed in 1913 as a clearinghouse r esponsible for adjusting the supply of money and credit to the needs of commer ce and industry in different regions of the country. The Fed is also responsible for ensuring that banks do not o verextend themselves, a policy that guar ds against bank failur es during a sudden economic scare, such as occurr ed in 1929. The Treasury and the Federal Reserve took center stage when a string of bank failures threatened economic catastrophe in 2008. These agencies designed a $700-billion bailout package and convinced Congress that a rapid response was needed to avert a worldwide depression. Although the Treasury and the Federal Reserve sprang into action when economic calamity loomed, cri tics charged that the crisis could hav e been pr evented if these agencies had ex ercised more regulatory oversight over the financial sector during the previous decade. I n 2010, Congress and the president created the Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify systemwide risks to the financial sector. As part of its duties, the council devised a r ule to identify “ systemically impor tant” nonbank financial companies that would pose a grave threat to U.S. financial stability in the event that they failed and to prompt stiffer regulatory oversight of those companies.31
Revenue Agencies One of the first actions Congress took under President George Washington was to cr eate the Department of the Treasury, and probably its oldest function is the collection of taxes on imports, called tariffs. Now part of the Depart- ment of Homeland Security, federal customs agents are located at every U.S. seaport
fiscal policy the government’s use of taxing, monetary, and spending powers to manipulate the economy
Federal Reserve System a system of 12 Federal Reserve banks that facilitates exchanges of cash, checks, and credit; regulates member banks; and uses monetary policies to fight inflation and deflation
571GOALS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 571 27/11/18 12:37 PM
and international airpor t to o versee the collection of tariffs. But far and away the most important of the revenue agencies is the I nternal Revenue Service, a bur eau within the Treasury Department.
The IRS is the government agency that Americans love to hate. As one expert put it, “probably no organization in the countr y, public or private, creates as much cli- entele disfavor as the Internal Revenue Service. The very nature of its work brings it into an adversarial relationship with vast numbers of Americans every year [empha- sis added].”32 Taxpayers complain about the IRS’ s needless complexity , its lack of sensitivity and r esponsiveness to individual taxpay ers, and its o verall lack of effi- ciency. Such complaints led Congress to pass the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, which instituted a number of new protections for taxpayers. Yet Congress continued to cut the IRS budget—$900 million o ver eight years through 2018— despite Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s request for a larger budget and mor e staff to allow the agency to enhance enfor cement, bring in more tax revenue, fend off hackers, and restore customer service.33
Economic Development Agencies F ederal agencies also conduct pr ograms designed to str engthen particular segments of the economy or to pr ovide specific services aimed at str engthening the entire economy. Created in 1889, the D epart- ment of Agriculture is the fourth-oldest Cabinet department. Its initial mission, to strengthen American agriculture by providing information about effective farming practices, reflected the enormous importance of farming in the American economy. Through its Agricultural E xtension Service, the D epartment of Agricultur e estab- lished a significant presence in r ural ar eas thr oughout the countr y. I t also built strong support for its activities among the nation’s farmers and at the many land- grant colleges, where agricultural research has been conducted for over 100 years.
At first glance, the Department of Transportation, which o versees the nation ’s highway and air traffic systems, may seem to have little to do with economic devel- opment. B ut effective transpor tation is the backbone of a str ong economy. The interstate highway system, for example, is widely ackno wledged as a key factor in
revenue agency an agency responsible for collecting taxes. Examples include the Internal Revenue Service for income taxes; the U.S. Customs Service for tariffs and other taxes on imported goods; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for collection of taxes on the sale of those particular products
Several government agencies are focused on maintaining a strong economy. These include the Federal Reserve, headed by Jerome Powell (left), which regulates interest rates and lending activity. The Treasury Department (which oversees the IRS and thus collects taxes) is headed by Secretary Steven Mnuchin (center). The federal government also provides small business loans and other incentives for economic development in large and small sectors of the economy. In 2015 the Obama administration announced more money for research to protect bee habitats (right).
572 CHAPTER 14 BUREAUCRACY In A DEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 572 27/11/18 12:37 PM
promoting economic gr owth in the decades after World War II. The Small Busi- ness Administration, in the Department of Commerce, provides loans and technical assistance to small businesses across the country.
Can the Bureaucracy Be Reformed? When citiz ens complain that go v- ernment is too bur eaucratic, what they often mean is that government bureaucracies seem inefficient, waste money, and per form poorly . The
botched roll-out of healthcare.gov, the federal government’s online health insur- ance mar ketplace, handicapped the implementation of the Affordable Car e A ct when it opened and subsequently crashed in O ctober 2013. A r eport b y the Inspector General of the D epartment of H ealth and H uman Services concluded afterward that the Centers for M edicare and M edicaid S ervices, tasked with overseeing the w ebsite, lacked the necessar y managerial and technical capacity and ignor ed warnings that the enormous softwar e pr oject was headed for tr ou- ble.34 In the waiting list scandal that r ocked the Veterans Health Administration in 2014, some VHA hospitals that had not met the target of getting appointments for v eterans within 14 days had cr eated unofficial lists to make their waiting times look better. A VA audit and FBI inv estigation found that o ver 120,000 vet- erans were left waiting or nev er got appointments. Congr ess passed and P resident Obama signed ne w legislation in late 2014 that added funding, allo wed some veterans to get priv ate health care at government expense, and gav e the VA Secre- tary increased authority to fire poorly per forming managers.35 When citizens have negative personal experience with the federal go vernment—mountains of forms to fill out, lengthy waits, and unsympathetic service—they wonder why go vernment can’t do better.
Evaluate some of the ways politicians have tried to make the bureaucracy more efficient
573CAn THE BUREAUCRACY BE REFORMED?
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 573 27/11/18 12:37 PM
The government has often sought to find ways to make the federal bureaucracy more efficient. In 1993, President Bill Clinton launched the National Performance Review—part of his promise to “reinvent government”—to make the federal bureau- cracy more efficient, accountable, and effective. The National Performance Review sought to prompt federal agencies to adopt flexible, goal-driven practices. Clinton promised that the r esult would be a go vernment that would “work better and cost less.” Virtually all obser vers agreed that the r eview made substantial pr ogress. I ts original goal was to sav e more than $100 billion o ver five years, in large par t by cutting the federal workforce by 12 percent (more than 270,000 jobs) by the end of 1999. In fact, by 2000, $136 billion in savings were already assured through legisla- tive or administrative action, and the federal workforce had been cut by 426,200.36
In 2015, President Obama created a Social and Behavioral Sciences team to help departments incorporate insights from behavioral science—how people make deci- sions and act on them—to make go vernment processes more efficient. The team launched a number of experiments to impr ove services, such as an effort to boost military ser vice members’ enrollment in the go vernment retirement savings plan, which was lower than that of other federal employees. By requiring service members to make a choice as part of their orientation upon arrival at a new military base, the experiment increased enrollment by over 8 percent.37
Beyond these efforts seeking greater efficiency and effectiveness, go vernment reorganization is a recurrent theme. Presidents Nixon, Carter, Clinton, and Obama each ordered a reorganization of the executive branch. Nixon, for example, sought to retain the D epartments of S tate, Defense, Treasury, and J ustice but str eamline other departments by function (Natural Resources, Human Resources, Community Development, and Economic Development). However, Congress objected, as exec- utive branch structures reflect committee and subcommittee jurisdictions in Con- gress, which are important to lawmakers who wish to addr ess constituent concerns and who ther efore resist consolidation. 38 At the beginning of his term, P resident Trump too issued an ex ecutive order asking each depar tment to file reorganization plans, but after his administration’s first year, only a few departments had done so.39
In recent decades there have been several attempts to “reinvent government.” In 1993, President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore established the National Perfor- mance Review for this purpose. Gore promoted this on David Letter- man’s show, where he railed against the government’s procurement requirements, which even specified the number of pieces into which a government ashtray may shatter.
574 CHAPTER 14 BUREAUCRACY In A DEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 574 27/11/18 12:37 PM
Although str eamlining efforts like Clinton ’s did help make go vernment wor k more effectively, it did not institute the more sweeping approach to reform demanded by some political leaders. R eform has instead been pursued thr ough efforts to ter - minate, dev olve, or contract out go vernment functions. I n general, D emocratic administrations have aimed to make the existing bureaucracy work more effectively, whereas Republican administrations have sought to sideline the bur eaucracy, espe- cially by contracting out government work to private companies.
ELIMINATING PROGRAMS AND AGENCIES
The only certain way to reduce the size of the bureaucracy is to eliminate programs through termination, a rar e occurrence. Even in the 12 y ears of the R eagan and George H. W. Bush administrations, both of which pr oclaimed a str ong commit- ment to the reduction of the national government, not a single national govern- ment agency or program was terminated. In the 1990s, Republicans did succeed in eliminating two small agencies. The 2018 spending bill, passed by a Republican-led Congress, not only incr eased federal spending but also pr ohibited agencies fr om eliminating programs or offices without congressional authorization.40
The overall difficulty in terminating bureaucracy is a r eflection of Americans’ love–hate relationship with the national government. As antagonistic as Americans may be toward bureaucracy in general, they benefit from the services being rendered and the protections being offered by particular bureaucratic agencies. They fiercely defend their fav orite agencies while per ceiving no inconsistency in their hostility toward the bureaucracy in general. A good case in point is the agonizing pr oblem of closing militar y bases in the wake of the end of the Cold War with the former Soviet Union, when the United States no longer needed so many bases. Since every base was in some congressional member’s district, it proved impossible for Congress to decide to close any of them. Consequently , beginning in 1988, Congr ess estab- lished the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) to decide on base closings, allowing Congress only an up or do wn vote on the commission’s proposals.41 Five different BRAC reports, the most recent in 2005, formed the basis for closing bases and modifying the operations in the r emaining bases. When the Pentagon proposed another round of base closings in 2014, it met with r esistance from members of Congress, few of whom wanted to run the risk that a base in their district could close.42
Elected leaders hav e come to r ely on a mor e incr emental appr oach to do wnsiz- ing the bur eaucracy. M uch has been done b y budgetar y m eans. In 2011, due to concerns among H ouse R epublicans about the size of the national debt, Congr ess failed to raise the nation ’s debt ceiling—the amount of national debt that can be issued b y the Treasury—usually an uncontr oversial step to keep go vernment in operation. The Treasury D epartment came within days of being unable to pay bondholders and other cr editors. The resolution to the crisis was the B udget Control Act of 2011, which r equired Congress to pass a deficit-cutting budget in exchange for raising the debt ceiling or else trigger sequestration, acr oss-the-board cuts to both domestic and defense spending. Congr ess failed to pass a budget, triggering cuts. 43 As a r esult, a number of agencies made personnel reductions at that time. President Trump imposed a fed- eral hiring fr eeze upon taking office, but did not issue a formal
Americans may desire smaller gov- ernment in the abstract, but they defend the agencies that affect them. Closing military bases in the United States has proved par- ticularly controversial. Citizens mobilized across the country to urge the Base Closure and Realign- ment Commission not to close military bases in their areas.
575CAn THE BUREAUCRACY BE REFORMED?
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 575 27/11/18 12:37 PM
plan. Some agencies operated as if under a freeze, and some, like the Social Security Administration, made early buyout offers to their workforce in summer 2017, but the size of the federal workforce remained largely unchanged.44
DEVOLUTION
The next most effective approach to reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy is devolution, downsizing the federal bureaucracy by delegating the implementation of pr ograms to state and local go vernments (also see Chapter 3, F ederalism). Devolution often alters the pattern of who benefits most from go vernment programs. O pponents of dev olution in social policy , for example, charge that it reduces the ability of the government to remedy inequality. They argue that state governments, which cannot run deficits as the federal government does and which have more limited taxing capabilities, will inevitably cut spending on pro- grams that serve low-income residents. They point to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was created in 1997 to extend health insur- ance to lo w-income childr en. When the economy was booming, states added children to the r olls and some states ev en extended benefits to the children’s parents. But during the r ecession of the early 2000s, as states faced significant budget crises, many cut back on SCHIP . And during the G reat Recession that began in 2008, Ariz ona closed SCHIP to ne w enrollments altogether and did not r eopen the pr ogram until late 2016, long after the r ecession was o ver.45 States, with their tight fiscal circumstances, can have difficulty keeping pace with economic need.
Often the central aim of dev olution is to pr ovide mor e efficient and flexible government services. Yet, by its very nature, devolution entails variation across the states. In some states, government services may improve as a consequence of dev o- lution. In other states, ser vices may deteriorate as the states use dev olution as an opportunity to cut spending and r educe services. This has been the pattern in the implementation of the welfare reform passed in 1996, the most significant devo- lution of federal go vernment social pr ograms in many decades. S ome states, such as Oregon, have used the flexibility of the reform to design inno vative programs that respond to clients’ needs; other states, such as Idaho, have virtually dismantled their w elfare pr ograms. The recession that began in 2008 pr ovided the first real evidence about what incr eased state flexibility meant for low-income Americans. Studies showed that the number of people on public assistance r ose by 14 percent even as the unemployment rate increased by 88 percent between 2007 and 2010.46 Moreover, states v aried widely in ho w they r esponded: for example, although the unemployment rate rose by 146 percent in Arizona—increasing from 4 percent at the end of 2007 to almost 10 per cent in 2010—public-assistance rolls actually fell by 48 per cent. In Oregon, by contrast, public-assistance cases r ose by 70 per cent, although unemployment grew by only 41 per cent. The overall lack of gr owth and state variation in welfare contrast sharply with the rise in food stamp recipients dur- ing 2008–09, a program run by the federal government. Recipients of food stamps (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) grew by 45 percent between 2009 and 2010 and pulled an estimated 8 percent of Americans out of pov- erty in 2009.47 Critics argued that devolution gave the states too much flexibility in designing their own welfare programs and that the result has been a program unable to assist the poor when they need it most.
devolution a policy to remove a program from one level of government by delegating it or passing it down to a lower level of government, such as from the national government to the state and local governments
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Dissatisfied citizens have supported a range of bureaucratic reforms, including termination of agencies, devolution of responsibility to lower levels of government, and privatization. Are such reforms likely to make the bureaucracy more responsive to public wishes?
576 CHAPTER 14 BUREAUCRACY In A DEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 576 27/11/18 12:37 PM
This is the dilemma that devolution poses. Up to a point, variation can be consid- ered one of the virtues of federalism. But in a democracy, it is inherently dangerous to have large variations in the provisions of services and benefits.
PRIVATIZATION AND CONTRACTING OUT
Most of what is called “ privatization” is the pr ovision of go vernment goods and services by private contractors under dir ect government supervision. Except for top-secret strategic materials, virtually all military hardware, from boats to bullets, is produced on a priv atized basis by private contractors. Research services worth billions of dollars ar e bought under contract b y governments fr om univ ersities and from ordinary industrial corporations and priv ate “think tanks.” Privatization simply means that a formerly public activity is picked up under contract by a private company or companies. B ut such pr ograms are still v ery much go vern- ment programs—paid for b y government and super vised by government. Priva- tization downsizes the government only in that the workers providing the service are no longer counted as par t of the go vernment bureaucracy. Privatization may not mean less government but rather a different role for government, as manage- rial expertise is needed to write contracts and o versee private companies carrying out government work.48
The central aim of privatization is to reduce the cost of government. When private contractors can perform a task as well as government can but for less money, taxpay- ers win. President George W. Bush made privatization a central component of his effort to reform the federal bureaucracy. He introduced new procedures that would subject more than 800,000 federal jobs, nearly half the federal civilian workforce, to competitive outsourcing. If it were determined that a company could do the job more efficiently, the work would be contracted out. Under Bush, government out- sourcing grew dramatically as the government sought to staff the new Department
privatization a formerly public service that is now provided by a private company but paid for by the government
One strategy to carry out the tasks of government is privatization. The U.S. military and Department of Defense contract many services to companies such as Booz Allen Hamilton, which provides systems for personnel management, program support, and assessment, among other services.
577CAn THE BUREAUCRACY BE REFORMED?
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 577 27/11/18 12:37 PM
of Homeland Security and pursue wars in Afghanistan and I raq without incr eas- ing the numbers of federal emplo yees. Payments for federal contracts gr ew from $209 billion in 2000 to $537 billion in 2011.49 Although military contracts account for much of the growth, contracting is common throughout the federal bureaucracy. In fact, contracting has become so widespr ead that it has been called a “ virtual fourth branch of government”50 (Figure 14.4).
Depending on ho w it is conducted, competitiv e outsour cing may not lead to extensiv e priv atization; instead, competition may impr ove government per - formance by forcing federal agencies to reexamine how they can do their work more efficiently. But when public bur eaucracies are not granted a fair chance to bid in the contracting competition and, too, if there is little competition among private firms, private firms have a monopoly on ser vice pr ovision and often end up being less efficient and more costly than go vernment. In 2015 close to 60 per cent of all contracts w ere awar ded competitiv ely. B ut that y ear was an exception: from 2000 to 2011, less than half of existing contracts were subject to open competition. In fact, there is no good evidence that privatization saves the government money.
In most aspects of go vernment activity, contract emplo yees work side b y side with government employees in what has been called a “blended workforce.”51 Many agencies that r ely on technical exper tise, such as the N ational Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, routinely rely on contractors. Although federal r egu- lations forbid the outsour cing of “inher ently go vernmental wor k,” no clear line separates governmental and nongovernmental work.52
FIGURE 14.4
Outsourcing the Government The number of contractors employed by the federal government has increased, especially after September 11, 2001. Does contracting out government jobs save money, or does it create problems of oversight and accountability? Or both?
NOTE: Includes both new contracts and payments against existing contracts.
SOURCES: Paul Light, “The True Size of Government,” The Volcker Alliance, October 2017, www .volckeralliance.org (accessed 4/4/18).
FEDERAL, CONTRACT, AND GRANT EMPLOYEES (IN MILLIONS)
2005 2010 2015200219991996199319901984 0
2
4
6
8
10
Federal
Contract and grant
578 CHAPTER 14 BUREAUCRACY In A DEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 578 27/11/18 12:37 PM
Concerns about adequate go vernment o versight, accountability , and per for- mance of priv ate contractors escalated when the scale of contracting dramatically increased. In 2008, Congress responded to the concerns about contractors by creat- ing a “Commission on Wartime Contracting.” Its final report sharply criticized the use of private contractors, estimating that the practice had wasted between $31 and $60 billion during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It made numerous recommen- dations for reform but noted that successful reforms would require congressional action and funding for ne w oversight capabilities.53 Congress created databases to record contractor performance and to keep track of legal or contractual violations.54 However, both the G overnment A ccountability Office (GAO) and government transparency groups found the databases poorly documented and of little use in agency decision-making or congressional oversight.55
Some members of Congr ess hav e sought far-r eaching r egulations on contrac - tors, including forbidding contractors fr om performing sensitive functions in war settings such as interr ogations, security, and intelligence activities. P roposals for such major reforms, however, are difficult to enact given the political connections of many federal contractors.
The Obama administration sought to addr ess the concerns about contracting in several ways. I n J uly 2009 the White H ouse Office of Management and B udget (OMB) took steps to reduce the government’s reliance on outside contractors. Depart- ments and agencies were told to cut contract spending by 7 percent over the next two years.56 By 2011 the administration announced that for the first time in 13 years, spending on outside contractors had declined. 57 In 2016 the Obama Department of Justice decided to end the use of priv ate prisons for federal inmates after an audit found more safety and security problems than in government-run facilities.58
In 2013 the national security leaks b y Edward Snowden and a mass shoot - ing at the Washington Navy Yard, a U.S. militar y base—both b y government contractors—raised fr esh concerns about the outsour cing of go vernment and prompted Congress to pass legislation calling for a review of contractors’ security clearances.59 The White House also drafted an executive order requiring govern- ment contractors to disclose their political donations, though Congress blocked those efforts by passing a federal spending bill in 2014 that prohibits any funding to r equire contractors to disclose campaign donations. 60 I n addition, in 2015 Obama set new requirements for federal contractors in a very different area, com- pelling contractors to pay a $10.10 minimum wage and to pr ovide paid sick leave for their employees (even if he had failed to win congressional approval for measur es to assist wor kers in general). 61 In March 2017, P resident Trump signed legislation r olling back sev eral Obama regulations, including a r ule bar- ring companies from receiving a federal contract if they had violated labor, wage, or workplace safety rules.62
Managing the Bureaucracy By their very nature, bureaucra- cies pose challenges to democratic governance. Although bur eaucra- cies provide the expertise needed
to implement the public will, they can also become entr enched organizations that serve their own interests. The public’s task is neither to retreat from bureaucracy nor
Explain why it is often difficult to control the bureaucracy
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Private firms play a significant role in providing government services, including both internal and external security. What are the advantages and disadvantages of relying on private firms to provide essential services? Can government provide adequate oversight of these private companies?
579MAnAG InG THE BUREAUCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 579 27/11/18 12:37 PM
to attack it but to take advantage of its strengths while making it more accountable to the demands of democratic politics and representative government.
THE PRESIDENT AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE
In 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt’s Committee on Administrative Management officially addressed a plea that had been gr owing increasingly urgent: “The presi- dent needs help.” The national government had grown rapidly during the preceding 25 years, but the str uctures and pr ocedures necessar y to manage the burgeoning executive branch had not yet been established. The response to the call for “help” for the president initially took the form of thr ee management policies: (1) all commu- nications and decisions that related to executive policy decisions must pass through the Executive Office of the President (EOP); (2) in order to cope with such a flow, the EOP must hav e an adequate staff of specialists in research, analysis, legislativ e and legal writing, and public affairs; and (3) the EOP must have additional staff to ensure that presidential decisions are made, communicated to Congress, and carried out by the appropriate agency.
Making the Managerial Presidency The story of the modern presidency can be told largely as a series of responses to the plea for managerial help as the scope of the federal government—and presidential power—has grown.63
The president heads the federal go vernment, which is the largest emplo yer in the countr y and the largest pur chaser of goods and ser vices in the world. 64 A s the CEO of this enormous organization, the pr esident may have goals associated with management (striving for efficiency) and control (shaping policy outcomes). Presidents hav e sev eral tools at their disposal. They have appointment po wer over the top lay er of the ex ecutive branch, the political appointees who sit on top of the career civil service. They can issue executive orders, making policy and shaping the executive branch unilaterally. They can also alter an agency’s budget or organizational scheme. I ndeed, the pr esidency has been mar ked by waves of executive branch reorganization by presidents seeking to exert administrative and political control.65
After Roosevelt’s reforms, perhaps the most impor tant were those under P resi- dent Jimmy Carter, whose reorganization of the civil service will long be recognized as one of the most significant contributions of his presidency. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 was the first major revamping of the federal civil ser vice since its creation in 1883. The 1978 act created the Merit Systems Protection Board to defend competitive merit recruitment and promotion from political encroachment. The separate Federal Labor Relations Authority was set up to administer collectiv e bargaining and to addr ess individual personnel griev ances. The third new agency, the Office of Personnel Management, was cr eated to manage r ecruiting, testing, training, and the r etirement system. The Senior Executive Service, a top manage - ment rank for civil servants, was also created to recognize and foster “public manage- ment” as a profession and to facilitate the movement of “super-grade” career officials across agencies and departments.66
President B ill Clinton was often criticiz ed for the way he managed his admini stration—his loose appr oach to administration included all-night “bull sessions,” complete with pizza—yet, as we have seen, he inaugurated one of the most systematic efforts “ to change the way go vernment does business ” in his National Performance Review. Heavily influenced by the theories of management
580 CHAPTER 14 BUREAUCRACY In A DEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 580 27/11/18 12:37 PM
consultants who priz ed decentralization, customer r esponsiveness, and emplo yee initiative, Clinton sought to infuse these new practices into government.67
Subsequent pr esidents hav e made their o wn mar k. G eorge W. B ush was the first president with a degr ee in business. He followed the standard business school dictum to select skilled subor dinates and then delegate r esponsibility to them. Critics contended, however, that his administration’s distrust of the bureaucracy led it to exercise inappropriate political control over agency experts. Obama’s approach to the managerial pr esidency featured a deep belief in the impor tance of scientific expertise, which was reflected in his appointments to key regulatory agencies such as the FDA, OSHA, and the EPA. But he had his own critics, who complained about micromanagement and centralization.68
President Trump called for deep budget cuts and r eorganization in a number of executive branch departments and agencies. His presidency has also raised the specter of a “ deep state” of bur eaucrats who ex ert power independent of political contr ol. Political scientist Michael Glennon has used the term “the double state” to describe a phenomenon in which, for example, Bush-era national security policies such as covert drone strikes and use of the G uantánamo B ay prison continued under P resident Obama, even though Obama as a candidate had criticized them. Glennon raises the possibility of a “double government” of bureaucrats that continues to pursue policies of its pr eference outside of political or democratic contr ol.69 Episodes such as EP A employees informing the media about a report on climate change they feared would be suppressed seemed to confirm Trump supporters’ fears of the limits of presidential control over the bureaucracy.70 There is little evidence of the truly rogue bureaucracy that figures in the most extreme versions of conspiracy theories, but questions of who controls the bur eaucracy and ho w much autonomy bur eaucrats should hav e have occupied political scientists and government leaders for decades.
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT
Another lever of control over the bureaucracy is Congress. Congress passes legisla- tion, which the bureaucracy must then implement. Such delegation derives from the constitutionally mandated roles for each branch of government; the president must “faithfully execute” the laws Congress passes. But because Congress cannot possibly stipulate every detail of every law, the bureaucracy must interpret legislative intent.71 The delegation of implementation introduces the principal-agent problem: does the bureaucracy (the agent) implement laws in the manner Congr ess (the principal) intended?
One way Congr ess can hold the bur eaucracy accountable is oversight. Congres- sional committees and subcommittees hav e jurisdictions roughly parallel to one or more departments and agencies in the executive branch, and members of Congress who sit on these committees can develop expertise equal to that of the bureaucrats. The most visible indication of Congress’s oversight efforts is the use of public hear - ings, before which bur eaucrats and other witnesses ar e summoned to discuss and defend agency budgets and past decisions.
Studies show that congressional committee and subcommittee hearings and meetings grew quite dramatically in the late 1960s and 1970s, as Congr ess tried to keep pace with the expansion of the executive branch; this growth was especially pronounced in the H ouse, which conducts mor e total days of o versight hearings than the Senate.72 However, concern has grown in recent years about failures of over- sight.73 There appears to be less “police patrol” oversight—regular or even preemptive
oversight the effort by Congress, through hearings, investigations, and other techniques, to exercise control over the activities of executive agencies
“police patrol” oversight regular or even preemptive congressional hearings on bureaucratic agency operations
581MAnAG InG THE BUREAUCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 581 27/11/18 12:37 PM
hearings on agency operations—and more “fire alarm” oversight prompted by media attention or advocacy group complaints. For example, consumer outrage prompted the House Oversight and G overnment Reform Committee’s 2016 inquir y into a 500-percent price hike on E piPens used to tr eat severe allergic r eactions.74 There are also mor e oversight hearings under divided go vernment, when the ex ecutive branch and at least one chamber of Congr ess are controlled by different parties.75 For example, the H ouse select committee on B enghazi, the eighth committee in the Republican-led Congress to investigate the attack on the American mis- sion in Benghazi, Libya, called former secretary of state Hillary Clinton to appear for a second time in 2015. R epublican members of the committee questioned the former secretary for more than eight hours, while Democrats charged that the hearing was designed to harm Clinton ’s pr esidential campaign. 76 S ome obser v- ers worr y that the extr eme par tisan polarization of r ecent y ears has politiciz ed oversight, with the hearings that do occur dismissed as par tisan while other issues are ignored.77
Individual members of Congr ess can also carr y out o versight inquiries. S uch standard congr essional “ casework” can addr ess significant questions of public
“fire alarm” oversight episodic, as-needed congressional hearings on bureaucratic agency operations, usually prompted by media attention or advocacy group complaints
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS What are some of the important topics on which Congress has held oversight hearings? What did Congress try to achieve by holding oversight hearings?
The most visible aspect of congressional oversight is the use of public hearings. Following the 2012 attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya, Congress held multiple highly publicized—and highly politicized—hearings to investigate the matter, focusing on the activities of former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.
582 CHAPTER 14 BUREAUCRACY In A DEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 582 27/11/18 12:37 PM
responsibility even when they ar e motivated only b y the demands of an individ - ual constituent. Ov ersight also encompasses the communications betw een con - gressional staff and agency staff. In addition, Congress has created for itself thr ee large agencies whose obligations ar e to engage in constant r esearch on matters related to the executive branch. These are the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Congressional Research Service, and the Congressional Budget Office, each designed to give Congress information independent of the information it can get directly from the executive branch through hearings and other communications.78 Another source of information for o versight is dir ectly from citizens through the FOIA, which, as w e have seen, giv es ordinary citizens the right to gain access to agency files and agency data. Nevertheless, the information citiz ens gain through the FOIA can be made effective only thr ough the institutionaliz ed channels of congressional committees and, though rar ely, through public interest litigation in the federal courts.
Bureaucracy WHAT DO WE WANT? Americans’ views about the federal government bureaucracy present something of
a paradox. On the one hand, the public expresses dislike for “big government,”
exemplified by bureaucracy. From this perspective, the federal government is too
large, inherently wasteful, and at odds with individual freedom. On the other hand,
Americans support many government programs and have high expectations for gov-
ernment. Indeed, high expectations lead many Americans to blame bureaucrats when
the country faces problems, such as the prolonged economic downturn of recent
years. One consequence of these divergent views is that public discussion about
bureaucracy is often high on emotion and short on facts. Another consequence can
be that bureaucracies try to maximize one value but undermine others. As we saw in
the chapter opener, the decision to switch the Flint water supply was made to save
money, but it endangered the health of Flint residents.
Arguments contending that the federal government is too large ignore the fact that
the number of government employees has not grown disproportionately large when
compared with the size of the American workforce. Charges that government wastes
the taxpayers’ money must also be put into perspective. As we have seen in this
chapter, outsourcing government activities to private contractors does not offer a
remedy for wasteful spending. In fact, private firms may be more wasteful than
the public sector unless there is strong government oversight of private activities.
Finally, it is true that bureaucratic rules often limit the freedom of individuals and
corporations. But the laws that bureaucracies implement were enacted by our elected
representatives in Congress. They are, in fact, the product of our democratic politi-
cal system. As these considerations suggest, building a bureaucracy that reflects
American values is not a simple task. Adequate congressional oversight is one impor-
tant part of the solution because a bureaucracy that is shielded from the public eye
may wind up pursuing its own interests rather than those of the public. Even so, an
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Through elected officials (the president and Congress), the public can achieve some control over the bureaucracy. What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of presidential and congressional control of the bureaucracy?
583BUREAUCRACY : WHAT DO WE WAnT?
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 583 27/11/18 12:37 PM
administration whose every move is subject to intense public scrutiny may be
hamstrung in its efforts to carry out the public interest. (The “Who Participates?”
feature on the facing page shows the bureaucracy’s response to public concerns
about health care accessibility for veterans.) Finding the right balance between
bureaucratic autonomy and public scrutiny is a central task of creating an effective
government; it requires both presidential and congressional vigilance to build an effec-
tive and responsive bureaucracy.
The emergence of “big data” is likely to change the way bureaucracies operate in
the future. The term big data refers to very large data sets that compile information
on a wide range of topics including climate, traffic, and health, and the nSA’s huge
database of phone calls and use of social media. Big data have the potential to
improve government performance by linking sources of information that were previ-
ously unconnected. They also will allow the government to analyze information that
was stored as text or went uncollected. Advances in government’s ability to implement
programs in public health, food safety, and transportation are only the beginning of
what big data promise. At the same time, however, big data pose a threat to individ-
ual privacy, as the revelations about the nSA’s data suggest. As bureaucracies tap
into the promise of big data to create more effective programs, a close public eye on
the implications for the right to privacy will be needed. How might big data improve the
government’s delivery of services in the future? What additional safeguards might
be needed to protect individuals’ privacy?
584 CHAPTER 14 BUREAUCRACY In A DEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 584 27/11/18 12:37 PM
Find out how veterans access their bene�ts and more about the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs by visiting www.va.gov. For more information on veterans access to health care, visit www.accestocare.va.gov.
Ask a question about how federal agencies can help you. Most agencies have FAQ and contact pages on their websites.
Ask Questions about Federal Agencies
To �nd more information on how the bureaucracy affects your life, visit www.usa.gov/federal-agencies and search by agency.
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
After media reports about excessive waits endured by veterans seeking health care appointments, and widespread fraud in reporting those wait times, Congress passed the 2014 Veterans Choice Act, which allows veterans to go to private doctors if they would otherwise have to wait more than 30 days to see a Veterans Affairs provider. This act was supplemented in 2017 by the website, Access to Care (accesstocare.va.gov), which reports wait times at veterans clinics around the country. The vast majority of veterans seeking health care appointments are now able to schedule one at their local VA within 30 days.
Note: Numbers may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
SOURCES: “Attempted Fix for VA Health Delays Creates New Bureaucracy,” npr.org; Patient Access Data, www.va.gov (accessed 3/9/18).
195,604,902 total
7,306,571 total
4% 2,835,626 total
1.4% 545,582 total
0.3%
Scheduled Within 30 days
Scheduled Within 31–60 days
Scheduled Within 61–90 days
Scheduled Within 90+ days
93% Total appointments requested in 2017:208,065,313
Waiting for a Veterans Affairs Health Care Appointment
WHO PARTICIPATES?
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 585 27/11/18 12:37 PM
2. The Civil Service Act of 1883 required that appointees to positions within the federal bureaucracy a) pledge an oath of loyalty to the United States. b) register as independents rather than as members
of an organized political party. c) be qualified for the job to which they were
appointed. d) serve for no more than 10 years. e) serve for no fewer than 10 years.
3. Federal bureaucrats a) all work in Washington, D.C. b) are more likely to be female than private sector
workers. c) are more racially and ethnically diverse than the
private sector workforce. d) are less educated than the private sector
workforce. e) are less likely to hold professional occupations in
science, engineering, diplomacy, and other advanced fields than the private sector workforce.
4. Which of the following best describes the size of the federal service? a) The size of the federal service has grown
exponentially over the last 35 years. b) The size of the federal service has changed very
little over the last 35 years. c) The size of the federal service reached its peak
in 1955 and has been dramatically declining ever since.
d) The federal service has employed at least 15 percent of the American workforce every year since 1950.
e) The federal service was eliminated during the 1990s in order to hire more state government employees.
5. Which of the following is an example of a government corporation? a) national Aeronautics and Space Administration b) Amtrak c) Federal Bureau of Investigation d) Environmental Protection Agency e) Department of Justice
Bureaucracy is defined as the complex structure of offices, tasks, and rules that private and public organizations use to coordinate the work of their personnel. The federal executive branch is composed of cabinet departments, independent agencies, government corporations, and inde- pendent regulatory commissions. Through their implemen- tation, innovation, rule making, and enforcement decisions, the federal service touches on many important aspects of daily life.
Key Terms bureaucracy (p. 553)
implementation (p. 553)
merit system (p. 556)
department (p. 559)
independent agency (p. 560)
government corporation (p. 561)
Practice Quiz
1. Which of the following statements about Congress and the bureaucracy is not true? a) Bureaucracies employ people who have much more
specialized expertise in specific policy areas than do members of Congress.
b) Members of Congress often prefer to delegate politically difficult decision-making to bureaucrats.
c) While Congress is responsible for making laws, the bureaucracy is responsible for filling in the blanks by determining how the laws should be implemented.
d) Congress banned rule making by the federal bureaucracy in 1995.
e) Congress relies heavily on bureaucratic flexibility in implementing laws because updating legislation can take many years and bureaucrats can ensure that laws are administered in ways that take new conditions into account.
Bureaucracy and Bureaucrats
Define bureaucracy, and describe the basic features of the executive branch (pp. 553–62)
CHAPTER 14 STUDY GU IDE586
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 586 27/11/18 12:37 PM
Practice Quiz
6. A stable relationship between a bureaucratic agency, a clientele group, and a legislative committee is called a) a standing committee. b) a conference committee. c) a cabinet. d) an issue network. e) an iron triangle.
7. Americans refer to government policy about banks, credit, and currency as a) interstate commerce policy. b) deficit policy. c) fiscal policy. d) monetary policy. e) regulatory policy.
c) a policy of reducing or eliminating regulatory restraints on the conduct of individuals or private institutions.
d) a policy to remove a program from one level of govern- ment by passing it down to a lower level of government.
e) reducing the overall number of regulatory agencies in the federal bureaucracy.
10. Which of the following statements best describes termination of government programs? a) In the 12 years of the Reagan and George H. W.
Bush administrations over 50 national government programs were terminated.
b) In the 12 years of the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations over 100 national government programs were terminated.
c) In the 12 years of the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations over 1,000 national government programs were terminated.
d) The Supreme Court has ruled that government programs can only be terminated through a constitutional amendment.
e) Terminating government programs is a difficult process that rarely occurs at the federal level.
11. Which of the following has been referred to as the “virtual fourth branch of government”? a) independent regulatory commissions b) government contracting c) the Government Accountability Office d) the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission e) the White House Office of Management and Budget
The federal bureaucracy promotes public well-being through a diverse set of services, products, and regulations. Some federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security, protect the country against internal and external security threats. Other federal agencies, such as the Federal Reserve System and the Internal Revenue Service, promote the public’s welfare by helping maintain a strong economy.
Key Terms regulatory agency (p. 563)
fiscal policy (p. 571)
Federal Reserve System (p. 571)
revenue agency (p. 572)
Many Americans express frustration with the performance of the federal bureaucracy. As a result, politicians have frequently explored various methods of making the federal bureaucracy more efficient. In general, politicians have at- tempted to promote bureaucratic reform through reorganiza- tion, termination of programs, devolution, and privatization.
Key Terms devolution (p. 576)
privatization (p. 577)
Practice Quiz
8. Which president instituted the bureaucratic reform of the national Performance Review? a) Richard nixon b) Lyndon Johnson c) Jimmy Carter d) Bill Clinton e) George W. Bush
9. Devolution refers to a) the gradual decline in efficiency that always
comes when government begins to implement a new program.
b) moving all or part of a program from the public sector to the private sector.
Goals of the Federal Bureaucracy
Can the Bureaucracy Be Reformed?
Describe the major goals we expect federal agencies to promote (pp. 563–73)
Evaluate some of the ways politicians have tried to make the bureaucracy more efficient (pp. 573–79)
STUDY GU IDE 587
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 587 27/11/18 12:37 PM
Kettl, Donald F. System under Stress: The Challenge to 21st Cen- tury Government. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage/CQ Press, 2014.
Kettl, Donald F., and James W. Fesler. The Politics of the Admin- istrative Process. 4th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2008.
Light, Paul C. A Government Ill Executed: The Decline of the Federal Service and How to Reverse It. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.
Moffitt, Susan. Making Public Policy: Participatory Bureaucracy in American Democracy. new York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Wilson, James Q. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. new York: Basic Books, 1989.
Zegart, Amy B. Spying Blind: The CIA, The FBI, and the Origins of 9/11. Princeton, nJ: Princeton University Press, 2009.
Aberbach, Joel D., and Mark A. Peterson, eds. Institutions of American Democracy: The Executive Branch. Institutions of American Democracy Series. new York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Arnold, Peri E. Making the Managerial Presidency: Compre- hensive Organization Planning. Princeton, nJ: Princeton University Press, 1986.
DiIulio, John J., Jr. Bring Back the Bureaucrats: Why More Federal Workers Will Lead to Better (and Smaller!) Govern- ment. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press, 2014.
Glennon, Michael J. National Security and Double Govern- ment. new York: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Gormley, William, and Stephen Balla. Bureaucracy and Democracy: Accountability and Performance. 3rd ed. Washing- ton, DC: CQ Press, 2012.
13. “Police patrol” oversight refers to a) hearings conducted by the FBI to investigate
lawbreaking by members of Congress. b) any congressional hearings related to state or local
law enforcement agencies. c) episodic, as-needed congressional hearings on
bureaucratic agency operations, usually prompted by media attention or advocacy group complaints.
d) regular or even preemptive congressional hearings on bureaucratic agency operations.
e) any congressional hearings related to federal law enforcement agencies.
14. Which of the following agencies were created to give Congress independent information about matters related to the executive branch? a) Government Accountability Office, Congressional
Research Service, Congressional Budget Office b) Department of Justice, Department of the Interior,
Department of the Treasury c) Congressional Oversight Organization, Bureau of
Government Performance, national Performance Review Association
d) Office of Management and Budget, Council of Economic Advisers, Oversight and Government Reform
e) Government Accountability Office, national Perfor- mance Review, Troubled Asset Relief Program
The federal bureaucracy provides the expertise that is needed to implement the law. However, parts of the bureaucracy can also become entrenched organizations that serve their own interests rather than the public will. Presidents have several powerful tools at their disposal to exert administrative and political control over the federal bureaucracy, including high-level appointments and executive orders. Congress can also exert influence over bureaucratic behavior by enacting specific legislation and engaging in vigorous oversight.
Key Term oversight (p. 581)
“police patrol” oversight (p. 581)
“fire alarm” oversight (p. 582)
Practice Quiz
12. The concept of oversight refers to the effort made by a) Congress to make executive agencies accountable
for their actions. b) the president to make executive agencies account-
able for their actions. c) the president to make Congress accountable for its
actions. d) the courts to make executive agencies responsible
for their actions. e) the states to make the executive branch account-
able for its actions.
Managing the Bureaucracy
Explain why it is often difficult to control the bureaucracy (pp. 579–83)
For Further Reading
CHAPTER 14 STUDY GU IDE588
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 588 27/11/18 12:37 PM
Central Intelligence Agency www.cia.gov
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is one of several bureaucracies responsible for providing national security. A major problem facing this clandestine agency is how to provide security and meet the public’s right to know what the government is doing. At the official website for the CIA, see what questions are often asked.
Department of Homeland Security www.dhs.gov
The Department of Homeland Security was created after September 11 to promote bureaucratic communica- tion and domestic security. See what the department is doing to protect America from foreign threats.
Federal Emergency Management Agency www.fema.gov
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) became infamous for its role in the disaster relief efforts. View the disaster history of your state, and see what FEMA is currently doing to prevent disasters and assist Americans in need.
Office of Personnel Management www.opm.gov/
OPM manages the federal government’s civil service, listing federal jobs, conducting background and security checks, upholding the merit system, managing health and retirement benefits, and providing training and development programs for federal employees.
Official U.S. Executive Branch Websites www.loc.gov/rr/news/fedgov.html
This resource page at the Library of Congress website provides links to every federal department, independent agency, and regulatory commission in the federal bureaucracy.
Recommended Websites
Project on Government Oversight www.pogo.org
The Project on Government Oversight is an independent, nonprofit organization that seeks to make government more accountable by investigating corruption and mis- conduct. Originally set up to focus on the military, this organization now examines all types of government bureaucracies.
Reason Foundation reason.org
The Reason Foundation is dedicated to promoting libertarian principles and limited government. Its website includes studies and opinion pieces on a range of policy issues, including many related to the size and effectiveness of the federal bureaucracy.
USAFacts www.usafacts.org/
A project of former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and Seattle design studio Artefact, USAFacts assembles and presents data from a variety of U.S. government jurisdic- tions in an accessible interface.
U.S. Agency for International Development www.usaid.gov
In 1961 Congress created the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to provide economic and social development assistance to foreign countries. Often criticized for promoting American values and foreign policy objectives, USAID is currently involved in numerous global issues.
STUDY GU IDE 589
wtp12e_ptr_ch14_550-589.indd 589 27/11/18 12:37 PM
The Federal Courts
151515 chapter
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS Mark Janus works for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services as a
child support specialist. He is not a member of the
union representing many public sector workers in
the state, the American Federation of State, County,
and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Nonetheless,
he is required to pay a “fair-share” fee to the union
on the grounds that nonmembers benefit from the
union’s bargaining activities over issues such as pay
and benefits. Nonmembers do not have to contribute
to the union’s political activities, such as endorse-
ments of political candidates.1
Janus argues, however, that all activity that public
sector unions engage in is inherently political. In par-
ticular, he disagrees with the union’s bargaining for
increased benefits when Illinois was facing a budget
crisis due in part to mismanagement of the state
pension program. “The union’s fight is not my fight,”
he says. “For years it supported politicians who
put the state into its current budget and pension
crises . . . .That’s not public service.” He believes that
being forced to pay a fee that supports the union’s
activities violates his First Amendment rights.
His case went to the Supreme Court, which
heard oral arguments in February 2018. Janus’s
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 590 27/11/18 12:39 PM
Although the Supreme Court is often viewed as the least political of the three branches, its rulings touch on major political issues that affect Americans in many ways. Here, Mark Janus (left) celebrates with supporters after winning his Supreme Court case, which could have a profound effect on how unions operate.
lawsuit challenged a 1977 case, Abood v. Detroit
Board of Education, in which the Court allowed state
and local governments to require public employees
to pay union fees, a practice in 22 states. The Court
almost overturned Abood in 2015 in a case in which
a California teacher sued the local teachers’ union
over such fees. But after Justice Antonin Scalia
died in February 2016, the Court split 4–4 in the
California case.2
After taking office in 2017, Trump nominated
conservative appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch to
the vacant seat. With the Gorsuch appointment,
conservatives once again enjoyed a 5–4 Supreme
Court majority. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Gorsuch
appointment resulted in a conservative decision
in Janus v. AFSCME, and Janus’s First Amendment
rights would be upheld. But union supporters say
the decision will have devastating effects on public-
sector unions’ ability to protect workers, including
female, African American, and Hispanic employees,
who face a smaller gap in pay in union jobs compared
to nonunion jobs, according to the Economic Policy
Institute and the National Women’s Law Center.3
For both Democrats and Republicans, the impor-
tance of the Supreme Court’s 5–4 decision under-
scored the significance of President Trump’s Supreme
591
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 591 27/11/18 12:39 PM
Court appointments. Had Obama nominee Merrick Garland, rather than Trump
nominee Neil Gorsuch, been seated on the High Court, the mandatory-dues
requirement would likely have been upheld. With the Janus decision in mind,
Democrats and Republicans prepared to redouble their efforts to win subse-
quent battles over judicial appointments, as President Trump announced the
nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, another conservative judge, to take the place
of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who announced his retirement in July 2018. After
a divisive political battle, Kavanaugh was confirmed by the Senate and joined
the Court in October.
Every year, nearly 25 million cases are tried in American courts. Cases can
arise from disputes between citizens, from efforts by government agencies to
punish wrongdoing, from citizens’ efforts to prove that their rights have been
infringed on as a result of government action—or inaction—and from efforts
by interest groups to promote their agendas. Many critics of the U.S. legal
system assert that Americans have become too litigious (ready to use the
courts for all purposes). But the heavy use that Americans make of the courts
is also an indication of the extent of conflict in American society. And given the
existence of social conflict, it is far better that Americans seek to settle their
differences through the courts than resort to violence or otherwise take mat-
ters into their own hands. The framers of the Constitution called the Supreme
Court the “least dangerous branch” of American government. Today, though,
it is not unusual to hear the Court described as an all-powerful “imperial
judiciary.” But before we can understand this transformation and its conse-
quences, we must look in some detail at America’s judicial process.
★ Identify the general types of cases and types of courts in our legal system (pp. 593–97)
★ Describe the different levels of federal courts and their functions (pp. 598–603)
★ Explain how the Supreme Court exercises the power of judicial review (pp. 604–10)
★ Describe the process the Supreme Court follows in the exercise of its power of judicial review (pp. 610–18)
★ Consider the personal and political influences on judges and the courts (pp. 618–24)
CHAPTER GOALS
592 CHAPTER 15 THE FEDERAL COURTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 592 27/11/18 12:39 PM
The Legal System Originally, a “ court” was the place where a sovereign ruled—where the king or queen go verned. S ettling disputes betw een citiz ens was par t of governing. In modern democra -
cies, courts and judges have taken over the power to settle conflicts by hearing the facts on both sides and deciding which side possesses the gr eater merit. B ut since judges are not kings and queens, they must hav e a basis for their authority . That basis in the U nited States is the Constitution and the law . Courts decide cases b y hearing the facts on both sides of a quarr el and applying the r elevant law or prin - ciple to the facts. This can be a sensitive matter because courts have been given the authority to settle disputes not only betw een citizens but also between citizens and the government itself, where the courts are obliged to maintain the same neutrality and impartiality as they do in disputes involving two citizens. This is the essence of the “rule of law”: that “the state” and its officials must be judged by the same laws as the citizenry.
CASES AND THE LAW
Court cases in the United States proceed under two broad categories of law: criminal law and civil law, each with myriad subdivisions.
Cases of criminal law are those in which the go vernment charges an individual with violating a statute that has been enacted to protect public health, safety, morals, or welfare. In criminal cases, the go vernment is always the plaintiff (the par ty that brings charges) and alleges that a criminal violation has been committed by a named defendant. Most criminal cases arise in state and municipal courts and involve mat- ters ranging from traffic offenses to robbery and murder. Although the great bulk of criminal law is still a state matter, a large and growing body of federal criminal law deals with matters ranging from tax evasion and mail fraud to acts of terrorism and
Identify the general types of cases and types of courts in our legal system
criminal law the branch of law that regulates the conduct of individuals, defines crimes, and specifies punishment for proscribed conduct
plaintiff the individual or organization that brings a complaint in court
defendant the one against whom a complaint is brought in a criminal or civil case
In criminal cases, the government charges an individual with violating a statute protecting health, safety, morals, or welfare. Most such cases arise in state and municipal courts. Here, an Illinois county court hears testimony in a murder case.
593THE LEGAL SySTEM
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 593 27/11/18 12:39 PM
the sale of narcotics. Defendants found guilty of criminal violations may be fined or sent to jail or prison.
Cases of civil law involve disputes among individuals, gr oups, corporations, and other private entities or betw een such litigants and the go vernment, in which no criminal violation is charged. Unlike in criminal cases, the losers in civil cases cannot be fined or incarcerated, although they may be r equired to pay monetar y damages for their actions. The two most common types of civil cases involve contracts and torts. In a typical contract case, an individual or corporation charges that it has suffered because of another’s violation of a specific agreement between the two. For example, the Smith Manufacturing Corporation may charge that Jones Distributors failed to honor an agr eement to deliv er raw materials at a specified time, causing Smith to lose business. Smith asks the court to order Jones to compensate it for the damage it allegedly suffered. In a typical tort case, one individual charges that he has been injured by another’s negligence or malfeasance. M edical malpractice suits ar e one example of tort cases. Another important area of civil law is administrative law, which involves disputes over the jurisdiction, pr ocedures, or authority of adminis - trative agencies. A plaintiff may assert, for example, that an agency did not follo w proper procedures when issuing new rules and regulations. A court will then exam- ine the agency’s conduct in light of the Administrative Procedure Act, the legislation that governs agency rule making.
In deciding cases, cour ts apply statutes (laws) and legal precedents (prior deci - sions). State and federal statutes, for example, often go vern the conditions under which contracts are and are not legally binding. Jones Distributors might argue that it was not obliged to fulfill its contract with the Smith Manufacturing Corporation because actions b y Smith, such as the failur e to make pr omised payments, con - stituted fraud under state law . Precedents established in pr evious cases also guide courts’ decisions in new cases. Attorneys for a physician being sued for malpractice might search for prior instances in which cour ts ruled that actions similar to those of their client did not constitute negligence. Such precedents are applied under the doctrine of stare decisis, a Latin phrase meaning “let the decision stand.”
If a case involves the actions of the federal go vernment or a state government, a court may also be asked to examine whether the government’s conduct was consist- ent with the Constitution. In a criminal case, for example, defendants might asser t that their constitutional rights were violated when the police searched their property. Similarly, in a civil case involving federal or state restrictions on land development, plaintiffs might assert that government actions violated the Fifth Amendment’s pro- hibition against taking private property without just compensation. Thus, both civil and criminal cases may raise questions of constitutional law.
TYPES OF COURTS
In the U nited States, systems of cour ts have been established both b y the federal government and b y the go vernments of the individual states. Both systems hav e several levels, as shown in Figure 15.1. More than 97 percent of all court cases in the United States are heard in state courts. The overwhelming majority of criminal cases, for example, involve violations of state laws prohibiting such actions as murder, rob- bery, fraud, theft, and assault. I f such a case is brought to trial, it will be heard at a state trial court, in front of a judge and sometimes a jury, who will determine whether the defendant violated state law . If the defendant is convicted, she may appeal the conviction to a higher court, such as a state court of appeals, and from there to a court
civil law the branch of law that deals with disputes that do not involve criminal penalties
precedent prior case whose principles are used by judges as the basis for their decision in a present case
stare decisis literally, “let the decision stand”; the doctrine that a previous decision by a court applies as a precedent in similar cases until that decision is overruled
trial court the first court to hear a criminal or civil case
court of appeals a court that hears appeals of trial court decisions
594 CHAPTER 15 THE FEDERAL COURTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 594 27/11/18 12:39 PM
of last resort, usually called the state’s supreme court. The government is not entitled to appeal if the defendant is found not guilty in a criminal case.
The party filing an appeal, known as an appellant, usually must show that the trial court made a legal error in deciding the case. A ppeals courts do not hear witnesses or examine additional evidence and will consider ne w facts only under unusual circumstances. Thus, for example, a physician who loses a malpractice case might appeal on the basis that the trial cour t misapplied the r elevant law or incorr ectly instructed the jury. It should be noted that in both criminal and civil matters most cases are settled before trial through negotiated agreements between the parties. In criminal cases these agreements are called plea bargains.
Cases are heard in the federal courts if they involve federal laws, treaties with other nations, or the U.S. Constitution; these areas are the official jurisdiction of the federal courts. In addition, any case in which the U.S. government is a party is heard in the federal courts. If, for example, an individual is charged with violating a federal crimi- nal statute, such as evading the payment of income taxes, charges are brought before a federal judge b y a federal pr osecutor. Civil cases inv olving the citiz ens of mor e than one state and in which more than $75,000 is at stake may be heard in either the federal or the state courts, usually depending on the preference of the plaintiff.
supreme court the highest court in a particular state or in the United States; this court primarily serves an appellate function
plea bargain a negotiated agreement in a criminal case in which a defendant agrees to plead guilty in return for the state’s agreement to reduce the severity of the criminal charge or prison sentence the defendant is facing
jurisdiction the sphere of a court’s power and authority
FIGURE 15.1
The U.S. Court System The state and federal court systems both include several types of courts. The Supreme Court hears appeals from both systems.
The U.S. Supreme Court 9 justices appointed for life
STATEFEDERAL Certiorari
Discretionary review
State Supreme Courts Decide issues of law
based on briefs and oral argument
Intermediate Appellate Courts
Exist in 40 states
Trial courts of limited jurisdiction
State Trial Courts Often known as Superior Court or Circuit Court. Try questions of law and fact, with and without a jury
Federal agencies
U.S. District Courts 95 districts
Decide issues of law and fact, with and without jury
U.S. Court of Appeals 12 circuits
Decide questions of law based on briefs and oral argument
595THE LEGAL SySTEM
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 595 27/11/18 12:39 PM
But even if a matter belongs in federal cour t, how do we know which federal court should ex ercise jurisdiction o ver the case? F or the most par t, Congr ess has assigned jurisdictions on the basis of geography. The nation is currently, by statute, divided into 94 judicial districts. Each of the 94 U.S. district cour ts, including one court for each of thr ee U.S. territories, exercises jurisdiction over federal cases arising within its district. The judicial districts are, in turn, orga - nized into 11 regional circuits and the D.C. circuit (see Figure 15.2). Each circuit court exercises appellate jurisdiction over cases heard by the district courts within its region.
Article III of the Constitution giv es the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in a limited v ariety of classes, including (1) cases betw een the U nited States and one of the 50 states, (2) cases betw een two or mor e states, (3) cases inv olv- ing foreign ambassadors or other ministers, and (4) cases br ought by one state against citizens of another state or against a for eign country. Article III assigns original jurisdiction in all other federal cases to the lo wer courts that Congr ess was authoriz ed to establish. I mportantly, the Constitution giv es the S upreme Court appellate jurisdiction in all federal cases, and almost all cases heard by the Supreme Cour t today ar e under its appellate jurisdiction. Cour ts of origi - nal jurisdiction ar e the cour ts that ar e r esponsible for disco vering the facts in a controversy and creating the record on which a judgment is based. In courts that hav e appellate jurisdiction, judges r eceive cases after the factual r ecord is established by the trial cour t. Ordinarily, new facts cannot be pr esented before appellate courts.
Geography, however, is not the only basis for federal court jurisdiction. Congress has also established several specialized courts that have nationwide original jurisdic- tion in certain types of cases. These include the U.S. Court of International Trade, created to deal with trade and customs issues; and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims,
original jurisdiction the authority to initially consider a case; distinguished from appellate jurisdiction, which is the authority to hear appeals from a lower court’s decision
FIGURE 15.2
Federal Appellate Court Circuits The 94 federal district courts are organized into 12 regional circuits: the 11 shown here, plus the District of Columbia, which has its own circuit. Each circuit court hears appeals from lower federal courts within the circuit. A thirteenth federal circuit court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, hears appeals from a number of specialized courts such as the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
SOURCE: www.uscourts.gov/court_locator.aspx (accessed 7/27/10).
1
2
3
4
115
6
7
8OR ID
MT
WY
ND
SD
NV UT
CO
NM
AK
NE
KS
TX
MN
IA
MO
IL
WI
MI
IN OH
KY
TN
WV
PA
NY
VA
NC
SCAR
LA MS AL GA
FL
10
ME NHVT
MA
RI
CT
NJ
DE
MD
DC
HI N. Mariana
Islands
U.S. Virgin Isl. Puerto Rico
Guam
WA
9 CA
OKAZ
596 CHAPTER 15 THE FEDERAL COURTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 596 27/11/18 12:39 PM
which handles damage suits against the United States. Congress has also established a court with nationwide appellate jurisdiction, the U.S. Cour t of A ppeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears appeals involving patent law and those arising from the decisions of the trade and claims cour ts. Other federal cour ts assigned specializ ed jurisdictions by Congress include the U.S. Cour t of A ppeals for Veterans Claims, which exercises exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving veterans’ claims, and the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, which deals with questions of law arising from trials by court-martial.
With the exception of the claims court and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, these specialized courts were created by Congress on the basis of the pow- ers the legislature exercises under Article I, rather than Article III, of the Constitu- tion. Article III is designed to pr otect judges fr om political pr essure by granting them life tenure and pr ohibiting reduction of their salaries while they serve. The judges of Ar ticle I cour ts, b y contrast, ar e appointed b y the pr esident for fixed terms of 15 years and are not protected by the Constitution from salary reduction. As a result, these “legislative courts” are generally viewed as less independent than the courts established under Ar ticle III of the Constitution. The three territorial courts (for Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands) were also established under the pr ovisions in Ar ticle I, and their judges ar e appointed for 10-year terms.
The appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts extends to cases originating in the state cour ts. In both civil and criminal cases, a decision of the highest state court can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by raising a federal issue. A defendant who appeals a lo wer-court decision in federal cour t might asser t, for example, that he or she was denied the right to counsel or was otherwise deprived of the due process of law guaranteed by the federal Constitution or that impor tant issues of federal law w ere at stake in the case. The U.S. Supreme Cour t is not obligated to accept such appeals and will do so only if it believ es that the matter has considerable national significance. In addition, in criminal cases, defendants who have been convicted in a state cour t may request a writ of habeas corpus from a federal district cour t. Sometimes known as the “G reat Writ,” habeas corpus is a court order to the authorities to show cause for a prisoner’s incarceration. The court will then evaluate the sufficiency of the cause and may order the release of a prisoner deemed to be held in violation of her legal rights. I n 1867 its distrust of southern cour ts led Congress to authorize federal district judges to issue such writs to prisoners who they believed had been deprived of constitutional rights in state court. Generally speaking, state defendants seeking a federal writ of habeas corpus must show that they have exhausted all available state remedies and must raise issues not pr eviously raised in their state appeals. F ederal courts of appeals and, ultimately, the U.S. S upreme Cour t have appellate jurisdiction for federal district court habeas decisions.
Although the federal courts hear only a small fraction of all the civil and criminal cases decided each y ear in the U nited States, their decisions ar e extremely impor- tant. It is in the federal cour ts that the Constitution and federal laws that go vern all Americans are interpreted and their meaning and significance established. More- over, it is in the federal cour ts that the po wers and limitations of the incr easingly powerful national government are tested. Finally, through their power to review the decisions of the state cour ts, it is ultimately the federal cour ts that dominate the American judicial system.
due process of law the right of every individual against arbitrary action by national or state governments
writ of habeas corpus a court order that the individual in custody be brought into court and shown the cause for detention; habeas corpus is guaranteed by the Constitution and can be suspended only in cases of rebellion or invasion
597THE LEGAL SySTEM
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 597 27/11/18 12:39 PM
Federal Courts During the y ear ending in M arch 2017, federal district cour ts (the lowest federal level) received 362,628 cases. Though large, this
number is less than 1 per cent of the number of cases hear d by state cour ts (see Figure 15.3). The federal courts of appeal listened to 58,951 cases during the same period. Generally, about 15 per cent of the v erdicts rendered by the lo wer cour ts are appealed to the U.S. S upreme Court. Most of the 9,000 or so cases filed with the Supreme Court each y ear are dismissed without a r uling on their merits. The Court has broad latitude to decide what cases it will hear and generally listens to
Describe the different levels of federal courts and their functions
FIGURE 15.3
Caseloads of American Courts This figure shows the total incoming caseloads of U.S. courts in 2016 (the most recent year for which complete state court data are available is 2010). More than 97 percent of the cases heard in American courts every year are heard in state courts. At both the federal and the state levels, lower-court decisions can be appealed to the appropriate court of appeals. Why do you think a larger percentage of federal district court decisions are appealed compared with state trial court decisions?
SOURCES: Court Statistics Project, National Center for State Courts, www.courtstatistics.org/; Supreme Court, 2017 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2017year-endreport.pdf White House Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 3.1, https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ historical-tables/ (accessed 7/20/18).
Trial courts 13,902,685
Courts of appeal 159,700
District courts 362,628
1,000,000 cases 100,000 cases
Courts of appeal 58,951
State supreme courts 75,762
U.S. Supreme Court 7,535
STATE COURTS (2010) FEDERAL COURTS (2016)
598 CHAPTER 15 THE FEDERAL COURTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 598 27/11/18 12:39 PM
only those cases it deems raise the most important issues. In recent years, fewer than 80 cases per year have received full-dress Supreme Court reviews.4
FEDERAL TRIAL COURTS
Most of the cases of original federal jurisdiction are handled by the federal district courts. Although the Constitution giv es the S upreme Court original jurisdiction in several types of cases, such as those affecting ambassadors and those in which a state is one of the parties, most original jurisdiction goes to the lowest courts—the trial courts.
Congress has authorized the appointment of 678 federal district judges to staff the 94 federal district cour ts. At any giv en time, some of these positions may be vacant and awaiting the appointment of new judges. District judges are assigned to district courts according to the wor kload; the busiest of these cour ts may hav e as many as 28 judges. O nly one judge is assigned to each case, ex cept where statutes provide for thr ee-judge courts to deal with special issues. The routines and proce- dures of the federal district cour ts are essentially the same as those of the state trial courts except that federal pr ocedural r equirements tend to be stricter . States, for example, do not hav e to provide a grand jur y, a 12-member trial jur y, or a unani - mous jury verdict. Federal courts must follow all these procedures.
FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS
Roughly 20 percent of all lower-court cases, along with appeals fr om some federal agency decisions, are subsequently reviewed by federal appeals courts. As noted ear- lier, the countr y is divided geographically into 11 r egional circuits and the D.C. circuit, each of which has a U.S. Court of Appeals. A thirteenth appellate court, the U.S. Court of A ppeals for the F ederal Circuit, has a subject matter , rather than a geographical, jurisdiction. Congress has authorized the appointment of 179 court of appeals judges, though, as in the case of the district courts, some spots may be vacant at any given point in time.
Except for cases selected for review by the Supreme Court, decisions made by the appeals courts are final. Because of this finality, certain safeguards have been built into the system. The most important is the pr ovision of mor e than one judge for every appeals case. Each cour t of appeals has fr om 6 to 28 permanent judgeships, depending on the wor kload of the cir cuit. Although normally thr ee judges hear appealed cases, in some instances a larger number of judges sit together en banc.
Another safeguard is provided by the assignment of a S upreme Court justice as the circuit justice for each of the 12 cir cuits. The circuit justice deals with r equests for special action by the Supreme Court. The most frequent and best-known action of circuit justices is that of r eviewing requests for stays of ex ecution when the full Court is unable to do so—primarily during the summer, when the Court is in recess.
THE SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court is America’s highest court. Article III of the Constitution vests “the judicial po wer of the U nited States” in the S upreme Court, and this cour t is supreme in fact as well as form. The Supreme Court is the only federal court estab- lished by the Constitution. The lower federal courts are created by statute and can be restructured or, presumably, even abolished by the Congress. The Supreme Court
599FEDERAL COURTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 599 27/11/18 12:39 PM
is made up of the chief justice of the United States and eight associate justices. The chief justice presides over the Court’s public sessions and conferences and is always the first to speak and vote when the justices deliberate; voting then proceeds in order of seniority. In the Court’s actual deliberations and decisions, the chief justice has no more authority than his colleagues. Each justice casts one vote. In addition, if the chief justice has voted with the majority, she decides which of the justices will write the formal opinion for the Court. The character of the opinion can be an important means of influencing the evolution of the law beyond the mere affirmation or denial of the appeal on hand. To some extent, the influence of the chief justice is a function of her own leadership ability. Some chief justices, such as the late Earl Warren, have been able to lead the Court in a new direction. In other instances, forceful associate justices, such as the late F elix Frankfurter or William Brennan, are the dominant figures on the Court.
The Constitution does not specify the number of justices who should sit on the Supreme Court; Congress has the authority to change the Cour t’s size. In the early nineteenth century, there were six S upreme Court justices; later ther e were seven. Congress set the number of justices at nine in 1869, and the Cour t has r emained that size ever since.
HOW JUDGES ARE APPOINTED
Federal judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They are generally selected from among the more prominent or politically active members of the legal pr ofession. Many federal judges pr eviously served as state cour t judges or state or local prosecutors.
There are no formal qualifications for service as a federal judge. I n general, presidents endeav or to appoint judges who possess legal experience and good character and whose partisan and ideological views are similar to their own. Once the president has formally nominated an individual, the nominee must be con - sidered by the Senate Judiciary Committee and confirmed by a majority vote in the full Senate. In recent years, a good deal of par tisan conflict has surrounded judicial appointments. S enate D emocrats hav e sought to pr event R epublican presidents from appointing conser vative judges, while S enate Republicans have worked to pr event Democratic presidents from appointing liberal judges. D ur- ing the early months of the O bama administration, R epublicans w ere able to slow the judicial appointment process through filibusters and other procedural maneuvers so that only 3 of the pr esident’s 23 nominations for federal judge - ships were confirmed by the Senate.5 Some of Obama’s allies urged the president to take a more aggressive stance or risk allowing Republicans to block what had been considered a key Democratic priority. In November 2013 the Senate voted 52 to 48 to end the use of the filibuster against all executive branch and judi - cial nominees except those to the Supreme Court, allowing President Obama to quickly secure the appointment of more than 300 new district court judges and 55 new appeals court judges.
In 2017, as w e saw earlier , Republicans turned the tables and extended these rule changes to include S upreme Cour t nominees, thus blocking D emocratic efforts to pr event P resident Trump fr om appointing N eil G orsuch to the H igh Court. I n July 2018, J ustice Anthony K ennedy, who had been a swing v ote on the Court, announced his resignation. President Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Kennedy. Kavanaugh was generally seen as a conser vative
chief justice justice on the Supreme Court who presides over the Court’s public sessions and whose official title is “chief justice of the United States”
600 CHAPTER 15 THE FEDERAL COURTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 600 27/11/18 12:39 PM
in the G orsuch mold. Liberal gr oups pr omised an all-out fight to block the nomination but, with R epublican contr ol of the Senate and the elimination of filibusters on judicial appointments, there was little chance D emocrats could derail the Kav anaugh appointment.
Supreme Court Appointments While political factors play an important role in the selection of district and appellate court judges, they are decisive when it comes to S upreme Court appointments. Because the high cour t has so much influence over American law and politics, vir tually all pr esidents have made an effort to select justices who share their political philosophies.
Five of the nine curr ent justices, as of O ctober 2018, w ere appointed by Republican presidents (Table 15.1). With the excep- tion of the months betw een the passing of Antonin Scalia in F ebruary 2016 and the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch in April 2017, the Court has had a conservative majority for 46 years, most recently consisting of Chief Justice Roberts and justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. As we saw in earlier chapters, this majority propelled the Court in a more conservative direction in a variety of areas, including civil rights (Chapter 5) and election law (Chapter 10).
In recent decades, Supreme Court nominations have come to involve intense partisan str uggle. Typically, after the pr esident has named a nominee, inter est
Senate Republicans’ strategy to not take up Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland, and to eliminate filibusters on Supreme Court nomina- tions, paid off when President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch in 2017. Gorsuch was confirmed in a 54-to-45 vote, with several Senate Democrats voting for the Republican nominee.
NAME YEAR OF
BIRTH LAW SCHOOL ATTENDED
PRIOR EXPERIENCE APPOINTED BY
YEAR OF APPOINTMENT
Clarence Thomas 1948 yale Federal judge G. H. W. Bush 1991
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1933 Columbia Federal judge Clinton 1993
Stephen Breyer 1938 Harvard Federal judge Clinton 1994
John Roberts, Jr. (Chief Justice)
1955 Harvard Federal judge G. W. Bush 2005
Samuel Alito 1950 yale Federal judge G. W. Bush 2006
Sonia Sotomayor 1954 yale Federal judge Obama 2009
Elena Kagan 1960 Harvard Solicitor general Obama 2010
Neil Gorsuch 1967 Harvard Federal judge Trump 2017
Brett Kavanaugh 1965 yale Federal judge Trump 2018
*As of October 2018
TABLE 15.1
Supreme Court Justices, 2019* (in Order of Seniority)
601FEDERAL COURTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 601 27/11/18 12:39 PM
groups opposed to the nomination mobilize opposition in the media, among the public, and in the Senate. One bitter strug- gle occurred in 1987 when P resident Ronald Reagan nomi- nated R obert Bor k to the S upreme Cour t. Bor k had been a Yale law pr ofessor, a federal judge, and S olicitor G eneral of the U nited S tates. D espite this distinguished r ecord, liberal political for ces w ere v ery concerned about Bor k’s conservative vie ws and angrily r ecalled that it was Bor k who, as Solicitor General, had done Richar d Nixon’s bid- ding and fired the Watergate special prosecutor in what went down in histor y as the “S aturday N ight M assacre.” Senate D emocrats subjected Bor k to a r elentless grilling, using ex cerpts fr om his speeches, writings, and judicial opinions to paint him as a right-wing extr emist. The Bork
nomination was defeated, and this type of attack came to be known as “borking” a nominee.
The next year, when President George H. W. Bush proposed the conservative judge Clar ence Thomas for the Court, liberal gr oups launched a campaign to discredit Thomas, promising to bor k him as w ell. After extensiv e research into his background, opponents of the nomination were able to pr oduce evidence suggesting that Thomas had sexually harassed a former subordinate, Anita Hill. Thomas denied the charge. After contentious Senate Judiciary Committee hear- ings, highlighted b y testimony fr om both Thomas and Hill, Thomas narrowly won confirmation.
Republicans severely criticized Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor in 2009 and Elena Kagan in 2010, though both w ere ultimately confirmed by the S enate. In 2016, ho wever, the death of conser vative justice Antonin Scalia gav e President Obama an oppor tunity to r eplace Scalia with a mor e liberal jurist, and O bama named Judge Merrick Garland. Republicans held a majority in the Senate and, as we saw earlier, refused to act on G arland. In 2017 newly elected President Trump secured the appointment of a conservative jurist, Neil Gorsuch.
Senate Democrats vowed to filibuster the Gorsuch appointment. Republicans, however, used their Senate majority to change the rules and prevent such a filibuster. In so doing, the GOP follo wed and extended a playbook that had been dev eloped by the D emocrats when they held a S enate majority. In 2018, P resident Trump nominated Judge B rett Kav anaugh to r eplace r etiring Justice Anthony K ennedy. Kavanaugh promised to push the Court a bit further to the political right.
The Kavanaugh nomination touched off one of the most intense political strug- gles in r ecent American histor y. D ays befor e the S enate was to v ote, Christine Blasey Ford, who had kno wn Kavanaugh in high school, came for ward to asser t that the judge had attempted to sexually assault her 36 y ears ago when he was 17 and she was 15. Kavanaugh vehemently denied the accusation as well as accusa- tions of sexual impr opriety by two other women who had kno wn him in college. Televised testimony befor e the S enate J udiciary Committee b y Kav anaugh and Ford divided the Senate and the nation, primarily along partisan lines. Democrats argued that Kavanaugh was unfit to serve on the Court while Republicans asserted that the charges against Kavanaugh had been invented for political reasons. An FBI investigation failed to shed light on the allegations, and Kavanaugh was confirmed, receiving the votes of all but one Republican and only one Democrat.6
After Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement in 2018, Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. After a contentious confirmation process, Kavanaugh took his seat on the Court. Many feel that Kavanaugh will shift the Court in a more conservative direction.
602 CHAPTER 15 THE FEDERAL COURTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 602 27/11/18 12:39 PM
SOURCE: Federal Judicial Center, www.fjc.gov/, (accessed 3/6/18).
White men
White women
African American men
African American women
Hispanic men
Hispanic women
Asian American men
Asian American women
TRUMP
White men 781
White women 259
African American men 90
African American women 48
Hispanic men 62
Hispanic women 27
*As of March 2018Federal Judges in 2018,* by Race and Gender
Appointments to Federal Courts, by Administration
Asian American men 17
Asian American women 10
1
CARTER REAGAN G.H.W. BUSH CLINTON G.W. BUSH OBAMA
171
33
30
15 7 1
3
310
27
13
6
1 1
2
138
31
9 25
3
195
83
46
15
18 5
4
1 1
215
50
16
18 12
8
3 2 5
9
119
89
34
26
23
13 2111
= 10 federal judges
One factor among many that presidents may take into account when selecting judicial nominees is diversity. The number of Supreme Court justices is relatively small, so it is easy to count the number of African Americans who have served as Supreme Court justices (2), female justices (4), and Hispanic justices (1). How diverse is the rest of the federal judiciary? The �rst section below shows the racial, ethnic, and gender composition of the lower federal courts.
Who Are Federal Judges?
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS 1. Would you describe the
federal judiciary as diverse? Does racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of federal judges matter? Why or why not?
2. What similarities and differences do you notice among the judicial appointments of the presidents shown? What
might account for the differences in terms of the diversity of their appointees?
WHO ARE AMERICANS?
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 603 27/11/18 12:39 PM
The Power of the Supreme Court: Judicial Review
The term judicial review refers to the power of the judiciar y to examine and, if necessar y, invalidate actions undertaken b y the legislativ e and executive branches if it finds them
unconstitutional. The term is sometimes also used to describe the scrutiny that appellate courts give to the actions of trial cour ts, but, strictly speaking, this is an improper use. A higher cour t’s examination of a lo wer court’s decisions might be called “appellate review,” but it is not judicial review.
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ACTS OF CONGRESS
Because the Constitution does not giv e the S upreme Court the po wer of judicial review over congressional enactments, the Court’s exercise of it seems like something of a usurpation. J udicial review was discussed at the Constitutional Convention. Some delegates expected the cour ts to exercise this power, while many others w ere “departmentalists,” believing that each branch of the new government would inter- pret the Constitution as it applied to its o wn actions, with the judiciar y mainly ensuring that individuals did not suffer injustices.
Ambiguity o ver the framers ’ intentions was settled in 1803 in the case of Marbury v. Madison.7 This case arose after Thomas Jefferson replaced John Adams in the White House. Jefferson’s secretary of state, James Madison, refused to deliver an official commission to William Marbury, who had been appointed to a minor office by Adams and approved by the Senate just before Adams left the presidency. Marbury petitioned the S upreme Court to order Madison to deliv er the commis - sion. Jefferson and his followers did not believ e that the Cour t had the po wer to undertake such an action and might hav e r esisted the or der. Chief J ustice John Marshall was determined to asser t the po wer of the judiciar y but kne w he must avoid a direct confrontation with the president. Accordingly, Marshall turned down Marbury’s petition but gave as his reason the unconstitutionality of the legislation upon which M arbury had based his claim. Thus, Marshall asser ted the po wer of judicial review but did so in a way that would not provoke a battle with Jefferson. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case established the power of judicial review:
It is emphatically the pr ovince and duty of the J udicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that r ule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Cour ts must decide on the operation of each . . . . So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a par ticular case, so that the Cour t must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
The Court’s legal power to review acts of Congress has not been seriously questioned since 1803. O ne reason for that is that the S upreme Court makes a self-conscious effort to giv e acts of Congr ess an interpr etation that will make them constitutional.
Explain how the Supreme Court exercises the power of judicial review
judicial review the power of the courts to review and, if necessary, declare actions of the legislative and executive branches invalid or unconstitutional; the Supreme Court asserted this power in Marbury v. Madison (1803)
604 CHAPTER 15 THE FEDERAL COURTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 604 27/11/18 12:39 PM
For example, in its 2012 decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the Court agreed with the many legal scholars who had argued that the Con- gress had no power under the Constitution’s commerce clause to order Americans to purchase health insurance. But, rather than invalidate the act, the Court declared that the law’s requirement that all Americans pur chase insurance was actually a tax and, thus, represented a constitutionally acceptable use of Congress’s power to levy taxes.8
In more than two centuries, the Court has concluded that fewer than 160 acts of Congress directly violated the Constitution.9 These cases are often highly contro- versial. For example, in 2007 and 2014, the high cour t struck down key por tions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, through which Congress had sought to regulate spending in political campaigns. 10 The Court found that provisions of the act limiting political adv ertising violated the F irst Amendment. And as w e saw in Chapter 4 with the 2017 case of Matal v. Tam, the Cour t also cited fr ee speech concerns in striking down a federal law that prohibited trademarks that disparaged people or gr oups. The decision was cheered by fans of the Washington Redskins football team. These cases are important but unusual in that the Cour t rarely over- turns acts of Congress.
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF STATE ACTIONS
The power of the S upreme Court to r eview state legislation or other state action and to determine its constitutionality is neither granted b y the Constitution nor inherent in the federal system. But the logic of the supremacy clause of Article VI of the Constitution, which declar es the Constitution itself and laws made under its authority to be the supreme law of the land, is very strong. Furthermore, in the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congr ess conferred on the S upreme Cour t the po wer to reverse state constitutions and laws whenev er they are clearly in conflict with the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, or tr eaties.11 This power gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction o ver all the millions of cases that American cour ts handle each year.
The supremacy clause of the Constitution not only established the federal Con - stitution, statutes, and treaties as the “supreme Law of the Land” but also provided that “the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of the S tate to the Contrar y notwithstanding.” Under this authority, the Supreme Court has frequently overturned state constitutional provisions or statutes, state court decisions, and local ordinances it deems to contravene rights or privileges guaranteed under the federal Constitution or federal statutes.
The civil rights arena abounds with examples of state laws that the S upreme Court has overturned because the statutes violated guarantees of due process and equal protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. For example, in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of E ducation, the Cour t over- turned statutes fr om Kansas, S outh Carolina, Virginia, and D elaware that either required or permitted segregated public schools, ruling that such statutes denied black schoolchildr en equal pr otection under the law .12 I n 2003 the Cour t r uled that Texas’s law criminalizing sodomy violated the right to liber ty protected by the due process clause.13 In the 2017 case of Pavan v. Smith, the Cour t overturned an Arkansas law that denied same-sex couples the right to include a spouse’s name on a birth certificate—a right granted to other couples. The Court said the statute denied same-sex couples equal protection of the law.14
supremacy clause Article VI of the Constitution, which states that laws passed by the national government and all treaties are the supreme law of the land and superior to all laws adopted by any state or any subdivision
605THE POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT : JUD IC IAL REV IEW
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 605 27/11/18 12:39 PM
Once appointed, Supreme Court justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,”a which has effectively meant they serve for life. Only once (in 1804) has the Senate started impeachment proceedings against a Supreme Court justice, and this judge was ultimately acquitted.b
While the founding fathers may have created life terms with the intention of preserving judicial independence and isolating justices from partisan pressures, the life term limits may have created other political problems. Scholars point out that the extreme partisan nature and tensions that emerge during Supreme Court appointment hearings (as described in this chapter) may be due to the life term rule.c After all, appointing a justice favorable to your partisan position is considered a major political coup given that the average Supreme Court justice serves over 25 years.
Constitutional courts (courts with the power of judicial review) aim to preserve judicial independence as they play an important role in guaranteeing democracy by checking executive overreach. Other countries, however, have sought to balance this with the need of also having a more dynamic and changing court. Canada, for instance, sets a mandatory retirement age of 75 for their Supreme Court justices. Other countries have set term limits so that justices serve one long, non-renewable term. This system insulates justices from political pressures yet still promotes judicial turnover. If the United States used the same rules as Germany (see below), only 3 of the 9 current justices—Sotomayor, Kagan, and the recently appointed Gorsuch—would still be on the court.
Term Limits for High Court Justices
a U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1. b U.S. Senate, “Senate Prepares for Impeachment Trial,” www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Tries_Justice.htm (accessed 4/15/18). c Steven G. Calabresi and James Lindgren, “Term Limits for the Supreme Court: Life Tenure Reconsidered,” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 29, no. 3 (2005): 769–878.
SOURCE: Central Intelligence Agency, “Judicial Branch,” The World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/index.html (accessed 4/15/18).
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT TERM LIMITS MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGE
Chilean Constitutional Court 9 years –
–
–
68
70
65
70
65
75
75
9
12
12
Life
Life
Life
Life
Life
6
French Constitutional Council
German Constitutional Court
High Court of Australia
India Supreme Court
South African Constitutional Court
South Korean Constitutional Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Supreme Federal Court of Brazil
U.S. Supreme Court
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 606 27/11/18 12:39 PM
State statutes in other ar eas of law ar e equally subject to challenge. Many of the S upreme Court’s r ecent decisions overturning state law have come in cases concerning election law. In 2015, for example, the Court ruled against an Alabama legislative districting plan that oppo- nents charged was designed to r educe the influence of black voters.15 During the same year the Court ruled against an effort by the Arizona legislature to invalidate a districting plan drawn up by an independent commission created by a voter referendum.16 In the 2017 case of Cooper v. Harris, the Court invalidated a North Carolina legislative districting plan that mo ved tens of thousands of black v oters into congr essional districts that already had large black majorities. 17 This tactic is known as “packing,” and is designed to reduce the number of seats that might be affected by some gr oup of v oters by packing them all into as fe w districts as possible.
One realm in which the Court constantly monitors state conduct is that of law enfor cement. As w e saw in Chapter 4, o ver the y ears, the Supreme Court has deve loped a number of principles regulating police conduct to ensure that the police do not violate constitutional liberties. These prin- ciples, however, must often be updated to keep pace with changes in technology . In a 2012 decision, the Supreme Court found that police use of a GPS tracker—a device invented more than two centuries after the adoption of the B ill of Rights— constituted a “search” as defined by the Fourth Amendment.18 And in the 2014 case of Riley v. California, the Court held that the police could not undertake a warrant- less search of the digital contents of a cell phone—another device har dly imagined by the framers.19
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIONS
Although Congress makes the law, as we saw in Chapters 12 and 14, it can hardly administer the thousands of pr ograms it has enacted and must ther efore delegate power to the pr esident and to a huge bur eaucracy to achiev e its purposes. F or example, if Congress wishes to improve air quality, it cannot possibly anticipate all the conditions and cir cumstances that may arise with r espect to that general goal. Inevitably, Congress must delegate to the ex ecutive substantial discretionary power to make judgments about the best ways to bring about impr oved air quality in the face of changing cir cumstances. Thus, over the years, almost any congressional program will result in thousands upon thousands of pages of administrative regu- lations developed by executive agencies nominally seeking to implement the will of the Congress.
Delegation of power to the executive poses a number of pr oblems for Congress and the federal courts. If Congress delegates broad authority to the president, it risks seeing its goals subordinated to and subverted by those of the executive branch.20 If Congress attempts to limit ex ecutive discretion by enacting precise rules and stan- dards to govern the conduct of the president and the executive branch, it risks writ- ing laws that do not conform to r eal-world conditions and that ar e too rigid to be adapted to changing circumstances.21
Over the past two centuries, the issue of delegation of power has led to a number of court decisions regarding the scope of the delegation. Courts have also been called on to decide whether the regulations adopted by federal agencies are consistent with Congress’s express or implied intent.
The Supreme Court has the power to review state action. In Pavan v. Smith, the Supreme Court overturned Arkansas’s law that disallowed same-sex parents to have both of their names listed on their children’s birth certificates. Here, Marisa Pavan, the plaintiff in the case, holds her daughter and her birth certificate showing both parents’ names.
607THE POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT : JUD IC IAL REV IEW
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 607 27/11/18 12:39 PM
As presidential power expanded during the New Deal era, one indication of increased congressional subordination to the ex ecutive was the enactment of laws that contained few, if any, principles limiting executive discretion. Congress enacted legislation, often at the pr esident’s behest, that gav e the ex ecutive vir tually unfet- tered authority to addr ess a par ticular concern. For example, the E mergency Price Control Act of 1942 authorized the executive to set “fair and equitable” prices with- out spelling out what those terms might mean.22 Although the Court initially chal- lenged these delegations of power to the president during the New Deal, it retreated from its position when faced with a confr ontation with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Perhaps as a result, no congressional delegation of power to the president since then has been struck down as impermissibly broad. Particularly in recent years, the Supreme Court has found that so long as federal agencies dev eloped rules and regulations “based upon a permissible constr uction” or “reasonable interpretation” of Congress’s statute, the judiciary would accept the views of the executive branch. Generally, the courts also give considerable deference to administrative agencies as long as those agencies engage in a formal r ule-making process as prescribed by the various statutes governing agency rule making.
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND PRESIDENTIAL POWER
The federal courts are also called on to review the actions of the president. On many occasions, members of Congr ess as well as individuals and gr oups have challenged presidential orders and actions in the federal courts. In recent years, the federal bench has, more often than not, upheld asser tions of pr esidential power in such r ealms as foreign policy, war and emergency po wers, legislative power, and administrative authority. In June 2004, however, the Supreme Court ruled on three cases involving President George W. Bush’s antiterrorism initiatives and claims of ex ecutive power and in two of the three cases appeared to place some limits on presidential authority.
One important case was Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.23 Yaser Esam Hamdi, apparently a Taliban soldier, was captured by American forces in Afghanistan and br ought to the United States, where he was incarcerated at the Norfolk Naval Station. Hamdi was classified as an enemy combatant and denied civil rights, including the right to counsel, despite the fact that he had been born in Louisiana and held American citizenship. In June 2004 the S upreme Court ruled that H amdi was entitled to a lawyer and “a fair opportunity to rebut the government’s factual assertions.” Thus the Supreme Court did assert that presidential actions were subject to judicial scrutiny and that the Cour t could place some constraints on the pr esident’s power. But at the same time the Cour t affirmed the president’s single most impor tant claim: the unilateral power to declare individuals, including U.S. citizens, “enemy combatants,” who could be detained by federal authorities under adverse legal circumstances. Several of the justices intimated that once designated an enemy combatant, a U.S. citizen might be tried befor e a militar y tribunal, without the normal pr esumption of innocence.
In the 2006 case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,24 Salim Hamdan, a Taliban fighter, was captured in Afghanistan and held at the G uantánamo Bay naval base. The Bush administration planned to tr y Hamdan before a militar y commission authoriz ed by a 2002 pr esidential order. The Supreme Court ruled that the commissions cr e- ated by the president planned to use procedures that would violate federal law and U.S. treaty obligations. President Bush responded by demanding that Congress rewrite the law. Congress quickly obliged and enacted the M ilitary Commissions
608 CHAPTER 15 THE FEDERAL COURTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 608 27/11/18 12:39 PM
Act, which gave the president statutory authority for his actions. In Section 7 of the act, Congress declared that G uantánamo prisoners could not bring habeas corpus petitions to federal cour ts to seek their r elease. I n the 2008 case of Boumediene v. Bush, however, the S upreme Court struck down Section 7 and declar ed habeas corpus to be a fundamental right.25 Judicial review of presidential actions is not limi- ted to presidential war powers and the realm of terrorism. In 2013 the Fourth U.S. Circuit Cour t of A ppeals r uled that P resident O bama violated the Constitution when he made so-called recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in order to avoid the need to secur e Senate confirmation. Recess appointments are customarily used only when the S enate adjourns at the end of the y ear, but the president made the appointments in question when the Senate was on a short break. In June 2014 the Supreme Court ruled that a Senate recess of less than 10 days was “presumptively too shor t” to justify a r ecess appointment. I n this case, the S enate had recessed for only 3 days.26
In its 2018 decision in the case of Trump v. Hawaii, however, the Court upheld the use of pr esidential power.27 Through an ex ecutive order, President Trump had prohibited travel into the U nited States by people fr om several Muslim-majority countries. In a 5–4 decision, the Cour t held that the pr esident had broad author- ity, given by statute, to determine that cer tain travelers might impose a risk to the security of the United States.
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND LAWMAKING
Much of the work of the courts involves the application of statutes to the particular case at hand. Ov er the centuries, judges hav e also dev eloped a body of r ules and principles of interpr etation that ar e not gr ounded in specific statutes. This body of judge-made law is called common law. For example, tort case, which determines whether one person is liable for causing harm to another, is based more upon cases and precedents than statute.
common law law made through court precedent rather than legislative enactments
tort case a lawsuit by one individual (the plaintiff) demanding compensation for harm allegedly caused by the actions of another (the defendant)
The courts may be called on to review the actions of the president. After President Trump’s “travel ban” was implemented in early 2017, many court cases challenged this decision, and eventually one case was tried before the Supreme Court. In a 5–4 decision, the Court upheld the travel ban, sparking out- rage from Democratic lawmakers.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS During his 2005 confirmation hearings, senators asked Chief Justice Roberts why the Supreme Court was more willing to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional than it was to confront the president on the constitutionality of his actions. What reasons might you identify?
609THE POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT : JUD IC IAL REV IEW
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 609 27/11/18 12:39 PM
The appellate courts, however, are in another realm. Their rulings can be consid- ered laws, but they go vern the behavior only of the judiciar y. The written opinion of an appellate court is about halfway between common law and statutory law. As in common law, the opinion is judge-made and draws heavily on the pr ecedents of previous cases. But, as in statutory law, it tries to ar ticulate the rule of law control- ling the case in question and futur e cases like it. I t differs from a statute in that a statute addresses itself to the future conduct of citizens, whereas a written opinion addresses itself mainly to the future willingness or ability of courts to take cases and render favorable opinions. Decisions by appellate cour ts affect citizens by opening or closing access to the courts.
The Supreme Court in Action Given the millions of disputes that arise ev ery year, the job of the Supreme Court would be impossi- ble if it were not able to control the flow of cases and its o wn caseload.
Over the y ears, the cour ts hav e dev eloped specific rules that go vern which cases within their jurisdiction they will and will not hear . In order to be hear d by the courts, cases must meet certain criteria that are initially applied by the trial court but may be reconsidered by appellate courts. These rules of access can be broken down into three major categories: case or controversy, standing, and mootness.
Article III of the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions define judicial power as extending only to “cases and controversies.” This means that the case before a court must be an actual controversy, not a hypothetical one, with two truly adver- sarial parties. The courts have interpreted this language to mean that they do not have the po wer to r ender advisor y opinions to legislatur es or agencies about the constitutionality of pr oposed laws or r egulations. Furthermore, even after a law is enacted, the cour ts will generally r efuse to consider its constitutionality until it is actually applied.
Parties to a case must also hav e standing—that is, they must show that they have a substantial stake in the outcome of the case. The traditional requirement for standing has been to show injury to oneself; that injury can be personal, economic, or even aes- thetic, such as a neighbor’s building a high fence that blocks one ’s view of the ocean. In order for a group or class of people to have standing (as in class-action suits), each member must show specific injury. This means that a general interest in the environ- ment, for instance, does not provide a group with sufficient basis for standing.
The Supreme Court also uses a thir d criterion in determining whether it will hear a case: that of mootness. In theor y, this r equirement disqualifies cases that are brought too late—after the r elevant facts hav e changed or the pr oblem has been resolved by other means. The criterion of mootness, however, is subject to the discr etion of the cour ts, which hav e begun to r elax the r ules of mootness, particularly in cases where a situation that has been r esolved is likely to come up again. In the abortion case Roe v. Wade, for example, the Supreme Court rejected the lower cour t’s argument that because the pr egnancy in question had alr eady come to term, the case was moot. The Court agreed to hear the case because no pregnancy was likely to outlast the lengthy appeals process.28 Related to mootness but less frequently cited is the idea of ripeness, which means the readiness of a case
Describe the process the Supreme Court follows in the exercise of its power of judicial review
standing the right of an individual or organization to initiate a court case, on the basis of having a substantial stake in the outcome
mootness a criterion used by courts to screen cases that no longer require resolution
610 CHAPTER 15 THE FEDERAL COURTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 610 27/11/18 12:39 PM
for litigation. The courts try to av oid becoming entangled in issues that r emain hypothetical or events that may never occur.
Putting aside the formal criteria, the Supreme Court is most likely to accept cases that involve conflicting decisions by the federal cir cuit cour ts, cases that pr esent important questions of civil rights or civil liber ties, and cases in which the federal government is the appellant. U ltimately, however, the question of which cases to accept can come do wn to the pr eferences and priorities of the justices. I f a gr oup of justices believes that the Court should intervene in a particular area of policy or politics, they are likely to look for a case or cases that will serve as vehicles for judicial intervention. For many years, the Court was not interested in considering challenges to affirmative action or other pr ograms designed to pr ovide par ticular benefits to minorities. In recent years, however, several of the Court’s more conservative justices have been eager to push back the limits of affirmative action and racial preference and have therefore accepted a number of cases that would allow them to do so. In the 2014 case Schuette v. Coalition to D efend Affirmative Action, for example, the Court ruled that a Michigan ballot initiative that resulted in a ban on racial prefer- ences in college admissions was constitutional.29 The decision paved the way for other states to prohibit the use of race as a factor in college admissions. In the 2016 case of Fisher v. University of Texas, however, the Court ruled that race could be one of the factors taken into account in college admissions if the school so desired.30
Writs Most cases r each the Supreme Court through a writ of certiorari. Certiorari is an order to a lower court to deliver the records of a particular case to be reviewed for legal err ors. The term certiorari is sometimes shor tened to cert, and cases deemed to merit certiorari are referred to as “certworthy.” An individual who loses in a lo wer federal cour t or state cour t and wants the S upreme Cour t to r eview the decision has 90 days to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court. Petitions for thousands of cases are filed with the Court every year (see Figure 15.4).
Since 1972 most of the justices have participated in a “certiorari pool” in which their law clerks work together to evaluate the petitions. Each petition is reviewed by one clerk, who writes a memo for all the justices participating in the pool, summa- rizing the facts and issues and making a r ecommendation. Clerks for the other jus- tices add their comments to the memo. After the justices have reviewed the memos, any one of them may place any case on the “discuss list,” which is circulated by the chief justice. I f a case is not placed on the discuss list, it is automatically denied certiorari. Cases placed on the discuss list ar e considered and voted on during the justices’ closed-door conference.
For certiorari to be granted, four justices must be convinced that the case satisfies rule 10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. Rule 10 states that certiorari is not a matter of right but is to be granted only when ther e are special and compelling reasons. These include conflicting decisions by two or more circuit courts, conflicts between cir cuit cour ts and state cour ts of last r esort, conflicting decisions by two or mor e state cour ts of last r esort, decisions b y circuit courts on matters of federal law that should be settled b y the S upreme Court, and a cir cuit court decision on an impor tant question that conflicts with Supreme Court deci- sions. It should be clear from this list that the Cour t will usually take action under only the most compelling circumstances—when there are conflicts among the lower courts about what the law should be, when an impor tant legal question has been raised in the lo wer cour ts but not definitively answ ered, or when a lo wer cour t
writ of certiorari a decision of at least four of the nine Supreme Court justices to review a decision of a lower court; certiorari is Latin, meaning “to make more certain”
611THE SUPREME COURT IN ACT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 611 27/11/18 12:39 PM
deviates from the principles and precedents established by the high court. Few cases are able to gain the support of four justices needed for certiorari. In recent sessions, although thousands of petitions were filed, the Court has granted certiorari to barely more than 80 petitioners each y ear—about 1 per cent of those seeking a S upreme Court review.
A handful of cases reach the Supreme Court through avenues other than certio- rari. One of these is the writ of cer tification, which can be used when a U.S. court of appeals asks the Supreme Court for instructions on a point of law that has never been decided. A second alternativ e avenue is the writ of appeal, which is used to appeal the decision of a three-judge district court.
CONTROLLING THE FLOW OF CASES
In addition to the judges, other actors play impor tant roles in shaping the flow of cases through the federal courts: the solicitor general and federal law clerks.
The Solicitor General If any single person has gr eater influence than individual judges over the federal cour ts, it is the solicitor general of the U nited S tates. The solicitor general is the thir d-ranking official in the Justice Department (below the attorney general and the deputy attorney general) but the top go vernment lawyer in virtually all cases before the Supreme Court in which the government is a party. The solicitor general has the greatest control over the flow of cases; his or her actions are not r eviewed by any higher authority in the ex ecutive branch. More than half
solicitor general the top government lawyer in all cases before the Supreme Court where the government is a party
FIGURE 15.4
Cases Filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, 1938–2017 Terms*
*Number of cases filed in term starting in year indicated.
SOURCES: Years 1938–69, 1970–83, 1984–99: reprinted with permission from The United States Law Week (Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs), vol. 56, no. 3102; vol. 59, no. 3064; vol. 61, no. 3098; vol. 63, no. 3134; vol. 65, no. 3100; vol. 67, no. 3167; vol. 69, no. 3134 (copyright © Bureau of National Affairs Inc.); 2000–05 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States; 2006–07: Office of the Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States; and Supreme Court of the United States, Cases on Docket, www.uscourts. gov/statistics-reports/caseload-statistics-data- tables; Supreme Court, 2017 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, www.supremecourt. gov/publicinfo/year-end/2017year-endreport. pdf (accessed 4/5/18). 1940 1945
NUMBER OF CASES FILED PER YEAR
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0 1950 19651955 1960 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Before becoming solicitor general in the Trump administration, Noel Francisco has had experience in the Justice Department and in private practice, where he argued several cases in front of the Supreme Court.
612 CHAPTER 15 THE FEDERAL COURTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 612 27/11/18 12:39 PM
the Supreme Court’s total workload consists of cases under the dir ect charge of the solicitor general.
The solicitor general exercises especially strong influence by screening cases before any agency of the federal go vernment can appeal them to the S upreme Cour t.31 Agency heads may lobb y the pr esident or other wise tr y to cir cumvent the solici - tor general, and a fe w of the independent agencies hav e a statutor y right to make direct appeals; but without the solicitor general ’s suppor t, these requests ar e sel - dom reviewed by the Court. Congress has given only a few agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Maritime Commission, and in some cases the D epartment of Agricultur e (even though it is not an independent agency), the right to appeal dir ectly to the Supreme Court without going thr ough the solicitor general.
The solicitor general can enter a case even when the federal government is not a direct litigant by writing an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief. A friend of the court is not a direct party to a case but has a vital interest in its outcome. Thus, when the government has such an interest, the solicitor general can file an amicus brief or a federal court can invite such a brief because it wants an opinion in writing. Other interested parties may file briefs as well.
In addition to ex ercising substantial control over the flow of cases, the solicitor general can shape the arguments used before the federal courts. Indeed, the Supreme Court tends to giv e special attention to the way the solicitor general characteriz es the issues. The solicitor general is the person who appears most frequently before the Court and, theoretically at least, is the most disinterested. The credibility of the solicitor general is not hur t when several times each year he comes to the Cour t to withdraw a case with the admission that the government has made an error.
Law Clerks Every federal judge emplo ys law clerks to r esearch legal issues and assist with the preparation of opinions. Each Supreme Court justice is assigned four clerks, almost always honors graduates of the nation’s most prestigious law schools. A clerkship with a S upreme Court justice is a gr eat honor and generally indicates
amicus curiae literally, “friend of the court”; individuals or groups who are not parties to a lawsuit but who seek to assist the Supreme Court in reaching a decision by presenting additional briefs
Federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, rely on their clerks for research and help in preparing opinions. Serving as a law clerk to a Supreme Court justice is a prestigious position. Four current justices—Roberts, Breyer, Kagan, and Gorsuch (pictured here)— clerked for a Supreme Court justice early in their careers.
613THE SUPREME COURT IN ACT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 613 27/11/18 12:39 PM
that the for tunate individual is likely to r each the very top of the legal pr ofession. The work of the Supreme Court clerks is a closely guarded secret, but it is likely that some justices rely heavily on their cler ks for advice in writing opinions and in deciding whether the Court should hear specific cases. In a recent book, a former law clerk to the late justice H arry Blackmun charged that S upreme Court justices yielded “excessive power to immature, ideologically driven clerks, who in turn use that power to manipulate their bosses.”32
LOBBYING FOR ACCESS: INTERESTS AND THE COURT
At the same time that the Court exercises discretion over which cases it will review, groups and for ces in society often seek to persuade the justices to listen to their problems. Lawyers representing interest groups try to choose the proper client and the proper case so that the issues in question are most dramatically and appropriately portrayed. When possible, they also pick a district or jurisdiction with a sympathetic judge in which to bring the case. S ometimes they even have to wait for an appr o- priate political climate. They must also attempt to develop a pr oper record at the trial court level, one that includes some constitutional arguments and ev en, when possible, errors on the part of the trial court.
One of the most effective strategies that litigants use in getting cases accepted for review by the appellate courts is to bring the same type of suit in more than one circuit (that is, to dev elop a “pattern of cases”) in the hope that inconsistent tr eat- ment by two different courts will improve the chance of a S upreme Court review. The two most notable users of the pattern-of-cases strategy in recent y ears hav e been the National Association for the A dvancement of Color ed People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). For many years, the NAACP (and its Defense Fund—now a separate gr oup) has wor ked through local chapters and with many individuals to encourage litigation on issues of racial discrimination and segregation. Sometimes it distributes petitions to be signed by parents and filed with local school boar ds and cour ts, deliberately sowing the seeds of futur e litiga- tion. The NAACP and the ACLU often encourage private parties to bring suit and then join the suit as amici curiae.
In many states, it is consider ed unethical and illegal for attorneys to engage in “fomenting and soliciting legal business in which they ar e not parties and have no pecuniary right or liability .” The NAACP was sued b y the state of Virginia in the late 1950s in an attempt to r estrict or eliminate its efforts to influence the pattern of cases. The Supreme Court reviewed the case in 1963, recognized that the strategy was being used, and held that the NAA CP strategy was protected by the First and Fourteenth amendments, just as other forms of speech and petition are protected.33
Thus, many pathbreaking cases ar e ev entually granted cer tiorari because repeated refusal to review one or more of them would amount to a rule of law just as much as if the cour ts had handed do wn a written opinion. I n this sense, the flow of cases, especially the pattern of significant cases, influences the behavior of the appellate judiciary.
THE SUPREME COURT’S PROCEDURES
The Supreme Court’s decision to accept a case is the beginning of what can be a lengthy and complex pr ocess (see Figure 15.5). After a petition is filed and certi- orari is granted, the Cour t considers the r easoning on both sides as pr esented in
614 CHAPTER 15 THE FEDERAL COURTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 614 27/11/18 12:39 PM
briefs and oral argument, the justices discuss the case in confer ence, and opinions are carefully drafted.
Briefs First, the attorneys on both sides must pr epare briefs, written documents in which the attorneys explain why the Court should rule in favor of their client. Briefs are filled with referrals to pr ecedents specifically chosen to show that other cour ts have frequently ruled in the same way the attorneys are requesting that the Supreme Court r ule. The attorneys for both sides muster the most compelling precedents they can in support of their arguments.
As the attorneys prepare their briefs, they often ask sympathetic interest groups for their help. These groups are asked to file amicus curiae briefs that support the claims of one or the other litigant. In a case involving separation of church and
briefs written documents in which attorneys explain, using case precedents, why the court should find in favor of their client
FIGURE 15.5
Time Line of a Supreme Court Case This calendar of events in the case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees illustrates the steps of the process a case goes through as it moves through the Supreme Court. The total time from peti- tion to the Supreme Court to the decision is just over one year, although the initial case was filed years ago in a lower court.
June 6, 2017
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed.
July 7, 2017
Filing of briefs and amicus curiae briefs in support of the petitioner.
August 11, 2017
Brief of respondent American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 in opposition filed.
August 30, 2017
The case is distributed for conference.
September 28, 2017
The petition (certiorari) is granted.
December 20, 2017
Date for oral argument is set for February 26, 2018.
December 2017
Briefs and amicus curiae briefs are filed on behalf of petitioner.
January 2018
Briefs and amicus curiae briefs are filed on behalf of respondent.
February 26, 2018
Oral argument of one hour
June 27, 2018
Decision
615THE SUPREME COURT IN ACT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 615 27/11/18 12:39 PM
state, for example, liberal groups such as the ACLU and People for the American Way ar e likely to be asked to file amicus briefs in support of strict separation, whereas conser vative r eligious groups ar e likely to file amicus briefs adv ocating increased public accommodation of religious ideas. Often, dozens of briefs will be filed on each side of a major case. Amicus filings are one of the primar y methods used by interest groups to lobby the Court. By filing these briefs, groups indicate to the Court where they stand and signal to the justices that they believ e the case to be an important one.
Oral Argument The next stage of a case is oral argument, in which attorneys for both sides appear befor e the Cour t to present their positions and answ er the jus - tices’ questions. Each attorney has only a half hour to pr esent a case, and this time includes interruptions for questions. Cer tain members of the Cour t, such as the late Justice Antonin Scalia, ar e known to interrupt attorneys dozens of times. Others, such as J ustice Clarence Thomas, seldom ask questions. For an attorney, the opportunity to argue a case before the Supreme Court is a singular honor and a mark of professional distinction. It can also be a harr owing experience, as when justices interr upt a car efully pr epared pr esentation. Nevertheless, oral argument can be v ery important to the outcome of a case. I t allows justices to understand better the heart of the case and to raise questions that might not have been addressed in the opposing sides ’ briefs. I t is not uncommon for justices to go bey ond the strictly legal issues and ask opposing counsel to discuss the implications of the case for the Court and the nation at large.
The Conference F ollowing oral argument, the Cour t discusses the case in its Wednesday or Friday conference, a strictly private meeting that no outsiders are per- mitted to attend. The chief justice presides over the conference and speaks first; the other justices follow in order of seniority. The justices discuss the case and eventually reach a decision on the basis of a majority vote. If the Court is divided, a number of votes may be taken before a final decision is reached. As the case is discussed, justices may try to influence or change one another’s opinions. At times, this may result in compromise decisions.
Opinion Writing After a decision has been r eached, one of the members of the majority is assigned to write the opinion. This assignment is made by the chief justice or b y the most senior justice in t he majority if the chief justice is on the losing side. The assignment of the opinion can make a significant difference to the interpr etation of a decision. E very opinion of the S upreme Cour t sets a major pr ecedent for futur e cases thr oughout the judicial system. Lawy ers and judges in the lo wer cour ts will examine the opinion car efully to ascer tain the Supreme Cour t’s intent. D ifferences in wor ding and emphasis can hav e impor- tant implications for future litigation. Thus, in assigning an opinion, the justices must give serious thought to the impression the case will make on lawyers and on the public and to the pr obability that one justice ’s opinion will be mor e widely accepted than another’s.
One of the mor e dramatic instances of this tactical consideration occurr ed in 1944, when Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone chose Justice Felix Frankfurter to write the opinion in the “white primary” case Smith v. Allwright.34 The chief justice believed that this sensitive case, which overturned the southern practice of prohibiting black participation in nominating primaries, required the efforts of the most brilliant and
oral argument the stage in the Supreme Court procedure in which attorneys for both sides appear before the Court to present their positions and answer questions posed by justices
opinion the written explanation of the Supreme Court’s decision in a particular case
616 CHAPTER 15 THE FEDERAL COURTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 616 27/11/18 12:39 PM
The Supreme Court allocates just one hour to hear oral arguments, even in difficult and contentious cases. Attorneys for both sides must make their arguments succinctly and respond to questions from the nine justices, which are often very pointed.
scholarly jurist on the Court. But the day after Stone made the assignment, Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote a letter to Stone urging a change of assignment and argu- ing that F rankfurter, a for eign-born Jew from New England, would not win the South with his opinion, r egardless of its brilliance. S tone accepted the advice and substituted Justice Stanley Reed, an American-born Protestant from Kentucky and a southern Democrat in good standing.
Once the majority opinion is drafted, it is circulated to the other justices. Some members of the majority may agr ee with both the outcome and the rationale but wish to emphasiz e or highlight a par ticular point. F or that purpose, they draft a concurring opinion, called a regular concurrence. In other instances, one or more justices may agree with the majority decision but disagree with the rationale presented in the majority opinion. These justices may draft special concurrences, explaining their own rationale for the decision and how it differs from the major- ity’s rationale.
Dissent Justices who disagree with the majority decision of the Cour t may choose to publicize the character of their disagreement in the form of a dissenting opinion. The dissenting opinion is generally assigned b y the senior justice among the dissenters. Dissents can be used to expr ess irritation with an outcome or to signal to defeated political forces in the nation that their position is supported by at least some mem- bers of the Cour t. I ronically, the most dependable way an individual justice can exercise a direct and clear influence on the Court is to write a dissent. Because there is no need to please a majority , dissenting opinions can be mor e eloquent and less guarded than majority opinions. The current Supreme Court often pr oduces 5–4 decisions, with dissenters writing long and detailed opinions that, they hope, will help them persuade a swing justice to join their side on the next r ound of cases dealing with a similar topic. During the Court’s 2006–07 term, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was so unhappy about the majority ’s decisions in a number of cases that she began to r ead forceful dissents fr om the bench, a practice she has continued
dissenting opinion a decision written by a justice in the minority in a particular case in which the justice wishes to express his or her reasoning in the case
617THE SUPREME COURT IN ACT ION
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 617 27/11/18 12:39 PM
to underscore her disagr eements with sev eral r ecent decisions and point the way toward other possibilities.
Dissent plays a special r ole in the wor k and impact of the Cour t because it amounts to an appeal to lawy ers all o ver the countr y to keep bringing similar cases. Therefore, an effective dissent influences the flow of cases thr ough the Court and the arguments that lawy ers will use in later cases. E ven more impor- tant, dissent points out that although the Cour t speaks with a single opinion, it is the opinion only of the majority—and one day the majority might go the other way.
Often, the division betw een the majority and the dissenting justices in major cases reflects deep divisions in American society. Take the 2015 same-sex marriage case of Obergefell v . H odges in which the majority opinion, written b y J ustice Anthony Kennedy, asserted that state same-sex marriage bans violated the Fourteenth Amendment by arbitrarily intr uding upon personal choices, “ central to individual dignity and autonomy ,” and thus denying such persons due pr o- cess and equal protection of the laws.35 The dissenters, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, declared that the Fourteenth Amendment had never been intended or interpreted as providing a right to same-sex marriage, and they criticized the majority opinion as little more than an effort by jurists to write their own views into the Constitution. I n its split decision, the Cour t mirrored a division in American society betw een those who see gay rights as a natural extension of civil rights and those offended, often for religious reasons, by open expressions of same-sex par tnership. The dissenting justices hope to encourage further litigation in this realm, but generally speaking, once a right is granted it is seldom subject to revocation.
Explaining Supreme Court Decisions The Supreme Court makes its mark on American politics and soci - ety thr ough the decisions it hands down. But judicial decision-making
does not take place in a vacuum, of course. Like other actors in government, justices are influenced by institutional concerns, prior experience, and personal philosophy. In addition, the Cour t as a whole is affected by the overarching political system in which it plays a role. Over time, that role has shifted as a result of political develop- ments both inside and outside the Court.
INFLUENCES ON SUPREME COURT DECISION-MAKING
The Supreme Cour t explains its decisions in terms of law and pr ecedent. But it is the Cour t itself that decides what the laws actually mean and what impor tance the precedent will actually have. Throughout its history, the Court has shaped and reshaped the law . In the late nineteenth and early tw entieth centuries, for exam - ple, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution, law , and pr ecedent permitted racial segregation in the United States. Beginning in the 1950s, however, the Court found that the Constitution pr ohibited segregation on the basis of race and indi - cated that the use of racial categories in legislation was always suspect. By the 1970s and ’80s the Cour t once again held that the Constitution permitted the use of
Consider the personal and political influences on judges and the courts
Supreme Court justices can use a dissenting opinion to express their opposing viewpoint with the hope of influencing future cases on similar questions. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is known for her forceful dissents such as in the 2014 Hobby Lobby case, which allowed a corporation to claim religious grounds for refusing to provide contraceptive coverage in its health insurance program.
618 CHAPTER 15 THE FEDERAL COURTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 618 27/11/18 12:39 PM
racial categories—when such categories w ere needed to help members of minority groups achieve full participation in American society. Since the 1990s the Court has retreated from this position, too, indicating that go vernmental efforts to pr ovide extra help to racial minorities could represent an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of the majority.
Institutional Interests The Supreme Cour t’s justices ar e acutely awar e of the Court’s place in histor y, and they car e about pr otecting the Cour t’s po wer and reputation. This desire to protect the institutional integrity of the Court can some- times influence judicial thinking. During the 1930s, for example, the S upreme Court became embroiled in a political struggle with President Franklin Roosevelt over his “New Deal” programs. During the 1935–36 term, the Court struck down several of the president’s initiatives in a series of 5–4 votes. Furious, the president responded by proposing a Cour t-reform plan that would hav e increased the siz e of the Cour t to as many as 15 justices. R oosevelt hoped to pack the Cour t with his own appointees and, thus, win future cases over New Deal programs. Justice Owen Roberts, who had been one of the five justices voting against the pr esi- dent’s initiatives, made a sudden reversal, voting in favor of an important New Deal policy he had been expected to oppose. The media dubbed Roberts’s shift “The switch in time that saved nine.”
Such institutional concerns ar e not isolated incidents, ho wever. More recently, Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to have institutional concerns in mind when he surprised fellow conservatives by casting the deciding vote in favor of the constitu- tionality of the Affordable Care Act in 2012. The Court’s conservative majority had come under incr easing political fire for its positions on such matters as campaign finance and affirmative action. Roberts, according to one commentator, saw himself as “uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the Court’s legitimacy, reputation, and stature” and was determined to show that the Court stood above mere political ideology.36 As we saw above, Roberts repeated his support of the Affordable Care Act in 2015 in the case of King v. Burwell.
Activism and Restraint Judicial philosophy also plays a role in the decisions of all judges, including those on the Supreme Court. One element of judicial philosophy is the issue of activism versus restraint. Over the years, some justices have believed that cour ts should interpr et the Constitution accor ding to the stated intentions of its framers and defer to the views of Congress when interpreting federal statutes. Justice Felix Frankfurter, for example, adv ocated judicial defer ence to legis lative bodies and av oidance of the “political thicket” in which the Court would entang le itself b y deciding questions that w ere essentially political rather than legal in character. Some, but not all, advocates of judicial restraint are also called “strict constructionists” because they look strictly to the wor ds of the Constitution in interpreting its meaning. The late Justice Scalia, along with Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh advocate originalism in interpreting the Constitu- tion and textualism in interpreting statutes.
The alternative to r estraint is judicial activism. Activist judges such as Chief Justice Earl Warren believed that the Cour t should go bey ond the wor ds of the Constitution or a statute to consider the broader societal implications of its deci- sions. Activist judges sometimes strike out in ne w directions, promulgating new interpretations or inv enting ne w legal and constitutional concepts when they
judicial restraint judicial philosophy whose adherents refuse to go beyond the clear words of the Constitution in interpreting the document’s meaning
judicial activism judicial philosophy that posits that the Court should go beyond the words of the Constitution or a statute to consider the broader societal implications of its decisions
619ExPLA IN ING SUPREME COURT DEC IS IONS
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 619 27/11/18 12:39 PM
believe these to be socially desirable. F or example, Justice H arry B lackmun’s opinion in Roe v. Wade was based on a constitutional right to priv acy that is not found in the wor ds of the Constitution but was, rather , from the Cour t’s prior decision in Griswold v. Connecticut .37 B lackmun and the other members of the majority in the Roe case argued that the right to priv acy was implied b y other constitutional provisions. In this instance of judicial activism, the Cour t kne w the result it wanted to achieve and was not afraid to make the law conform to the desired outcome.
Activism and restraint can overlap with but are not always the same as lib- eralism and conser vatism. For example, conser vative politicians often cas - tigate “liberal activist ” judges and call for the appointment of conser vative jurists who will refrain from reinterpreting the law. But the Rehnquist Court, dominated b y conser vatives, was among the most activist cour ts in American history, par ticularly in such ar eas as federalism and election law . The Roberts Court is continuing along the same route. F or example, in the 2014 case of McCutcheon v. Federal E lection Commission , the Cour t str uck down one of the major r emaining elements of Congr ess’s efforts to r egulate campaign finance. The Court’s five more conser vative justices said that limits on ho w much indi - viduals could contribute in any given election were a restraint on free speech.38 This decision could be described as “activist” because it br oadens the interpreta- tion of “speech” and overturns congressional legislation that has significant public support. As the examples of these conservative courts illustrate, a judge may be philosophically conservative and believe in strict construction of the Constitution but also be jurisprudentially activist and believe that the courts must play an active and energetic role in policy making, if necessary striking down acts of Congress to ensure that the intent of the framers is fulfilled.
Political Ideology and Partisanship The philosophy of activism versus restraint is sometimes a smokescreen for political ideology, and indeed, the liberal or conserva- tive attitudes or par tisan leanings of justices play an impor tant role in their deci - sions.39 In the past, liberal judges have often been activists, willing to use the law to achieve social and political change, whereas conservatives have been associated with judicial restraint. Interestingly, however, in r ecent years some conser vative justices who have long called for restraint have actually become activists in seeking to undo some of the work of liberal jurists.
From the 1950s to the 1980s the S upreme Court took an activist r ole in such areas as civil rights, civil liberties, abortion, voting rights, and police procedures. For example, the S upreme Cour t was mor e responsible than any other go vernmental institution for breaking down America’s system of racial segregation. In the following decades, however, the conservative justices appointed by presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush became the dominant bloc on the Court and, as we saw earlier, moved the Court to the right on a number of issues, including affirmative action and abortion.
The political struggles of recent years amply illustrate the importance of judicial ideology. Is abortion a fundamental right or a criminal activity? How much separa- tion must there be between church and state? Does application of the Voting Rights Act to increase minority representation constitute a violation of the rights of whites? The answers to these and many other questions cannot be found in the words of the Constitution. They must be located, instead, in the hearts and minds of the judges who interpret that text.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS In its 2010 decision in McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court applied the doctrine of selective incorporation and ruled that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to the states as well as to the federal government. What is “selective incorporation”? What is its significance in American constitutional history?
620 CHAPTER 15 THE FEDERAL COURTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 620 27/11/18 12:39 PM
Judicial philosophy, ideology, and institutional interest all influence the thinking of justices. In the end, however, the Supreme Court is a court of law and must pay heed to statutes and legal precedent. A decision that cannot be justified by law and precedent cannot be issued. To ignore the law would be to undermine the r ule of law and to destr oy the constitutional str ucture in which the S upreme Cour t occupies such a prominent place.
JUDICIAL POWER AND POLITICS
One of the most impor tant institutional changes to occur in the U nited S tates during the past half-century has been the striking transformation of the role and power of the federal courts, and of the Supreme Court in particular. Understanding how this transformation came about is the key to understanding the contemporar y role of the courts in America.
Traditional Limitations on the Federal Courts For much of American his- tory, the power of the federal courts was subject to a number of limitations.40 First, unlike other go vernmental institutions, cour ts cannot ex ercise po wer on their own initiative. Judges must wait until a case is brought to them before they can make authoritative decisions. Traditionally, moreover, courts were constrained by judicial r ules of standing that limited access to the bench. Claimants who simply disagreed with governmental action or inaction could not obtain access to the courts, which was limited to individuals who could show that they were specifically affected by the government’s behavior in some area. This limitation on access diminished the judiciar y’s capacity to forge links with impor tant political and social forces.
Second, courts were traditionally limited in the character of the relief they could provide. In general, courts acted only to offer relief or assistance to individuals and not to broad social classes, again inhibiting the formation of alliances betw een the courts and important social forces.
Third, courts lacked enforcement powers of their own and were compelled to rely on executive or state agencies to ensure compliance with their edicts. I f the execu- tive or state agencies w ere unwilling to assist the cour ts, judicial enactments could go unheeded, as when P resident Andrew Jackson declined to enfor ce Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1832 order to the state of Georgia to release two missionaries it had arrested on Cher okee lands. M arshall asserted that the state had no right to enter the lands without the Cher okees’ assent. 41 Jackson is r eputed to hav e said, “J ohn Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
Fourth, federal judges are, of course, appointed by the president (with the consent of the Senate). As a result, the president and Congress can shape the composition of the federal courts and ultimately, perhaps, the character of judicial decisions. Finally, Congress has the po wer to change both the siz e and jurisdiction of the S upreme Court and other federal courts. In many areas, federal courts obtain their jurisdic- tion not from the Constitution but from congressional statutes. On a number of occasions, Congress has thr eatened to take matters out of the cour ts’ hands when it was unhappy with the courts’ policies.42 For example, in 1996, Congress enacted several pieces of legislation designed to curb the jurisdiction of the federal cour ts. One of these laws was the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which limits the ability of federal judges to issue “consent decrees,” under which the judges could take control of state prison systems. As to the size of the Court, on one memorable occasion that
621ExPLA IN ING SUPREME COURT DEC IS IONS
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 621 27/11/18 12:39 PM
we mentioned earlier, presidential and congressional threats to expand the size of the Supreme Court—Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “Court packing” plan—encouraged the justices to drop their opposition to New Deal programs.
As a result of these limitations on judicial po wer, through much of their history the chief function of the federal courts was to provide judicial support for executive agencies and to legitimize acts of Congress by declaring them to be consistent with constitutional principles. O nly on rar e occasions hav e the federal cour ts dared to challenge Congress or the executive branch.43
Two Judicial Revolutions Since the Second World War, however, the role of the federal judiciary has been strengthened and expanded. There have been two judi- cial revolutions in the United States since then. The first and more visible of these was the substantive revolution in judicial policy. As we saw earlier in this chapter and in C hapters 4 and 5 , in many policy ar eas, including school desegr egation, legislative appor tionment, and criminal pr ocedure, and in obscenity , abor tion, and voting rights, the S upreme Court was at the for efront of a series of sw eep- ing changes in the r ole of the U.S. go vernment and, ultimately, the character of American society.44
At the same time that the cour ts were introducing important policy innovations, they were also bringing about a second, less visible r evolution. During the 1960s and ’70s the S upreme Court and other federal cour ts instituted a series of changes in judicial procedures that fundamentally expanded the power of the courts in the United States.
First, the federal courts liberalized the concept of standing to permit almost any group that seeks to challenge the actions of an administrativ e agency to bring its case before the federal bench. In 1971, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that public interest groups could use the National Environmental Policy Act to challenge the actions of federal agencies b y claiming that the agencies ’ activities might hav e adverse environmental consequences.45
Congress helped to make it ev en easier for gr oups dissatisfied with govern- ment policies to bring their cases to the cour ts by adopting Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, which permits the practice of “fee shifting”—that is, allowing citizens who successfully bring a suit against a public official for violating their constitu- tional rights to collect their attorneys’ fees and costs from the government. Thus, Section 1983 encourages individuals and gr oups to bring their pr oblems to the courts rather than to Congress or the executive branch. These changes have given the courts a far greater role in the administrative process than ever before. Many federal judges ar e concerned that federal legislation in ar eas such as health car e reform will create new rights and entitlements that giv e rise to a deluge of cour t cases. “Any time you create a new right, you create a host of disputes and claims,” warned Barbara Rothstein, chief judge of the federal district court in Seattle, Washington.46
Second, the federal courts broadened the scope of relief to permit themselves to act on behalf of broad categories or classes of persons in “class-action” cases, rather than just on behalf of individuals. 47 A class-action suit is a pr ocedural device that permits large numbers of persons with common inter ests to join together under a representative party to bring or defend a lawsuit. O ne example of a class-action suit is the case of In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, in which a federal judge in New York certified Vietnam War veterans as a class with standing to sue
class-action suit a legal action by which a group or class of individuals with common interests can file a suit on behalf of everyone who shares that interest
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Are the federal courts “imperial,” or are they subordinate to the elected branches of government? In what respect does the federal judiciary still play a “checks and balances” role?
622 CHAPTER 15 THE FEDERAL COURTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 622 27/11/18 12:39 PM
a manufacturer of herbicides for damages allegedly incurr ed from exposure to the defendant’s product while in Vietnam.48 The class potentially numbered in the tens of thousands.
Third, the federal cour ts began to emplo y so-called str uctural r emedies, in effect retaining jurisdiction of cases until the cour t’s mandate had actually been implemented to its satisfaction. 49 The best known of these instances was the effort of federal judge W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., to operate the Boston school system fr om his bench in or der to ensur e its desegr egation. B etween 1974 and 1985, Judge Garrity issued 14 decisions r elating to different aspects of the Boston school desegr egation plan that had been dev eloped under his authority and put into effect under his supervision.50 In 1985, as a result of a suit brought by the NAACP five years earlier, federal judge Leonard B. Sand imposed fines that would hav e for ced the city of Yonkers, N ew York, into bankr uptcy if it had refused to accept his plan to build public housing in white neighborhoods. Twenty-two years and $1.6 million in fines later, the city finally gave in to the judge’s ruling in 2007.
Through these three judicial mechanisms, the federal courts paved the way for an unprecedented expansion of national judicial power. In essence, liberalization of the rules of standing and expansion of the scope of judicial relief drew the federal courts into linkages with impor tant social inter ests and classes, while the intr oduction of str uctural r emedies enhanced the cour ts’ ability to ser ve these constituencies. Thus, during the 1960s and ’70s, the power of the federal cour ts expanded in the same way the power of the executive expanded during the 1930s: through links with
Today, the Supreme Court is fre- quently at the center of major politi- cal issues. In a historic decision in 2015, the Court declared same-sex marriage a fundamental right pro- tected by the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 623 27/11/18 12:39 PM
constituencies, such as civil rights, consumer , environmental, and feminist groups, that staunchly defended the Supreme Court in its battles with Congress, the execu- tive, and other interest groups.
The Federal Judiciary WHAT DO WE WANT? In the original conception of the framers, the judiciary was to be the institution that
would protect individual liberty from the government. As we saw in Chapter 2, the fram-
ers believed that in a democracy the great danger was what they termed “tyranny of
the majority”—the possibility that a popular majority, “united or actuated by some com-
mon impulse or passion,” would “trample on the rules of justice.”51 The framers hoped
that the courts would protect liberty from the potential excesses of democracy. And
for most of American history, the federal courts’ most important decisions were those
that protected the freedoms—to speak, worship, publish, vote, and attend school—of
groups and individuals whose political views, religious beliefs, or racial or ethnic back-
grounds made them unpopular.
Today, Americans of all political persuasions seem to view the courts as useful
instruments through which to pursue their goals rather than as protectors of individual
rights. Conservatives want to ban abortion and help business maintain its profitability,
whereas liberals want to promote school integration and help enhance the power of
workers in the workplace. (The “Who Participates?” feature on the facing page looks at efforts to influence the Supreme Court through amicus briefs.) These may all be noble
goals, but they present a basic dilemma for students of American government. If the
courts are simply one more set of policy-making institutions, who is left to protect the
liberty of individuals?
The decisions made by the Supreme Court today will have important conse-
quences for our lives and futures. The Court’s campaign-finance decisions will have
consequences for who will govern the nation you inherit. The Court’s decisions
on health care will influence the type of care you receive and its cost. The Court’s
decisions in the realm of immigration will affect who will and will not be able to call
themselves Americans. The Court’s decision in Mark Janus’s case against public-
sector unions could influence your future job and taxes. The Supreme Court is not an
abstract entity in far-off Washington. It reaches directly into your life.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS In what ways are courts, judges, and justices shielded from politics and political pressure? In what ways are they vulnerable to political pressure? Are the courts an appropriate place for politics?
624 CHAPTER 15 THE FEDERAL COURTS
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 624 27/11/18 12:39 PM
www.scotusblog.com, and read a few of the briefs.
Watch videos of cases from the Cameras in Courts pilot project at www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/cameras-courts.
Look inside the Federal Courts
Click on the “Court Locator” tab at www.uscourts.gov
available at www.pacer.gov.
Average Amicus Briefs per Case
2000s
8
1980s
4
1990s
5
SOURCES: The National Law Journal, August 19, 2015,
Hansford and Kristen Johnson, "The Supply of Amicus Curiae Briefs in the Market for Information at the U.S. Supreme Court," Justice System Journal, 35, no. 4 (2014): 362–82; and Anthony J. Franze and R. Reeves Anderson, “In Quiet Term, Drop in Amicus Curiae at the Supreme Court,” Supreme Court Brief, September 6, 2017, www.law.com (accessed 12/23/17).
Amicus Briefs for Selected Landmark Cases
2010s (through 2017)
11
1970s
2
1960s
1
107
Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003
admissions policy)
147 136
Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015
(marriage equality)
6
Brown v. Board of Education, 1954
(racial segregation)
National Federation of Independent Business v.
Sebelius, 2012 (Affordable Care Act, individual mandate)
Influencing the Supreme Court?
WHO PARTICIPATES?
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 625 27/11/18 12:39 PM
Supreme Court. The federal courts hear a very small percentage of the cases decided in the United States each year. Presi- dents typically nominate judges for the federal judiciary who are prominent members of the legal profession and who share their partisan and ideological views. The importance of ap- pointments to the federal judiciary has made the confirmation process in the Senate increasingly contentious in recent years.
The federal judiciary is composed of 94 district courts, 12 circuit courts, several specialized courts that have nationwide original jurisdiction in certain types of cases, and the U.S.
Federal Courts
2. The doctrine that previous court decisions should apply as precedents in similar cases is known as a) habeas corpus. b) a writ of certiorari. c) stare decisis. d) rule of four. e) senatorial courtesy.
3. Where do most trials in America take place? a) U.S. Court of Federal b) claims c) federal district courts d) federal circuit courts e) the Supreme Court of the United States
4. Which of the following is not included in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? a) cases between the United States and one of
the 50 states b) cases brought by one state against citizens of
another state or against a foreign country c) cases involving challenges to the constitutionality
of state laws d) cases between two or more states e) cases involving foreign ambassadors or other ministers
5. The term writ of habeas corpus refers to a) a short, unsigned decision by an appellate court,
usually rejecting a petition to review the decision of a lower court.
b) a criterion used by courts to screen cases that no longer require resolution.
c) a decision of at least four of the nine Supreme Court justices to review a decision of a lower court.
d) a court order that an individual in custody be brought into court and shown the cause for his or her detention.
e) a brief filed by the solicitor general when the federal government is not a direct litigant in a Supreme Court case.
American court cases proceed under two broad categories of law: criminal law and civil law. There are court systems at both the federal and state levels in the United States. While state courts hear only cases involving questions of state law, the federal courts decide cases addressing federal laws, treaties with other nations, and the Constitution.
Key Terms criminal law (p. 593)
plaintiff (p. 593)
defendant (p. 593)
civil law (p. 594)
precedent (p. 594)
stare decisis (p. 594)
trial court (p. 594)
court of appeals (p. 594)
supreme court (p. 595)
plea bargain (p. 595)
jurisdiction (p. 595)
original jurisdiction (p. 596)
due process of law (p. 597)
writ of habeas corpus (p. 597)
Practice Quiz
1. What is the name for the body of law that involves disputes between private entities such as individuals, groups, and corporations? a) civil law b) privacy law c) criminal law d) household law e) common law
The Legal System
Identify the general types of cases and types of courts in our legal system (pp. 593–97)
Describe the different levels of federal courts and their functions (pp. 598–603)
CHAPTER 15 STUDy GU IDE626
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 626 27/11/18 12:39 PM
b) it ruled that the recitation of prayers in public schools is unconstitutional under the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
c) it established that arrested people have the right to remain silent, the right to be informed that anything they say can be held against them, and the right to counsel before and during police interrogation.
d) it provided an expansive definition of commerce under the interstate commerce clause.
e) it established the power of judicial review.
9. The U.S. Supreme Court’s power to review state actions comes from a) tort law. b) Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. c) the supremacy clause of the Constitution and
the Judiciary Act of 1789. d) certiorari and amicus curiae. e) The Supreme Court does not have the power to
review state actions.
The U.S. Supreme Court has the power to review the con- stitutionality of acts of Congress and the federal executive branch, as well as state actions. Although this power is not explicitly provided for in the Constitution, the Supreme Court asserted the power of judicial review in its 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision; and this power has generally been accepted since then.
Key Terms judicial review (p. 604)
supremacy clause (p. 605)
common law (p. 609)
tort case (p. 609)
Practice Quiz
8. The Supreme Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison was important because a) it invalidated state laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
The Power of the Supreme Court: Judicial Review
Explain how the Supreme Court exercises the power of judicial review (pp. 604–10)
7. The formal requirements for service as a federal judge include a) experience as a state-level judge. b) a minimum age of 30. c) a minimum of 10 years’ legal experience. d) a neutral political background. e) There are no formal requirements for service as a
federal judge.
Key Term chief justice (p. 600)
Practice Quiz
6. The size of the Supreme Court is determined by a) the president. b) the chief justice. c) the Department of Justice. d) Congress. e) the Constitution.
Key Terms standing (p. 610)
mootness (p. 610)
writ of certiorari (p. 611)
solicitor general (p. 612)
amicus curiae (p. 613)
briefs (p. 615)
oral argument (p. 616)
opinion (p. 616)
dissenting opinion (p. 617)
Most cases reach the Supreme Court by a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court is most likely to grant a writ of certiorari to cases that involve conflicting decisions by the federal circuit courts, cases that present important questions of civil rights or civil liberties, and cases in which the federal govern- ment is the appellant. Much of the Supreme Court’s power in the American political system comes from its power to invali- date actions taken by the legislative and executive branches of government if these actions violate the Constitution.
The Supreme Court in Action
Describe the process the Supreme Court follows in the exercise of its power of judicial review (pp. 610–18)
STUDY GU IDE 627
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 627 27/11/18 12:39 PM
Block, Frederick. Disrobed: An Inside Look at the Life and Work of a Federal Trial Judge. New york: Westlaw, 2012.
Breyer, Stephen. The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities. New york: Knopf, 2015.
Baum, Lawrence. Ideology in the Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017.
Baum, Lawrence. The Supreme Court. 12th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2015.
he or she would be considered an advocate of which judicial philosophy? a) judicial restraint b) judicial activism c) stare decisis d) judicial liberalism e) judicial conservatism
14. Which of the following procedures adopted by the federal courts after 1960 fundamentally expanded the power of the judiciary in the United States? a) banning the practice of “fee shifting” b) prohibiting the courts from acting on behalf of broad
categories of persons in “class-action” cases c) expanding the concept of standing to permit almost
any group that seeks to challenge the actions of an administrative agency to bring its case before the federal bench
d) creating a “Department of Judicial Enforcement” to independently implement the federal judiciary’s decisions
e) granting federal courts the ability to exercise power on their own initiative through the issuance of “mootness” rulings
Through most of American history, the federal courts avoided confrontations with the other branches of govern- ment and worked primarily to provide support for executive actions and congressional laws by declaring them to be consistent with constitutional principles. During the 1960s and ’70s the federal courts liberalized the concept of stand- ing, broadened the scope of relief courts could provide, and began to employ structural remedies. As a result of these changes, the power of the federal court system expanded dramatically.
Key Terms judicial restraint (p. 619)
judicial activism (p. 619)
class-action suit (p. 622)
Practice Quiz
13. If a justice refuses to go beyond the clear words of the Constitution in interpreting the document’s meaning,
Explaining Supreme Court Decisions
Consider the personal and political influences on judges and the courts (pp. 618–24)
For Further Reading
11. Which of the following play an important role in shaping the flow of cases heard by the Supreme Court? a) the attorney general and the secretary of state b) the solicitor general and federal law clerks c) the president and Congress d) state legislatures e) the federal district and circuit courts
12. Which of the following is a brief submitted to the Supreme Court by someone other than one of the parties in the case? a) amicus curiae brief b) writ of habeas corpus c) writ of certiorari d) dissenting opinion e) de jure brief
Practice Quiz
10. Which of the following is not included as a “special and compelling” reason to hear a case under Rule 10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States? a) the president of the United States authors an
amicus curiae brief on the issue in question b) a circuit court decision on the issue in question
conflicts with previous Supreme Court decisions c) there are conflicting decisions by two or more state
courts of last resort on the issue in question d) there are conflicting decisions between circuit courts
and state courts of last resort on the issue in question e) there are conflicting decisions by two or more circuit
courts on the issue in question
CHAPTER 15 STUDy GU IDE628
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 628 27/11/18 12:39 PM
Concourts www.concourts.net
The U.S. Supreme Court has the responsibility for exami- ning and interpreting the Constitution. The Concourts website assumes a comparative perspective and looks at systems of constitutional review in over 150 countries.
FindLaw www.findlaw.com
FindLaw’s website provides answers to most legal questions and helps individuals find legal counsel.
Justice Talking www.justicetalking.org
Justice Talking is a public radio program that examines current legal issues and important court cases.
Legal Information Institute www.law.cornell.edu
The Legal Information Institute at Cornell University is a wonderful website for conducting legal research.
Office of the Solicitor General www.usdoj.gov/osg
The solicitor general conducts litigation on behalf of the U.S. Supreme Court and has a tremendous amount of
Recommended Websites
control over the cases that it hears. See what cases are currently being considered by this powerful official of the Justice Department.
U.S. Courts www.uscourts.gov
The U.S. court system consists of trial, appellate, and supreme courts. The U.S. Courts website provides a look at the different types of courts in the federal judiciary.
U.S. Supreme Court www.supremecourtus.gov
The website for the U.S. Supreme Court provides information on recent decisions. Take a moment to read some oral arguments, briefs, or court opinions.
U.S. Supreme Court Media www.oyez.org
The website for U.S. Supreme Court Media has a great search engine for finding information on such landmark cases as Marbury v. Madison, Miranda v. Arizona, and Roe v. Wade.
Rossum, Ralph. Antonin Scalia’s Jurisprudence. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006.
Stevens, John Paul. Five Chiefs: A Supreme Court Memoir. Boston: Little, Brown, 2011.
Sunstein, Cass. Are Judges Political? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2006.
Toobin, Jeffrey. The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. New york: Anchor Books, 2008.
Toobin, Jeffrey. The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court. New york: Anchor Books, 2013.
Trachtman, Michael. The Supreme Court’s Greatest Hits: The 44 Supreme Court Cases That Most Directly Affect Your Life. 3rd ed. New york: Sterling, 2016.
Tribe, Lawrence. Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the Constitution. New york: Picador, 2015.
Urofsky, Melvin. Dissent and the Supreme Court: Its Role in the Court’s History and the Nation’s Constitutional Dialogue. New york: Pantheon, 2015.
Whittington, Keith. Political Foundations of Judicial Supre macy: The President, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.
Chermerinsky, Erwin. Closing the Courthouse Door: How Your Constitutional Rights Became Unenforceable. New Haven, CT: yale University Press, 2017.
Cross, Frank. Decision Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007.
Greenhouse, Linda. The U.S. Supreme Court: A Very Short Introduction. New york: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Hirshman, Linda. Sisters in Law: How Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Went to the Supreme Court and Changed the World. New york: Harper, 2015.
Peppers, Todd, and Artemus Ward. In Chambers: Stories of Supreme Court Law Clerks and Their Justices. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2012.
Posner, Richard. Reflections on Judging. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013.
Posner, Richard A. The Federal Judiciary: Strengths and Weak nesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017.
Raskin, Jamin B. We the Students: Supreme Court Decisions for and about Students. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2003.
Rosenberg, Gerald. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring about Social Change? 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
STUDY GU IDE 629
wtp12e_ptr_ch15_590-629.indd 629 27/11/18 12:39 PM
Government and the Economy
161616 chapter
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS Imagine that the beer from your craft brewery was declared one of the best in the
world by a prominent consumer website. Also imag-
ine that demand is so great that liquor stores in
your home state have to impose a six-bottle ration
per purchase. You would want to expand production,
right? But for Three Floyds Brewing Co. of Munster,
Indiana, that’s not so easy. A 1935 alcohol distri-
bution law, passed just as Prohibition was ending,
created a middleman—distributors—between alcohol
makers and retailers (most states have similar laws).
The law was intended to be a “brake in the system,
to avoid the unregulated flow of cheap and easily
available alcohol,” according to the head of the Indiana
Beverage Alliance, which represents the state’s
25 wholesale beer distributors. It does advantage
the state—and the distributors—by centralizing dis-
tribution and tax collection. But the problem for small
brewers is that once they produce more than 30,000
barrels per year they can no longer self-distribute and
must give up the tasting rooms and restaurants they
say are necessary to compete with the big national
brands. At Three Floyds, brewmaster Chris Boggess
calls such production caps “stupid” and “arbitrary”
and a hindrance to the brewery’s growth.1
Just getting started as a craft brewer is an uphill
climb, due to many barriers to entry. Prospective
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 630 27/11/18 4:10 PM
Debates about economic policy center around how the government should raise and spend money to promote growth and fairness in the economy. Regulations, like the ones faced by Chris Boggess and Three Floyds Brewing Company, are just one way that the government tries to shape economic outcomes.
brewers must obtain a Brewer’s Notice from the
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) of
the U.S. Department of Treasury, which requires back-
ground checks, equipment inspections, and legal
analyses. Beer formulas, brewing methods, and even
beer labels have to meet regulations from the TTB,
Food and Drug Administration, and, in the case of
organic beer, the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Most states impose a parallel set of regulations.
At the local level the prospective brewer must deal
with zoning, incorporation rules, and tax compliance.
There are fees and wait times associated with many
of these steps. And compliance with all of these reg-
ulations comes on top of the “entry costs” that any
new business faces, such as developing a business
plan and obtaining financing.2
Government can make matters complicated for
both entrepreneurs and existing firms. However,
without government, conducting business would be
impossible. Government creates property rights and
enforces contracts, writes regulations to ensure fair
competition, issues insurance that encourages invest-
ment, provides subsidies, and at times hires private
firms to perform government work on a contractual
basis. Government helps educate workers and builds
the roads, ports, and airports that facilitate commerce.
Thinking about the economy at large, government
leaders have a wide variety of tools they can use to
631
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 631 27/11/18 4:10 PM
boost economic performance, including public spending, tax cuts, and inter-
est rate changes. Since the 1930s in particular, Americans have counted on
the federal government to ensure a prosperous economy. And in 2008 and
2009, the government intervened to combat economic instability and to prevent
the collapse of the financial, insurance, and auto sectors during the Great
Recession. Hence government is deeply involved both in individual businesses
like Three Floyds Brewing and in the broader economy.
As in many policy areas, there are fundamental questions about the role of
the government in the economy. On one side of the spectrum are those who
believe that the government should have a minimal role. Government’s main
purpose should be to set and enforce rules that ensure economic stability. At
the other end of the spectrum are those who want to see the state actively
engaged in shaping economic outcomes. Not only should the government
promote economic growth, according to this perspective, but it should also
step in to protect individuals from economic harm. The government’s role in
the economy should be active, to shape the kind of society we want. Each of
these sentiments has prevailed at one time or another. American economic
policy has historically reflected the belief that individual liberty is the key to a
thriving economy. On the other hand, Americans have periodically demanded
restrictions on market freedoms to protect consumers and the environment.
Although Americans are often uneasy with the idea of government interven-
tion into the market, on balance they show little support for unraveling existing
regulations.
What is government’s role in the economy? Who are the key players in shap-
ing economic policy and what are their goals? What are the rules and institu-
tions that facilitate the economy’s operation? These questions cut to the heart
of what Americans want prosperity and economic opportunity to look like.
★ Identify the broad reasons government gets involved in the economy (pp. 633–41)
★ Explore why economic policy is often controversial (pp. 641–49)
★ Describe how the government uses monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policies to influence the economy (pp. 649–63)
★ Explain why the government tries to balance economic prosperity with policies that protect the environment (pp. 663–67)
CHAPTER GOALS
632 CHAPTER 16 GOvERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 632 27/11/18 4:10 PM
The Goals of Economic Policy The job of this and the next chapter is to step bey ond the politics and the institutions to look at the goals of government: the public policies. Public policy can be defined simply as
an officially expressed purpose or goal backed b y a sanction (a r eward or a punish- ment). Public policy can be embodied in a law, a rule, a regulation, or an order. This chapter will focus on policies aimed at the economy.
At the most basic lev el, government makes it possible for the economy to func - tion efficiently by setting the rules for economic exchange and punishing those who violate those rules. Among the most important rules for the economy are those that define property rights, contracts, and standards for goods. This kind of government rule making allo ws markets to expand b y making it easier for people who do not know each other to engage in economic transactions: they do not hav e to rely only on personal trust to do business. Likewise, government helps markets expand by cre- ating money and standing behind its value. Money allows diverse goods to be traded and greatly simplifies economic transactions. Without government involvement in providing and standardizing a national currency, it would be very difficult to pur- chase such basic items as gr oceries: imagine a world in which different stores used different currencies or in which y ou needed to trade something y ou made yourself for your groceries. This would be a major impediment to economic exchange!
Government involvement in the economy now extends far beyond these basic market-creating functions. G overnment has become inv olved in many aspects of the economy in or der to pr omote the public w ell-being. Of course, ther e is often vigorous disagreement about the extent to which go vernment should inter vene in the economy. Further, beliefs about which forms of government intervention in the economy are most necessary and most effective have changed over time. Although the policies have changed, government intervention in the economy has, for nearly a century, sought to achieve four fundamental goals: (1) to pr omote economic sta- bility, (2) to stimulate economic growth, (3) to promote business development, and (4) to protect employees and consumers.
PROMOTING STABLE MARKETS
One of the central r easons for go vernment involvement in the economy is to pr otect the w elfare and pr operty of individuals and businesses. M aintaining law and or der is one of the most important ways go vernment can pr otect welfare and pr operty. The federal government has also enacted laws designed to pr o- tect individuals and businesses in economic transactions. Federal racketeering laws, for example, aim to end criminal efforts to contr ol businesses thr ough such illegal means as extor tion and kickbacks.
Another r eason that Congr ess began to adopt national busi - ness regulatory policies was that companies felt bur dened by the inconsistent regulations across the various states. Companies often preferred a single, national r egulatory authority, no matter ho w
Identify the broad reasons government gets involved in the economy
public policy a law, rule, statute, or edict that expresses the government’s goals and provides for rewards and punishments to promote those goals’ attainment
At the most basic level, govern- ment’s role in the economy is to make it easier for markets to function. The government sets rules for doing business, creates money, and backs its value—functions that influence even the simplest economic transactions, such as buying groceries at a typical farmer’s market.
633THE GOAlS OF ECONOMIC POl ICY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 633 27/11/18 4:10 PM
burdensome, because it would ensure consistency throughout the United States; the companies could ther eby treat the nation as a single market.3
The government also pr omotes economic stability b y providing public goods. This term refers to facilities the state provides because no single par ticipant can afford to pr ovide those facilities. The provision of public goods may entail supplying the physical mar - ketplace itself—such as the commons in N ew England towns or an interstate highway system to stimulate the tr ucking industry. The provision of public goods is essential to mar ket operation,
and the manner in which the go vernment pr ovides these goods will affect the market’s character.
PROMOTING ECONOMIC PROSPERITY
In addition to setting the basic conditions that allo w mar kets to function, go v- ernments may activ ely inter vene in the economy to pr omote economic gr owth. Although the idea that government should stimulate economic growth can be traced back to Alexander Hamilton’s views about promoting industry, it was not until the twentieth century that the federal government assumed such a role.
Measuring Economic Growth Since the 1930s the federal go vernment has care- fully tracked national economic gr owth by measuring it in sev eral different ways. The two most important measures are the gross national product, which is the mar- ket value of the goods and services produced in the economy, and the gross domestic product (GDP), the same measure but excluding income from foreign investments. In the late 1990s the American economy grew at a rate of over 4 percent a year, consid- ered high by modern standards (see Figure 16.1). Growth was slower during the first decade of the 2000s, av eraging 1.9 percent annually. This was largely the result of two recessions: one early after the turn of the century and one that began in 2008. In the middle part of the decade (2003–7), the economy gr ew at a strong 2.8 percent annually.4 As F igure 16.1 sho ws, the r ecession that began in 2008 led to negativ e economic growth in 2008 and 2009. Although the economy began to gr ow again after 2010, it remained below the high levels of growth experienced in the 1990s.
The engine of American economic growth has shifted over the centuries. In the 1800s the nation’s rich endowment of natural resources was especially important in propelling growth. Manufacturing industries became the driving force of economic growth during the late nineteenth centur y as mass pr oduction made it possible to manufacture goods at a pace that was once unimaginable. I n more recent times, the high-technology boom foster ed unanticipated and vigor ous economic gr owth that made the U nited S tates the envy of the world. D espite these v ery different economic engines, the basic prerequisites of growth were similar in each case: strong investment, technological innovation, and a productive workforce. Throughout the nation’s histor y, the federal go vernment has adopted policies to pr omote each of these conditions needed to sustain economic growth.
The most fundamental way that government affects investment is by promoting business as well as investor and consumer confidence. When businesses fear political instability, unpr edictable government action, or widespr ead disr egard of the law , they are unlikely to invest. When consumers are insecure about the future, they are unlikely to spend.
public goods goods or services that are provided by the government because they either are not supplied by the market or are not supplied in sufficient quantities
gross domestic product (GDP) the total value of goods and services produced within a country
The interstate highway system is an important public good provided by the government to support the economy. While almost everyone benefits from the highway system, no single participant could afford to provide it alone.
634 CHAPTER 16 GOvERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 634 27/11/18 4:10 PM
The federal government also pr omotes inv estment thr ough its r egulation of financial markets. The most important federal agency in this r egard is the S ecu- rities and E xchange Commission (SEC), cr eated after the stock mar ket crash of 1929. The SEC requires companies to disclose information about the stocks and bonds they are selling, inform buyers of the investment risks, and protect investors against fraud. In this way the SEC helps maintain investor confidence and a strong supply of capital for American business. The SEC received harsh criticism during the financial crisis in 2008. Analysts pointed to weak SEC oversight and regulation as an important factor in the near collapse of the financial sector. Major financial reforms, including the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, substantially beefed up the SEC’s enforcement capabilities and required the agency to take the lead in implementing many of the key r egulations.5 However, a May 2018 law passed b y Congress and signed by President Trump eliminated some of the ne w regulations, especially for smaller banks.6
Public investment is another impor tant source of growth in the American eco - nomy. In the 1930s and again in the late 1970s the federal go vernment promoted public inv estment as a means to spar k economic growth. S ome kinds of public investment promote growth as a by-product of other, more central objectives. One of the most impor tant of these is spending on the nation ’s defense. Many analysts credited the rise in military spending associated with the war in Iraq with helping to spur economic growth in 2003.
The second important condition for economic growth is innovation. The fed- eral go vernment has sought to suppor t inno vation in a v ariety of ways. O ne of the most important is through the National Science Foundation. Created in 1950, the National Science F oundation suppor ts basic r esearch acr oss a range of fields in order to adv ance fundamental kno wledge that may be br oadly useful.7 Federal
FIGURE 16.1
Changes in Real Gross Domestic Product, 1960–2017 The rates of growth in gross domestic product have varied over time. They were particularly volatile during the 1980s as the economy first plunged into recession and then rapidly recovered with high rates of growth. What was the pattern of growth during the last five presidential election years?
SOURCE: Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Gross Domestic Product: Percent Change from Preceding Period” (gdpchg.xls), July 27, 2018, www.bea.gov/ national (accessed 7/27/18).
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 20202015 –4
–2
0
2
4
6
8 During the 1990s, the country experienced relatively high stable economic growth.
Growth plunged during the recession of the early 1980s, after the Federal Reserve sharply increased interest rates in order to control in�ation.
The recession that began in 2008 produced sharply negative growth in 2009, which made it the most severe downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
635THE GOAlS OF ECONOMIC POl ICY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 635 27/11/18 4:10 PM
government sponsorship of health r esearch began in the late 1800s. Today, the National I nstitutes of H ealth (NIH) conducts basic and applied r esearch in biomedicine. The Human Genome Project—the effort to map the basic genetic struc- ture of human life—was initiated b y government researchers and only later taken up by private corporations. Recently, the NIH has taken the lead in basic r esearch to counter bioterrorism. Its efforts to understand the biology of v arious infectious agents and to dev elop vaccines are expected to pr oduce important new knowledge about the human immune system. Research sponsored by the military has long been an important source of innovation for the American economy. Such key twentieth- century innovations as radar and nuclear po wer stemmed fr om military research. And as we saw in Chapter 14, militar y research also created the technology for the twenty-first century with ARPANET, the precursor to the internet.
A third fundamental condition for economic growth is a sufficient and productive workforce. Federal immigration policy has played a key role in ensuring an adequate supply of labor throughout American history. Immigration laws routinely give special priority to workers who have skills that are in demand among American employers. Immigrants with nursing degrees, for example, have long received special priority.
Today, a productive workforce is a highly educated workforce. Education, as we will see in Chapter 17, is primarily the responsibility of state and local governments. The federal government, however, supports the development of a productive work- force with a v ariety of programs to promote higher education, such as educational grants, tax breaks, and loans. The federal government also sponsors a limited array of job-training programs that focus primarily on low-skilled workers. Some analysts argue that the federal government must do much more to support the development of a highly skilled wor kforce if the United States is to sustain economic gr owth in the future.
As a way of promoting economic prosperity, the government subsi- dizes scientific and technological research. The precursor to the internet, ARPAnet (left), was funded by the U.S. military. The National Institute of Health (right) has recently focused its attention on fighting bioterrorism and infectious diseases like Zika.
636 CHAPTER 16 GOvERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 636 27/11/18 4:10 PM
Full Employment Before the 1930s neither the federal government nor the state gov- ernments sought to pr omote full employment. Unemployment was widely vie wed as an unfor tunate occurr ence that go vernment could do little to alter . The New Deal response to the prolonged and massive unemployment of the Great Depression changed that view. The federal government put millions of people back to work on public projects sponsored by such programs as the Works Progress Administration. The bridges, parks, and buildings they constructed can still be seen across the United States today. The federal government viewed these programs as temporary measures, however. As the buildup for World War II boosted the economy and unemployment melted away, the employment programs were dismantled.
The New Deal and go vernment wartime spending, ho wever, showed that go v- ernment could help ensur e full employment. Public expectations changed as w ell: after the war , Americans looked to the federal go vernment to r educe unemploy- ment. Moreover, economic theory now supported their expectations. John Maynard Keynes’s theories that government could boost employment by stimulating demand had become very influential.
Federal policy placed the most emphasis on achieving full emplo yment during the 1960s. Keynesian economists—who believe that putting money in the hands of consumers cr eates a str ong economy—in the Council of E conomic A dvisers persuaded President Kennedy to enact the first tax cut designed to stimulate the economy and promote full employment.8 The policy was widely seen as a success, and unemployment declined to a lo w of 3.4 per cent in 1968. Favorable economic conditions in the 1990s reduced unemployment to record lows once again.
The worldwide economic recession of 2008 led to the loss of o ver 8 million American jobs. The Obama administration and Congr ess responded by passing a sweeping stimulus package called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009, to help encourage economic growth, save existing jobs, and make longer-term investments that would encourage job cr eation, such as in w eatherization projects and clean-technology construction. Despite these actions, it was not until 2016 that the unemployment rates dipped below 5 percent.
Low Inflation During the 1970s and early 1980s inflation, a consis- tent increase in the general level of prices, was one of America’s most vexing pr oblems. Rising prices harm consumers, especially those on a fixed income such as the elderly . Inflation also undermines the entire economy because it cr eates uncer tainty about futur e prices, making investors cautious. Inflation was finally reduced from its his- toric highs of nearly 20 percent down toward 2 and 3 percent a year by the mid-1980s. Since that time, inflation has remained low. Even so, economic policy makers watch prices closely for any sign of increasing inflation.
PROMOTING BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
During the nineteenth centur y, the national go vernment promoted the development of impor tant markets that ev entually contributed significantly to the U.S. GDP. National roads and canals w ere built to tie states and r egions together. National tariff policies promoted domestic markets by restricting imported goods; a tax on an impor t raised its price and w eakened its ability to compete with similar
inflation a consistent increase in the general level of prices
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Why does the unemployment rate matter for the economic health of the country? What policies has the government pursued in the past to help promote employment? What other policies could the government implement?
One reason unemployment rose after 2008 was that numerous companies went out of business. Chrysler laid off thousands of employees before filing for bank- ruptcy in 2009, when the U.S. government paid $4 billion to bail the company out.
637THE GOAlS OF ECONOMIC POl ICY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 637 27/11/18 4:10 PM
domestic products. The national government also heavily subsidiz ed the railr oad system. Until the 1840s railroads were thought to be of limited commer cial value. But betw een 1850 and 1872, Congr ess granted mor e than 100 million acr es of public-domain land to railr oad interests, and state and local go vernments pitched in an estimated $280 million in cash and cr edit. Before the end of the centur y, 35,000 miles of track existed, almost half the world’s total at the time.
Railroads were not the only clients of federal suppor t for the priv ate markets. Many sectors of agriculture began receiving federal subsidies during the nineteenth century. Agriculture remains highly subsidiz ed to this day. In 2017, 46 per cent of farms in the U nited States r eceived subsidies totaling $13.2 billion. 9 One of the many criticisms of the farm subsidy pr ogram is that it dispr oportionately supports large-scale farmers rather than small family farmers. The list of farm subsidy recipi- ents includes many large corporations.
The national government also promotes business development indirectly through categorical grants (see Chapter 3), by which the federal government offers grants to states on condition that the state (or local) government undertake a particular activity. Thus, in order to use motor transportation to improve national markets, a 900,000-mile national highway system was built during the 1930s, based on a formula wher eby the national go vernment would pay 50 per cent of the cost if the state pr ovided the other 50 per cent. Over 20 y ears, beginning in the late 1950s, the federal go vernment constr ucted an additional 45,000 miles of interstate highways. I n this pr ogram, the national go vernment agreed to pay 90 per cent of the constr uction costs on the condition that each state pr ovide 10 percent of the costs of any portion of a highway built within its boundaries.10 The tremendous growth of highways was a major boon to the automobile and trucking industries.
The federal government supports specific business sectors with direct subsidies, loans, and tax br eaks. In 1953 the S mall Business Administration was cr eated to offer loans, loan guarantees, and disaster assistance to small businesses. Recognizing
categorical grants congressional grants given to states and localities on the condition that expenditures be limited to a problem or group specified by the law
Since the early nineteenth century, the government has been an important promoter of business development in the United States. Then, governments gave railroad companies land to development rail service. More recently, the government has incentivized businesses to develop “green” technolo- gies such electric or fuel-efficient automobiles.
638 CHAPTER 16 GOvERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 638 27/11/18 4:10 PM
that such businesses often find it harder to obtain financing and to recover from unexpected ev ents such as fires, the federal go vernment has pr ovided assistance where the mar ket would not. Today the S mall Business Administration provides more than $44 billion in such assistance to small businesses.11
Among the many contemporary examples of policies promoting private indus- try, Sematech may be the most instr uctive. Sematech is a nonpr ofit research and development consortium of major U.S. computer microchip manufacturers, set up in 1987 to wor k with go vernment and academic institutions to r eestablish U.S. leadership in semiconductor manufacturing. (The United States appeared to be in danger of losing out to the Japanese in this area during the 1980s.) The results of its research were distributed among the consortium members.12 For nine years, indus- try and go vernment together spent $1.7 billion to make the American micr ochip industry the leader in the world. The government contributed about half of the total expenditures. In 1997 federal funding was phased out. I ndustry leaders, convinced they no longer needed federal suppor t, initiated the br eak with go vernment. At a critical moment, the federal government had stepped in to save the chip industry; it stepped out once that goal had been achieved.
Since September 11, 2001, the federal government has taken on a major r ole in promoting technological inno vation r elated to national security . Even befor e the September 11 terrorist attacks, the CIA had set up its own venture capital firm, In-Q-Tel (the Q stands for a character in the J ames Bond mo vies), to inv est in high-tech start-ups whose wor k could enhance intelligence efforts. More recently, the federal go vernment has aimed to suppor t the alternativ e energy industr y. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 greatly increased the number and cost of tax credits and loan programs for renewable and efficient energy technologies. As the recession hit, Washington stepped up its efforts to suppor t the alternativ e energy industr y, see- ing it as a way to expand economic gr owth in an emerging sector . The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 expanded subsidies and created a new program allowing com- panies to receive a one-time cash grant in lieu of tax credits. Between 2015 and 2019 the federal go vernment was pr ojected to spend $46.5 billion in tax-related support for the pr oduction of r enewable energy, as w ell as an additional $3.1 billion to support energy efficiency.13 The Trump administration’s fiscal year 2018 budget proposal sought a 70 per cent cut in funding for the D epartment of E nergy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, but Congr ess pushed back b y fully funding the office in the FY 2018 spending bill it passed in March 2018.14
PROTECTING EMPLOYEES AND CONSUMERS
Stable relations between business and labor ar e important elements of a pr oductive economy. D uring the latter half of the nineteenth cen - tury, strikes o ver low wages or wor king conditions became a standar d feature of American economic life. I n fact, the U nited States has one of the most violent histories of labor r elations in the world. Yet for most of American histor y, the federal go vernment did little to r egu- late relations between business and labor. Local governments and courts often w eighed in on the side of business b y pr ohibiting strikes and arresting strikers.
In the wake of the Great Recession, President Obama established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to help protect consumers from unfair practices by banks and other financial companies. The CFPB was originally headed by Elizabeth Warren (left).
639THE GOAlS OF ECONOMIC POl ICY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 639 27/11/18 4:10 PM
As the economic depression enveloped the United States in the 1930s, plum- meting wages and massive strikes for union recognition prompted Congress to pass the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, which set up a ne w framework for industrial relations. The new law created a permanent agency, the National Labor Relations Board, charged with overseeing union elections and collective bargain- ing between labor and industr y. The federal government weighed in fur ther on the side of organiz ed labor in 1938, when it passed the F air Labor S tandards Act, which cr eated the minimum wage. B ecause it is not index ed to inflation, the v alue of the minimum wage declines if it is not raised periodically . S ince 1938 conflicts over increasing the minimum wage hav e been a r egular feature of American politics. The federal minimum wage reached its highest value in 1968. It was last raised in 2009 but since then has lost nearly 10 per cent of its value to inflation.15
During the 1950s and ’60s the federal government played an active role in indus- trial relations. The Department of Labor and occasionally even the president directly intervened in labor–management disputes to ensur e peaceful industrial r elations. Although D emocrats w ere generally seen as mor e suppor tive of labor , both par - ties sought to achiev e a balance betw een business and labor that would pr omote a strong, stable economy.
President Reagan made a decisive break with this tradition of compromise in 1981, when he fired striking air traffic controllers (who were federal employees) and hir ed permanent r eplacements to take their jobs, effectively ceding mor e power to emplo yers. Politicians ar e now much less likely to inter vene in labor relations.
Economic policies also protect consumers. The idea that the federal government should protect consumers emerged in the first decade of the 1900s. Upton Sinclair’s graphic exposé of the meatpacking industry, The Jungle (1906), galvanized pub- lic concern about unsanitar y food pr ocessing. These concerns prompted the U.S. Department of Agriculture to inspect packing plants and the meat they produced, stamping approved meats with the now-familiar “USDA” certification. Similar con- cern about the safety of food, dr ugs, and cosmetics led to the cr eation of the Food and Drug Administration in 1927.
Federal agencies help ensure safe products. Recently, hoverboard manufactures have come under scrutiny by the Consumer Product Safety Commission when it was reported that some hoverboards were catching fire while charging.
640 CHAPTER 16 GOvERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 640 27/11/18 4:10 PM
The movement for consumer pr otection took off again in the 1960s. The con- sumer advocate Ralph N ader’s 1965 book Unsafe at A ny Speed helped spar k new demands for federal action. Nader’s book showed that design flaws in the Corvair, a popular car model, had caused deaths that could have been prevented. Nader’s book not only led to the demise of the Corvair but also mobilized calls for more federal action to protect consumers. The first response was the 1966 N ational Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which gave the Department of Transportation responsi- bility for ensuring vehicle safety. Federal responsibility for consumer safety expanded in 1972, when Congr ess cr eated the Consumer P roduct S afety Commission, an independent agency that informs consumers about hazards associated with products and works with industr y to set pr oduct standards. In cases wher e safety concerns are severe, the commission will see that such pr oducts ar e recalled. Through the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Department of Transportation, and the Food and Drug Administration, the federal government continues to play an active role in protecting the public from unsafe products.
Federal agencies ar e active in ensuring safe pr oducts. In 2016 the Consumer Product Safety Commission sent a letter to ho verboard manufacturers, importers, and retailers noting 52 reported fires, including the destruction of two homes and an automobile. The CPSC warned that self-balancing scooters whose batteries do not meet test r equirements could be subject to r ecall or seizur e.16 A number of retailers decided to stop selling ho verboards as a r esult, although the v oluntary nature of the safety r ules means that potentially danger ous hoverboards are still available for purchase.
The Politics of Economic Policy Making All politicians want a healthy eco - nomy, but they often differ in their views about ho w to attain it. Addressing economic challenges and
maintaining a str ong economy ar e extr emely impor tant to political leaders. As presidents fr om Herbert Hoover (who pr esided over the beginning of the G reat Depression of the 1930s) to J immy Car ter (who faced double-digit inflation) discovered, voters will punish politicians for poor economic per formance. In the 50 y ears that follo wed the G reat Depression and the federal government’s first big steps into the economy, politicians from both parties agreed that the govern- ment played an important role in ensuring a str ong economy, though they often disagreed about what priorities should guide economic policy . Democrats gen - erally expressed more concern about unemplo yment than did R epublicans, who focused more on reducing budget deficits. In the 1980s, however, the differences between the parties on economic policy became much more fundamental. While Democrats and R epublicans alike embraced a smaller r ole for the go vernment in the economy, growing numbers of R epublicans began to r eject the idea that government should inter vene in the economy at all. I nstead, they argued that a free market was the best way to ensure economic prosperity. Democrats continued to believe that economic prosperity required government action. Once in power, however, parties acted very differently. Budget deficits have soared under Repub- lican presidents since the 1980s, and D emocrats have often taken limited action for fear of upsetting the markets.
Explore why economic policy is often controversial
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS What does the American government do to ensure that the products Americans buy are safe? What challenges does it face in making certain that products are safe?
641THE POl I T ICS OF ECONOMIC POl ICY MAk ING
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 641 27/11/18 4:10 PM
HOW MUCH SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT INTERVENE IN THE ECONOMY?
Until 1929 most Americans believed that government had little to do with actively managing the economy. The world was guided b y the theory—called laissez-faire economics—that the economy, if left to its own devices, would produce full employ- ment and maximum production. This traditional view of the relationship between government and the economy crumbled in 1929 before the stark reality of the Great Depression of 1929–39. Some misfortune befell nearly everyone. Around 20 per- cent of the wor kforce became unemplo yed, and fe w of these individuals had any monetary r esources or the old family farm to fall back on. B anks failed, wiping out the savings of millions who had been pr udent enough or for tunate enough to have any. Thousands of businesses closed, throwing middle-class Americans onto the bread lines alongside unemployed laborers and dispossessed farmers. The Great Depression proved to Americans that the economic system was not, in fact, perfectly self-regulating, as had been generally believed.
Demands grew for the federal government to act. In Congress, some Democrats proposed that the federal government finance public works to aid the economy and put people back to work. Other members introduced legislation to provide federal grants to the states to assist their relief efforts.
When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in 1933, he energetically threw the federal go vernment into the business of fighting the Depression. H e proposed a variety of temporar y measures to provide federal relief and work pro- grams. Most of the programs he proposed were to be financed by the federal gov- ernment but administered by the states. In addition to these temporary measures, Roosevelt presided over the creation of several important federal programs designed to provide future economic security for Americans. Since that time, the public has held the go vernment, and the pr esident in par ticular, responsible for ensuring a healthy economy.
After World War II, Republicans and Democrats broadly agreed that Keynesian ideas, such as r unning deficits during periods of recession to stimulate demand, could best guide economic policy . By the 1960s Keynesians believed that economic policy did not need to provoke political controversy because they could ensure ongo- ing pr osperity b y “fine-tuning” the economy . D emocrats and R epublicans often disagreed about how much the go vernment should do to alleviate unemplo yment or inflation, but they shared a pragmatic view that government intervention could solve economic problems. The question about whether and how government should intervene in the economy appeared settled.
Partisan Divisions over the Government Role in the Economy By the 1980s the broad consensus about the role of the government in the economy had evaporated. Growing numbers of Republicans began to r eject the idea that government could help ensure economic pr osperity. Instead, they argued that fr eeing markets from government inter vention would pr oduce the best economic r esults. As R onald Reagan put it in his first inaugural address, “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”17
Thus, the ideas of laissez-faire capitalism began to make a comeback in American politics. These arguments were first elaborated in the late 1700s by the great Scottish economist Adam Smith. Smith believed that most government involvement in the economy (such as the government-authorized monopolies that dominated trade in
Keynesians followers of the economic theories of John Maynard keynes, who argued that the government can stimulate the economy by increasing public spending or by cutting taxes
laissez-faire capitalism an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately owned and operated for profit with minimal or no government interference
642 CHAPTER 16 GOvERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 642 27/11/18 4:10 PM
his day) suppressed economic growth. Instead, he argued that competition among free enterprises would unleash economic energy , fostering growth and innovation. In his view, the self-seeking behavior of individuals, when subject to the discipline of market competition, would cr eate products that consumers wanted at the best possible price. Smith praised “the invisible hand” of the market, by which he meant that millions of individual economic transactions together cr eate a greater good— far better than the go vernment could cr eate. Smith believed that the go vernment role should be r estricted to national defense, establishing law and or der (including the protection of private property), and providing basic public goods (such as roads) that facilitate commerce.
Although only a fe w politicians would entir ely r emove go vernment fr om the economy, Republicans today draw on the ideas of laisse z-faire economics as they argue for significant reductions in nonmilitary spending. Many Democrats, on the other hand, str ess the impor tant role of go vernment in pr omoting a str ong eco - nomy. This fundamental disagreement between the parties over the appropriate role of government underlies the fierce contemporary political debates over the govern- ment role in taxes, spending, and economic regulation.
Taxes Today some of the most intense conflicts between Democrats and R epub- licans concern tax es. As R epublicans embraced the idea that r educing the r ole of government in the economy would promote investment and spur economic growth, they made tax cuts their highest priority . Rejecting Keynesian ideas, they adopted the idea of supply-side economics. This approach maintains that lo wer tax rates cre- ate incentives for more productive and efficient use of resources. When individuals know they can keep mor e of their earnings, they ar e more likely to be pr oductive workers and creative investors. In this perspective, low taxes are not just a temporary measure to stimulate the economy; taxes should remain low at all times to ensure a growing economy.
Because no one really likes to pay taxes, Republican support for tax cuts creates a political dilemma for Democrats. How can they defend tax es? Polls show that most of the time—although less often after the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003—a major- ity of Americans think that their tax es are too high.18 Aware of the political damage that might come fr om opposing tax cuts, many D emocratic members of Congr ess have supported tax cuts. But because most Democrats favor higher levels of public spending than do Republicans, they ultimately need taxes to fund government programs. To resolve this political pr oblem, Demo- crats have sought to increase taxes on the wealthy. One relia- ble finding in public opinion polls is that the majority of Americans agree that neither corporations nor upper-income people pay their fair shar e of taxes.19 However, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed by the Republican-led Congress and signed by President Trump in 2017 cut corporate taxes and lowered taxes for indi- viduals, with the largest reductions going to high earners.20
Spending Government spending is another ar ea where the two par ties have locked horns. Contending
supply-side economics an economic theory that posits that reducing the marginal rate of taxation will create a productive economy by promoting levels of work and investment that would otherwise be discouraged by higher taxes
“Supply-siders” argue that reducing tax rates will spur economic growth as people are able to spend and invest more of their money. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan— shown here holding an oversize tax form—sought to simplify the tax laws and reduce taxes.
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 643 27/11/18 4:10 PM
that the federal go vernment has become too big, R epublicans argue for r educed government spending. In their view, big government is not only wasteful but also a drag on the economy. Moreover, fiscal conservatives argue, excessive spending cre- ates deficits, which can harm the economy. It is not hard to convince Americans that government spending is wasteful or that go vernment is too big or that deficits are bad. When asked, a majority of Americans r egularly say they would pr efer a smaller government with fe wer services (although in 2017 slightly mor e said they would prefer a bigger go vernment with mor e ser vices—48 percent, compared to 45 percent preferring smaller government).21
Yet, polls reveal little support for cutting specific government programs.22 In fact, the public sho ws the str ongest suppor t for the most expensiv e government programs. Social Security, which provides pensions to the elderly, and Medicare, which supplies health insurance for the elderly , are both politically popular . Only the most ar dent spending foes among R epublicans have argued for cutting these programs. Indeed, in 2003 R epublicans agreed to a major expansion in M edicare spending by adding a prescription drug benefit to the program. And recent propos- als from Republican Paul Ryan to cut Medicare spending by transforming it into a voucher program went nowhere. The popularity of these programs reflects the fact that government provides real benefits to real people. D emocrats support govern- ment spending on education, infrastructure, health care, and other public programs. They believe that taking away these pr ograms will deny economic oppor tunities to Americans and hurt the national economy.
Because neither party wishes to cut big, expensive, popular programs and because tax increases have been so difficult to enact, budget deficits have grown periodi - cally over the past three decades. Democratic critics and most economists point to rising deficits as proof that supply-side economics does not wor k; they argue that the economy would be better off without tax cuts. Some go fur ther, arguing that Republicans deliberately r educed taxes in or der to win suppor t for spending cuts. This strategy, called “starving the beast,” suggests that spending cuts would become more popular in the face of rising deficits.23
Because it is politically difficult to raise taxes or reduce big-spending programs, most cuts have fallen on smaller programs, often those administered by the states. This is what happened in 2013 after a Republican and D emocratic standoff over the deficit led to a set of cuts applied to smaller programs. Unusually, in 2013 these spending reductions also applied to militar y spending. The 2015 budget deal, a complex compromise between Republicans and Democrats, avoided cutting small programs b y raising spending and making targeted cuts in entitlements. E ven so, spending for small pr ograms has fallen quite significantly since 2010. Non- defense discretionary spending includes ev erything the government does outside of defense and mandatory programs such as S ocial Security and Medicare; for 2018 such spending was 16 per cent below the 2010 lev el in inflation-adjusted terms, the lowest lev el as a shar e of the economy ev er r ecorded, with data going back to 1962.24
Economic Regulation The federal government r egulates business to achieve a broad range of objectives, including economic stability, workplace safety, wages and hours, consumer satisfaction, and environmental goals. Economic regulation often attracts intense political conflict as businesses seek to limit the government r ole and other inter ests press for str onger government action. D emocrats have usually
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS How does government spending hurt the economy? How does government spending help the economy?
644 CHAPTER 16 GOvERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 644 27/11/18 4:10 PM
been more favorable toward government regulation than hav e Republicans. Each party can point to public-opinion polls to support its position. Public views about regulation shift o ver time, but on the whole, Americans agr ee with the statement that government regulation of business does more harm than good.25 However, as is the case for spending, Americans tend to express strong support for maintaining or even strengthening current regulations. Only a small percentage of Americans want to roll back existing regulations.
One area of r egulation that sharply divides the par ties is the minimum wage. As w e hav e seen, the minimum wage was first enacted in 1938 as part of the Fair Labor S tandards A ct. B ecause it is not index ed to rise with inflation (see Figure 16.2), it has become a r egular target of political conflict as supporters aim to raise it to keep pace with inflation. Most Americans strongly support an increase in the minimum wage, with 59 percent of Americans supporting a boost in the minimum wage in 2017. 26 Respondents who identify as D emocrats are far mor e likely to back an incr eased minimum wage, but about half of R epublicans polled also express support.27
FIGURE 16.2
The Minimum Wage, 1968–2018 The federal government and most U.S. states have minimum-wage laws. The minimum wage has increased over time across the United States. However, near-constant inflation during this time period has reduced the real value of these wages, so the purchasing power of the minimum wage has declined. How do the data in this graph relate to arguments for or against a higher federal minimum wage?
SOURCES: Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, “History of Federal Minimum Wage Rates under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 1968–2009,” www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm#. UNuMXXeDmSo (accessed 11/1/17).
$0.00
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
$12.00
1968 1978 1988 1998 2008 2018
Nominal federal minimum wage
Real (2017 dollars)
645THE POl I T ICS OF ECONOMIC POl ICY MAk ING
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 645 27/11/18 4:10 PM
In 2014, P resident Obama signed an ex ecutive order increasing the minimum wage for federal contractors to $10.10 an hour and urged Congr ess similarly to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour. Twenty-nine states and nearly two doz en cities and counties enacted minimum wages higher than the federal wage. 28 Although a $15 an hour minimum wage became a rallying cr y for the B ernie Sanders presidential campaign in 2016, R epublican opposition has prevented Congress from considering the issue. An A ugust 2016 poll found that 52 percent of Americans, but just 21 percent of Donald Trump’s supporters, favored a $15 an hour minimum wage.29
ORGANIZED INTERESTS AND THE POLITICS OF ECONOMIC POLICY
The groups that influence decisions about economic policy are as wide-ranging as the objectives of policy. Consumer groups, environmentalists, businesses, and labor all work to shape economic policy. Of these groups, organized labor and business are the most consistent actors that weigh in across the spectrum of policies. In the past, organized labor was much mor e impor tant in influencing economic policy than it is today . At the height of their str ength in the 1950s, unions r epresented some 35 per cent of the labor for ce. Today, labor unions, r epresenting 11.1 per - cent of the labor for ce, are much less po werful in influencing economic policy.30 Democratic presidents continue to court labor because unions control resources and v otes impor tant to D emocratic politicians. O n par ticular issues, organiz ed labor can still exercise significant influence. Unions launched a “Fight for Fifteen” campaign in 2012 that helped lead to some of the state and local go vernment minimum wage incr eases mentioned earlier . H owever, labor ’s o verall po wer has waned. Twenty-eight states no w hav e “right to wor k” pr ovisions that guarantee that a worker does not have to belong to a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment. Unions and other opponents of such laws say they make it mor e difficult for unions to collect dues, which they use to fund collective bargaining efforts for all wor kers. B usiness gr oups and other suppor ters say right-to-wor k laws protect employees from having to pay dues for r epresentation they do not want (see Chapter 15).31
Business organizations are the most consistently powerful actors in economic policy. Business groups are most united around the goal of reducing government regulation. Organizations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which repre- sents small business, and the B usiness Roundtable and the N ational Association of Manufacturers, which represent big business, actively worked to roll back gov- ernment regulation in the 1970s and ’80s. These organizations have been v ocal supporters of R epublican efforts to limit go vernment involvement in the econ - omy. For example, the National Restaurant Association has denounced efforts to raise the minimum wage, warning that higher wages will lead to automation and fewer jobs. Yet when business groups representing particular sectors of the econ - omy weigh in on issues that ar e of special concern to them, they often embrace government action. The high-tech industry regularly argues in fav or of granting more visas to allo w skilled for eign wor kers into the countr y. O ther industr y groups, particularly in agriculture, lobby to retain subsidies that they have enjoyed for decades.
646 CHAPTER 16 GOvERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 646 27/11/18 4:10 PM
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers, 2016,” April 2017, www.bls.gov (accessed 1/11/18).
Percentage of Minimum Wage Earners
Age Race / ethnicity
Gender
64%
36% Women Men
45%
24%
11%
10%
6%
3%
16–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65+
2.7%
Percentage of all American workers (age 16+) who earn
the minimum wage
White 74%
Asian 5%
Hispanic 17%
Black 18%
In recent years, many states have passed laws raising the minimum wage, and Congress has debated taking action at the federal level. Most Americans support raising the minimum wage, but there are differences in who earns the minimum wage based on age, gender, and race.
Who Earns the Minimum Wage?
WHO ARE AMERICANS?
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS 1. Based on these data, which of these groups are more likely to support raising the minimum wage?
2. Women make up about 47 percent of the workforce. How does this compare to the percentage of minimum wage workers who are women?
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 647 27/11/18 4:10 PM
POLITICS AND THE GREAT RECESSION OF 2008
The severe economic downturn that began in 2008, often called the “Great Reces- sion,” provoked unprecedented government intervention into the economy. As the near-collapse of the financial sector in 2008 reverberated throughout the U nited States (and the world) economy , thousands of Americans lost their homes, banks refused to lend, and unemplo yment r ose. The federal government, first under George W. Bush and then under Barack Obama, initiated large-scale interventions in the hope of staving off the downward economic spiral. These included emergency measures to bail out failing companies, shor t-term stimulus to get the economy moving again, and pr oposals for r egulations that would pr event similar financial meltdowns in the future. However, support for these measures wavered as fear of ris- ing deficits, exploding long-term debt, and, more abstractly, “big government” grew.
Propping up the financial sector presented an economic challenge for federal officials. President Bush found he could not count on suppor t from congressional Republicans when he sought to enact a major bailout for the financial sector. A bipartisan group in Congress ultimately approved a $700-billion emergency “bail - out” in O ctober 2008 (kno wn as the Troubled Asset R elief Program, or TARP), which the Treasury Department drew on to infuse major financial institutions with capital. It was not just major banking institutions that faced ruin. Auto companies, teetering on the edge of bankr uptcy, also r eceived major infusions of cash fr om the federal government.32 By late 2010 the economy had stabilized sufficiently that many of the financial institutions that had received funds under TARP were able to pay the federal government back. The CBO estimated that TARP would end up costing taxpayers $34 billion, far less than the initial $700 billion.33
Congress also passed a sweeping package in 2009 to help stimulate the economy, save jobs (particularly in the public sector), and make longer-term investments that would help stimulate economic growth. The $787-billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (more commonly known as the “stimulus” bill of 2009) con- tained a number of measur es to stimulate gr owth in the shor t term and pr event drastic cuts to public services. Among the most important measures in the act were reductions in individual and business tax es by $288 billion in or der to generate more spending and job hiring. The measure also spent $195.5 billion on aid, health insurance subsidies, and job training for low-income and unemployed workers and $44.5 billion designed to limit teacher layoffs and cutbacks in local school districts. The rest of the investments aimed not only to create new jobs in the short term but also to be long-term inv estments in infrastr ucture and education that would help future growth. The act reflected Keynesian logic that called for public inv estment during periods of economic downturn.
Although only some R epublicans and Democrats had balked at suppor ting the financial bailout package in 2008, by early 2009 a sharp par tisan rift had become evident. No Republicans in the H ouse and only thr ee in the S enate voted to sup - port the 2009 stimulus package. R epublicans denounced the H ouse measur e as overly tilted toward spending rather than tax cuts. But even when Senate Democrats added significant new tax cuts to the bill, most R epublicans still opposed it. While Democrats defended the measure as an infusion of funds needed to prevent a depres- sion, Republicans denounced it as wasteful spending and made their opposition a defining stance toward the Obama administration. Mounting unemployment com- plicated the political judgments about the stimulus; despite the injection of pub - lic funds into the economy , national unemplo yment rose to a seasonally adjusted
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS The role of government in the economy has waxed and waned over time. What circumstances might prompt greater government involvement? What circumstances might suggest a smaller governmental role?
648 CHAPTER 16 GOvERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 648 27/11/18 4:10 PM
rate of 9.6 per cent by September 2010, with rates much higher in some states. 34 The nonpartisan CBO estimated that at its height in 2010, the American Recovery and R einvestment A ct incr eased the number of full-time jobs b y as many as 3.6 million.35 Yet because unemployment remained high, the act did not get much credit from the public for helping the economy, and it attracted considerable criti - cism for contributing to the budget deficit. When Congress considered a second stimulus bill focused on job cr eation, it succeeded in enacting a r elatively small job-creation package wor th $15 billion, most of which consisted of tax cr edits for businesses that hired new employees.36
The Tools of Economic Policy The U.S. economy is no accident; it is the result of specific policies that have expanded American mar kets and sustained massiv e economic growth. The Constitution provides
that Congress shall hav e the po wer “To lay and collect Taxes . . . to pay the D ebts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare . . . To borrow Money . . . To coin M oney [and] r egulate the Value ther eof.” These clauses of Article I, Section 8, ar e the constitutional sour ces of the fiscal and monetary policies of the national government. The Constitution says nothing, however, about how these pow- ers can be used. As it works to meet the multiple goals of economic policy, the federal government relies on a broad set of tools that has ev olved over time. As we will see, decisions about which tools to use are not simply technical; they are highly political and reflect conflicts over whether the government should act at all and, if so, how.
MONETARY POLICIES
Monetary policies manipulate the gr owth of the entir e economy b y controlling the availability of money to banks. With very few exceptions, banks in the United States are priv ately o wned and locally operated. U ntil w ell into the tw entieth centur y, banks were regulated, if at all, by state legislatures. Each bank was granted a charter, which gave it permission to make loans, hold deposits, and make investments within
Describe how the government uses monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policies to influence the economy
monetary policies efforts to regulate the economy through the manipulation of the supply of money and credit; America’s most powerful institution in this area of monetary policy is the Federal Reserve Board
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided $787 billion to support economic growth following the recession that began in 2008. Among other provisions, the act included funding for projects that would help keep Americans employed during the downturn.
649THE TOOlS OF ECONOMIC POl ICY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 649 27/11/18 4:10 PM
that state. Although thousands of banks continue to be chartered by the states, they are less important in the overall financial picture than they used to be, as the most important banks now are members of the federal banking system.
Federal Reserve System Banks did not become the cor e of American capitalism without intense political contr oversy. The Federalist majority in Congr ess, led b y Alexander Hamilton, did in fact establish a B ank of the U nited States, in 1791; but it was vigor ously opposed by agrarian interests, led by Thomas Jefferson, who feared that the inter ests of urban, industrial capitalism would dominate such a bank. The Bank of the United States was terminated during the administration of Andrew Jackson, but the fear of a central, public bank lingered eight decades later, when, in 1913, Congr ess established an institution, the Federal Reserve System, to integrate private banks into a single national system. The Federal Reserve System is composed of 12 Federal Reserve banks, each located in a major commer cial city. The Federal Reserve banks are not ordinary banks; they are bankers ’ banks that make loans to other banks, clear checks, and supply the economy with currency and coins. They also play a regulatory role over the member banks. Every national bank must be a member of the Federal Reserve System and must follow national banking rules. State banks and savings and loan associations may also join if they accept national rules. At the top of the system is the F ederal Reserve Board—“the Fed”— comprising seven members appointed by the president (with Senate confirmation) for 14-year terms. The chair of the Fed is selected by the president from among the seven members of the board for a four-year term. In all other concerns, however, the Fed is an independent agency (see Chapter 14) inasmuch as its members can - not be removed during their terms except “for cause,” and the president’s executive power does not extend to them or their policies. Nonetheless, observers charged the longtime Federal Reserve chair, Alan Greenspan, with being attentive to politics, for example, in his endorsement of P resident George W. Bush’s tax cuts. I n his 2017 confirmation hearings to head the Fed, nominee J erome Powell told Congr ess he was “strongly committed to an independent Federal Reserve.”37
The major advantage that a bank gains from being in the Federal Reserve System is that it can borrow from the system. This enables banks to expand their loan oper- ations continually, as long as there is demand for loans in the economy. On the other hand, it is this very access of member banks to the Federal Reserve System that gives the Fed its power: the ability to expand and contract the amount of credit available in the United States.
The Fed can affect the total amount of credit through the interest (called the federal funds rate) that member banks charge one another for loans. I f the F ed significantly decreases the federal funds rate, making it cheaper to borr ow money, this can give a boost to a sagging economy. In the steep recession that began in 2008, the Fed acted aggressively. By December 2008 it had cut rates nine times fr om a high in September 2007 of 4.75 per cent to a historically lo w percentage rate close to zero. Moreover, the Federal Reserve kept interest rates at that same low level well into 2015, in an attempt to encourage lending again and thus economic growth.38 If the Fed raises the federal funds rate, it can put a brake on the economy because the higher rates make it more expensive to borrow money. This makes it more difficult for new businesses to get loans, for instance.
Although the Federal Reserve is responsible for ensuring high employment as well as price stability, it has been particularly important in fighting inflation. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, with inflation at record high levels, Federal Reserve chair Paul
Federal Reserve System a system of 12 Federal Reserve banks that facilitates exchanges of cash, checks, and credit; regulates member banks; and uses monetary policies to fight inflation and deflation
federal funds rate the interest rate on loans between banks that the Federal Reserve Board influences by affecting the supply of money available
650 CHAPTER 16 GOvERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 650 27/11/18 4:10 PM
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Why is the Federal Reserve so important to economic policy?
Volcker aggressively raised interest rates in order to dampen inflation. Although his actions provoked a sharp recession, they raised the stature of the Fed, demonstrating its ability to manage the economy. Because the Fed is so closely associated with infla- tion fighting, Senate Democrats pressed Ben Bernanke, President George W. Bush’s nominee to head the Fed, to indicate at his nomination hearings that he would view maximum employment as a goal of equal importance to that of fighting inflation. In 2018, Jerome Powell, the new head of the F ed, noted that unemplo yment was low and vowed to keep raising benchmark interest rates slowly to stay ahead of inflation.39
Fostering Investment The federal government also pr ovides insurance to foster credit and encourage priv ate capital inv estment. The Federal D eposit I nsurance Corporation insures bank deposits up to $250,000. Another impor tant promoter of investment is the federal insurance of home mor tgages through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. By guaranteeing mortgages, the government can reduce the risks that banks run in making such loans, thus allowing banks to lower their inter est rates and making such loans mor e affordable to middle- and lower-income families. Such programs have enabled millions of families that could not otherwise have afforded it to finance the purchase of a home.
This system began to unravel in the first decade of the 2000s, with the growth of the subprime market for lending. This market made home loans available to people who could not otherwise have afforded to buy a home. At the same time, however, it created new instabilities in the market by offering risky loans that would become more costly due to adjustable interest rates. The slowing housing market in 2007 set off a wave of foreclosures as many homeowners discovered that they could not pay back their loans. During the height of the crisis, between 2007 and 2013, more than 14 million homes were lost to foreclosure.40
The foreclosure crisis in turn sent shock wav es thr ough the financial system as investment banks found themselv es holding wor thless loans. O ne casualty of the home loan meltdown was the Wall Street investment bank Bear Stearns, which faced bankruptcy early in March 2008. Seeking to limit the harm to the br oader economy
Financial markets closely watch the statements of the Federal Reserve. Here, Fed Chair Jerome Powell speaks about the necessity of rais- ing interest rates to fight inflation.
651THE TOOlS OF ECONOMIC POl ICY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 651 27/11/18 4:10 PM
that such a bankruptcy would cause, Fed chair Bernanke arranged for Bear Stearns to be bought, at bargain-basement prices, by JPMorgan Chase, another investment bank. In making this move, Bernanke was exercising powers of the Federal Reserve Act that had not been used since the 1930s. 41 After the firm Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008 and sev eral other inv estment banks and insurance companies moved closer to insolvency, the Federal Reserve also provided billions of dollars to banks so that they could continue to lend money for student loans, auto loans, and residential mortgages. In all, the Fed gave nearly $1.5 trillion in emergency loans to financial institutions.42
Although many were impressed by the swift action undertaken by the Fed, critics charged that its supervision of the banking system prior to the crisis had been too lax. This led to an unusually contentious set of Senate confirmation hearings for Bernanke, whom President Obama had renominated in 2009. Most Democrats prefer that the Federal Reserve take a strong stand in regulating banks and in prio- ritizing the pr oblem of unemployment. Republicans, on the other hand, fear that excessive regulation will limit economic growth. Republicans are more likely to see unemployment as a problem of workers who lack appropriate job skills, rather than a problem that requires more stimulus of the economy.
FISCAL POLICIES
Fiscal policy includes the go vernment’s taxing and spending po wers. Personal and corporate income taxes, which raise the majority of the U.S. go vernment’s revenues, are the most prominent examples. Although the direct purpose of an income tax is to raise revenue, each tax has a different impact on the economy, and government can attempt to plan for that impact.
Taxation During the nineteenth century, the federal government received most of its revenue from a single tax, the tariff. It also relied on excise taxes, which are taxes lev- ied on specific products, such as tobacco and alcohol. As federal activities expanded in the 1900s, the federal go vernment added ne w sources of tax r evenue. The most important was the income tax, proposed by Congress in 1909, ratified by the states, and added to the Constitution in 1913 as the S ixteenth Amendment. The income tax is levied on individuals and corporations. With the creation of the Social Security system in 1935, social insurance taxes became an additional source of federal revenue.
Before World War II, individual income tax es accounted for only 14 per cent of federal revenues.43 The need to raise revenue for World War II made the income tax much more important. Congress expanded the base of the income tax so that most Americans paid income taxes after World War II. Figure 16.3 shows several notable shifts that have occurred in taxes since 1966. S ocial insurance taxes now compose a much gr eater share of federal r evenues, rising fr om 19.5 per cent of r evenues in 1966 to an estimated 35 percent in 2018. The share of the federal individual income tax has r emained fairly stable; it was 42.4 per cent in 1966 and estimated at 49.7 percent in 2018. R eceipts from corporate income tax es declined over the same period, dropping from 23 percent of receipts in 1966 to 6.5 percent in 2018.
One of the most impor tant features of the American income tax is that it is a “progressive,” or “graduated,” tax, with the heaviest bur den carried b y those most able to pay. A tax is called progressive if the rate of taxation goes up with each higher income bracket. A tax is called regressive if people in lo wer-income brackets pay a higher proportion of their income to ward the tax than people in higher-income brackets. For example, a sales tax is deemed regressive because everybody pays at the
fiscal policy the government’s use of taxing, monetary, and spending powers to manipulate the economy
tariff a tax on imported goods
progressive taxation taxation that hits upper-income brackets more heavily
regressive taxation taxation that hits lower-income brackets more heavily
652 CHAPTER 16 GOvERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 652 27/11/18 4:10 PM
same rate so that people who make less money end up paying a greater share of their income in sales tax es than do people who make mor e money. The Social Security tax is another example of a regressive tax. In 2018, Social Security law applied a tax of 6.2 percent on the first $128,400 of income for the retirement program.44 This means that a person earning $128,400 pays $7,960 and a person making twice as much, $256,800, pays the same $7,960, a rate of 3.1 per cent. And a CEO earning $5 million in income also pays the same $7,960, for a rate of 0.16 percent. In con- trast, the income tax is progressive; in 2018, a single person pays no tax on the first $12,000 of earned income due to the standard deduction (they may have additional deductions from taxable income such as r etirement savings (see “tax expenditures” in Chapter 17). Income above that amount is taxed in a graduated way: the next $9,525 is taxed at 10 per cent, the next $29,175 is tax ed at 12 per cent, and so on through brackets at 22, 24, 32, and 35 per cent, up to the top bracket, which tax es income above $500,000 at the highest marginal income tax rate, 37 percent.
Although the primary purpose of the graduated income tax is, of course, to raise revenue, an impor tant second objectiv e is to collect r evenue in such a way as to reduce the disparities of w ealth between the lowest and the highest income brack - ets. We call this a policy of redistribution. Another policy objectiv e of the income tax is the encouragement of the capitalist economy b y r ewarding inv estment. The tax laws allow individuals or companies to deduct fr om their taxable income any money they can justify as an inv estment or a “business expense ”; this giv es an incentive to individuals and companies to spend money to expand their pro- duction, advertising, or staff and reduces the income tax es that businesses hav e to pay. These kinds of deductions are called incentiv es by those who suppor t them; others call them loopholes. The tax reforms of the 1980s closed a number of
redistribution a policy whose objective is to tax or spend in such a way as to reduce the disparities of wealth between the lowest and the highest income brackets
loophole incentive to individuals and businesses to reduce their tax liabilities by investing their money in areas the government designates
FIGURE 16.3
Federal Revenues by Type of Tax The federal government collects revenue from a variety of different taxes. Most im- portant is the individual income tax, which has accounted for approximately 50 percent of federal revenue over the past 50 years. Revenues from corporate income tax have fallen considerably over this time period, from 23 percent in 1966 to 7 percent in 2018. In the same period, taxes for social insurance and retirement have grown sub- stantially. Does the federal government draw more of its revenue from progressive taxes or regressive taxes?
NOTE: Data for 2018 are estimated.
SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget, “Table 2.3—Receipts by Source as Percentages of GDP: 1934–2022.” 2—Percentage Composition of Receipts by Source: 1934–2021.” www.whitehouse .gov/omb/budget/Historicals (accessed 11/1/17).
1966
1986
2006
2018
Individual income taxes Corporate income taxes
Social insurance and retirement receipts Excise taxes
Other
50% 7 35 3
3 4
6
43% 15
8
35
37 4 545%
42% 23 20 10 5
653THE TOOlS OF ECONOMIC POl ICY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 653 27/11/18 4:10 PM
Do Americans pay more or less in taxes compared to citizens in other wealthy democracies? Taxation can be difficult to compare across countries. Regarding income tax, some countries set different rates for married people and those with children (see the left-side graph). The United States also has fewer cash transfer programs (such as social security and unemployment insurance) than other democracies, which further reduces individual tax burdens. When these factors are taken into account, the United States income tax rate is close to average.a
However, taxes on personal income are not the only taxes governments collect. They also collect sales tax, property tax,
and social security contributions. If we look at the total tax revenue as a share of a country’s economy (GDP), we see that the U.S. tax burden is significantly less than that of many other wealthy countries (see the right-side graph). Europeans in particular pay more in sales and other taxes, leading to a higher tax burden. There is a trade-off between higher taxes and government services: Europeans receive a number of benefits that Americans have to pay for out of their personal incomes, including cheaper health care, lower (or free) college tuition, and subsidized child and senior care.b
Tax Rates around the World
a When compared to the average of the members of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), an international organization of upper- and middle- income democracies. b Steven Hill, “The Myth of Low-Tax America: Why Americans Aren’t Getting Their Money’s Worth,” The Atlantic, April 15, 2013, www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/ the-myth-of-low-tax-america-why-americans-arent-getting-their-moneys-worth/274945/ (accessed 4/13/18).
TAX REVENUE AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP, 2016
AVERAGE INCOME TAX ON AN AVERAGE WAGE, 2016
Germany 40% 45%
38
33
31
28
26
26
26
17
21
29 22
27
26 14
24 24
23 23
22 21
14 12
11 11
25
France
United States
Australia
Japan
Korea
Mexico Mexico
United Kingdom
Turkey
Germany
France
United States
Australia*
Japan*
Korea
United Kingdom
Turkey
Single-person, no child
One-earner married couple, two children
SOURCES: OECD, “All-in Average Personal Income Tax Rates at Average Wage by Family Type,” Table I.6, 2017, stats.oecd.org (accessed 4/13/18); and OECD, 2017, “Revenue Statistics,” stats.oecd.org (accessed 4/13/18).
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 654 27/11/18 4:10 PM
important loopholes in U.S. tax laws. But others still exist—on employer-provided health insurance and on business expenses, for example—and others r eturned because ther e is a str ong consensus among members of Congr ess, both D emo- crats and R epublicans, that businesses often need such incentiv es. The differences between the two par ties focus largely on which incentiv es are justifiable.45 The tax reform passed b y Congress and signed b y President Trump in 2017 both lo wered corporate tax rates and left many special tax pr ovisions for business in place. 46 The tax reform also tried to r educe the incentiv es for corporations to limit their tax es by merging with foreign firms in lower tax countries—a practice known as “corpo- rate inversion”—by introducing new tax preferences: allowing firms to bring home foreign earnings at a one-time lo wer tax rate and eliminating the taxation of dividends that U.S.-based multinational corporations bring home fr om their foreign subsidiaries.47
The tax reform laws of 1981, 1986, and 2001–03 significantly reduced the pro- gressiveness of the federal income tax by reducing tax rates and the number of brack- ets. In the 1960s the highest tax bracket applied a 91 per cent tax to income o ver $200,000 (which is the equiv alent of $1.5 million in today ’s dollars).48 By the late 1970s there were 25 different tax brackets, with a top rate of 70 per cent. Under Ronald Reagan, the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 first indexed brackets to inflation, and then, dramatically, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 established just two tax brackets at 15 percent and 28 percent, beginning in the 1988 tax year.
During the administrations of G eorge H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, the num - ber of tax brackets expanded again and the top rate rose to 39.6 percent. In 2001 and 2003, the George W. Bush administration and Republican-led Congress passed major cuts to taxes on income, dividends and capital gains, and estates. Due to pro- cedural rules, these tax cuts were scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. The tax cuts reduced federal revenues by an estimated $1.3 trillion over 10 years.49 The argument for the tax cuts was that they would make for a pr osperous economy. Opponents charge that it made no sense to cut taxes since the benefits of the tax cuts went pri- marily to the wealthy. Critics also charge that the tax cuts caused the federal budget, which was in surplus when Bush took office, to fall into deficit.50
Upon taking office in 2009, President Obama and the Democratic leadership proposed extending the tax cuts for everyone with annual incomes under $250,000; those making mor e would hav e their income tax es revert back to the rates in the 1990s. Republicans preferred to extend the tax cuts for everyone. With the economy weak due to the G reat Recession, all tax cuts w ere extended until a complex series of negotiations in late 2012 increased income taxes on high earners from 35 percent (Bush level) to 39.6 per cent (Clinton lev el) and r estored the estate tax (although with a very high exemption, so that only 0.2 percent of estates are taxed each year).
In 2017 the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) under President Trump reduced the top rate again to 37 per cent, changed tax rate thr esholds, and doubled the ex emp- tion for the estate tax to $22 million per couple. I t also lowered the top corporate tax rate from 35 to 21 percent and allowed small businesses (“pass-throughs”) to be taxed at 21 percent rather than at the relevant individual tax rate. (See Table 16.1 for the tax brackets in 2018. The brackets go up every year to keep pace with inflation, although the TCJA changed the measure of inflation used, which will push taxpay- ers into higher tax brackets more quickly than did the previous measure.)
Spending and Budgeting The federal government’s power to spend is one of the most important tools of economic policy. Decisions about how much to spend
655THE TOOlS OF ECONOMIC POl ICY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 655 27/11/18 4:10 PM
affect the overall health of the economy. They also affect every aspect of American life, from the distribution of income to the av ailability of different modes of trans- portation to the level of education in society.
The president and Congress have each created institutions to assert control over the budget process. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the E xecu- tive Office of the President is responsible for preparing the president’s budget. This budget contains the pr esident’s spending priorities and the estimated costs of the president’s policy proposals. It is viewed as the starting point for the annual debate over the budget. When different parties control the pr esidency and Congr ess, the president’s budget may have little influence on the budget that is ultimately adopted. Members of the president’s own party also may have different priorities.
Congress has its o wn budget institutions. Congr ess cr eated the Congr essional Budget Office (CBO) in 1974 so that it could have reliable information about the costs and economic impact of the policies it considers. At the same time, it set up a budget process designed to establish spending priorities and to consider individual expenditures in light of the entire budget. A key element of the process is the annual budget resolution, which designates br oad targets for spending. B y estimating the costs of policy pr oposals, Congress hoped to contr ol spending and r educe deficits. When the congressional budget process proved unable to hold down deficits in the 1980s, Congr ess established stricter measur es to contr ol spending, including “spending caps” that limit spending on some types of programs.
Not surprisingly, the fight for control over spending is one of the most contentious in Washington as inter est groups and politicians striv e to determine the priorities
This table shows the federal tax rates that Americans pay on their income. The United States has a progressive tax system in that the tax rate goes up on Americans with more income.
TAX RATE (%) INDIVIDUALS MARRIED COUPLES
FILING JOINTLY HEAD OF
HOUSEHOLD FILERS
10 $0 to $9,525 $0 to $19,050 $0 to $13,600
12 $9,525 to $38,700 $19,050 to $77,400 $13,600 to $51,800
22 $38,700 to $82,500 $77,400 to $165,000 $51,800 to $82,500
24 $82,500 to $157,500 $165,000 to $315,000 $82,500 to $157,500
32 $157,500 to $200,000 $315,000 to $400,000 $157,500 to $200,000
35 $200,000 to $500,000 $400,000 to $600,000 $200,000 to $500,000
37 $500,000+ $600,000+ $500,000+
SOURCE: Tax Foundation, “2018 Tax Brackets (Updated),” January 2018, https://files.taxfoundation.org/20180207142513/TaxFoundation-FF567-Updated.pdf (accessed 3/29/18).
TABLE 16.1
Taxable Income Brackets and Rates, 2018
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Think about a specific instance of government intervention in the American economy since the New Deal. What economic policy tool was used? What other tools might have been used? In your opinion, when is government action in the economy necessary?
656 CHAPTER 16 GOvERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 656 27/11/18 4:10 PM
and appropriate levels of spending. D ecisions about spending ar e made as par t of the annual budget pr ocess. During the 1990s, when the federal budget deficit first became a major political issue and parties were deeply split on spending, the budget process became the focal point of the entir e policy-making process. With the rapid swing from budget surpluses in 2000 to record deficits by 2003, deficits once again emerged as a political issue (F igure 16.4). This time, however, Republican leaders, who had made deficits the focal point of politics in the mid-1990s, largely dismissed their importance. As House majority leader Tom DeLay put it, “The Soviet Union had a balanced budget. Well, you can raise tax es until you balance it, but the eco - nomy will go into the toilet.”51
The deficit once again drove the economic policy agenda betw een 2010 and 2013, when Republicans in the H ouse of Representatives and Democrats in the Senate and White House engaged in a contentious series of battles over the federal deficit and President Obama’s economic policies. 52 The impasse stemmed from Republicans’ insistence that the deficit, which had grown substantially in the after- math of the Great Recession, be reduced primarily through spending cuts, while Democrats pushed for deficit reduction through a mix of spending cuts and tax increases for the wealthiest Americans. The resolution to the standoff, the Budget Control Act of 2011, achiev ed $1 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 y ears, all through spending cuts, but also scheduled additional, automatic across-the-board “sequestration” cuts beginning in 2013 if a bipar tisan “super-committee” failed to reach a deal securing an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. To the frustration of all, the super-committee failed to agr ee on a ne w deficit-reduction plan, and in March 2013 the sequestration cuts finally came into effect. A period of high-stakes back-and-for th negotiation o ver the debt finally came to an end in October 2013 when another failure to agr ee on the terms of raising the debt
budget deficit amount by which government spending exceeds government revenue in a fiscal year
FIGURE 16.4
U.S. Budget Deficits and Surpluses, 1960–2018* The federal deficit grew substantially during the 1980s under President Reagan. During the 1990s, the budget deficit declined significantly but then grew dramatically after 2001. When was the last time that the federal budget showed a surplus? Why did the budget deficit grow so much after 2001?
*Data for 2018 are estimated.
SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget, “Historical Tables Table 1.2—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (–) as Percentages of GDP: 1930–2023,” www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/ Historicals (accessed 7/28/18).
PERCENTAGE OF GDP
2010 202020152005200019951990198519801975197019651960
0
–2
–4
–6
–8
–10
–12
2
4%
657THE TOOlS OF ECONOMIC POl ICY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 657 27/11/18 4:10 PM
ceiling—with Republicans demanding a one-year delay in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, fur ther spending cuts on social pr ograms, and negoti - ations on entitlements r eform; and D emocrats insisting on a clean, no-strings- attached increase in the debt limit—led to a shutdown of the federal government for the first time in almost two decades.53 The government reopened after 16 days with a r esolution cleanly raising the debt limit and funding the go vernment for another two y ears. In 2015 it appear ed that the go vernment once again would shut down as conservative Republicans threatened to withhold their approval. But after the resignation of John Boehner as S peaker and several months of negotia - tion, Congress was able to enact a budget.
A very large and gr owing proportion of the annual federal budget is mandatory spending, expenditures that ar e, in the wor ds of the OMB, “ relatively uncontrolla- ble.” Interest payments on the national debt, for example, ar e determined b y the actual size of the national debt. Legislation has mandated payment rates for such programs as r etirement under S ocial S ecurity, r etirement for federal emplo yees, unemployment assistance, M edicare, and farm price suppor ts (see F igure 16.5). These payments increase with the cost of living; they increase as the average age of the population goes up; they increase as national and world agricultural surpluses go up. In 1965, 26.9 percent of the total federal budget was made up of such manda- tory spending, rising to 45.5 percent in 1975 and 62 percent by 2018. This means that the national go vernment now can do v ery little discretionary spending that will allow it to counteract fluctuations in the business cycle (the rise and fall of economic growth). (Figure 16.6 shows discretionary spending in 2018.)
Government spending as a fiscal policy works fairly well when deliberate deficit spending is used to stop a recession and to speed up the recovery period, but it does not work very well in fighting inflation because elected politicians are often politi- cally unable to make the drastic expenditure cuts and tax hikes necessary to balance the budget, much less to produce a budgetary surplus.
mandatory spending federal spending that is made up of budget items that cannot be controlled through the regular budget process, such as interest on the national debt, Social Security and Medicare benefits, and certain programs in the Departments of Agriculture and veterans Affairs, among others
discretionary spending federal spending on programs that are controlled through the regular budget process
FIGURE 16.5
Mandatory Spending, Discretionary Spending, and Net Interest, 1962–2018*
*Data for 2018 are estimated.
SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget, “Table 8.3—Percentage Distribution of Outlays by Budget Enforcement Act Category: 1962–2023,” www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ budget/Historicals (accessed 7/28/18).
0
10
20
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL FEDERAL BUDGET
30
40
50
60
70
80%
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 20202015
Mandatory programs
Total discretionary
Net interest
658 CHAPTER 16 GOvERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 658 27/11/18 4:11 PM
REGULATION AND ANTITRUST POLICY
In addition to monetar y and fiscal policy, another tool of economic policymaking is regulation and antitrust policy. Federal economic regulation aims to pr otect the public against potential abuses by concentrated economic power in two ways. First, the federal go vernment can establish conditions that go vern the operation of big businesses to ensure fair competition. For example, it can require a business to make information about its activities and account books av ailable to the public. S econd, the federal government can force a large business to br eak up into smaller compa - nies if it finds that the business has established a monopoly. This is called antitrust policy. In addition to economic regulation, the federal government engages in social regulation. Social regulation establishes conditions on businesses in order to protect workers, the environment, and consumers.
monopoly a single firm in a market that controls all the goods and services of that market; absence of competition
antitrust policy government regulation of large businesses that have established monopolies
FIGURE 16.6
Discretionary Spending, 2018* The biggest items in the federal budget are mandatory programs, including Social Security and Medicare. These programs are supported by contributory taxes and enjoy broad support. It is easier to cut discretionary spending because appropriations must be approved each year. With rising budget deficits and congressional unwillingness to raise taxes, discretionary spending—including defense but especially domestic programs—is often a target for cuts.
*Estimate.
NOTE: Health includes discretionary spending on Medicare.
SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget, “Table 8.7—Outlays for Discretionary Programs, 1962–2023,” www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals (accessed 7/28/18).
International affairs 4.5%
Income security 5.8%
Science, energy, natural resources, agriculture
6.2%
Transportation 7.2%
Community and regional development
3.3%
Education 7.2%
Health 5.7%
Veterans benets and services
5.9%
Protection 4.2%
General government 1.4%
Defense 48.7%
659THE TOOlS OF ECONOMIC POl ICY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 659 27/11/18 4:11 PM
Federal regulatory policy has evolved, in part, as a reaction to public demands. As the American economy prospered throughout the nineteenth century, some com- panies grew so large that they w ere recognized as possessing “market power.” This meant that they w ere po werful enough to eliminate competitors and to impose conditions on consumers rather than catering to consumer demand. The growth of billion-dollar corporations led to collusion among companies to contr ol prices, much to the dismay of smaller businesses and ordinary consumers. Small businesses, laborers, farmers, and consumers all began to clamor for pr otective r egulation. Although the states had been regulating businesses in one way or another all along, interest groups turned to Washington as economic problems appeared to be beyond the reach of the individual state governments. If markets were national, there would have to be national regulation.54
The first national regulatory policy was the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, which created the first national independent regulatory commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission, designed to contr ol the monopolistic practices of the railroads. Three years later, the S herman Antitrust Act extended r egulatory power to co ver all monopolistic practices. The Interstate Commer ce Commission and the Sherman Antitrust Act were strengthened in 1914 with the enactment of the Federal Trade Commission A ct (creating the F ederal Trade Commission) and the Clayton Antitrust Act. At the same time, public demands to protect consumers led the federal government to enact a more limited number of social regulations. As we have seen, Upton Sinclair’s best-seller about the meatpacking industr y, The Jungle, led to the F ederal Meat Inspection Act of 1906. Two decades later , the Food and Drug Administration was given broad powers to test and regulate products viewed as essential to public health.
The modern era of comprehensive national regulation began in the 1930s. Most of the regulatory programs of the 1930s were established to regulate the conduct of
Regulatory policies to protect con- sumers first emerged in the early twentieth century. The publication of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle in 1906 exposed the unsanitary prac- tices of the meatpacking industry, spurring concerns about food safety that led to the Federal Meat Inspec- tion Act that same year.
660 CHAPTER 16 GOvERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 660 27/11/18 4:11 PM
companies within specifically designated sectors of American industry. For example, the jurisdiction of one agency was the securities industry; the jurisdiction of another was the radio (and ev entually television) industr y. Others included banking, coal mining, and agriculture. At this time, Congress also set the basic framework of American labor r egulation, including the r ules for collectiv e bargaining and the minimum wage. Regulation increased in the 1970s, with incr eased scope for agen- cies such as the O ccupational S afety and H ealth Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Despite occasional high-profile regulatory cases such as the one against Microsoft in the 1990s, the tr end since the late 1970s has been against r egulation. Over the years, businesses complained about the burden of the new regulations they con - fronted, and many economists began to argue that excessive regulation was hurting the economy. In the 1980s, Congr ess and the pr esident responded with a wav e of deregulation. For example, P resident Reagan went about the task of changing the direction of regulation by way of “presidential oversight.” Shortly after taking office, he gave the OMB authority to r eview all executive branch proposals for new regu- lations. By this means, R eagan reduced the total number of r egulations issued b y federal agencies, dropping the number of pages in the Federal Register from 74,000 in 1980 to 49,600 in 1987.55
The financial crisis that began in 2008 put regulation on the agenda once again. As the economic emergency subsided, Congress began to consider long-term reform of the financial industry. A central question was ho w to cr eate r egulations that would prevent excessive risk-taking by investors, seen as the principal cause of the recession. The complex reform that Congr ess enacted in 2010 (the D odd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act) included a range of new regula- tions on the financial industry. It created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), placed under the auspices of the Federal Reserve but independent of it. The new agency has a br oad mandate to r egulate consumer financial products, such as mortgages and credit cards, to ensure that they ar e fair and competitiv e. President Trump sought to restrict the CFPB’s powers, replacing the Obama-era head with his budget chief, Mick Mulvaney, reducing the agency’s enforcement mission, and reconsidering rules for payday- and other lenders.56
SUBSIDIES AND CONTRACTING
Subsidies and contracting ar e the carr ots of economic policy . Their purpose is to encourage people to do something they might otherwise not do or to get people to do more of what they ar e already doing. Sometimes the purpose is merely to com- pensate people for something done in the past.
Subsidies Subsidies are simply go vernment grants of cash or other v aluable com- modities, such as land. Although subsidies are often denounced as “giveaways,” they have played a fundamental role in the histor y of government in the United States. Subsidies were the dominant form of public policy of the national government and the state and local governments throughout the nineteenth century. They continue to be an important category of public policy at all levels of government.
Economic sectors r eceiving substantial subsidies include agricultur e, energy , transportation, health, and national defense. Policies using the subsidy technique continued to be plentiful in the tw entieth century and into the tw enty-first, even after the 1990s, when ther e was widespr ead public and official hostility toward
deregulation a policy of reducing or eliminating regulatory restraints on the conduct of individuals or private institutions
subsidies government grants of cash or other valuable commodities, such as land, to an individual or an organization; used to promote activities desired by the government, reward political support, or buy off political opposition
661THE TOOlS OF ECONOMIC POl ICY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 661 27/11/18 4:11 PM
subsidies. In 2017 the annual v alue of corporate subsidies was estimated at mor e than $100 billion.57 Politicians have always favored subsidies because subsidies can be treated as “benefits” that can be spread widely in response to many demands that might otherwise produce profound political conflict. Subsidies can, in other words, be used to buy off the opposition.
Contracting Like any corporation, a government agency must purchase goods and services by contract. The law requires open bidding for a substantial pr oportion of these contracts because government contracts are extremely valuable to businesses in the private sector and because the opportunities and incentives for abuse surround- ing contracting ar e very great. But contracting is mor e than a method of buying goods and services. It is also an important technique of policy because government agencies are often authorized to use their contracting power as a means of encour- aging corporations to improve themselves, helping to build up whole sectors of the eco nomy, and encouraging cer tain desirable goals or behavior , such as equal employment opportunity. For example, the infant airline industry of the 1930s was nurtured by the national government’s lucrative contracts to carr y airmail. A more recent example is the use of go vernment contracting to encourage industries, uni - versities, and other organizations to engage in research and development on a wide range of issues in basic and applied science.
Military contracting has long been a major element in government spending. So tight was the connection between defense contractors and the federal government during the Cold War that as he was leaving office President Eisenhower warned the nation to beware of the powerful “military–industrial complex.” After the Cold War, as military spending and pr oduction declined, major defense contractors began to look for alternative business activities to supplement the reduced demand for weap- ons. For example, Lockheed Martin, the nation’s largest defense contractor, began to bid on contracts related to welfare reform. Since the terrorist attacks of 2001, how- ever, the military budget has been awash in new funds, and military contractors are
contracting power the power of government to set conditions on companies seeking to sell goods or services to government agencies
American farmers have long ben- efited from government subsidies. Agricultural subsidies are designed to help farmers stay in business even when the markets for their crops are less favorable so that the country can rely on a steady food supply.
662 CHAPTER 16 GOvERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 662 27/11/18 4:11 PM
flooded with business. President Bush increased the Pentagon budget by more than 7 percent a year, requesting so many weapons systems that one obser ver called the budget a “weapons smorgasbord.”58 Military contractors geared up to produce not only weapons for foreign warfare but also surveillance systems to enhance domestic security.
The Environment and the Economy One of the most impor tant reasons that the go vernment inter venes in the economy is to protect the envi- ronment. Although federal inter - est in envir onmental conservation stretches back to the beginning
of the tw entieth century, federal r egulation of industr y grew more extensive with the rise of the modern envir onmental movement in the 1970s. B y then the conse - quences of economic growth that paid little attention to environmental impact were evident all over America. Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River, long a dumping gr ound for industrial waste, caught fire in 1969, and the burning riv er became an especially vivid symbol of environmental neglect. The first “Earth Day,” in 1970, highlighted the new ecological concerns, which became a major feature of American politics in subsequent decades.59
A wave of new laws wrote environmental goals into policy. The 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Air A ct amendments of 1970, the 1972 Clean Water Act, and the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act together established a new set of goals and procedures for protecting the environment. These acts are prop- erly considered part of economic policy because they affect virtually every aspect of the economy. NEPA, for example, r equires federal agencies to pr epare an environ- mental impact statement for every major development project they propose. In this
Explain why the government tries to balance economic prosperity with policies that protect the environment
Military contracting has been a major component of government spending for decades. In the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, George W. Bush relied heavily on defense contractors to provide services from intelligence analysis to security.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS What are some of the policies that can be used to address climate change? Which policies have the best chance of being enacted?
663THE ENv IRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 663 27/11/18 4:11 PM
way, environmental impacts r outinely become factor ed into considerations about whether a particular project is feasible or desirable.
Environmental disasters have often drawn attention to ne w environmental haz- ards and have prompted greater federal regulation. For example, the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 resulted in 11 deaths and the largest oil spill in the history of marine drilling, devastating Gulf economies and wildlife. The Department of the Interior issued new regulations on well casings and “blowout preventers” and increased monitoring of drilling and spill containment as a r esult.60 Yet government action and corporate liability ar e often bitterly contested issues in this ar ea. Protecting the envir onment pr esents policy makers with difficult trade-offs. Compliance with environmental regulations can be very costly. Moreover, critics maintain that federal standards are sometimes too high. How clean should the air be? What is the difference between pure drinking water and safe drinking water? Who should bear the costs of protecting the environment? Not only do citizens, consumers, and businesses take different perspectives on these questions but the goals themselves often present a moving target. As new scientific evidence shows new or suspected environmental hazards, conflicts emerge over the proper role of government.
THE DEBATE ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Nowhere hav e these conflicts been more acute than in the debate o ver climate change. A large and gr owing body of scientific evidence suggests that greenhouse gas emissions from cars, power plants, and other human-made sour ces are causing temperatures on Earth to rise.61 The projected environmental consequences are dire: melting polar ice caps, extreme weather, droughts, fire, rising sea levels, and disease. All would have profound economic consequences. Yet these projections come with considerable uncer tainty. How likely ar e the most catastr ophic scenarios? S hould we prepare for the most damaging outcomes or only the most likely outcomes of climate change?62 These questions are important because the costs of transforming the world’s carbon-based technologies thr ough lower energy use and ne wer green technologies are enormous. These questions are especially salient for the United States, which has the world’s largest economy and is responsible for 14 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions but has only 4 percent of the world’s population.63 And because the United States relies so heavily on fossil fuels for its energy sources, the effort to reduce carbon emission requires a major shift in how we obtain and use energy.
As scientists have learned more about the effects of human activity on the climate, the issue of climate change has risen on the national agenda. B ut it has become embroiled in par tisan politics, with many Republicans challenging the argument that human activity causes global warming. A gr owing share of Americans say the Earth is warming, 74 percent in 2017, up from 57 percent in 2010. However, public opinion remains divided. Some 92 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Repub- licans believe the Ear th is warming, but the large majority of D emocrats say the cause is human activity, compared to about half of R epublicans. Three-quarters of Democrats but only one-third of Republicans say that “stricter environmental laws and regulations are wor th the cost. ”64 Despite Republican opposition and public ambivalence, the Obama administration made climate change an impor tant focus of attention and encouraged federal agencies to mo ve aggressively on this issue. I n 2009 the EPA began to set standards so that it could, for the first time ever, regulate
664 CHAPTER 16 GOvERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 664 27/11/18 4:11 PM
greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. In 2014 the EPA moved to regu- late factories and power plants that emit gr eenhouse gases. Especially controversial was a rule that required coal plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per- cent by 2030. This Clean Power Plan never went into effect due to lawsuits filed by opposing states, and in October 2017 the head of the EPA in the Trump administra- tion signed a measure to repeal the plan.65 In addition, President Trump announced in June 2017 that the U nited States would leav e the Paris Climate Accord, which President Obama had helped negotiate in 2015 and which was aimed at lo wering the Earth’s temperature.66
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
Policy makers charged with devising appr oaches to climate change hav e identified three basic policy approaches. The first is mitigation, or reduction, of greenhouse gas emissions. The second is large-scale research and development to promote alterna- tive technologies. The third consists of measures that allow us to adapt to a warmer climate. Each of these strategies entails potentially gargantuan costs in the form of higher energy prices, subsidies to industr y, infrastr ucture projects, and r eloca- tion decisions. When specific policy proposals are discussed and these costs become apparent, the consensus for addressing climate change breaks down.
Mitigation: Reducing Emissions The mitigation approach, which seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, has garner ed the most attention fr om policy makers. Two pr oposed policies that aim to achiev e this goal, both contr over- sial, ar e tougher standar ds for auto fuel mileage and higher tax es on gasoline. Although the public strongly supports higher gas-mileage standards, auto com- panies resisted such standards for nearly 30 years after they were first put in place in the early 1970s. In 2009 the EPA announced that it would set standards for greenhouse gas emissions for automobiles under the Clean Air A ct, raising the fuel economy standar ds for ne w vehicles to 35.5 miles per gallon beginning in
Low-lying coastal areas are par- ticularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Here, residents of Spring, Texas, wait to be rescued from rising floodwaters due to Hurricane Harvey.
665THE ENv IRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 665 27/11/18 4:11 PM
2016, a standard later boosted to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.67 In August 2017 the EPA and Transportation Department under P resident Trump announced a potential relaxation of these r ules.68 As for pr oposals to incr ease gasoline tax es, public-opinion polls routinely show that a majority of Americans oppose a tax on gasoline as a way to r educe emissions, and few politicians want to sponsor such an unpopular policy.69
Proponents of r educing carbon emissions pinned their hopes on a “ cap-and- trade” system as the most politically feasible strategy to achiev e their goal. This approach sets a target for carbon emissions for each industr y but allows companies to trade “carbon credits” with one another. This market-based system is attractive to political leaders because it achieves its goals by creating incentives for private actors and allows them flexibility as they seek to reduce emissions. More than 23 large firms, including leading automakers, joined environmentalists in a coalition called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership to press for a cap-and-trade system to r educe carbon emissions.70 In 2009 the House of Representatives passed a landmark cap- and-trade bill aimed at r educing gr eenhouse gas emissions. H owever, opposition from some Democrats and most Republicans in the S enate blocked further move- ment on cap-and-trade legislation.
Promoting Alternative Technologies Many analysts and politicians pr efer a second strategy for addressing the problems associated with fossil fuels, one that centers on increased research and development to promote alternative technolo- gies. P resident O bama came out str ongly in fav or of a compr ehensive energy and climate change bill that would, among other things, pr ovide funding and large tax incentiv es for the pr oduction and adoption of clean-energy technolo - gies. He also warned that the United States was falling behind other countries, including China, in the pr oduction of clean-energy pr oducts, arguing that this industr y would be a vital sour ce of millions of ne w jobs o ver the next few decades. 71 The 2009 Recovery Act allocated nearly $30 billion to suppor t
One approach to addressing climate change is reducing emissions from factories, power plants, and cars. Capping emissions can be controversial if doing so imposes costs on businesses and ultimately on consumers, but recent cap-and- trade proposals may offer a more efficient way to reduce pollution.
666 CHAPTER 16 GOvERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 666 27/11/18 4:11 PM
alternative energy technology investment and to improve energy efficiency. President Trump, through executive orders and budget proposals, has reduced support for such initiatives.
Green technologies may pr ove to be a boon for the American economy. I ndeed, in 2015 mor e than 80 companies, including Apple, Coca-Cola, M cDonald’s, and G oogle, signed an “ Ameri- can Business Act on Climate Pledge” aimed at making low-carbon investments and r educing emissions in their operations. 72 Because highly skilled labor is r equired to produce most such technolo- gies, America has a competitiv e advantage over many other coun - tries. Furthermore, a mo ve toward green technologies could significantly improve American national security. Indeed, some argue that reducing the use of fossil fuels and adopting more fuel-efficient technologies would take money away from regimes that support terrorism against the United States.
Adaptation Policies A final approach to climate change is adaptation to a warmer climate. A daptation would entail a div erse set of policies, including establishment of green corridors, pest and disease control, water conservation to deal with dr ought, and ne w infrastructure such as seawalls to cope with rising sea levels.73 Many scientists believ e that deliberate adaptation has to be par t of any approach to climate change because ev en if we take major steps to mitigate carbon emissions and pour r esources into developing new technologies, climate change has already arrived.
Many aspects of a deliberate adaptation strategy would be difficult to imple- ment in the market-oriented, decentralized context of the United States. Although some European countries, such as the lo w-lying Netherlands, are relocating people as part of their adaptation strategy, American politicians have little stomach for ini- tiating such controversial measures. Moreover, the combination of conservation and new infrastructure requires considerable public r esources and br oad coordination across multiple public agencies. Both are hard to achieve in the context of American politics. For example, the envir onmentally sensitive Sacramento delta is extr emely vulnerable to rising sea levels. The delta, a swath of land that lies below sea level, is economically important because it supplies much of Northern California, including California agribusiness, with water . Yet decisions about what happens in the delta involve more than 200 government agencies.74
Global climate change poses a difficult economic challenge for the United States. It presents the opportunity for American industry to take the lead in deve- loping green technologies, placing the nation ’s economic pr osperity on a funda - mentally new base. Yet it also calls for go vernment to enfor ce the r eduction of carbon emissions and adapt curr ent practices to a changing world. M any indus- tries have expressed support for action to address climate change, but such a major economic transformation creates winners and losers. Firms, such as the auto com- panies, whose pr ofits are jeopardized and wor kers whose jobs ar e threatened by change have successfully blocked bold action in the past. The diffuse long-term harms that climate change poses are hard to pit against the specific concentrated costs that industries face today . Nonetheless, gr owing r ecognition that climate change is r eal and poses potentially catastr ophic consequences ensur es that eco - nomic policy and envir onmental policy will be ev er more closely inter twined in the future.
One strategy for curtailing the effects of climate change is to reduce the use of fossil fuels in favor of “clean-energy” or “green” technologies. In 2016 the Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas opened its array of solar panels, which provides 42 percent of the base’s electricity requirements. Military leaders have deemed climate change a national security “threat multiplier” that both affects military operations and drives political instability abroad. (Data from U.S. Department of Defense, “2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap,” http://ppec.asme.org/ wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ CCARprint.pdf [accessed 11/28/17].)
667THE ENv IRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 667 27/11/18 4:11 PM
Economic Policy WHAT DO WE WANT? Economic policy brings up issues that cut to the core of how Americans set priorities
about their livelihoods and who has access to the American Dream. Just as Chris
Boggess is frustrated by the regulations that affect his craft brewery, you may have
frustrations with government economic policies that affect your life in areas such as
college funding, wages, taxes, and transportation. In myriad ways government policy
affects your future job opportunities, what kinds of further education or training you
can access, and where you may live. Changing policy in any of these areas means
tough decisions: If more government funding is provided for, say, college financial aid,
where does the money come from? Cuts to other programs? If so, which ones? Higher
taxes, but on whom? Economic policy spotlights these kinds of trade-offs.
The sharp partisan divide that has driven the politics of economic policy the last
three decades makes public debate about such issues more complicated than ever.
Most Republicans have pressed for freer markets and less government, while most
Democrats have defended the need for market regulation and more government inter-
vention in the economy. The partisan divisions have made it difficult for policy mak-
ers to come to terms with an economy that has changed radically since the debate
over more or less government commenced during the Reagan years. The American
economy is now far more open to the rest of the world, and many American firms do
most of their production in China and other developing economies, not in the United
States. At the same time, the distribution of economic gains in the United States has
shifted upward. As the debate about more or less government has led to a series of
policy stalemates among politicians, the income of the American middle class has
stagnated while the gains going to the top 1 percent have soared.75 Some Americans
think the government should do more to address income inequality through tax policy,
for example, by taxing the wealthy at higher rates, while others disagree. The “Who Participates?” feature on the facing page shows taxes as a percentage of income at both the federal and state and local levels.
Everyone agrees that economic policy should address the needs of the next genera-
tion. This focus on the future requires shifting the debate over economic policy from
“more or less government” to “what kind of government.” And as the federal govern-
ment has stalled over these issues, much action has shifted to states and localities.
We saw that some states and localities have raised their minimum wages. Some,
including Tennessee, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, and New York, have passed
laws to make community college free. These and other state models offer important
guideposts that can inform federal policy and perhaps ultimately help to break the
stalemate over government’s role in the economy.
668 CHAPTER 16 GOvERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 668 27/11/18 4:11 PM
20%
11%12% 12%
16%
11%
Learn more about your rights as a taxpayer, how to get help with your taxes, and how to avoid tax scams from the Internal Revenue Service (www.irs.gov).
Compare Tax Rates
Compare tax rates in the United States to those paid in countries around the world at www.businessinsider.com/america-taxes-charts-2013-1.
Learn more about how tax rates vary by income, state, and local area at www.taxfoundation.org. Contact your representatives at the state or federal level to express your opinion.
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
SOURCES: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, "Who Pays Taxes in America in 2018?," April 2017, itep.org; “The Final Trump-GOP Tax Plan," December 2017, itep.org (accessed 1/11/18).
Federal taxes: 23%
State and local taxes: 11%
Household income: $15,000 Household income: $310,000
Federal taxes: 7%
State and local taxes: 12%
Federal taxes State and local taxes
Income after taxes: $204,600
Taxes as a Percentage of Income, 2017
Income group
Average tax cut due to
2017 tax bill
7%
12%
1 1
%
2 2
%
1 1
%
2 3
%
1 0
%
2 3
%
9 %
2 5
%
Lowest 20% Next 5%
Next 10%
Next 4%
Top 1%Second 20% Middle 20% Fourth 20%
$100 $410 $800 $1,400 $2,770 $2,770 $12,470 $55,190
Income after taxes: $12,150
Who Pays Taxes?
WHO PARTICIPATES?
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 669 27/11/18 4:11 PM
Practice Quiz
4. The argument for laissez-faire capitalism was first elaborated by a) Ben Bernanke. b) Milton Friedman. c) Alan Greenspan. d) James Madison. e) Adam Smith.
5. Which of the following economic perspectives argues that government can stimulate economic growth by increasing public spending or by cutting taxes? a) keynesianism b) laissez-faire c) libertarianism d) monetarism e) fiscalism
Although all politicians want a healthy economy, they often have different views about how to attain it and what the priorities of economic policy should be. The three schools of economic thought that have been most influential with American policy makers, interest groups, and members of the public are keynesianism, laissez-faire capitalism, and supply-side economics. Government spending is contro- versial, but there is usually little public support for cutting specific programs. Consumer groups, environmentalists, businesses, and labor all work to shape economic policy.
Key Terms Keynesians (p. 642)
laissez-faire capitalism (p. 642)
supply-side economics (p. 643)
The Politics of Economic Policy Making
Practice Quiz
1. Which of the following is not one of the goals of government intervention in the economy? a) to guarantee economic equality b) to promote economic stability c) to stimulate economic growth d) to promote business development e) to protect employees and consumers
2. The total value of goods and services produced within a country is referred to as a) the gross national product. b) the gross domestic product. c) the Dow Jones Industrial Average. d) the federal funds rate. e) the Gini coefficient.
3. Inflation refers to a) a lack of change in the general level of prices. b) a tax on imported goods. c) a consistent increase in the general level of prices. d) a consistent decrease in the general level of prices. e) an increase in the interest rate on loans between
banks.
Public policies, which are officially expressed goals backed by rewards or punishments, can be embodied in laws, rules, regulations, or orders. In contemporary societies, government makes it possible for the economy to function efficiently by setting the rules for economic exchange and punishing those who violate the rules. Through a variety of different policies, the U.S. government has pursued four economic goals over the last century: to promote economic stability, to stimulate economic growth, to promote business development, and to protect employees and consumers.
Key Terms public policy (p. 633)
public goods (p. 634)
gross domestic product (GDP) (p. 634)
inflation (p. 637)
categorical grants (p. 638)
The Goals of Economic Policy
Identify the broad reasons government gets involved in the economy (pp. 633–41)
Explore why economic policy is often controversial (pp. 641–49)
CHAPTER 16 STUDY GU IDE670
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 670 27/11/18 4:11 PM
d) foreign exchange of currency. e) administrative regulation.
8. Monetary policy is determined primarily by a) state governments. b) the Department of the Treasury. c) the federal judiciary. d) the Federal Reserve Board. e) the president.
9. Government attempts to affect the economy by using its taxing and spending powers are called a) antitrust policies. b) expropriation policies. c) monetary policies. d) fiscal policies. e) redistributive policies.
10. A tax that places a greater burden on those who are better able to afford it is called a) regressive. b) progressive. c) inflationary. d) a flat tax. e) voodoo economics.
11. A policy whose objective is to tax or spend in such a way as to reduce the disparities of wealth between the highest and lowest income brackets is called a) antitrust policy. b) deregulation. c) discretionary spending. d) equalization. e) redistribution.
12. Which of the following statements best describes the U.S. budget deficit? a) The budget deficit grew substantially in the 1980s
and declined substantially in the 1990s before rising sharply again in the 2000s.
b) The budget deficit declined substantially in the 1980s and grew substantially in the late 1990s into the 2000s.
c) The budget deficit grew consistently between 1980 and the present.
The sustained growth of the American economy is the result of specific policies enacted by the U.S. government. The Constitution gives the federal government the power to set monetary and fiscal policies. Monetary policy in the United States is determined primarily by the Federal Reserve Board. Most of the U.S. government’s revenues come from personal and corporate income taxes, and most of the federal government’s budget is now made up of mandatory, rather than discretionary, spending.
Key Terms monetary policies (p. 649)
Federal Reserve System (p. 650)
federal funds rate (p. 650)
fiscal policy (p. 652)
tariff (p. 652)
progressive taxation (p. 652)
regressive taxation (p. 652)
redistribution (p. 653)
loophole (p. 653)
budget deficit (p. 657)
mandatory spending (p. 658)
discretionary spending (p. 658)
monopoly (p. 659)
antitrust policy (p. 659)
deregulation (p. 661)
subsidies (p. 661)
contracting power (p. 662)
Practice Quiz
7. Monetary policy seeks to influence the economy through a) taxing and spending. b) privatizing and nationalizing selected industries. c) controlling the availability of money and credit to banks.
The Tools of Economic Policy
Describe how the government uses monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policies to influence the economy (pp. 649–63)
d) an economic theory that argues every taxpayer should pay exactly the same tax rate.
e) an economic theory that argues all taxes should be paid by the consumers of goods and services rather than the suppliers of goods and services.
6. Supply-side economics is a) an economic theory that argues government
regulation of the economy should be limited to environmental protection.
b) an economic theory that argues for government ownership of the means of production and distribution.
c) an economic theory that argues tax reductions will spur economic growth because people will be able to spend and invest more of their money.
STUDY GU IDE 671
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 671 27/11/18 4:11 PM
McCarty, Nolan, keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. Political Bubbles: Financial Crises and the Failure of American Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013.
Page, Benjamin I., and lawrence R. Jacobs. Class War: What Americans Really Think about Economic Inequality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.
Schick, Allen. The Federal Budget: Politics, Policy, Process. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2007.
Stein, Robert M., and kenneth N. Bickers. Perpetuating the Pork Barrel: Policy Subsystems and American Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Stiglitz, Joseph E. Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy: An Agenda for Growth and Shared Prosperity. New York: W. W. Norton, 2015.
Waterhouse, Benjamin C. Lobbying America: The Politics of Business from Nixon to NAFTA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014.
Wells, David. The Federal Reserve System. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2004.
Baldwin, Robert, Martin Cave, and Martin lodge. Understand- ing Regulation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Bernanke, Ben S. The Federal Reserve and the Financial Crisis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013.
Blanchard, Olivier, Paul Romer, Michael Spence, and Joseph Stiglitz. In the Wake of the Crisis: Leading Economists Reas- sess Economic Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012.
Frank, Robert H. Falling Behind: How Rising Inequality Harms the Middle Class. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007.
Friedman, Milton, and Walter Heller. Monetary versus Fiscal Policy. New York: W. W. Norton, 1969.
Hacker, Jacob S., and Paul Pierson. Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010.
Harris, Richard A., and Sidney M. Milkis. The Politics of Regula- tory Change. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Jacobs, lawrence, and Theda Skocpol, eds. Inequality and American Democracy: What We Know and What We Need to Learn. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2005.
Practice Quiz
14. A cap-and-trade system is an example of which kind of policy approach to global warming? a) adaptation to a warmer climate b) not in my backyard (NIMBY) c) supply-side economics d) mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions e) promotion of alternative energy technologies
The federal government frequently regulates industry in order to protect the environment. One of the most important environmental issues currently facing the U.S. government is climate change. Policy makers charged with devising approaches to the problem of climate change have iden- tified three basic approaches: mitigation of greenhouse emissions, promotion of alternative energy technologies, and adaptation to a warmer climate.
The Environment and the Economy
Explain why the government tries to balance economic prosperity with policies that protect the environment (pp. 663–67)
Further Reading
b) Mandatory spending has been outlawed, and the total budget is now made up of discretionary spending.
c) Mandatory spending is now a much larger percent- age of the total budget than discretionary spending.
d) Discretionary spending has been outlawed, and the total budget is now made up of mandatory spending.
e) Discretionary spending is now a much larger percent- age of the total budget than mandatory spending.
d) The budget deficit declined consistently between 1980 and the present.
e) The budget deficit has remained exactly the same since 1980.
13. Which of the following statements best describes spending in the federal budget? a) Mandatory and discretionary spending now
make up approximately equal parts of the total budget.
CHAPTER 16 STUDY GU IDE672
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 672 27/11/18 4:11 PM
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System www.federalreserve.gov
The Federal Reserve System consists of 12 banks that use monetary policy to fight inflation and deflation. visit the Fed’s official website to see how it is working to maintain a strong economy.
Citizens for Tax Justice www.ctj.org
Review federal, state, and local tax laws at the website of Citizens for Tax Justice. This nonprofit organization is dedicated to educating ordinary citizens about tax laws and reducing the tax burden on low- and middle-income Americans.
National Bureau of Economic Research www.nber.org
The National Bureau of Economic Research is a non- profit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to creating a better understanding of the economy. Take a minute to review some of its free research publications.
Tax Foundation www.taxfoundation.org
The Tax Foundation is a respected organization that has been providing Americans with information about tax policy for more than 50 years. Click on your state to learn about current tax and spending policies.
Recommended Websites
Treasury Direct www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/govt.htm
Treasury Direct, part of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, provides a statistical look at federal, state, and public debt.
U.S. Department of Commerce www.commerce.gov
The U.S. Department of Commerce promotes domestic and international commerce to foster economic prog- ress. Review the initiatives and programs designed to encourage economic development.
U.S. Department of Labor www.dol.gov
The U.S. Department of labor seeks to promote the well-being of wage earners, retired workers, and people looking for work. look under “popular topics” to see some of the ways that the department aims to improve the conditions of workers.
STUDY GU IDE 673
wtp12e_ptr_ch16_630-673.indd 673 27/11/18 4:11 PM
Social Policy
chapter
171717
WHY SOCIAL POLICY MATTERS Marcella Wagner long thought she wanted to be a lawyer, and
first studied political science at college in California.
Later she changed course, realizing that she wanted
to help people in a different way, and she entered a
nursing program at the closest public university. She
was driving to class one day when the driver next
to her swerved into her path, causing her car to roll
over, crushing the roof. The hit-and-run accident left
her paralyzed from the chest down.1
No longer able to care for herself without assis-
tance, Wagner was eligible for Medicaid, the govern-
ment health insurance program for low-income people,
which also provides long-term care to the disabled.
In Wagner’s case, Medicaid pays a home health
care worker to help her with toileting, bathing, and
dressing. Because she lives in California, her mother
and sister can be paid to do these tasks. The pay is
minimum wage.
Wagner is eligible for Medicaid as a disabled
person, but she still has to meet the income and
asset limits that determine eligibility, because Medic-
aid is a means-tested program for the poor. After her
accident, Wagner and her husband Dave had to spend
down their assets to meet California’s eligibility limit,
which is $3,150 (excluding their house and one
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 674 27/11/18 12:47 PM
The crafting of social policies leads to challenging trade-offs, the outcomes of which deeply affect people’s lives. Upon being permanently disabled after a horrible accident, Marcella Wagner and her family faced difficult choices as they navigated America’s complicated system of social programs and government benefits.
vehicle), and they must keep their income below 133
percent of the poverty level (just over $27,000 in 2017
dollars for a family of three; they have a child). Medicaid
provides fairly comprehensive health insurance, but
payments to doctors and hospitals are low compared
to other forms of insurance, and she sometimes has
difficulty finding doctors willing to see her as a patient.
Wagner’s mother-in-law, Mary Ann, now lives in
Minnesota but often goes to California to help out
Marcella and Dave. As a senior citizen she gets health
insurance through Medicare, the government health
insurance program for older Americans. Medicare is
a contributory social insurance program for which she
is qualified as a retiree who paid a payroll tax during
her working years that helps fund the program. Most
doctors and hospitals accept Medicare, which pays
more than Medicaid. Because Medicare is a federal
program, the insurance is portable, so Mary Ann can
see a doctor while she’s staying in California.
Marcella Wagner is the sister-in-law and Mary
Ann the mother of one of this book’s authors,
Andrea Campbell. Campbell’s interaction with Ameri-
can social policy is different still from her mother’s
or sister-in-law’s. Like many Americans working
full-time, Campbell has private health insurance
through her employer. Government still plays a role
675
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 675 27/11/18 12:47 PM
by subsidizing her insurance: she and her employer share the cost of her
health insurance, but neither is taxed on the portion of the monthly premium
they pay. Campbell’s private health insurance covers some benefits that her
mother’s Medicare does not, such as vision and hearing, but she has to
use doctors within her plan’s network or pay more, unlike her mother, whose
Medicare insurance works the same nationwide.
As Andrea Campbell’s family’s experience shows, American social policy has
three main goals. It provides opportunity: in the hopes of a stable, well-paying
career in nursing, Marcella had pursued training at a public university with the help of
government-provided student loans. Social policy addresses the risks that people
might face in their everyday lives that are expensive and difficult to meet: illness,
unemployment, loss of income due to aging, or, as in Marcella Wagner’s case,
disability. And social policy seeks to alleviate poverty, the most controversial goal.
American social policy pursues these goals along three tracks with very dif-
ferent designs: social insurance (like Mary Ann’s Medicare), social assistance
(Marcella’s Medicaid), and tax expenditures (Andrea’s private health insurance,
subsidized through the tax code). Government resources are spent very differently
in each of these programs. As we might expect in a democracy, American social
policy broadly reflects the nation’s views about which risks should be borne by
the individual and which should be shared by society as a whole, and by which
means. However, support for the goals of social policy varies. There is broad con-
sensus that equality of opportunity is not only desirable but also an essential part
of American culture.2 In terms of risk alleviation and economic security, contribu-
tory social insurance programs are quite popular. But alleviating poverty through
noncontributory social assistance for the poor is much less favored.3
What factors go into deciding who gets what from social policies? How
do these choices reflect the viewpoints of politicians, interest groups, and
various members of the public? Do the outcomes we see mirror or contradict
American values of liberty and equality?
★ Trace the history of government programs designed to promote economic security (pp. 677–89)
★ Describe how education, health, and housing policies try to advance equality of opportunity (pp. 689–700)
★ Explain how contributory, noncontributory, and tax expenditure programs benefit different groups of Americans (pp. 700–707)
CHAPTER GOALS
676 CHAPTER 17 SoC IAL PoL ICy
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 676 27/11/18 12:47 PM
The Welfare State For much of American history, local governments and priv ate charities were in charge of caring for the poor. During the 1930s, when this largely priv ate system of charity
collapsed in the face of widespr ead economic destitution, the federal go vernment created the beginnings of an American w elfare state. The idea of the welfare state was new; it meant that the national go vernment would oversee programs designed to promote economic security for all Americans—not just for the poor. Today, the American system of social w elfare comprises many different policies enacted o ver the years since the Great Depression. Because each program is governed by distinct rules, the type and level of assistance available vary widely.
THE HISTORY OF THE SOCIAL WELFARE SYSTEM
America has always had a welfare system, but until 1935 it was almost entir ely pri- vate, composed of an extensive system of voluntary donations through churches and other religious groups, ethnic and fraternal societies, communities and neighbor - hoods, and philanthropically inclined wealthy individuals. Most often it was called “charity,” and although it was priv ate and voluntary, it was thought of as a public obligation.
There were great variations in the generosity of charity from town to town, but one thing seems to hav e been univ ersal—the tradition of distinguishing betw een two classes of poor: the “deserving poor” and the “undeserving poor.” The deserving poor were widows and orphans and others rendered dependent by some misfortune, such as the death or serious injur y of the family’s breadwinner in the course of war or honest labor. The undeserving poor were able-bodied persons unwilling to work, transients new to the community, and others of whom, for various reasons, the community did not approve. Thus, private charity was a very subjective matter: the givers and their agents spent a great deal of time and resources examining the quali- fications, both economic and moral, of the seekers of charity.
Before the Great Depression, much of the private charity was given in cash, called “outdoor r elief.” But because of fears that outdoor r elief spawned po verty rather than relieving or pr eventing it, many communities set up settlement houses and other “indoor r elief ” institutions. A still larger institution of indoor r elief was the police station, where many of America’s poor sought temporary shelter. But even in the severest weather, the homeless could not stay in police stations for many nights without being jailed as vagrants.4
The severe limitations on financing faced by private charitable organizations and settlement houses slo wly pr oduced a mo vement b y many gr oups to ward public responsibility for some of these charitable or welfare functions. Workers’ compensa- tion laws were enacted in a fe w states, for example; but the effect of such laws was limited because they benefited only workers injured on the job and, of them, only those who wor ked for cer tain types of companies. A mor e important effort—one that led more directly to the modern welfare state—was public aid to mothers with dependent children. Beginning in Illinois in 1911, the movement for mothers’ pen- sions spread to include 40 states by 1926. Initially such aid was viewed as simply an inexpensive alternative to providing “indoor relief ” to mothers and their childr en.
Trace the history of government programs designed to promote economic security
677THe WeLfAre STATe
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 677 27/11/18 12:47 PM
Moreover, applicants not only had to pass a rigor ous means test but also had to prove they were deserving because the laws provided that assistance would be given only to individuals who were deemed “physically, mentally, and morally fit.” In most states, a mother was deemed unfit if her children were born out of wedlock.5
In effect, these criteria proved to be racially discriminator y. M any African Americans in the S outh and ethnic immigrants in the N orth were denied ben - efits on the grounds of “moral unfitness.” Furthermore, local go vernments were allowed to decide whether to establish such pension programs. In the South, many counties with large numbers of African American women r efused to implement assistance programs.
Despite the spr ead of state go vernment programs to assume some of the obli - gation to r elieve the poor , the priv ate sector r emained dominant until the 1930s. Even as late as 1928 only 11.6 percent of all relief granted in 15 of the largest cities came from public funds.6 Nevertheless, the various state and local public experiences provided guidance and precedents for the national government’s welfare system.
The traditional approach, dominated by the private sector, with its severe distinc- tion between deser ving and undeser ving poor, cr umbled in the face of the star k reality of the Great Depression in 1929. During the depression, misfortune became so widespread and private wealth shrank so drastically that priv ate charity was out of the question, and the distinction betw een deser ving and undeser ving became impossible to draw. Around 20 percent of the workforce immediately became unem- ployed; this figure grew as the depr ession stretched into years. Moreover, few of these individuals had any monetar y resources or any family farm on which to fall back. Banks failed, wiping out the savings of millions who had been for tunate enough to have any savings at all. Thousands of businesses failed as well, throwing middle-class Americans onto the bread lines along with unemployed laborers, dispossessed farm- ers, and those who had never worked in any capacity. The Great Depression proved to Americans that po verty could be a r esult of imper fections in the economic system
During the Great Depression, the government took a more active role in helping poor and struggling Americans. Here, people line up to receive free bread.
678 CHAPTER 17 SoC IAL PoL ICy
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 678 27/11/18 12:47 PM
as well as of individual irr esponsibility. It also forced Americans to drastically alter their standards regarding who was deserving and who was not.
Once poverty and dependency w ere accepted as pr oblems inherent in the eco - nomic system, a large-scale public policy approach was not far away. By the time the Roosevelt administration took office in 1933 the question was not whether there was to be a public welfare system but how generous or restrictive that system would be.
FOUNDATIONS OF THE WELFARE STATE
The modern welfare state in the United States consists of three separate categories of welfare: contributory and noncontributory programs—many created by the Social Security Act of 1935—and the tax expenditure system—first established by the new federal income tax in 1913 and expanded over time.
Contributory Programs The category of welfare programs financed by taxation can justifiably be called “forced savings.” These programs force working Americans to contribute a por tion of their earnings to pr ovide income and benefits for present- day retirees, with the understanding that younger workers will one day provide for them in the same way . These contributory programs are also kno wn as social insur - ance. Social Security is the most w ell-known, and is funded b y an employer and an employee paying equal amounts, which in 1937 were set at 1 percent of the first $3,000 in wages, to be deducted from the paycheck of each employee and matched by the same amount fr om the emplo yer. This percentage has incr eased over the years; the contribution in 2018 was 7.65 percent subdivided as follows: 6.2 percent on the first $128,400 of income for Social Security benefits plus 1.45 percent on all earnings for Medicare. Starting in 2014, households earning o ver $250,000 a y ear paid an extra 0.9 percent in Medicare taxes due to a provision in the Patient Protec- tion and Affordable Care Act (ACA).7
Social Security may seem to be a rather conservative approach to welfare. In effect, the Social Security tax, as a for ced saving, sends a message that people cannot be trusted to save voluntarily to take care of their own needs. But in another sense, it is quite radical. S ocial Security is not r eal insurance; wor kers’ contributions do not accumulate in a personal account. The formula by which Social Security bene- fits are calculated is redistributive, aiming to provide lower-income workers with a higher proportion of their contributions than higher-income workers receive. This is because the goal of Social Security is to ensure a basic income to all workers once they retire. Research has shown, however, that due to different mortality rates and other factors, the system does not end up redistributing from well-off to less well-off work- ers as much as intended by the formula. The system does redistribute to women, who on average earn less than men, have fewer years in the workforce (and hence tend to contribute less to S ocial Security than do men), and liv e longer than men. 8 In the short term, Social Security redistributes money from the young to the old: the taxes of current workers are paying for the benefits received by current retirees. But Social Security also plays a vital role for young people by providing survivor benefits to those whose parents die, retire, or become disabled. Surviving spouses also receive survivor benefits. In addition, in 1956 Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) was created to provide a monthly cash benefit to the permanently disabled.9
Congress increased Social Security benefits every two or thr ee years during the 1950s and ’60s. In 1972, Congress decided to end the grind of frequent legislation
contributory programs social programs financed in whole or in part by taxation or other mandatory contributions by their present or future recipients
Social Security a contributory welfare program into which working Americans contribute a percentage of their wages and from which they receive cash benefits after retirement or if they become disabled
679THe WeLfAre STATe
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 679 27/11/18 12:47 PM
to incr ease benefits by establishing indexing, whereby benefits paid out would be modified annually by cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) designed to increase benefits to keep up with the rate of inflation. The average payment for retired workers in mid- 2018 is $1,413 each month.10
The biggest single expansion in contributory programs since 1935 was the estab- lishment in 1965 of Medicare, which provides substantial medical services to elderly persons who are already eligible to r eceive old-age, sur vivors’, and disability insur - ance under the original Social Security system.
Unemployment insurance is another contributor y program that is funded b y a combination of federal and state taxes. States set benefit levels and eligibility criteria for receiving unemployment insurance and tax emplo yers to fund the pr ogram. In most states, benefits last for a maximum of 26 weeks. In periods of high unem - ployment, Congr ess can enact extended benefits that authorize an additional 13 w eeks for those who hav e exhausted their r egular benefits. Such benefits are generally funded by federal taxes. Unemployment benefits are meant to help replace lost wages, but they do so at a lo w level: most wor kers receive only half of their wages. Moreover, because states impose criteria about how long a person must work or how much she must earn to become eligible for unemployment insurance, only about half of workers who lose their jobs receive unemployment benefits.11
Noncontributory Programs Programs to which beneficiaries do not have to contribute—noncontributory programs—are also kno wn as “ social assistance pr o- grams,” or, more commonly, as “welfare.” Eligibility for social assistance is deter- mined by means testing, a procedure that requires applicants to show a financial need for assistance. The 1935 Social Security Act founded cash assistance to families with children (later kno wn as AFDC) and cash assistance to poor elderly , blind, and disabled (later changed to S upplemental Security Income or SSI). I n the ensuing decades the government also created programs to provide housing assistance, food stamps, and school lunches. The largest single category of expansion was the estab- lishment in 1965 of Medicaid, a program that provides extended medical services to low-income Americans.
Like contributory programs, the noncontributory social assistance programs also made their most significant advances during the 1960s and ’70s. The creation of SSI in 1974 made benefits for the elderly, blind, and disabled uniform acr oss the nation. The number of people receiving AFDC benefits expanded in the 1970s, in part because ne w w elfare pr ograms had been established during the mid-1960s: Medicaid (discussed earlier) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is still sometimes called by its old name, food stamps. These programs provide what are called in-kind benefits—noncash goods and ser vices that would other wise have to be paid for in cash b y the beneficiary. At the time, AFDC r ecipients were automatically eligible for Medicaid and food stamps (a linkage later br oken by the 1996 welfare reform).
Another, more complex reason for the growth of AFDC in the 1970s was that it became more difficult for the government to terminate people’s AFDC benefits for lack of eligibility. In the 1970 case of Goldberg v. Kelly, the Supreme Court held that the financial benefits of AFDC could not be revoked without due process—that is, a hearing at which evidence is pr esented.12 This ruling inaugurated the concept of entitlement, a class of go vernment benefits with a status similar to that of property (which, according to the F ourteenth Amendment, cannot be taken fr om people “without due process of law”). Goldberg v. Kelly did not provide that the beneficiary
indexing periodic process of adjusting social benefits or wages to account for increases in the cost of living
cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) changes made to the level of benefits of a government program based on the rate of inflation
Medicare a form of national health insurance for the elderly and the disabled
noncontributory programs social programs that provide assistance to people on the basis of demonstrated need rather than any contribution they have made
means testing a procedure by which potential beneficiaries of a social assistance program establish their eligibility by demonstrating a genuine need for the assistance
Medicaid a federally and state- financed, state-operated program providing medical services to low-income people
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) the largest antipoverty program, which provides recipients with a debit card for food at most grocery stores; formerly known as food stamps
in-kind benefits noncash goods and services provided to needy individuals and families by the federal government
entitlement a legal obligation of the federal government to provide payments to individuals, or groups of individuals, according to eligibility criteria or benefit rules
680 CHAPTER 17 SoC IAL PoL ICy
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 680 27/11/18 12:47 PM
had a “right” to government benefits; it provided that once a person’s eligibility for AFDC was established, and as long as the pr ogram was still in effect, that per- son could not be denied benefits without due process. The decision left open the possibility that Congr ess could terminate the pr ogram and its benefits by way of legislation. If the welfare benefit were truly a property right, Congress would have no authority to deny it. In 1996 the entitlement to AFDC benefits was eliminated under welfare reform (discussed later).
Thus, the establishment of in-kind benefit programs and the legal obstacles involved in terminating benefits contributed to the gr owth of the welfare state in the 1960s and ’70s. But it is important to note that real federal spending (that is, spending adjusted for inflation) on AFDC itself did not rise after the mid-1970s. Unlike Social Security, AFDC was not index ed to inflation; without COLAs, the value of AFDC benefits fell by more than one-third (and fell further after the 1996 welfare reform).
State Variation in Welfare Benefits Some means-tested, noncontributory pro- grams are run by the federal government, with uniform eligibility criteria and bene- fits nationwide, such as SNAP, the school lunch program, and SSI. However, many other noncontributory programs are run jointly by the federal government and the states. Because states shar e responsibility for funding with the federal go vernment and have considerable flexibility to set eligibility criteria, social benefits can vary considerably by state. In the 1970s it appear ed that the United States was moving toward a more national set of standar ds with the cr eation of SSI, discussed abo ve. However, since that time, changes in federal laws and provisions for more state options have created considerable divergences among the states in other programs.
For example, in 2017 states ’ monthly TANF benefits for a family of three varied from $170 in Mississippi to $1,021 in N ew Hampshire, which passed legislation in 2017 to increase TANF benefits to 60 percent of the federal po verty lev el (see F igure 17.1). 13
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as “food stamps,” helps people in need buy food. Today recipients use a government-provided debit card that is accepted at most grocery stores. In 2017, 42.9 million Ameri- cans were enrolled in SNAP.
681THe WeLfAre STATe
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 681 27/11/18 12:47 PM
Most TANF payments ar e much lo wer than N ew Hampshire's and w ell below the federal poverty line, which was $20,420 per year or $1,702 per month in 2017.14
Unemployment insurance is another policy in which state benefits and eligibi- lity criteria div erge. Although for most of the pr ogram’s history states pr ovided a maximum of 26 w eeks of unemplo yment insurance, in r ecent years several states have opted to shorten the availability of unemployment insurance. Eight states now allow fewer than 26 weeks, while two states allow more weeks.15
The provisions for expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act of 2010, which we will examine mor e closely, initially aimed to cr eate an expanded M edic- aid program that would establish uniform eligibility acr oss the states. When the Supreme Court gave states the right to opt out of the expansion, and 19 states did so, the r esult was incr eased state v ariation. States also make other decisions about Medicaid eligibility that create state variation. For example, noncitizen legal immi- grants are required to reside in the United States for five years before they can receive Medicaid, but states can waive this requirement for children and pregnant women. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia waive this requirement.16
The political polarization we have seen in national politics is increasingly evident in state choices about social benefits. States governed solely by Democrats or solely by Republicans take very different perspectives on social policy. The result is a patch- work that is growing more, not less, diverse.
Tax Expenditures In addition to contributory and noncontributory programs, the United States provides social welfare benefits through tax breaks—credits, deduc- tions, and pr eferential tax rates that subsidiz e social w elfare thr ough what some analysts call the shado w welfare state. The tax expenditure system includes benefits that employers may offer to their workers, such as medical insurance and r etire- ment plans—both traditional pensions and 401(k)s (whether employers offer these “fringe benefits” is optional). The federal government subsidizes such benefits by not
tax expenditure system subsidies in the tax code that achieve social goals by lowering the cost of homeownership, child raising, employer-provided health insurance and retirement pensions, etc., through reduced taxation
FIGURE 17.1
Average Monthly TANF Benefits Spending on TANF benefits varies widely across the country. In 14 states, monthly benefits for a single-parent family of three are below $300; in 17 states and Washington, D.C., they are above $500. In which regions does spending on TANF benefits tend to be highest? In which regions is it generally lower?
SOURCE: Ife Floyd, “TANF Cash Benefits Have Fallen by More Than 20 Percent in Most States and Continue to Erode,” Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, October 13, 2017, www.cbpp.org/research/family -income-support/tanf-cash-benefits-have-fallen-by-more -than-20-percent-in-most-states (accessed 7/10/18).
ME NH
MA
RI
NJ DE MD DC
WI
IL
AL GA
FL
SC
NC
MS
MI
OHIN
KY
TN
VA
PA
NY
WV
VT
NE
ND
SD
KS
OK
TX
MN
IA
MO
AR
LA
MT
ID
CO
NM
AK
AZ
NV
WY
WA
OR
CA
HI
CT
Below $300 $300 to $399 $400 to $499 $500 and above
UT
682 CHAPTER 17 SoC IAL PoL ICy
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 682 27/11/18 12:47 PM
taxing the payments that employers and employees make for health insurance and pensions. The shadow welfare state also includes tax breaks that individuals can file for when they prepare their federal tax returns. For example, taxpayers can deduct the amount they paid in interest on a home mortgage from the income they report on their tax r eturns, as well as the state and local tax es they paid up to a $10,000 cap. There are also tax deductions for out-of-pocket medical expenses, child car e, charitable contributions, and so on. There are dozens of such tax br eaks in the tax code. By reducing taxes, these tax br eaks lower the effective cost of homeo wnership, health insurance, child-r earing, and other subsidiz ed activities. B ut such benefits are concentrated among middle- and upper-income people who ar e most likely to have employer-provided benefits at work and to engage in subsidized activities such as buying a house. P eople often do not think of these tax expenditur es as par t of social policy because they ar e not as visible as the pr ograms that pr ovide dir ect payments or ser vices to beneficiaries.17 B ut tax expenditur es r epresent a signifi- cant federal inv estment: although the 2017 tax bill signed b y P resident Trump alters some tax expenditures, they still cost the national tr easury over $1 trillion in forgone r evenue each y ear—about the amount collected b y the personal income tax, and greater than the amount spent on Social Security, the largest federal program (see Figure 17.2 for spending on select programs).18
HOW DO WE PAY FOR THE WELFARE STATE?
Since the 1930s, when the main elements of the welfare state were first created, spend- ing on social policy has gr own dramatically. Most striking has been the gr owth of entitlement programs, the largest of which are Social Security and Medicare. The costs of entitlement programs grew from 26 percent of the total federal budget in 1962 to 64.1 percent by 2014. Funds to pay for these social pr ograms have come dispropor- tionately from increases in payroll taxes. In 1970 social insurance taxes accounted for 23 percent of all federal revenues; in 2018 they had grown to 35 percent of all federal revenues.19 Meanwhile, since 1970 corporate taxes have fallen from 17 to 6.5 percent of all federal r evenues and will fall fur ther because of pr ovisions in the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act. Because the payroll tax is r egressive, low- and middle-income families have carried the burden for funding increased social spending.
Although much public attention has center ed on cash w elfare and other social spending programs for the poor such as food stamps, these pr ograms account for only a small proportion of social spending. For example, even at its height, AFDC made up only 1 per cent of the federal budget. S pending on SNAP benefits rose substantially during the Great Recession that began in 2008, but even at these his- torically high rates, spending on pr ograms for the poor is dwar fed by the costs of social insurance programs for the elderly. As Figure 17.3 shows, together the thr ee biggest programs that assist lo w-income people (SNAP, Medicaid, and unemploy- ment insurance) accounted for 2.8 per cent of gr oss domestic pr oduct (GDP) in 2018, while spending on pr ograms targeted at the elderly—S ocial S ecurity and Medicare—together represented 8.4 percent of GDP.20
Spending on Contributory Programs The biggest spending increases to the welfare state have come in social insurance programs that provide benefits to the elderly. Such expenditures are hard to control because these programs are entitlements, and the gov- ernment has promised to cover all people who fit the category of beneficiary. So, for example, the growing elderly population will require that spending on Social Security
683THe WeLfAre STATe
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 683 27/11/18 12:47 PM
FIGURE 17.2
Three Categories of the Welfare State Spending on select programs in each category of the welfare state shows that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the largest programs. Which are the smallest? How big are tax expenditures compared to social assistance programs?
SOURCES: Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Historical Tables, Table 11.3, “Outlays for Payments for Individuals by Category and Major Program: 1940–2023” www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical- tables/; Federal tax expenditure figures: Tax Policy Center Briefing Book, Table 1, “Largest Tax Expenditures,” www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-largest-tax-expenditures; Medicaid state spending for FY2016: Kaiser Family Foundation, “Federal and State Share of Medicaid Spending,” FY2016, www.kff.org/medicaid/ state-indicator/federalstate-share-of-spending/; CHIP state spending for FY 2016: Kaisers Family Foundation, “Total CHIP Spending,” www.kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/total-chip-spending/; TANF state spending for FY 2016: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “How States Use Funds under the TANF Block Grant,” April 2, 2018, www.cbpp.org; State EITC spending for 2008: Nicholas Johnson and Erica Williams, “A Hand Up: How State Earned Income Tax Credits Help Working Families Escape Poverty in 2011,” Table 3, April 2011, www.cbpp.org/files/4-18 -11sfp.pdf (accessed 5/15/18).
State Federal
795
690
143
31
375
70
51.9
22.5
5.7
48.9
5.7
236
140
68
64
54
205
16.3/1.2
20/15
2.6
Social Security OASI
Medicare
SSDI
Unemployment insurance
Medicaid
CHIP
TANF
SNAP
SSI
Child nutrition
WIC
Housing assistance
Day care assistance
Employer health insurance
Employer retirement
Mortgage interest deduction
EITC
Child tax credit
SOCIAL INSURANCE
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE
TAX EXPENDITURES
684 CHAPTER 17 SoC IAL PoL ICy
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 684 27/11/18 12:47 PM
automatically increase in the future. Furthermore, because Social Security benefits are indexed to inflation, there is no easy way to r educe benefits. Spending on medical programs (Medicare and Medicaid) has also proved difficult to limit, due to both the growing numbers of people eligible for the programs and rising health care costs.
Concern about social spending has gr own. In the past, ther e were always many more young workers than retirees receiving Social Security. That situation is chang- ing as individuals liv e longer and as the v ery large generation kno wn as the bab y boomers reaches retirement. Indeed, under curr ent law, the S ocial Security Trust Fund, the special go vernment account fr om which S ocial S ecurity payments ar e made, is projected to experience a shortfall beginning in 2034.21 At that point, if no changes are made to current law, the Social Security system will only be able to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefits.
Critics also contend that Americans ar e not getting their money ’s wor th fr om Social Security and that wor kers would be better off if they could take at least part of the payr oll tax that curr ently pays for S ocial Security and inv est it in individual accounts. They highlight unfavorable rates of return in the current system, noting, for example, that a male worker born in 2000 who is single can expect to see a return of only 0.86 percent on his Social Security contributions. This is far below stock market returns over the past decades. 22 Such arguments receive less attention during do wn- turns in the stock market, when public support for individual accounts tends to fall.23
Because Social Security is such a popular program, proposed changes that might weaken it are generally greeted with suspicion, and politicians often shy away fr om proposing changes to the system. President George W. Bush was an exception, how- ever; he came to office supporting Social Security reforms, including the creation of private retirement accounts. S oon after taking office, the president appointed the Social S ecurity Commission, whose final report pr ominently featur ed individual
FIGURE 17.3
Size of the Welfare State Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is projected to rise as a percent of GDP. Social Security, a contributory program that provides income to the elderly, is by far the largest welfare program in the United States. Which program is the smallest?
NOTE: Medicaid numbers include CHIP (beginning 1999) and ACA marketplace subsidies and cost sharing reduction payments (beginning 2014).
SOURCES: Office of Management and Budget, “Historical Table 11.3,” www.whitehouse.gov/ omb/historical-tables; Congressional Budget Office, “Long-Term Budget Projections (June 2018),” ww.cbo.gov. See endnote 20 for specific reports.
SPENDING AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP
19801970 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2035 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7%
Medicaid
Medicare
Social Security
Unemployment SNAP (food stamps)
Projections
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Is Social Security a policy “in crisis”? What changes are policy makers discussing to alter Social Security so that future generations can have a secure retirement?
685THe WeLfAre STATe
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 685 27/11/18 12:47 PM
accounts as a reform strategy. The commission recommended three reform plans, each of which offered workers the choice of contrib- uting a portion (ranging from 2 to 4 percent) of the payroll tax to an individual account. Each worker’s traditional benefits would be reduced by the amount diverted to the individual account. Accord- ing to the commission, individual plans would cr eate a better sys - tem because they would allow workers to accumulate assets and build wealth that could be passed on to their children.24
Given the politically volatile character of debates about Social Security, Bush backed off from proposing any changes in the pr o- gram during his first term; but in 2004, immediately after his re-election, Bush announced that he would make S ocial Security reform a centerpiece of his next administration. Although he did not put forth a precise plan, private accounts were at the heart of his approach to reform. During the first half of 2005, the president toured the country attempting to win support for his ideas. But he
immediately faced huge opposition as unions and AARP mobilized to oppose him. AARP launched a national adv ertising campaign against priv ate accounts. S enate Democrats, displaying unusual unity, closed ranks against the pr esident’s ideas. By October 2005 the president had to admit that Social Security reform was dead.
Supporters of the current Social Security system contend that the system’s finan- cial troubles are exaggerated. They believe that many of S ocial Security’s troubles could be solved by raising income taxes on the wealthy and eliminating the cap on payroll taxes. In 2018 only the first $128,400 in income was subject to the payroll tax. If this cap were lifted, these critics argue, the r esulting revenues would cut the expected shortfall in the Social Security Trust Fund in half.
Supporters of the current system are also deeply skeptical about the benefits of individual accounts. They charged that President Bush presented a rosy scenario that overestimated likely gains thr ough the stock mar ket. When more r ealistic assumptions ar e adopted and the costs of the priv ate accounts ar e consider ed, the critics argue, individual accounts would not pr ovide higher bene fits than the current system. Moreover, they note that individual accounts would do nothing to solve the budget crisis that Social Security will face.25
Finally, suppor ters of the pr esent system emphasiz e that S ocial Security is not just a retirement account but also a social insurance program that provides “income protection to workers and their families if the wage earner retires, becomes disabled, or dies.”26 B ecause it pr ovides this social insurance pr otection, suppor ters argue, Social Security’s returns should not be compared with those of a private retirement account.
Beginning with his presidential campaign announcement, D onald Trump pledged to “save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security without cuts.”27 Although the administration’s budget proposals for 2018 and 2019 did not cut Social Security retirement benefits, they did propose reductions in Social Security Disability Insur- ance spending and in the Social Security Administration’s operating budget, which had already fallen 11 percent between 2010 and 2017. Congress pushed back, rais- ing domestic spending caps in its F ebruary 2018 budget r esolution and r estoring some SSA operational funding.28
Although much of the public debate has focused on the costs of S ocial Security, most experts agree that Medicare and Medicaid pose the bigger budget challenge. The rapidly rising cost of health care—often at twice the rate of inflation—makes it
When government has tried to reform Social Security or Medicare, benefi- ciaries of these programs have rallied together—often successfully—in opposition.
686 CHAPTER 17 SoC IAL PoL ICy
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 686 27/11/18 12:47 PM
much harder to control how much the government spends. Moreover, as more of the large baby-boom generation r eaches age 65, the costs of M edicare are expected to skyrocket. While payroll taxes are sufficient to cover Social Security payments fully until 2034 and small changes in benefits and taxes would see the program through the baby-boom retirement years, the cost challenges to M edicare are much mor e significant. In 2016, Medicare accounted for 15 percent of the federal budget, and Medicare costs present an ongoing challenge in the effort to reduce the deficit.29
In 2016 then–Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) proposed replacing the current Medicare program with “ premium support,” payments that seniors could use to help pay for private insurance.30 An analysis of the Ryan plan by the Congres- sional Budget Office showed that while the plan might r educe the deficit, it would require elderly beneficiaries to pay substantially more for health care.31 Such changes are opposed b y a majority of senior citiz ens, and D onald Trump did not include premium support in his first federal budget proposal.32 However, rising health care expenditures and budget deficits mean that the issue of controlling costs in Medicare will remain on the national agenda.
Spending on Noncontributory Programs In contrast to Social Security and Medi- care, some contributory programs, particularly cash welfare, have experienced sub- stantial reform and spending reductions. From the 1960s to the 1990s, opinion polls consistently showed that the public viewed welfare beneficiaries as “undeserving.”33 Underlying that judgment was the belief that w elfare r ecipients did not want to work. These negative assessments were amplified by racial stereotypes. Although the percentage of welfare recipients who were African American did peak at 46 percent in 1973, falling to 36 per cent in 1995, racially dispr oportionate media por trayals helped create the widespread perception that the vast majority of welfare recipients were black. A car eful study b y Martin Gilens has shown how racial ster eotypes of blacks as uncommitted to the work ethic reinforced public opposition to welfare.34
During the recession of the early 1990s welfare rolls reached an all-time high. Sensing continuing public frustration with welfare, Bill Clinton as a presidential can- didate vowed “to end w elfare as w e know it,” an unusual pr omise for a D emocrat. When Republicans gained control of Congress in the 1994 midterm election, they proposed a dramatic r eform of w elfare, which Clinton, facing a campaign for r e- election in 1996, signed. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Rec- onciliation Act repealed AFDC and replaced it with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). In place of the individual entitlement to assistance, the ne w law created block grants to the states and allowed states much more discretion in design- ing their cash-assistance programs to needy families. The new law also established time limits, restricting recipients to two years of assistance at a time and creating a lifetime limit of five years. It imposed new work requirements on those receiving wel- fare, and it restricted most legal immigrants fr om receiving benefits. The aim of the new law was to reduce welfare caseloads, promote work, and reduce out-of-wedlock births. Notably, reducing poverty was not one of its stated objectives.
After this law was enacted, the number of families r eceiving assistance dropped by 60 per cent nationwide (see F igure 17.4). The sharp decline in the number of recipients was widely hailed as a sign that the w elfare reform was working. Indeed, former w elfare r ecipients hav e been mor e successful at finding and keeping jobs than many critics of the law predicted. One important indicator of how welfare has changed is the pr oportion of funds it pr ovides in cash assistance. B efore the 1996 reform, assistance was provided largely in the form of a cash grant. After the reform,
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Why was AFDC such an unpopular program? How did the creation of TANF alter welfare, and what has it meant for TANF as an antipoverty program? Should TANF be reformed again?
687THe WeLfAre STATe
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 687 27/11/18 12:47 PM
36 per cent of w elfare funds w ere used for cash assistance and 64 per cent w ere allocated for noncash ser vices such as assistance with transpor tation to work, tem- porary shelter, or one-time payments for emergencies so that people do not go on the welfare rolls.35 The orientation of assistance has shifted away from subsidizing people who ar e not in the labor for ce and to ward providing temporary assistance that facilitates wor k. But critics point out that most former w elfare recipients are not paid enough to pull their families out of po verty. While the 1996 law has helped reduce welfare caseloads, it has done little to reduce the underlying problem of poverty.36
Because the TANF block grants to the states w ere not adjusted to inflation, federal funds for w elfare have fallen in r eal terms. TANF was unable to keep pace with the growth of poverty caused by the Great Recession that star ted in 2008.37 Advocates for the poor contrasted it to SNAP, whose growth closely tracked the rise in unemployment and poverty during the recession. In 2007, before the recession took hold, approximately 26.3 million individuals r eceived SNAP benefits. By 2018 that number had risen to approximately 42 million people a month, close to 15 percent of all Americans.38
FIGURE 17.4
Annual Cash Welfare Caseload, 1973–2017* Welfare caseloads began to decline even before the 1996 reform. They have continued to plummet in the years since welfare reform. Welfare caseloads remained low even during the recession that began in 2008. Does the decline in the welfare caseload show that the 1996 reform was successful?
*Average monthly AFDC/TANF and SSP (separate state programs) families caseload.
SOURCES: Congressional Research Service, “The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions, Appendix Table A-1,” May 1, 2018, www.everycrsreport.com/reports/ RL32760.html#_Toc513188180 (accessed 8/9/18); Office of Family Assistance, “TANF & SSP: Total Number of Families 2017,” May 23, 2018, www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ofa/2017_family_tanssp.pdf (accessed 8/9/18).
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2018
March 2005: 2.1 million families
March 1994: 5.0 million families
December 2011: 1.9 million families
Great Recession
Early 1990s Recession Welfare Reform
Act of 1996
688 CHAPTER 17 SoC IAL PoL ICy
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 688 27/11/18 12:47 PM
In A pril 2018, P resident Trump signed an ex ecutive or der requesting Cabinet secr etaries to r eview assistance pr ograms such as TANF, SNAP, and housing assistance and str engthen or add work requirements for benefits. In January 2018 the administration allowed states to impose wor k requirements for M edicaid for the first time in the program’s history.39
“Spending” on Tax Expenditures Both contributor y and non - contributory pr ograms inv olve “ direct spending, ” in which the government lays out money to achieve a social objective. Tax expenditures are “indirect spending” in which government encour- ages social objectives by forgoing taxation associated with those objectives. B ecause any taxpay ers eligible for a giv en tax br eak may declare it on their tax r eturns, tax expenditures operate auto- matically, much as entitlements such as S ocial Security and Medi- care do . P eriodically commissions such as the A dvisory P anel on Federal Tax R eform during the G eorge W. B ush administration r ecommend limiting or eliminating v arious tax expenditur es, but most such pr oposals fail. Although the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act limited several major tax deductions, such as the deductions for home mortgage interest and state and local taxes, scores of tax expenditures remain in the tax code.
Opening Opportunity The welfare state not only supplies a measur e of economic security but also pr ovides oppor tunity. The American belief in equality of oppor- tunity makes such programs particu-
larly important. Programs that pr ovide opportunity keep people fr om falling into poverty and offer a hand up to those who are poor. At their most effective, opportu- nity policies allow all individuals to rise as high as their talents will take them. Three types of policies are most significant in opening opportunity: education policies, health policies, and housing policies.
EDUCATION POLICIES
Those who understand American federalism (see Chapter 3) already are aware that most of the education of the American people is pr ovided by the public policies of state and local go vernments. What may be less ob vious is that these education policies—especially the policy of univ ersal compulsory public education—ar e the most important single for ce in the distribution and r edistribution of oppor tunity in America.
For most of American histor y, the federal go vernment has played only a minor role in education. In the early years of the nation, the go vernment assisted schools through the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, both of which ensured that lands were set aside for public schools and their maintenance. In 1862, Congress established land-grant colleges with the Morrill Act. After World War II the federal go vernment stepped up its r ole in education policy with the
Describe how education, health, and housing policies try to advance equality of opportunity equality of opportunity a widely
shared American ideal that all people should have the freedom to use whatever talents and wealth they have to reach their fullest potential
In recent decades, welfare reform has emphasized work requirements and training for unemployed recipi- ents. Here, an instructor provides training in using power tools as part of a Detroit-area welfare-to-work program funded by the federal government.
689oPeN ING oPPorTuN ITy
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 689 27/11/18 12:47 PM
enactment of the GI Bill of Rights of 1944. The GI Bill, however, was aimed almost entirely at postsecondary schooling.
Elementary and Secondary Education (K–12) What finally brought the national government into elementar y education was embarrassment that the S oviet Union had beaten the United States into space with the launching of Sputnik, the world’s first satellite.41 As a result, in 1958 the federal government adopted the policy under the National Defense Education Act of improving education in science and mathe- matics. At the same time, the federal go vernment recognized the role of education in promoting equality of opportunity. In 1965 the Elementary and Secondary Edu- cation Act offered federal aid for education b y allocating funds to school districts with substantial numbers of childr en from families who w ere unemployed or low- income. By the early 1970s federal expenditures for elementary and secondary edu- cation were running over $4 billion per year. Today the federal government spends $79 billion, 10 percent of all spending on K–12 education; states and localities each account for 45 per cent of spending. Ov er time, ho wever, federal education funds have become less targeted on low-income districts as Congress has failed to update the formula for allocating funds.42
As w e saw in Chapter 5, the federal go vernment also pursued the goal of equal opportunity in education through its support for racial desegregation. This meant dismantling the system of “ separate but equal ” education in the S outh and challenging de facto racial segr egation in the North. Throughout the 1960s the Justice D epartment play ed a major r ole in pr essing for desegr egation and in monitoring pr ogress of school integration. Yet, more than 50 y ears after the Civil Rights Act, this goal has r emained elusive. Segregated patterns in housing create segregated schools unless vigor ous policy inter ventions are implemented. However, such poli cies, including r equirements for cr oss-district busing and provisions for affordable housing in affluent suburbs, have been struck down by the courts.
The Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush refo- cused the goal of federal education policy away from equal opportunity and toward higher standards. The Department of Education’s influential 1983 report, “A Nation at Risk,” identified low education standards as the cause of America’s declining inter- national economic competitiv eness. A ne w era emphasizing standar ds and testing began, although at first the federal role was primarily advisory to the states.
The federal role was substantially incr eased by President George W. Bush’s sig- nature education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Sup- ported b y D emocrats and R epublicans, the law sought to combine the goals of higher standards and equality of opportunity. It aimed to improve standards through stronger federal r equirements for testing and school accountability . Every child in grades 3 through 8 had to be tested yearly for proficiency in math and reading. For a school to be judged a success, it had to show positive test results for all subcategories of children—minority race and ethnicity, English learners, and disability—not just overall averages. Additionally, parents whose child was in a failing school had the right to transfer the child to a better school. Because of strong congressional opposi- tion to creating a national test, the states were made responsible for setting standards and devising appropriate tests.
As w e saw in Chapter 3, although NCLB initially attracted br oad bipar tisan support, it quickly generated considerable contr oversy. Many states branded it an unfunded mandate, noting that the law placed expensiv e new obligations on the
690 CHAPTER 17 SoC IAL PoL ICy
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 690 27/11/18 12:47 PM
U.S. Health Care: High Cost, Poor Outcomes In looking at the life expectancy of citizens in wealthy countries, there is a general trend: countries that spend more on health care see better health outcomes—except for the united States. Americans spend more on health care than almost any other country, yet life expectancy remains low in comparison. A 2017 report by the organization for economic Cooperation and Development (oeCD) cites three reasons why the united States lags in health outcomes: a highly fragmented system that leaves many people uninsured, poor health-related behaviors (e.g., higher levels of obesity, drug usage, traffic accidents, homicide), and higher rates of poverty and income inequality.a
While these explanations help demonstrate why Americans have a lower life expectancy, they only partially explain why
Americans pay so much for this care. The united States’ fragmented health care system contributes to health care inefficiencies, which undermine the quality of care while increasing costs. other factors commonly cited as causes for the united States’ high health expenses include doctors’ tendencies to overprescribe and over-test patients, overpriced pharmaceuticals and devices, and massive administrative costs due to a complex billing system.b This raises an interesting policy dilemma: if the u.S. government wants to reduce medical costs and improve the quality of health care, what would be the best policies to tackle these underlying problems?
a OECD, “Health at a Glance,” 2017, www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/health_glance-2017-en.pdf?expires=1526931082&id=id&accname=guest&checksum =30893EF283DD3E267220A7DA219DEF49, p. 48 (accessed 5/21/18). b N.F. Hanna, Dying of Health Care: How the System Harms Americans Physically and Financially, and How to Change It (Friday Harbor, WA: Copernicus Healthcare, 2016).
SOURCE: OECD, “Health Spending” and “Life Expectancy at Birth,” 2017, data.oecd.org (accessed 5/21/18).
12,00010,0008,0006,0004,0002,000$0
85 years
84
83
82
81
80
79
78
77
76
75
74
Chile
Czech Republic
Germany United Kingdom
Estonia
Finland
France
Hungary
Ireland
Israel
Japan
Korea Luxembourg
Mexico
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovakia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
HEALTH SPENDING AND LIFE EXPECTANCY, 2015
Turkey
United States
Greece
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 691 27/11/18 12:47 PM
schools to improve their performance but provided woefully inadequate r esources. Teachers objected that “ teaching to the test ” undermined critical thinking. I n some states, up to half the schools failed to meet the ne w standards, presenting a costly challenge to get more students up to speed. Under the federal law, they were required to impr ove student per formance by providing such ne w services as sup - plemental tutoring, longer school days, and additional summer school. M oreover, critics charged that NCLB actually undermined equality of opportunity because it ended up punishing underper forming schools—mostly those schools that bear the greatest burden for teaching the neediest students.43
Faced with these conflicts, the Obama administration sought a major o verhaul of NCLB. The president announced that states could apply for waiv ers that would exempt them from some of the requirements of NCLB. In return, states were required to show that they had adopted a strong set of educational standards and that they linked teacher ev aluations to test r esults. Most states endorsed the Common Cor e State S tandards, drawn up b y representatives of the National Governors Associa - tion and the Council of Chief State School Officers in 2010. While many educators believe that the standards could serve as a tool for promoting equality of opportunity by improving education in all schools, the testing regime associated with the Com- mon Core drew sharp criticisms as a return to the failed policies of NCLB.44
The Obama administration also put its imprint on education with its str ong support for charter schools—publicly funded schools that are free from the bureau- cratic rules and r egulations of the school district in which they ar e located and free to design specializ ed curricula and to use r esources in ways they think most effective. Though states across the countr y hav e passed legislation to authoriz e charter schools, many states hav e established caps on the number of ne w charter schools that could be created each year. The Obama administration put its weight behind charter schools by including a new $4.3-billion program of grants to state education programs, Race to the Top, as part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. To be eligible for the grants, states had to agr ee to lift the caps on the number of char ter schools that could be cr eated each year. In the end, 18 states and Washington, D.C., r eceived grants, 45 although sev eral years after
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Why did the No Child Left Behind Act, initially passed with bipartisan support, become so controversial? Do educational standards promote equality of opportunity? Why or why not?
Education policy is the most important means of providing equal opportunity for all Americans. In 2015, President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to replace the No Child Left Behind Act. ESSA gives states, rather than the federal government, the authority to evaluate schools and to use broader criteria than test scores to do so.
692 CHAPTER 17 SoC IAL PoL ICy
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 692 27/11/18 12:47 PM
the program began, it was clear that system-wide improvements in school perfor- mance were elusive.46
In 2015 a bipartisan coalition in Congress rejected the strong federal role repre- sented by NCLB and the Race to the Top by enacting a major ne w education law entitled Every S tudent Succeeds. The new law r eturned contr ol to the states for school per formance and made them r esponsible for devising their o wn methods of ensuring accountability. Controversial federal requirements for teachers’ evalua- tions and mandated standar ds were eliminated. Every Student Succeeds continues to mandate testing and disaggr egation of testing r esults by minority race and eth - nicity, English learners, and disability. It also requires states to inter vene to correct problems in the lowest 5 percent of schools but it leaves the specific remedies up to the states. While many hailed the new law, others charged that it would do little to alter the achievement gap between richer and poorer schools.47
The Secretary of Education under Donald Trump, Betsy DeVos, came to office a strong proponent of char ter schools and v ouchers, which allo w students to use public funds to attend priv ate schools. H owever, she str uggled to find broad sup- port for such programs, due in part to mixed evidence about their effect on student achievement.48
As policy makers, politicians, and educators have struggled over implementing standards and supporting alternative models for education, such as charter schools, some critics fundamentally question the focus of these efforts.49 These critics argue that American schools face unpr ecedented challenges in educating students fr om impoverished families and gr owing numbers of E nglish learners in a setting wher e the goal is to make ev ery student college-ready. From this perspective, the solution does not lie in more testing or in charter schools but rather in providing more assis- tance to children in poverty, free preschool, and enhanced assistance to the schools that educate lo w-income students and E nglish learners, so that all childr en may enjoy equality of opportunity.
Higher Education The federal government also plays an important role in helping to fund higher education, another important pathway toward opportunity. College graduates earn 50 percent more than high school graduates, and this higher educa - tion “wage premium” has grown over time.50
As in K–12 education, most funds for public systems of higher education hav e historically come from the states, not the federal government. However, federal pro- grams have made a big difference in pr omoting equal access to higher education. Perhaps the most celebrated higher-education program of all is the GI Bill of 1944, which put higher education in reach of a whole generation of World War II veterans who nev er thought they would attend college. The federal government built on this role in the 1950s and ’60s with the National Defense Education Act, which offered low-interest loans to college students, and the Higher Education Act, which supplied assistance dir ectly to colleges and offered additional need-based grants allocated to students by universities. In 1972, Congress created the Pell Grant pro- gram, which offered grants directly to lower-income students.
Together these pr ograms opened the doors of higher education much mor e widely than ever before in American history. Since the mid-1970s, however, as states have sharply r educed funding for higher education and college tuition has risen dramatically, these financial assistance programs have not kept pace. Whereas Pell Grants had initially pr ovided enough to pay for tuition plus r oom and boar d at a four-y ear public college, b y 2017–18, they co vered only 59 per cent of tuition
693oPeN ING oPPorTuN ITy
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 693 27/11/18 12:47 PM
and fees.51 The growing costs of higher education hav e put college out of r each for many lower-income students and have left those who do attend college with a heavy load of debt. In the decade between 2006 and 2016, average student debt grew by 16 percent to $28,400.52
Americans have long prided themselves on a system of education—at the pri- mary, secondary, and higher-education levels—that promotes opportunity. A chang- ing world economy that featur es intense competition fr om developing economies has put a premium on the importance of a highly skilled workforce. Yet, our system of education has fallen shor t in delivering the benefits of a high-quality education to all children, and higher education is now out of reach for many, even as it grows in importance. These challenges mean that debates about how education can best promote equal opportunity will grow even more intense in the future.
HEALTH POLICIES
Until recent decades, no government in the United States (national, state, or local) concerned itself directly with individual health. But public responsibility was always accepted for public health. After New York City’s newly created Board of Health was credited with holding down a cholera epidemic in 1867, most states created state- wide public-health agencies, r ecognizing that go vernment can play an impor tant role in preventing the spread of disease and reducing the likelihood of injury.
At the federal level, several agencies are committed to public health. The U.S. Pub- lic Health Service was established in 1798. It is headed by the U.S. Surgeon General. It includes, among other agencies, the N ational Institutes of Health (NIH), dedi - cated to biomedical research, and the Centers for D isease Control and Prevention, which monitor outbreaks of disease and implement prevention measures and aware- ness campaigns about HIV/AIDS, E bola, Z ika, and other public health thr eats. Additional federal commitments to the impr ovement of public health include the numerous laws aimed at cleaning up and defending the environment (including the creation in 1970 of the E nvironmental Protection Agency) and laws attempting to
Protecting public health has always been a focus of federal, state, and local governments. Here, Florida surgeon general and secretary Celeste Philip speaks to residents about protecting themselves against the 2015–16 outbreak of the Zika virus.
694 CHAPTER 17 SoC IAL PoL ICy
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 694 27/11/18 12:47 PM
improve the health and safety of consumer pr oducts (regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, created in 1972).
In addition to impor tant public-health campaigns, go vernment no w plays a significant role in pr oviding for individual health, which is closely connected to opportunity. Those who are uninsured or who cannot afford health care are more likely to become ill, are diagnosed at later disease stages, are less likely to receive care, and are less able to manage chronic conditions such as diabetes. When hospitalized, they are sicker and more likely to die.53
Health policies aimed directly at the poor include nutritional pr ograms, such as SNAP and the school lunch pr ogram, and M edicaid. Access to healthy food pr o- grams for infants and childr en is associated with better school per formance.54 In 2018 federal grants to states for M edicaid totaled an estimated $400 billion, up from $41 billion in 1990.55 Medicaid covers the poor and people who are disabled; it also assists the elderly poor who cannot pay Medicare premiums. Because there is no pr ovision for long-term car e in the U nited States, Medicaid has become the de facto program financing nursing home residents when they have exhausted their savings. In fact, the disabled and elderly account for 65 per cent of all M edicaid spending.56 Medicaid is the single largest medical insurance program in the United States, covering 72.4 million people, a number that r ose by 24 per cent after the ACA’s expansion provisions (discussed later) were put into place.57
Health Care Reform Even with the passage of the ACA in March 2010, the United States is the only advanced industrial nation without universal access to health care. Opposition fr om the American M edical Association, the main lobb ying organi - zation of doctors, pr evented President Roosevelt fr om pr oposing national health insurance during the 1930s, when other elements of the w elfare state became law. As a result, the United States developed a patchwork system: in 2016, 56 percent of the nonelderly population received health insurance through their employers, older Americans were covered through Medicare, and the poor and disabled were assisted with Medicaid.58 However, the growing cost of employer-provided insurance means that increasing numbers of workers cannot afford it. Many small employers cannot even afford to offer benefits because they are so expensive. And both Medicaid and Medicare face severe fiscal strain due to rising costs.
President B ill Clinton and F irst Lady H illary Clinton made a major effort to reform America’s health care system with the objectiv es of limiting the rising costs of health care and providing universal health insurance coverage for all Ameri- cans. Though at first the plan garnered enormous public suppor t, it gradually lost momentum as resistance to it took root among those who feared changes in a system that worked well for them. Following the failure of the Clintons’ health care initia- tive, Congress passed a much smaller program, expanding health insurance coverage for low-income children not already receiving Medicaid, called the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
The Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) After the 2008 election, the O bama administration and the Democratic Congress pressed forward with comprehensive health car e r eform. The administration aimed at covering most Americans who lacked health insurance with a r eform strategy that built on the existing system. The plan that ultimately passed had three key features. The first was the creation of new insurance exchanges where individuals could buy health insurance, along with insurance regulation that would prohibit insurers from denying benefits for a variety
695oPeN ING oPPorTuN ITy
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 695 27/11/18 12:47 PM
of reasons, such as preexisting conditions. With a few exceptions, the legislation also made insurers cover preventive care, such as v accinations, mammograms, and other screenings in full. The second provision of the ACA, known as “the individual mandate,” required uninsured individuals to purchase health insurance; those who did not have insurance would be subject to a fine (scheduled to rise over time) of 1 percent of yearly household income or $95, whichever was larger. The third major provision of the A CA was a set of subsidies to help the uninsur ed and small busi - nesses purchase insurance as well as an expansion of the public pr ograms Medicaid and SCHIP. The Medicaid expansion made mor e people eligible for the pr ogram by opening it up to people with incomes up to 138 per cent of the po verty level ($27,821 a year for a family of three in 2016).59 The reform also allowed working- aged adults without dependent children to qualify for the program for the first time. Figure 17.5 shows the percentage of Americans without health insurance over time.
The new health reform law faced challenges from state governments soon after it was enacted. Twenty-one states filed lawsuits against the legislation on the grounds that the pr ovision r equiring individuals to pur chase health insurance expanded the commerce clause bey ond its constitutional limits. The states also objected to
FIGURE 17.5
Health Insurance Coverage, 1972–2017 The percentage of Americans under 65 without health insurance reached 18.2 percent in 2010, when the ACA was enacted. With implementation beginning in 2014, the uninsur- ance rate fell to 10 percent in 2016. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the repeal of the individual mandate, effective 2019, will increase the number of uninsured by 4 million in 2019 and 13 million in 2027.
SOURCES: 1995–2015 Kaiser Family Foundation, Key Facts about the Uninsured Population, September 2016, Figure 1, http://files.kff.org/attachment/Fact-Sheet-Key-Facts-about-the-Uninsured-Population (accessed 6/12/17).
1972
20%
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 1992198719821977 2017
18.2
13.3ACA is signed into law
Individual mandate goes into effect
PERCENTAGE UNINSURED
1997 2002 2007 2012
696 CHAPTER 17 SoC IAL PoL ICy
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 696 27/11/18 12:47 PM
provisions that required them to expand their M edicaid programs to cover more poor people or lose the M edicaid funds that they r eceived from the federal go v- ernment. Even though the federal government initially paid for 100 per cent of the expansion and star ting in 2016 would co ver 90 per cent of ne w costs, the states argued that the federal go vernment had overstepped its powers in withdrawing all federal Medicaid funds if states did not comply with new coverage requirements.
The Supreme Court decided these suits in 2012, ruling that most of the act was constitutional.60 Chief J ustice John Roberts, regarded as a conser vative, surprised many obser vers b y personally writing the decision that declar ed the individual mandate constitutional. The decision on Medicaid, the second contested feature of the act, also came as a surprise. The Court ruled that Congr ess did not hav e the power to take existing Medicaid funds away from states if they did not comply with the expansion requirements. The governors of several states, including F lorida and South Carolina, immediately announced their intention to opt out of the expan - sion. Eventually, 19 states decided not to expand their Medicaid programs. In 2015 these state decisions left 3 million people who would hav e qualified for Medicaid without access to health care.61
The politics of health care reform remain a focus of partisan contention. By 2016 Republican members of the House of Representatives had voted 62 times to repeal the act and the public r emained split.62 After R epublicans won unified control of the presidency and both houses of Congr ess in the N ovember 2016 election, they drafted an Obamacare replacement bill. Reconciling the concerns of conservatives
Some Americans opposed the 2010 Affordable Care Act because they were concerned that decisions previously left to patients and their doctors would be made by the government.
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 697 27/11/18 12:47 PM
and moderates within the R epublican party proved difficult, and the version that passed the House in May 2017, with no Democratic votes, was too conservative for many Republicans in the S enate, as it ended the M edicaid entitlement by turning the program into a block grant to the states, and it permitted states to apply for waivers that would hav e effectively ended some r egulatory protections for people with preexisting conditions, among other changes.
Also affecting Senators’ considerations was an increase in public support for the ACA in the face of the repeal threat. By fall 2017, Republicans ended their efforts to repeal the ACA entirely, but did succeed in r epealing the individual mandate to purchase health insurance in the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, enacted in December 2017. The Trump Administration also cut the ACA enrollment period in half in late 2017 and reduced funds for adv ertising. Nonetheless, nearly as many Americans signed up for ACA health plans for 2018 as had enrolled for 2017.63
HOUSING POLICIES
Opportunity is also closely connected to housing. Access to quality, affordable hous- ing provides individuals and families with stability and fr eedom from pollution, infectious disease, chr onic disease, injur y, and anxiety and depr ession. The effects of quality housing are especially strong for children.64 The United States has one of the highest rates of homeo wnership in the world, and the central thr ust of federal housing policy has been to pr omote homeownership. The federal government has traditionally done much less to pr ovide housing for lo w-income Americans who cannot afford to buy homes.
Federal housing programs were first created during the Great Depression of the 1930s, when many Americans found themselves unable to afford housing. Through public housing for low-income families, which originated in 1937 with the Wagner- Steagall National Housing Act, and subsidized private housing after 1950, the per- centage of American families living in o vercrowded conditions was r educed from 20 percent in 1940 to 9 percent in 1970. Federal policies made an even greater con- tribution to reducing “substandard” housing, defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as dilapidated houses without hot r unning water and without some other plumbing. In 1940 almost 50 per cent of American households liv ed in substandard housing. By 1950 this had been reduced to 35 percent and, by 1975, to 8 percent.65
Despite these improvements in housing standards, federal housing policy through the 1970s was largely seen as a failur e. Restricted to the poor est of the poor and marked by racial segregation and inadequate spending, public housing contributed to the pr oblems of the poor b y isolating them fr om shopping, jobs, and urban amenities. Dilapidated high-rise housing pr ojects stood as a symbol of the failed American policy of “warehousing the poor.”
By the 1980s the orientation of housing policy changed. F irst, federal housing assistance for lo w-income Americans shifted to ward housing v ouchers (now called housing choice vouchers) that provide recipients with suppor t to r ent in the priv ate market. Although this pr ogram does not pr omote the same kind of isolation of the poor, most cities and suburbs hav e long waiting lists to r eceive vouchers; only one- quarter of eligible individuals and families r eceive them. 66 Another concern is that vouchers provide too little money to cover rental costs in very active housing markets.
Second, federal housing policy since the 1990s has inv olved tearing do wn the high-rise public housing units that had been such a failure and replacing them with new mixed-income units under a pr ogram called HOP E VI. The policy assumed
698 CHAPTER 17 SoC IAL PoL ICy
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 698 27/11/18 12:47 PM
that r educing concentrations of po verty would benefit the poor. U nfortunately, few of the original r esidents have been able to mo ve into the ne w units.67 As with housing vouchers, waiting lists could take years, even decades, in many cities.68
Overall, federal aid for lo w-income Americans seeking housing assistance is much smaller in value than aid to middle- and upper-class homeowners in the form of tax deductions. Total federal spending in 2014 for public housing, rental vouch- ers, and the low-income housing tax credit available to developers was $44 billion. In contrast, the v alue of shado w welfare state pr ovisions for homeo wners, includ- ing the tax breaks for home mortgage interest, property taxes, and capital gains on home sales, was about $130 billion, the majority of which accrued to the wealthiest 20 percent of people.69
Beginning in 2007 and 2008, a home loan foreclosure crisis presented the govern- ment with a different kind of housing problem. During the housing boom of the early 2000s, many homeowners received loans that they later could not afford to repay. This was due in part to the deregulation of the mortgage industry in 1999. The deregula- tion allowed many new mortgage companies to form, offering loans that cost little at first but later required large payments fr om homeowners. This form of “predatory lending” targeted unsophisticated buyers and made it very hard for borrowers to understand the terms of the loans, which contained pages and pages of small print written in legalese. Lending standar ds were relaxed to the point that rising numbers of borrowers were offered “no-doc” loans, which required no documentation of the borrowers’ income. As mor e and mor e Americans took out such loans, demand for housing rose, and housing prices skyr ocketed. This was the housing bubble—which was bound to burst because so many borrowers would not be able to pay back their loans. As growing numbers of homeowners began to default on their loans in 2007, banks foreclosed on their houses and the value of housing began to drop. This down- ward spiral set off the major recession that began in 2008. As borr owers defaulted, banks holding that debt, including the biggest banks in the U nited States, teetered on the edge of failure and threatened to destabilize the entire economy. Many of the new mortgage companies, which had grown into huge businesses, went bankrupt. As unemployment rose, more families, unable to pay their mor tgages, lost their homes. Many homeowners found that their homes w ere “underwater,” meaning the home - owners owed more on their mortgages than the mortgaged properties were now worth.
Between 2007 and 2013, mor e than 14 million homes w ere lost to for eclo- sure.70 The federal government responded with programs that would slow the rising
For decades, U.S. housing policy has been controversial and ever changing. Large high-rise public-housing projects created in the 1960s and ’70s, like Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis (left), were seen as public policy failures. Today governments have focused on providing low-income residents with vouchers to defray the cost of hous- ing and building smaller, lower-rise public-housing complexes (right).
699oPeN ING oPPorTuN ITy
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 699 27/11/18 12:47 PM
interest rates that w ere the cause of the pr oblem for some homeo wners or otherwise help homeowners facing for eclosure. However, these pr ograms did not experience much success. The effects of the housing bubble were felt for y ears bey ond the official end of the Great Recession in June 2009.
Who Gets What from Social Policy? The three categories of social policy—contributory programs, non- contributory pr ograms, and tax expenditures—generally ser ve dif - ferent gr oups of people. We can understand much about the dev el-
opment of social policy b y examining which constituencies benefit from different policies. The “Who Are Americans?” featur e shows four of the key ar eas in which the government provides assistance and pr esents recent data on the numbers and types of beneficiaries.
The strongest and most gener ous pr ograms ar e those in which the beneficia- ries are widely perceived as deserving of assistance and politically powerful. Because Americans value work, constituencies that have “earned” their benefits in some way or those who cannot wor k because of a disability ar e usually seen as most deser v- ing of government assistance. Politically powerful constituencies are those who vote as a gr oup, lobb y effectively, and mobiliz e to pr otect the pr ograms fr om which they benefit.
When w e study social policies fr om a gr oup perspectiv e, w e can see that the elderly and the middle class r eceive the most benefits from the government’s social policies and that childr en and the wor king poor r eceive the fe west. In addition, America’s social policies do little to change the fact that minorities and women ar e more likely than white men to be poor.
THE ELDERLY
The elderly are the beneficiaries of the two strongest and most gener ous social policies: retirement pensions (what we call Social Security) and health insurance for older Americans (Medicare). The aim of these programs is to pr ovide security and prevent poverty. As these pr ograms have grown, they hav e provided most elderly Americans with economic security and hav e dramatically reduced the poverty rate among the elderly. In 1959, before many people over the age of 65 received social insurance, the poverty rate for the elderly was 35 per cent; by 2016 it had dr opped to 9.3 percent.71 Because of this progress, many people call Social Security the most effective antipoverty program in the U nited States.72 This does not mean that the elderly are rich, ho wever; in 2016 the median income of elderly households was $39,823, well below the national median income of $59,039.73
Even with the success of these pr ograms at reducing poverty among the elderly, older African Americans and Latinos are much more likely to be poor than are white seniors. In 2016 the po verty rate for African Americans o ver age 65 was 18.5 per - cent; for Latinos over age 65 it was 17.4 percent, compared to only 7.1 percent for non-Hispanic whites over 65.74 The difference is due in par t to the lower wages of these groups during their working years since Social Security benefits are pegged to
Explain how contributory, noncontributory, and tax expenditure programs benefit different groups of Americans
Because of their large population and strength in voting and organizing, the elderly in America receive many benefits from the federal government. Medicare and Social Security are two of America’s most popular social policies.
700 CHAPTER 17 SoC IAL PoL ICy
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 700 27/11/18 12:47 PM
* Percentages are of total value to each income group.
SOURCES: 2016 CMS Statistics, www.cms.gov/; 2015 SSDI Annual Statistical Report, www.ssa.gov/; Joint Committee on Taxation, Estimates of Federal Tax Expenditures, 2016-2020; www.jct.gov (accessed 3/1/18).
SSDI Enrollees: Disabled Workers, 2015
SEX
52% Male
48% Female
AGE
2% <30
24% 30–49
74% 50–66
Medicaid Enrollees, 2016 SEX
42% Male
58% Female
AGE
52% <21
39% 21–64
9% 65+
RACE / ETHNICITY
40% White
22% Black
25% Hispanic
3% Asian
10% Other
72.2 million total
8.9 million total
0.3% <$30,000
46% >$200,000
1.4% $30,000–$50,000
14% $50,000–$100,000
38.3% $100,000–$200,000
Home Mortgage Interest Deduction
70% <$30,000
23% $30,000–$50,000
7% $50,000–$100,000
Earned Income Tax Credit
Almost all Americans bene�t from social policy programs at some point in their lives. Two important programs in Ameica's safety net are Medicaid, which provides health insurance to the poor, and Social Security Disability Insurance, which helps Americans who are permanently disabled. Children make up a disproportionate number of the Medicaid enrollees, while people over 50 make up a disproprtionate share of SSDI recipients. The Earned Income Tax Credit bene�ts low- to moderate-income working individuals, especially those with children. Middle- and upper-class people also bene�t from governmental programs, like the home mortgage deduction.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS 1. What are some of the major differences between the demographics of those receiving each program?
2. What underlying social patterns about poverty and government help do these data suggest?
WHO ARE AMERICANS?
Who Receives Benefits from Social Programs?
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 701 27/11/18 12:47 PM
wages. Social Security may do less to pull immigrants out of poverty depending on the number of years they have worked in the United States.
One reason that S ocial Security and M edicare are politically str ong is that the elderly are widely seen as a deser ving population. They are not expected to wor k because of their age. Moreover, both programs are contributory, and a work history is a r equirement for r eceiving a S ocial S ecurity pension. B ut these pr ograms ar e also strong because they ser ve a constituency that has become quite po werful. The elderly ar e a v ery large gr oup: in 2017, ther e w ere 50.9 million Americans o ver the age of 65.75 Because Social Security and Medicare are not means-tested, they are available to nearly all people over the age of 65, whether they are poor or not. The size of this group is of great political importance because the rates of voter turnout are greater among the elderly than among the rest of the population.
In addition, the elderly hav e developed strong and sophisticated lobbying orga- nizations that can influence policy making and mobilize older Americans to defend these programs against proposals to cut them. One important and influential such organization is AARP. AARP had 38 million members in 2016, amounting to one- quarter of all voters. It also has a sophisticated lobbying organization in Washington, which employs 51 lobbyists and a staff of nearly 50 policy analysts.76 (See Chapter 11 for mor e discussion of AARP’ s lobb ying efforts.) Although AARP is the largest and the strongest organization of the elderly, other groups, such as the Alliance for Retired Americans, to which many retired union members belong, also lobby Con- gress on behalf of the elderly . When Congress considers changes in pr ograms that affect the elderly, these lobbying groups pay close attention. They mobilize their sup- porters and work with legislators to block changes they believe will hurt the elderly.77
THE MIDDLE AND UPPER CLASSES
Americans don’t usually think of the middle class or upper class as benefiting from social policies, but government action promotes the social welfare of the middle and upper classes in a variety of ways. First, health insurance and pensions for the elderly help the middle class by relieving them of the burden of caring for elderly relatives. Before these programs existed, old people were more likely to live with and depend financially on their adult children. Many middle-class families whose par ents and grandparents are in nursing homes rely on Medicaid to pay nursing home bills.
Second, the middle and upper classes ar e the chief beneficiaries of the shadow welfare state of tax expenditures.78 Beyond the Earned Income Tax Credit (or EITC, described later), which principally benefits the working poor, the great majority of tax expenditure benefits go to middle- and upper-income households. For example, while households with incomes under $30,000 receive 68 percent of the EITC. But households with incomes over $200,000 claim 49 percent of the state and local tax deduction (which was 71 percent before it was limited by the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act), 58 percent of the home mortgage deduction, and 83 percent of the deduction for charitable contributions.79
THE WORKING POOR
People who ar e working but ar e poor or just abo ve the po verty line r eceive only lim - ited assistance from government social programs. This is somewhat surprising, given that Americans value work so highly. But the working poor are typically employed in jobs that do not provide pensions or health insurance; often, they ar e renters because they cannot
702 CHAPTER 17 SoC IAL PoL ICy
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 702 27/11/18 12:47 PM
afford to buy homes. This means they cannot benefit from the shadow welfare state that subsidizes the social benefits enjoyed by most middle-class Americans. Because the wages of less educated workers have declined significantly since the 1980s and minimum wages have not kept pace with inflation, the problems of the working poor remain acute.
Government programs that assist the working poor include the ACA (described earlier), the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and SNAP (formerly known as food stamps). The EITC was implemented in 1976 to pr ovide poor workers some relief from increases in the taxes that pay for Social Security. As it has expanded, the EITC has provided a modest wage supplement for the wor king poor, allowing them to catch up on utility bills or pay for children’s clothing.
Poor workers can also r eceive benefits from SNAP. To be eligible, households must earn below 130 percent of the poverty line (about $26,600 a year for a three- person family in 2018). The average monthly benefit for a family of three is $376 a month.80 Food advocates, such as Feeding America, have encouraged people to take “the SNAP Challenge,” in which people who do not need food stamps spend $1.50 a meal (the average for SNAP recipients) for a week. In the words of one high- profile participant, “I was hungry last week—laser-focused on how much food was left in the fridge and ho w many dollars were left in my wallet. I was scar ed about eating portions that were too big, and wasn’t sure what to do if my food ran out.”81
The working poor ar e mor e likely to be in jobs that do not pr ovide health benefits from their employers. By expanding Medicaid to cover workers who earn up to 138 per cent of the poverty line ($28,676 for a family of thr ee in 2018), the ACA sought to ensure coverage to this group. However, the decision of 19 states to opt out of Medicaid expansion left a gap in coverage. Latinos and African Americans were especially likely to be harmed b y this gap compar ed to whites: 27 per cent of Hispanics and 16 per cent of blacks lacked access to health insurance as a r esult of these state decisions, compared to 11 percent of whites.82
Even though the wor king poor may be seen as deser ving, they ar e not politi - cally powerful because they are not organized. There is no equivalent to AARP for the poor. Nonetheless, because wor k is highly v alued in American society , politi - cians find it difficult to cut the few social programs that help the working poor. In 1995 efforts to cut the EITC were defeated by coalitions of Democrats and moder- ate Republicans, although Congress did place new restrictions on food stamps and reduced the level of spending on this type of aid.
THE NONWORKING POOR
The only nonworking, able-bodied poor people who r eceive federal cash assistance are parents who ar e caring for childr en. The primary source of cash assistance for these families was AFDC and now is the state-run TANF program; such families also rely on SNAP and Medicaid. Able-bodied adults who are not caring for children are not eligible for federal assistance other than food stamps. Many states provide small amounts of cash assistance to such individuals thr ough programs called “ general assistance,” but most states have abolished or greatly reduced their general-assistance programs in an effort to encourage these adults to wor k. Americans generally don’t like to subsidize adults who are not working, but they do not want to harm children.
AFDC was the most unpopular social spending pr ogram ev er under taken b y the federal government; as a r esult, it was vulnerable to r eform. Under its replace- ment, TANF, states receive a fixed amount of federal funds, unadjusted for inflation, whether the welfare rolls rise or fall. Welfare recipients have little political power to
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Two factors that seem to influence a particular group’s ability to get what it wants from social policy are (1) the perception that the group is deserving and (2) the political organization and power of the group. How have these factors affected social policy in recent years?
703WHo GeTS WHAT froM SoC IAL PoL ICy?
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 703 27/11/18 12:47 PM
resist cuts to their benefits. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the shor t-lived National Welfare Rights O rganization sought to r epresent the inter ests of w elfare recipients. But keeping the organization in operation pr oved difficult because its members and its constituents had fe w r esources and w ere difficult to organize.83 Because welfare recipients are widely viewed as undeserving and are not politically organized, they have played little part in debates about welfare.
The deep recession that started in 2008 meant that record numbers of Americans were without work. In part because of eligibility expansions during the G eorge W. Bush administration, the numbers of people r eceiving SNAP benefits during this period soared. At the height in 2013, o ver 47 million people (mor e than one in seven Americans) r eceived SNAP benefits. As the unemployment rate declined, the number of SNAP beneficiaries began to decline as w ell, although in 2018, 42.3 million people continued to rely on SNAP.84 These numbers reflect the high levels of need that persisted long after the recession.
MINORITIES, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN
Minorities, women, and childr en are disproportionately poor. Much of this po verty is the result of disadvantages that stem from the position of these groups in the labor market. In 2016 the po verty rate for African Americans was 22.0 per cent, and for Latinos it was 19.4 percent. Both rates are more than double the poverty rate for non-Hispanic whites, which was 8.8 per cent. The median income for black house- holds in 2016 was $39,490. For Hispanics, it was $47,675, whereas for non-Hispanic white households the median household income was $65,041. 85 Much of this eco - nomic inequality occurs because minority workers tend to have low-wage jobs. Minor- ities are also more likely to become unemployed and to remain unemployed for longer periods of time than ar e white Americans. African Americans, for example, typically have experienced twice as much unemployment as have other Americans. The combi- nation of low-wage jobs and unemployment often means that minorities are less likely to have jobs that give them access to the shadow welfare state. They are more likely to fall into the precarious categories of the working poor or the nonworking poor.
The poor and working poor (including many single mothers) have little influence on government. Although organized protests representing their interests occasionally do occur, they fail to have the impact of similar protests by other groups, such as senior citizens.
704 CHAPTER 17 SoC IAL PoL ICy
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 704 27/11/18 12:47 PM
More than 30 years ago, policy analysts began to talk about the “ feminization of poverty,” or the fact that women are more likely than men to be poor. This problem is par ticularly acute for single mothers, who ar e more than twice as likely to fall below the poverty line as the av erage American (see F igure 17.6). When the Social Security Act was passed in 1935, the framers did not envision today’s large number of single women heading families. At the same time, they did not envision that so many women with childr en would also be wor king. This combination of changes helped make AFDC more controversial. Many people asked why welfare recipients shouldn’t work, if the majority of women who were not on welfare worked. Such questions led to the welfare reform of 1996, which created TANF.
The need to combine work and child care was understood as a challenging prob- lem for most single parents. This problem is more acute for single mothers than for single fathers because, on av erage, women still earn less than men and because working cr eates ne w expenses such as child car e and transpor tation costs. M any women working in lo w-wage jobs do not r eceive health insurance as a benefit of their jobs; they must pay the cost of such insurance themselv es. As a r esult, many poor women found that once they w ere working, the expenses of child car e, trans- portation, insurance, and other needs left them with less cash per month than they would have received if they had not wor ked and had instead collected AFDC and Medicaid benefits. These women concluded that it was not “worth it” for them to leave AFDC and go to work. Some states are now experimenting with programs to encourage women to work by allowing them to keep some of their welfare benefits even when they ar e wor king. Although Americans want individuals to be self- sufficient, research suggests that single mothers with lo w-wage jobs ar e likely to need continuing assistance to make ends meet.86
One of the most troubling issues related to American social policy is the number of American childr en who liv e in po verty. The rate of child poverty in 2016 was
FIGURE 17.6
Poverty Levels in the United States, 1966–2016 Poverty rates in the U.S. population vary considerably. The rate of poverty among female-headed households declined significantly in the 1990s, increased again after 2000, and declined again after 2010. Which group has seen the greatest reduction in its poverty level since 1966?
SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Poverty Tables, “Table 2. Poverty Status of People by Family Relationship, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 2016” and “Table 3. Poverty Status of People, by Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin,” www.census.gov/data/ tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical -poverty-people.html (accessed 7/16/18).
Female-headed households
People 65 and older
All people
People under 18
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
PERCENTAGE LIVING BELOW POVERTY LINE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45%
In 1982 the percentage of elderly people in poverty dropped below the national average.
In the early 1980s the poverty rate for children began to rise.
705WHo GeTS WHAT froM SoC IAL PoL ICy?
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 705 27/11/18 12:47 PM
18.0 percent—5.3 percentage points higher than that of the population as a whole. African American and Latino children experience much higher rates of poverty than do whites. In 2016 the rate of child poverty for white childr en was 10.8 percent, while 26.6 per cent of Latino childr en and 30.8 per cent of black childr en lived in poverty.87 These high rates of po verty stem in par t from the design of American social policies. B ecause these policies do not gener ously assist able-bodied adults who aren’t working and they offer little help to the working poor, the childr en of these adults are likely to be poor as well.
As child poverty has grown, several lobbying groups have emerged to r epresent children’s interests; the best known of these is the Children’s Defense Fund. But even with a sophisticated lobbying operation, and although their numbers are large, poor children do not vote and therefore cannot wield much political power.88
THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS
How do new policies evolve? Political scientist John Kingdon offers a model of the policymaking pr ocess with thr ee str eams: problems, policies, and politics. H as a societal condition been identified as a problem for which a go vernment solution would be desirable? Ar e ther e viable policy alternativ es av ailable to addr ess the problem? And is the political envir onment conducive to implementing a solution, given the state of public opinion, par ty contr ol of go vernment, economic condi - tions, and so on? Often, only one or two streams are present at any one time, and the policy status quo r emains in place. B ut on the rar e occasions when the thr ee streams converge, a “window of opportunity” opens in which new policy is possible.89
The social policy response to the emergence of a “new” risk to economic security that has emerged in r ecent decades—rising employment rates among women with caregiving obligations for childr en and elders—illustrates ho w the policymaking process works. Many social policies enacted during the 1930s and 1960s assumed a male breadwinner model. But a “problem stream” soon emerged as the majority of women and mothers joined the workforce, exposing new strains on workers who need to take time off work to car e for a sick child or attend a disabled par ent. A coalition of advocates that had first emerged to lobby for workplace equality in the 1970s began to push for a new family leave policy that would allow workers to take time off for a variety of family and medical reasons.90
The coalition worked hard on the “ policy stream”; that is, crafting a pr oposal likely to garner the majority suppor t needed for passage in both chambers of Congress. To maximize political support, advocates compromised on a number of policy parameters. First, to minimize business opposition, they sought unpaid leave only, not paid leav e. If they succeeded in securing unpaid leav e, they could fight for paid leave later. Second, to maximize support, they expanded coverage beyond parents needing leav e for childbir th or to car e for a sick child to people needing leave for their own illness or to care for an ill spouse or older r elative. This modifi- cation attracted the support of the powerful AARP. Third, they also expanded sup- port b y making it clear that leav e granted under the F amily and M edical Leav e Act could not be used b y women seeking abor tions. This provision allo wed the United States Catholic Confer ence to suppor t the bill and enabled pr oponents to frame the bill as pr o-family, helping garner the v otes of R epublican lawmakers. Finally, advocates signaled to lawmakers an openness to compr omise on the length of leave and the number and type of emplo yees covered. Advocates’ original pr o- posal required all employers to provide 18 weeks of parental leave and 26 weeks of
706 CHAPTER 17 SoC IAL PoL ICy
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 706 27/11/18 12:47 PM
disability leave in each two-y ear period. The final bill instead provided 12 w eeks of unpaid leave to be used o ver a 12-month period b y employees of firms with at least 50 workers who had worked at least 1,250 hours in the preceding year; the top 10 per cent of earners ar e ex empt fr om this benefit. Thus only about half of American workers are eligible for FML A leaves. But these compr omises created a credible policy alternative.
Although the pr oblem stream and the policy str eam had come together , FMLA was temporarily stymied by an unfavorable political stream. In 1990 the bill passed the House but not the Senate. In 1991 the bill passed both chambers of Congress but was vetoed by President George H. W. Bush, a Republican. Finally, with Democrat Bill Clinton’s presidential victory in 1992, the political stream turned favorable for the FMLA. Advocates were still cautious, however; rather than try to take advantage of unified Democratic control of government to increase the number of weeks of leave or the number of employees covered, or even to introduce paid leave, they supported the same version that had passed earlier. They were exhausted after years of advocacy, and they wanted an “easy win” for the new president.91 The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 became the first piece of legislation that Bill Clinton signed into law.
The American system of government poses many hur dles for legislation to overcome—the lobbying and influence of battling interest groups, the requirement to win approval from both chambers of Congress and the president. But the Ameri- can system also provides opportunity, such as the “venue shopping” afforded by the federal system of government. If advocates do not succeed in securing their desired policy outcomes at one lev el of government, they can tr y elsewhere. And as adv o- cates for paid family leave faced roadblocks at the federal level, they have turned to states where they anticipate a greater likelihood of success.
In par ticular, advocates of paid leav e focused on California, wher e Democrats controlled the go vernorship and state legislatur e and wher e there was a state-r un short-term disability pr ogram to which family leav e could be added. I n 2002, California Paid Family Leave was enacted. I t provides six w eeks of paid leav e to employees, regardless of firm size. As with the FMLA, advocates compromised: they originally wanted 12 weeks of paid leave, and they wanted the payroll tax that funds the leave to be shar ed equally by employers and employees, like the federal S ocial Security tax. Instead, business interests advocated for the shorter leave and for fund- ing to come from employee payroll taxes only. These compromises enabled passage. A higher percentage of people in California use that state’s paid leave program than people in other states use the unpaid federal leave. And surveys show that problems for business in California hav e been minimal. 92 In light of successful implementa - tion and positive policy evaluations in California—two mor e steps in the iterativ e policymaking pr ocess—New J ersey, N ew York, Rhode I sland, Washington, and Washington, D.C., have enacted similar paid family leave laws.
Social Policy WHAT DO WE WANT? Most people most of the time support themselves and their loved ones through work.
Social policy is a means for government to help people be able to work in the first
place—through education programs—and to help offset the risks to the ability to work,
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Why is social policy so difficult to change? Do you feel it should be easier to enact new social policy?
707SoC IAL PoL ICy : WHAT Do We WANT?
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 707 27/11/18 12:47 PM
such as illness, disability, aging, caregiving, and unemployment. Although support for
education is relatively uncontroversial in the united States, given strong belief in equal-
ity of opportunity, other goals of social policy are more controversial. Major political
debates center on which risks to address, by what means, and for which groups
in society. More controversial yet is the alleviation of poverty, as attitudes can vary
depending on views about who is poor and why they are poor.
These debates about social policy reflect differing philosophies toward the role of
government. Liberals often argue that more generous social policies are needed if the
united States is truly to ensure equality of opportunity. Some liberals have argued that
the government needs to go beyond simply providing opportunity and should ensure
more equal conditions, especially where children are concerned. Conservative critics, on
the other hand, often argue that social policies that offer income support take the ideal
of equality too far and, in the process, do for individuals what those individuals should
be doing for themselves. from this perspective, social policies make the government too
big, and big government is seen as a fundamental threat to Americans’ liberties.
Where do average Americans fit in these debates? Americans are often said to be
philosophical conservatives and operational liberals.93 When asked about government
social policy in the abstract, they say they disapprove of activist government—a decid-
edly conservative view. But when they must evaluate particular programs, Americans
generally express support—a more liberal perspective. Some programs, of course,
are preferred over others. Policies in which the recipients are regarded as deserving,
such as programs for the elderly, receive more support than those that assist working-
age people. Programs that have a reputation for effectiveness and those that require
people to help themselves through work are also viewed favorably.94 In sum, most
Americans take a pragmatic approach to social welfare policies: they favor programs
that work, and they want to reform those that seem not to work.
one way to think about the role of social policy is to consider what you would do if
you faced a threat to your ability to support yourself and those around you. Imagine if
you had difficulty paying for school. The “Who Participates?” feature on the facing page looks at the growth in student loans and describes some government programs to help
students pay off their loans. or imagine you experienced a catastrophic accident like
we saw with Marcella Wagner at the beginning of the chapter, or had a parent fall ill,
or had a job that did not pay enough to make ends meet. What strategies would you
use to overcome those risks? Are there government policies in place to help in these
situations? What do you think about government playing such a role for you or for other
individuals? Does current government policy reflect your views, and if not, what could
you as an individual do to make your voice heard?
708 CHAPTER 17 SoC IAL PoL ICy
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 708 27/11/18 12:47 PM
217
171
82
55
273
229
109
78 25
248
202
96
67 20
194
154
70
48 13
161
129
56 38
Total $392B
If you have Perkins Loans and go to work in public service, including the active-duty military, education, health services, and public safety, you might be eligible for Perkins Loans cancellation: https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/forgiveness-cancellation.
Contact the Government about Student Loan Issues
If your employer is a government organization, a 501(c)(3) nonpro�t, or a private company that provides public services, you may qualify to get your federal loans forgiven through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program: www.studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/ forgiveness-cancellation/public-service.
Contact your member of Congress with your opinion on how government agencies should regulate student loans.
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
Student Loan Balances (in billions of dollars)
SOURCE: Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel, “2016 Student Loan Update,” newyorkfed.org (accessed 12/26/17).
2008
60+
50−59
30−39
40−49
< 30
Age group
2005 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011
312
281
140
97
35
2012
320
320
163
113
43
2013
356
354
184
126
49
2014
369
383
208
136
58
376
408
230
150
67
2015
299
257
127
91
29
Total $803B
Total $1,231B
16
8
WHO PARTICIPATES?
Growing Student Debt Burden
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 709 27/11/18 12:47 PM
c) Supplemental Security Income (SSI) d) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program e) Aid to families with Dependent Children
4. Means testing requires that applicants for welfare benefits show a) that they are capable of getting to and from their
workplace. b) that they have the ability to store and prepare food. c) a financial need for assistance. d) that they have the time and resources to take full
advantage of federal educational opportunities. e) that they are natural-born citizens who have never
been convicted of a felony.
5. Which of the following programs provide in-kind benefits? a) Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program b) Social Security and the Troubled Assets relief Program c) Medicare and unemployment compensation d) the GI Bill of rights and the equal rights Amendment e) the earned Income Tax Credit and No Child Left Behind
6. Government programs that provide benefits to individuals that cannot be taken away without due process of the law are called a) cost-of-living adjustment programs. b) noncontributory programs. c) entitlement programs. d) indexing programs. e) tax expenditure programs.
7. Which of the following statements most accurately describes the costs of entitlement programs between 1962 and 2014? a) The costs of entitlement programs remained relatively
constant between 1962 and 2014. b) The costs of entitlement programs decreased from
26 percent of the total federal budget in 1962 to 12 percent in 2014.
c) The costs of entitlement programs decreased from 64 percent of the total federal budget in 1962 to 26 percent in 2014.
d) The costs of entitlement programs increased from 12 percent of the federal budget in 1962 to 84 percent in 2014.
e) The costs of entitlement programs grew from 26 percent of the total federal budget in 1962 to 64 percent in 2014.
Prior to the Great Depression, assistance to the poor was provided mainly by local governments and private charities. The modern American welfare state consists of three separate categories of welfare: contributory programs, noncontributory programs, and tax expenditures. Spending on social policy, particularly entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, has grown dramatically since the 1930s, and the costs have been paid primarily through payroll taxes.
Key Terms contributory programs (p. 679)
Social Security (p. 679)
indexing (p. 680)
cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) (p. 680)
Medicare (p. 680)
noncontributory programs (p. 680)
means testing (p. 680)
Medicaid (p. 680)
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (p. 680)
in-kind benefits (p. 680)
entitlement (p. 680)
tax expenditure system (p. 682)
Practice Quiz
1. Prior to 1935, the private welfare system in the united States made a distinction between a) contributory and noncontributory programs. b) in-kind and out-kind benefits. c) the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. d) mandatory and discretionary spending. e) religious and secular assistance.
2. America’s welfare state was initially constructed in response to a) the Civil War. b) World War II. c) political reforms of the Progressive era. d) the Great Depression. e) the growth of the military-industrial complex.
3. Which of the following is an example of a contributory program? a) Medicaid b) Medicare
The Welfare State
Trace the history of government programs designed to promote economic security (pp. 677–89)
CHAPTER 17 STuDy Gu IDe710
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 710 27/11/18 12:47 PM
9. Which of the following was not part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? a) a provision allowing parents whose child is attending
a failing school to transfer the child to a better school b) a requirement that states failing to meet national
standards improve student performance by provid- ing supplemental tutoring, longer school days, and additional summer school
c) a requirement that schools show positive results for all subcategories of students and not just positive overall averages
d) a requirement that a national test be used to evaluate every student around the country
e) a requirement that every child in grades 3 through 8 be tested yearly for proficiency in math and reading
10. A charter school is a) a publicly funded school that is free from the rules
and regulations of local school districts. b) a privately funded school that is subject to the rules
and regulations of local school districts. c) a privately funded school that is free from the rules
and regulations of local school districts. d) a school that meets the requirements spelled out in
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. e) a school created by the GI Bill of rights of 1944.
11. Most nonelderly adults receive health insurance through a) Social Security. b) Medicare. c) Medicaid. d) their employers. e) local charitable organizations.
Practice Quiz
12. In terms of receiving benefits of social policies, what distinguishes the elderly from the working poor? a) The elderly are perceived as deserving, whereas the
working poor are not. b) The elderly receive fewer benefits from the government’s
social policies. c) The elderly are more organized and more politically
powerful than are the working poor. d) The elderly are less organized and less politically
powerful than are the working poor. e) There is no significant difference between these two
groups.
The federal government enacts three types of policies in order to keep people from falling into poverty and to help those who are already poor: education policies, health policies, and housing policies. Although the federal govern- ment played only a minor role in education through most of American history, it has become more active since the late 1950s. even with the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010, the united States is the only advanced industrial nation without universal access to health care. The federal government has concentrated most of its efforts on housing policy to promote homeownership rather than to provide housing for low-income Americans who cannot afford to buy homes.
Key Term equality of opportunity (p. 689)
Practice Quiz
8. What event prompted the federal government to enter the field of elementary education? a) the Civil War b) the Great Depression c) World War II d) the Soviet union’s launching of Sputnik e) the civil rights movement
The federal government’s social policies tend to provide the largest benefits to those groups that are politically organized and to those groups that the public perceives to be deserving of assistance. As a result, children and the poor receive the fewest benefits from the federal government and the middle class and the elderly receive the most. Government policies do little to change the fact that minorities and women are more likely than white men to be poor.
Opening Opportunity
Who Gets What from Social Policy?
Describe how education, health, and housing policies try to advance equality of opportunity (pp. 689–700)
Explain how contributory, noncontributory, and tax expenditure programs benefit different groups of Americans (pp. 700–707)
STUDY GU IDE 711
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 711 27/11/18 12:47 PM
Marmor, Theodore r., Jerry L. Mashaw, and John Pakutka. Social Insurance: America’s Neglected Heritage and Contested Future. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2013.
Mettler, Suzanne. Degrees of Inequality: How the Politics of Higher Education Sabotaged the American Dream. New york: Basic Books, 2014.
Mettler, Suzanne. The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine American Democracy. Chicago: university of Chicago Press, 2011.
Murray, Charles. Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950–1980. New york: Basic Books, 1984.
Skocpol, Theda. The Missing Middle: Working Families and the Future of American Social Policy. New york: W. W. Norton, 2000.
Soss, Joe, richard C. fording, and Sanford f. Schramm. Disciplining the Poor: Neoliberal Paternalism and the Persistent Power of Race. Chicago: university of Chicago Press, 2011.
Wailoo, Keith, Alan Cohen, Julian Zelizer, and David Colby, eds. Medicare and Medicaid at 50. New york: oxford university Press, 2015.
Campbell, Andrea Louise. How Policies Make Citizens: Senior Political Activism and the American Welfare State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university Press, 2005.
Cohen, David K., and Susan L. Moffitt. The Ordeal of Equal- ity: Did Federal Regulation Fix the Schools? Cambridge, MA: Harvard university Press, 2009.
Desmond, Matthew. Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. New york: Crown, 2016.
edin, Kathryn J., and Luke Shafer. $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America. New york: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2015.
Howard, Christopher. The Welfare State Nobody Knows: Debunking Myths about U.S. Social Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university Press, 2007.
Katz, Michael. In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America. New york: Basic Books, 1986.
Katznelson, Ira, and Margaret Weir. Schooling for All: Race, Class, and the Democratic Ideal. New york: Basic Books, 1985.
Levitsky, Sandra. Caring for Our Own: Why There Is No Politi- cal Demand for New American Social Rights. New york: oxford university Press, 2014.
For Further Reading
d) The rate of child poverty is less than the rate of adult poverty.
e) Single mothers are less likely than average Americans to fall below the poverty line.
15. Americans often said to be philosophical conservatives and operational liberals because a) they approve of the idea of activist government in
the abstract but express opposition to most of the government’s actual programs.
b) they disapprove of the idea of activist government in the abstract but express support for most of the government’s actual programs.
c) they want the power of state governments to be limited but place a great deal of responsibility in the hands of the federal government.
d) they are patriotic toward their country but are also harshly critical of it.
e) they believe in God but want there to be a strong separation of church and state.
13. Which three government programs provide assistance to the working poor? a) Temporary Assistance for Needy families, Medicare,
and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program b) the Affordable Care Act, the earned Income Tax
Credit, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
c) Temporary Assistance for Needy families, Social Security, and the earned Income Tax Credit
d) Temporary Assistance for Needy families, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act
e) Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare
14. Which of the following statements about poverty in the united States is most accurate? a) African Americans have a lower poverty rate than
non-Hispanic whites. b) Latinos have a lower poverty rate than non-Hispanic
whites. c) Latinos have a higher poverty rate than non-
Hispanic whites.
CHAPTER 17 STuDy Gu IDe712
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 712 27/11/18 12:47 PM
Center for Retirement Research http://crr.bc.edu
Americans pay for their retirement with a mix of Social Security, employer-sponsored savings plans, and private savings. This website provides analyses of the challeng- es that face all aspects of the current arrangements and includes a downloadable “Social Security fix-It Book.”
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities www.cbpp.org
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a nonparti- san, liberal-leaning nonprofit organization that provides timely data and analysis of social programs that serve low-income Americans. It also studies economic and social changes that affect the well-being of low-income people. Areas of research include the earned Income Tax Credit, food Assistance, Social Security, and climate change. The center focuses on state and local policies as well as national programs.
Confronting Poverty https://confrontingpoverty.org/
The Confronting Poverty website by sociologists Mark rank and Thomas Hirschl includes a “poverty risk calculator” which allows users to calculate their future risk of poverty and compare it to individuals with other demographic characteristics. It also assembles the authors’ research on poverty and inequality and a ten-module discussion guide.
Libertarian Party www.lp.org
Contrary to many other Americans, libertarians believe that social programs pose a threat to personal freedom and should be eliminated. Go to the Libertarian Party’s website to read the organization’s opinions and positions on most current social policies.
Recommended Websites
Medicare www.medicare.gov
Health care is one of the largest and most controversial social programs in the united States. At the Medicare website, find out what services the Department of Health and Human Services provides.
Modern American Poetry: The Great Depression www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/depression/depression.htm
The Great Depression changed American opinion about the causes of and responsibility for poverty. This website, by Cary Nelson at the university of Illinois at urbana-Champaign, provides information, statistics, and photos of this historical period as well as analysis of poems by depression-era writers.
Poverty.com www.poverty.com
Poverty is a problem that exists in the united States and around the world. read about how poverty, hunger, and related problems affect people in other areas of the globe.
Public Agenda www.publicagenda.com
Public Agenda is a nonpartisan organization that tries to bridge the gap between American leaders and public opinion on current social, domestic, and foreign policy issues.
U.S. Department of Education www.ed.gov
The u.S. Department of education is dedicated to providing equal access to education and improving academic programs throughout America. At the depart- ment’s website, you can learn about the No Child Left Behind Act and other policies.
STUDY GU IDE 713
wtp12e_ptr_ch17_674-713.indd 713 27/11/18 12:47 PM
Foreign Policy and Democracy
181818 chapter
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS Foreign policy may seem like a distant or abstract matter, but it carries tremendous
consequences for ordinary people. In January 2017,
President Trump signed an executive order banning
travel to the United States for people from Iran,
Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The
president’s purpose was to protect U.S. borders and
prohibit entry from countries with lax security stan-
dards. As with any public policy, views on the travel
ban varied. Amanda Patrick of Georgia, a 38-year-old
tax associate with a young son, supported the ban,
saying, “The biggest thing for me, especially with
having a child now, is the safety factor. Just people
coming in that we aren’t properly vetting.” Susan
Richardson, a 74-year-old artist and entrepreneur
from Florida and an immigrant from England, believes
countries have a right to defend their borders: “When
I came to this country, if you didn’t have the right
visa, if you didn’t have somebody who sponsored
you, you were turned back at the airport.”1
For yet others, the travel ban has meant personal
turmoil. Mohamed Iye, an American citizen born in
Somalia, was about to be reunited with his Somali
wife and two American daughters after a two-year
separation when the travel ban was issued, stranding
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 714 27/11/18 12:49 PM
America’s foreign policy can have profound effects on the lives of individuals here and abroad. President Trump’s decision to ban immigration from certain countries put many lives in limbo, like that of Mohamed Iye (pictured here). Iye was reunited with his family after being stranded in Kenya when the ban was declared. Supporters of the ban maintain it is necessary to protect America from foreign threats.
his family in Nairobi. He and many others joined law-
suits against the ban. “It was never my intention to
go against the president of the United States. I was
just following the law and doing everything the way
it’s in the books. And it came to this.” Ali Asaei, a
27-year-old originally from Iran who holds a master’s
degree and works at a psychiatric research insti-
tute in New York, also joined a lawsuit against the
travel ban. He hadn’t seen his family in four years,
and their visa applications to visit him were rejected
after the travel ban went into effect. He said that in
Iran, “There is no freedom of speech, no freedom
of press . . . One of the reasons I came here was
because I thought, here we’re going to have the free-
dom of speech and religion and all these. But if I
don’t have those freedoms, then what would be the
point of staying here?”2
The Trump administration’s travel ban was chal-
lenged in the federal courts and was finally upheld
by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2018 case of
Trump v. Hawaii.3 The issue illustrates just one of the
complexities of foreign policy. A government’s first
duty is to protect its citizens, but should protection
mean the exclusion of citizens of foreign countries
from America’s shores? What about foreign trade?
America’s interests and those of foreign countries
715
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 715 27/11/18 12:49 PM
are so closely intertwined that the Trump administration’s tariffs against
foreign auto companies, and subsequent retaliation from America’s trading
partners, hurt workers in South Carolina where BMWs (a German car) are
assembled and then shipped all over the world. In the realm of security
interests, when dealing with America’s rivals such as Russia, China, and
North Korea, what is the proper mix of such foreign policy tools as diplomacy,
economic pressure, and the threat of force? To make matters even more com-
plicated, some threats require international rather than national responses,
but achieving international cooperation is sometimes problematic. Presi-
dent Trump has demanded that America’s NATO allies pay a larger share of
the collective cost of defense, though his demands threaten to undermine the
NATO alliance. The United States, like other nations, struggles to strike the
right balance between competition and cooperation in the international arena.
★ Explain how foreign policy is designed to promote security, prosperity, and humanitarian goals (pp. 717–22)
★ Identify the major players in foreign policy making, and describe their roles (pp. 722–33)
★ Describe the means the United States uses to carry out foreign policy today (pp. 733–41)
★ Analyze the foreign policy problems facing American policy makers today (pp. 741–45)
CHAPTER GOALS
716 CHAPTER 18 FORE IGN POL ICY ANd dEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 716 27/11/18 12:49 PM
The Goals of Foreign Policy The term foreign policy refers to the programs and policies that deter - mine America’s relations with other nations and foreign entities. Foreign policy includes diplomacy, military
and security policy , international human rights policies, and v arious forms of economic policy, such as trade policy and international energy policy . Of course, foreign policy and domestic policy ar e not completely separate categories but ar e instead closely intertwined. As we will see, domestic politics affects foreign policy and foreign policy certainly affects domestic politics. Take security policy, for exam- ple. Defending the nation r equires the design and manufactur e of tens of billions of dollars ’ wor th of militar y har dware. The manufacture and pr ocurement of this militar y equipment might pr ovide jobs in American communities wher e the equipment is built, while paying for it inv olves raising tax es or choosing not to fund other types of pr ograms. Various domestic inter ests, including corporations and communities, battle constantly to win defense contracts.
In this section we will examine the goals of American for eign policy. Although U.S. for eign policy has a number of purposes, two main goals stand out: security and pr osperity. Some Americans also fav or a thir d goal—improving the quality of life for all the world’s people. Others say the United States should remain focused on its own challenges and not get involved in solving the world’s problems. These foreign policy goals overlap with one another, and none can be pursued fully in isolation.
SECURITY
To many Americans, the chief goal of the nation ’s foreign policy is pr otection of U.S. security in an often hostile world. Traditionally, the U nited States has been concerned about thr eats that might emanate fr om other countries, such as N azi Germany during the 1940s and then Soviet Russia until the Soviet Union’s collapse in the late 1980s. Today, American security policy is concerned not only with the actions of other nations but also with the activities of terr orist groups and other hostile non-state actors.4 To protect the nation ’s security fr om for eign thr eats, the United S tates has built an enormous militar y apparatus and a complex array of intelligence-gathering institutions, such as the Central I ntelligence Agency (CIA), charged with evaluating and anticipating challenges from abroad.5
Security is, of course, a broad term. Policy makers must be concerned with Ameri- cans’ physical security. The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks killed and injured thousands of Americans, and the go vernment constantly fears that ne w attacks could be even more catastrophic. Policy makers must also be concerned with such matters as the security of America’s food supplies, transportation infrastructure, and energy supplies. Many American efforts in the Middle East, for example, are aimed at ensuring continuing American access to vital oil fields. In recent years, cyberspace has become a new security concern. The nation’s dependence on computers means that the government must be alert to efforts by hostile governments, groups, or even individual “hackers” to damage computer networks or access sensitive or proprietary information. The U.S. government has often charged Chinese and Russian govern- ment and military agencies with stealing American secrets through cyber espionage.
Explain how foreign policy is designed to promote security, prosperity, and humanitarian goals
non-state actors groups other than nation-states that attempt to play a role in the international system; terrorist groups are one type of non-state actor
717THE GOALS OF FORE IGN POL ICY
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 717 27/11/18 12:49 PM
In 2017 it appeared that a popular antivirus software marketed by a Russian com- pany was being used by the Russian government to spy on American corporations and government agencies.
During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, American security was based mainly on the geographic isolation of the U nited States. Separated by two oceans from European and Asian powers, many Americans thought that the country’s secu- rity would be best preserved by our remaining aloof from international power strug- gles. This policy was known as isolationism. In his 1796 Farewell Address, President George Washington warned Americans to av oid permanent alliances with for eign powers; and in 1823, President James Monroe warned foreign powers not to meddle in the Western Hemisphere. Washington’s warning and what came to be called the Monroe Doctrine were the cornerstones of the U.S. for eign policy of isolationism until the end of the nineteenth century. The United States saw itself as the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere and, indeed, believed that its “manifest destiny” was to expand fr om sea to sea. The rest of the world, ho wever, should r emain at arm’s length.
In the tw entieth centur y, technology made oceans less of a barrier to for eign threats, and the world ’s growing economic interdependence meant that the nation could no longer ignor e events abroad. Early in the tw entieth century, the U nited States entered World War I on the side of Great Britain and France when the Wilson administration concluded that a German victory would adversely affect the eco- nomic and security inter ests of the U nited States. In 1941 the U nited States was drawn into World War II when Japan, hoping to become the dominant power in the Pacific, attacked the U.S. Pacific fleet anchored at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Even before the attack, the Roosevelt administration had concluded that the United States must act to pr event a victor y by the G erman–Japanese–Italian Axis alliance. U ntil the Japanese attack, ho wever, Roosevelt had been unable to o vercome proponents of American isolationism, who declar ed that our security was best ser ved by leaving foreigners to their own devices. With their attack, the Japanese proved that the Pacific Ocean could not protect the United States from foreign foes and effectively discredited isolationism as a security policy.
Following World War II, the U nited S tates dev eloped a ne w security policy known as containment to check or “contain” the growing power of the Soviet Union, which, by the end of the 1940s, had built a huge empire, enormous military forces, and nuclear w eapons and bombers capable of attacking the U nited S tates. The United States was committed to maintaining its own military might as a means of deterrence, to discourage the S oviets from attacking the U nited States or its allies. Some Americans wanted a more aggressive policy and argued that we should attack the Soviets before it was too late, a policy kno wn as preventive war. Others said that we should sho w our peaceful intentions and attempt to placate the S oviets. This policy is called appeasement. Before World War II, the British had sought to prevent war by appeasing Nazi Germany. The disastrous results of this British effort left most Americans with little confidence in appeasement as a policy.
The policies that the United States actually adopted, deterrence and con - tainment, could be seen as midway betw een pr eventive war and appeasement. A nation pursuing a policy of deterr ence, on the one hand, signals its peaceful intentions but, on the other hand, indicates its willingness and ability to fight if attacked. Thus, during the era of confrontation with the S oviet Union, known as the Cold War, the United States frequently asserted that it had no intention of attacking the Soviet Union but also built a huge militar y force, including a v ast
isolationism avoidance of involvement in the affairs of other nations
containment a policy designed to curtail the political and military expansion of a hostile power
preventive war policy of striking first when a nation fears that a foreign foe is contemplating hostile action
appeasement the effort to forestall war by giving in to the demands of a hostile power
deterrence An effort to prevent hostile action by promising to retaliate forcefully against an attacker
Cold War the period of struggle between the United States and the former Soviet Union lasting from the late 1940s to about 1990
718 CHAPTER 18 FORE IGN POL ICY ANd dEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 718 27/11/18 12:49 PM
arsenal of over 1,500 nuclear warheads, and frequently asserted that, in the ev ent of a Soviet attack, it had the ability and will to respond with overwhelming force. The Soviet Union, which had also built po werful nuclear and conv entional militar y forces, announced that its nuclear w eapons were also intended for deterrent purposes. Eventually, the two sides possessed such enormous arsenals of nuclear missiles that each potentially had the ability to destroy the other in the event of war. This heavily armed standoff came to be called a posture of “mutually assured destruction,” which discouraged either side fr om attacking the other. Eventually, this situation led to a period of “détente,” in which a number of arms contr ol agreements were signed and the threat of war was reduced.
A policy of deterrence requires not only the possession of large military forces but also that the nation pursuing such a policy convince potential adv ersaries that it is willing to fight. Thus, as part of its policy of deterr ence, the United States engaged in wars in K orea and Vietnam, wher e it had no par ticular inter - ests, because American policy makers believed that if the United States did not fight in these areas, the Soviets would be embold- ened to pursue an expansionist policy else where, thinking that the Americans would not respond. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, and the new Russia, though still a formidable power, at the time seemed to pose less of a threat to the United States.
A policy of deterr ence assumes cer tainty and rationality. Certainty means that a potential adversary must know for sure that the United States will reply with force if attacked. Rationality means that, to be deterred, a potential adversary must be capa- ble of rationally assessing the risks and costs of aggression against the United States. These two assumptions may not be valid in the context of some contemporary secu- rity threats. The September 11 terrorist attacks, for example, demonstrated the threat that non-state actors and so-called r ogue states might acquir e significant military capabilities, including nuclear w eapons, and would not be affected by America’s deterrent capabilities. Unlike nation-states, which are countries with go vernments and fixed borders, terrorist groups are non-state actors having no fixed geographic location that can be attacked. Terrorists may believe they can attack and melt away, leaving the United States with no one against whom to r etaliate. Hence, the threat of massiv e r etaliation does not deter them. R ogue states ar e nations with often unstable and erratic leaders who seem to pursue policies driv en by ideological or religious fer vor rather than car eful consideration of economic or human costs. The United S tates considers N orth K orea and I ran to be r ogue states, though most academic analysts see both nations ’ leaders as behaving belliger ently but not necessarily irrationally.
To counter these ne w security thr eats, the G eorge W. B ush administration shifted fr om a policy of deterr ence to one of pr eventive war—the willingness to strike first in order to pr event an attack, par ticularly by enemies that might be armed with w eapons of mass destr uction. The United States declared that, if necessary, it would take action to disable terrorist groups and rogue states before they could dev elop the capacity to harm the U nited States.6 The Bush admin - istration’s “ global war on terr or” was an expr ession of pr evention, as was the U.S. invasion of I raq. The United States also r efused to r ule out the possibility
nation-states political entities consisting of a people with some common cultural experience (nation) who also share a common political authority (state), recognized by other sovereignties (nation-states)
During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in an arms race, each acquiring nuclear weapons to deter the other from attacking.
719THE GOALS OF FORE IGN POL ICY
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 719 27/11/18 12:49 PM
that it would attack North Korea or Iran if it deemed those nations’ nuclear programs to be imminent thr eats to American security inter ests. Accompanying this shift in militar y doctrines was an enormous incr ease in overall U.S. military spending (see Figure 18.1).
President Obama took a less aggressive line, saying that the United States would rely on diplomacy and economic sanctions. P resident Trump, however, said that the United States was prepared to use overwhelming force against its adversaries. Trump called North Korean leader Kim Jong-un “little rocket man” and declared that only force would thwart Kim’s ambitions. Nevertheless, in April 2018, Trump agreed to a meeting with Kim to discuss ways of reducing tensions on the Korean Peninsula. After the two leaders met, Trump declar ed that pr ogress had been made to ward a mor e peaceful r esolution of the K orean conflict. In July 2018, Trump met with R ussian pr esident Vladimir Putin. Trump called the meeting a great success but critics charged that the pr esident had not been sufficiently aggressive in demanding an accounting for Russian attempts to influence the 2016 American election.
ECONOMIC PROSPERITY
A second major goal of U.S. for eign policy is pr omoting American pr osperity. America’s international economic policies ar e intended to expand emplo yment opportunities in the United States, to maintain access to for eign energy supplies at
FIGURE 18.1
U.S. Spending on National Defense since 2000* During the 1990s the budget for national defense declined as the country enjoyed a “peace dividend” following the conclusion of the Cold War. After the attacks of September 11 and the commencement of the war on terrorism, however, national defense spending rose steadily; in a decade, spending increased by 70 percent. Since that time, defense spending has fallen, partly as a result of sequestra- tion (see Chapter 16). Defense spend- ing rose somewhat in 2019 as a result of the lifting of spending caps in the 2018 budget agreement.
*Data for 2018 and 2019 are estimated.
SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget, “Table 3.1—Outlays by Superfunction and Function: 1940–2023,” www.whitehouse.gov/ omb/historical-tables/ (accessed 7/23/18).
400
0
450
500
550
600
650
700
$750
BILLIONS OF CONSTANT 2009 DOLLARS
2000 2005 2010 2015 2019*
720 CHAPTER 18 FORE IGN POL ICY ANd dEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 720 27/11/18 12:49 PM
a reasonable cost, to promote foreign investment in the United States, and to lower the prices Americans pay for goods and services.
Among the key elements of U.S. international economic policy is trade policy , which seeks to pr omote American goods and ser vices abroad. The United States is the world’s largest importer and exporter of goods and services. In 2017 the United States expor ted mor e than $2.3 trillion in goods and ser vices while impor ting $2.9 trillion in goods and services. Roughly 40 million jobs in the United States are directly or indir ectly tied to international trade. A ccordingly, America has a vital interest in maintaining international trade and monetar y practices that pr omote American prosperity. This effort involves a complex arrangement of treaties, tariffs, and other mechanisms of policy formation. Trade policy is always complicated because most Americans benefit from a policy of fr ee trade, which tends to r educe the cost of goods and ser vices. Consumer electr onics such as televisions, smar t- phones, and other gadgets would be far more expensive except for the fact that they are impor ted from all o ver the world, which driv es down their prices. H owever, many American industries and their employees are hurt by free trade if it results in factories and jobs moving abroad. Hence, trade policy always produces huge politi- cal battles between those who stand to benefit and those who stand to lose fr om particular policies. I n 2016 one of D onald Trump’s main campaign pledges was to end fr ee trade policies that he deemed harmful to American wor kers. In 2018 the president imposed a series of tariffs on foreign imports that sparked retalia- tion from U.S. trading partners. Some American manufacturers benefited from the tariffs while others were hurt by foreign retaliation against U.S. goods.
The most important international organization for pr omoting trade is the World Trade Organization (WTO), established in 1995. The WTO gr ew out of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Since World War II, GATT had brought together a wide range of nations for regular negotiations designed to reduce barriers to trade. Such barriers, many believed, had contributed to the br eakdown of the world eco - nomy in the 1930s and had helped cause World War II. The WTO has 151 members worldwide, including the United States. Similar policy goals are pursued in regional arrangements, such as the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), formerly known as NAFTA, a trade treaty among the United States, Canada, and Mexico that the Trump administration renegotiated in 2018.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Many Americans believe that the United States has an obligation to protect human rights and to provide assistance to needy groups throughout the world. Other Ameri- cans say we should spend our resources at home and let other nations look after their own people. Still a third group of Americans view human rights and humanitarian policies as a form of “soft power,” serving American interests and winning friends by demonstrating our concern for the less for tunate throughout the world. This third group has generally been dominant within the American foreign policy community.
The United States has a long-standing commitment to human rights and is a party to most major international human rights agreements. Although the United States is committed to pr omoting human rights, this commitment has a lo wer prio rity in American for eign policy than the nation ’s security concerns and eco - nomic interests. Thus, the United States is likely to overlook human rights viola- tions by its major trading par tners, such as China, and r emain silent in the face of human rights violations b y such allies as S audi Arabia. N evertheless, human
World Trade Organization (WTO) international organization promoting free trade that grew out of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) international trade organization, in existence from 1947 to 1995, that set many of the rules governing international trade
United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) trade treaty between the United States, Canada, and Mexico to lower and eliminate tariffs among the three countries
721THE GOALS OF FORE IGN POL ICY
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 721 27/11/18 12:49 PM
rights concerns do play a role in American foreign policy. For example, beginning in 2007 the U nited States has annually made av ailable several million dollars in small grants to pay medical and legal expenses incurred by individuals who have been the victims of r etaliation in their o wn countries for wor king against their governments’ repressive practices. In this small way, the United States is backing its often-asserted principles.
U.S. foreign policy also includes suppor t for international peacekeeping efforts. At any time, bor der wars, civil wars, and guerrilla conflicts flare somewhere in the world—usually in its poorer regions—and can generate humanitarian crises in the form of casualties, disease, and r efugees. In cooperation with international agen - cies and other nations, the United States funds efforts to keep the peace in v olatile regions and to address the health care and refugee problems associated with conflict. In 2015 the United States provided nearly $2 billion in humanitarian assistance to help Syrian refugees displaced by the civil war in that nation and by the end of 2016 had donated over $7 billion to the cause.7
As the world ’s w ealthiest nation, the U nited S tates also r ecognizes an obliga - tion to render assistance to nations facing emergencies. In 2011, for example, the United States provided support to Japan when a tsunami devastated a portion of the Japanese coast and damaged a nuclear r eactor. In addition, between 2010 and 2017 the U.S. provided more than $5 billion in assistance to Haiti after a huge earthquake devastated the island nation.8
Who Makes American Foreign Policy? As we have seen, domestic policies are made b y governmental institu - tions and influenced by a variety of inter est gr oups, political mo ve- ments, and ev en the mass media.
The same is true in the realm of foreign policy. The president and the chief advisers are the principal ar chitects of U.S. for eign policy. However, Congress, the bureau- cracy, the cour ts, political par ties, interest groups, and trade associations also play important roles in this r ealm. Often, the pr esident and Congr ess are at odds o ver foreign policy.
PRESIDENTS AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
The president is the leading figure in the conduct of American for eign policy . The president’s for eign policy po wers today , par ticularly in the militar y r ealm, are far greater than the Constitution’s framers had thought wise. The framers gave the po wer to declar e war to Congr ess and made the pr esident the nation ’s top military commander if and when Congr ess chose to go to war . Today, presidents both command the troops and decide when to go to war.
Most American pr esidents have been domestic politicians whose chief inter ests were in the realm of domestic policy. Among America’s 14 presidents during the past century only four—Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, and George H. W. Bush—had any extensive foreign policy experience befor e taking office. The others were forced to learn on the job.9
Identify the major players in foreign policy making, and describe their roles
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Why does the United States pursue international humanitarian policy? Should the United States pay more attention to the human rights records of its trading partners, like China, or allies, like Saudi Arabia?
722 CHAPTER 18 FORE IGN POL ICY ANd dEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 722 27/11/18 12:49 PM
Building Influence through International Connections Since World War II, the United States has been considered the leading global hegemon: an international actor so powerful that it can spread its influence across continents. When thinking of U.S. hegemony, most people focus on the dominant military power of the United States. However, the military is only one tool for expanding a country’s interest, and we might consider a country’s level of globalization to be another measure of influence. Globalization is the process of increasing interactions across country borders and between
societies and economies; countries that are more globalized have built multiple connections and influence.
Comparing the United States to two main international challengers, Russia and China, we can see how highly integrated the United States is into the global system. While all three countries are close on political globalization, the United States has a clear lead in social and economic globalization. This means that in terms of international negotiations, the United States has more tools at their disposal than any other country.
SOURCE: Savina Gygli et al., “The KOF Globalization Index—Revisited,” KOF Working Paper, No. 439, 2018, www .kof.ethz.ch (accessed 5/29/18).
95%
81
64
90%
66
51
39
94%
LEVEL OF GLOBALIZATION, 2015
52
United States Russia China
Political Social Economic
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 723 27/11/18 12:49 PM
All four recent presidents, like most of their predecessors, were nevertheless faced with momentous challenges to American security and to America ’s international interests. George W. Bush, in particular, was compelled to develop a response to the September 11 terror attacks. By 2002 foreign policy had become the centerpiece of the Bush administration’s agenda. In a June 1, 2002, speech at West Point, the presi- dent announced a policy of unilateral action and pr eemptive war—what came to be called the “Bush Doctrine.” Bush said, “our security will require all Americans . . . to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.” In his 2014 West Point speech, President Obama appeared to articulate a different policy when he said the United States must reduce its reliance on military force and make mor e use of diplomacy . But even though O bama expressed reser- vations about unilateral pr eemption, during the O bama y ears the U nited S tates continued to launch many attacks against suspected terrorists before they were able to strike. President Trump rattled America’s allies by declaring an “America first” foreign policy and adopting a confrontational posture toward North Korea and Iran. In terms of actions, ho wever, as of J uly 2018, Trump seemed to hav e given diplo- macy a greater emphasis as evidenced by his meetings with North Korea’s leader and Russian president Putin.
As the dominant figure in the r ealm of American for eign and militar y policy, the pr esident ex ercises substantial contr ol o ver the nation ’s diplomatic and mili - tary institutions and, as a r esult, is in a position to decide with whom, when, and how the United States will interact in the international ar ena. Since World War II, American military forces have fought in many parts of the world. In every instance, the decision to commit tr oops to battle was made b y the president, often without much consultation with the Congr ess. When P resident O bama or dered special operations soldiers to attack O sama bin Laden’s compound in P akistan, members of Congress learned of the operation and bin Laden’s death from news broadcasts— just like other Americans. And it is the pr esident and his emissaries who conduct negotiations with Russia, Iran, North Korea—and a host of other nations—to deal with international problems and crises.
Bush Doctrine foreign policy based on the idea that the United States should take preemptive action against threats to its national security
The president is the key actor in American foreign policy and often acts without the approval or input from Congress. Here, President Obama and his national security team watch as the military performs a raid on Osama bin Laden's com- pound in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was killed in the raid.
724 CHAPTER 18 FORE IGN POL ICY ANd dEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 724 27/11/18 12:49 PM
Presidents can also make use of executive agreements to partially bypass congres- sional power in the realm of foreign relations. Executive agreements are presiden- tial orders enforceable by the cour ts that do not r equire Senate ratification. Since presidents seem free to use executive agreements as they see fit, the importance of the Senate’s constitutional tr eaty power has sharply diminished. S ince 1947 the United States has entered into more than 17,000 different agreements with other nations and international entities. Of these, only 6 percent were submitted to the Senate for approval.10
Beyond the president, several government agencies within the ex ecutive branch play important roles in shaping and executing American foreign policy.
The National Security Council The National Security Council (NSC) was created in 1947 as an entity within the E xecutive Office of the President (EOP) to oversee the foreign policy establishment, synthesiz e information coming fr om the bureau- cracy, and help the pr esident develop foreign policy.11 The NSC is a “subcabinet” made up of the president, the vice president, the secretaries of defense and state plus other presidential appointees, including the heads of the CIA, H omeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence. The heart of the NSC is its staff, consist- ing of about 200 for eign policy exper ts capable of ev aluating political, economic, and military issues thr oughout the world. The head of the NSC staff is the presi- dent’s national security adviser (NSA). 12 Some NSAs hav e been close pr esidential confidants and have exercised considerable power because they had the president’s ear and trust. In March 2018, President Trump named John Bolton as his NSA.
The State Department R outine matters of international diplomacy come under the pur view of the Department of State. The State Department was the first federal agency cr eated by the first Congress in 1789. The State Depart- ment is headed b y the S ecretary of S tate, a member of the pr esident’s cabinet and, nominally, the most important foreign policy official after the president. The secretary’s actual impor tance varies with his or her r elationship to the pr esident. Some presidents rely very little on their secretaries, while for other presidents, the secretary becomes their chief for eign policy adviser . Franklin D. R oosevelt, for example, was barely aware that Cordell Hull existed, relegating the secretary to an observer of the diplomatic scene. O n the other end of the spectr um, George W. Bush worked very closely with Condoleezza Rice, who served as his chief for- eign policy adviser . In some instances, pr esidents use their secr etaries as r oving ambassadors more than as advisers like John Kerry in the Obama administration. Donald Trump relied occasionally on Rex Tillerson but severely criticized the sec- retary for his belief that diplomacy could reduce the nuclear threat from North Korea. Trump asserted that only force could end the threat. In 2018, Trump fired Tillerson and designated CIA dir ector M ike P ompeo as his ne w S ecretary of State. Having faulted Tillerson for promoting a diplomatic solution to the Korea problem, Trump changed course and launched his o wn diplomatic initiativ e, meeting with K orean leader Kim J ong-un. Both sides pledged to wor k toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and more peaceful relations, but whether these goals will be met remains to be seen.
The State Department oversees more than 300 U.S. embassies, consulates, and diplomatic missions ar ound the world. E mbassies ar e headed b y ambassadors. While most embassy staff members are officers of the U.S. Foreign S ervice, the State Department’s professional diplomatic corps, a number of ambassadors have no
executive agreement an agreement, made between the president and another country, that has the force of a treaty but does not require the Senate’s “advice and consent”
725WHO MAKES AMER ICAN FORE IGN POL ICY?
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 725 27/11/18 12:49 PM
diplomatic expertise and are, instead, political appointees rewarded with an ambas- sadorial title for their campaign contributions to the pr esident. Most of America’s Western European embassies, then, are actually run by their number 2 person, the Deputy Chief of Mission, a foreign service professional.
The United S tates “ recognizes” and maintains diplomatic r elations with 195 countries. The United S tates does not officially recognize I ran or N orth K orea. Reco gnition means that the United States accepts the nation’s government as lawful, will engage in r outine trade and diplomatic exchanges with it, and will accept its citizens’ passports for trav el into America. A t the v arious embassies and missions, State Department officials monitor American treaty and trade r elations with the host country, provide assistance for American business inter ests and tourists, and deal with for eign nationals attempting to emigrate to or visit the U nited States. Diplomatic officials are responsible for reporting on political and economic dev el- opments at their posts that might have implications for American policy. Some staff may officially or unofficially work for the Central I ntelligence Agency (CIA) or other American intelligence services. Embassy staff is also tasked with developing good r elations with pr ominent citiz ens of other nations in or der to disseminate positive views of the United States and to secure information that might be useful to American interests. At the same time, the S tate Department monitors the conduct of foreign nationals. Though preventing outright foreign espionage is the responsi- bility of the FBI, the S tate Department is expected to keep an ey e on the activities of foreign diplomats assigned to the United States.
The president also makes ceremonial visits to America’s allies and other important states to demonstrate America’s friendship and, in turn, hosts for eign dignitaries at the White House. Serious negotiations with other nations ar e usually handled b y professional State Department diplomats deemed to hav e subject matter exper tise as well as a good understanding of the priorities and sensibilities of their negotiat - ing partners. Only in the case of the most important talks is the president likely to become involved personally. Usually, talks begin at a lo wer level among profes- sional diplomats. If progress is made, mor e influential officials are summoned and
The president meets with many foreign leaders, often after key agreements have been hammered out by the president’s staff. In a highly controversial move, President Trump met alone with Russian president Vladimir Putin in July 2018, leaving many staffers and observers wondering what the two said.
726 CHAPTER 18 FORE IGN POL ICY ANd dEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 726 27/11/18 12:49 PM
the president called to meet with his counterpar t to formally “seal the deal.” Thus, in the aftermath of the R ussian annexation of C rimea, professional American and Russian diplomats were assigned to open talks, followed by meetings between U.S. Secretary of S tate John Kerry and R ussian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. When an agreement had been hammered out, President Obama met with President Putin and shook hands, though soon enough each side again accused the other of engaging in provocative acts. President Trump generally does not follow this well-established set of procedures. Trump prefers to begin with a face-to-face meeting with a foreign leader and leav e it to staff to fill in details later. In the case of Trump’s July 2018 meeting with Russian president Putin, the two leaders met alone, without staff. State Department and other staff were left trying to determine exactly what had been said during the meeting.
Department of Defense S ince its cr eation in 1947, the D efense D epartment (DoD) has play ed a major r ole in the making of American for eign policy . The United States Department of Defense employs more than two million military and civilian personnel and is a huge and complex bureaucratic entity.13 Reporting to the Secretary of Defense are 27 assistant secretaries, undersecretaries, and directors, each commanding hundr eds of staffers and charged with such responsibilities as health affairs, budgets, acquisitions, testing and evaluation of equipment, and legal affairs. Working for these functionaries are 31 agencies, such as the N ational Secu- rity Agency, employing tens of thousands of individuals. These and numerous other entities help to plan and sustain America’s military efforts and allow America to put tens of thousands of combat troops into the field.
This set of structures does not even include the actual militar y services. Each of the three services possesses its own civilian and military bureaucracies to administer and support its combat forces. For example, a U.S. Army division will include, in addition to its combat tr oops, large numbers of militar y personnel, and civilian employees and contractors organiz ed into units whose functions include supply , transportation, finance, life support, signal infrastructure, public information, and more. In the modern U.S. Army , appr oximately thr ee noncombat personnel ar e devoted to the support of each combat soldier.14 American combat forces are, them- selves, exemplars of organizational complexity. A U.S. Army division, for instance, typically deploying between ten and seventeen thousand troops, is usually composed of four brigades that are divided into battalions that, in turn, are composed of com- bat companies, each consisting of three platoons. Along with its combat companies the division will include a host of logistical, administrative, and service units to pro- vide the food, fuel, ammunition, and other supplies and services needed to support the division’s activities.15
This entire military structure is supported by the vast industrial contracting sys- tem that pr oduces the air craft, missiles, electr onics, transpor t systems, and other materiel and supplies upon which the military depends. Many nominally civilian entities, such as Boeing, are heavily dependent on military contracts and are func- tionally integrated into the military bureaucracies. Military planning and research is undertaken by another set of private and quasi-private firms, which are technically Federally F unded R esearch and D evelopment Centers (FFRDCs), independent nonprofit corporations working for the federal government.16
DoD implements American militar y policy b y deplo ying tr oops anywher e in the world at the president’s command. I ncreasingly, DoD has assumed a leading nonmilitary foreign policy r ole as w ell. To a significant extent, American foreign
727WHO MAKES AMER ICAN FORE IGN POL ICY?
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 727 27/11/18 12:49 PM
policy is driv en by military and antiterr orism concerns, and the agencies deemed capable of addr essing these concerns ar e coming to play a larger r ole in American foreign policy. In recent years, American ambassadors hav e complained that they have been relegated to secondary status as the White House has looked to militar y commanders for information, advice, and policy implementation. For every region of the world, the U.S. militar y has assigned a “ combatant commander,” always a senior general or admiral, to take charge of operations in that ar ea. I n many instances, these combatant commanders, who control troops, equipment, and intel- ligence capabilities, have become the real eyes, ears, and voices for American foreign policy in their designated r egions. The combatant commanders report to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who report to the Secretary of Defense, who reports to the president.
Treasury and Commerce The Treasury Department and Commerce Department coordinate the U nited States’ international economic and monetar y policies and, along with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), work to implement America’s international trade policies. The United States works to discourage other nations from erecting tariff barriers to American goods and to maintain exchange rates between the dollar and other currencies that do not price American goods out of foreign markets or flood the American market with for eign goods. The United States is also aler t to efforts by other nations to driv e American manufacturers out of business b y underpricing expor ts, a practice kno wn as “ dumping,” or stealing American technology thr ough r everse engineering or outright piracy . Treasury, Commerce, and the U.S. Trade Representative are constantly engaged in negotia- tions with America’s trading partners while overall policy is generally set by executive agreements negotiated between the White House and other nations.
Intelligence Agencies The CIA is the United S tates’ chief civilian intelligence agency, collecting information thr oughout the world, pr eparing analyses, and launching covert operations if the pr esident wishes to use for ce but is unwilling to publicly acknowledge America’s involvement. CIA operators also pilot many of the drones used to attack and kill suspected terrorists.
The CIA and DoD were created by the same piece of legislation, but the CIA Director and S ecretary of D efense have generally vie wed one another as riv als in the intelligence field. The Secretary of D efense contr ols substantial intelligence assets including the D efense Intelligence Agency that dwar f those of the CIA. I n 2005, Congress created the position of D irector of National Intelligence (DNI) to coordinate intelligence activities and pr epare the pr esident’s daily intelligence summary—a r esponsibility pr eviously held b y the CIA ’s dir ector. This change came about because Congress believed that the intelligence community ’s failure to anticipate the September 11, 2001, attacks was the r esult of a lack of coor dination among the v arious agencies. Both the CIA and D oD resented the cr eation of the DNI and put aside their mutual suspicions to join for ces against the ne w posi - tion. Both agencies generally refuse to share information with the DNI who, having no operational capabilities, has been left in the dar k on many intelligence matters. National intelligence agencies seem generally to regard one another as rivals, which, for budgetary purposes, they are.16
Two other important executive agencies in the intelligence field are the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The FBI is generally responsible for the collection and analysis of intelligence data in the Western Hemisphere, as the CIA is barred by law from operating inside the United States. DHS was established
728 CHAPTER 18 FORE IGN POL ICY ANd dEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 728 27/11/18 12:49 PM
after September 11, 2001, through a merger of 22 existing agencies. O ne agency within DHS is I mmigration and C ustoms Enforcement (ICE), which is charged with maintaining border security and enforcing America’s immigration policies.
The National Security Agency The National Security Agency (NSA) is a highly influential, and controversial, intelligence agency. Though housed within D oD, the NSA effectively reports directly to the pr esident and provides the chief ex ecu- tive with the r esults of its worldwide electr onic surveillance efforts. Surveillance of electronic communication has a long history in the United States, going back to a World War I government effort to r ead suspicious telegrams. 18 During the 1970s, however, Congress became concerned about a variety of secret White House surveil- lance efforts and, in 1978, enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) designed to regulate electronic surveillance by government agencies.
FISA stipulated that in or der to under take electr onic sur veillance of Ameri - cans, the government would be required to apply for a warrant from a special court created by the statute. FISA stipulated that the cour t would issue a warrant only if it found pr obable cause to believ e that the target of the sur veillance was acting in concert with a foreign power or agent. The 1978 act defined foreign power as a nation-state, but this was subsequently amended to include non-state actors such as terrorist groups. The act also allowed the president to authorize surveillance within the United States without a warrant if the A ttorney General certified to the FISA Court that the target was a foreign intelligence agent and there was little chance that the privacy of any American citizen would be violated.
In June 2013 an NSA contractor named Edward Snowden leaked classified docu- ments describing NSA’s theretofore top-secret PRISM surveillance program that had operated since 2007. Snowden’s disclosures were published in the Guardian and the Washington Post and revealed that through PRISM and several other programs, NSA had been collecting data on its own as well as collaborating with virtually all major telecommunications companies to intercept, examine, and store the electronic com- munications of millions of Americans. These included email, social network posts,
The National Security Agency has come under scrutiny in recent years after reports that it had been collecting, storing, and examining the electronic data of millions of Americans. These actions have sparked intense debate about the trade-offs between personal liberty and national security.
729WHO MAKES AMER ICAN FORE IGN POL ICY?
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 729 27/11/18 12:49 PM
internet searches, and even local telephone calls. In essence, NSA appeared to have the capacity to monitor and store all forms of electronic communication.
The NSA and its intelligence collection activities raise major questions about the trade-off between national security and liber ty. Government agencies monitor communications to protect the nation against foreign threats. But doesn’t govern- ment eav esdropping also pose its o wn thr eat to the nation ’s liber ties? P resident Richard Nixon, for example, used surveillance and eavesdropping to harass his political foes. Do we wish to purchase security by paying with liberty?
CONGRESS
Through its general legislativ e powers, Congress can ex ercise broad influence over foreign policy. Congress may, for example, r efuse to appr opriate funds for pr esi- dential actions it deems to be unwise or inappropriate. This power of the purse also extends to militar y action. Not only does Congr ess have the constitutional po wer to declare war, but under its general legislative powers it must appropriate the funds needed to suppor t military activi ties. In Federalist 69, Hamilton argues that Con - gress’s power of the purse provides it with an ultimate check on the president’s power as commander-in-chief.19
Presidents, as we saw, control several enormous bureaucracies through which to develop and implement for eign and security policies. These include the State and Defense departments and a host of other agencies. Congress has far less bureaucratic capacity of its o wn, but it has committees that can influence the nation’s interna- tional and military programs. Chief among these are the House and Senate commit- tees charged with overseeing foreign policy, military affairs, and the collection and analysis of intelligence.
Key Congressional Committees in the Foreign Policy Realm On the S enate side, the first, oldest, and most influential committee dealing with foreign policy is the U.S. S enate Committee on F oreign Relations. The Committee oversees the State Department, other foreign policy agencies, and executive branch compliance with several statutes including the War Powers Resolution. The Committee consists of 18 members and was established in 1816 as one of the original ten standing committees of the S enate. Each of its sev en subcommittees has jurisdiction o ver a specific region or subject matter.
Throughout its histor y, the Foreign Relations Committee has vie wed its role as the guar dian of congr essional power in the for eign policy r ealm. The power of the F oreign R elations Committee stems fr om its r esponsibility to confirm State Department officials and the fact that treaties proposed by the ex ecutive branch must be reviewed by the Committee before they can be referred to the full Senate for a v ote on ratification. In r ecent y ears, the Committee ’s efforts to influence presidential foreign policy initiatives have been somewhat less success- ful as pr esidents, as w e noted abo ve, hav e made use of ex ecutive agr eements rather than tr eaties that would r equire senatorial appr oval. For example, while members of the Committee w ere sharply critical of the O bama administration’s negotiations with Iran in 2015, the president generally ignored their comments. Nevertheless, the Committee occasionally flexes its muscles. O ne example is its r efusal for a number of y ears to r eport the pr oposed Law of the S ea Treaty, which codifies international maritime law, on the gr ounds that it would restrict U.S. sovereignty, to the full Senate for ratification. Eventually the treaty,
The Senate Foreign Relations Com- mittee helps shape American foreign policy. One key way is in approving presidential nominees. Here, the committee questions Rex Tillerson, President Trump’s first nominee for Secretary of State. Despite a con- tentious hearing process, the Senate approved Tillerson for the post.
730 CHAPTER 18 FORE IGN POL ICY ANd dEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 730 27/11/18 12:49 PM
appropriately known as L OST, was r eported to the S enate but lacked the two- thirds vote needed for ratification.
In addition to its r ole in the tr eaty process, the Foreign Relations Committee also considers pr esidential nominees for impor tant for eign policy posts, includ - ing the position of S ecretary of S tate. In 2017 the Committee held contentious hearings on P resident Trump’s nomination of E xxon executive Rex Tillerson for the post. S enate Democrats charged that Tillerson’s business ties, especially with Russia, would represent conflicts of interest—a charge denied b y the nominee. Eventually, Tillerson received the Committee’s endorsement and was confirmed by the full Senate (though Trump later fired Tillerson, who reportedly disagreed with Trump on a number of matters).
Paralleling the jurisdiction of the S enate Foreign R elations Committee is the House Committee on F oreign Affairs. The House committee is considerably less influential than its Senate counterpart because it is neither involved in appointments nor in the ratification of treaties. For the most par t, the H ouse committee’s hear- ings focus on symbolic questions. In 2015, for example, after holding hearings, the House committee adopted a nonbinding r esolution condemning the mass killings of Armenian civilians by Turkish forces in 1915. The committee had adopted similar resolutions in the past, but none had ev er reached the House floor. In the face of Turkish lobbying, the 2015 resolution was not brought before the full House.
In both houses of Congress, standing subcommittees of the appropriations com- mittees ar e r esponsible for funding the S tate Department, for eign aid pr ograms, and other matters in the foreign policy realm. Through these subcommittees as well as through the Foreign Relations and Foreign Affairs Committees, the Senate and House can indicate their displeasure with presidential programs by cutting or with- holding funds. In 2012, for example, Rep. Kay Granger of Texas, who then chaired the House appropriations subcommittee dealing with for eign aid, used her posi - tion to block $450 million in aid to E gypt that had been r equested by the Obama administration.20
Armed Services and Intelligence A number of standing committees of the House and Senate deal with defense matters. The House and Senate Armed Services Committees oversee the D epartment of D efense and the D epartment of E nergy (which houses America’s nuclear weapons programs). In both houses of Congr ess, other standing committees ar e r esponsible for such matters as veterans’ affairs. Defense appropriations are the domains of the H ouse and Senate Defense Appro- priations subcommittees.
Generally, the House and Senate Armed Services committees are friendly to the military and to the legions of defense contractors who pr ovide support and equip- ment for America’s military services. The two committees, however, do not always limit themselves to supporting the military brass. Sometimes they will make use of their staff resources and contacts in the military community to advocate for military programs not currently in the Pentagon’s plans. In 2015, for example, both commit- tees released reports calling for the armed services to focus on the growing threat of cyberattacks against U.S. w eapons and communications softwar e, and authoriz ed the expenditure of $200 million for this purpose.21
While the two armed services committees have cozy relations with their bureau- cratic counterparts, the same is not true of the House and Senate Intelligence com- mittees. These were established during the 1970s to o versee America ’s gr owing intelligence bureaucracies and to r eview their activities at home and abr oad. These
731WHO MAKES AMER ICAN FORE IGN POL ICY?
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 731 27/11/18 12:49 PM
committees have focused on such matters as American intelligence failur es, includ- ing the failure to predict and prevent the September 11 terrorist attacks, the use of private military contractors in missions organized by the CIA, clandestine CIA mis- sions in other nations, and the use of dr ones to carry out military and intelligence missions in other nations. Both committees also hav e been sharply critical of intel - ligence collection efforts that impinged on the privacy rights of American citizens.
INTEREST GROUPS
Although the pr esident, the ex ecutive branch bur eaucracy, and Congr ess ar e the tr ue makers of for eign policy, the “ foreign policy establishment ” is a much larger arena, including significant shapers of foreign policy. These unofficial players possess varying degrees of influence depending on their prestige, reputation, socio- economic standing, and, most important, the party and ideology that are dominant at a given moment.
The most important nonofficial players are the interest groups. Economic interest groups are reputed to wield the most influence, yet myths about their influence far outweigh the realities. In fact, the influence of organized economic interest groups in foreign policy varies enormously from issue to issue and y ear to year. On many broader and more sustained policy issues—such as the USMCA, the TPP, and the general question of U.S. inv olvement in international trade—the larger inter est groups, or peak associations, hav e difficulty getting their many members to speak with a single v oice. Some business gr oups represent export industries, and others represent firms threatened by imports. Hence, “business” has more than one view on trade policy. More successful in influencing foreign policy are the single-issue groups that ar e most activ e when their par ticular issue is on the agenda. These include interest gr oups r epresenting the tobacco industr y, which hav e pr evented heavy restrictions on international trade in and advertising of tobacco products, and those representing computer hardware and software industries, which have hardened the United States’ attitude toward Chinese piracy of intellectual property rights.
Another type of interest group with significant foreign policy influence comprises people who strongly identify with a par ticular country. For example, many J ewish
Interest groups play a key role in foreign policy. Amnesty Interna- tional (left) pushes for human rights around the world. Cuban Americans have strong voices in Congress in Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla., center) among others. AIPAC (right) is a powerful advocate for pro-Israel policies.
732 CHAPTER 18 FORE IGN POL ICY ANd dEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 732 27/11/18 12:49 PM
Americans and ev angelical P rotestants possess str ong emotional ties to I srael. I n 2015 many, albeit not all, J ewish and ev angelical groups lobbied heavily but ulti - mately unsuccessfully against the O bama administration ’s agr eement with I ran, which they argued posed a thr eat to both the U nited States and I srael. Similarly, Cuban Americans, most r ecently r epresented b y two po werful senators, M arco Rubio and Ted C ruz, hav e long been a str ong v oice in suppor t of maintaining sanctions against the Castr o r egime in C uba, which helps explain why r elations with Cuba were not normalized until 2015 and remain tenuous today.
A third type of inter est group, more prominent in r ecent decades, is dev oted to human rights or other global causes such as protection of the environment. An example is Amnesty I nternational, whose exposés of human rights abuses have alter ed the practices of some r egimes. G roups dev oted to pr otecting the environment often depend mor e on demonstrations than on lobb ying and elec - toral politics. D emonstrations in strategically located ar eas can hav e significant influence on American foreign policy. In recent years environmental activists have staged major pr otests, such as at the 2009 London and 2010 Toronto interna - tional economic summits, and at the 2015 P aris environmental summit that led to the signing of a series of international accords aimed at limiting the production of greenhouse gases.
The Instruments of Modern American Foreign Policy
Any go vernment possesses a v ari- ety of instr uments, or tools, to use in implementing its for eign policy. There have been many instr uments of American foreign policy, and we
examine those instruments most important today: diplomacy, the United Nations, the international monetar y str ucture, economic aid and sanctions, collectiv e security, military force, soft power, and arbitration.
Describe the means the United States uses to carry out foreign policy today
733THE INSTRUMENTS OF MOdERN AMER ICAN FORE IGN POL ICY
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 733 27/11/18 12:49 PM
DIPLOMACY
Diplomacy is the representation of a go vernment to other for eign governments. Its purpose is to promote national values or interests by peaceful means. As mentioned earlier, the U nited S tates maintains diplomatic missions thr oughout the world. American ambassadors ar e tasked with maintaining good r elations with for eign governments, promoting a positive view of the United States abroad, and securing information about foreign governments that might be helpful to the U nited States in its international dealings. When it comes to major diplomatic initiatives, how- ever, such as new international agreements, presidents or their personal representa- tives usually take charge. The United States’ nuclear weapons agreement with Iran, for example, was negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry acting on instructions from President Obama. In 2018, P resident Trump launched personal diplomatic initiatives with Russian and North Korean leaders.
THE UNITED NATIONS
The United Nations (UN) is a very large and unwieldy institution with few powers and no standing armed for ces of its o wn to implement its r ules and resolutions. It has little organization that can make it an effective decision-making body, with only six standing committees, few tight rules of procedure, and no political par ties to pro- vide priorities and discipline. H owever, the utility of the UN to the U nited States as an instr ument of for eign policy can be too easily under estimated. Its defenders are quick to add that although it lacks armed forces, it relies on the power of world opinion—and this is not to be taken lightly.
The United Nations’ supreme body is the UN G eneral Assembly, comprising one representative of each of the 192 member-states; each member r epresenta- tive has one vote, regardless of the size of the country. Important issues require a two-thirds majority v ote, and the annual session of the G eneral Assembly r uns only from September to December (although it can call extra sessions). The pow- ers of the UN dev olve mainly to the organization ’s “executive committee,” the UN S ecurity Council, which alone has the r eal po wer to make decisions and rulings that member states ar e obligated by the UN Char ter to implement. The
diplomacy the representation of a government to other governments
United Nations (UN) an organization of nations founded in 1945 to be a channel for negotiation and a means of settling international disputes peaceably; the UN has had frequent successes in providing a forum for negotiation and, on some occasions, a means of preventing international conflicts from spreading; on a number of occasions, the UN has been a convenient cover for U.S. foreign policy goals
The Secretary of State is America’s chief diplomat. Here, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
734 CHAPTER 18 FORE IGN POL ICY ANd dEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 734 27/11/18 12:49 PM
Security Council may be called into session at any time, and each member (or a designated alternate) must be pr esent at UN headquar ters in New York at all times. The Security Council is composed of 15 members: 5 are permanent (the victors of World War II), and 10 ar e elected by the General Assembly for unre- peatable two-year terms. The 5 permanent members are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Each of the 15 members has only one vote, and a 9-vote majority of the 15 is r equired on all substantive matters. But each of the 5 permanent members also has a negative vote, a “veto”; and one veto is sufficient to reject any substantive proposal.
The UN can serve as a useful forum for international discussions and as an instru- ment for multilateral action. Most peacekeeping efforts to which the United States contributes, for example, are undertaken under UN auspices.
THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY STRUCTURE
Fear of a r epeat of the economic devastation that followed World War I br ought the United States together with its allies (except the USSR) to Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in 1944 to create a new international economic structure for the post- war world. One major goal of this structure was to prevent economic instability that might, in turn, lead to political instability and war. Participants in the Bretton Woods confer ence were mindful of the economic collapse in G ermany that had opened the way for Nazism. At the same time, the structure would give the United States and its allies greater leverage in the economic and political affairs of develop- ing countries.
The Bretton Woods confer ence r esulted in two institutions: the I nternational Bank for Reconstruction and Development (commonly called the World Bank) and the International Monetary Fund. The World Bank’s chief mission is development aid to poor countries through long-term capital investments. A second institution, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), was set up to provide for the short-term flow of money. After the war, the U.S. dollar replaced gold as the chief means by which the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) an institution established in 1944 that provides loans and facilitates international monetary exchange
While the United Nations may not have a military, its opinion does influence foreign policy around the world. Here, U.S. ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley speaks to the UN General Assembly on Israel- Palestine relations in June 2018.
735THE INSTRUMENTS OF MOdERN AMER ICAN FORE IGN POL ICY
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 735 27/11/18 12:49 PM
currency of one country would be “changed into” the currency of another country for purposes of making international transactions. To permit debtor countries with no international balances to make purchases and investments, the IMF was prepared to lend dollars or other appr opriate currencies to such needy member countries to help them overcome temporary trade deficits.
During the 1990s the importance of the IMF increased through its efforts to reform some of the largest debtor nations and formerly communist countries, to bring them more fully into the global capitalist economy. For example, in the early 1990s Russia and 13 other former Soviet republics were invited to join the IMF and the World Bank, with the expectation that they would receive $10.5 billion fr om these two agencies, primarily for a currency stabilization fund. Each r epublic was to get a permanent IMF r epresentative, and the IMF incr eased its staff by at least 10 percent to pr ovide the exper tise necessary to cope with the pr oblems of these emerging capitalist economies.22
The IMF, with tens of billions of dollars contributed b y its members, has mor e money to lend poor countries than does the United S tates, E urope, or J apan (the three leading IMF shar eholders) individually. It makes its policy decisions in ways that ar e generally consistent with the inter ests of the leading shar eholders.23 Two weeks after S eptember 11, 2001, the IMF appr oved a $135-million loan to economically troubled Pakistan, a key player in the war against the Taliban govern- ment of Afghanistan because of its strategic location.24
ECONOMIC AID AND SANCTIONS
Every year, the United States provides nearly $30 billion in economic assistance to other nations. S ome aid has a humanitarian purpose, such as helping to pr ovide health care, shelter for refugees, or famine relief. A good deal of American aid, how- ever, is designed to promote American security interests or economic concerns. For example, the United States provides military assistance to a number of its allies in the form of advanced weapons or loans to help them purchase such weapons. These loans generally stipulate that the r ecipient must pur chase the designated w eapons
The United States is the most influ- ential member of the World Bank, which provides loans and other assistance to developing countries. Here, workers in Afghanistan work to improve roads. The World Bank has provided hundreds of millions of dollars to help rebuild Afghanistan over the past decade.
736 CHAPTER 18 FORE IGN POL ICY ANd dEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 736 27/11/18 12:49 PM
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS There has been a good deal of debate about whether economic sanctions can convince North Korea to halt its nuclear weapons programs. What factors might help to determine the effectiveness of economic sanctions?
from American firms. In this way, the United States hopes to bolster its security and economic interests with one grant. The two largest recipients of American military assistance are Israel and Egypt, American allies that fought two wars against each other. The United States believes that its military assistance allows both countries to feel sufficiently secure to remain at peace with each other.
Aid is an economic carr ot. S anctions ar e an economic stick. E conomic sanc - tions that the United States employs against other nations include trade embargoes, bans on investment, and efforts to prevent the World Bank or other international institutions from extending credit to a nation against which the U nited States has a grievance. Sanctions are most often employed when the United States seeks to weaken what it considers a hostile regime or when it is attempting to compel some particular action by another regime. In 2017, for example, the United States tight- ened its already existing economic sanctions against North Korea in response to that nation’s missile tests. The United States also uses economic sanctions to advance its international humanitarian policy goals. The United States currently has sanctions in place against a number of governments with records of serious violations of civil and political rights.25
Unilateral sanctions by the United States usually have little effect since the target can usually trade else where, sometimes ev en with for eign affiliates of U.S. firms. If, however, the United States is able to persuade its allies to cooperate, sanctions have a better chance of success. I nternational sanctions against I ran, for example, influenced that regime’s decision to enter into negotiations with the United States, culminating in the nuclear weapons deal of 2015. Economic sanctions against North Korea have been less effective since that r egime is able to trade with China and several other nations.
COLLECTIVE SECURITY
Collective security refers to the dev elopment of alliances and agr eements among a group of nations that pledge to aid one another in fending off or confronting security threats. In the aftermath of World War II, the United States’ first collective security agreement was the Rio Treaty, which created the Organization of American States. This was the model treaty, anticipating all succeeding collectiv e security treaties by providing that an armed attack against any of its members “shall be considered as an attack against all the American S tates,” including the United States. This model was followed by the N orth Atlantic Treaty (signed in A pril 1949), which cr eated the North A tlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The Australian, New Zealand, United States Security (ANZUS) Treaty, which tied Australia and New Zealand to the United States, was signed in S eptember 1951. Three years later, the Southeast Asia Treaty created the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO).
In a 1998 expansion, NATO took its first steps toward including former Warsaw Pact members, extending membership to the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. Most of Washington embraced this expansion as the true and fitting end of the Cold War, and the U.S. Senate echoed this with a resounding 80–19 vote to induct these thr ee former S oviet satellites into NA TO. After the collapse of the S oviet Union, the importance of NATO as a militar y alliance seemed to wane. H owever, since 2014 the resurgence of Russia as a military power has forced NATO members once again to look to one another for support. In 2014, Russia seized the Crimean Peninsula fr om the U kraine and appear ed to pose a thr eat to the B altic states and other portions of the old Soviet empire. Russia has also sent military forces to
737THE INSTRUMENTS OF MOdERN AMER ICAN FORE IGN POL ICY
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 737 27/11/18 12:49 PM
support the Assad regime in Syria. Facing an aggressive new Russia, NATO’s period of relative quiet seemed to be coming to a close.
The September 11 attacks marked the first time in its more than 50-year history that Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty was invoked; it provides that an attack on one countr y is an attack on all the member countries. I n fighting “the war on terror,” the Bush administration recognized that no matter how preponderant American power was, some aspects of U.S. foreign policy could not be achieved without multilateral cooperation. On the other hand, the United States did not want to be constrained b y its alliances. The global coalition initially forged after September 11, 2001, number ed more than 170 countries. N ot all joined the war effort in Afghanistan, but most provided some form of support for some aspect of “the war on terror,” such as economic sanctions and intelligence.
MILITARY FORCE
The most visible instrument of for eign policy is, of course, militar y for ce. The United States has built the world’s most imposing military, with army, navy, marine, and air force units stationed in virtually every corner of the globe. The United States is r esponsible for one-thir d of the world ’s total militar y expenditur es. The Prus- sian military strategist Carl v on Clausewitz famously called war “ politics by other means.” By this he meant that nations used for ce not simply to demonstrate their capacity for violence. Rather , for ce or the thr eat of for ce is a tool nations must sometimes use to achieve their foreign policy goals. Military force may be needed to protect a nation’s security interests and economic concerns. Ironically, force may also be needed to achiev e humanitarian goals. F or example, in 2014 and 2015, inter - national military force was r equired to pr otect tens of thousands of Yazidi refugees Often, military efforts abroad do
not turn out as the government or the public expected. Though most Americans were in favor of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan follow- ing September 11, 2001, public opinion on the issue has shifted.
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 738 27/11/18 12:50 PM
NOTE: Civilian comparison groups are 17- to
44-year-olds for education, and 18- to 24-year-old noninstitutional civilians for geographic origin. Percentages under race/ethnicity sum to more than 100 because some people identify as more than one race.
SOURCE: CNA Analysis & Solutions, "Population Representation in the Military Services 2015," www.cna.org, appendix B (accessed 12/26/17).
1. The move to an all-volunteer military in the United States in 1973 resulted in a more educated and professionalized force. However, the United States has used the draft in the past, and some countries require military service of all citizens. Can you think of some arguments for and against each approach?
2. Does it matter if some groups are more heavily represented in the armed forces than others?
70%
85%
85%
99%
Northeast South
18%
37% Midwest West
21%
24%
18%
24% 21%
37%
Northeast South
13%
44% Midwest West
19%
24%
13%
24% 19%
44%
U.S. populationU.S. military new enlistees, 2015
Gender
Race/Ethnicity
Education
Geographic Origin
77% White
14% Black
20% Hispanic
6% Asian
2% Other
47% Female
53% Male
U.S. population
U.S. population
U.S. population
New enlistees, 2015 85% High school graduates
15% Female 85% Male
U.S. military
99% High school graduates
U.S. military
70% White
20% Black
14% Hispanic
U.S. military
4% Asian
6% Other
53%
The Department of Defense and the military are often responsible for implementing foreign policy that relates to security. Who are the men and women in the armed forces? The military has a far greater proportion of men to women than the general population, but in terms of race and ethnicity, the military is fairly similar to the United States as a whole. Residents of southern
likely to enlist than those from other regions.
Who Serves in the U.S. Military?
55-year-olds for gender and race/ethnicity, 18- to
77%
WHO ARE AMERICANS?
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 739 27/11/18 12:50 PM
threatened by ISIS forces in Iraq. Without the use of militar y force, humanitarian assistance to the Yazidis would have been irrelevant.26
Military force is generally considered a last resort and avoided if possible because its use may be problematic. First, the use of military force is extremely costly in both human and financial terms. Over the past 50 y ears, tens of thousands of Americans hav e been killed and hundreds of billions of dollars spent in America ’s military operations. Before they employ military force to achieve national goals, policy makers must be certain that achieving those goals is essential and that other means are unlikely to succeed.
Second, the use of militar y force is inherently fraught with risk. H owever care- fully policy makers and generals plan for military operations, results can seldom be fully anticipated. Variables ranging fr om the weather to unexpected weapons and tactics deployed by opponents may turn calculated militar y operations into costly disasters, or conv ert maneuvers that w ere expected to be quick and decisiv e into long, drawn-out, expensive struggles. In 2003, American policy makers expected to defeat the Iraqi army quickly and easily—and they did. Policy makers did not antici- pate, however, that American forces would still be struggling years later to defeat the insurgency that arose in the war’s aftermath.
Finally, in a democracy, any government that chooses to address policy problems through military means is almost certain to encounter political difficulties. Generally speaking, the American public will suppor t r elatively shor t and decisiv e militar y engagements. I f, ho wever, a conflict drags on, producing casualties and expenses with no clear outcome, the public loses patience and opposition politicians point to the government’s lies and ineptitude. The wars in Korea, Vietnam, and I raq are all examples of protracted conflicts whose domestic political repercussions became seri- ous liabilities for the governments that initially decided to make use of military force.
Thus, military force remains a major for eign policy tool, and the U nited States currently possesses a mor e powerful and effective set of militar y for ces than any other nation. Nevertheless, even for the United States, the use of military force is fraught with risk and is not to be undertaken lightly.
SOFT POWER
The term soft power refers to efforts by one nation to influence the people and govern- ments of other nations by persuasion rather than coercion. The instruments of soft power include dev elopment aid, cultural diplomacy , student ex change programs, and other mechanisms designed to shape perceptions. Cultural programs that send American actors, athletes, and musicians ar ound the world ar e thought to offer a positive view of the United States that will encourage foreign governments and their citizens to see America as the “ good guy” in international disputes. E xchange pro- grams that bring foreign students to the United States serve a similar purpose. The effects of soft power are diffuse and difficult to measure, but the United States makes an effort to promote its “brand” of freedom and democracy throughout the world. Other nations do the same. Chinese dev elopment projects in Africa, for example, are partly intended to promote a favorable image of China on the continent.27
ARBITRATION
The final foreign policy tool to be consider ed is dispute arbitration. Arbitration means referring an international disagreement to a neutral third party for resolution. Arbitration is itself sometimes seen as a form of soft po wer, as distinguished fr om
740 CHAPTER 18 FORE IGN POL ICY ANd dEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 740 27/11/18 12:50 PM
military force, economic sanctions, and other coer cive foreign policy instr uments. The United States will occasionally turn to international tribunals to resolve disputes with other countries—in F ebruary 2008 the U.S. go vernment asked the I nterna- tional Court of Justice to resolve a long-standing dispute with I taly over American property confiscated by the Italian government more than 40 years earlier. To take another example, in 1981 the United States and Iran established an arbitral tribunal to deal with claims arising from Iran’s seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979; the tribunal resulted in a settlement.
More important, the United States relies heavily on the work of arbitral panels to maintain the flow of international trade on which the U.S. economy depends. U.S. firms would be reluctant to do business abr oad if they could not be cer tain that their property and contractual rights would be honored by other nations. Arbi- tration helps produce that cer tainty. Almost every international contract contains an arbitration clause r equiring that disputes betw een the par ties will be resolved not by foreign governments but by impartial arbitral panels accepted by both sides. By the terms of the New York Convention, virtually every nation in the world has agreed to accept and enfor ce arbitral verdicts. The United States has incorporated the terms of the New York Convention into federal law, and U.S. courts vigorously enforce arbitral judgments. The United S tates may not be happy with the out - come of every arbitral proceeding, but the arbitral system is essential to America’s economic interests.
Current Foreign Policy Issues Facing the United States
The United S tates curr ently faces many foreign policy pr oblems, but this section will examine a few major foreign policy issues that stand out:
relations with R ussia; relations with I ran and North Korea; what to do about the global environment; and international trade policy. Each reveals how the key players in foreign policy use the tools at their disposal to achieve their policy goals.
A POWERFUL CHINA AND A RESURGENT RUSSIA
After the United States, China and Russia are the world’s greatest military powers. China is an economic power as well, with an economy that in some respects already outpaces America’s and continues to gr ow. China seems determined to expand its military capabilities and to replace the United States as the dominant power in Asia. The United States has no desir e to engage in a military conflict with China but, at the same time, would pr efer to blunt Chinese ambitions. This situation is what Graham Allison has called “Thucydides’s Trap.”28 According to Allison, the ancient Greek historian Thucydides explained that the great war between Athens and Sparta came about because the growth of Athenian power caused fear in Sparta and pushed the Spartans toward a war both cities would hav e preferred to avoid. The relation- ship between the United States and China is not at such a point of crisis but r epre- sents a growing concern for American policy makers who have sought to strengthen U.S. alliances with other Asian nations, including I ndia, Japan, and Vietnam, in order to increase American power in the region and prevent the rise of China.
Analyze the foreign policy problems facing American policy makers today
741CURRENT FORE IGN POL ICY ISSUES FAC ING THE UN I TEd STATES
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 741 27/11/18 12:50 PM
While relations with China are a long-term problem, the interactions of the United States with Russia present a more immediate set of issues. O nce a global superpower and America’s chief riv al in the world, R ussia remains heavily armed but economi - cally weak. Under its current leader, Vladimir Putin, Russia has challenged the United States in Europe and in the Middle East, and has even meddled in American politics.29
The first in this series of direct Russian challenges to the U nited States came in 2014, when R ussian forces seized control of the C rimean Peninsula, an ar ea that had been part of the Ukraine, though many of the peninsula’s inhabitants were eth- nic Russians. Russian president Vladimir Putin said Russia’s actions were necessary to prevent disorder and bloodshed and to r eassert Russia’s historical rights to the region. Russian troops next massed along other por tions of the U krainian border. The Obama administration urged the Russians to withdraw, announced a program of economic sanctions, and sought through diplomacy to encourage NATO allies to impose sanctions as well. The result illustrated the difficulties inherent in col- lective action and the use of sanctions. M any of the United States’ European allies depend on R ussian energy supplies and engage in a good deal of trade with the Russians. As a result, while all agreed in principle that Russia should withdraw from Crimea, none w ere prepared to follo w the American lead of imposing sanctions, and it seemed that nothing would be done to dislodge the R ussians from the area. That same year Russia formally annexed Crimea, though the action was not officially recognized by the United States. Subsequently, Russian forces supported separatist groups in several other parts of the Ukraine.
In 2015, Russia challenged the United States in another par t of the world when Russian forces entered the S yrian civil war in suppor t of the Assad r egime, which the United States had sought to oust. R ussia claimed that its militar y actions w ere aimed at the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other terrorist groups, but in reality Russian attacks seemed to be dir ected at anti-Assad r ebels. With American military advisers fighting alongside some of these same rebel groups, there was dan- ger of a dir ect clash between Russia and the United States. President Obama called for Russian withdrawal and for negotiations to pr event an accidental confr ontation between R ussian and American militar y for ces. I n 2016, R ussia claimed to hav e
From the beginning of the Syrian civil war in 2011, the United States has backed rebels against the Bashar al-Assad regime but has increased its involvement in recent years with the aim of targeting ISIS. The United States first deployed Special Operations forces on the ground in Syria in late 2015.
742 CHAPTER 18 FORE IGN POL ICY ANd dEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 742 27/11/18 12:50 PM
withdrawn its for ces, but it was unclear whether this action had, in fact, occurr ed. During the course of the year, the United States and Russia continued to negotiate— and violate—new agreements as the fighting continued.
To counter R ussia’s actions, the U nited S tates has wor ked to str engthen and enlarge NATO to include Eastern European nations that feel threatened by Russia, including Poland, Lithuania, Albania, B ulgaria, and S lovenia. Russia, for its par t, views NATO’s expansion into its former satellite empire as a provocative action and has sought to enhance its own military capabilities in the region.
In 2016, R ussia also sought to intr ude into American pr esidential politics. Russian agents purchased ads on Facebook and other social media designed to cause dissention in the United States, and to exploit ethnic and economic tensions. For the most part, Russian efforts seemed to favor Donald Trump and oppose Hillary Clinton. Whether these had any effect or not is open to question.30
Both the Chinese and the Russians have made use of extensive electronic “hack- ing” to br eak into the computer systems of American go vernment agencies and American firms. Both countries deny these allegations—as does the United States when accused of hacking into Russian and Chinese systems.31
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION IN IRAN AND NORTH KOREA
Unlike China and Russia, Iran and North Korea are not great powers, but both pres- ent challenges to the United States, especially in the realm of nuclear proliferation. Though it is a nuclear power, the United States has generally seen nuclear prolifera- tion as leading to a more dangerous world and has done what it can to prevent more countries—especially those it sees as opposed to the interests of the United States and its allies—from developing nuclear weapons.
Iran and the United States have been adversaries since 1979, when Iranians over- threw an unpopular U.S.-backed leader , Shah Reza Pahlavi. For years the U nited States has worried that I ran is wor king to ward obtaining nuclear w eapons with which it could threaten Saudi Arabia and Israel—both close U.S. allies—and bring Middle Eastern oil fields under its control. To prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, U.S. presidents have used a mix of carrots (in the form of diplomacy) and sticks (in the form of sanctions). Sanctions made it more difficult for Iran to sell its oil, its major expor t, hurting its economy. In this case, U.S. allies mostly cooper- ated with the sanctions. I n 2015 the U nited States and Iran signed an agr eement; the Iranians pledged not to build nuclear w eapons in exchange for a lifting of the economic sanctions. Critics of the agreement expressed fears that it would not deter the Iranians from continuing with their nuclear program, and during his presiden- tial campaign D onald Trump pr omised to abr ogate the agr eement. A t the same time, the United States has had considerable success in encouraging Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the smaller Persian Gulf states to develop closer relations with one another and, possibly, work toward an anti-Iran alliance.
With North Korea, U.S. diplomacy has thus far been fraught with difficulty, because North Korea’s major backer and trading partner—China—will not cooper- ate with efforts by the United States to undermine the North Korean regime. China regards North Korea as a useful pawn on the geopolitical chessboard, preventing the United States and two of its allies, Japan and South Korea, from dominating the Sea of Japan. As a result, the North Koreans have continued to build nuclear warheads and to test missiles capable of carr ying them. The current North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, angered the Chinese by arresting and killing several members of
743CURRENT FORE IGN POL ICY ISSUES FAC ING THE UN I TEd STATES
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 743 27/11/18 12:50 PM
North Korea’s leadership, including members of Kim’s own family, whom he deemed too closely associated with China. With his actions, Kim reduced Chinese influence over North Korea’s policies, leaving the country’s Chinese patrons unsure of how to proceed. President Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in June 2018 seeking to improve America’s relations with North Korea and, perhaps, to move that nation out of the Chinese orbit.
TRADE POLICY
Trade is one of the most contentious issues in contemporar y international relations. Figure 18.2 shows that the United States persistently imports more than it expor ts, producing a substantial trade deficit with the rest of the world. The United States has accused China and other nations of unfair trade practices that limit the sale of goods in their markets while they expor t billions of dollars in goods to the U nited States. Trade also affects job growth in the U nited States, which has been lo w for sev eral years. Populist politicians like D onald Trump charge that this is the r esult of trade policies that allowed American jobs to be exported to Asia and Mexico where labor is cheaper. Trade, as we saw above, supports many millions of jobs in the United States. However, U.S. workers whose jobs were lost when industries mo ved abroad call for tariffs and other remedies they hope might bring their jobs back to the United States.
Many workers voted for Donald Trump, who criticized U.S. trade policies during his campaign and pr omised to bring these jobs back. O ne of Trump’s first acts in office was to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free-trade agree- ment between the United States and 11 Pacific Rim nations. Trump said the TPP would allow foreign countries to profit at America’s expense.
Trade disputes hav e especially complicated America ’s r elationship with China. In 2010 the U nited States accused China of manipulating trade r ules to its o wn
FIGURE 18.2
U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services The United States has a “trade deficit” with the rest of the world, which means it imports more goods and services from abroad than it exports. Econo- mists argue about whether this is a problem for the U.S. economy. Some assert that a deficit means the United States is a debtor nation, living beyond its means. Others assert that the trade deficit reflects investment in American productive capabilities. Still others argue that imports as well as exports are good for the American economy.
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics, www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/ historical/index.html (accessed 7/20/18).
Imports
Exports
Balance
950
1,500
2,000
2,500
$3,000
0 2000 2003 2006 2009 20152012 2018
2006, trade balance –761 billion
2009, trade balance –384 billion
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
744 CHAPTER 18 FORE IGN POL ICY ANd dEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 744 27/11/18 12:50 PM
advantage, and China, in return, accused the United States of mismanaging its own economy. I n 2012, China announced that it would r educe its pur chases of U.S. government securities in order to become less vulnerable to fluctuations in the value of the dollar . The United States pointed out that this might r esult in a r eduction of its impor ts of Chinese goods. P resident Trump has declar ed that the Chinese trade unfairly and has promised to change the rules in America’s favor—a move sure to incr ease Chinese enmity to ward the U nited S tates. I n 2018, P resident Trump announced the imposition of $50 billion in tariffs on Chinese steel, aluminum and electronic goods sold to the U.S. China quickly announced that it would r etaliate with tariffs on U.S. farm products, sea foods, and autos sold in China. These moves raised the prospect of an all-out trade war between the world’s two largest economies.
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
A final trouble spot for American policy makers is international envir onmental policy. The environment is a global matter . Pollutants produced in one countr y affect all oth- ers. Generally speaking, the United States supports various international efforts to pro- tect the envir onment. These include the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, an international agr eement to study and ameliorate harmful changes in the global envir onment, and the M ontreal Protocol, an agr eement signed b y over 150 countries to limit the production of substances potentially harmful to the world’s ozone layer. Other nations have criticized the United States for withdrawing fr om the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an agreement setting limits on industrial countries ’ emissions of greenhouse gases. The United States asserted that the Kyoto Protocol would harm Amer- ican economic interests. The Kyoto Protocol expired in 2012, but 37 of the original sig- natories signed the Doha Amendment to renew their commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The United States refrained from signing this new agreement as well.
In 2015, however, the United States did agree to the Paris Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Each countr y agreed to r educe emissions but would set its own contribution to the effort. Many Republicans, including D onald Trump, opposed the agreement, and as president, Trump ended U.S. participation in the Paris accord, stating that strict environmental controls would undermine American manufacturing inter ests and cause mor e jobs to leav e the U nited S tates in fav or of developing nations without such standar ds. America’s western European allies, on the other hand, r emain committed to the P aris accord and vie w the American administration as uninformed and reckless.32
Foreign Policy WHAT DO WE WANT? The five policy areas discussed above are only a few of the problems facing America in
the world. How should we respond to these and other problems facing our nation? The
nineteenth-century British statesman Lord Palmerston famously said, “Nations have
no permanent friends or allies; they only have permanent interests.” Palmerston’s
comment illustrates what is sometimes known as the “realist” view of foreign
policy. The realist school holds that foreign policies should be guided by the national
interest (mainly security and economic interests) and that policy makers should
745FORE IGN POL ICY : WHAT dO WE WANT?
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 745 27/11/18 12:50 PM
steel themselves to the necessity of making decisions that might be viewed from the
outside as cold and ruthless if they serve the nation’s interests. Although many pub-
lic officials have denounced such views in public—especially if they are running for
office—many became realists once in power. Every one of America’s post–World War II
presidents, democrats and Republicans alike, has been willing to order young Ameri-
cans into battle and to visit death and destruction on the citizens of foreign states if
he believed the national interest required it.
The harsh rationality of foreign policy often clashes with America’s history and ide-
als. U.S. democratic and liberal traditions lead Americans to hope for a world in which
ideals rather than naked interests govern foreign policy and in which U.S. leaders
pay heed to ideals. The ideals that Americans historically have espoused (though not
always lived by) assert that U.S. foreign policies should have a higher purpose than
the pursuit of self-interest and that the United States is to use force only as a last
resort. Since the realities of U.S. foreign policy often clash with these historical ideals,
American policy makers often struggle to explain their actions and avoid admitting to
motivations that don’t embody those ideals.
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass
destruction,” said Vice President dick Cheney in 2002. When it turned out that these
weapons did not exist, Assistant defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz explained, “For
bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction [as jus-
tification for invading Iraq], because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.”33
As a candidate for the presidency, Barack Obama was praised for denouncing the Bush
administration’s treatment of enemy combatants. Obama was especially critical of the
Guantánamo detention facility, where some alleged enemy combatants were incarcer-
ated. Once in office, however, Obama did not rush to close the Guantánamo facility—
though he continued to plan for its eventual closure. donald Trump, for his part, did not
bother to hide his support for interests over principles. His motto was “America first.”
Must the United States always choose between its ideals and its interests? American
ideals are what attracted many of those affected by the 2017 travel ban (and generations
of immigrants before them) to the United States in the first place. The Founders of the
Republic believed that America would be different from other nations. They believed that
its ideals would be its source of power, that its ideals would allow it to inspire and lead
others as a “shining beacon.” But international events can make it difficult to always
pursue those ideals. The forces of globalization mean that it is easier than ever for small
groups of extremists with violent intentions to travel to American shores and carry out
their plans. (The “Who Participates?” feature on the facing page shows public opinion on security issues and reflects strong concern about international terrorism among all age
groups.) On the other hand, those same forces of globalization have been the source of
many positive outcomes. Greater trade reduces the price of many products for American
consumers as well as those abroad. Furthermore, many scholars believe that the increas-
ing global economic interdependence is a force for peace: it is difficult to go to war with
one’s major trading partners because the harm domestically would be too great. What
can U.S. leaders do in the future to make sure that globalization is a positive force that
promotes U.S. security and prosperity? If, in the pursuit of national power and security,
our political leaders always choose narrow interests over transcendent ideals, might they
be robbing the United States of its true source of international power and global security?
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS In what ways do U.S. ideals affect the nation’s foreign policies? Should foreign policies be guided by ideals or determined by national interests?
746 CHAPTER 18 FORE IGN POL ICY ANd dEMOCRACY
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 746 27/11/18 12:50 PM
Learn more about the issues above and others through coverage in major U.S. newspapers such as the New York Times (www.nytimes.com) and the Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com).
For in-depth conversations about world affairs, watch videos at the World Affairs Council (www.worldaffairs.org) or the Council on Foreign Relations (www.cfr.org).
Stay Informed about International News
Consider working with an interest group on a foreign policy issue you care about, such as Amnesty International (human rights), Move America Forward (supporting American troops), or Just Foreign Policy (equality and justice from a nonpartisan perspective).
Check out foreign news sites for different perspectives on U.S. foreign policies and activities such as Al Jazeera English (www.aljazeera.com) and the BBC (www.bbc.com).
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
Percentage who think each is a major threat to the well-being of the United States
As we learned in this chapter, public opinion can in�uence foreign policy. However, many Americans are not engaged with or knowledgeable about foreign policy. Moreover, public opinion varies by political party. These �gures show what percentage of members of each major political party think each issue is a major threat to the United States.
SOURCE: Pew Research Center, "Partisans Have Starkly Different Opinions about How the World Views the U.S.," pewresearch.org (accessed 1/11/18).
Democrats
Republicans
Iran’s nuclear program
45%
63%
China’s power & in�uence
43%
48%
Global climate change
83%
28%
North Korea’s nuclear program
75%
74%
Russia’s power & in�uence
63%
38%
Cyberattacks from other countries
75%
70%
ISIS
64%
74%
Public Opinion on Security Issues
WHO PARTICIPATES?
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 747 27/11/18 12:50 PM
Key Terms Bush Doctrine (p. 724)
executive agreement (p. 725)
Practice Quiz
4. The “Bush doctrine” refers to a) the idea that the United States should not allow for-
eign powers to meddle in the Western Hemisphere. b) the idea that the United States should avoid future
wars by giving in to the demands of hostile foreign powers.
While the president and the chief advisers are the principal architects of U.S. foreign policy, many other actors in the American political system play an important role in deter- mining how the United States interacts with other nations. Specifically, Congress, the executive branch, bureaucracy, and interest groups all exert some influence over American foreign policy. Often, the president and Congress are at odds over foreign policy.
Who Makes American Foreign Policy?
Practice Quiz
1. Which of the following terms best describes the American posture toward the world prior to the twentieth century? a) interventionist b) isolationist c) appeasement d) humanitarian e) internationalist
2. Which of the following terms describes an effort to forestall war by giving in to the demands of a hostile power? a) appeasement b) détente c) deterrence d) containment e) preventive war
3. The World Trade Organization is a) an agency in the federal executive branch that
analyzes trade deficits. b) an American interest group that lobbies Congress
for the passage of agricultural and manufacturing tariffs.
c) an American interest group that lobbies Congress for the passage of so-called “Fair Trade” laws.
d) an international organization composed of Western European countries that oppose free trade.
e) an international organization promoting free trade that grew out of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
The programs and policies that determine U.S. relations with other nations and foreign entities are referred to as American foreign policy. The two main goals of American foreign policy are security and prosperity. America’s security policy is focused on terrorist groups, hostile non-state actors, and foreign countries. America’s international economic policies are concentrated on expanding employ- ment opportunities, maintaining access to foreign energy supplies, promoting foreign investment in the United States, and lowering the prices Americans pay for goods and services. Although many Americans are also committed to promoting human rights, this commitment has a lower priority in American foreign policy than the nation’s security concerns and economic interests.
Key Terms non-state actors (p. 717)
isolationism (p. 718)
containment (p. 718)
preventive war (p. 718)
appeasement (p. 718)
deterrence (p. 718)
Cold War (p. 718)
nation-states (p. 719)
World Trade Organization (WTO) (p. 721)
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (p. 721)
United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) (p. 721)
The Goals of Foreign Policy
Explain how foreign policy is designed to promote security, prosperity, and humanitarian goals (pp. 717–22)
Identify the major players in foreign policy making, and describe their roles (pp. 722–33)
CHAPTER 18 STUdY GU IdE748
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 748 27/11/18 12:50 PM
d) It was designed to be a channel for negotiation and a means of settling international disputes peaceably.
e) Important issues require a two-thirds majority vote in the General Assembly.
9. Which of the following were founded during the 1940s in order to create a new international economic structure for the postwar world? a) the Federal Reserve System and the Council of
Economic Advisers b) the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the
Southeast Asia Treaty Organization c) the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank d) the International Court of Justice and the Warsaw Pact e) the Office of Management and Budget and the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
10. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed by the United States, a) Canada, and most of Eastern Europe. b) Canada, and the Soviet Union. c) Canada, and Mexico. d) Canada, and most of Western Europe. e) Canada, and the United Kingdom.
11. Cultural programs that send American actors, athletes, and musicians around the world in order to promote a positive view of the United States are examples of the United States’ use of a) soft power. b) star power. c) arbitration. d) “Thucydides’s Trap.” e) hard power.
The most important tools for the United States in imple- menting its foreign policy in the modern era have been diplomacy, the United Nations, the international monetary structure, economic aid and sanctions, collective security, military force, soft power, and arbitration. Many of the international organizations that influence contemporary American foreign policy, such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, NATO, and the International Court of Justice, were formed in the years immediately following World War II. As a result of the fact that the United States possesses a more powerful and effective military than any other nation, military force is a particularly important tool for American foreign policy.
Key Terms diplomacy (p. 734)
United Nations (UN) (p. 734)
International Monetary Fund (IMF) (p. 735)
Practice Quiz
8. Which of the following statements about the United Nations is not true? a) It gives every country one vote in the General
Assembly. b) It has a powerful army to implement its decisions. c) The five permanent members of the UN Security
Council are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The Instruments of Modern American Foreign Policy
Describe the means the United States uses to carry out foreign policy today (pp. 733–41)
6. Which of the following statements about the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is not accurate? a) The Committee consists of 18 members from the
Senate. b) The Committee was established in 1816 as one of
the original ten standing committees of the Senate. c) The Committee oversees the State department. d) The Committee must unanimously approve all
treaties before they are enacted. e) The Committee includes seven subcommittees,
each with a regional or subject-matter jurisdiction.
7. The Constitution assigns the power to declare war to a) the National Security Council. b) the president. c) Congress. d) the secretary of defense. e) the chief justice of the United States.
c) the idea that the United States should take preemp- tive action against threats to its national security.
d) the idea that the United States should never take preemptive action against threats to its national security.
e) the idea that the United States should always secure international approval before taking any military action.
5. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) a) prohibited the government from collecting
intelligence data in countries outside of the Western Hemisphere.
b) required that the government receive a warrant from a special court before undertaking electronic surveillance of American citizens.
c) prevented the United States from officially recogniz- ing the North Korean government under Kim Jong-il.
d) established the National Security Agency. e) eliminated the department of Homeland Security.
STUDY GU IDE 749
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 749 27/11/18 12:50 PM
Hook, Steven. U.S. Foreign Policy: The Paradox of World Power. Washington, dC: CQ Press, 2010.
Ikenberry, John. American Foreign Policy. New York: Wadsworth, 2010.
Irwin, douglas. Clashing Over Commerce: A History of US Trade Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017.
Kagan, Robert. Dangerous Nation. New York: Knopf, 2006.
Kaufman, Joyce. A Concise History of U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2010.
Kennan, George F. Around the Cragged Hill: A Personal and Political Philosophy. New York: W. W. Norton, 1993.
Nasr, Vali. The Dispensable Nation: American Foreign Policy in Retreat. New York: Anchor, 2014.
Pillar, Paul. Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011.
Satter, david. The Less You Know, the Better You Sleep: Russia’s Road to Terror and Dictatorship under Yeltsin and Putin. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016.
Stiglitz, Joseph. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W. W. Norton, 2017.
Allison, Graham. Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017.
Art, Robert. The Use of Force: Military Power and International Politics. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2009.
Bacevich, Andrew. The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2008.
dorman, Andrew, and Joyce Kaufman, eds. Providing for National Security. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 2014.
drezner, daniel. “The Realist Tradition in American Public Opinion.” Perspectives on Politics 6, no. 1 (March 2008): 51–70.
Gaddis, John L. The Cold War: A New History. New York: Penguin Press, 2005.
Ginsberg, Benjamin. The Worth of War. New York: Prometheus, 2014.
Haass, Richard. A World in Disarray: Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order. New York: Penguin, 2017.
Herring, George C. From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations since 1776. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
c) exports the same number of goods and services from other countries than it imports.
d) does not import goods and services from other countries.
e) does not export goods and services to other countries.
13. In 2015 the United States entered into an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions called the a) Kyoto Protocol. b) doha amendment. c) Trans-Pacific Partnership. d) Montreal Protocol. e) Paris Agreement.
The United States is currently facing a number of important short- and long-term foreign policy problems: threats from China and Russia; nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea; international trade disputes; and global environmen- tal degradation. The Trump administration has maintained the policies of previous presidents on some of these problems and shifted directions on others.
Practice Quiz
12. The United States a) exports more goods and services to other countries
than it imports. b) imports more goods and services from other
countries than it exports.
Current Foreign Policy Issues Facing the United States
Analyze the foreign policy problems facing American policy makers today (pp. 741–45)
For Further Reading
CHAPTER 18 STUdY GU IdE750
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 750 27/11/18 12:50 PM
American Israel Public Affairs Committee www.aipac.org
Interest groups are some of the main shapers of foreign policy. One of the top lobbies in the nation, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee works to strengthen the U.S.–Israeli relationship.
Foreign Policy Association www.fpa.org
This nonprofit organization tries to generate interest in and draw attention to global issues and policies.
International Monetary Fund www.imf.org
World Trade Organization www.wto.org
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) have been considered instru- ments of modern American foreign policy. Read about how these organizations are trying to promote capitalism, free trade, and economic development.
National Security Council www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/
The National Security Council was formed in 1947 and consists of senior advisers and Cabinet officials who keep the president informed on all matters of national security and foreign policy.
Recommended Websites
Peterson Institute for International Economics www.piie.com
The Peterson Institute for International Economics is dedicated to analyzing international economic policy. Take a minute to review some of the studies that have influenced the policies of such international organiza- tions as NAFTA, the WTO, and the IMF.
United Nations www.un.org
Founded in 1945, the United Nations (UN) promotes international peace and security. Visit the UN website for information on the General Assembly, the Security Council, economic and social development, and humanitarian issues.
U.S. Department of State www.state.gov
The U.S. department of State is the primary bureaucratic department for American diplomacy and national security.
U.S. Senate: Treaties www.senate.gov/legislative/treaties.htm
The most important foreign policy task of the Senate is reviewing and approving treaties. Learn more about the Senate’s treaty-making powers, and find information about treaty action at this U.S. Senate website.
STUDY GU IDE 751
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 751 27/11/18 12:50 PM
wtp12e_ptr_ch18_714-752.indd 752 27/11/18 12:50 PM
The Declaration of Independence In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thir teen united S tates of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which hav e con- nected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of N ature’s God entitle them, a decent r espect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men ar e cre- ated equal, that they ar e endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these ar e Life, Liber ty and the pursuit of H appiness.—That to secure these rights, G overn- ments ar e instituted among M en, deriving their just po wers from the consent of the governed.—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Govern- ment, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are suffer- able, than to right themselv es by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usur - pations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former S ystems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated inju- ries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would r elin- quish the right of R epresentation in the Legislatur e, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislativ e bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compli - ance with his measures.
He has dissolv ed R epresentative H ouses r epeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has r efused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative pow- ers, incapable of Annihilation, hav e returned to the P eople at large for their ex ercise; the S tate remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of inv asion fr om without, and convulsions within.
He has endeav oured to pr event the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migra - tions hither, and raising the conditions of ne w Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the ten- ure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
Appendix
A1
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 1 17/11/18 3:55 PM
A2 APPENDIX THE DECLARAT ION OF INDEPENDENCE
the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall them- selves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our fr ontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose kno wn rule of war fare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In ev ery stage of these O ppressions We hav e P etitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: O ur repeated Petitions have been answ ered only b y repeated injury. A P rince whose character is thus mar ked b y ev ery act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor hav e We been wanting in attentions to our B rittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislatur e to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the cir cumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their na- tive justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and corre- spondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, ther efore, acquiesce in the neces - sity, which denounces our S eparation, and hold them, as w e hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, Therefore, the R epresentatives of the U nited States of America, in G eneral Congr ess, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the r ectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declar e, That these United Colonies ar e, and of Right ought to be F ree and I ndependent States; that they ar e Absolved from all Allegiance to the B ritish Crown, and that all political connection betw een them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine P rovidence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, S tanding Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for
any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by
Jury: For transporting us bey ond Seas to be tried for pr etended
offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neigh-
boring P rovince, establishing ther ein an Arbitrar y go vern- ment, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Char ters, abolishing our most v aluable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Govern ments:
For suspending our o wn Legislatur es, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, rav aged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transpor ting large Armies of for eign Mercenaries to compleat the wor ks of death, desolation and tyranny, alr eady begun with cir cumstances of C ruelty & per - fidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fello w Citiz ens taken Captiv e on the high S eas to bear Arms against their Countr y, to become
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 2 17/11/18 3:55 PM
THE DECLARAT ION OF INDEPENDENCE APPENDIX A3
NEW HAMPSHIRE Josiah Bartlett William Whipple Matthew Thornton
MASSACHUSETTS BAY Samuel Adams John Adams Robert Treat Paine Elbridge Gerry
RHODE ISLAND Stephen Hopkins William Ellery
CONNECTICUT Roger Sherman Samuel Huntington William Williams Oliver Wolcott
The foregoing Declaration was, by order of Congress, engrossed, and signed by the following members:
John Hancock
NEW YORK William Floyd Philip Livingston Francis Lewis Lewis Morris
NEW JERSEY Richard Stockton John Witherspoon Francis Hopkinson John Hart Abraham Clark
PENNSYLVANIA Robert Morris Benjamin Rush Benjamin Franklin John Morton George Clymer James Smith George Taylor James Wilson George Ross
DELAWARE Caesar Rodney George Read Thomas M’Kean
MARYLAND Samuel Chase William Paca Thomas Stone Charles Carroll,
of Carrollton
VIRGINIA George Wythe Richard Henry Lee Thomas Jefferson Benjamin Harrison Thomas Nelson, Jr. Francis Lightfoot Lee Carter Braxton
NORTH CAROLINA William Hooper Joseph Hewes John Penn
SOUTH CAROLINA Edward Rutledge Thomas Heyward, Jr. Thomas Lynch, Jr. Arthur Middleton
GEORGIA Button Gwinnett Lyman Hall George Walton
Resolved, That copies of the Declaration be sent to the sev eral assemblies, conv entions, and committees, or councils of safety , and to the several commanding officers of the continental troops; that it be pr oclaimed in each of the U nited States, at the head of the army.
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 3 17/11/18 3:55 PM
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 4 17/11/18 3:55 PM
A5
The Articles of Confederation Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and in force March 1, 1781
To all whom these P resents shall come, w e the undersigned Delegates of the S tates affixed to our N ames, send gr eeting. Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America, in Con- gress assembled, did, on the fifteenth day of November, in the Year of O ur Lor d O ne thousand S even H undred and S ev- enty sev en, and in the S econd Year of the I ndependence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpet- ual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts- bay, Rhodeisland and P rovidence P lantations, Connecticut, New-York, N ew-Jersey, P ennsylvania, D elaware, M aryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina and Georgia in the words following, viz. “Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of Newhampshire, Massachusettsbay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New- York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina and Georgia.
Art. I. The Stile of this confederacy shall be “The United States of America.”
Art. II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and inde- pendence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Art. III. The said states hereby sev erally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general wel- fare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force of- fered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.
Art. IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friend- ship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of fr ee citizens in the sev eral states; and the people of each state shall hav e free ingress and regress to and fr om any other state, and shall enjo y ther ein all the privileges of trade and commer ce, subject to the same duties, impositions and r estrictions as the inhabitants ther eof respectively, provided that such r estriction shall not extend so far as to pr event the r emoval of pr operty impor ted into any state, to any other state, of which the Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or r estriction shall be
laid by any state, on the property of the united states, or either of them.
If any Person guilty of , or charged with tr eason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any state, shall flee from Justice, and be found in any of the united states, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power, of the state from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the state having jurisdiction of his offence.
Full faith and cr edit shall be giv en in each of these states to the records, acts and judicial pr oceedings of the cour ts and magistrates of every other state.
Art. V. For the mor e convenient management of the gen - eral interests of the united states, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislature of each state shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a po wer reserved to each state, to r ecall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the y ear, and to send others in their stead, for the remainder of the Year.
No state shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor by more than seven Members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the united states, for which he, or another for his benefit receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.
Each state shall maintain its o wn delegates in a meeting of the states, and while they act as members of the committee of the states.
In determining questions in the united states, in Congr ess assembled, each state shall have one vote.
Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be im- peached or questioned in any Court, or place out of Congress, and the members of congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests and imprisonments, during the time of their going to and fr om, and attendance on congr ess, except for tr eason, felony, or breach of the peace.
Art. VI. No state without the Consent of the united states in congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or r eceive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, or alliance or treaty with any King, prince or state; nor shall any person holding any office or profit or trust under the united states, or any of them, accept of any present, emolument, office
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 5 17/11/18 3:55 PM
A6 APPENDIX THE ART ICLES OF CONFEDERAT ION
the several states in proportion to the value of all land within each state, granted to or sur veyed for any P erson, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the united states in congr ess assem- bled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.
The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and dir ection of the legislatur es of the sev - eral states within the time agreed upon by the united states in congress assembled.
Art. IX. The united states in congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth ar ticle—of sending and receiving ambassadors—entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective states shall be re- strained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the ex- portation of any species of goods or commodities whatsoever— of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, what captur es on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or nav al forces in the ser vice of the united states shall be divided or appropriated—of granting letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace—appointing cour ts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and establish- ing courts for r eceiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures, provided that no member of congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts.
The united states in congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more states concern- ing boundary, jurisdiction or any other cause whatev er; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority or lawful agent of any state in controversy with another shall present a petition to congress stating the matter in question and praying for a hearing, notice ther eof shall be giv en by order of congr ess to the legislative or executive authority of the other state in con - troversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the par ties by their lawful agents, who shall then be dir ected to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, congress shall name three persons out of each of the united states, and fr om the list of such persons each par ty shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names as congress shall direct, shall in the presence of congress be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major par t of the judges who shall hear the cause shall agr ee in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without
or title of any kind whatev er from any king, prince or for eign state; nor shall the united states in congr ess assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.
No two or mor e states shall enter into any tr eaty, confed- eration or alliance whatev er between them, without the con - sent of the united states in congr ess assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be enter ed into, and how long it shall continue.
No state shall lay any imposts or duties, which may inter - fere with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the united states in congress assembled, with any king, prince or state, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by congress, to the courts of France and Spain.
No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any state, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united states in congress assembled, for the defence of such state, or its trade; nor shall any body of for ces be kept up b y any state, in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgment of the united states, in congr ess assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state; but ev ery state shall always keep up a w ell regu- lated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
No state shall engage in any war without the consent of the united states in congr ess assembled, unless such state be actually inv aded b y enemies, or shall hav e r eceived cer tain advice of a r esolution being formed b y some nation of I ndians to invade such state, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay , till the united states in congr ess asssembled can be consulted; nor shall any state grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war b y the united states in congress assembled, and then only against the kingdom or state and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declar ed, and under such regulations as shall be established by the united states in congr ess assembled, unless such state be infested by pirates; in which case v essels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the united states in congress assembled shall determine otherwise.
Art. VII. When land-forces are raised b y any state for the common defence, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed b y the legislature of each state r espectively, by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such state shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by the state which first made the appointment.
Art. VIII. All charges of war, and all other expences that shall be incurr ed for the common defence or general w elfare, and allowed b y the united states in congr ess assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common tr easury, which shall be supplied b y
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 6 17/11/18 3:55 PM
THE ART ICLES OF CONFEDERAT ION APPENDIX A7
general affairs of the united states under their direction—to appoint one of their number to pr eside, provided that no per- son be allo wed to ser ve in the office of president more than one year in any term of thr ee years; to ascer tain the necessary sums of Money to be raised for the service of the united states, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses—to borrow money, or emit bills on the cr edit of the united states, transmitting ev ery half y ear to the r espective states an account of the sums of money so borr owed or emitted,— to build and equip a navy—to agr ee upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each state for its quota, in pr oportion to the number of white inhabitants in such state; which r equisition shall be binding, and ther eupon the legislature of each state shall appoint the r egimental officers, raise the men and cloath, arm and equip them in a soldier like manner, at the expense of the united states; and the officers and men so cloathed, armed and equipped shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agr eed on by the united states in congr ess assembled: B ut if the united states in con - gress assembled shall, on consideration of circumstances judge proper that any state should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number than its quota, and that any other state should raise a gr eater number of men than the quota ther eof, such extra number shall be raised, officered, cloathed, armed and equipped in the same manner as the quota of such state, unless the legislature of such state shall judge that such extra number cannot be safely spared out of the same, in which case they shall raise officer, cloath, arm and equip as many of such extra number as they judge can be safely spared. And the officers and men so cloathed, armed and equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the united states in congress assembled.
The united states in congress assembled shall nev er engage in a war , nor grant letters of mar que and r eprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money , nor r egulate the v alue ther eof, nor ascer tain the sums and expenses necessary for the defence and welfare of the united states, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the united states, nor appr opriate money, nor agree upon the number of v essels of war , to be built or pur chased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine states as- sent to the same: nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning fr om day to day be determined, unless b y the votes of a majority of the united states in congress assembled.
The congress of the united states shall hav e po wer to adjourn to any time within the y ear, and to any place within the united states, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer duration than the space of six M onths, and shall pub - lish the Journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to tr eaties, alliances or militar y operations, as in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the
shewing r easons, which congr ess shall judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse to strike, the congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each state, and the secr etary of congress shall strike in behalf of such par ty absent or refusing; and the judgment and sentence of the cour t to be appointed, in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the par ties shall r efuse to submit to the author - ity of such court, or to appear to defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgment, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, the judgment or sentence and other pr oceedings being in either case transmitted to congress, and lodged among the acts of congress for the security of the par ties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgment, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior cour t of the state, wher e the cause shall be tried, “well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgment, without favour, affec- tion or hope of r eward:” provided also, that no state shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the united states.
All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different grants of two or more states, whose jurisdictions as they may r espect such lands, and the states which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them be - ing at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall on the petition of either party to the congress of the united states, be finally determined as near as may be in the same manner as is before prescribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between different states.
The united states in congress assembled shall also hav e the sole and exclusive right and po wer of regulating the alloy and value of coin str uck by their own authority, or b y that of the respective states—fixing the standard of weights and measures throughout the united states—r egulating the trade and man - aging all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the states, pr ovided that the legislativ e right of any state within its own limits be not infringed or violated—establishing and regulating post-offices from one state to another , throughout all the united states, and exacting such postage on the papers passing thr o’ the same as may be r equisite to defray the ex - pences of the said office—appointing all officers of the land forces, in the ser vice of the united states, ex cepting regimen- tal officers— appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the ser vice of the united states—making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations.
The united states in congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the r ecess of congress, to be denominated “A Committee of the S tates,” and to consist of one delegate from each state; and to appoint such other com - mittees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 7 17/11/18 3:55 PM
A8 APPENDIX THE ART ICLES OF CONFEDERAT ION
which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; un- less such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be after wards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.
And Whereas it hath pleased the G reat G overnor of the World to incline the hear ts of the legislatur es we respectively represent in congress, to approve of, and to authoriz e us to ratify the said ar ticles of confederation and perpetual union. Know Ye that w e the undersigned delegates, b y vir tue of the power and authority to us giv en for that purpose, do b y these presents, in the name and in behalf of our r espective constitu- ents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, and all and singular the matters and things ther ein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our r espective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederation are submitted to them. And that the articles ther eof shall be inviolably obser ved b y the states w e respectively represent, and that the union shall be perpetual. In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the state of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July, in the Year of our Lord one Thousand seven Hundred and Seventy-eight, and in the thir d year of the independence of America.
delegates of each state on any question shall be enter ed on the Journal, when it is desir ed by any delegate; and the delegates of a state, or any of them, at his or their request shall be fur- nished with a transcript of the said Journal, except such parts as are above excepted, to lay before the legislatures of the several states.
Art. X. The committee of the states, or any nine of them, shall be authorised to ex ecute, in the r ecess of congr ess, such of the po wers of congr ess as the united states in congr ess as- sembled, by the consent of nine states, shall from time to time think expedient to v est them with; pr ovided that no po wer be delegated to the said committee, for the ex ercise of which, by the articles of confederation, the v oice of nine states in the congress of the united states assembled is requisite.
Art. XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and joining in the measur es of the united states, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the adv antages of this union: but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine states.
Art. XII. All bills of cr edit emitted, monies borr owed and debts contracted by, or under the authority of congress, before the assembling of the united states, in pursuance of the pr es- ent confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the united states, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said united states and the public faith ar e hereby solemnly pledged.
Art. XIII. E very state shall abide b y the determinations of the united states in congr ess assembled, on all questions
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 8 17/11/18 3:55 PM
A9
The Constitution of the United States of America
[pr eambl e] We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish J ustice, insur e domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Poster- ity, do or dain and establish this Constitution for the U nited States of America.
ARTICLE I SECTION 1 [l eg isl at ive pow er s] All legislative Powers herein granted shall be v ested in a Con - gress of the United States, which shall consist of a S enate and House of Representatives.
SECTION 2 [house o f r epr esent at ives, how c ons t it ut ed, power o f i mpeac h ment ] The House of Representatives shall be composed of M embers chosen every second Year by the P eople of the sev eral States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications req- uisite for E lectors of the most numer ous Branch of the S tate Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have at- tained to the Age of tw enty five Years, and been sev en 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.
Representatives and direct Taxes1 shall be appor tioned among the sev eral States which may be included within this Union, according to their r espective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole N umber of fr ee Persons, in- cluding those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not tax ed, thr ee fifths of all other Persons.2 The actual Enumeration shall be made within thr ee Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such M anner as they shall by Law dir ect. The Number of R epresentatives shall not ex - ceed one for ev ery thirty Thousand, but each State shall hav e at Least one R epresentative; and until such enumer ation shall
be made, the S tate of N ew Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plan- tations one, Connecticut five, N ew-York six, N ew J ersey four , Pennsylvania eight, D elaware one, M aryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.3
When v acancies happen in the R epresentation fr om any State, the E xecutive A uthority ther eof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their S peaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole P ower of I mpeachment.
SECTION 3 [t h e s enat e, how c ons t it ut ed, impeac h ment t r ia l s] The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Sena- tors from each S tate, chosen by the Legislatur e thereof,4 for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the S enators of the first Class shall be v acated at the E xpiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the E xpiration of the four th Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen ev ery second Year; and if Vacancies happen b y Resignation, or other wise, during the R ecess of the Legislatur e of any S tate, the E xecutive ther eof may make tempor ary Appoint- ments until the next M eeting of the Legislatur e, which shall then fill such Vacancies.5
No Person shall be a S enator who shall not hav e 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 Inhabit- ant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the U nited States shall be P resident of the S enate, but shall hav e no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the A bsence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
1Modified by Sixteenth Amendment. 2Modified by Fourteenth Amendment.
3Temporary provision. 4Modified by Seventeenth Amendment. 5Modified by Seventeenth Amendment.
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 9 17/11/18 3:55 PM
A10 APPENDIX THE CONST I TUT ION OF THE UN I TED STATES OF AMER ICA
Arrest during their A ttendance at the S ession of their r espec- tive Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any S peech or D ebate in either H ouse, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No S enator or R epresentative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been cre- ated, or the E moluments wher eof shall hav e been encr eased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a M ember of either H ouse during his Continuance in Office.
SECTION 7 [pr oc edur e i n passing bil l s a nd r esol ut ions] All B ills for raising R evenue shall originate in the H ouse of Representatives; but the S enate may pr opose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every B ill which shall hav e passed the H ouse of R epre- sentatives and the S enate, shall, befor e it become a Law , be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall r eturn it, with his O bjec- tions to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their J ournal, and proceed to reconsider it. I f after such R econsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other H ouse, by which it shall like wise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall hav e been pr esented to him, the S ame shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessar y (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the U nited States; and befor e the S ame shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be r epassed by two thirds of the S enate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations pre- scribed in the Case of a Bill.
SECTION 8 [power s of c on gr ess] The Congress shall have Power
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and E xcises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and gen- eral Welfare of the United States; but all D uties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
The Senate shall hav e the sole P ower to tr y all I mpeach- ments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief J ustice shall pr eside: And no P erson shall be con - victed without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the P arty convicted shall nev ertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
SECTION 4 [e l ec t ion o f s enat or s a nd r epr esent at ives] The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Sena- tors and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congr ess may at any time b y Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.6
SECTION 5 [quor um, jour na l s, meet ing s, adjour nment s] Each House shall be the J udge of the E lections, Returns and Qualifications of its own M embers, and a M ajority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Num- ber may adjourn fr om day to day , and may be authoriz ed to compel the A ttendance of absent M embers, in such M anner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the R ules of its P roceedings, punish its M embers for disor derly B ehaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Each H ouse shall keep a J ournal of its P roceedings, and from time to time publish the same, ex cepting such P arts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any questions shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, with- out the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
SECTION 6 [c ompens at ion, pr iv il eg es, disabil it ie s] The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the U nited States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and B reach of the P eace, be privileged fr om
6Modified by Twentieth Amendment.
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 10 17/11/18 3:55 PM
THE CONST I TUT ION OF THE UN I TED STATES OF AMER ICA APPENDIX A11
The Privilege of the Writ of H abeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Pro-
portion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.8
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one S tate, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No M oney shall be drawn fr om the Treasury, but in Consequence of A ppropriations made b y Law; and a r egular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted b y the United States: And no P erson holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congr ess, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind what - ever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
SECTION 10 [r est r ic t ions u pon power s o f s t at es] No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confedera - tion; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of C redit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the O bligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessar y for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the R evi- sion and Control of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agr eement or Compact with another S tate, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
ARTICLE II SECTION 1 [exec ut ive power , el ec t ion, qua l if ic at ions o f t h e pr esident ] The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of
To regulate Commerce with for eign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform R ule of N aturalization, and uni - form Laws on the subject of B ankruptcies thr oughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of for eign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securi- ties and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads; To pr omote the P rogress of Science and useful Ar ts, b y
securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on
the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of M arque and Reprisal, and
make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and suppor t Armies, but no A ppropriation of
Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the G overnment and Regulation of the
land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws
of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To pr ovide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the S ervice of the U nited S tates, r eserving to the S tates respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline pr escribed by Congress;
To ex ercise ex clusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoev er, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of par ticular States, and the A cceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Con- sent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessar y and pr oper for carrying into E xecution the for egoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the G overnment of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
SECTION 9 [some r est r ic t ions o n f eder a l p ower ] The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think pr oper to admit, shall not be pr ohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.7
8Modified by Sixteenth Amendment.7Temporary provision.
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 11 17/11/18 3:55 PM
A12 APPENDIX THE CONST I TUT ION OF THE UN I TED STATES OF AMER ICA
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be incr eased nor dimin- ished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not r eceive within that P eriod any other E molu- ment from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my A bility, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
SECTION 2 [power s o f t h e pr esident ] The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the U nited S tates, and of the M ilitia of the sev eral States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relat- ing to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall hav e Power, b y and with the A dvice and Con - sent of the S enate, to make Treaties, pr ovided two thir ds of the S enators pr esent concur; and he shall nominate, and b y and with the Advice and Consent of the S enate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose A ppointments ar e not her ein other wise pr ovided for , and which shall be established b y Law: but the Congr ess may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Cour ts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Com- missions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
SECTION 3 [power s a nd d ut ies o f t h e pr esident ] He shall fr om time to time giv e to the Congr ess Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consider - ation such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of D isagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of A djournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall r eceive Ambassadors and other public M inisters; he shall take Car e that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
SECTION 4 [impeac h ment ] The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be r emoved fr om Office on Impeachment for ,
four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows 9
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of S enators and R epresentatives to which the S tate may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representa- tive, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The electors shall meet in their respective States, and v ote by ballot for two P ersons, of whom one at least shall not be an I n- habitant of the same S tate with themselv es. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which L ist they shall sign and cer tify, and tr ansmit sealed to the S eat of the G overnment of the U nited States, dir ected to the P resident of the S enate. The President of the S enate shall, in the P resence of the S enate and H ouse of R epresentatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for P resident; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the L ist the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chus- ing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representa- tion from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the S tates shall be necessar y to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.10
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Elec- tors, and the D ay on which they shall giv e their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or his Death, Resignation, or I nability to discharge the P owers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the Presi- dent and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
9Number of terms limited to two by Twenty-Second Amendment. 10Modified by Twelfth and Twentieth Amendments.
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 12 17/11/18 3:55 PM
THE CONST I TUT ION OF THE UN I TED STATES OF AMER ICA APPENDIX A13
ARTICLE IV SECTION 1 [f a it h a nd c r edit a mong s t at es] Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial P roceedings of ev ery other S tate. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
SECTION 2 [pr iv il eg es and immunit ie s, fu g it ives] The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No person held to S ervice or Labour in one S tate, under the Laws ther eof, escaping into another , shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.12
SECTION 3 [admission o f n ew s t at es] New States may be admitted by the Congress into this U nion; but no new State shall be formed or er ected within the Jurisdic- tion of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall hav e Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the U nited States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so constr ued as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
SECTION 4 [gua r ant ee o f r epubl ic an g over nment ] The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall pr otect each of them against Invasion; and on A pplication of the Legislatur e, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
ARTICLE V [amendment o f t h e c ons t it ut ion] The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall pr opose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the A pplication of the Legislatur es of two thir ds of the
and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
ARTICLE III
SECTION 1 [judic ia l p ower , t enur e o f o f f ic e] The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Cour t, and in such inferior Cour ts as the Congr ess may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
SECTION 2 [jur isdic t ion] The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and E quity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the U nited States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;— to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;— to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States,— between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a S tate, or the Citiz ens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.11
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a S tate shall be P arty, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supr eme Court shall have appel- late Jurisdiction, both as to Law and F act, with such E xcep- tions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all C rimes, except in Cases of I mpeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
SECTION 3 [t r e a son, pr oof , and punish ment ] Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason un- less on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of B lood, or F orfeiture except during the Life of the P erson attainted.
12Repealed by the Thirteenth Amendment.11Modified by Eleventh Amendment.
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 13 17/11/18 3:55 PM
A14 APPENDIX THE CONST I TUT ION OF THE UN I TED STATES OF AMER ICA
State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and R epresentatives befor e mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the sev- eral States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no r eligious Test shall be r equired as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the U nited States.
ARTICLE VII [r at if ic at ion and est abl ish men t ] The Ratification of the Conventions of nine S tates, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.14
Done in Conv ention by the U nanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lor d one thousand sev en hundred and E ighty sev en and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
several States, shall call a Conv ention for pr oposing Amend- ments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as P art of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of thr ee fourths of the sev eral States, or b y Con- ventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thou- sand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;13 and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
ARTICLE VI [debt s, supr emac y, oat h] All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the A doption of this Constitution, shall be as v alid against the U nited S tates under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every
13Temporary provision. 14The Constitution was submitted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention, was ratified by the conventions of several states at various dates up to May 29, 1790, and became effective on March 4, 1789.
NEW HAMPSHIRE John Langdon Nicholas Gilman
MASSACHUSETTS Nathaniel Gorham Rufus King
CONNECTICUT Wm. Saml. Johnson Roger Sherman
NEW YORK Alexander Hamilton
G:0 WASHINGTON— Presidt. and deputy from Virginia
NEW JERSEY Wil: Livingston David Brearley Wm. Paterson Jona: Dayton
PENNSYLVANIA B Franklin Thomas Mifflin Robt. Morris Geo. Clymer Thos. FitzSimons Jared Ingersoll James Wilson Gouv Morris
DELAWARE Geo: Read Gunning Bedford jun John Dickinson Richard Bassett Jaco: Broom
MARYLAND James McHenry Dan of St Thos. Jenifer Danl. Carroll
VIRGINIA John Blair— James Madison Jr.
NORTH CAROLINA Wm. Blount Richd. Dobbs Spaight Hu Williamson
SOUTH CAROLINA J. Rutledge Charles Cotesworth Pinckney Charles Pinckney Pierce Butler
GEORGIA William Few Abr Baldwin
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 14 17/11/18 3:55 PM
A15
Amendments to the Constitution Proposed by Congress and Ratified by the Legislatures of the Several States, Pursuant to Article V of the Original Constitution.
Amendments I–X, known as the Bill of Rights, were pro- posed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and ratified on December 15, 1791.
AMENDMENT I [f r eedom of r e l ig ion, of s peec h, and o f t h e pr ess] Congress shall make no law r especting an establishment of religion, or pr ohibiting the fr ee ex ercise ther eof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the G overnment for a redress of grievances.
AMENDMENT II [r igh t t o k eep and bea r a r ms] A well regulated Militia, being necessar y to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
AMENDMENT III [quar t er ing of sol di er s] No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quar tered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
AMENDMENT IV [sec ur it y f r om unwar r ant abl e s e a r c h a nd s eiz ur e] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, suppor ted b y O ath or affirmation, and par- ticularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
AMENDMENT V [r igh t s o f ac c used per sons i n c r imina l p r oc eeding s] No person shall be held to answ er for a capital, or other wise infamous crime, unless on a pr esentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or nav al forces, or in the M ilitia, when in actual ser vice in time of War or in public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same
offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be depriv ed of life, liber ty, or pr operty, without due pr o- cess of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
AMENDMENT VI [r igh t t o s peedy t r ia l , w it nesses, et c .] In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall hav e been committed, which district shall hav e been pr eviously ascer tained by law, and to be informed of the natur e and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his fav or, and to hav e the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
AMENDMENT VII [t r ia l b y jur y in c iv il c a ses] In suits at common law , where the v alue in contr oversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be pre- served, and no fact tried b y a jury, shall be other wise reexam- ined in any Cour t of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
AMENDMENT VIII [ba il s, f ines, punish ment s] Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
AMENDMENT IX [r eser vat ion o f r igh t s o f peopl e] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
AMENDMENT X [power s r eser ved t o s t at es o r peopl e] The powers not delegated to the U nited States by the Consti- tution, nor pr ohibited by it to the S tates, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 15 17/11/18 3:55 PM
A16 APPENDIX AMENDMENTS TO THE CONST I TUT ION
AMENDMENT XIII [Proposed by Congress on January 31, 1865; declared ratified on December 18, 1865.]
SECTION 1 [abol it ion of s l aver y] Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punish - ment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly con - victed, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
SECTION 2 [power t o e nf or c e t h is a r t ic l e] Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
AMENDMENT XIV [Proposed by Congress on June 13, 1866; declared ratified on July 28, 1868.]
SECTION 1 [c it iz ens h ip r igh t s no t t o be a br idged by s t at es] All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any S tate deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
SECTION 2 [appor t ionment o f r epr esent at ives i n c ongr ess] Representatives shall be appor tioned among the sev eral States according to their r espective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to v ote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citiz ens of the U nited States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the pro- portion which the number of such male citiz ens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
SECTION 3 [per sons d isqua l if ied f r om hol ding o f f ic e] No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congr ess, or
AMENDMENT XI [Proposed by Congress on March 4, 1794; declared ratified on January 8, 1798.] [r est r ic t ion of judic ia l power ] The Judicial po wer of the U nited S tates shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity , com - menced or pr osecuted against one of the U nited States by Citizens of another S tate, or b y Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
AMENDMENT XII [Proposed by Congress on December 9, 1803; declared ratified on September 25, 1804.] [e l ec t ion of pr esiden t and vic e pr esiden t ] The Electors shall meet in their r espective states and v ote by ballot for P resident and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with them - selves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice- President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as P resident, and of all persons v oted for as Vice- President, and of the number of v otes for each, which lists they shall sign and cer tify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the U nited States, directed to the P resi- dent of the Senate;—the President of the Senate shall, in pres- ence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person hav e such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not ex - ceeding three on the list of those v oted for as P resident, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the P resident, the v otes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a P resident whenever the right of choice shall dev olve upon them, befor e the four th day of M arch next follo wing, then the Vice- President shall act as P resident, as in the case of the death or other consti - tutional disability of the P resident.—The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice- President, if such number be a majority of the whole num - ber of E lectors appointed, and if no person hav e a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the S enate shall choose the Vice-President; a quor um for the purpose shall consist of two-thir ds of the whole number of S enators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessar y to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 16 17/11/18 3:55 PM
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONST I TUT ION APPENDIX A17
years; and each S enator shall hav e one v ote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the r epresentation of any S tate in the Senate, the executive authority of such S tate shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legis- lature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
AMENDMENT XVIII [Proposed by Congress December 18, 1917; declared ratified on January 29, 1919.]
SECTION 1 [nat iona l l iquor pr oh ibit ion] After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importa- tion thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage pur- poses is hereby prohibited.
SECTION 2 [power t o e nf or c e t h is a r t ic l e] The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
SECTION 3 [r at if ic at ion w it h in s even yea r s] This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.1
AMENDMENT XIX [Proposed by Congress on June 4, 1919; declared ratified on August 26, 1920.] [woman s uf f r ag e] The right of citizens of the U nited States to v ote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appro- priate legislation.
as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the U nited States, shall hav e en- gaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
SECTION 4 [wh at publ ic d ebt s a r e va l id] The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for ser vices in suppr essing insurrection or r ebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slav e; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
SECTION 5 [power t o e nf or c e t h is a r t ic l e] The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legis- lation, the provisions of this article.
AMENDMENT XV [Proposed by Congress on February 26, 1869; declared ratified on March 30, 1870.]
SECTION 1 [neg r o suff r age ] The right of citizens of the U nited States to v ote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
SECTION 2 [power t o e nf or c e t h is a r t ic l e] The Congress shall hav e po wer to enfor ce this ar ticle b y appropriate legislation.
AMENDMENT XVI [Proposed by Congress on July 2, 1909; declared ratified on February 25, 1913.] [aut hor iz ing i nc ome t a xes] The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on in- comes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
AMENDMENT XVII [Proposed by Congress on May 13, 1912; declared ratified on May 31, 1913.] [popul a r e l ec t ion o f s enat or s] The Senate of the U nited S tates shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six 1Repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment.
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 17 17/11/18 3:55 PM
A18 APPENDIX AMENDMENTS TO THE CONST I TUT ION
three-fourths of the sev eral States within seven years from the date of its submission.
AMENDMENT XXI [Proposed by Congress on February 20, 1933; declared ratified on December 5, 1933.]
SECTION 1 [nat iona l l iquor pr oh ibit ion r epea l ed] The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
SECTION 2 [t r ans por t at ion o f l iquor i nt o “dr y” s t at es] The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or Possession of the U nited States for deliv ery or use ther ein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws ther eof, is hereby prohibited.
SECTION 3 [r at if ic at ion w it h in s even yea r s] This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution b y conventions in the several S tates, as pr ovided in the Constitution, within sev en years from the date of the submission her eof to the S tates by the Congress.
AMENDMENT XXII [Proposed by Congress on March 21, 1947; declared ratified on February 27, 1951.]
SECTION 1 [t enur e o f pr esident l imit ed] No person shall be elected to the office of President mor e than twice, and no person who has held the office of Presi- dent or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected P resident shall be elected to the office of the President mor e than once. B ut this Ar ticle shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not pr event any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
SECTION 2 [r at if ic at ion w it h in s even yea r s] This article shall be inoperativ e unless it shall hav e been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legisla - tures of thr ee-fourths of the sev eral States within sev en years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
AMENDMENT XX [Proposed by Congress on March 2, 1932; declared ratified on February 6, 1933.]
SECTION 1 [t er ms of of f ic e] The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Rep- resentatives at noon on the 3d day of J anuary, of the y ears in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
SECTION 2 [t ime of c on vening c on gr ess] The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of J anuary, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
SECTION 3 [deat h of pr esiden t -el ec t ] If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the P resi- dent, the P resident elect shall hav e died, the Vice P resident elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
SECTION 4 [e l ec t ion o f t h e pr esident ] The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the S enate may choose a Vice Presi- dent whenever the right of choice shall hav e devolved upon them.
SECTION 5 [amend men t t akes ef f ec t ] Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
SECTION 6 [r at if ic at ion w it h in s even yea r s] This article shall be inoperative unless it shall hav e been rati- fied as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 18 17/11/18 3:55 PM
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONST I TUT ION APPENDIX A19
SECTION 2 [c hoic e o f a n ew v ic e pr esident ] Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take the office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of Congress.
SECTION 3 [pr esident may dec l a r e o wn d isabil it y] Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the po w- ers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrar y, such po wers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
SECTION 4 [a l t er nat e pr oc edur es t o d ec l a r e a nd t o end pr esiden t ia l disabil it y] Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the princi- pal officers of the executive departments, or of such other body as Congress may b y law pr ovide, transmit to the P resident pro tempore of the S enate and the S peaker of the H ouse of Repre- sentatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the P resident transmits to the P resident pro tempore of the S enate and the S peaker of the H ouse of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall r esume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department, or of such other body as Congr ess may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the S enate and the S peaker of the H ouse of Representatives their written declaration that the P resident is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. There- upon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within for ty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. I f the Congress, within twenty one days after r eceipt of the latter written dec - laration, or, if Congr ess is not in session, within tw enty one days after Congr ess is r equired to assemble, determines b y two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the po wers and duties of his office, the Vice Presi- dent shall continue to discharge the same as A cting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
AMENDMENT XXIII [Proposed by Congress on June 16, 1960; declared ratified on March 29, 1961.]
SECTION 1 [e l ec t or a l c ol l eg e v o t es f or t h e d is t r ic t of c ol umbia] The District constituting the seat of G overnment of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congr ess may direct:
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Con- gress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous S tate; they shall be in addition to those appointed b y the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed b y a S tate; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
SECTION 2 [power t o e nf or c e t h is a r t ic l e] The Congress shall hav e po wer to enfor ce this ar ticle b y appropriate legislation.
AMENDMENT XXIV [Proposed by Congress on August 27, 1962; declared ratified on January 23, 1964.]
SECTION 1 [ant i-pol l t a x] The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative of Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
SECTION 2 [power t o e nf or c e t h is a r t ic l e] The Congress shall hav e po wer to enfor ce this ar ticle b y appropriate legislation.
AMENDMENT XXV [Proposed by Congress on July 6, 1965; declared ratified on February 10, 1967.] SECTION 1 [v ic e pr esident t o bec ome pr esident ] In case of the removal of the President from office or his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 19 17/11/18 3:55 PM
A20 APPENDIX AMENDMENTS TO THE CONST I TUT ION
AMENDMENT XXVII [Proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789; declared ratified on May 8, 1992.] [c ongr ess c anno t r a ise i t s o wn pay] No law varying the compensation for the services of the Sena- tors and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.
AMENDMENT XXVI [Proposed by Congress on March 23, 1971; declared ratified on July 1, 1971.]
SECTION 1 [eigh t een-yea r -ol d vot e] The right of citizens of the U nited S tates, who ar e eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
SECTION 2 [power t o e nf or c e t h is a r t ic l e] The Congress shall hav e po wer to enfor ce this ar ticle b y appropriate legislation.
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 20 17/11/18 3:55 PM
A21
The Federalist Papers
NO. 10: MADISON Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deser ves to be mor e accurately dev eloped than its tendency to br eak and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular go vernments nev er finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail ther e- fore to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, pr ovides a pr oper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils have, in truth, been the mor tal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished, as they continue to be the fav orite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liber ty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made b y the American constitu- tions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrant- able partiality to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Com - plaints ar e everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith and of public and personal liber ty, that our go vernments are too unstable, that the public good is disr egarded in the con - flicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbear- ing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these com- plaints had no foundation, the evidence of known facts will not permit us to deny that they ar e in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid r eview of our situation, that some of the distr esses under which w e labor hav e been err oneously charged on the operation of our go vernments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that pr evailing and incr easing distr ust of public engage - ments and alarm for private rights which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administration.
By a faction I understand a number of citiz ens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who ar e united and actuated b y some common impulse of passion,
or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citiz ens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, b y removing its causes; the other , by controlling its effects.
There ar e again two methods of r emoving the causes of faction: the one, b y destr oying the liber ty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it is worse than the disease. Liber ty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expir es. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liber ty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air , which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
The second expedient is as impracticable, as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists betw een his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal in- fluence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselv es. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protec- tion of these faculties is the first object of Government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of prop- erty immediately r esults; and fr om the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
The latent causes of faction are thus so wn in the natur e of man; and w e see them ev erywhere brought into different degrees of activity , accor ding to the different cir cumstances of civil society . A z eal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning Government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pr e-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose for tunes have been interesting to the human passions, have in turn divided man- kind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much mor e disposed to v ex and oppress each
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 21 17/11/18 3:55 PM
A22 APPENDIX THE FEDERAL IST PAPERS
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.
If a faction consists of less than a majority , r elief is sup - plied b y the r epublican principle, which enables the major - ity to defeat its sinister vie ws by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be un - able to ex ecute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or inter est both the public good and the rights of other citiz ens. To secur e the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to pr eserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the gr eat object to which our enquiries are dir ected. Let me add that it is the gr eat desideratum b y which alone this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored and be recom- mended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such co-existent passion or inter est, must be r endered, by their number and local situation, unable to concer t and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor r eligious motiv es can be r elied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in pr oportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
From this vie w of the subject it may be concluded that a pure Democracy, by which I mean a S ociety consisting of a small number of citiz ens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or inter est will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such Democra- cies have ev er been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politi- cians, who hav e patronized this species of G overnment, have erroneously supposed that b y reducing mankind to a per fect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A Republic, by which I mean a G overnment in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine
other, than to co-operate for their common good. S o strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that wher e no substantial occasion pr esents itself , the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions hav e been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of fac- tions has been the v arious and unequal distribution of pr op- erty. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are credi- tors, and those who ar e debtors, fall under a like discrimina - tion. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civiliz ed nations, and divide them into dif - ferent classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern Legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessar y and ordinary operations of Government.
No man is allowed to be judge in his own cause, because his interest would cer tainly bias his judgment and, not improba- bly, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most impor tant acts of legisla- tion but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concern- ing the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citiz ens; and what ar e the different classes of legislators but adv ocates and par ties to the causes which they determine? Is a law pr oposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselv es the judges; and the most numer ous par ty, or in other wor ds, the most powerful faction must be expected to pr evail. Shall domestic manufacturers be encouraged, and in what degree, by restric- tions on for eign manufactur ers? ar e questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and pr obably by neither with a sole r egard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the vari- ous descriptions of pr operty is an act which seems to r equire the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which gr eater opportunity and temptation ar e given to a predominant party to trample on the r ules of justice. E very shilling with which they o verburden the inferior number is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
It is in v ain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests and render them all subservi- ent to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into vie w indirect and r emote considerations, which will rar ely pr evail o ver the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 22 17/11/18 3:55 PM
THE FEDERAL IST PAPERS APPENDIX A23
respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
The other point of difference is the greater number of citi - zens and extent of territor y which may be br ought within the compass of Republican than of Democratic Government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious com- binations less to be dr eaded in the former than in the latter . The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and inter ests composing it; the fe wer the distinct par - ties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same par ty; and the smaller the number of individu - als composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they ar e placed, the mor e easily will they concer t and execute their plans of oppr ession. Extend the spher e and y ou take in a greater variety of par ties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to inv ade the rights of other citiz ens; or if such a common motiv e exists, it will be mor e difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be r emarked, that where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked b y distr ust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence, it clearly appears that the same advantage which a Republic has o ver a D emocracy in contr olling the effects of faction is enjoyed by a large over a small republic—is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does this advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and vir tuous sentiments r ender them superior to local prejudices and to schemes of injustice? I t will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to pos- sess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the gr eater security afforded b y a gr eater v ariety of par ties, against the event of any one par ty being able to outnumber and oppr ess the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union increase this security? Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and inter - ested majority? Here again the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their par ticular States but will be unable to spr ead a general conflagration through the other S tates: a religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a par t of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed o ver the entire face of it must secure the national Councils against any danger fr om that source: a rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is mor e likely to taint a par ticular county or district than an entire State.
the points in which it v aries fr om pur e D emocracy, and w e shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a D emocracy and a R epublic are: first, the delegation of the Government, in the latter, to a small number of citiz ens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citiz ens and greater sphere of country over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citiz ens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regula- tion it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be mor e consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local pr ejudices, or of sinister designs, may , b y intrigue, b y corruption, or b y other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensiv e Republics are most fav orable to the elec - tion of proper guardians of the public w eal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations.
In the first place it is to be remarked that however small the Republic may be, the Representatives must be raised to a certain number in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that however large it may be they must be limited to a certain number in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of Representatives in the two cases not being in pr oportion to that of the Constituents, and being pr oportionally greatest in the small R epublic, it follows that if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small Republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each Representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small Repub- lic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practise with success the vicious ar ts by which elections ar e too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centr e on men who possess the most attractiv e merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconv eniencies will be found to lie. B y enlarging too much the number of elec - tors, you render the representative too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The Federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 23 17/11/18 3:55 PM
A24 APPENDIX THE FEDERAL IST PAPERS
legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal.
But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several po wers in the same depar tment consists in giving to those who administer each depar tment the necessar y consti - tutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defence must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature that such de- vices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no go vernment would be necessar y. I f angels w ere to go vern men, neither external nor internal contr ols on go vernment would be necessar y. In framing a go vernment which is to be administer ed b y men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to contr ol itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as w ell as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, wher e the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other; that the priv ate interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme pow- ers of the State.
But it is not possible to giv e to each depar tment an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this incon- veniency is to divide the legislatur e into different branches; and to r ender them, b y different modes of election and dif - ferent principles of action, as little connected with each other as the natur e of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. I t may ev en be neces - sary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the w eakness of the ex ecutive may require, on the other hand, that it should be for tified. An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the r equisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negativ e be supplied b y some qualified connection between this w eaker branch of the str onger depar tment, b y
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a r epublican remedy for the diseases most incident to Republican Government. And accor ding to the degr ee of pleasure and pride w e feel in being r epublicans ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of federalist.
PUBLIUS November 22, 1787
NO. 51: MADISON To what expedient, then, shall w e finally resort, for maintain- ing in practice the necessar y par tition of po wer among the several departments as laid down in the constitution? The only answer that can be given is that as all these exterior pr ovisions are found to be inadequate the defect must be supplied, b y so contriving the interior str ucture of the go vernment as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their pr oper places. Without presuming to under take a full dev elopment of this impor tant idea I will hazar d a fe w general obser vations which may per - haps place it in a clear er light, and enable us to form a mor e correct judgment of the principles and structure of the govern- ment planned by the convention.
In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and dis - tinct ex ercise of the different po wers of go vernment, which to a cer tain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the pr eservation of liber ty, it is evident that each depar t- ment should have a will of its o wn; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should hav e as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supr eme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority , the people, thr ough chan - nels having no communication whatev er with one another . Perhaps such a plan of constr ucting the sev eral depar tments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contempla- tion appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the ex ecution of it. S ome deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the consti- tution of the judiciar y department in par ticular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the pri- mary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secur es these qualifications; second, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them.
It is equally evident that the members of each depart- ment should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others for the emoluments annex ed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 24 17/11/18 3:55 PM
THE FEDERAL IST PAPERS APPENDIX A25
presumed to depend on the extent of countr y and number of people comprehended under the same go vernment. This view of the subject must par ticularly recommend a pr oper federal system to all the sincer e and considerate friends of r epublican government: Since it shows that in exact proportion as the ter- ritory of the U nion may be formed into mor e circumscribed Confederacies, or States, oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated; the best security, under the republican form, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished; and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportion- ally increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ev er will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as tr uly be said to r eign as in a state of natur e, where the w eaker individual is not se - cured against the violence of the stronger: And as, in the latter state, even the str onger individuals ar e prompted, by the un - certainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves: So, in the former state, will the mor e powerful factions or par ties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all par ties, the w eaker as w ell as the mor e powerful. It can be little doubted that if the S tate of Rhode I sland was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of go vernment within such narrow limits would be display ed by such r eiterated oppres- sions of factious majorities that some po wer altogether inde - pendent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; and ther e being thus less danger to a minor from the will of the major par ty, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former , by introducing into the go vernment a will not dependent on the latter , or, in other wor ds, a will independent of the society itself . I t is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the con- trary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practicable sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the republican cause, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent by a judicious modification and mixture of the federal principle.
PUBLIUS February 6, 1788
which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former , without being too much detached fr om the rights of its own department?
If the principles on which these obser vations are founded be just, as I persuade myself they ar e, and they be applied as a criterion to the sev eral State constitutions, and to the federal Constitution, it will be found that if the latter does not per - fectly correspond with them, the former are infinitely less able to bear such a test.
There are, moreover, two considerations particularly appli- cable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view.
First. I n a single r epublic, all the po wer surr endered b y the people is submitted to the administration of a single gov- ernment; and usurpations ar e guarded against b y a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound r epublic of America, the po wer surr endered by the people is first divided between two distinct go vern- ments, and then the por tion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different gov- ernments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.
Second. It is of gr eat importance in a r epublic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its r ulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. I f a majority be united b y a common inter est, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two meth- ods of providing against this evil: The one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority—that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citiz ens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole v ery impr obable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an her editary or self-appointed authority . This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exem- plified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the soci- ety, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of inter ests and sects; and this may be
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 25 17/11/18 3:55 PM
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 26 17/11/18 3:55 PM
A27
The Anti-Federalist Papers Essay by Brutus in the New York Journal
When the public is called to inv estigate and decide upon a question in which not only the pr esent members of the com - munity are deeply interested, but upon which the happiness and misery of generations y et unborn is in gr eat measure sus- pended, the benev olent mind cannot help feeling itself pecu - liarly interested in the result.
In this situation, I tr ust the feeble efforts of an individual, to lead the minds of the people to a wise and pr udent deter- mination, cannot fail of being acceptable to the candid and dispassionate part of the community. Encouraged by this con- sideration, I have been induced to offer my thoughts upon the present important crisis of our public affairs.
Perhaps this country never saw so critical a period in their political concerns. We have felt the feebleness of the ties b y which these U nited-States are held together , and the want of sufficient energy in our present confederation, to manage, in some instances, our general concerns. Various expedients have been proposed to remedy these evils, but none have succeeded. At length a Convention of the states has been assembled, they have formed a constitution which will no w, probably, be sub- mitted to the people to ratify or r eject, who ar e the fountain of all power, to whom alone it of right belongs to make or unmake constitutions, or forms of go vernment, at their plea - sure. The most important question that was ev er proposed to your decision, or to the decision of any people under heaven, is before you, and y ou are to decide upon it b y men of y our own election, chosen specially for this purpose. I f the consti - tution, offered to y our acceptance, be a wise one, calculated to preserve the invaluable blessings of liberty, to secure the inestimable rights of mankind, and pr omote human happi - ness, then, if y ou accept it, y ou will lay a lasting foundation of happiness for millions yet unborn; generations to come will rise up and call y ou blessed. You may rejoice in the pr ospects of this vast extended continent becoming filled with freemen, who will assert the dignity of human nature. You may solace yourselves with the idea, that society , in this fav oured land, will fast advance to the highest point of perfection; the human mind will expand in knowledge and virtue, and the golden age be, in some measur e, realised. But if, on the other hand, this form of go vernment contains principles that will lead to the subversion of liber ty—if it tends to establish a despotism, or , what is worse, a tyrannic aristocracy; then, if you adopt it, this
only remaining assylum for liberty will be shut up, and poster- ity will execrate your memory.
Momentous then is the question y ou hav e to determine, and you are called upon by every motive which should influ- ence a noble and vir tuous mind, to examine it w ell, and to make up a wise judgment. It is insisted, indeed, that this con- stitution must be r eceived, be it ev er so imper fect. I f it has its defects, it is said, they can be best amended when they ar e experienced. But remember, when the people once par t with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force. Many instances can be produced in which the people have vol- untarily increased the po wers of their r ulers; but fe w, if any , in which r ulers hav e willingly abridged their authority . This is a sufficient reason to induce y ou to be car eful, in the first instance, how you deposit the powers of government.
With these fe w introductory remarks, I shall pr oceed to a consideration of this constitution:
The first question that presents itself on the subject is, whether a confederated government be the best for the United States or not? Or in other words, whether the thirteen United States should be r educed to one gr eat r epublic, governed by one legislature, and under the dir ection of one ex ecutive and judicial; or whether they should continue thir teen confeder - ated republics, under the direction and controul of a supreme federal head for certain defined national purposes only?
This enquiry is important, because, although the govern- ment reported by the convention does not go to a per fect and entire consolidation, y et it appr oaches so near to it, that it must, if executed, certainly and infallibly terminate in it.
This government is to possess absolute and uncontr oulable power, legislativ e, ex ecutive and judicial, with r espect to ev - ery object to which it extends, for by the last clause of section 8th, article 1st, it is declared “that the Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessar y and proper for carry- ing into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution, in the go vernment of the U nited States; or in any depar tment or office thereof.” And b y the 6th article, it is declared “that this constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance ther eof, and the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the au- thority of the U nited States, shall be the supr eme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 27 17/11/18 3:55 PM
A28 APPENDIX THE ANT I - FEDERAL IST PAPERS
almost all other powers, or at least will in process of time draw all other after it; it is the great mean of protection, security, and defence, in a good government, and the great engine of oppres- sion and tyranny in a bad one. This cannot fail of being the case, if we consider the contracted limits which ar e set by this constitution, to the late [state?] governments, on this article of raising money. No state can emit paper money—lay any du - ties, or imposts, on imports, or exports, but by consent of the Congress; and then the net pr oduce shall be for the benefit of the United States: the only mean therefore left, for any state to support its government and discharge its debts, is by direct tax- ation; and the United States have also power to lay and collect taxes, in any way they please. E very one who has thought on the subject, must be convinced that but small sums of money can be collected in any country, by direct taxe[s], when the foe- deral government begins to exercise the right of taxation in all its parts, the legislatures of the several states will find it impos- sible to raise monies to suppor t their go vernments. Without money they cannot be supported, and they must dwindle away, and, as befor e observed, their po wers absorbed in that of the general government.
It might be here shewn, that the power in the federal legis- lative, to raise and suppor t armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war , and their contr oul over the militia, tend, not only to a consolidation of the go vernment, but the destr uction of liberty.—I shall not, ho wever, dwell upon these, as a fe w ob- servations upon the judicial power of this government, in addi- tion to the preceding, will fully evince the truth of the position.
The judicial power of the U nited States is to be v ested in a supreme court, and in such inferior cour ts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The powers of these courts ar e v ery extensiv e; their jurisdiction compr ehends all civil causes, ex cept such as arise betw een citizens of the same state; and it extends to all cases in law and equity arising under the constitution. One inferior court must be established, I presume, in each state, at least, with the necessary executive officers appendant thereto. It is easy to see, that in the common course of things, these cour ts will eclipse the dignity, and take away from the r espectability, of the state cour ts. These courts will be, in themselves, totally independent of the states, deriv - ing their authority from the United States, and receiving from them fixed salaries; and in the course of human events it is to be expected, that they will swallow up all the powers of the courts in the respective states.
How far the clause in the 8th section of the 1st ar ticle may operate to do away all idea of confederated states, and to effect an entire consolidation of the whole into one general government, it is impossible to say . The powers given by this article are very general and comprehensive, and it may receive a construction to justify the passing almost any law . A power to make all laws, which shall be necessary and pr oper, for car - rying into ex ecution, all po wers vested by the constitution in
thing in the constitution, or law of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” I t appears fr om these ar ticles that ther e is no need of any intervention of the state governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the constitution and laws of ev ery state ar e nullified and declared v oid, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this constitution, or the laws made in pursuance of it, or with tr eaties made under the au - thority of the U nited S tates.—The government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one, and not a confederation. I t is as much one complete go vernment as that of N ew York or Massachusetts, has as absolute and perfect powers to make and execute all laws, to appoint officers, institute courts, declar e offences, and annex penalties, with respect to every object to which it extends, as any other in the world. S o far ther efore as its powers reach, all ideas of confederation are given up and lost. It is true this government is limited to cer tain objects, or to speak more properly, some small degree of power is still left to the states, but a little attention to the po wers vested in the general government, will convince every candid man, that if it is capable of being executed, all that is reserved for the individ- ual states must v ery soon be annihilated, ex cept so far as they are barely necessary to the organization of the general go vern- ment. The powers of the general legislature extend to every case that is of the least impor tance—there is nothing v aluable to human nature, nothing dear to freemen, but what is within its power. It has authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States; nor can the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete ex ecution of every power given. The legislative power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises;—there is no limitation to this po wer, unless it be said that the clause which directs the use to which those taxes, and duties shall be applied, may be said to be a limitation: but this is no restriction of the power at all, for by this clause they are to be applied to pay the debts and provide for the com- mon defence and general welfare of the United States; but the legislature have authority to contract debts at their discr etion; they are the sole judges of what is necessar y to provide for the common defence, and they only ar e to determine what is for the general w elfare; this po wer therefore is neither mor e nor less, than a power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises, at their pleasure; not only [is] the power to lay taxes unlimited, as to the amount they may r equire, but it is per fect and abso- lute to raise them in any mode they please. No state legislature, or any po wer in the state go vernments, have any mor e to do in carrying this into effect, than the authority of one state has to do with that of another . In the business ther efore of laying and collecting tax es, the idea of confederation is totally lost, and that of one entire republic is embraced. It is proper here to remark, that the authority to lay and collect tax es is the most important of any power that can be granted; it connects with it
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 28 17/11/18 3:55 PM
THE ANT I - FEDERAL IST PAPERS APPENDIX A29
be a free one; that it should be so framed as to secure the liberty of the citizens of America, and such an one as to admit of a full, fair, and equal representation of the people. The question then will be, whether a go vernment thus constituted, and founded on such principles, is practicable, and can be exercised over the whole United States, reduced into one state?
If respect is to be paid to the opinion of the gr eatest and wisest men who hav e ever thought or wr ote on the science of government, we shall be constrained to conclude, that a fr ee republic cannot succeed over a country of such immense extent, containing such a number of inhabitants, and these encr eas- ing in such rapid pr ogression as that of the whole U nited States. Among the many illustrious authorities which might be produced to this point, I shall content myself with quoting only two. The one is the baron de Montesquieu, spirit of laws, chap. xvi. vol. I [book VIII]. “It is natural to a r epublic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; ther e are trusts too gr eat to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fel- low citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his countr y. In a large r epublic, the public good is sac - rificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and mor e within the r each of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course ar e less protected.” Of the same opinion is the marquis Beccarari.
History furnishes no example of a fr ee republic, any thing like the extent of the United States. The Grecian republics were of small extent; so also was that of the Romans. Both of these, it is true, in process of time, extended their conquests over large territories of country; and the consequence was, that their gov- ernments were changed from that of free governments to those of the most tyrannical that ever existed in the world.
Not only the opinion of the greatest men, and the experi- ence of mankind, are against the idea of an extensive republic, but a v ariety of r easons may be drawn fr om the r eason and nature of things, against it. I n every government, the will of the sovereign is the law. In despotic governments, the supreme authority being lodged in one, his will is law, and can be as eas- ily expressed to a large extensive territory as to a small one. I n a pure democracy the people are the sovereign, and their will is declared by themselves; for this purpose they must all come to- gether to deliberate, and decide. This kind of government can- not be exercised, therefore, over a country of any considerable extent; it must be confined to a single city, or at least limited to such bounds as that the people can conv eniently assemble, be able to debate, understand the subject submitted to them, and declare their opinion concerning it.
In a fr ee republic, although all laws ar e derived from the consent of the people, y et the people do not declar e their
the government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, is a power very comprehensive and definite [in- definite?], and may, for ought I kno w, be ex ercised in a such manner as entirely to abolish the state legislatures. Suppose the legislature of a state should pass a law to raise money to support their government and pay the state debt, may the Congr ess repeal this law, because it may pr event the collection of a tax which they may think pr oper and necessary to lay, to provide for the general welfare of the United States? For all laws made, in pursuance of this constitution, ar e the supr eme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of the different states to the contrary notwithstanding.—B y such a law , the go vernment of a par ticular state might be o verturned at one str oke, and thereby be deprived of every means of its support.
It is not meant, by stating this case, to insinuate that the constitution would warrant a law of this kind; or unneces - sarily to alarm the fears of the people, by suggesting, that the federal legislature would be mor e likely to pass the limits as - signed them b y the constitution, than that of an individual state, further than they ar e less responsible to the people. B ut what is meant is, that the legislatur e of the U nited States are vested with the gr eat and uncontr oulable po wers, of laying and collecting tax es, duties, imposts, and ex cises; of r egulat- ing trade, raising and supporting armies, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, instituting cour ts, and other gen- eral powers. And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so ex ercise this po wer as entir ely to annihilate all the state go vernments, and r educe this countr y to one single go vernment. And if they may do it, it is pr etty certain they will; for it will be found that the power retained by individual states, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States; the latter therefore will be naturally inclined to remove it out of the way. Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and ev ery body of men, inv ested with po wer, ar e ev er disposed to increase it, and to acquir e a superiority over every thing that stands in their way . This disposition, which is im- planted in human nature, will operate in the federal legislature to lessen and ultimately to subvert the state authority, and hav- ing such advantages, will most certainly succeed, if the federal government succeeds at all. I t must be very evident then, that what this constitution wants of being a complete consolidation of the sev eral par ts of the union into one complete go vern- ment, possessed of per fect legislativ e, judicial, and ex ecutive powers, to all intents and purposes, it will necessarily acquir e in its exercise and operation.
Let us now proceed to enquire, as I at first proposed, whether it be best the thir teen United States should be reduced to one great republic, or not? It is here taken for granted, that all agree in this, that whatev er government we adopt, it ought to
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 29 17/11/18 3:55 PM
A30 APPENDIX THE ANT I - FEDERAL IST PAPERS
In despotic governments, as well as in all the monarchies of Europe, standing armies are kept up to execute the commands of the prince or the magistrate, and are employed for this pur- pose when occasion requires: But they have always proved the destruction of liberty, and [are] abhorrent to the spirit of a free republic. In England, where they depend upon the parliament for their annual support, they have always been complained of as oppressive and unconstitutional, and ar e seldom employed in executing of the laws; never except on extraordinary occa- sions, and then under the direction of a civil magistrate.
A free republic will nev er keep a standing army to ex ecute its laws. I t must depend upon the suppor t of its citiz ens. But when a government is to receive its support from the aid of the citizens, it must be so constr ucted as to hav e the confidence, respect, and affection of the people. Men who, upon the call of the magistrate, offer themselves to ex ecute the laws, ar e in- fluenced to do it either by affection to the government, or from fear; where a standing army is at hand to punish offenders, every man is actuated by the latter principle, and therefore, when the magistrate calls, will obey: but, wher e this is not the case, the government must rest for its suppor t upon the confidence and respect which the people hav e for their go vernment and laws. The body of the people being attached, the government will always be sufficient to support and execute its laws, and to oper- ate upon the fears of any faction which may be opposed to it, not only to prevent an opposition to the ex ecution of the laws themselves, but also to compel the most of them to aid the mag- istrate; but the people will not be likely to have such confidence in their rulers, in a republic so extensive as the United States, as necessary for these purposes. The confidence which the people have in their rulers, in a free republic, arises from their knowing them, from their being r esponsible to them for their conduct, and from the po wer they hav e of displacing them when they misbehave: but in a republic of the extent of this continent, the people in general would be acquainted with v ery few of their rulers: the people at large would kno w little of their pr oceed- ings, and it would be extr emely difficult to change them. The people in G eorgia and N ew-Hampshire would not kno w one another’s mind, and therefore could not act in concert to enable them to effect a general change of representatives. The differ- ent parts of so extensive a country could not possibly be made acquainted with the conduct of their r epresentatives, nor be informed of the r easons upon which measur es were founded. The consequence will be, they will have no confidence in their legislature, suspect them of ambitious views, be jealous of every measure they adopt, and will not suppor t the laws they pass. Hence the government will be nerveless and inefficient, and no way will be left to r ender it other wise, but b y establishing an armed force to execute the laws at the point of the bay onet—a government of all others the most to be dreaded.
In a r epublic of such v ast extent as the U nited-States, the legislature cannot attend to the v arious concerns and wants of
consent by themselves in person, but by representatives, chosen by them, who ar e supposed to kno w the minds of their con - stituents, and to be possessed of integrity to declare this mind.
In ev ery fr ee government, the people must give their as- sent to the laws b y which they ar e governed. This is the true criterion betw een a fr ee go vernment and an arbitrar y one. The former are ruled by the will of the whole, expressed in any manner they may agree upon; the latter by the will of one, or a few. If the people are to give their assent to the laws, by persons chosen and appointed b y them, the manner of the choice and the number chosen, must be such, as to possess, be disposed, and consequently qualified to declare the sentiments of the people; for if they do not know, or are not disposed to speak the sentiments of the people, the people do not govern, but the sovereignty is in a few. Now, in a large extended country, it is impossible to have a representation, possessing the sentiments, and of integrity , to declar e the minds of the people, without having it so numerous and unwieldly, as to be subject in gr eat measure to the inconveniency of a democratic government.
The territory of the U nited States is of v ast extent; it no w contains near three millions of souls, and is capable of contain- ing much more than ten times that number. Is it practicable for a country, so large and so numerous as they will soon become, to elect a representation, that will speak their sentiments, with- out their becoming so numerous as to be incapable of transact- ing public business? It certainly is not.
In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar . If this be not the case, ther e will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other. This will r etard the operations of go vernment, and pr event such conclusions as will pr omote the public good. I f we apply this remark to the condition of the United States, we shall be con- vinced that it forbids that w e should be one go vernment. The United States includes a v ariety of climates. The productions of the different parts of the union ar e very variant, and their interests, of consequence, div erse. Their manners and habits differ as much as their climates and productions; and their sentiments are by no means coincident. The laws and customs of the sev eral states ar e, in many r espects, v ery div erse, and in some opposite; each would be in fav or of its o wn interests and customs, and, of consequence, a legislatur e, formed of representatives fr om the r espective par ts, would not only be too numerous to act with any car e or decision, but would be composed of such heter ogenous and discor dant principles, as would constantly be contending with each other.
The laws cannot be executed in a r epublic, of an extent equal to that of the United States, with promptitude.
The magistrates in every government must be supported in the execution of the laws, either b y an armed for ce, maintained at the public expence for that purpose; or b y the people turning out to aid the magistrate upon his command, in case of resistance.
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 30 17/11/18 3:55 PM
THE ANT I - FEDERAL IST PAPERS APPENDIX A31
These are some of the reasons by which it appears, that a free republic cannot long subsist o ver a countr y of the gr eat extent of these states. If then this new constitution is calculated to consolidate the thir teen states into one, as it evidently is, it ought not to be adopted.
Though I am of opinion, that it is a sufficient objection to this government, to reject it, that it creates the whole union into one government, under the form of a republic, yet if this objection was obviated, there are exceptions to it, which ar e so material and fundamental, that they ought to determine every man, who is a friend to the liber ty and happiness of mankind, not to adopt it. I beg the candid and dispassionate attention of my countrymen while I state these objections— they ar e such as hav e obtr uded themselv es upon my mind upon a careful attention to the matter, and such as I sincerely believe are well founded. There are many objections, of small moment, of which I shall take no notice—perfection is not to be expected in any thing that is the production of man—and if I did not in my conscience believ e that this scheme was defective in the fundamental principles—in the foundation upon which a free and equal government must rest—I would hold my peace.
BRUTUS October 18, 1787
its different parts. It cannot be sufficiently numerous to be ac- quainted with the local condition and wants of the different districts, and if it could, it is impossible it should hav e suf - ficient time to attend to and provide for all the variety of cases of this nature, that would be continually arising.
In so extensive a republic, the great officers of government would soon become abo ve the contr oul of the people, and abuse their po wer to the purpose of aggrandizing themselv es, and oppressing them. The trust committed to the executive of- fices, in a country of the extent of the U nited-States, must be various and of magnitude. The command of all the troops and navy of the republic, the appointment of officers, the power of pardoning offences, the collecting of all the public revenues, and the po wer of expending them, with a number of other powers, must be lodged and ex ercised in ev ery state, in the hands of a few. When these are attended with great honor and emolument, as they always will be in large states, so as gr eatly to interest men to pursue them, and to be pr oper objects for ambitious and designing men, such men will be ever restless in their pursuit after them. They will use the power, when they have acquired it, to the purposes of gratifying their own inter- est and ambition, and it is scar cely possible, in a v ery large republic, to call them to account for their misconduct, or to prevent their abuse of power.
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 31 17/11/18 3:55 PM
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 32 17/11/18 3:55 PM
A33
Presidents and Vice Presidents
PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT
1 George Washington John Adams (Federalist 1789) (Federalist 1789)
2 John Adams Thomas Jefferson (Federalist 1797) (Dem.-Rep. 1797)
3 Thomas Jefferson Aaron Burr (Dem.-Rep. 1801) (Dem.-Rep. 1801)
George Clinton (Dem.-Rep. 1805)
4 James Madison George Clinton (Dem.-Rep. 1809) (Dem.-Rep. 1809)
Elbridge Gerry (Dem.-Rep. 1813)
5 James Monroe Daniel D. Tompkins (Dem.-Rep. 1817) (Dem.-Rep. 1817)
6 John Quincy Adams John C. Calhoun (Dem.-Rep. 1825) (Dem.-Rep. 1825)
7 Andrew Jackson John C. Calhoun (Democratic 1829) (Democratic 1829)
Martin Van Buren (Democratic 1833)
8 Martin Van Buren Richard M. Johnson (Democratic 1837) (Democratic 1837)
9 William H. Harrison John Tyler (Whig 1841) (Whig 1841)
10 John Tyler (Whig and Democratic 1841)
11 James K. Polk George M. Dallas (Democratic 1845) (Democratic 1845)
PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT
12 Zachary Taylor Millard Fillmore (Whig 1849) (Whig 1849)
13 Millard Fillmore (Whig 1850)
14 Franklin Pierce William R. D. King (Democratic 1853) (Democratic 1853)
15 James Buchanan John C. Breckinridge (Democratic 1857) (Democratic 1857)
16 Abraham Lincoln Hannibal Hamlin (Republican 1861) (Republican 1861)
Andrew Johnson (Unionist 1865)
17 Andrew Johnson (Unionist 1865)
18 Ulysses S. Grant Schuyler Colfax (Republican 1869) (Republican 1869)
Henry Wilson (Republican 1873)
19 Rutherford B. Hayes William A. Wheeler (Republican 1877) (Republican 1877)
20 James A. Garfield Chester A. Arthur (Republican 1881) (Republican 1881)
21 Chester A. Arthur (Republican 1881)
22 Grover Cleveland Thomas A. Hendricks (Democratic 1885) (Democratic 1885)
23 Benjamin Harrison Levi P. Morton (Republican 1889) (Republican 1889)
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 33 17/11/18 3:55 PM
A34 APPENDIX PRES IDENTS AND V ICE PRES IDENTS
PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT
24 Grover Cleveland Adlai E. Stevenson (Democratic 1893) (Democratic 1893)
25 William McKinley Garret A. Hobart (Republican 1897) (Republican 1897)
Theodore Roosevelt (Republican 1901)
26 Theodore Roosevelt Charles W. Fairbanks (Republican 1901) (Republican 1905)
27 William H. Taft James S. Sherman (Republican 1909) (Republican 1909)
28 Woodrow Wilson Thomas R. Marshall (Democratic 1913) (Democratic 1913)
29 Warren G. Harding Calvin Coolidge (Republican 1921) (Republican 1921)
30 Calvin Coolidge Charles G. Dawes (Republican 1923) (Republican 1925)
31 Herbert Hoover Charles Curtis (Republican 1929) (Republican 1929)
32 Franklin D. Roosevelt John Nance Garner (Democratic 1933) (Democratic 1933)
Henry A. Wallace (Democratic 1941)
Harry S. Truman (Democratic 1945)
33 Harry S. Truman Alben W. Barkley (Democratic 1945) (Democratic 1949)
PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT
34 Dwight D. Eisenhower Richard M. Nixon (Republican 1953) (Republican 1953)
35 John F. Kennedy Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic 1961) (Democratic 1961)
36 Lyndon B. Johnson Hubert H. Humphrey (Democratic 1963) (Democratic 1965)
37 Richard M. Nixon Spiro T. Agnew (Republican 1969) (Republican 1969)
Gerald R. Ford (Republican 1973)
38 Gerald R. Ford Nelson Rockefeller (Republican 1974) (Republican 1974)
39 James E. Carter Walter Mondale (Democratic 1977) (Democratic 1977)
40 Ronald Reagan George H. W. Bush (Republican 1981) (Republican 1981)
41 George H. W. Bush J. Danforth Quayle (Republican 1989) (Republican 1989)
42 William J. Clinton Albert Gore, Jr. (Democratic 1993) (Democratic 1993)
43 George W. Bush Richard Cheney (Republican 2001) (Republican 2001)
44 Barack H. Obama Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (Democratic 2009) (Democratic 2009)
45 Donald J. Trump Michael R. Pence (Republican 2017) (Republican 2017)
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a34.indd 34 17/11/18 3:55 PM
A35
Endnotes
CHAPTER 1
1. Lindsey Bever, “ Meet Saira B lair, 1 8, S oon t o B e the Nation’s Y oungest L awmaker,” Washington P ost, November 7 , 2 014, w ww.washingtonpost.com/news/ morning-mix/wp/2014/11/07/meet-sa ira-bla ir-18 -soon-to-be-the-nations-youngest-lawmaker/?utm_term =.708303648d03 (accessed 1 /16/18); L ucy M cCalmont, “Conservative, L awmaker, S tudent,” Politico, Novem- ber 5, 2014, w ww.politico.com/story/2014/11/saira-blair -west-virginia-112602 ( accessed 1 1/16/18); J ae J ones, “This Texas City Just Elected the Youngest City Council Member i n t he S tate,” The N ation, June 1 , 2 017, w ww .thenation.com/article/texas-city-just-elected-youngest -person-hold-office-state/ ( accessed 1 /16/18); C ity o f Prairie V iew, T X, “ Kendric J ones—Position # 3,” w ww .prairieviewtexas.gov/departments/kendric_jones_ -_pos_3.php (accessed 1/16/18).
2. Arch P uddington a nd T yler R oylance, F reedom i n the W orld, 2 016, f reedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/ FH_FITW_Report_2016.pdf (accessed 4/10/16).
3. Eugen Weber, Peasants into F renchmen: The Moderniza- tion of Rural France, 1870–1914 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1976), chap. 5.
4. V. O . K ey, Politics, P arties, a nd P ressure G roups (New York: Crowell, 1964), 201.
5. Harold L asswell, Politics: W ho G ets W hat, W hen, H ow (New York: Meridian Books, 1958).
6. Abby G oodnough, “ Maine V oters A pprove M edicaid Expansion, a R ebuke of Gov. LePage,” New York Times, November 7 , 2 017, w ww.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/us/ maine-medicaid-healthcare.html ( accessed 1 2/27/17); “2018 Ballot Measures,” Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia .org/2018_ballot_measures (accessed 10/10/18).
7. This definition is taken from Norman H. Nie, Jane Junn, and K enneth S tehlik-Barry, Education a nd D emocratic Citizenship in America (Chicago: University o f C hicago Press, 1996).
8. Kyle D ropp a nd B rendan N yhan, “ One-Third D on’t Know O bamacare a nd A ffordable C are A ct A re The
Same,” New York Times, The Upshot, February 7, 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/upshot/one-third-dont -know-obamacare-and-affordable-care-act-are-the-same .html?_r=0 (accessed 12/28/17).
9. John B . H orrigon a nd L ee R ainie, “ Americans’ V iews on O pen G overnment D ata,” P ew R esearch C enter, April 2 1, 20 15, w ww.pewinternet.org/2015/04/21/open -government-data/ (accessed 7/22/15).
10. Pew R esearch C enter, “ Beyond D istrust,” N ovember 23, 20 15, h ttp://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/ uploads/sites/5/2015/11/11-23-2015-Governance -release.pdf (accessed 4/15/18).
11. Pew Research Center, “Beyond Distrust.” 12. U.S. C ensus Bu reau, Population C lock, April 15, 2018,
www.census.gov/popclock/ (accessed 4/15/18). 13. Susan B . C arter, S cott S igmund G artner, M ichael R .
Haines, A lan L . O lmstead, R ichard S utch, a nd G avin Wright, e ds., Historical S tatistics of t he U nited S tates: Millennial E dition O nline ( New Y ork: C ambridge University P ress, 2 006), T able A a145-184, P opulation, by Sex and Race: 1790–1990, 23. Data from 2016 avail- able at U.S. Census Bureau, “2016 American Community Survey 1-Year E stimates: S elected Characteristics o f t he Native and Foreign-Born Populations,” https://factfinder .census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview .xhtml?pid=ACS_16_1YR_S0501&prodType=table (accessed 12/26/17).
14. Carter et al., Historical Statistics of the United States, Table Aa145-184, Population, by Sex and Race: 1790–1990, 23.
15. Carter et al., Historical Statistics of the United States, Table Aa145-184, Population, by Sex and Race: 1790–1990, 23; Table Aa2189-2215, Hispanic Population Estimates.
16. Campbell J . G ibson a nd E mily L ennon, “ Historical Census S tatistics o n t he F oreign-Born P opulation o f the U nited S tates: 1 850–1990,” F ebruary 1 999, w ww .census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/ twps0029.html (accessed 4/10/16).
17. Carter et al., Historical Statistics of the United States, Table Aa22-35, Selected Population Characteristics.
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 35 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A36 ENDNOTES
18. Michael B. Katz and Mark J. Stern, One Nation Divisible: What America Was and What It Is Becoming (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2006), 16.
19. Carter e t a l., Historical S tatistics of t he U nited S tates, Table A a145-184, Population, b y S ex a nd R ace: 1790– 1990, 2 3. K aren R . H umes, N icholas A . J ones, a nd Roberto R . R amirez, “ Overview o f R ace a nd H ispanic Origin: 2 010. 2010 C ensus B riefs,” n o. C 2010BR-02 (Washington, D C: U .S. C ensus Bu reau, M arch 2 011), 4, w ww.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf (accessed 10/14/2011).
20. U.S. C ensus Bu reau, “ 2016 A merican C ommunity Survey 1-Year E stimates: S elected Characteristics o f t he Native and Foreign-Born Populations.”
21. U.S. C ensus Bu reau, “ 2016 A merican C ommunity Survey 1-Year E stimates: S elected Characteristics o f t he Native and Foreign-Born Populations.”
22. U.S. C ensus Bu reau, “ 2016 A merican C ommunity Survey 1 -Year E stimates: S elected C haracteristics o f the Foreign-Born Population by R egion o f B irth: L atin America,” h ttps://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/ jsf /page s/product v iew.xhtml?pid=ACS _16 _1Y R _S0506&prodType=table (accessed 12/26/17).
23. U.S. C ensus Bu reau, “ 2016 A merican C ommunity Survey 1 -Year E stimates: S elected C haracteristics o f the Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth: A sia,” https://factf inder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/ p a g e s /p r o du c t v i e w. x h t m l ? p i d = AC S _16 _1Y R _S0505&prodType=table (accessed 12/2/17).
24. U.S. Census Bureau, “2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates: Selected Characteristics of the Foreign- Born P opulation b y R egion o f B irth: E urope,” h ttps:// f a c t f i nde r. c en su s . g ov/f a c e s /t a b l e s e r v i c e s / j s f / p a g e s /p r o du c t v i e w. x h t m l ? p i d = AC S _16 _1Y R _S0503&prodType=table (accessed 12/26/17).
25. Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytina, “Estimates of the Unauthorized I mmigrant P opulation R esiding i n t he United S tates: J anuary 2 012,” Population E stimates, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Home- land S ecurity, M arch 2 013, w ww.dhs.gov/sites/default/ f i les/publications/Unauthorized%20Immigrant% 20Population%20Estimates%20in%20the%20US% 20January%202012_0.pdf (accessed 12/26/17).
26. Anthony F aiola, “ States’ I mmigrant P olicies D iverge,” Washington Post, October 15, 2007, A1.
27. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). 28. Robert P . J ones a nd D aniel C ox, “ America's C hang-
ing R eligious Identity, 2 016,” P ublic R eligion R esearch Institute, September 6, 2017, www.prri.org/wp-content/ uploads/2017/09/PRRI-Religion-Report.pdf ( accessed 11/4/17).
29. Jones and Cox, “America’s Changing Religious Identity.” 30. U.S. C ensus Bu reau, “ Demographic T rends i n t he
20th C entury, Table 5 : Population b y A ge a nd S ex f or the U nited S tates: 1 900 t o 2 000,” w ww.census.gov/ prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf (accessed 4/11/16); U.S.
Census Bureau, “Population Estimates, Age and Sex,” www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217 (accessed 12/26/17).
31. World B ank, “ Population A ges 6 5 a nd A bove ( % o f Total),” M arch 1 , 2 018, h ttp://data.worldbank.org/ indicator/SP.POP.65UP.TO.ZS (accessed 4/15/18).
32. U.S. C ensus Bu reau, “ 2010 C ensus U rban A rea Facts,” w ww.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/uafacts.html (accessed 4/11/16); Central Intelligence A gency, “World Factbook: U rbanization,” 20 17, w ww.cia.gov/library/ publications/the-world-factbook/f ields/2212.html (accessed 4/15/18).
33. Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, “Income Inequal- ity in the United States, 1913–1998,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, no. 1 (2003) (Tables and Figures Updated to 20 15), h ttp://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/TabFig2015prel .xls (accessed 12/26/17).
34. U.S. C ensus Bu reau, “ Income: H istorical I ncome Data. Tables F-2, F-3, and F-6.” w ww.census.gov/hhes/ www/income/data/historical/index.html ( accessed 4/12/16).
35. U.S. Census Bureau, “Historical Poverty Tables, Table 2: Poverty S tatus o f People by Family R elationship, R ace, and H ispanic o rigin: 1 959 t o 2 016,” w ww.census.gov/ data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical -poverty-people.html (accessed 4/15/18).
36. U.S. Census Bureau, “Historical Poverty Tables, Table 2: Poverty S tatus o f People by Family R elationship, R ace, and Hispanic O rigin: 1959 t o 2014,” www.census.gov/ hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/hstpov2.xls ( accessed 4/11/16).
37. Jesse S ussell a nd J ames A . Thomson, “ Are C hanging Constituencies D riving R ising P olarization i n t he U.S. H ouse o f R epresentatives?” R AND C orporation Research Report RR-396-RC, 2015, www.rand.org/pubs/ research_reports/RR896.html (accessed 1/15/18).
38. See Judith N . Shklar, American C itizenship: The Q uest f or Inclusion (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991).
39. Herbert M cClosky a nd J ohn Z aller, The A merican Ethos: Public Attitudes toward Capitalism and Democracy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984), 19.
40. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. — (2014). 41. Kevin McCoy and Kevin Johnson, “U.S. Demands Ap-
ple Unlock Phone in Drug Case,” April 10, 2016, w ww .usatoday.com/story/news/2016/04/08/justice-moving -forward-separate-apple-case/82788824 (accessed 4/10/16).
42. J. R . P ole, The P ursuit of E quality i n A merican H istory (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), 3.
43. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). 44. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 45. See Rogers M. Smith, Liberalism and American Constitu-
tional Law (Cambridge, M A: Harvard University Press, 1985), chap. 6.
46. The case was San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973). See the discussion in Smith, Liberalism a nd A merican C onstitutional L aw, 1 63–4;
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 36 17/11/18 3:57 PM
ENDNOTES A37
see a lso A lana S emuels, “ Good S chool, R ich S chool; Bad S chool, P oor S chool,” The A tlantic, August 2 5, 2016, www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/ property-taxes-and-unequal-schools/497333/ ( accessed 12/26/17).
47. Janell Fetterolf, “Many Around the World Say Women’s Equality I s V ery I mportant,” P ew R esearch C enter, January 1 9, 20 17, w ww.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/ 2017/01/19/many-around-the-world-say-womens-equality -is-very-important/ ( accessed 2 /16/18); J ohn G ramlich, “10 Things We Learned about Gender Issues in the U.S. in 2017,” Pew Research Center, December 28, 2017, www .pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/12/28/10-things-we -learned-about-gender-issues-in-the-u-s-in-2017/ (accessed 2 /16/18); “ The P artisan D ivide o n P olitical Values G rows E ven W ider,” P ew R esearch C enter, October 5 , 20 17, w ww.people-press.org/2017/10/05/ 1-pa r t i san-d iv ide s-over-pol it ic a l-va lue s-widen/ (accessed 2 /16/18); P ew R esearch C enter, “ Support f or Same-Sex Marriage Grows, Even among Groups That Had B een S keptical,” June 2 6, 2 017, w ww.people-press .org/2017/06/26/support-for-same-sex-marriage-grows -even-among-groups-that-had-been-skeptical/ ( accessed 2/16/18); P ew R esearch C enter, “ Trends i n A merican Values, 1987–2012,” June 4, 2012; Pew Research C en- ter for the People and the Press and for the Public, “For the Public, I t’s Not about C lass Warfare, but Fairness,” March 2 , 20 12, w ww.peoplepress.org/2012/03/02/ for-the-public-its-not-about-class-warfare-but-fairness (accessed 2/16/18).
48. See t he discussion in E ileen McDonagh, “ Gender Political C hange,” i n New P erspectives o n A merican Politics, e d. L awrence C . D odd a nd C alvin C . J illson (Washington, D C: C Q P ress, 1994), 5 8–73. The a rgu- ment for moving women’s issues into the public sphere is made by Jean Bethke Elshtain, Public Man, Private Woman (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981).
49. Roger Lowenstein, “The Way We Live Now: The Inequality Conundrum,” New York Times Magazine, June 10, 2007, 11.
50. New Y ork Ti mes/CBS N ews P oll, “ Americans’ V iews on I ncome I nequality a nd W orkers’ R ights,” w ww .nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/03/business/income -inequality-workers-rights-international-trade-poll.html (accessed 1 2/27/17); F rank N ewport, “ Majority S ay Wealthy A mericans, C orporations T axed T oo L ittle,” April 1 8, 20 17, n ews.gallup.com/poll/208685/majority -say-wealthy-americans-corporations-taxed-little.aspx (accessed 12/27/17).
51. Kevin Phillips, Arrogant Capital: Washington, Wall Street, and t he F rustration of A merican P olitics ( Boston: L ittle, Brown, 1994); Richard L . Hasen, Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the Distortion of American E lections (New Haven, C T: Yale University Press, 2016).
52. FairVote, “ Voter T urnout,” w ww.fairvote.org/voter _turnout#voter_turnout_101 (accessed 4/10/16).
53. Center for the Study of the American Electorate, “2008 Turnout R eport: A frican-Americans, A nger, Fear a nd Youth P ropel T urnout t o H ighest L evel s ince 1 960,” December 17, 2 008, w ww.american.edu/research/news/ loader.cfm?csModule5security/getfile&pageid523907 (accessed 2/19/16).
54. Lydia S aad, “ Conservatives L ead i n U .S. I deology Down t o S ingle D igits,” G allup N ews, J anuary 11, 2018, http://news.gallup.com/poll/225074/conservative - l e a d - i d e o l o g y - d o w n - s i n g l e - d i g i t s . a s p x ? g _ s o u r c e = I D E O L O G Y& g _ m e d i u m = t o p i c & g _campaign=tiles (accessed 1/15/18).
55. Art S wift, “ Majority i n U .S. S ay F ederal G overnment Has Too Much Power,” Gallup News, October 5, 2017, news.gallup.com/poll/220199/majority-say-federal -government-power.aspx (accessed 1/15/18); Pew Research Center, “Summer 2017 Political Landscape Survey,” Final Toplines, O ctober 24 , 2 017, h ttp://assets.pewresearch .org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/10/04163936/ 10-05-2017-Political-landscape-toplines-for-release.pdf (accessed 4/3/18).
56. Pew Research Center, “How Republicans and Democrats View F ederal S pending,” A pril 24 , 2 017, w ww.people -press.org/2017/04/24/how-republicans-and-democrats -view-federal-spending/ (accessed 1/15/18).
57. Benjamin I . P age a nd L awrence R . J acobs, Class W ar? What Americans R eally Think about Economic Inequality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009).
58. Pew R esearch C enter, “ Public T rust i n G overnment, 1958–2017,” w ww.people-press.org/2017/05/03/public -trust-in-government-1958-2017/ (accessed 12/27/17).
59. Pew R esearch C enter, “ Public T rust i n G overnment, 1958–2017.”
60. Joseph S . N ye, J r., “ Introduction: The D ecline o f Confidence in Government,” in Why People Don’t Trust Government, e d. J oseph S . N ye, J r., P hilip D. Z elikow, and David C . K ing (Cambridge, M A: Harvard Univer- sity Press, 1997), 4.
CHAPTER 2
1. “Jim Obergefell,” Biography, w ww.biography.com/ people/jim-obergefell (accessed 3/4/18).
2. Jim Obergefell, “Gay Activist Jim Obergefell: Love, Loss and S teadfast C ommitment L ead a N ation F orward,” Variety, J une 2 9, 2 015, h ttp://variety.com/2015/biz/news/ gay-activist-jim-obergefell-love-loss-commitment-lead -nation-forward-1201529672/ (accessed 3/4/18).
3. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. — (2015). 4. Obergefell, “Love, Loss and Steadfast Commitment.” 5. Richard E. Neustadt, Presidential Power and the Modern
Presidents: The P olitics of L eadership f rom R oosevelt t o Reagan (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991), 29.
6. The s ocial m akeup o f c olonial A merica a nd s ome o f the social conflicts that divided colonial society are dis- cussed i n J ackson Turner M ain, The S ocial S tructure of
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 37 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A38 ENDNOTES
28. Federalist Papers, no. 51. 29. Quoted i n S toring, What t he A nti-Federalists W ere
For, 30. 30. Federalist Papers, no. 10.
CHAPTER 3
1. Steph Sherer, “Medical Marijuana Users Caught in State- Federal Conflict,” CNN.com, November 10, 2014, www .cnn.com/2014/09/05/opinion/sherer-medical-marijuana -prosecutions/index.html (accessed 7/31/17).
2. “33 Legal Medical Marijuana States and DC,” November 7, 2018, h ttps://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource .php?resourceID=000881 (accessed 11/7/18).
3. Sherer, “Medical Marijuana Users.” 4. Brady D ennis, “ Obama A dministration W ill N ot
Block S tate M arijuana L aws, I f D istribution I s R egu- lated,” Washington Post, August 29, 2013, http://articles .w a s h i n g t onp o s t . c o m /2 013 - 0 8 -29/n a t i on a l / 41566270_1_marijuana-legalization-attorney-general -bob-ferguson-obama-administration (accessed 11/17/13).
5. John Hudak, “The Disorienting Effect of Marijuana on the Trump Administration,” Brookings Institution, April 20, 2017, www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/04/20/ disor ient ing-ef fect s-of-marijuana-on-the-t rump -administration/ (accessed 7/31/17).
6. The p ublic p olicy e xception s tems f rom d evelopments in case law tracing back to the 1930s. In Section 283 of the R estatement ( Second) o f C onflict o f L aws (1971) a group of judges and academics codified existing case law related t o m arriage: “A m arriage w hich s atisfies t he r e- quirements of the state where the marriage was contracted will everywhere b e recognized a s v alid u nless i t vio- lates the strong public policy of another state which had the most significant relationship to the spouses and the m arriage a t t he t ime o f t he m arriage.” H owever, in Baker v . Ge neral Motors C orp, 522 U.S. 2 22 (1998), the S upreme C ourt e xplicitly s tated t hat i ts d ecision “creates no general exception to the full faith and credit command.”
7. Adam L iptak, “ Bans o n I nterracial U nions O ffer Perspective on G ay O nes,” New York Times, M arch 17, 2004, A22.
8. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). The Lovings were charged w ith v iolating V irginia’s m iscegenation l aws and were sentenced to one year in jail, which would be s uspended i f t hey l eft t he s tate f or 2 5 y ears. F ive years l ater, w ith t he a ssistance o f t he A merican C ivil Liberties U nion, t he L ovings filed a m otion t o v acate their conviction. The Supreme Court heard the case and overturned t he L ovings’ c onviction, finding V irginia’s miscegenation l aw u nconstitutional u nder t he d ue p ro- cess clause and equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
9. Ken I . K ersch, “ Full F aith a nd C redit f or S ame-Sex Marriages?” Political Science Quarterly 112 (Spring 1997):
Revolutionary America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer- sity Press, 1965).
7. George B . Ti ndall a nd D avid E . S hi, America: A Narrative History, 8th ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 2010), 202.
8. For a d iscussion of events leading up to the Revolution, see Charles M. Andrews, The Colonial Background of t he American Rev olution ( New H aven, C T: Yale U niversity Press, 1924).
9. See C arl B ecker, The D eclaration of I ndependence (New York: Knopf, 1942).
10. An e xcellent a nd r eadable a ccount o f t he d evelopment from t he A rticles o f C onfederation t o t he C onstitution will be found in Alfred H. Kelly, Winfred A. Harbison, and Herman Belz, The American Constitution: Its Origins and D evelopment, 7 th e d., v ol. 1 ( New Y ork: W . W . Norton, 1991), chap. 5.
11. Reported i n S amuel E . M orrison, H enry S teele C om- mager, a nd W illiam L euchtenburg, The G rowth of t he American Republic, vol. 1 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), 244.
12. Quoted i n M orrison, C ommager, a nd L euchtenburg, Growth of the American Republic, 242.
13. Charles A . B eard, An E conomic I nterpretation of t he Constitution of the United States (New York: Macmillan, 1913).
14. Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 1 ( New Haven, C T: Yale University Press, 1966).
15. Madison’s notes, a long with the somewhat less complete records kept by several other participants in the conven- tion, are available in a four-volume set. See Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 4 vols., rev. ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966).
16. Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 476. 17. Alexander H amilton, J ames M adison, a nd J ohn J ay,
The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton L. Rossiter (New York: New American Library, 1961), no. 71.
18. Federalist Papers, no. 70. 19. Max Farrand, The Framing of the Constitution of the United
States (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1962), 49. 20. Melancton S mith, q uoted i n H erbert J . S toring, What
the A nti-Federalists W ere F or ( Chicago: U niversity o f Chicago Press, 1981), 17.
21. “Essays of Brutus,” no. 1, in The Complete Anti-Federalist, ed. H erbert S toring ( Chicago: U niversity o f C hicago Press, 1981).
22. Federalist Papers, no. 57. 23. “Essays o f B rutus,” n o. 15, i n S toring, Complete A nti-
Federalist. 24. Federalist Papers, no. 10. 25. “Essays of Brutus,” no. 7, in Storing, Complete Anti-
Federalist. 26. “Essays o f B rutus,” n o. 6 , i n S toring, Complete A nti-
Federalist. 27. Storing, What the Anti-Federalists Were For, 28.
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 38 17/11/18 3:57 PM
ENDNOTES A39
26. See Donald F. K ettl, The R egulation of A merican F eder- alism (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1983).
27. Cindy Skrzycki, “Trial Lawyers on the Offensive in Fight against P reemptive R ules,” Washington P ost, S eptember 11, 2007, D2.
28. Gonazales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006). 29. Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009). 30. Philip R ucker, “ Obama C urtails Bu sh’s P olicy o f
‘Preemption,’” Washington Post, May 22, 2009, A3. 31. Evan H alper, “ Trump a nd C alifornia A re S et t o
Collide Head-On over Fuel Standards,” Los Angeles Times, April 27 , 2 018, w ww.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol -mileage-20180427-story.html (accessed 5/1/18).
32. The p hrase “ laboratories o f d emocracy” w as c oined b y Supreme Court Justice L ouis Brandeis in h is d issenting opinion in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932).
33. United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941). 34. W. John Moore, “Pleading t he 10th,” National Journal,
July 29, 1996. 35. United States v. Lopez, 14 U.S. 549 (1995). 36. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 98 (1997). 37. Timothy Conlan, New F ederalism: I ntergovernmental
Reform f rom Nixon to Reagan (Washington, DC: Brook- ings Institution Press, 1988); U.S. Advisory Commission on I ntergovernmental R elations, Federal R egulation of State and Local Governments.
38. For a n a ssessment o f t he a chievements o f t he 1 04th and 105th Congresses, see Timothy Conlan, From New Federalism t o D evolution: Twenty-Five Years of I ntergov- ernmental Reform ( Washington, DC: Brookings Institu- tion Press, 1998).
39. Robert Frank, “Proposed Block Grants Seen Unlikely to Cure Management Problems,” Wall Street Journal, May 1, 1995, 1.
40. Sarah K ershaw, “ U.S. R ule L imits E mergency C are f or Immigrants,” New York Times, September 22, 2007, A1.
41. Education C ommission o f t he S tates, " 50-State Comparison: C harter S chool P olicies," J anuary 2 018, www.ecs.org/charter-school-policies/ (accessed 6/5/18).
42. Zach W inn, “ A L ist o f S tates That A llow C oncealed Guns on Campus,” Campus Safety Magazine, August 30, 2017, w ww.campussafetymagazine.com/university/list -of-states-that-allow-concealed-carry-guns-on-campus/ (accessed 10/12/18).
43. National Council of State Legislatures, “NCSL Fiscal Brief: State B alanced Bu dget R equirements,” O ctober 2 010, www.ncsl.org/documents/fiscal/StateBalancedBudget Provisions2010.pdf (accessed 7/26/17).
44. Robert Jay D ilger a nd Richard S . B eth, “Unfunded Mandates R eform A ct: H istory, I mpact, a nd I ssues” (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, April 19, 2 011), 4 0, h ttp://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/ metadc40084/m1/1/high_res_d/R40957_2011Apr19.pdf (accessed 11/16/13).
117–36; Joan Biskupic, “Once Unthinkable, Now under Debate,” Washington Post, September 3, 1996, A1.
10. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. — (2013). 11. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. — (2015). 12. Elliot C. McLaughlin, “Most States to Abide by Supreme
Court’s S ame-Sex M arriage R uling, b ut . . . , ” C NN, June 3 0, 2 015, w ww.cnn.com/2015/06/29/us/same-sex -marriage-state-by-state/ (accessed 8/16/15).
13. Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518 (1978). 14. Sweeny v. Woodall, 344 U.S. 86 (1952). 15. Council o f S tate G overnments, “ Interstate Co mpacts
Toolkit—Backgrounder,” www.csg.org/knowledgecenter/ docs/ToolKit05InterstateCompacts.pdf (accessed 6/5/18).
16. A good discussion of the constitutional position of local governments i s i n R ichard B riffault, “ Our L ocalism: Part I, the Structure of Local Government Law,” Colum- bia Law Review 90, no. 1 (January 1990): 1–115. For more on t he s tructure a nd t heory of f ederalism, s ee L arry N. Gerston, American F ederalism: A C oncise I ntroduc- tion ( Armonk, N Y: M . E . S harpe, 2 007), a nd M artha Derthick, “ Up-to-Date i n K ansas C ity: R eflections o n American F ederalism” ( 1992 J ohn G aus L ecture), PS: Political Science and Politics 25 (December 1992): 671–75.
17. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheaton 316 (1819). 18. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheaton 1 (1824). 19. The Sherman Antitrust Act, adopted in 1890, for exam-
ple, was enacted not to r estrict c ommerce but r ather to protect it from monopolies, or trusts, in order to prevent unfair trade practices and to enable the market again to become s elf-regulating. M oreover, t he S upreme C ourt sought to uphold liberty of contract to protect businesses. For example, in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), the C ourt i nvalidated a N ew Y ork l aw r egulating t he sanitary conditions a nd hours of l abor of bakers on t he grounds that the law interfered with liberty of contract.
20. The key case in this process of expanding the power of the national government is generally considered to be NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 (1937), in w hich t he S upreme C ourt a pproved f ederal r egula- tion o f t he wo rkplace a nd t hereby v irtually e liminated interstate c ommerce a s a l imit o n t he n ational g overn- ment’s power.
21. Kenneth T. Palmer, “The Evolution of Grant Policies,” in The Changing Politics of Federal Grants, ed. Lawrence D. Brown, James W. Fossett, and Kenneth T. Palmer (Wash- ington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1984), 15.
22. Palmer, “Evolution of Grant Policies,” 6. 23. Morton Grodzins, The American System, ed. Daniel J.
Elazar (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966). 24. See T erry S anford, Storm o ver t he S tates ( New Y ork:
McGraw-Hill, 1967). 25. James L . S undquist, Making F ederalism W ork, w ith
David W. D avis ( Washington, D C: B rookings I nstitu- tion Press, 1969), 271. George Wallace was mistrusted by the a rchitects o f t he War o n Poverty b ecause h e w as a strong proponent of racial segregation and “states’ rights.”
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 39 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A40 ENDNOTES
56. Gonzales v . R aich, 5 45 U .S. 1 ( 2005). F or m ore, s ee William Yardley, “New Federal C rackdown C onfounds States That Allow Medical Marijuana,” New York Times, May 8, 2011, A13.
57. Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006). 58. Josh S anburn, “ Colorado A pproves a ‘ Right t o D ie’ f or
Terminally Ill Patients,” Time, November 9, 2016, time.com/ 4563632/colorado-right-to-die-approved/ (accessed 11/10/16).
59. National C onference o f S tate L egislatures, “ Collecting E-Commerce Taxes,” www.ncsl.org/research/fiscal -policy/collecting-ecommerce-taxes-an-interactive-map .aspx (accessed 11/17/13).
60. Richard R ubin, “ States S et U p F ight o ver W eb S ales Tax,” Wall S treet J ournal, F ebruary 2 3, 2 016, w ww .wsj.com/articles/states-seek-new-ways-to-tax-online -sales-1456262265 (accessed 4/11/16).
61. United States v. Texas, 579 U.S. — (2016). 62. Alexander Bolton, “GOP Looks for Plan B a fter Failure
of Immigration Measures,” The Hill, February 16, 2018, thehill.com/homenews/senate/374143-gop-looks-for -plan-b-after-failure-of-immigration-measures ( accessed 2/18/18).
63. Kate L inthicum, “ Obama E nds S ecure C ommunities Program a s P art o f I mmigration A ction,” Los A ngeles Times, N ovember 2 1, 2 014, w ww.latimes.com/local/ california/la-me-1121-immigration-justice-20141121 -story.html (accessed 8/16/15).
64. “Enhancing P ublic S afety i n t he I nterior o f t he United States,” Executive Order 13768, January 25, 2017, www .federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/30/2017-02102/ enhancing-public-safety-in-the-interior-of-the-united -states (accessed 7/27/17).
65. Camila D omonoske, “ Judge B locks T rump A dmin- istration f rom P unishing ‘ Sanctuary C ities,’” N PR, November 2 1, 2 017, w ww.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ 2017/11/21/565678707/enter-title (accessed 2/18/18).
66. Nicole R odriguez, “ Trump A dministration W ants t o Arrest Mayors of ‘Sanctuary Cities,’” Newsweek, January 16, 2018, w ww.newsweek.com/trump-administration-wants- arrest-mayors-sanctuary-cities-783010 (accessed 2/18/18).
67. NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012). 68. Adam Liptak, “In Health Law, Asking Where U.S. Power
Stops,” New York Times, November 14, 2011, A1. 69. Robert B arnes, “Affordable C are A ct S urvives S upreme
Court Challenge,” Washington Post, June 25, 2015, www .washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/obamacare -sur v ives-supreme-cour t-cha l lenge/2015/06/25/ af87608e-188a-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html (accessed 8/16/15).
70. National L eague o f C ities, “ City R ights i n a n E ra o f Preemption: A S tate-by-State A nalysis,” 2 017, h ttp://nlc .org/preemption (accessed 7/27/17).
71. Emma G. Ellis, “Guess How Much That Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Costing North Carolina,” Wired, Sepember 18, 2016, www.wired.com/2016/09/guess-much-anti-lgbtq-law -costing-north-carolina/ (accessed 7/27/17).
45. See U .S. A dvisory C ommission o n I ntergovernmental Relations, Federal R egulation of S tate and Local Govern- ments: The Mixed Record of t he 1980s (Washington, DC: Advisory C ommission o n I ntergovernmental R elations, July 1993).
46. Congressional Bu dget O ffice, “ A R eview o f C BO’s Activities in 2014 under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act,” March 3 1, 2015, w ww.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ 114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/50051-UMRA2_0 .pdf (see Appendix B, p. 39) (accessed 8/16/15).
47. Adam Liptak, “Justices to Hear Health Care Case as Race Heats Up,” New York Times, November 15, 2011, A1.
48. Kaiser F amily F oundation, " Status o f S tate M edicaid Expansion Decisions," May 31, 2018, www.kff.org/health- reform/slide/current-status-of-the-medicaid-expansion- decision/ ( accessed 6/ 5/18); B allotopedia, “2018 Ballot Measure E lection R esults,” h ttps://ballotpedia.org/2018_ ballot_measure_election_results (accessed 11/7/18).
49. U.S. Committee on Federalism and National Purpose, To Form a M ore Perfect Union (Washington, DC: National Conference o n S ocial W elfare, 1 985). S ee a lso t he discussion i n P aul E . P eterson, The P rice of F ederalism (Washington, D C: B rookings I nstitution P ress, 1 995), esp. chap. 8.
50. Malcolm G ladwell, “ Remaking W elfare: I n S tates’ Experiments, a C utting C ontest,” Washington P ost, March 10, 1995, 6.
51. Ashley Burnside and Ife Floyd, “TANF Benefits Remain Low D espite R ecent I ncreases i n S ome S tates,” C enter on Budget and Policy Priorities, October 12, 2018, www .cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/10-30-14tanf.pdf (accessed 10/12/18).
52. Cohen, E lissa, Sarah Minton, Megan Thompson, E liza- beth Crowe, and Linda Giannarelli, “Welfare Rules Data- book: State TANF Policies as of July 2015,” OPRE Report 2016-67 (Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Re- search and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. D epartment o f Health a nd Human S er- vices, 2 016), h ttp://wrd.urban.org/wrd/data/databooks/ 2015%20Wel f a r e%20R u le s%20Dat abook %20 (Final%2009%2026%2016).pdf (accessed 7/30/17); a nd Mary J o P itzi, “Arizona L imits P overty A id t o 1 Y ear; Strictest i n U .S.” a zcentral.com, J uly 1 , 2 016, w ww .azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2016/07/01/ arizona-limits-poverty-aid-1-year-strictest-us/86499262/ (accessed 7/30/17).
53. Andrea L ouise C ampbell, Trapped i n A merica’s S afety Net: O ne F amily’s S truggle (Chicago: U niversity o f Chicago Press, 2014), 82.
54. Frank J. Thompson, Medicaid Politics: Federalism, Policy Durability, a nd H ealth R eform (Washington, D C: Georgetown University Press, 2012).
55. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, “Motor Vehicle Fatalities in 1996 Were 12 Percent Higher on Interstates, Freeways i n 12 S tates That R aised Speed L imits,” p ress release, October 10, 1997.
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 40 17/11/18 3:57 PM
ENDNOTES A41
Section 1 p rovides t hat no s tate c an “ deny t o a ny p erson within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It is not unreasonable to conclude that the purpose of this pro- vision was to obligate the s tate governments a s well a s the national government to take positive actions to protect citi- zens from arbitrary and discriminatory actions, at least those based on race. Civil rights will be explored in Chapter 5.
8. For example, The Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wallace 36 (1883). 9. Chicago, B urlington a nd Q uincy R ailroad C ompany v .
Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897). 10. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925). 11. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931); Hague v. C.I.O.,
307 U.S. 496 (1939). 12. Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937). 13. All of these were implicitly included in the Palko case as
“not incorporated” i nto t he Fourteenth A mendment as limitations on the powers of the states.
14. There i s o ne i nteresting e xception, w hich i nvolves t he Sixth Amendment right to public trial. In the 1948 case In re Oliver, 33 U.S. 257, the right to a public trial was, in effect, incorporated as part of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, t he i ssue i n t hat c ase w as p ut m ore g enerally as “ due p rocess,” a nd p ublic t rial i tself was n ot a ctually mentioned i n s o m any wo rds. L ater o pinions, s uch a s Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), cited the Oliver case as t he precedent for more e xplicit incorporation o f public trials as part of the Fourteenth Amendment.
15. Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963). 16. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). 17. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985). 18. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). The Lemon test
is still good law, but as recently as the 1994 Court term, four justices have urged that the test be abandoned. Here is a settled area of law that may soon become unsettled.
19. Rosenberger v . R ector a nd V isitors of t he U niversity of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995).
20. Elk Grove United School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004).
21. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005). 22. McCreary C ounty v . A merican C ivil L iberties U nion of
Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005). 23. West V irginia S tate B oard of E ducation v . B arnette, 319
U.S. 6 24 ( 1943). The c ase i t r eversed w as Minersville School District v. Gobitus, 310 U.S. 586 (1940).
24. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940). 25. Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. — (2015). 26. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrom-
bie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. — (2015). 27. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 573 U.S. — (2014). 28. Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919). 29. United S tates v . C arolene P roducts C ompany, 3 04 U .S.
144 (1938), n4. This footnote is one of the Court’s most important d octrines. S ee A lfred H . K elly, W infred A . Harbison, a nd H erman B elz, The A merican C onstitu- tion: Its Origins and D evelopment, 7th ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1991), 2:519–23.
72. Celeste Bott, “St. L ouis $10 Minimum Wage to Revert Back to $7.70 in August, Greitens Announces,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 1 , 2 017, w ww.stltoday.com/news/ loca l /gov t-and-pol it ic s/s t-lou i s-minimum-wage -wi l l-revert-back-to-in-august/ar t icle_0428b488 -d4e2-5778-895b-f44ad92cc65a.html (accessed 7/27/17); Celeste Bott, “More Than 100 St. Louis Businesses Opt to Keep $10 Minimum Wage, Despite New State Law,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, August 7 , 2 017, www.stltoday .com/news/local/metro/more-than-st-louis-businesses -opt-to-keep-minimum-wage/article_920788cd-47b2 -5a39-b494-8ee7e6c0f676.html ( accessed 2 /18/18); CBS S t. L ouis, “ McDonalds ‘ Save t he R aise’ P rotest Happening T oday,” A ugust 1 7, 2 017, s tlouis.cbslocal .com/2017/08/17/mcdonalds-save-the-raise-protest -happening-today/ (accessed 2/18/18).
73. Melia Robinson, “Here’s Where You Can Legally Smoke Weed in 2018,” Business Insider, January 23, 2018, www .businessinsider.com/where-can-you-can-legally-smoke -weed-2018-1/#alaska-1 (accessed 2/13/18); “33 Legal Medical Marijuana States and DC,” November 7, 2018, https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource .php?resourceID=000881 (accessed 11/7/18).
CHAPTER 4
1. This a ccount t aken f rom April Baer, “ The S lants: Trad- ing i n S tereotypes,” N PR, J une 1 1, 2 008, w ww.npr .org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90278746; Katy Steinmetz, “’ The S lants’ S uit: A sian-American B and Goes t o C ourt o ver N ame,” Time, O ctober 2 3, 2 013, http://entertainment.time.com/2013/10/23/the-slants -suit-asian-american-band-goes-to-court-over-name/; Kat Chow, “The Slants: Fighting for the R ight to Rock a R acial S lur,” N PR, J anuary 19, 2 017, w ww.npr.org/ sections/codeswitch/2017/01/19/510467679/the-slants -fighting-for-the-right-to-rock-a-racial-slur; Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. — (2017); Ian Shapira and Ann E . Marimow, “Washington R edskins W in Trademark F ight o ver t he Team’s N ame,” Washington P ost, J une 2 9, 2 017, w ww .washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/2017/06/29/ a 26 f 52f 0 -5c f 6 -11e7-9 fc 6 - c7e f4bc58d13 _ s tor y .html?utm_term=.22ed3bf39917 (accessed 2/4/18).
2. Alexander H amilton, J ames M adison, a nd J ohn J ay, The F ederalist P apers, e d. C linton R ossiter ( New Y ork: New American Library, 1961), no. 84, 513.
3. Federalist Papers, no. 84, 513. 4. Clinton Rossiter, 1787: The G rand C onvention ( New
York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 302. 5. Rossiter, 1787, 3 03. R ossiter a lso r eports t hat “ in 1941
the S tates o f C onnecticut, M assachusetts, a nd G eorgia celebrated the sesquicentennial of the Bill of Rights by giving their hitherto withheld and unneeded assent.”
6. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Peters 243, 246 (1833). 7. The F ourteenth A mendment a lso s eems d esigned t o
introduce civil rights. The final clause of the all-important
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 41 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A42 ENDNOTES
60. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). 61. Shannon Hutzler, “Protecting Informed Public Participa-
tion,” Valparaiso University Law Review 41, no. 3 (Spring 2007): 1235–84.
62. See Zeran v. America Online, 129 F3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997). 63. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). 64. Concurring opinion i n Jacobellis v . O hio, 378 U.S. 184
(1964). 65. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). 66. Reno v . A merican C ivil L iberties U nion, 5 21 U .S. 8 44
(1997). 67. United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008). 68. United S tates v . P layboy E ntertainment G roup, 529 U.S.
803 (2000). 69. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants A ssociation, 564 U.S.
— (2011). 70. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). 71. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). 72. In r e W inship, 3 97 U .S. 3 58 ( 1970). A n o utstanding
treatment o f due process i n i ssues i nvolving t he Fourth through S eventh a mendments w ill b e f ound i n F isher, American Constitutional Law, chap. 13.
73. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990). 74. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). Although Mapp went
free in this case, she was later convicted in New York on narcotics t rafficking c harges a nd s erved 9 y ears o f a 20-year sentence.
75. For a g ood d iscussion of t he i ssue, s ee Fisher, American Constitutional Law, pp. 884–9.
76. United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006). 77. National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S.
656 (1989). 78. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Association, 489 U.S.
602 (1989). 79. Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995). 80. Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997). 81. Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. — (2013). 82. United States v. Jones, 132 S. 565 U.S. — (2012). 83. Maryland v. King. 569 U.S. — (2013). 84. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. — (2014). 85. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). 86. Marjorie C ohn, “N SA M etadata C ollection: F ourth
Amendment V iolation,” JURIST, January 15, 2014, ht tp://ju r i s t .org /forum/2014/01/mar jor ie - cohn -nsa-metadata.php (accessed 4/19/16).
87. Edwin S. Corwin and J. W. Peltason, Understanding the Constitution (New York: Holt, 1967), 286.
88. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969). 89. Miranda v. Arizona, 348 U.S. 436 (1966). 90. Berman v . P arker, 3 48 U.S. 2 6 (1954). F or a t horough
analysis of the case, see Benjamin Ginsberg, “Berman v. Parker: C ongress, t he C ourt, a nd t he P ublic P urpose,” Polity 4 (1971): 48–75. For a later application of the case that s uggests t hat “ just c ompensation”—defined a s something a pproximating m arket v alue—is a bout a ll a
30. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). 31. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). 32. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). 33. McConnell v . F ederal E lection C ommission, 5 40 U.S. 93
(2003). 34. Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 551
U.S. 449 (2007). 35. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S.
310 (2010). 36. McCutcheon v . F ederal E lection C ommission, 5 72
U.S. — (2014). 37. Arthur D elaney, “ Supreme C ourt R olls B ack C am-
paign F inance R estrictions,” H uffington P ost, M arch 23, 2 010, u pdated M ay 2 5, 2 011, w ww.huffingtonpost .com/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rolls-back_n_431227 .html (accessed 7/9/12).
38. Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). 39. Dennis v . U nited S tates, 3 41 U .S. 4 94 ( 1951), w hich
upheld t he i nfamous S mith A ct o f 1940 t hat p rovided criminal penalties for those who “willfully and knowingly conspire t o t each a nd a dvocate t he f orceful a nd v iolent overthrow and destruction of the government.”
40. Laura Kipness, Unwanted Advances (New York: Harper, 2017).
41. Capitol Broadcasting Company v. Acting Attorney General, 405 U.S. 1000 (1972).
42. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992). 43. United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929). 44. Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). 45. Hazelwood S chool D istrict v . K uhlmeier, 4 84 U .S. 2 60
(1988). 46. Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007). 47. City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984). 48. Louis Fisher, American Constitutional Law (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1990), 546. 49. Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975). 50. Virginia S tate B oard of P harmacy v . V irginia C itizens
Consumer C ouncil, 4 25 U .S. 7 48 ( 1976). L ater c ases restored the rights of lawyers to advertise their services.
51. Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001). 52. Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S.
496 (1939). 53. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). 54. Charles Babington, “Senate Rejects Flag Desecra tion
Amendment,” Washington P ost, J une 2 8, 2 006, w ww .washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/ 06/27/AR2006062701056.html (accessed 11/13/13).
55. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. — (2011). 56. For a g ood general discussion of speech plus, see Fisher,
American Constitutional Law, 544–46. The case uphold- ing t he b uffer z one a gainst t he a bortion p rotesters i s Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, 512 U.S. 753 (1994).
57. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931). 58. New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). 59. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972).
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 42 17/11/18 3:57 PM
ENDNOTES A43
CHAPTER 5
1. Maia S ilber, “ A T railblazing T ransgender M idship- man Navigates an Uncertain P ath in the Wake o f Trump’s Tweet.” Washington P ost, July 2 9, 2 017, w ww .washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/a-trai lblazing -transgender-midshipman-navigates-an-uncertain-path -in-the-wake-of-trumps-tweet/2017/07/29/bf92a6c6 -73c5-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html?utm_ term=.34e163b1fd55 (accessed 2/3/18).
2. Silber, “ Trailblazing T ransgender M idshipman.” S ee also “A Transgender Midshipman Fights Trump’s Ban,” CNN, November 2 1, 2017, www.cnn.com/2017/11/21/ politics/trump-transgender-military-ban-second-order/ index.html (accessed 2/3/18).
3. Mark J oseph S tern, “ Trump A dministration R elents, for N ow: Trans A mericans M ay E nlist i n t he M ilitary Starting Monday,” Slate, December 30, 2017, slate.com/ news-and-politics/2017/12/trump-administration-wont -appeal-trans-troops-ban-to-the-supreme-court.html (accessed 2/3/18).
4. Paula B aker, “ The D omestication o f P olitics: W omen and A merican P olitical S ociety, 1 780–1920,” American Historical Review 89 (June 1984): 620–47.
5. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). 6. August M eier a nd E lliott R udwick, From P lantation t o
Ghetto (New York: Hill and Wang, 1976), 184–88. 7. Jill D upont, “ Susan B . A nthony,” N ew Y ork N otes
(Albany: New York State Commission on the Bicenten- nial of the U.S. Constitution, 1988), 3.
8. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). 9. Dupont, “Susan B. Anthony,” 4. 10. The p rospect o f a “ fair e mployment p ractices” l aw t ied
to t he c ommerce p ower p roduced t he D ixiecrat b reak with t he D emocratic P arty i n 1 948. The D emocratic Party organization of the States of the Old Confederacy seceded from the national party and nominated its own candidate, the then-Democratic governor of South Caro- lina, Strom Thurmond, who later became a Republican senator. This almost cost President Truman the election.
11. This was based on the provision in Article VI of the Con- stitution t hat “ all t reaties m ade . . . under t he A uthority of t he United S tates” s hall b e t he “supreme L aw o f t he Land.” The commission recognized that if the U.S. Sen- ate r atified w hat b ecame t he U niversal D eclaration o f Human Rights (a treaty), then that power could be used as t he c onstitutional u mbrella f or e ffective c ivil r ights legislation. The Supreme C ourt h ad r ecognized i n Mis- souri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), that a treaty could enlarge federal power at the expense of the states.
12. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938). 13. Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950). 14. Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948). 15. The District of C olumbia c ase c ame up, too; but s ince
the District of Columbia is not a s tate, this case did not
property owner can hope for protection against a public taking of property, see Theodore Lowi et a l., Poliscide: Big Government, Big Science, Lilliputian Politics, 2nd ed. (Lanham, M D: U niversity P ress o f A merica, 1 990), 267–70.
91. Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). 92. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). 93. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003). 94. For f urther d iscussion of t hese i ssues, s ee Corwin a nd
Peltason, Understanding the Constitution, 319–23. 95. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). 96. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976). 97. Death P enalty I nformation C enter, “ Facts a bout t he
Death Penalty,” October 11, 2018, https://deathpenalty info.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf (accessed 10/12/18).
98. Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008). 99. Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (2008). 100. Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. — (2015). 101. Hudson v. McMillan, 503 U.S. 1 (1992). 102. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. — (2012). 103. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928). See also
David M. O’Brien, Constitutional Law and Politics, vol. 1, 6th ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 2005), 76–84.
104. West Virginia S tate Board of E ducation v . Barnette 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
105. NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958). 106. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). 107. Griswold, c oncurring o pinion. I n 1 972 t he C ourt
extended t he p rivacy r ight t o u nmarried wo men: Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).
108. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). 109. Webster v . R eproductive H ealth S ervices, 4 92 U.S. 4 90
(1989), w hich u pheld a M issouri l aw t hat r estricted the u se o f p ublic m edical f acilities f or a bortion. The decision o pened t he w ay f or o ther s tates t o l imit t he availability of abortion.
110. Planned P arenthood of S outheastern P ennsylvania v . Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
111. Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 546 U.S. 320 (2006). 112. Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007). 113. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). 114. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). 115. Lawrence (2003). 116. It i s wo rth r ecalling h ere t he p rovision o f t he N inth
Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or dispar- age others retained by the people.”
117. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. — (2015). 118. Arthur L . C aplan, e d., The C ase of T erri S chiavo:
Ethics a t t he E nd of L ife ( Amherst, N Y: Pr ometheus Books, 2016).
119. Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006). 120. Daniel J . S olove, Nothing t o H ide: The F alse Tradeoff
between P rivacy a nd S ecurity ( New H aven, C T: Y ale University Press, 2011).
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 43 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A44 ENDNOTES
were being excluded from schools or jobs and then, on the basis of that statistical evidence, to authorize the Justice Department to bring suits in individual cases and class- action s uits. I n m ost s egregated s ituations o utside t he South, it is virtually impossible to identify and document an intent to discriminate.
26. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of E ducation, 402 U.S. 1 (1971).
27. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974). 28. For a g ood e valuation o f t he B oston e ffort, s ee G ary
Orfield, Must W e B us? S egregated S chools a nd N ational Policy ( Washington, D C: B rookings I nstitution, 1978), 144–6. S ee a lso B ob Woodward a nd S cott A rmstrong, The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court (New York: Simon and S chuster, 1 979), 4 26–27; a nd J . A nthony L ukas, Common Ground (New York: Random House, 1986).
29. Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991). 30. Parents I nvolved i n C ommunity S chools v . S eattle S chool
District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007). 31. Griggs v. Duke Power Company, 401 U.S. 424 (1971). See
also Allan Sindler, Bakke, DeFunis, and Minority Admis- sions (New York: Longman, 1978), 180–89.
32. For a g ood t reatment o f t hese i ssues, s ee C harles O . Gregory and Harold A. Katz, Labor and the Law (New York: W. W. Norton, 1979), chap. 17.
33. In 1970 t his a ct w as a mended t o o utlaw f or five y ears literacy tests as a condition for voting in all states.
34. Joint Center for Political Studies, Black Elected Officials: A National Roster—1988 (Washington, DC: Joint Center for P olitical S tudies P ress, 1988), 9 –10. F or a c ompre- hensive analysis and evaluation of the Voting Rights Act, see B ernard G rofman a nd Chandler D avidson, e ds., Controversies i n M inority V oting: The V oting R ights A ct in P erspective ( Washington, D C: B rookings I nstitution, Press, 1992).
35. Ford Fessenden, “Ballots Cast by Blacks and Older Voters Were Tossed in Far Greater Numbers,” New York Times, November 12, 2001, A17.
36. Aaron B lake, “ Texas R edistricting C ase: F ive Things You Need to Know,” Washington P ost, December 13, 2011, w ww.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/texas - r e d i s t r i c t i n g - c a s e - f i v e - t h i n g s - y o u - n e e d - t o -know/2011/12/13/gIQAdowHsO_blog.html; M anny Fernandez, “ Federal J udges A pprove F inal T exas Redistricting M aps,” New Y ork T imes, F ebruary 2 8, 2012, w ww.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/us/final-texas -redistricting-maps-approved.html (accessed 6/22/12).
37. Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. — (2013). 38. Crawford v . M arion C ounty E lection B oard, 5 53 U .S.
181 ( 2008). S ee a lso D avid S tout, “ Supreme C ourt Upholds Voter Identification Law in Indiana,” New York Times, A pril 2 9, 20 08, w ww.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/ washington/28cnd-scotus.html (accessed 1/13/14).
39. See D ouglas S . M assey a nd N ancy A . D enton, Ameri- can Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of t he Under- class (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), chap. 7.
directly involve the Fourteenth Amendment and its equal protection clause. The plaintiffs confronted the Court on the s ame g rounds, h owever—that s egregation i s i nher- ently unequal. Their victory in effect was “incorporation in reverse,” with equal protection moving from the Four- teenth Amendment to become part of the Bill of Rights. See Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954).
16. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
17. The Supreme Court first declared that race was a suspect classification r equiring s trict s crutiny i n t he d ecision Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). In this case, t he C ourt u pheld P resident R oosevelt’s e xecutive order of 1941 allowing the military to exclude persons of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast and to place them in internment camps. It is one of the few cases in which classification based on race survived strict scrutiny.
18. The two most important cases were Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), which required Little Rock, Arkansas, to desegregate, and Griffin v. Prince Edward County School Board, 377 U.S. 218 (1964), which forced all the schools of that Virginia county to reopen after five years of closing to avoid desegregation.
19. In Cooper v . A aron, t he Supreme C ourt o rdered i mme- diate c ompliance w ith t he l ower c ourt’s d esegregation order a nd w ent b eyond t hat w ith a s tern w arning that it i s “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
20. Shuttlesworth v . B irmingham B oard of E ducation of Jefferson City 358 U.S. 101 (1958) upheld a “pupil place- ment” plan purporting to assign pupils on various bases, with no mention of race. This case interpreted Brown to mean that school districts had to stop explicit racial dis- crimination but w ere u nder no obligation t o t ake p osi- tive steps to desegregate. For a w hile black parents were doomed to a case-by-case approach.
21. For good treatments of this long stretch of the struggle of the federal courts to integrate the schools, see Paul Brest and Sanford Levinson, Processes of Constitutional Decision- Making: C ases an d M aterials, 2 nd e d. ( Boston: L ittle, Brown, 1983), 471–80; and Alfred H. Kelly, Winfred A. Harbison, and Herman Belz, The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development, 6th ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1983), 610–16.
22. Aimee G reen, “ Elmer’s R estaurant S ays I t M ade B lack Man P repay B ecause H e S at i n a B ar, O rdered A lco- hol,” Oregon Li ve, O ctober 2 9, 2 015, w ww.oregonlive .com/clark-county/index.ssf/2015/10/elmers_told_state _investigator.html (accessed 8/2/18).
23. See H amil H arris, “ For B lacks, C abs C an B e H ard t o Get,” Washington Post, July 21, 1994, J1.
24. For a thorough analysis of the Office for Civil Rights, see Jeremy Rabkin, “Office for Civil Rights,” in The Politics of Regulation, ed. James Q. Wilson (New York: Basic Books, 1980).
25. This w as a n a ccepted w ay o f u sing q uotas o r r atios t o determine s tatistically t hat b lacks o r o ther m inorities
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 44 17/11/18 3:57 PM
ENDNOTES A45
63. New M exico h ad a d ifferent h istory b ecause n ot m any Anglos s ettled t here i nitially. ( Anglo i s t he t erm f or a non-Hispanic white, generally of European background.) Mexican A mericans h ad c onsiderable p ower i n t errito- rial l egislatures b etween 1865 a nd 1912. S ee L awrence H. F uchs, The A merican K aleidoscope ( Hanover, N H: University Press of New England, 1990), 239–40.
64. Salvatierra v . D el R io I ndependent S chool D istrict, 3 3 S.W.2d 790 (Tex. Civ. App. 1930).
65. Mendez v. Westminster, 64 F. Supp. 544 (S.D. Cal. 1946), aff ’d, 161 F.2d 774 (9th Cir. 1947) (en banc).
66. On t he U nited F arm W orkers a nd C ésar C hávez, s ee Marshall Ganz, Why David Sometimes Wins: Leadership, Organization, and Strategy in the California Farm Worker Movement ( New York: O xford U niversity P ress, 2 009); Miriam Pawel, The Union of Their Dreams: Power, Hope and Struggle in C esar C havez’s F arm W orker M ovement (New Y ork: B loomsbury P ress, 2 010); a nd J acques E . Levy, Cesar Chavez: Autobiography of L a Causa (Minne- apolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007).
67. United States v. Texas, 579 U.S. — (2016). 68. Dick K irschten, “N ot B lack a nd W hite,” National
Journal, March 2, 1991, 497. 69. Arizona v . U nited S tates, 5 67 U .S. — ( 2012); R obert
Barnes, “ Supreme C ourt R ejects M uch o f A rizona Immigration Law,” Washington Post, June 25, 2012, www .washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-on -arizona-immigration-law/2012/06/25/gJQA0Nrm1V_ story.html?hpid5zl (accessed 6/25/12).
70. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). 71. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). 72. Children o f t he C amps, “ Historical D ocuments: C ivil
Liberties A ct o f 1 988,” h ttp://pbs.org/childofcamp/ history/civilact.html (accessed 2/17/08).
73. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). 74. Not all Native American tribes agreed with this, includ-
ing the Navajos. See Ronald Takaki, A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America (Boston: Little, Brown, 1993), 238–45.
75. On the resurgence of Native American political activity, see Stephen Cornell, The Return of the Native: American Indian Political Resurgence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); and Dee Brown, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (New York: Holt, Rinehart, 1971).
76. See the d iscussion in Robert A . Katzmann, Institutional Disability: The S aga of T ransportation P olicy f or t he D is- abled ( Washington, D C: B rookings I nstitution P ress, 1986).
77. For example, after pressure from the Justice Department, one o f t he n ation’s l argest r ental-car c ompanies a greed to make special hand controls available to any customer requesting t hem. S ee “ Avis A grees t o E quip C ars f or Disabled,” Los Angeles Times, September 2, 1994, D1.
78. For more, see Dale Carpenter, Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v. Texas (New York: W. W. Norton, 2013).
79. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). 80. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
40. Michael P owell, “ Bank A ccused of P ushing M ortgage Deals on Blacks,” New York Times, June 6, 2009, w ww .nytimes.com/2009/06/07/us/07baltimore.html; C harlie Savage, “Countrywide Will Settle a Bias Suit,” New York Times, December 22, 2011, B1.
41. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). 42. Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 2nd Cir. (2012). 43. Adarand Constructors Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). 44. Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. — (2013). 45. Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U. S. — (2016). 46. See Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1986); and Gilbert Steiner, Constitutional I nequality ( Washington, D C: B rookings Institution Press, 1985).
47. See Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973). 48. See Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976). 49. Claire Z illman, “ Barnes & N oble I s L atest R etailer t o
Face Transgender D iscrimination Lawsuit,” Fortune, May 7, 2015, http://fortune.com/2015/05/07/barnes-noble -transgender-lawsuit/ (accessed 12/23/15).
50. Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992).
51. Jennifer Halperin, “Women Step Up to Bat,” Illinois Issues 21 (September 1995): 11–14.
52. Joan Biskupic and David Nakamura, “Court Won’t Re- view Sports E quity R uling,” Washington Post, A pril 22, 1997, A1.
53. Debra D eMeis a nd R osanna H ertz, “ Sex, S ports, a nd Title IX on Campus: The Triumphs and Travails,” Daily B east, J une 2 2, 2 012, w ww.dailybeast.com/ articles/2012/06/22/sex-sports-and-title-ix-on-campus -the-triumphs-and-travails.html (accessed 6/22/12).
54. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996). 55. Judith H avemann, “ Two W omen Quit Citadel over
Alleged H arassment,” Washington P ost, Ja nuary 1 3, 1997, A1.
56. Petula D vorak, “ The C itadel D idn’t W ant t o A dmit Women. b ut O nce This W oman G ot I n, S he W as Unstoppable,” Washington Post, October 27, 2016, www .citadel.edu/root/the-citadel-didnt-want-to-admit -women-but-once-this-woman-got-in-she-was-unstoppable (accessed 10/9/18).
57. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986). See also Gwendolyn Mink, Hostile Environment: The Political Betrayal of Sexually Harassed Women (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000), 28–32.
58. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993). 59. Burlington I ndustries v . E llerth, 5 24 U .S. 7 42 ( 1998);
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998). 60. Laura Kipness, Unwanted A dvances: S exual P aranoia
Comes to Campus (New York: Harper, 2017). 61. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618
(2007). 62. Sarah Kliff, “A Stunning Chart Shows the True Cause of
the G ender Wage G ap,” Vox, February 19, 2 018, w ww .vox.com/2018/2/19/17018380/gender-wage-gap -childcare-penalty (accessed 10/9/18).
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 45 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A46 ENDNOTES
6. Milton Lodge and Charles Taber, “Three Steps toward a Theory of Motivated Political Reasoning,” in Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of R ationality, ed. Arthur Lupia, Mathew D. McCubbins, and Samuel L. Popkin (London: Cambridge University Press, 2000); David R edlawsk, “ Hot C ognition o r C ool C onsider- ation? T esting t he E ffects o f M otivated R easoning o n Political Decision Making,” Journal of Politics 64 (2002): 1021–44; David Redlawsk, Andrew Civettini, and Karen Emmerson, “The Affective Tipping Point: Do Motivated Reasoners E ver ‘ Get I t’?” Political P sychology 3 1, n o. 4 (2010): 563–93.
7. Caroline J . Tolbert, D avid P. Redlawsk,, a nd K ellen J . Gracey, “ Racial A ttitudes a nd E motional R esponses t o the 2016 R epublican C andidates,” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 28, no. 2 (2018): 245–62.
8. George E . M arcus, W. R ussell N euman, a nd M ichael MacKuen, Affective I ntelligence a nd P olitical J udgment (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).
9. Juliana Menasce Horowitz, “ In 2 017, A mericans N ar- rowly Opposed Allowing Teachers and School Officials to Carry Guns,” Pew Research Center, Fact Tank, February 23, 20 18, w ww.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/02/23/ in-2017-americans-narrowly-opposed-allowing-teachers -and-school-officials-to-carry-guns/ (accessed 3/17/18).
10. Pew Research Center, “Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology. Section 6: Foreign Affairs, Terrorism and Pri- vacy,” June 26, 2014, www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/ section-6-foreign-affairs-terrorism-and-privacy/ (accessed 3/11/16).
11. Richard W ike a nd K atie S immons, “ Global S upport for P rinciple o f F ree E xpression, b ut O pposition t o Some Forms o f Speech: A mericans E specially L ikely t o Embrace I ndividual L iberties,” P ew R esearch C enter, November 1 8, 20 15, w ww.pewglobal.org/2015/11/18/ global-support-for-principle-of-free-expression-but -opposition-to-some-forms-of-speech/ (accessed 11/18/15).
12. Anthony C illuffo, “ 5 F acts a bout S tudent L oans,” P ew Research C enter, F act T ank, A ugust 24 , 2 017, w ww .pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/24/5-facts-about -student-loans/ (accessed 3/17/18).
13. Paul R . A bramson, Political A ttitudes i n A merica (S an Francisco: Freeman, 1983).
14. Pew Research Center, “Large Majorities See Checks and Balances, R ight to Protest a s E ssential f or Democracy,” March 2 , 20 17, w ww.people-press.org/2017/03/02/large -majorities-see-checks-and-balances-right-to-protest-as -essential-for-democracy/ (accessed 3/2/18).
15. Jocelyn K iley, “ U.S. P ublic S ees R ussian R ole i n Campaign H acking, Bu t I s D ivided O ver N ew S anc- tions.” P ew R esearch C enter, J anuary 1 0, 2 017, w ww .pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/10/u-s-public-says -russia-hacked-campaign/ (accessed 3/17/18).
16. Rob Suls, “Share of Democrats Calling Russia ‘Greatest Danger’ to U.S. Is at Its Highest since End of Cold War.”
81. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). 82. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. — (2015). 83. Pew R esearch C enter, “ Changing A ttitudes o n G ay
Marriage,” June 26, 2017, www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/ changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ (accessed 10/9/18).
84. The D epartment o f H ealth, E ducation, a nd W elfare (HEW) was the cabinet department charged with ad- ministering most federal social programs. In 1980, when education programs were transferred to the newly created Department o f E ducation, H EW w as r enamed t he Department of Health and Human Services.
85. Regents of t he University of C alifornia v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
86. See, for example, United Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 ( 1979); a nd Fullilove v . K lutznick, 4 48 U .S. 4 48 (1980).
87. Adarand Constructors Inc. v. Peña. 88. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003). 89. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). 90. Fisher v. University of Texas. 91. There are still many genuine racists in America, but with
the exception of a l unatic f ringe, made up of neo-Nazis and m embers o f t he K u K lux K lan, m ost r acists a re too ashamed o r embarrassed to take part in normal political d iscourse. They are not included in either cate- gory here.
92. Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873).
CHAPTER 6
1. Suzanna Hupp, “In Their Own Words: The Gun Rights Advocate,” Texas M onthly, M arch 2 3, 2 016, www .texasmonthly.com/list/in-their-own-words/the-gun -rights-advocate/ (accessed 3/3/18).
2. Brianna S acks, “After F lorida S chool S hooting, S everal Survivors and Victims’ Parents Pan Trump’s Idea to Arm Teachers,” Bu zzFeed N ews, F ebruary 24 , 2 018, w ww .buzzfeed.com/briannasacks/students-and-parents-react -to-armed-teacher-proposal?utm_term=.rtNPqM580# .xrVbnry1A (accessed 3/3/8).
3. Jeffrey M. Jones, “U.S. Preference for Stricter Gun Laws Highest s ince 1 993,” G allup S ocial & P olicy I ssues, March 1 4, 20 18, h ttp://news.gallup.com/poll/229562/ preference-stricter-gun-laws-highest-1993.aspx ( accessed 5/30/18).
4. Alvin Chang, “Gun Sales Usually Skyrocket a fter Mass Shootings. Bu t N ot This Ti me,” V ox, M arch 7 , 2 018, www.vox.com/2018/3/7/17066352/gun-sa les-mass -shooting-data (accessed 5/30/18).
5. Samantha S mith, “ Young P eople L ess L ikely t o V iew Iraqi, S yrian R efugees a s M ajor Threat t o U .S.,” P ew Research C enter, F ebruary 3 , 2 017, w ww.pewresearch .org/fact-tank/2017/02/03/young-people-less-likely -to-view-iraqi-syrian-refugees-as-major-threat-to-u-s/ (accessed 4/3/18).
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 46 17/11/18 3:57 PM
ENDNOTES A47
Blacks Are D oubtful That t he U.S. W ill Ever Achieve Racial Equality,” June 27, 2016, www.pewsocialtrends .org/2016/06/27/on-views-of-race-and-inequality-blacks -and-whites-are-worlds-apart/ (accessed 4/3/18).
29. Tate, Black Faces. 30. Brakkton Booker, “How Equal Is American Opportunity?
Survey S hows A ttitudes Vary b y R ace,” N ational P ub- lic R adio, S eptember 2 1, 2 015, w ww.npr.org/sections/ thetwo-way/2015/09/21/442068004/how-equal-is -american-opportunity-survey-shows-attitudes-vary-by -race (accessed 3/11/16).
31. Pew R esearch C enter, “ Across R acial L ines, M ore S ay Nation N eeds t o M ake C hanges t o A chieve R acial Equality,” A ugust 5 , 2 015, w ww.people-press.org/ 2015/08/05/across-racial-lines-more-say-nation-needs-to -make-changes-to-achieve-racial-equality/8-4-2015_02a/ (accessed 2/24/16).
32. Jens Manuel Krogstad, “Key Facts about the Latino Vote in 2016,” October 14, 2016; and Flores, Antonio, “Facts on U.S. L atinos, 2 015. S tatistical Portrait o f H ispanics in the United States,” September 18, 2017, Pew Research Center, w ww.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/14/ key-facts-about-the-latino-vote-in-2016/ a nd w ww .pewhispanic.org/2016/04/19/statistical-portrait-of - h i s p a n i c s - i n - t h e - u n i t e d - s t a t e s - k e y - c h a r t s / (accessed 3/17/18).
33. Anna B rown a nd R enee S tepler, “ Statistical P ortrait of t he F oreign-Born P opulation i n t he U nited S tates, 1960–2013,” Pew Research Center, September 28, 2015, w ww.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/statistical -portrait-of-the-foreign-born-population-in-the-united - s t a te s -1960 -2013 -key- cha r t s /#2013 -f b -or ig in (accessed 12/22/15).
34. Author a nalysis o f 2 014 C ooperative E lection S tudy, Harvard U niversity, r eleased F ebruary 2 015, h ttp:// projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/home ( accessed 3 /4/16); Pew R esearch C enter, “ Broad P ublic S upport f or L egal Status f or Undocumented I mmigrants, O ther A ttitudes About I mmigration M ore M ixed, J une 4 , 2 015,” www .people-press.org/2015/06/04/broad-public-support-for - l e g a l - s t a t u s - f o r-u ndo c u mente d- i m m i g r a nt s / (accessed 3/17/18).
35. Pew R esearch C enter, “ Latinos a nd t he N ew T rump Administration,” F ebruary 2 3, 2 017, w ww.pewhispanic .org/2017/02/23/latinos-and-the-new-trump-administration/ (accessed 4/3/17).
36. Matt Barreto and Gary M. Segura, Latino America: How America’s Most Dynamic Population Is Poised to Transform the Politics of the Nation (New York: Public Affairs, 2014).
37. “Trump G ets N egative R atings f or M any P ersonal Traits, but Most Say He Stands Up for His Beliefs,” Pew Research C enter, O ctober 1 , 2 018, w ww.people-press .org/2018/10/01/trump-gets-negative-ratings-for-many -personal-traits-but-most-say-he-stands-up-for-his-beliefs/ (accessed 10/10/18).
Pew Research Center, April 20, 2017, w ww.pewresearch .org/fact-tank/2017/04/20/share-of-democrats-calling -russia-greatest-danger-to-u-s-at-its-highest-since-end-of -cold-war/ (accessed 4/3/18).
17. See P aul M . S niderman a nd E dward G . C armines, Reaching beyond Race (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- sity Press, 1997).
18. Lydia S aad, “ Conservative L ead i n U .S. I deology I s Down t o S ingle D igits,” G allup, J anuary 1 1, 2 018, http://news.gallup.com/poll/225074/conservative-lead -ideology-down-single-digits.aspx (accessed 3/17/18).
19. Douglas R . O xley e t a l., “Political A ttitudes Vary w ith Physiological Traits,” Science 321, n o. 5 896 (September 19, 2008): 1667–70. See a lso Jeffrey Mondak, Personal- ity and the Foundation of P olitical Behavior (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
20. John A lford, C arolyn F unk, a nd J ohn H ibbing, “ Are Political Orientations G enetically Transmitted?” Ameri- can P olitical S cience R eview 9 9, n o. 2 ( 2005): 153–67; Rich M orin, “ Study o n T wins S uggests O ur P olitical Beliefs May Be Hard-Wired,” Pew Research Center, Fact Tank, D ecember 9 , 2 013, w ww.pewresearch.org/fact -tank/2013/12/09/study-on-twins-suggests-our-political -beliefs-may-be-hard-wired/ (accessed 1/20/14).
21. See A ngus C ampbell e t a l., The American Voter ( New York: Wiley, 1960), 147.
22. Betsy Sinclair, The S ocial C itizen: P eer N etworks a nd Political B ehavior (Chicago: University o f C hicago Press, 2012).
23. Pew R esearch C enter, “ Support f or S ame-Sex M arriage Grows, E ven a mong G roups That H ad B een S kepti- cal,” June 26, 2017, www.people-press.org/2017/06/26/ support-for-same-sex-marriage-grows-even-among -groups-that-had-been-skeptical/ (accessed 5/21/18).
24. Jennifer A . H eerwig a nd B rian J . M cCabe, “ Educa- tion a nd S ocial D esirability B ias: The C ase o f a B lack Presidential C andidate,” Social S cience Q uarterly 9 0, no. 3 (2009): 674–86.
25. Raymond E . Wolfinger a nd S teven J . R osenstone, Who Votes? (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1980). See also Steven J. Rosenstone and John Mark Hansen, Mobi- lization, Participation, a nd D emocracy i n A merica ( New York: Macmillan, 1993).
26. Frey, William. “The U.S. Will Become Minority W hite in 2 045, C ensus P redicts: Y outhful M inorities A re Engines Future Growth.” Brookings Institution, March 14, 2018, w ww.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/14/ the-us-will-become-minority-white-in-2045-census projects/?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Brief&utm _ sou rc e=h s _ ema i l&ut m _ med iu m= ema i l&ut m _content=61375295 (accessed 3/17/18).
27. Katherine Tate, Black Faces in the Mirror (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993).
28. Pew Research Center. “On Views of Race and Inequality, Blacks and Whites Are Worlds Apart: About Four-in-Ten
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 47 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A48 ENDNOTES
2013/06/06/in-gay-marriage-debate-both-supporters -and-opponents-see-legal-recognition-as-inevitable (accessed 3/19/14).
51. Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009). 52. Rebecca J . K reitzer, A llison J . H amilton, a nd C aroline
J. Tolbert, “Does Policy Adoption Change Opinions on Minority R ights? The E ffects of L egalizing S ame-Sex Marriage,” Political Research Quarterly 67, no. 4 (July 10, 2014): 795–808.
53. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. — (2015). 54. Monica Anderson, “For Earth Day, Here’s How Americans
View Environmental Issues,” Pew Research Center, April 20, 20 17, w ww.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/20/ for-earth-day-heres-how-americans-view-environmental -issues/ (accessed 3/17/18); Brian Kennedy, “Two-Thirds of A mericans G ive Priority t o D eveloping Alternative Energy over Fossil Fuels,” Pew Research Center, January 23, 20 17, w ww.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/23/ two-thirds-of-americans-give-priority-to-developing -alternative-energy-over-fossil-fuels/ ( accessed 3 /17/18); Michael Shea, “ Trump Will Withdraw U.S. f rom Paris Climate Agreement,” New York Times, June 1, 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/climate/trump-paris -climate-agreement.html (accessed 3/17/18).
55. Zaller, Nature and Origins. 56. Carroll G lynn e t a l., Public Opinion, 2nd ed. (Boulder,
CO: Westview, 2 004), 293. S ee a lso Michael X. D elli Carpini and Scott Keeter, What Americans Know about Politics a nd W hy I t M atters ( New H aven, C T: Y ale University Press, 1996).
57. Delli Carpini and Keeter, What Americans Know. 58. Adam J. Berinsky, “Assuming the Costs of War: Events,
Elites a nd A merican S upport f or M ilitary C onflict,” Journal of Politics 69, no. 4 (2007): 975–97; Zaller, Nature and Origins.
59. Richard R . Lau and David P. Redlawsk, “ Advantages and D isadvantages o f C ognitive H euristics i n P olitical Decision Ma king,” American J ournal of P olitical S cience 45 ( October 2 001): 9 51–71; L au a nd R edlawsk, How Voters Decide.
60. For a discussion of the role of information in politics, see Arthur Lupia and Matthew D. McCubbins, The Demo- cratic D ilemma: Can C itizens L earn What They Need t o Know? ( New York: C ambridge University Press, 1998). See also Shaun Bowler and Todd Donovan, Demanding Choices: O pinion a nd Voting i n D irect D emocracy ( Ann Arbor: U niversity o f M ichigan P ress, 1 998). S ee a lso Samuel Popkin, The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in P residential C ampaigns (C hicago: U niver- sity o f C hicago P ress, 1991); A rthur L upia, “ Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in C alifornia I nsurance R eform E lections,” American Political S cience R eview 8 8 (1994): 6 3–76; a nd Wendy Rahn, “The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates,” American Journal of Political Science 37 (1993): 472–96.
38. Michael Lipka, “Religious ‘Nones’ Are Not Only Grow- ing, They’re B ecoming M ore S ecular,” P ew R esearch Center, F act T ank, N ovember 1 1, 2 015, w ww.pew research.org/fact-tank/2015/11/11/religious-nones-are-not -only-growing-theyre-becoming-more-secular/ (accessed 11/11/15).
39. 2014 Cooperative Comparative Election Study. 40. See R ichard L au a nd D avid R edlawsk, How Voters D e-
cide: Information Processing during an Election Campaign (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
41. Brian Schaffner and Stephen Ansolabehere, “CCES Common Content, 2014,” Harvard Dataverse, V2, http:// dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/XFXJVY (accessed 5/4/16).
42. Morris F iorina, S amuel A brams, a nd J eremy P ope, Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America (New York: Longman, 2004).
43. Nathan J. Kelly and Peter K. Enns, “Inequality and the Dynamics of Public Opinion: The Self-Reinforcing Link between E conomic I nequality a nd M ass P references,” American J ournal of P olitical S cience 5 4, n o. 4 ( 2010): 855–70; Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, Winner-Take- All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—and Turned I ts B ack on t he Middle C lass ( New York: Si mon and Schuster, 2010).
44. Larry M . B artels, “ Homer G ets a T ax C ut: I nequality and P ublic P olicy i n t he A merican M ind,” Perspectives on Politics 3, no. 1 (2005): 15–31; Larry Bartels, Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of t he New Gilded Age (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008).
45. Thomas E . M ann a nd N orman J . O rnstein, It’s E ven Worse Than It L ooks: H ow t he American C onstitutional System C ollided w ith t he N ew P olitics of E xtremism (New York: Basic Books, 2012).
46. Shaun B owler, G ary S egura, a nd S tephen N icholson, “Earthquakes and Aftershocks: Race, Direct Democracy, and P artisan C hange,” American J ournal of P olitical Science 5 0 ( 2006): 146–59. F or a m ore g eneral d iscus- sion of the spillover effects of ballot measures on public opinion, see Stephen Nicholson, Voting the Agenda: Can- didates, Elections, and Ballot Propositions (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005).
47. John R . Zaller, The Nature and Origins of M ass Opinion (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
48. Milton Lodge, K athleen M cGraw, a nd P atrick S troh, “An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evalua- tion,” American Political Science Review 83, no. 2 (1989): 399–419.
49. Benjamin I . P age a nd R obert Y . S hapiro, The R ational Public: F ifty Years of T rends i n A mericans’ P olicy P refer- ences ( Chicago: U niversity o f C hicago P ress, 1 995); Eugene Wittkopf, Faces of Internationalism: Public Opin- ion a nd F oreign P olicy ( Durham, NC: D uke University Press, 1990).
50. Pew R esearch C enter, “ In G ay M arriage D ebate, B oth Supporters a nd O pponents S ee L egal R ecognition a s ‘Inevitable,’” J une 6 , 2 013, w ww.people-press.org/
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 48 17/11/18 3:57 PM
ENDNOTES A49
Preferences,” ( Chicago: University of C hicago P ress, 1992).
76. Gerald C. Wright, Rober S. Erikson, and John P. McIver, “Public Opinion and Policy Liberalism in the American States,” American J ournal of P olitical S cience 3 1, n o. 4 (November 1987): 980–1001.
77. Pew Research C enter, “Mixed Views of E conomic Poli- cies and Health Care Reform Persist: Support for Health Care P rinciples, O pposition t o P ackage,” O ctober 8 , 2009, www.people-press.org/2009/10/08/mixed-views-of -economic-policies-and-health-care-reform-persist/ (accessed 2/15/14).
78. Christopher W lezien, “ The P ublic a s Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending,” American Journal of Political Science 39, no. 4 (1995): 981–1000.
79. See Julianna Pacheco, “Attitudinal Policy Feedback and Public Opinion: The I mpact o f Smoking B ans on A tti- tudes toward Smokers, Secondhand S moke, and Anti- Smoking Policies,” Political Research Quarterly 77, no. 3 (2013): 714–34; Barbara Norrander, “The Multi-Layered Impact o f P ublic O pinion o n C apital P unishment I m- plementation in t he A merican States,” Political R esearch Quarterly 53, no. 4 (2000): 771–93; Suzanne Mettler and Joe Soss, “The Consequences of Public Policy for Demo- cratic C itizenship: B ridging P olicy S tudies a nd M ass Politics,” Perspectives on Politics 2 , no. 1 ( 2004): 55–73; Andrea Hetling and Monika L. McDermott, “Judging a Book by Its Cover: Did Perceptions of the 1996 U.S. Wel- fare Reforms Affect Public Support for Spending on the Poor?” Journal of Social Policy 37, no. 3 ( 2008): 471–87; Joe Soss, “ Lessons o f Welfare: P olicy D esign, P olitical Learning, a nd Political Action,” American Political Science R eview 9 3, n o. 2 ( 1999): 3 63–80; J oe S oss a nd Sanford F . S chram, “ A P ublic T ransformed? W elfare Reform a s P olicy F eedback,” American P olitical S cience Review 101, no. 1 (2007): 111.
80. Malcolm E . J ewell, Representation i n S tate L egislatures (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1982).
81. Lawrence R. Jacobs and Robert Y. Shapiro, Politicians Don’t Pander: P olitical M anipulation a nd t he L oss of D emocratic Responsiveness (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).
82. John Griffin and Brian Newman, “Are Voters Better Represented?” Journal of Politics 67 (2005): 1206–27.
83. Bartels, Unequal Democracy. 84. Other a uthors h ave e ndorsed B artels’s v iew t hat g ov-
ernment p olicy e xacerbates i ncome i nequality. S ee, f or example, Hacker and Pierson, Winner-Take-All Politics.
85. Martin Gilens, “Inequality and Democratic Responsive- ness,” Public Opinion Quarterly 69, no. 5 (2005): 778–96; and Martin Gilens, “ Preference Gaps a nd I nequality in R epresentation,” PS: P olitical S cience a nd P olitics 4 2, no. 2 (2009): 335–41.
86. Robert Dahl, A P reface to D emocratic Theory (C hicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956).
87. Herbert Asher, Polling and the Public (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2001), 64.
61. James D ruckman, E rik P etersen, a nd R une S lothuus, “How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation,” American Political Science Review 107, no. 1 (February 2013): 57–79.
62. Lee Rainie et al., “Social Media a nd Political Engage- ment,” P ew R esearch C enter, O ctober 19, 2 012, w ww .pewinternet.org/2012/10/19/social-media-and-political -engagement (accessed 8/14/14).
63. Tony Dokoupil, “Is the Internet Making Us Crazy? What the New Research Says,” Newsweek, July 9, 2012, http:// mag.newsweek.com/2012/07/08/is-the-internet-making - u s - c r a z y - w h a t - t h e - n e w - r e s e a r c h - s a y s . h t m l (accessed 3 /19/14); N icholas C arr, The S hallows: W hat the I nternet I s D oing t o O ur B rains ( New York: W. W. Norton, 2011).
64. Benjamin Ginsberg, The American Lie: Government by the People and Other Political Fables (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2007).
65. Gerald F. Seib and Michael K. Frisby, “Selling Sacrifice,” Wall Street Journal, February 5, 1993, 1.
66. Peter M arks, “ Adept i n P olitics a nd A dvertising, 4 Women Shape a C ampaign,” New York Times, Novem- ber 11, 2001, B6.
67. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), “I am being in- vestigated for firing the FBI director by the man who told me to fire the FBI director! Witch Hunt” Twitter, June 16, 2017, 6:07 a.m., https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/sta tus/875701471999864833?lang=en (accessed 4/3/18).
68. Donald J . T rump ( @realDonaldTrump), “ You a re witnessing t he s ingle g reatest W ITCH H UNT i n American p olitical h istory - l ed b y s ome v ery b ad a nd conflicted p eople! # MAGA” T witter, J une 1 5, 2 017, 4:57 a .m., h ttps://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/ 875321478849363968?lang=en (accessed 4/3/18).
69. Jason Gainous and Kevin Wagner, Tweeting to Power: The Social Media Revolution in American Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).
70. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). 71. See G illian P eele, Revival a nd Re action (O xford:
Clarendon, 1985). S ee also Connie Paige, The Right-to- Lifers (New York: Summit, 1983).
72. See Shanto Iyengar, Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames P olitical I ssues ( Chicago: U niversity o f C hicago Press, 1991); and Shanto Iyengar, Do the Media Govern? (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997).
73. David W. Moore, “Support for Invasion of Iraq Remains Contingent o n U.N. A pproval,” G allup, N ovember 12, 2002, w ww.gallup.com/poll/7195/support-invasion-iraq -remains-contigent-un-approval.aspx ( accessed 3 /2/18); Pew Research Center, “Public Attitudes toward the War in Iraq: 2003–2008,” March 19, 2008, www.pewresearch .org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in -iraq-20032008 (accessed 2/19/14).
74. Campbell et al., The American Voter. 75. Benjamin I . P age a nd R obert Y . S hapiro, “ The R atio-
nal P ublic: F ifty Years o f Trends i n A mericans’ P olicy
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 49 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A50 ENDNOTES
101. “How Popular/Unpopular Is Donald Trump? An Updat- ing Calculation of the President’s Approval Rating, Ac- counting for Each Poll’s Quality, Recency, Sample Size and Partisan Lean” FiveThirtyEight (blog), June 23, 2017, www.fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-were-tracking -donald-trumps-approval-ratings/ (accessed 3/17/18).
102. Christopher Wlezien and Stuart Soroka, “The Relation- ship b etween P ublic O pinion a nd P olicy,” i n Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, ed. Russell Dalton and Hans-Dieter K lingemann (New York: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2009), 799–817.
103. Gilens, “ Inequality a nd D emocratic R esponsiveness”; Bartels, Unequal Democracy.
104. Ryan C laassen a nd B enjamin H ighton, “ Does P olicy Debate Reduce Information Effects in Public Opinion? Analyzing the Evolution of Public Opinion on Health Care,” Journal of Politics 68, no. 2 (2006): 410–20.
CHAPTER 7
1. Patrick Anderson, “Net Neutrality Protest Reaches Sioux Falls, Lincoln Student Takes on the FCC,” Argus Leader, December 7 , 2 017, w ww.argusleader.com/story/news/ business-journal/2017/12/07/net-neutrality-protest-sioux -falls-fcc/930819001/ (accessed 3/26/18).
2. Meg M cIntyre, “ Local H igh S chool S tudents P rotest Proposed R ollback o f N et N eutrality R ules,” Keene Sentinel, D ecember 8 , 2 017, w ww.sentinelsource .com/news/local/local-high-school-students-protest -proposed-rollback-of-net-neutrality/article_204cec19 -3104-58f4-930a-404c65d84e65.html (accessed 3/26/18).
3. Cecilia K ang, “ In P rotests o f N et N eutrality R epeal, Teenage Voices Stood Out,” New York Times, December 20, 2017, w ww.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/technology/net -neutrality-repeal-teens.html (accessed 3/26/18).
4. Julian P. B oyd e t a l., e ds., The P apers of Thomas J effer- son ( Princeton, N J: P rinceton U niversity P ress), h ttp:// press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI _speechs8.html (accessed 5/30/14).
5. Shanto Iyengar, Media Politics (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2015).
6. Quoted i n R odney Ti ffen, “ Journalism i n t he T rump Era,” Inside Story, February 24 , 2017, http://insidestory .org.au/journalism-in-the-trump-era (accessed 4/4/18).
7. David Folkenflik, “AT&T Deal for Time Warner Casts Renewed Attention on CNN,” NPR, October 25, 2016, www.npr.org/2016/10/25/499299869/at-t-dea l-for -time-warner-casts-renewed-attention-on-cnn ( accessed 5/21/18).
8. Columbia Journalism Review, “Resources,” https:// archives.cjr.org/resources/index.php (accessed 8/2/18).
9. For a c riticism o f t he i ncreasing c onsolidation o f t he media, see the essays in Patricia Aufderheide et a l., Con- glomerates and the Media (New York: New Press, 1997).
10. Pew R esearch C enter, “ 2017 P ew R esearch C en- ter’s A merican T rends P anel,” M arch 27 , 2 017,
88. Drew D eSilver a nd S cott K eeter, “ The C hallenges o f Polling When Fewer People Are Available to be Polled,” July 2 1, 20 15, w ww.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/21/ the-challenges-of-polling-when-fewer-people-are- available-to-be-polled/ (accessed 3/1/16).
89. Michael K agay a nd J anet E lder, “N umbers A re N o Problem f or P ollsters, W ords A re,” New Y ork T imes, August 9, 1992, E6.
90. Adam J. Berinsky, “The Two Faces of Public Opinion,” American J ournal of P olitical S cience 4 3, no. 4 ( 1999): 1209–30.
91. Lynn Vavreck and Douglas Rivers, “The 2006 Coopera- tive Congressional Election Study,” Journal of Elections, Public O pinion a nd Parties 18, no. 4 ( 2008): 355–66. See a lso Simon Jackman and Lynn Vavreck, “Primary Politics: Race, Gender, and Age in the 2008 Democratic Primary,” Journal of E lections, P ublic O pinion a nd Parties 20, no. 2 (2010): 153–86.
92. Nate Silver, “FiveThirtyEight’s P ollster R atings,” August 5, 2016, FiveThirtyEight (blog), http://projects .fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/ (accessed 10/16/16).
93. Berinsky, “ Two F aces o f Public O pinion.” See a lso Adam B erinsky, “ Political C ontext a nd t he S urvey Response: The D ynamics o f R acial P olicy O pinion,” Journal of Politics 64, no. 2 (2002): 567–84.
94. Pew Research Center. “Are Telephone Polls Understating Support for Trump?” March 31, 2017, www.pewresearch .org/2017/03/31/are-telephone-polls-understating -support-for-trump/ (accessed 3/17/18)
95. Nate S ilver, “ Which P olls F ared B est ( and Worst) i n the 2 012 P residential R ace,” FiveThirtyEight ( blog), November 1 0, 20 12, h ttp://fivethirtyeight.blogs .nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and -worst-in-the-2012-presidentia l-race/ ( accessed 2/24/16).
96. Redlawsk, Tolbert, and Donovan, Why Iowa? 97. Sasha I ssenberg, The Victory L ab: The S ecret S cience of
Winning C ampaigns ( New Y ork: B roadway B ooks, 2012); S asha I ssenberg, “A More Perfect Union: How President Obama’s Campaign Used Big Data to Rally Individual Voters,” MIT Technology Review, December 19, 2 012, w ww.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/ 509026/how-obamas-team-used-big-data-to-rally -voters/ (accessed 11/25/15).
98. Nanette B yrnes, “ Twitter M ay H ave P redicted t he Election,” Technology Review, December 2, 2016, www .technologyreview.com/s/603010/twitter-may-have -predicted-the-election/ (accessed 8/2/18).
99. Katerina Eva Matsa, A my Mitchell, a nd Galen Stock- ing, “ Searching f or N ews: The F lint W ater C risis,” April 27, 2017, www.journalism.org/essay/searching-for -news/ (accessed 3/17/18).
100. Chris Taylor, “Triumph of the Nerds: Nate Silver Wins in 5 0 S tates,” N ovember 7 , 2 012, h ttp://mashable .com/2012/11/07/nate-silver-wins/#6aWvyWVGcaqq (accessed 2/24/16).
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 50 17/11/18 3:57 PM
ENDNOTES A51
-9ac8-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html ( accessed 3/9/16); Robert O’Harrow, Jr., “ Trump Swam in Mob- Infested Waters i n E arly Years a s a n N YC D eveloper,” Washington Post, October 16, 2015, www.washingtonpost .com/investigations/trump-swam-in-mob-infested -waters-in-early-years-as-an-nyc-developer/2015/10/16 /3c75b918-60a3-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html (accessed 3/9/16).
24. Tim H ains, “ Donald Trump J r.’s E mails A re N ot A ‘Smoking G un’ o f A nything,” R ealClear P olitics, July 14, 2 017, w ww.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/07/14/ greenwald_dona ld_trump_jrs_emails_are_not_a _smoking_gun_for_anything_not_evidence_of_any _crime.html (accessed 1/22/18).
25. Mitchell, H olcomb, a nd W eisel, “ State o f t he N ews Media 2016.”
26. Pew Research Center, “Audio and Podcasting Fact Sheet,” July 12, 2018, w ww.journalism.org/fact-sheet/audio-and -podcasting/ (accessed 9/22/18).
27. Mitchell, H olcomb, a nd W eisel, “ State o f t he N ews Media 2016.”
28. Pew R esearch C enter, “ The I nternet’s B roader R ole in C ampaign 20 08,” J anuary 1 1, 20 08, w ww.people -press .org /2008/01/11/internet s-broader-role-in -campaign-2008/; and “Journalism, Satire or Just Laughs? ‘The D aily S how w ith J on S tewart’ E xamined,” M ay 8 , 2008, w ww.journalism.org/2008/05/08/journalism-satire -or-just-laughs-the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-examined/ (accessed 9/7/12).
29. West, The Next Wave; Edward Glaeser, Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier (New York: Penguin Press, 2011).
30. Kristin L u, “ Growth i n M obile N ews U se D riven b y Older Adults.” Pew Research Center, June 12, 2017, www .pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/12/growth-in-mobile -news-use-driven-by-older-adults/ (accessed 3/20/18).
31. Jeffrey Gottfriend and Elisa Shearer, “Americans’ Online News Use Is Closing in on TV News Use,” Pew Research Center, S eptember 7 , 2 017, w ww.pewresearch.org/fact -tank/2017/09/07/americans-online-news-use-vs-tv -news-use/ ( accessed 3 /20/18); K ristin Bialik and Kat- erina E va M atsa, “ Key T rends i n S ocial a nd D igital Media Use,” Pew Research Center, October 4, 2017, www .pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/04/key-trends-in -social-and-digital-news-media/ (accessed 3/20/18).
32. Aaron S mith a nd M aeve D uggan, “ Online P olitical Videos and Campaign 2012,” Pew Research Center, No- vember 2, 2012, www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/02/online -political-videos-and-campaign-2012 (accessed 4/29/14).
33. Pew Research Center, “State of the News Media: Digital News Fact Sheet,” August 7, 2017, www.journalism.org/ fact-sheet/digital-news/ (accessed 5/21/18).
34. Aaron Smith and Monica Anderson, “Social Media Use in 2 018,” P ew R esearch C enter, M arch 1 , 2 018, w ww .pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/ (accessed 3/19/18).
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/ sites/13/2017/05/09125944/PJ_2017.05.10_Media -Attitudes_TOPLINE.pdf (accessed 1/22/18).
11. Pew Research Center, “Amid Criticism, Support for Me- dia’s ‘Watchdog’ Role Stands Out,” August 8, 2013, www .people-press.org/2013/08/08/amid-criticism-support -for-medias-watchdog-role-stands-out (accessed 4/27/14).
12. Pew Research Center, “Digital News Fact Sheet” August 7, 20 17, w ww.journalism.org/fact-sheet/digital-news/ (accessed 1/22/18).
13. Clay Shirky, Here C omes E verybody: The P ower of Organizing wi thout Organizations ( New Y ork: P enguin Books, 2008).
14. Amy Mitchell, Jesse Holcomb, and Rachel Weisel, “State of t he N ews M edia 2 016,” P ew R esearch C enter, June 15, 2 016, w ww.journalism.org/2016/06/15/state-of-the -news-media-2016/?utm_content=buffer6871f&utm _medium=socia l&utm_source=twitter.com&utm _campaign=buffer (accessed 3/19/18).
15. Shirky, Here C omes Everybody; M itchell, Holcomb, a nd Weisel, “State of the News Media 2016.”
16. Robert McChesney and John Nichols, The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution That Will Begin the World Again (New York: Nation Books, 2010).
17. “Newspapers F act S heet,” P ew R esearch C enter, J une 13, 20 18, w ww.journalism.org/fact-sheet/newspapers/ (accessed 10/10/18).
18. Darrell West, The Next Wave: Using Digital Technology to Further Social and Political Innovation (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2011).
19. Laura W amsley, “ Big N ewspapers A re B ooming: ‘Washington P ost’ t o A dd 6 0 N ewsroom J obs,” N PR, December 27 , 2 016, w ww.npr.org/sections/thetwo -way/2016/12/27/507140760/big-newspapers-are-booming -washington-post-to-add-sixty-newsroom-jobs ( accessed 1/22/18).
20. Michael Barthel, “Circulation a nd R evenue Fall f or I n- dustry Overall,” Pew Research Center, June 1, 2017, www .pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/01/circulation-and -revenue-fall-for-newspaper-industry/(accessed 1/22/18).
21. Eugene Kim, “Jeff Bezos Reinvented the Washington Post,” Business Insider, May, 15 2016, www.businessinsider .com/how-the-washington-post-changed-after-jeff-bezos -acquisition-2016-5/#because-of-its-aff iliation-with -bezos-the-post-says-its-now-finding-it-a-lot-easier-to -recruit-engineers-bezos-has-also-instil led-a-much -stronger-culture-of-customer-obsession-post-execs -often-receive-reader-complaint-emails-forwarded-by -bezos-12 (accessed 1/22/18).
22. Mitchell, H olcomb, a nd W eisel, “ State o f t he N ews Media 2016.”
23. Robert O ’Harrow, J r., “ Trump’s B ad B et: H ow T oo Much Debt Drove His Biggest Casino Aground,” Wash- ington Post, January 18, 2016, www.washingtonpost.com/ investigations/trumps-bad-bet-how-too-much-debt -drove-his-biggest-casino-aground/2016/01/18/f67cedc2
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 51 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A52 ENDNOTES
51. Erin M cCann, “United’s A pologies: A Ti meline,” New Y ork T imes, A pril 1 4, 2 017, w ww.nytimes .com/2017/04/14/business/united-airlines-passenger -doctor.html (accessed 5/21/18).
52. Richard D avis, “ Interplay: P olitical B logging a nd Journalism,” i n iPolitics: C itizens, E lections, a nd G ov- erning i n t he N ew M edia E ra, e d. R ichard L . F ox a nd Jennifer M . R amos (Cambridge: C ambridge University Press, 2012), 76–99.
53. Pew R esearch C enter P ublications, “ State o f t he N ews Media 2 010,” M arch 1 5, 2 010, h ttp://pewresearch .org/pubs/1523/state-of-the-news-media-2010 ( accessed 9/11/12); West, The Next Wave.
54. Karen M ossberger a nd C aroline J . T olbert, “ Digital Democracy: How Politics Online Is Changing Electoral Participation,” in Oxford Handbook of American Elections and P olitical B ehavior, e d. J an E . L eighley ( New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 200–18.
55. Caroline Tolbert and Ramona McNeal, “Unraveling the Effects of the Internet on Political Participation,” Political Research Quarterly 56, no. 2 (2003): 175–85.
56. Karen M ossberger, C aroline T olbert, a nd R amona McNeal, Digital C itizenship: The I nternet, S ociety, a nd Participation ( Cambridge, M A: M IT P ress, 2 008). S ee Richard L . F ox a nd J ennifer M . R amos, e ds., iPolitics: Citizens, Elections, and Governing in the New Media Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).
57. W. R. Neuman, M. R. Just, and A. N. Crigler, Common Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).
58. A. H ealy a nd D . M cNamara, “ Verbal L earning and M emory: D oes t he M odal M odel S till Work?” i n Annual R eview of P sychology, v ol. 4 7, e d. J . S pense, J. Darley, and D. Foss (Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, 1996), 143–72.
59. Cass Sunstein, Republic.com ( Princeton, N J: P rinceton University Press, 2001). See also Mossberger and Tolbert, “Digital Democracy.”
60. Michael M argolis a nd D avid R esnick, Politics a s Usual: The Cyberspace “Revolution” (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000).
61. West, The N ext W ave; M cChesney a nd N ichols, Death and Life of American Journalism.
62. Hannah R oberts, “ This I s W hat F ake N ews A ctually Looks Like—We Ranked 11 Election Stories That Went Viral on Facebook,” Business Insider, November 17, 2016, www.businessinsider.com/fake-presidential-election -news-viral-facebook-trump-clinton-2016-11 ( accessed 5/21/18).
63. Krysten C rawford, “ Stanford S tudy E xamines F ake News and the 2016 Presidential Election,” Stanford News, January 1 8, 2 017, w ww.news.stanford.edu/2017/01/18/ stanford-study-examines-fake-news-2016-presidential -election/ (accessed 5/21/18).
64. Matthew A. Baum, “Preaching to the Choir or Convert- ing the Flock: Presidential Communication Strategies in
35. Antony Wilhelm, Digital Nation: Toward an Inclusive Information Society (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006); Paul DiMaggio e t a l., “Social Implications of t he Inter- net,” Annual Review of Sociology 27, no. 1 (2001): 307–36.
36. Karen Mossberger, Caroline J. Tolbert, and Mary Stans- bury, Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide (Wash- ington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003); Pippa Norris, Digital D ivide: C ivic E ngagement, I nformation Poverty, a nd t he I nternet W orldwide ( New Y ork: C am- bridge University Press, 2001).
37. Karen M ossberger, C aroline T olbert a nd R amona McNeal, “ Digital C itizenship,” M IT P ress, I nternet Broadband F act S heet, 2 008; P ew R esearch C enter, February 5 , 20 18, w ww.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/ internet-broadband/ (accessed 3/19/18).
38. U.S. C ensus Bu reau, “N early 8 i n 10 A mericans H ave Access to H igh-Speed Internet,” A merican C ommunity Survey, November 13, 2014, www.census.gov/newsroom/ press-releases/2014/cb14-202.html (accessed 3/2/16).
39. Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury, Virtual Inequality. 40. Karen Mossberger, Caroline J. Tolbert, and William W.
Franko, Digital Cities: The Internet and the Geography of Opportunity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).
41. Elisa S hearer a nd J effrey G ottfried, “N ews U se a cross Social M edia Platforms 2017,” Pew R esearch Center, September 7, 2017, w ww.journalism.org/2017/09/07/news -use-across-social-media-platforms-2017/ (accessed 8/1/18).
42. Thom F ile, “ Voting i n A merica: A L ook a t t he 2 016 Presidential Election,” Census Blogs, May 20, 2017, www .census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/ 2017/05/voting_in_america.html (accessed 3/19/18).
43. Amy Mitchell, Jeffrey Gottfried, and K aterina E va Matsa, “ Political I nterest a nd A wareness L ower a mong Millennials,” Pew R esearch C enter, June 1, 2 015, w ww .journalism.org/2015/06/01/polit ica l-interest-and -awareness-lower-among-millennials/ (accessed 12/7/15).
44. Smith and Anderson, “Social Media Use 2018.” 45. Elisa S hearer a nd J effrey G ottfried, “N ews U se a cross
Social M edia P latforms 2 017,” P ew R esearch C enter, September 7, 2 017, w ww.journalism.org/2017/09/07/ N E W S - U S E - A C R O S S - S O C I A L - M E D I A -PLATFORMS-2017/ (accessed 5/21/18).
46. Michael Barthel e t a l., “ The Evolving R ole o f News on Twitter and Facebook.”
47. Jason Gainous and Kevin Wagner, Tweeting to Power: The Social Media Revolution in American Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).
48. Gainous and Wagner, Tweeting to Power, 1. 49. Politifact, “ Donald Trump’s F ile,” w ww.politifact.com/
personalities/donald-trump/ (accessed 1/22/18). 50. Greg Sargent, “This Brutal New Poll Shows That Trump’s
Safe S pace I s S hrinking,” Washington P ost, August 8 , 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/ 2017/08/08/this-brutal-new-poll-shows-that-trumps-safe -space-is-shrinking/?utm_term=.744ad3651728 ( accessed 3/8/18).
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 52 17/11/18 3:57 PM
ENDNOTES A53
81. Larry Bartels, Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer- sity Press, 2008).
82. Pew R esearch C enter, “ Public H as M ixed E xpectations for New Tax Law,” January 24, 2018, www.people-press .org/2018/01/24/public-has-mixed-expectations-for-new -tax-law/ (accessed 5/21/18).
83. Robert Entman, “ Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured P aradigm,” Journal of C ommunication 4 3, no. 4 (1993): 51–58.
84. Shanto I yengar a nd D onald R . K inder, News That Matters: T elevision a nd A merican O pinion (C hicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 63.
85. New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). 86. United N ations G eneral A ssembly, “ Report o f t he
Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression,” 2011, www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/ OpinionIndex.aspx (accessed 3/14/16).
87. Andrew Chadwick, Internet P olitics: S tates, C itizens, and N ew C ommunication Technologies ( Oxford: O xford University Press, 2006).
88. See Martin Linsky, Impact: How the Press Affects Federal Policymaking (New York: W. W. Norton, 1986).
CHAPTER 8
1. Richard F ry, “ Millennials a nd G en-Xers O utvoted Boomers a nd Older Generations i n 2016 e lection,” July 31, 20 17, w ww.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/31/ millennials-and-gen-xers-outvoted-boomers-and-older -generations-in-2016-election/ (accessed 1/31/18).
2. Gregory S . Schneider, “Historic Turnout of Young Vot- ers in Virginia Election Poses Problem for Republicans,” Washington Post, November 24, 2017, www.washingtonpost .com/local/virginia-politics/historic-turnout-of-young -voters-in-virginia-election-hints-at-national-problem -for-republicans/2017/11/24/8e90d978-cf03-11e7-9d3a -bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?utm_term=.4e20eb4f3eeb (accessed 1/31/18).
3. Gregory S . S chneider, L aura V ozzella, a nd F enit Nirappil, “ In t he F inal S pring t o E lection D ay, a H is- torical Push to Turn Out Voters in Va.,” Washington Post, November 4 , 2 017, w ww.washingtonpost.com/ local/virginia-politics/in-the-final-sprint-to-election-day -an-historic-push-to-turn-out-voters-in-va/2017/11/04/ ea833a58 -bf f 6 -11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_ stor y .html?utm_term=.3c809dcb4021 (accessed 1/31/18).
4. U.S. Census Bureau, “Voter Turnout Increases by 5 Million in 2008 P residential Election, U.S. Census Bureau R eports,” N ewsroom A rchive, w ww.census.gov/ newsroom/releases/archives/voting/cb09-110.html (accessed 2/29/16).
5. Michael McDonald, “2016 November General E lection Turnout R ates,” U nited S tates E lections P roject, www .electproject.org/2016g (accessed 11/11/16).
the Age of Three Medias,” in iPolitics: Citizens, Elections, and Governing in the New Media Era, ed. Richard L. Fox and Jennifer M. Ramos (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2012), 183–205.
65. Eli Pariser, The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You (New York: Penguin Press, 2011).
66. Markus Prior, “News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout,” American Journal of P olitical Science 49, no. 3 (2005): 577–92.
67. Delli C arpini a nd K eeter, What A mericans K now a bout Politics; Sunstein, Republic.com.
68. Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury, Virtual Inequality. 69. Jonathan M. L add, Why Americans Hate the Media and
How I t M atters ( Princeton, N J: P rinceton U niversity Press, 2012).
70. Pew R esearch C enter, “ Trust i n t he N ews M edia,” May 9, 2017, www.journalism.org/2017/05/10/americans -attitudes-about-the-news-media-deeply-divided-along -partisan-lines/pj_2017-05-10_media-attitudes_a-05/[0] (accessed 3/20/18).
71 Amy W ong, “ ‘That’s H ow D ictators G et S tarted’: McCain Criticizes Trump for Calling Media ‘the Enemy,’” Washington Post, February 8, 2017, www.washingtonpost .com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/18/thats-how-dictators -get-started-mccain-criticizes-trump-for-calling-media -the-enemy/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.90e929b9948d (accessed 5/21/18).
72. David J. Garrow, Protest at Selma: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001).
73. See Todd Gitlin, The Whole World Is Watching (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980).
74. Tim Groseclose, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2011).
75. Pew R esearch C enter, “ How J ournalists S ee J ournalists in 2 004: V iews o n P rofits, P erformance a nd P olitics,” May 2 004, h ttp://people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/214 .pdf (accessed 9/7/12).
76. “Fake N ews,” L ies a nd P ropaganda: H ow t o S ort Fact f rom F iction,” U niversity o f M ichigan L ibrary Research Guides, 2018, http://guides.lib.umich.edu/c .php?g=637508&p=4462444 (accessed 3/20/18).
77. Doris Graber, ed., Media Power in American Politics, 5th ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2006).
78. Amber E. Boydstun, Stefaan Walgrave, and Anne Hardy, “Two Faces of Media Attention: Media Storms vs. Gen- eral Coverage,” Political Communication 31, no. 4 (2014): 509–31.
79. Larry M. Bartels, Presidential Primaries and the Dynam- ics of P ublic Choice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988).
80. David P. Redlawsk, Caroline J. Tolbert, and Todd Dono- van, Why I owa? H ow C aucuses a nd S equential E lections Improve t he Pr esidential N ominating Pr ocess (C hicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011).
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 53 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A54 ENDNOTES
19. Caroline J . Tolbert a nd R amona S . M cNeal, “ Unravel- ing the Effects of the Internet on Political Participation,” Political Research Quarterly 56, no. 2 (2003): 175–85; see also B ruce B imber, “ Information a nd Political E ngage- ment in America: The Search for Effects of Information Technology at the Individual Level,” Political Research Quarterly 5 4 ( 2001): 5 3–67; B imber, Information a nd American D emocracy: Technology a nd t he E volution of Political P ower ( Cambridge: C ambridge U niversity Press, 2 009); J . Thomas a nd G . S treib, “ The New Face of G overnment: C itizen-Initiated C ontacts i n t he E ra of E -Government,” Journal of P ublic A dministration Theory a nd R esearch 1 3, n o. 1 ( 2003): 8 3–102; D . V . Shah e t a l., “ Information a nd E xpression i n a D igital Age: Modeling I nternet E ffects on C ivic Participation,” Communication R esearch 3 2, n o. 5 ( 2005): 5 31–65; K. K enski a nd N . J . S troud, “Connections between Internet U se a nd P olitical Efficacy, Knowledge, and Participation,” Journal of B roadcasting a nd E lectronic Media 50, no. 2 (2006): 173–92.
20. Sasha Issenberg, The V ictory L ab: The S ecret S cience of Winning Campaigns (New York: Broadway Books, 2013); Andrew Chadwick, The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017).
21. Open S ecrets, “ Hillary C linton ( D),” w ww.opensecrets .org/pres16/candidate?id=N00000019 (accessed 6/20/18).
22. Open S ecrets, “ Donald T rump ( R),” www.opensecrets .org/pres16/candidate?id=N00023864 (accessed 6/20/18).
23. Jason Gainous and Kevin Wagner, Tweeting to Power: The Social Media Revolution in American Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).
24. Gainous and Wagner, Tweeting to Power. 25. Karen M ossberger a nd C aroline J . T olbert, “ Digital
Democracy: How Politics Online Is Changing Electoral Participation,” in Oxford Handbook of American Elections and P olitical B ehavior, e d. J an E . L eighley ( New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 200–218.
26. Philip Bump, “ ‘60 M inutes’ P rofiles t he G enius Who Won T rump’s C ampaign: F acebook,” Washington P ost, October 9 , 2 017, w ww.washingtonpost.com/news/ politics/wp/2017/10/09/60-minutes-profiles-the-genius -who-won-trumps-campaign-facebook/?utm_term= .ad2bd8d8194a (accessed 3/29/18).
27. W. R. Neuman, M. R. Just, and A. N. Crigler, Common Knowledge: News and the Construction of Political Meaning (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).
28. David P. R edlawsk, “Hot C ognition o r C ool C onsider- ation: Testing the Effects of Motivated Reasoning,” Jour- nal of Politics 64 (2002): 1021–44.
29. Caroline J . Tolbert, D avid P. R edlawsk, a nd K ellen J . Gracey, “ Racial A ttitudes a nd E motional R esponses t o the 2 016 R epublican C andidates,” Journal of E lection, Public Opinion and Parties 28, no. 2 (2018): 245–62.
30. Manuel Castells, The R ise of t he N etwork S ociety: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture (O xford: Blackwell, 1997).
6. U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 10. Reasons for Not Voting, by S elected C haracteristics: N ovember 2 012,” V oting and R egistration, www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/ voting/publications/p20/2012/tables.html.
7. National C onference o f S tate L egislatures, “ Same D ay Voter Registration,” March 27, 2 018, www.ncsl.org/ research/elections-and-campaigns/same-day-registration .aspx (accessed 6/12/18).
8. Catherine E . S hoichet, “ Is R acism o n t he R ise? M ore in U.S. Say It’s a ‘ Big Problem,’ CNN/KFF Poll Finds,” CNN, Race & R eality in America, November 25, 2015, www.cnn.com/2015/11/24/us/racism-problem-cnn-kff -poll/ (accessed 2/29/16).
9. Sidney Verba, K ay L ehman S chlozman, a nd H enry E . Brady, Voice a nd E quality: C ivic V oluntarism i n A meri- can Politics (Cambridge, M A: Harvard University Press, 2005), c hap. 3 , f or k inds o f p articipation; 6 6–67 f or prevalence of local activity.
10. Michael P. M cDonald, “ American V oter T urnout in Historical Perspective,” in The Oxford Handbook of Amer- ican E lections a nd P olitical B ehavior, e d. J an L eighley (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 125–43.
11. Todd Donovan and Shaun Bowler, Reforming the Repub- lic: D emocratic I nstitutions f or t he N ew A merica ( Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2004).
12. For a discussion of the decline in voter turnout over time, see R uy A . T eixeira, The D isappearing A merican V oter (Washington, D C: B rookings I nstitution P ress, 1 992). See a lso M ichael M cDonald a nd S amuel Popkin, “ The Myth of the Vanishing Voter,” American Political Science Review, 9 5 ( 2001): 9 63–74; a nd M ichael M cDonald, “2012 N ovember G eneral E lection T urnout R ates,” United States Election Project, www.electproject.org/2012g (accessed 9/14/12).
13. McDonald, “2016 November General E lection Turnout Rates.”
14. Elisa S hearer a nd J effrey G ottfried, “N ews U se a cross Social M edia P latforms 2 017,” P ew R esearch C enter, www.journalism.org/2017/09/07/news-use-across-social -media-platforms-2017/ (accessed 3/29/18).
15. Meredith Rolfe, Voter T urnout: A S ocial Theory of Political Participation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
16. Lee R ainie, e t a l., “ Social M edia a nd Political E ngage- ment,” Pew Research Center, Internet, Science & Tech, www.pewinternet.org/2012/10/19/social-media-and -political-engagement/ (accessed 6/24/14).
17. Helen M argetts, P eter J ohn, S cott H ale, a nd T aha Yasseri, Political Turbulence: How Social Media Shape Col- lective Action (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017).
18. Philip Bump, “60 Minutes’ profiles the genius who won T rump’s c ampaign: F acebook,” Washington P ost, October 9 , 2 017, w ww.washingtonpost.com/news/ politics/wp/2017/10/09/60-minutes-profiles-the-genius -who-won-trumps-campaign-facebook/?utm_term= .ad2bd8d8194a (accessed 3/29/18).
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 54 17/11/18 3:57 PM
ENDNOTES A55
Research C enter, J une 1 , 2 017, w ww.pewresearch.org/ fact-tank/2017/06/01/dislike-of-candidates-or-campaign -issues-was-most-common-reason-for-not-voting-in -2016/ (accessed 4/17/18).
43. Angus Campbell e t a l., The American Voter ( New York: Wiley, 1960); Steven Rosenstone and John Mark Hansen, Mobilization, Participation, a nd Democracy i n A merica (New York: Macmillan, 1993); Kay Lehman Scholzman, Sidney V erba, a nd H enry E . B rady, The U nheavenly Chorus: U nequal P olitical V oice a nd t he B roken P romise of American Democracy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer- sity Press, 2012).
44. U.S. C ensus Bu reau, “ Table 7 . R eported V oting a nd Registration o f F amily M embers, b y A ge a nd F amily Income: November 2016,” Voting and Registration, www .census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and -registration/p20-580.html (accessed 3/29/18).
45. Sidney V erba a nd N orman H . N ie, Participation in America: P olitical D emocracy a nd S ocial E quality ( New York: Harper and Row, 1972); and www.census.gov/data/ tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/p20 -580.html (accessed 3/15/18).
46. U.S. C ensus Bu reau, “ Voting a nd R egistration i n t he Election o f N ovember 2 016,” M ay 2 017, www.census .gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/ p20-580.html (accessed 3/29/18).
47. Adam Hughs, “5 Facts about U.S. Political Donations,” Pew Research C enter, May 17, 2017, w ww.pewresearch .org/fact-tank/2017/05/17/5-facts-about-u-s-political -donations/ (accessed 3/29/18).
48. Julia G lum, “ Youth Turnout f or 2 014 M idterm E lec- tion L owest i n 4 0 Y ears: R eport,” International B usi- ness T imes, J uly 2 2, 2 015, w ww.ibtimes.com/youth -voter-turnout-2014-midterm-election-lowest-40-years -report-2019813 (accessed 1 1/14/16); U .S. Census Bureau, “ Voting a nd R egistration i n t he E lection o f November 2016”; “Young People Dramatically Increase Their Turnout to 31%, Shape 2018 Midterm Elections,” The C enter f or I nformation a nd R esearch o n C ivic Learning a nd E ngagement, N ovember 7, 2 018 https:// civicyouth.org/young-people-dramatically-increase -their-turnout-31-percent-shape-2018-midterm-elections/ (accessed 11/9/18).
49. Shiva M aniam a nd S amantha S mith, “ A W ider Partisan a nd I deological G ap b etween Y ounger, O lder Generations,” Pew Research Center, March 20, 2017, www .pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/20/a-wider-partisan -and-ideological-gap-between-younger-older-generations (accessed 3/29/18); R ichard Frey, “Millennials a nd Gen Xers Outvoted Boomers and Older Generations in 2016 Election,” P ew R esearch C enter, J uly 3 1, 2 017, www .pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/31/millennials-and -gen-xers-outvoted-boomers-and-older-generations-in -2016-election/ (accessed 3/29/18); Gary Langer, Christine Filer, Sofi Sinozich, and Allison De Jong, “Key Exit Poll Takeaways: Voters Negative on Trump, Most Interested
31. Bruce Bimber and R ichard Davis, Campaigning Online: The I nternet i n U .S. E lections ( Cambridge: C ambridge University Press, 2003).
32. Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000).
33. Karen M ossberger, C aroline J . T olbert, a nd A llison Hamilton, “ Measuring D igital C itizenship: M obile A c- cess and Broadband,” International Journal of Communi- cation 6 (2012): 2492–528; Pippa Norris, Digital Divide: Civic E ngagement, I nformation P overty, a nd t he I nternet Worldwide ( New Y ork: C ambridge U niversity P ress, 2001); Benjamin Barber, “The New Telecommunications Technology: Endless Frontier or the End of Democracy?” Constellations 4 , n o. 2 ( 2011): 2 08–28; T olbert a nd McNeal, “Unraveling the Effects of the Internet.”
34. Russell Dalton, The Good Citizen: How a Younger Genera- tion Is Reshaping American Politics (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2008).
35. “Same-Sex Marriage Tweets Takeover the Internet,” USA Today, J une 27 , 2015, w ww.usatoday.com/story/news/ nation-now/2015/06/27/same-sex-marriage-scotus-gay -marriage-twit ter-love-wins-trending/29389167/ (accessed 1/7/16).
36. Russell Dalton, “Citizenship Norms and the Expansion of Political Participation,” Public Choice 56 (2008): 76–98.
37. Anamitra Deb, Stacy Donohue, and Tom Glaisyer, “Is Social M edia a Threat t o D emocracy?” The O midyar Group, O ctober 1 2 017, www.omidyargroup.com/wp -content/uploads/2017/10/Social-Media-and-Democracy -October-5-2017.pdf (accessed 3/29/18).
38. David S . C loud, “Facebook Tells C ongress 126 m illion Americans M ay H ave S een R ussia-Linked A ds,” LA Times, O ctober 3 1, 2 017, www.latimes.com/nation/la -na-russia-tech-20171031-story.html (accessed 3/29/18).
39. Josh C onstine, “ 120K I nstagrams b y R ussian E lection Attackers Hit 20M Americans,” Tech Crunch, November 1, 2 017, t echcrunch.com/2017/11/01/instagram-election -interference (accessed 3/29/18).
40. Julian B orger, L auren G ambino, a nd S abrina S iddiqui, “Tech Groups Face Congress as Showdown over Russian Election Meddling L ooms,” The Guardian, October 27, 2017, www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/22/ facebook-google-twitter-congress-hearing-trump-russia -election (accessed 3/29/18); Deb, D onohue, a nd Glaisyer, “Is Social Media a Threat to Democracy?”
41. Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: H arper a nd R ow, 1 957); W illiam H . R iker a nd Peter C. Ordeshook, “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting,” American Political Science Review 62, no. 1 (1968): 25–42.
42. Julianna P acheco a nd J ason F letcher, “ Incorporating Health into Studies of Political B ehavior: Evidence for Turnout a nd P artisanship,” Political R esearch Q uarterly 68, no. 1 ( 2014): 104–16; G ustova L ópez a nd A ntonio Flores, “Dislike of Candidates or Campaign I ssues Was Most C ommon R eason f or N ot Voting i n 2 016,” P ew
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 55 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A56 ENDNOTES
63. Matt B arreto a nd G ary S egura, Latino A merica: H ow America’s Most Dynamic Population Is Poised to Transform the Politics of the Nation (New York: Public Affairs, 2014).
64. Matt B arreto, G ary S egura, a nd N athan Woods, “ The Mobilizing E ffect o f M ajority–Minority D istricts o n Latino Turnout,” American P olitical S cience R eview 98 (2004): 65–75, and authors’ update.
65. Barreto and Segura, Latino America; Langer, Filer, Sinozich, and De Jong, “Key Exit Poll Takeaways: Voters Negative on Trump, Most Interested in Health Care, Immigration.”
66. John Griffin and Brian Newman, Minority Report: Evalu- ating Political Equality in America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Rodney R. Hero, Latinos and the U.S. Political System: Two-Tiered Pluralism (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992); Daniel Bowen and Chris- topher C lark, “Revisiting D escriptive R epresentation i n Congress: Assessing the Effect of Race on the Constituent– Legislator R elationship,” Political R esearch Q uarterly 6 7, no. 3 (2014): 695–707.
67. Adrian P antoja a nd G ary S egura, “ Does E thnicity Matter? Descriptive Representation in the Statehouse and Political Alienation Among Latinos,” Social Science Quar- terly 84 (2003): 441–60.
68. File, “The Diversifying Electorate.” 69. Thom F ile, “ Voting i n A merica: A L ook a t t he
2016 Presidential Election,” Census Blogs, May 10, 2017, www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/ 2017/05/voting_in_america.html (accessed 3/29/18).
70. “Election 2016: Exit Polls,” New York Times, November 8, 20 16, w ww.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/ politics/election-exit-polls.html (accessed 11/11/16).
71. “Election 2016: Exit Polls.” 72. Kira S anbonmatsu, “ Political P arties a nd t he R ecruit-
ment of Women to State Legislatures,” Journal of Politics 64, no. 3 ( August 2 002): 791–809; J ennifer L . L awless and R ichard L . Fox, Why Are Women Still Not Running for P ublic O ffice? ( Washington, D C: B rookings I nstitu- tion Press, 2008).
73. Center for American Women and Politics, The Impact of Women in Public Office: Findings at a Glance (New Bruns- wick, N J: R utgers U niversity P ress, 1991); L awless a nd Fox, Why Are Women Still Not Running for Public Office?
74. See Richard A. Brody, “The Puzzle of Political Participa- tion in America,” in The New American Political System, ed. A nthony K ing ( Washington, D C: A merican E nter- prise Institute, 1978), chap. 8.
75. Rosenstone and Hansen, Mobilization, Participation, and Demo cracy, 59.
76. Alan S. Gerber and Donald P. Green, “The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment,” American Political Science Review 94, no. 3 (September 2000): 660.
77. Rolfe, Voter Turnout. 78. Robert M. Bond et al., “A 61-Million-Person Experiment
in S ocial I nfluence a nd P olitical M obilization,” Nature 489 (2012): 295–98.
in H ealth C are, I mmigration,” A BC N ews, N ovember 7, 2 018, h ttps://abcnews.go.com/Politics/negative-trump -divided-issues-voters-reshuff le-cards-washington/ story?id=59025819 (accessed 11/9/18).
50. Julianna Pacheco, “Political Socialization in Context: The Effect of Political Competition on Youth Voter Turnout,” Political Behavior 30, no. 4 (2008): 415–36.
51. Tyler K ingkade, “ Youth Vote 2 012 Turnout: E xit Polls Show Greater Share o f E lectorate t han i n 2 008,” Huff- ington Post, www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/youth -vote-2012-turnout-ex it-pol l s_n_2086092.html (accessed 5/24/14).
52. Jennifer L awless a nd R ichard Fox, Running f rom Office: Why Young Americans Are Turned Off to Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015).
53. Emily H oban K irby, K arlo B arrios M arcelo, a nd K ei Kawashima-Ginsberg, “ Volunteering a nd t he C ollege Experience,” C enter f or I nformation a nd R esearch o n Civic L earning a nd E ngagement, A ugust 2 009, w ww .civicyouth.org (accessed 11/25/09).
54. Rene Rocha et al., “Race and Turnout: Does Descriptive Representation i n S tate L egislatures I ncrease M inority Voting?” Political R esearch Q uarterly 6 3, n o. 3 ( 2010): 890–907.
55. Susan Banducci, Todd Donovan, and Jeffrey Karp, “Mi- nority Representation, Empowerment and Participation,” Journal of Politics 66, no. 2 (2004): 534–56.
56. Mark H ugo L opez a nd P aul T aylor, “ Dissecting t he 2008 E lectorate: M ost D iverse i n U .S. H istory,” P ew Research Center, Hispanic Trends, April 30, 2009, www .pewhispanic.org/2009/04/30/dissecting-the-2008 -electorate-most-diverse-in-us-history/ (accessed 9/14/12).
57. Thom File, “ The Diversifying E lectorate—Voting R ates by R ace a nd H ispanic O rigin i n 2 012 (and O ther R e- cent Elections),” U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, May 2013, www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20 -568.pdf (accessed 4/11/16).
58. Jens M anuel K rogstad a nd M ark H ugo L opez, “ Black Voter Turnout Fell in 2016, Even as a Record Number of Americans Cast Ballots,” Pew Research Center, May 12, 2017, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black -voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number -of-americans-cast-ballots/ (accessed 3/29/18).
59. See William Julius Wilson, The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner C ity, t he U nderclass, a nd P ublic P olicy (C hicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987); and Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton, American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the American Underclass (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993).
60. Jan E . L eighley a nd J onathan N agler, “ Individual a nd Systemic I nfluences o n T urnout: W ho V otes? 1 984,” Journal of Politics 54 no. 3 (1992): 718–40.
61. Michael Dawson, Black Visions: The Roots of Contem- porary A frican-American P olitical I deologies (C hicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003).
62. File, “The Diversifying Electorate.”
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 56 17/11/18 3:57 PM
ENDNOTES A57
(2001): 7 00–706; C aroline J . T olbert a nd D aniel A . Smith, “The Educative Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter T urnout,” American P olitics R esearch 3 3, n o. 2 (2005): 283–309; Frederick Boehmke and Daniel Bowen, “Direct Democracy and Individual Interest Group Mem- bership,” Journal of Politics 72, no. 3 (2010): 659–71.
91. Stephen Nicholson, Voting the Agenda: Candidates, Elec- tions, and Ballot Propositions (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005).
92. John Myers, “ That Blockbuster California Ballot Will Be a $452-Million Battle,” Los Angeles Times, February 18, 20 16, w ww.latimes.com/local/california/la-pol-sac -november-ballot-500-million-20160215-story.html (accessed 10/18/16).
93. Daniel A . Smith a nd Caroline J . Tolbert, Educated by Initiative: The E ffects of D irect D emocracy o n C itizens and Political Organizations in the American States (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004).
94. Bruce E . C ain, T odd D onovan, a nd C aroline J . Tolbert, Democracy in the States: Experiments in Election Reform (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2008).
95. U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 10. Reasons for Not Voting, by Selected Characteristics: November 2012,” Voting and Registration, www .census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/ voting/publications/p20/2012/tables.html.
96. National Conference of State Legislatures, “Same Day Voter Registration.”
97. Domenico Montanaro, “Would Automatic Voter Regis- tration Increase Turnout?” NPR, March 18, 2015, www .npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/03/18/393645667/ would-automatic-voter-registration-increase-turnout (accessed 11/14/16).
98. National Conference of State Legislatures, “Voter Identi- fication Requirements,” www.ncsl.org/research/elections -and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx (accessed 10/12/18).
99. Michael D . R egan, “ What D oes V oter Turnout Tell Us a bout t he 2 016 E lection?” N ovember 2 0, 2 016, PBS News H our, w ww.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ voter-turnout-2016-elections ( accessed 4 /17/18); a nd “Oppose V oter I D L egislation—Fact S heet,” A CLU, www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact -sheet (accessed 4/17/18).
100. Michael W ines, “ Wisconsin S trict I D L aw D iscour- aged Voters, Study Finds,” New York Times, September 25, 2 017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/wisconsin -voters.html (accessed 3/29/18).
101. National C onference o f S tate L egislatures, “ Voter Identification Requirements.”
102. E. Ann Carson, “Prisoners in 2013,” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice S tatistics, September 30, 2014, w ww.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf ( accessed 4/11/16); N ational C onference o f S tate L egislatures, “Felon Voting R ights,” A pril 3 0, 2 017 w ww.ncsl.org/ research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights .aspx (accessed 10/12/18).
79. Bond et al., “A 61-Million-Person Experiment.” 80. Katerina E va M atsa a nd K ristine L u, “ 10 F acts a bout
the Changing Digital News Landscape,” Pew Research Center, S eptember 14, 2 016, w ww.pewresearch.org/fact -tank/2016/09/14/facts-about-the-changing-digital -news-landscape/ (accessed 10/16/16).
81. Eitan D. Hersh, Hacking the E lectorate: How Campaigns Perceive Voters ( New York: C ambridge University P ress, 2015); S asha I ssenberg, The V ictory L ab: The S ecret Science of Winning C ampaigns (New Y ork: Crown Publishers, 2012).
82. Theda Skocpol, The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).
83. Michael P. McDonald and John Samples, eds., The Market- place of Democracy: Electoral Competition and American Poli- tics (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2006).
84. Mark N. Franklin, “Electoral Participation,” in Compar- ing D emo cracies: E lections a nd Voting i n G lobal P erspec- tive, ed. Lawrence LeDuc, Richard G. Niemi, and Pippa Norris ( Thousand O aks, C A: S age, 1 996), 2 16–35; G. Bingham Powell, “American Voter Turnout in Com- parative P erspective,” American P olitical S cience R eview 80, no. 1 (1986): 17–43.
85. Todd D onovan, “ A G oal f or R eform: M ake E lections Worth S tealing,” PS: P olitical S cience a nd P olitics 4 0, no. 4 (2007): 681–6.
86. Donovan, “ A G oal f or R eform”; G ary W . C ox a nd Michael C . M unger, “ Closeness, E xpenditures, a nd Turnout i n t he 1982 U .S. H ouse E lections,” American Political S cience R eview 83, no. 1 ( 1989): 217–31; James G. Gimpel, Karen M. Kaufmann, and Shanna Pearson- Merkowitz, “Battleground States versus Blackout States: The B ehavioral I mplications o f M odern P residential Campaigns,” Journal of Politics 69, no. 3 (2007): 786–97.
87. Gimpel, K aufmann, a nd P earson-Merkowitz, “ Battle- ground S tates v ersus B lackout S tates”; J ulianna S andell Pacheco, “Political S ocialization i n C ontext: The Ef- fect of Political Competition on Youth Voter Turnout,” Political B ehavior 3 0, n o. 4 ( 2008): 4 15–36; K eena Lipsitz, “The Consequences of Battleground and ‘Specta- tor’ State Residency for Political Participation,” Political Behavior 31, no. 2 (2009): 187–209.
88. David P. Redlawsk, Caroline J. Tolbert, and Todd Dono- van, Why I owa? H ow C aucuses a nd S equential E lections Improve t he Pr esidential N ominating Pr ocess (C hicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011).
89. Caroline J. Tolbert, Daniel C . Bowen, and Todd Dono- van, “Initiative Campaigns: Direct Democracy and Voter Mobilization,” American Politics Research 37, no. 1 (2009): 155–92.
90. Caroline J . Tolbert, J ohn A . G rummel, a nd D aniel A . Smith, “The Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout in t he A merican S tates,” American P olitics R esearch 2 9, no. 6 (2001): 625–48; Mark A. Smith, “The Contingent Effects o f B allot I nitiatives a nd C andidate R aces o n Turnout,” American Journal of Political Science 45, no. 3
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 57 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A58 ENDNOTES
taxdayteaparty.com/2009/03/meet-keli-carender-tea -party-organizer-in-seattle-washington/ (accessed 1/26/18).
2. Walter D ean Bu rnham, Critical E lections a nd t he Mainsprings of A merican P olitics ( New Y ork: W . W . Norton, 1970).
3. E. E. Schattschneider, The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1960).
4. Larry Bartels, Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer- sity Press, 2008).
5. Kathleen B awn e t a l., “ A Theory o f P olitical P arties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 10, no. 3 (2012): 571–97.
6. Morris Fiorina, Samuel Abrams, and Jeremy Pope, Cul- ture War? The M yth of a P olarized A merica ( New York: Pearson Longman, 2004).
7. Todd Donovan and Shaun Bowler, Reforming the Repub- lic: D emocratic I nstitutions f or t he N ew A merica ( Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003).
8. James Madison, The Federalist Papers, no. 10, http://thomas .loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_10.html (accessed 11/11/12).
9. John H. Aldrich, Why Parties? A Second Look (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011).
10. Raymond J. La Raja, “Political Parties in the Era of Soft Money,” i n The P arties R espond: C hanges i n A merican Parties a nd C ampaigns, 4 th e d., e d. S andy L . M aisel (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2002), 163–88.
11. For a n e xcellent a nalysis o f t he p arties’ r ole i n r ecruit- ment, see P aul Herrnson, Congressional E lections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1995).
12. Marty C ohen e t a l., The P arty D ecides: P residential Nominations before and after Reform (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008).
13. Seth E. M asket, No M iddle G round: H ow I nformal Party O rganizations C ontrol N ominations a nd P olarize Legislatures (Ann Arbor: U niversity of M ichigan Press, 2011).
14. Sasha Issenberg, Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns (New York: Crown, 2012).
15. Glen Justice, “F.E.C. Declines to Curb Independent Fund Raisers,” New York Times, May 14, 2004, A16.
16. See Harold Gosnell, Machine Politics: Chicago Model, rev. ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968).
17. For a u seful d iscussion, s ee J ohn B ibby a nd Thomas Holbrook, “Parties and Elections,” in Politics in the American St ates, e d. V irginia G ray a nd H erbert J acob (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1996), 78–121.
18. John Gramlich, “Far More Americans Say There Are Strong Conflicts between Partisans Than between Other Groups in S ociety,” P ew R esearch C enter, D ecember 19, 2 017, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/12/19/far-more -americans-say-there-are-strong-conf licts-between -partisans-than-between-other-groups-in-society/ (accessed 5/12/18).
103. Justin W olfers, D avid L eonhardt a nd K evin Q uealy, “1.5 M illion M issing B lack M en,” The U pshot, New York T imes, A pril 2 0, 2 015, w ww.nytimes.com/ interactive/2015/04/20/upshot/missing-black-men .html?_r50&abt50002&abg51 (accessed 1/6/16).
104. Jean Chung, Felon D isenfranchisement: A P rimer (Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2016), www .sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Felony -Disenfranchisement-Primer.pdf (accessed 10/12/16).
105. National Conference of State Legislatures, “Same Day Voter Registration.”
106. Robert A . J ackson, R obert D. B rown, a nd G erald C . Wright, “Registration, Turnout and the Electoral Rep- resentativeness of U.S. State Electorates,” American Pol- itics Quarterly 26, no. 3 ( July 1998): 259–87. See a lso Benjamin Highton, “Easy Registration and Voter Turn- out,” Journal of Politics 59, no. 2 (April 1997): 565–87.
107. Stephen Knack and James White, “Election-Day Regis- tration and Turnout Inequality,” Political Behavior 22, no. 1 (2000): 29–44; Craig Leonard Brians and Bernard Grofman, “W hen R egistration B arriers F all, W ho Votes? An Empirical Test of a Rational Choice Model,” Public C hoice 9 9 (1999): 161–76; M ichael J . H anmer, Discount V oting: V oter R egistration R eforms a nd Their Effects (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Mary Fitzgerald, “Greater Convenience but Not Greater Turnout: The Impact of Alternative Voting Methods on Electoral Participation in the United States,” American Politics Research 33, no. 6 (2005): 842–67.
108. National C onference o f S tate L egislatures, “ Absentee and Early Voting,” September 20, 2018, www.ncsl.org/ research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-early -voting.aspx (accessed 10/10/18).
109. Paul Gronke, Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum, and Peter Miller, “Early Voting a nd Turnout,” PS: P olitical S cience a nd Politics 40, no. 4 ( October 2007): 639–45; Fitzgerald, “Greater Convenience but Not Greater Turnout”; Adam J. B erinsky, “ The P erverse C onsequences o f E lectoral Reform in the United States,” American Politics Research 33, no. 4 (2005): 471–91.
110. Jeffrey Karp and Susan Banducci, “Going Postal: How All-Mail Elections Influence Turnout,” Political Behavior 22, no. 3 (2000): 223–39.
111. Michael J . H amner, Discount V oting: V oter R egistra- tion R eforms a nd Their E ffects ( New York: C ambridge University Press, 2009).
112. John Griffin and Michael Keane, “Are Voters Better Rep- resented?” Journal of Politics 67, no. 4 (2005): 1206–27.
113. Larry Bartels, Unequal D emocracy: The P olitical E con- omy of t he N ew G ilded A ge ( Princeton, N J: P rinceton University Press, 2008).
CHAPTER 9
1. Taxdayteaparty.com, “ Meet Keli Carender, T ea Party Organizer in Seattle, Washington,” March 15, 2009, http://
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 58 17/11/18 3:57 PM
ENDNOTES A59
Independent V oter N etwork, A ugust 8 , 2 018, https:// ivn.us/2018/08/08/9-states-registered-independents -outnumber-major-political-parties/ (accessed 11/9/18).
34. See Morris Fiorina, “Parties and Partisanship: A Forty Year Retrospective,” Political Behavior 24, no. 2 (2002): 93–115.
35. On t he l imited polarization a mong ordinary voters, s ee Fiorina, A brams, a nd P ope, Culture War?; o n g rowing partisan a ttachment a mong a s ubset o f voters, s ee A lan Abramowitz and Kyle Saunders, “Why Can’t We Just Get Along? The Reality of a Polarized America,” The Forum 3, no. 2 (2005): 1–22.
36. “CQ R oll C all’s V ote S tudies—2013 i n R eview,” February 3 , 2 014, h ttp://media.cq.com/votestudies/ (accessed 7/25/16).
37. David Hawkings, “Ahead, the First Pure Party-Line Mod- ern Tax C ut?” R oll C all, O ctober 31, 2 017, w ww.rollcall .com/news/hawkings/party-line-tax-cut (accessed 8/15/18).
38. Benjamin Page and Martin Gilens, Democracy in America: What H as G one Wrong a nd W hat We C an D o a bout I t (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017).
39. Donovan a nd B owler, Reforming t he R epublican. S ee a lso Marty G ilen, Affluence a nd I nfluence: E conomic I nequality and P olitical P ower i n A merica ( Princeton, N J: Pr inceton University Press, 2014).
40. For a discussion of third parties in the United States, see Daniel Mazmanian, Third Parties in Presidential Elections (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1974).
41. See Maurice Duverger, Political Parties (New York: Wiley, 1954).
42. Donovan and Bowler, Reforming the Republic. 43. Andri Blais, To Keep or to Change First Past the Post? The
Politics of Election Reform (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).
44. Todd D onovan, C aroline J . T olbert, K ellen G racey, “Campaign C ivility u nder P referential a nd P lurality Voting,” Electoral Studies 42 (2016): 157–163.
45. Stanley Kelley, Jr., Richard E. Ayres, and William Bowen, “Registration a nd V oting: P utting F irst Things F irst,” American Political Science Review 61 (June 1967): 359–70.
CHAPTER 10
1. BBC N ewsbeat, “ ‘I’m O ne o f t he Y oung V oters W ho Backed Donald Trump,’” November 12, 2016, www.bbc .co.uk /newsbeat/a r t ic le/37961355/im-one-of-the -young-voters-who-backed-donald-trump (accessed 1/26/18).
2. Emily Richmond, Mikhail Zinshteyn, and Natalie Gross, “Dissecting the Youth Vote,” The Atlantic, November 11, 2016, www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/11/ dissecting-the-youth-vote/507416/ (accessed 1/26/17).
3. Richmond et al., “Dissecting the Youth Vote.” 4. Thom File, “Voting in America: A Look at the 2016
Presidential Election,” Census Blogs, May 10, 2017, www .census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/05/ voting_in_america.html (accessed 1/26/18).
19. Tara Golshan, “‘Reckless, Outrageous, and Undignified Beha vior’: Sen. Flake Quits the Senate Over Trump,” Vox, October 24, 2017, w ww.vox.com/2017/10/24/16536756/ flake-retitrement-over-trump-announcement (accessed 5/12/18).
20. “Election 2016: Exit Polls,” New York Times, November 8, 20 16, w ww.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/ politics/election-exit-polls.html (accessed 11/11/16).
21. Alex L eary, “ Hispanics V oting i n R ecord N umbers in Florida, O ther S tates, B oosting Hillary Clinton,” Miami H erald, N ovember 6 , 2 016, www.miamiherald .com/news/pol it ic s-government /e lec t ion/a r t ic le 112958953.html (accessed 11/11/16).
22. “Election 2016: Exit Polls.” 23. “Behind T rump’s V ictory: D ivisions b y R ace, G ender
and Education,” November 9, 2016, Pew Research Cen- ter,” www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind -trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/ (accessed 5 /12/18); G ary L anger, C hristine F iler, S ofi Sinozich, a nd A llison D e J ong, “ Key E xit P oll T ake- aways: V oters N egative o n T rump, M ost I nterested i n Health C are, I mmigration,” A BC N ews, N ovember 7, 2018, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/negative-trump -divided-issues-voters-reshuff le-cards-washington/ story?id=59025819 (accessed 11/9/18).
24. Pew Research Center, Religious Landscape Study, www .pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/ (accessed 12/16/15).
25. Gregory S mith, “ A G rowing S hare o f A mericans S ay It’s Not Necessary to Believe in God to Be Moral,” Pew Research C enter, O ctober 1 6, 2 017, www.pewresearch .org/fact-tank/2017/10/16/a-growing-share-of-americans -say-its-not-necessary-to-believe-in-god-to-be-moral/ (accessed 5/12/18).
26. “Election 2016: Exit Polls.” 27. Christopher S hea, “ Who A re Y ou C alling W orking
Class?” Boston G lobe, F ebruary 1 2, 2 006, www.boston .com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/02/12/who_are _you_calling_working_class/ (accessed 2/24/08).
28. Pew Research Center, “Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology,” U.S. Politics & P olicy, June 26, 2014, www .people-press.org/2014/06/26/the-political-typology -beyond-red-vs-blue (accessed 2/28/16).
29. Shaun B owler, G ary S egura, a nd S tephen N icholson, “Earthquakes a nd A ftershocks: R ace, D irect D emocra- cy, a nd Partisan C hange,” American J ournal of P olitical Science 50 (January 2006): 146–59.
30. “Election 2016: Exit Polls.” 31. Jeffrey A . K arp a nd C aroline J . Tolbert, “ Support f or
Nationali zing Presidential Elections,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 40, no. 4 (2010): 771–93.
32. Jeffrey M . J ones, “ Democratic, R epublican I dentifica- tion N ear H istorical L ows,” G allup, J anuary 11, 2 016, www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican -identification-near-historical-lows.aspx (accessed 8/3/16).
33. Alexa M ikalaski, “ 9 S tates W here R egistered I nde- pendents O utnumber B oth M ajor P olitical P arties,”
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 59 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A60 ENDNOTES
21. Daniel S mith a nd C aroline J . T olbert, Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004).
22. Shaun B owler, Todd D onovan, a nd C aroline J . Tol- bert, Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1998).
23. BallotPedia, “ 2018 B allot M easures,” w ww.ballotpedia .org/2018_ballot_measures (accessed 11/8/18).
24. Stephen Nicholson, Voting the Agenda: Candidates, Elec- tions, a nd Ballot P ropositions (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005).
25. Ryan Grim and Sabrina Siddiqui, “Call Time for Congress Shows D ominates B leak W ork L ife,” H uffington P ost, January 9, 2013, www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/ call-time-congressional-fundraising_n_2427291.html (accessed 8/8/16).
26. “Most E xpensive Races,” C enter for Responsive Politics, November 9 , 20 18, w ww.opensecrets.org/overview/topraces .php (accessed 11/9/18).
27. Stephen A nsolabehere a nd J ames S nyder, “ Campaign War C hests a nd C ongressional E lections,” Business a nd Politics 2 (2000): 9–34.
28. Gary W. Cox and Eric Magar, “How Much Is Majority Status i n t he U.S. C ongress Worth?” American Political Science Review 93 (1999): 299–309.
29. “Two-Thirds of Presidential Campaign Is in Just 6 States,” National popularvote.com, www.nationalpopularvote .com/campaign-events-2016 ( accessed 5 /14/18); D aron Shaw, The Race to 270: The Electoral College and the Cam- paign Strategies of 2000 and 2004 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006).
30. John Geer, In Defense of N egativity: Attack Ads in Presi- dential Campaigns (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006).
31. Nicholas Confessore, Karen Yourish, “$2 Billion of Free Media for Donald Trump,” New York Times, March 16, 2016, w ww.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring -donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media .html (accessed 7/25/18).
32. Brian S telter, “ Debate B reaks R ecord a s M ost-Watched in U .S. H istory,” C NN M oney, S eptember 27 , 2 016, www.money.cnn.com/2016/09/27/media/debate-ratings -record-viewership/ (accessed 10/17/16).
33. D. Sunshine Hillygus and Todd G. Shields, The Persuad- able Voter: Wedge Issues in Political Campaigns (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009).
34. Sasha Issenberg, The V ictory L ab: The S ecret S cience of Winning Campaigns (New York: Crown, 2012).
35. Alan S . G erber a nd D onald P. G reen, “ The E ffects o f Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment,” American Political Science Review 94, no. 3 (2000): 660.
36. M. Ostrogorski, Democracy a nd t he O rganization of Political Parties (New York: Macmillan, 1902).
5. Amber P hillips, “ Is S plit-Ticket V oting O fficially Dead?” Washington P ost, N ovember 1 7, 2 016, www .washingtonpost.com/news/the-f ix/wp/2016/11/17/ is-split-t icket-voting-of f icia l ly-dead/?utm_term= .ace9dff09c60 (accessed 5/14/18).
6. Sarah Z immerman, “Illinois Protecting a gainst Russian Election Tampering,” February 28, 2018, U.S. News and W orld R eports, w ww.usnews.com/news/best-states/ illinois/articles/2018-02-28/illinois-protecting-against -russian-election-tampering (accessed 5/14/18).
7. Baker v. Carr 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
8. Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 613 (1986). 9. Christopher Ingraham “ This I s t he Best E xplanation of
Gerrymandering You Will Ever See. How to Steal an Election: A Visual Guide,” Washington Post, March 1, 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/01/ this-is-the-best-explanation-of-gerrymandering-you-will -ever-see/?utm_term=.97e9bcf9a627 (accessed 7/25/18).
10. “Reelection Rates over the Years,” Center for Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org/overview/reelect.php (accessed 11/9/18).
11. Christopher I ngraham, “’ Sprawling,’ R orsarchian,’ ‘Corrosive’ t o D emocracy: P ennsylvania’s T op C ourt Condemns S tate G errymandered D istrict,” Washington Post, February 8, 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/news/ wonk/wp/2018/02/08/sprawling-rorschachian-corrosive - to -democrac y-pa s -top - cou r t- condemns- s t a te s -gerrymandered-districts/?noredirect=on&utm_term= .a009cd0645f9 (accessed 7/25/18).
12. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993). 13. David Redlawsk, Caroline J. Tolbert, and Todd Donovan,
Why Iowa? How Caucuses and Sequential Elections Improve the Presidential Nomination Process (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011).
14. Redlawsk, Tolbert, and Donovan, Why Iowa? 15. State l egislatures d etermine t he s ystem b y w hich e lec-
tors a re selected. A lmost a ll s tates use this “winner-take- all” s ystem. Maine and Nebraska, however, provide that one electoral vote goes to the winner in each congressional district and two electoral votes go to the winner statewide.
16. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). 17. Jeffrey K arp a nd C aroline J . Tolbert, “ Polls a nd E lec-
tions: Support for Nationalizing Presidential Elections.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 40, no. 4 (2010): 771–93.
18. Todd D onovan a nd S haun B owler, Reforming the Republic: Democratic Institutions for the N ew America (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Press, 2003).
19. André Blais, To Keep or to Change First Past the Post? The Politics of E lectoral R eform ( Oxford: O xford U niversity Press, 2008).
20. Adam Nagourney, “Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage i n C alifornia,” N ew Y ork T imes, February 7, 2012, w ww.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/marriage-ban -violates-constitution-court-rules.html (accessed 8/21/12).
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 60 17/11/18 3:57 PM
ENDNOTES A61
-9570-29c9830535e5_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_ term=.1d49970b3df7 (accessed 11/9/18).
52. “One i n F ive A dults H ave A ttended a P olitical P rotest, Rally, or Speech,” Washington Post–Kaiser Family Founda- tion Survey ( Jan. 24–Feb. 22, 2018), April 21, 2018, www .washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/ 2018/04/06/National-Politics/Polling/release_516.xml (accessed 11/9/18).
53. Ryan Sit, “More Than 2 M illion in 90 Percent of Voting Districts Joined March for Our Lives Protests,” Newsweek, March 2 6, 2 018, w ww.newsweek.com/march-our-lives- how-many-2-million-90-voting-district-860841 (accessed 11/9/18).
54. Michelle Ye Hee Lee and Anu Narayanswamy, “Democratic Candidates for C ongress Have R aised a R ecord-Shattering $1 Billion This Election,” Washington Post, October 17, 2018, w ww.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-candidates -for-congress-have-raised-a-record-shattering-1-billion -this-election/2018/10/17/afedfe66-d231-11e8-8c22 -fa2ef74bd6d6_story.html?utm_term=.350602226c5b (accessed 11/9/18).
55. Tim Craig, “Democrats’ Gains in State Capitols Mark a Significant T urnaround f or P arty,” Washington P ost, November 8, 2018, A27.
56. Brady D ennis a nd D avid W eigel, “ Progressive B allot Measures W in o ver E ven R ed-State V oters,” Washington Post, November 8, 2018, A33.
CHAPTER 11
1. Matt M iller, “ Young A mericans G et t he S haft,” Wash- ington P ost, June 1 3, 2 012, w ww.washingtonpost.com/ opinions/young-americans-get-the-shaft/2012/06/13/ gJQAeHp4ZV_story.html?utm_term=.4a68ebb3076f 9 (accessed 1/26/18).
2. This a ccount d rawn f rom A raz H achadourian, “ Who’s Lobbying f or M illennial I nterests? M eet t he ‘ AARP for Young People,’” Yes! Magazine, May 19, 2016, www .yesmagazine.org/people-power/millennials-have-the -numbers-to-move-our-politics-and-theyre-about-to-get -their-own-lobbyists-20160519 ( accessed 1 /26/18); a nd Association of Young Americans, joinaya.com/ (accessed 1/26/18).
3. Alexis d e Tocqueville, Democracy i n A merica, e d. J . P. Mayer and trans. George L awrence (New York: Harper Collins, [1835–40] 1988), 513.
4. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton L. Rossiter (New York: New American Library, 1961), no. 10, 83.
5. The Federalist Papers, no. 10. 6. The best statement of the pluralist view is in David
Truman, The G overnmental Pr ocess ( New York: K nopf, 1951), chap. 2.
7. Martin Gilens and Benjamin I . Page, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens,” Perspectives on Politics 12, no. 3 ( Sept. 2014):
37. For d iscussions of the consequences of this, see Thom- as E dsall, The N ew P olitics of I nequality ( New Y ork: W. W. N orton, 1984). S ee a lso Thomas E dsall, “ Both Parties G et t he C ompany’s M oney—but t he B oss Backs t he G OP,” Washington P ost, N ational W eekly Edition, S eptember 1 6, 1 986, 1 4; a nd B enjamin Ginsberg, “ Money a nd P ower: The N ew P olitical Economy o f A merican E lections,” i n The P olitical Economy, e d. Thomas F erguson a nd J oel R ogers (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1984).
38. Center for Responsive Politics, “Cost of Election,” www .opensecrets.org/overview/cost.php ( accessed 1 1/9/16); and Christopher Ingraham, “Somebody Just Put a P rice Tag o n t he 2 016 E lection. I t’s a D oozy,” Washington Post, April 14, 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/ wonk/wp/2017/04/14/somebody-just-put-a-price-tag-on - t h e -2 016 - e l e c t i o n - i t s - a - d o o z y / ? u t m _ t e r m = .6ecccc4dc35f (accessed 6/5/18).
39. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). 40. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S.
50 (2010). 41. Citizens United. 42. Martin Gilens, Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequal-
ity and Political Power in America (Princeton, NJ: Prince- ton University Press; New York: Russell Sage, 2012).
43. McCutcheon e t a l. v . F ederal E lection C ommission, 572 U.S. — (2014).
44. OpenSecrets.org, Sen. Bernie Sanders, w ww.opensecrets .org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00000528 ( accessed 6/23/16).
45. Buckley v. Valeo. 46. Steve P hillips, “ What a bout W hite V oters?” Center
for A merican P rogress, F ebruary 5 , 2 016, w ww .americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2016/02/05/ 130647/what-about-white-voters/ (accessed 11/14/16).
47. Jonathan M artin, D alia S ussman, a nd M egan Thee- Brenan, “ Voters E xpress D isgust o ver U .S. P olitics i n New Ti mes/CBS P oll,” New Y ork T imes, N ovember 3 , 2016, w ww.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/us/politics/hillary -clinton-donald-trump-poll.html (accessed 11/11/18).
48. GDELT Project, “Presidential Campaign 2016: Candidate Television T racker,” t elevision.gdeltproject.org/cgi-bin/ iatv_campaign2016/iatv_campaign2016 (accessed 11/11/16).
49. “Election 2016: Exit Polls,” New York Times, November 8 , 2016, w ww.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/ election-exit-polls.html (accessed 11/11/16).
50. Nancy Scola, “Massive Twitter Data Release Sheds Light on Russia Trump S trategy,” Politico, O ctober 17, 2 018, w ww. politico.com/story/2018/10/17/twitter-foreign-influence -operations-910005 (accessed 11/11/8).
51. Devlin B arrett, S ari Horwitz a nd R osalind S . Helderman, “Russian T roll F arm, 1 3 S uspects I ndicted i n 2 016 Election I nterference,” Washington P ost, F ebruary 1 6, 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ russian-troll-farm-13-suspects-indicted-for-interference -in-us-elect ion/2018/02/16/2504de5e-1342-11e8
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 61 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A62 ENDNOTES
26. For d iscussions o f l obbying, s ee A llan J . C igler a nd Burdett A . L oomis, e ds., Interest G roup P olitics ( Wash- ington, DC: CQ Press, 1983). See also Jeffrey M. Berry, Lobbying for the People (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer- sity Press, 1977).
27. Marie Jojnacki, “Interest Groups’ Decisions to Join Alliances o r W ork A lone,” American J ournal of P oliti- cal S cience 41 (1997): 61–87; K evin W. Hula, Lobbying Together: Interest G roups C oalitions i n L egislative P olitics (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1999).
28. Andrew C hin, “ A C ase o f I nsecure B rowsing,” Newsobserver.com, S eptember 3 0, 2 004, w ww.unclaw .com/chin/scholarship/nando.pdf (accessed 3/30/16).
29. For an excellent discussion of the political origins of the Administrative Procedure Act, see Martin Shapiro, “APA: Past, Present, Future,” Virginia Law Review 72, no. 477 (March 1986): 447–92.
30. David K irkpatrick, “ Congress F inds Ways o f A voiding Lobbyist Limits,” Washington Post, February 11, 2007, 1.
31. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
32. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. — (2015). 33. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). 34. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989). 35. E. Pendleton Herring, Group Representation before Con-
gress (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1936). 36. National Rifle Association, www.home.nra.org (accessed
5/15/18). 37. Robert M aguire, “Audit S hows N RA S pending S urged
$100 M illion a midst P ro-Trump P ush i n 2 016,” C en- ter f or R esponsive P olitics, N ovember 1 5, 2 017, www .opensecret s .org /news/2017/11/aud it- shows-nra -spending-surged-100-million-amidst-pro-trump-push -in-2016/ (accessed 7/27/18).
38. Martin Gilens, Economic Inequality and Political Power in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).
39. Citizens U nited v . F ederal E lection C ommission, 5 58 U.S. — (2010).
40. Center for Responsive Politics, “Behind the Candidates: Campaign Committees and Outside Groups,” www .opensecrets.org/pres16/raised-summ (accessed 4/6/18).
41. Center for Responsive Politics, “2016 Outside Spending, by S uper P AC,” w ww.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/ summ.php?chrt=V&type=S (accessed 11/10/16).
42. Center f or R esponsive Politics, “2016 Outside Spending, by S uper P AC,” w ww.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/ summ.php?chrt=V&type=S (accessed 1/15/18).
43. Center for Responsive P olitics, “2018 O utside S pending, by S uper PAC,” N ovember 8 , 2 018, w ww.opensecrets.org/ outsidespending/summ.php?chrt=V&type=S (accessed 11/8/18).
44. Elisabeth R. Gerber, The Populist Paradox (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999).
45. Gerber, Populist Paradox. 46. The Federalist Papers, no. 10. 47. Olson, Logic of Collective Action.
564–81; M artin G ilens, Affluence & I nfluence: Ec onomic Inequality a nd P olitical P ower i n A merica (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012); Benjamin I. Page and Martin G ilens, Democracy i n A merica? What Has Gone W rong a nd W hat W e C an D o a bout I t (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017).
8. Beth L . L eech, N ational S urvey o f G overnmental Relations, 2012; Center for Responsive Politics, “Political Action Committees,” www.opensecrets.org/pacs/.
9. Megan R. Wilson, “Lobbying’s Top 50: Who’s Spend- ing Big,” The Hill, February 7, 2017, w ww.thehill.com/ business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/318177-lobbyings -top-50-whos-spending-big (accessed 4/5/18).
10. Center f or R esponsive Politics, “ Interest Groups,” w ww .opensecrets.org/industries/ (accessed 11/11/18).
11. Frank B aumgartner e t a l., Lobbying a nd P olicy C hange: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009).
12. Baumgartner et al., Lobbying and Policy Change. 13. Erika F alk, E rin G rizard, a nd G ordon M cDonald,
“Legislative I ssue A dvertising i n t he 1 08th C ongress: Pluralism or Peril?” Harvard International Journal of Press/ Politics 11, no. 4 (Fall 2006): 148–64.
14. Truman, Governmental Process. 15. For a n e xploration o f l ower-class i nterest g roups
and s ocial m ovements, s ee F rances P iven a nd R ichard Cloward, Poor P eople’s M ovements ( New York: V intage, 1978).
16. E. E. Schattschneider, The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960).
17. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: Preliminary Economic Anal- ysis, D ecember 1 8, 2 017, w ww.taxfoundation.org/tax -cuts-and-jobs-act-preliminary-analysis/ (accessed 4/5/18).
18. Kay Lehman Schlozman and John T. Tierney, Organized Interests and American Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1986), 60.
19. Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of O rga- nizing without Organizations (New York: Penguin Press, 2008).
20. Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965).
21. David Karpf, The M oveOn E ffect: The U nexpected Transformation of American Political Advocacy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).
22. Christine Day, AARP: A merica’s L argest I nterest G roup and Its Impact (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2017).
23. John Herbers, “Special Interests Gaining Power as Voter Disillusionment Grows,” New York Times, November 14, 1978.
24. Jack Walker, “ The D iffusion o f I nnovations a mong t he American St ates,” American P olitical S cience A ssociation 63, n o. 3 ( 1969): 8 80–99; Thomas D ye, Understanding Public Policy, 15th ed. (Boston: Pearson, 2017).
25. Center f or R esponsive P olitics, “ Lobbying D atabase,” www.opensecrets.org/lobby/ (accessed 5/15/18).
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 62 17/11/18 3:57 PM
ENDNOTES A63
2008 ( Washington, D C: B rookings I nstitution P ress, 2009), 111–12.
12. Ashley P arker, “ Spotlighting C onstituents t o Bu oy Congressional Candidates,” New York Times (October 8, 2014), www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/us/politics/out-of -the-mouths-of-constituents-candidates-find-a-message .html (accessed 9 /14/15); Juana S ummers, “Constituent Services Give Voters Something to Remember,” National Public R adio, w ww.npr.org/2014/10/28/359615965/ constituent-services-give-voters-something-to-remember (accessed 9/14/15).
13. Linda F owler a nd R obert M cClure, Political A mbition: Who Decides to Run for Congress (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989); and Alan Ehrenhalt, The United States of Ambition: Politicians, Power, and the Pursuit of Office (New York: Three Rivers Press, 1992).
14. Center f or R esponsive P olitics, “ Reelection R ates o ver the Y ears,” w ww.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php (accessed 11/9/18).
15. Author‘s calculations from Ballotpedia.org 16. Michael L eahy, “ House R ules,” Washington P ost, J une
10, 2 007, W 12. S imone P athé, “ Democrats I dentify Vulnerable I ncumbent M embers f or 2 018,” R oll C all, March 6, 2017, www.rollcall.com/politics/democrats-identify -vulnerable-members-2018 (accessed 3/22/18).
17. Barbara C . Bu rrell, A W oman’s P lace I s i n t he H ouse: Campaigning for Congress in the Feminist Era (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994); and David Broder, “Key to Women’s Political Parity: Running,” Washington Post, September 8, 1994, A17.
18. Dan B alz, “ Dodd, D organ, a nd R itter t o R etire a s Democrats Face a Difficult Mid-Term Year,” Washington Post, January 7, 2010.
19. Mark Hugo Lopez and Paul Taylor, “The 2010 Congres- sional Reapportionment and Latinos,” Pew Research Center, www.pewhispanic.org/2011/01/05/the-2010 - c on g re s s ion a l - r e appor t ion ment- a nd- l a t i no s / (accessed 2/24/14).
20. Greg Giroux, “Republicans Win Congress as Democrats Get M ost V otes,” B loomberg, M arch 1 8, 2 013, www .bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-19/republicans-win - c on g r e s s - a s - d e mo c r a t s - g e t-mo s t-vo t e s . h t m l (accessed 12/2/13).
21. Eric McGhee, “Are the Democrats Still at a Disadvantage in Redistricting?” The Monkey Cage (blog), July 9, 2013, themonkeycage.org/2013/07/09/are-the-democrats-still -at-a-disadvantage-in-redistricting/ (accessed 12/2/13).
22. Royce Crocker, Congressional Redistricting: An Overview (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, November 21, 2 012), www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42831 .pdf (accessed 12/2/13).
23. Adam Liptak, “Supreme Court Rebuffs Lawmakers over Independent Redistricting Plan,” New York Times, June 29, 2 015, www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/supreme -court-upholds-creat ion-of-a rizona-redistr ict ing -commission.html?_r50 (accessed 9/14/15).
CHAPTER 12
1. “Small Bu siness O wners P raise G OP T ax B ill,” Fox Business, D ecember 2 0, 2 017, w ww.foxbusiness.com/ politics/2017/12/20/small-business-owners-praise-gop -tax-bill.html (accessed 2/3/18).
2. Erin D ooley a nd M eridith M cGraw, “ Program That Provides L ow-Cost H ealth C are t o 9 M C hildren S et to E xpire,” A BC N ews, S eptember 2 9, 2 017, a bcnews .go.com/US/program-low-cost-health-care-9m-children -set/story?id=50188069 (accessed 2/4/18).
3. Juliette Cubanski and Tricia Neuman, “The Facts of Medi- care Spending and Financing,” Kaiser Family Foundation Issue B rief, J uly 1 8, 2 017, w ww.kff.org/medicare/issue -brief/the-facts-on-medicare-spending-and-financing/ (accessed 2/4/18).
4. Jennifer E . Manning, Membership of t he 113th Congress: A Profile (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Ser- vice, O ctober 3 1, 2 013), w ww.senate.gov/CRSReports/ crs-publish.cfm?pid=%260BL%2BR%5CC%3F%0A (accessed 12/1/13).
5. “Growing Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Congress,” Pew Research C enter, J anuary 24 , 2 017, www.pewresearch .org/fact-tank/2017/01/24/115th-congress-sets-new-high -for-racial-ethnic-diversity/ft_17-01-23_congressdiversity/ (accessed 3/22/18).
6. Manning, Membership of the 113th Congress. 7. Jennifer E . Manning, Membership of t he 114th Congress:
A Profile (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Ser- vice, J une 1 1, 2 015), w ww.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43869 .pdf (accessed 9/14/15).
8. Manning, Membership of the 113th Congress. 9. For a d iscussion, s ee B enjamin G insberg, The C onse-
quences of Consent (New York: Random House, 1982), chap. 1.
10. See Kristen D. Burnett, Congressional Apportionment, U.S. Census Bureau, November 2011, w ww.census.gov/prod/ cen2010/briefs/c2010br-08.pdf ( accessed 1 /23/12). F or some interesting empirical e vidence, see A ngus C amp- bell e t a l., Elections a nd t he P olitical O rder ( New York: Wiley, 1966), c hap. 11; f or m ore r ecent c onsiderations about the relationship between members of Congress and their c onstituents, s ee L awrence J acobs a nd R obert Y . Shapiro, Politicians D on’t P ander: P olitical M anipula- tion and t he L oss of D emocratic R esponsiveness (C hicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000); and Larry M. Bartels, Unequal D emocracy: The P olitical E conomy of t he N ew Gilded A ge ( Princeton, N J: P rinceton U niversity P ress, 2008).
11. Norman J . O rnstein e t a l., Vital S tatistics o n C ongress (Washington, D C: B rookings I nstitution P ress, 2 017), Tables 5 –3 a nd 5 –4, w ww.brookings.edu/,/media/ Research/Files/Reports/2013/07/vital-statistics-congress -mann-ornstein/Vital-Statistics-Full-Data-Set.pdf?la5en (accessed 3 /22/18); N orman J . O rnstein, Thomas E . Mann, and Michael J. Malbin, Vital Statistics on Congress
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 63 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A64 ENDNOTES
40. See, f or e xample, t he a nnouncement o f a n a greement on t he A gricultural A ct o f 2 014, House C ommittee on Agriculture, “ House–Senate N egotiators A nnounce Bipartisan Agreement on Final Farm Bill,” press re- lease, http://agriculture.house.gov/news/documentsingle. aspx?DocumentID51220 (accessed 9/21/15).
41. Norman J . O rnstein, e t a l., Vital S tatistics o n C ongress (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution and A merican Enterprise Institute, July 2013), chap. 5, www.brookings .edu/research/reports/2013/07/vital-statistics-congress -mann-ornstein (accessed 6/13/16).
42. H.R. 1111: Department of Peacebuilding A ct of 2015, govtrack.us, www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1111 (accessed 9/21/15).
43. “Statistics a nd H istorical C omparisons: B ills b y F inal Status,” g ovtrack.us, w ww.govtrack.us/congress/bills/ statistics (accessed 9/21/15).
44. U.S. Senate, “Senate Actions on Cloture Motions,” www .senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/ clotureCounts.htm (accessed 11/29/13).
45. Jeremy W . P eters, “S enate V ote C urbs F ilibuster P ower to Stall Nominees,” New York Times, November 22, 2013, A1.
46. Jonathan Weisman, “House Votes 411–18 to Pass Ethics Overhaul,” Washington Post, August 1, 2007, A1.
47. Leigh M unsil, “ Graham Won’t L ift Nominee-Hold Threat o ver B enghazi,” P olitico, N ovember 1 1, 2 013, www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2013/11/graham -wont-lift-nomineehold-threat-over-benghazi-177154 .html (accessed 11/30/13).
48. Sean S ullivan a nd M ike D eBonis, “ Congress A verts Homeland S ecurity S hutdown w ith O ne-Week E x- tension,” Washington Post, February 2 8, 2 015, www .wa sh ing tonpost .com/pol it ic s/house-gop-hopes -to -pa s s - s topgap-dhs-fund ing-before-midnight -shutdown/2015/02/27/22021530-be88-11e4-b274 -e5209a3bc9a9_story.html (accessed 9/21/15).
49. John W. Kingdon, Congressmen’s Voting D ecisions ( New York: Harper and Row, 1973), chap. 3; and R . Douglas Arnold, The L ogic of C ongressional A ction ( New H aven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990).
50. Ben Jacobs and David Smith, “Donald Trump Blames Democrats for Stunning Failure to Repeal Obamacare,” Guardian, M arch 2 5, 2 017, www.theguardian.com/us -news/2017/mar/24/republican-healthcare-plan-bill-vote -pulled-obamacare-trump (accessed 3/22/18).
51. Jane Fritsch, “ The G rass R oots, Just a F ree Phone C all Away,” New York Times, June 23, 1995, A1.
52. Eric L ipton a nd B en P rotess, “ Banks’ L obbyists H elp in D rafting F inancial B ills,” New Y ork T imes, M ay 23, 2 013, d ealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/banks - l o b b y i s t s - h e l p - i n - d r a f t i n g - f i n a n c i a l - b i l l s / (accessed 9 /21/15); M ichael C orkery, “ Citigroup Becomes the Fall Guy in the Spending Bill Battle” New York T imes, D ecember 1 2, 2 014, dealbook.nytimes .com/2014/12/12/citigroup-becomes-the-fall-guy-in-the -spending-bill-battle/ (accessed 9/21/15).
24. Gill v. Whitford, 585 U.S. — (2018). 25. R. E . C ohen, “Did R edistricting S ink t he Democrats?”
National Journal, December 17, 1994, 2984. 26. Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995). 27. Bernie B ecker, “ Reapportionment R oundup,” New
York Times, D ecember 24 , 2 009, h ttp://thecaucus.blogs .nytimes.com/2009/12/24/reapportionment-roundup/ (accessed 1/31/10).
28. Shelby C ounty v . H older, 570 U .S. — ( 2013); L . P aige Whitaker, Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A L egal Overview (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, August 30, 2013), www.fas.org/sgp/crs/ misc/R42482.pdf (accessed 12/2/13).
29. Chris C illizza, “ What t he S upreme C ourt’s V oting Rights A ct D ecision M eans f or P olitics,” Washington Post, June 25, 2013, www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the -fix/wp/2013/06/25/what-the-voting-rights-act-decision -means-for-politics/ (accessed 12/2/13).
30. Tarini P arti, “ High C ourt R easserts V oting R ights Act i n A labama D ecision,” Politico, M arch 2 5, 2015, w ww.polit ico.com/story/2015/03/supreme -court-alabama-redistricting-ruling-116384 ( accessed 9/14/15).
31. Tom Hamburger a nd R ichard S imon, “Everybody Will Know if It’s Pork,” Los Angeles Times, January 6, 2007, A1.
32. Don Seymour, “House Republicans Renew Earmark Ban for 113th Congress,” website of the Speaker of the House, November 1 6, 20 12, w ww.speaker.gov/general/house -republ icans-renew-earmark-ban-113th-congress (accessed 12/1/13).
33. Aaron Blake, “Trump Wants to Bring Earmarks Back,” Washington Post, January 10, 2018, www.washingtonpost .com/news/the-f ix/wp/2018/01/10/trump-wants-to -bring-earmarks-back-heres-why-its-not-so-crazy/?utm _term=.5748db2288a1 (accessed 3/22/18).
34. Martin F rost a nd T om Davis, “ How to F ix What Ails Congress: Bring Back Earmarks,” Los Angeles Times, February 8 , 2 015, w ww.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/ la-oe-frost-earmark-spending-20150209-story.html (accessed 9/14/15).
35. Richard Fenno, Jr., Home Style: House Members in Their Districts (Boston: Little, Brown, 1978).
36. Edward Epstein, “Dusting Off Deliberation,” CQ Weekly, June 1 4, 2 010, 1 436–42. S arah B inder, “ Where H ave All t he C onference C ommittees G one?” The M onkey Cage ( blog), D ecember 2 1, 2 011, t hemonkeycage .org/blog/2011/12/21/where-have-all-the-conference -committees-gone/ (accessed 2/7/12).
37. Derek Willis, “Republicans Mix It Up W hen Assigning House Chairmen for the 108th,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly, January 11, 2003, 89.
38. Rebecca Kimitch, “CQ Guide to the Committees: Demo- crats Opt to Spread t he Power,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly, April 16, 2007, 1080.
39. Richard E . C ohen, “ Crackup o f t he C ommittees,” National Journal, July 31, 1999, 2210–16.
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 64 17/11/18 3:57 PM
ENDNOTES A65
69. Eric Lipton a nd S heryl Gay Stolberg, “Health Law Rollout Provides Rich Target for Oversight Chief,” New Y ork T imes, N ovember 1 2, 2 013, w ww .nytimes.com/2013/11/13/us/politics/health-law-rollout -provides-rich-target-for-oversight-chief.html?_r50 (accessed 12/12/13).
70. Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman, “ Aides for H illary C linton a nd B enghazi C ommittee D ispute Testimony Plan,” New York Times, July 25, 2015, w ww .nytimes.com/2015/07/26/us/clinton-to-testify-publicly -before-house-committee-investigating-benghazi-attacks .html (accessed 9/21/15).
71. Gregory K rieg, “ FBI B oss C omey’s 7 M ost D amn- ing L ines o n C linton,” C NN, J uly 5 , 2 016, w ww.cnn .com/2016/07/05/politics/f bi-clinton-email-server -comey-damning-lines/ (accessed 9/21/16).
72. United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942). For a good discussion of the problem, see James W. Davis, The Ameri- can Presidency (New York: Harper and Row, 1987), chap. 8.
73. U.S. H ouse, “ Impeachment,” h ttp://history.house. gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/ (accessed 4/18/14).
74. Carroll J . D oherty, “ Impeachment: H ow I t W ould Work,” Congressional Q uarterly W eekly R eport, J anuary 31, 1998, 222.
CHAPTER 13
1. This a ccount i s d rawn f rom A my Nixon, “Community Raises Funds to Support Hartley Family after Son Dies in Work Accident,” Tennessean, May 4, 2017, www.tennessean .c om /s tor y/ne w s / loc a l /che a t ha m /2017/05/0 4 / community-raises-funds-support-hartley-family-after-son -dies-work-accident/101283588/ ( accessed 3 /2/18); E ric Lipton, “Why Has the E.P.A. Shifted on Toxic Chemicals? An Industry Insider Helps Call the Shots,” New York Times, October 2 1, 2 017, w ww.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/us/ trump-epa-chemicals-regulations.html (accessed 3/2/18); and Jamie Smith Hopkins, “EPA Wants to Restrict Some- times-Deadly Paint Stripped Chemical,” The Center for Public I ntegrity, J anuary 12, 2 017, w ww.publicintegrity .org/2017/01/12/20589/epa-wants-restrict-sometimes -deadly-paint-stripper-chemical (accessed 3/2/18).
2. These s tatutes a re c ontained m ainly i n Ti tle 1 0 o f t he U.S. Code, Sections 331, 332, and 333.
3. The best study covering all aspects of the domestic use of the m ilitary i s t hat o f A dam Yarmolinsky, The Military Establishment (New York: Harper and Row, 1971). Prob- ably the most famous instance of a p resident’s unilateral use of the power to protect a state “against domestic vio- lence” was President Grover Cleveland’s dealing with the Pullman strike of 1894. The famous Supreme Court case that ensued was In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564 (1895).
4. In United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942), the Supreme Court c onfirmed t hat a n e xecutive a greement i s t he legal equivalent of a treaty, despite the absence of Senate
53. Eliza N ewlin C arney, “ For E thics H awks, C ongress Could Be Next,” National Journal Online, February 17, 2009, http://free republic.com/focus/f-new/2187821/posts (accessed 2/5/10); Center for R esponsive P olitics, “Top Individual C ontributors: A ll F ederal C ontributions (2018),” O penSecrets, w ww.opensecrets.org/overview/ topindivs.php (accessed 10/12/18).
54. Holly Idelson, “Signs Point to Greater L oyalty on Both Sides of the Aisle,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, December 19, 1992, 3849.
55. Norman J. Ornstein and Thomas E. Mann, Vital Statis- tics on Congress (Washington DC: Brookings Institution, 2018), w ww.brookings.edu/multi-chapter-report/vital -statistics-on-congress/ (accessed 7/25/18).
56. Center for Responsive Politics, “Contributions to Federal Candidates, 20 16,” w ww.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot .php?cmte=C00525600&cycle=2016 (accessed 10/13/16).
57. Kimitch, “CQ Guide to the Committees,” 1080. 58. Leahy, “House R ules,” W12; M arin C ogan, “Freshmen
Jump L ine f or F loor S peeches,” Politico, J anuary 1 8, 2011, www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47791.html (accessed 2/9/12).
59. Daniel N ewhauser, “ Three B ooted f rom G OP W hip Team as Leaders Crack Down,” National Journal, June 16, 2015, w ww.nationaljournal.com/congress/2015/06/16/ Three-Booted-From-GOP-Whip-Team-Leaders-Crack -Down (accessed 9/21/15).
60. James J. Kilpatrick, “Don’t Overlook Corn for Porn Plot,” Chicago Sun-Times, January 3, 1992, 23.
61. Dennis McDougal, “Cattle A re Bargaining Chip of the NEA,” Los Angeles Times, November 2, 1991, F1.
62. Mann and Ornstein, “Vital Statistics,” 2017, Table 6-4. 63. “115th C ongress (2017–2018),” w ww.congress.gov (accessed
11/9/18). 64. Thomas Kaplan, “Congress Approves $1.3 Trillion Spend-
ing Bill, Averting a Shutdown,” New York Times, March 22, 2018, w ww.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/us/politics/house -passes-spending-bill.html?login=email&auth=login -email (accessed 7/30/18).
65. Geoffrey C . L ayman, Thomas M . C arsey, a nd J uliana Menasce Horowitz, “Party Polarization in American Poli- tics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences,” Annual Review of Political Science, no. 9 (2006): 83–110.
66. For e xample, F redreka S chouten, “ Club f or G rowth Plans New Push in House Races,” USA Today, August 17, 20 15, h ttp://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/08/17/ club-for-growth-plans-new-push-in-house-races/ (accessed 9/21/15).
67. Elizabeth W illiamson, “ Revival o f O versight R ole Sought; C ongress H ires More I nvestigators, P lans Sub- poenas,” Washington Post, April 25, 2007, A1.
68. Susan Milligan, “Congress Reduces Its Oversight Role; S ince C linton, a C hange in Focus,” Boston Globe, November 20, 2005, A1; Bill Shaikin, “Clemens Is Star Attraction at Hearing,” Los Angeles Times, February 12, 2008, D1.
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 65 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A66 ENDNOTES
14. Elena K agan, “ Presidential A dministration,” Harvard Law Review 114 (June 2001): 2262.
15. Kenneth F. Warren, Administrative Law, 3rd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996), 250.
16. National Industrial Recovery Act, 48 Stat. 200 (1933). 17. Theodore J. Lowi, The End of L iberalism, 2nd ed. (New
York: W. W. Norton, 1979), 117. 18. Jerry L . N ashaw, Greed, C haos, a nd G overnance: U sing
Public C hoice to Improve Public Law (New Haven, C T: Yale University Press, 1997), 106.
19. Louis Fisher, “The Unitary Executive and Inherent Executive Power,” Journal of Constitutional Law, 12, no. 1 (February 2010): 586.
20. 10 Annals of Cong. 613 (1800). 21. Louis F isher, “ Presidential I nherent P ower: The ‘ Sole
Organ’ Doctrine,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 37, no.1 (March 2007): 139.
22. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936). 23. Clement Fatovic, Outside the Law: Emergency and Execu-
tive P ower ( Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University P ress, 2009).
24. Louis Fisher, “Invoking Inherent Powers.” 25. John G ramlich, “ Holder S ees C onstitutional B asis f or
Obama’s Executive Actions,” Roll Call, January 29, 2014, www.rollcall.com/news/holder_sees_constitutional_ ba si s _ for_obamas_execut ive_ac t ions-230528-1 .html?pg=1 (accessed 4/20/18).
26. Harold C . Relyea, “National Emergency Powers,” Con- gressional Research Service, 2007, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/ natsec/98-505.pdf (accessed 3/27/18).
27. Matthew C renson a nd B enjamin G insberg, Presidential Power: U nchecked a nd U nbalanced, N ew York: W . W . Norton, 2007, pp. 341–342.
28. Andrew Reeves, “Political Disaster: Unilateral Powers, Electoral Incentives, and Presidential Disaster Declara- tions,” Journal of Politics 73, no. 4 (October 2011): 1142–51.
29. William G . H owell a nd D avid E . L ewis, “ Agencies by P residential D esign,” Journal of P olitics 6 4, n o. 4 (November 2002): 1095–114.
30. A substantial portion of this section is taken from Theo- dore J. Lowi, The Personal President (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985), 141–50.
31. The actual number is difficult to estimate because, as with White H ouse s taff, s ome E OP p ersonnel, e specially i n national s ecurity wo rk, a re d etailed t o t he E OP f rom outside agencies.
32. Article I, S ection 3 , provides that “ The V ice-President . . . shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.” This is the only vote the vice president is allowed.
33. Samuel Kernell, Going P ublic: N ew S trategies of P resi- dential Leadership, 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1997); a lso J effrey K . T ulis, The R hetorical P residency (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987).
34. Tulis, Rhetorical Presidency, 91.
approval. This case approved the executive agreement that was used to establish diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union in 1933. An executive agreement, not a treaty, was used in 1940 to exchange “fifty over-age destroyers” for 99-year leases on some important military bases.
5. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). 6. For a different perspective, see W illiam F. Grover, The
President a s P risoner: A S tructural C ritique of t he C arter and Reagan Years (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988).
7. A third source of presidential power is implied from the provision for “faithful execution of the laws.” This is the president’s power to impound funds—that is, to refuse to spend money Congress has appropriated for certain pur- poses. One author referred to t his a s a “ retroactive veto power” (Robert E. Goostree, “The Power of the President to I mpound A ppropriated F unds,” American U niversity Law Review 11 [ January 1962]: 32–47). This impound- ment p ower h as b een u sed f reely a nd t o c onsiderable effect by many modern presidents, and Congress has oc- casionally delegated such power to the president by stat- ute. But in reaction to the Watergate scandal, Congress adopted t he C ongressional Bu dget a nd I mpoundment Control Act of 1974, which was designed to circumscribe the president’s ability to impound funds by requiring that the p resident m ust s pend a ll a ppropriated f unds u nless both houses of Congress consented to an impoundment within 45 days of a presidential request. Therefore, since 1974, the use of impoundment has declined significantly. Presidents h ave h ad e ither to b ite t heir tongues a nd a c- cept unwanted appropriations or to revert to the older and more dependable but politically limited method of veto- ing the entire bill.
8. For more on the veto, see Robert J. Spitzer, The Presiden- tial Veto: Touchstone of t he American Presidency (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989).
9. Dan E ggen, “ Bush A nnounces V eto o f W aterboard- ing B an,” Washington P ost, M arch 8 , 2 008, www .washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/0 8AR2008030800304.html (accessed 6/10/10).
10. Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). I n the later case of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), t he C ourt r uled t hat t he e xecutives o f i ndepen- dent commissions could only be removed for cause.
11. John Yoo, The Powers of War and Peace (Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 2003). See a lso Dana D. Nelson, “The ‘ Unitary E xecutive’ Q uestion,” Los A ngeles T imes, October 1 1, 20 08, w ww.latimes.com/opinion/la-oe -nelson11-2008oct11-story.html (accessed 4/20/18).
12. See E ric P osner a nd A drian V ermeule, The E xecutive Unbound: A fter t he M adisonian R epublic (C hicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011).
13. “Unchecked Abuse,” Washington P ost, J anuary 1 1, 2 006, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ 2006/01/10/AR2006011001536.html (accessed 3/25/18).
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 66 17/11/18 3:57 PM
ENDNOTES A67
58. Philip Cooper, By O rder of t he P resident ( Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2002), 201.
59. Edward S . C orwin, The P resident: O ffice a nd P owers, 5th ed. (New York: NYU Press, 1984), 283.
60. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers, e d. C linton Rossiter ( New York: New American Library, 1961), no. 70, 423–30.
61. Terry M oe, “ The P residency a nd t he Bu reaucracy: The P residential A dvantage,” i n The P residency a nd t he Political S ystem, ed. M ichael Nelson ( Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2002), 416–20.
62. Louis Fisher, Congressional Abdication on War and Spend- ing (College Station: Texas A&M Press, 2000).
63. Letter f rom Thomas J efferson t o J ames M adison (September 6, 1789), in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1958), 392, 397.
CHAPTER 14
1. This a ccount d raws f rom A bby G oodnough, M onica Davey, a nd Mitch S mith, “ When t he W ater T urned Brown,” New Y ork T imes, January 2 3, 2 016; A my Davidson, “The Contempt That Poisoned Flint’s Water,” The New Yorker, January 22, 2016; a nd L indsey Smith, “This Mom Helped Uncover What Was Really Going on With Flint’s Water,” Michigan Public R adio, December 4, 20 15, m ichiganradio.org/post/mom-helped-uncover -what-was-really-going-flint-s-water (accessed 8/11/17).
2. Flint Water A dvisory Task F orce, F inal R eport, M arch 2016, w ww.michigan.gov/documents/snyder/FWATF_ FINA L _R EPORT_21March2016_517805_7.pdf (accessed 8/11/17).
3. Amy B. Zegart, Spying Blind: The CIA, The FBI, and the Origins of 9 /11 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009).
4. Paul C . L ight, “ A C ascade o f F ailures: W hy G overn- ment Fails, and How to Stop It,” Brookings Institution, July 14, 2014, www.brookings.edu/research/a-cascade-of -failures-why-government-fails-and-how-to-stop-it/ (accessed 8/5/17).
5. Environmental P rotection A gency, “ Regulations a nd Standards: L ight D uty,” w ww3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/ regs-light-duty.htm#new1 (accessed 7/9/16).
6. Lisa F riedman a nd B rad P lumer, “ E.P.A. A nnounces Repeal of Major Obama-Era Carbon Emissions Rule,” New York Times, October 9, 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/ climate/clean-power-plan.html (accessed 10/24/17).
7. Thanks to Andy Rudalevige for this formulation. 8. Juliet E ilperin, “EPA Needed More Data b efore R uling
on G reenhouse G as E missions, R eport S ays,” Washing- ton P ost, September 2 8, 2 011, www.washingtonpost .com/national/health-science/epa-needed-more-data-before -ruling-on-greenhouse-gas-emissions-report-says/ 2011/09/28/gIQABs2X5K_story.html (accessed 1/2/12).
35. Sidney M . M ilkis, The P resident a nd t he P arties ( New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 97.
36. James MacGregor Burns, Roosevelt: The Lion and the Fox (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1956), 317.
37. Burns, Roosevelt, 317. 38. Kernell, Going Public, 79. 39. Claire C ain M iller, “ How O bama’s I nternet C am-
paign Changed Politics,” New York Times, November 7, 2008, b its.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/how-obamas -internet-campaign-changed-politics/?_php5true&_ type5blogs&_r5o ( accessed 4 /7/14); D avid P louffe, The A udacity t o W in: The I nside S tory a nd L essons of Barack O bama’s H istoric V ictory ( New Y ork: V iking, 2009).
40. “Presidential Job Approval Center,” Gallup, www.gallup .com/poll/124922/presidentia l-approval-center.aspx (accessed 3/14/14).
41. Lowi, Personal President. 42. Lowi, Personal President, 11. 43. Gallup, “ Trump Job Approval ( Weekly),” July 2 2, 2 018,
https://news.gallup.com/poll/203207/trump-job-approval -weekly.aspx (accessed 7/27/18).
44. Milkis, President and the Parties, 128. 45. Milkis, President and the Parties, 160. 46. Kagan, “Presidential Administration,” 2265. 47. John M . B roder, “ Powerful S haper o f U .S. R ules
Quits, with Critics in Wake,” New York Times, August 4, 2012, A1.
48. Nadja Popovich, “67 Environmental Rules on the Way Out under Trump,” New York Times, January 31, 2018, www .nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/climate/trump -environment-rules-reversed.html (accessed 2/20/18).
49. Terry M. Moe and William G. Howell, “The Presidential Power of Unilateral Action,” Journal of L aw, Economics and Organization 15, no. 1 (January 1999): 133–34.
50. Todd F . G aziano, “ The U ses a nd A buses o f E xecutive Orders and Other Presidential Directives,” Texas Review of Law and Politics 5 (Spring 2001): 267–315.
51. Kenneth R . M ayer, With t he S troke of a P en: E xecutive Orders and Presidential Power (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), 71–73.
52. Harold C . Relyea, “Presidential Directives: Background and O verview,” C ongressional R esearch S ervice, N o- vember 2 6, 2 008, h ttp://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-611.pdf (accessed 3/25/18).
53. Vivian S . C hu a nd T ed G arvey, “ Executive O rders: Issuance, Modification, and Revocation,” Congressional Research S ervice, A pril 16, 2 014, h ttp://fas.org/sgp/crs/ misc/RS20846.pdf (accessed 3/25/18).
54. Adam L. Warber, Executive Orders and the Modern Presi- dency ( Boulder, C O: L ynne R ienner P ublishers, 2 006), 118–120.
55. Chu and Garvey, “Executive Orders.” 56. Chu and Garvey, “Executive Orders,” 10. 57. Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981).
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 67 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A68 ENDNOTES
articles/2017-10-11/betsy-devos-outlines-vision-for -american-education (accessed 12/20/17).
20. Morgan Chalfant, “Homeland Security Sees Power Grow under Trump,” The Hill, October 19, 2017, http://thehill .com/policy/national-security/356131-homeland-security -sees-power-grow-under-trump ( accessed 1 1/10/17); Department o f H omeland S ecurity, “ Budget W ill Advance DHS Priorities,” February 12, 2018, w ww.dhs .gov/news/2018/02/12/department-homeland-security -statement-president-s-fiscal-year-2019-budget (accessed 10/13/18).
21. Laura K oran, E lise L abott, a nd N icole G aouette, “Tillerson V isits R ussia a s T ensions o ver S yria F lare,” CNN.com, A pril 1 1, 2 017, w ww.cnn.com/2017/04/11/ politics/rex-tillerson-putin-russia-g7/index.html (accessed 8/11/17).
22. U.S. D epartment o f S tate, “ Department O rganiza- tion C hart: N ovember 2 016,” w ww.state.gov/r/pa/ei/ rls/dos/99484.htm ( accessed 8 /5/17); R obbie G ramer, “Lawmakers S lam Ti llerson’s Bu ngled S tate D epart- ment R eforms,” Foreign Po licy, N ovember 1 5, 2 017, http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/15/lawmakers-slam -tillersons-bungled-state-department-reforms-diplomacy -foreign-service-trump-administration-redesign-congress -corker-cardin/ (accessed 1/5/18).
23. For more details, consult John E . Harr, The Professional Diplomat (Princeton, N J: P rinceton University Press, 1972), 11; and Nicholas Horrock, “The CIA Has Neigh- bors in the ‘Intelligence Community,’” New York Times, June 29, 1975, sec. 4, 2. See also Morton H. Halperin and Priscilla C lapp, Bureaucratic P olitics a nd F oreign P olicy, 2nd ed., w ith A rnold Kanter (Washington, DC: Brook- ings Institution Press, 2007).
24. In 2 017 t he D epartment o f D efense h ad o ver 1 .3 m il- lion a ctive d uty p ersonnel a nd n early 7 50,000 c ivil- ian e mployees. U .S. D epartment o f D efense, “ About the D epartment o f D efense,” w ww.defense.gov/About/ (accessed 12/20/17).
25. Congressional R esearch S ervice, “ Defense P rimer: The Department of Defense,” December 13, 2016, https://fas .org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF10543.pdf (accessed 8/10/17).
26. The 5 p ercent r eduction i s c ompared t o a 2 012 b ase- line. C ongressional Budget O ffice, “ The U.S. M ilitary’s Force Structure: A Primer,” July 29, 2016, www.cbo.gov/ publication/51535 (accessed 8/10/17).
27. Louise Osborne, “Europeans Outraged over NSA Spying, Threaten A ction,” USA Today, October 29, 2013, w ww .usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/28/report-nsa -spain/3284609/ (accessed 1/24/14).
28. Warren S trobel a nd M ark H osenball, “ White H ouse Review Panel Proposes Curbs o n Some NSA Pro- grams,” Reuters, December 18, 2013, www.reuters.com/ a r t ic le /2013/12/18/u s -u sa- su r ve i l l a nc e -oba ma -idUSBRE9BG1AQ20131218 (accessed 1/24/14).
29. David Cole, “Here’s W hat’s Wrong with the USA Free- dom A ct,” The N ation, May 6 , 2 015, w ww.thenation
9. Margaret C ronin F isk, K artikay M ehrotra, A lan K atz, and J eff Plungis, “ Volkswagen A grees t o $ 15 B illion Diesel-Cheating Settlement,” Bloomberg News, June 28, 2016, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-28/ volkswagen-to-pay-14-7-billion-to-settle-u-s-emissions -claims (accessed 7/8/16).
10. Gary Bryner, Bureaucratic D iscretion ( New Y ork: Pergamon Press, 1987).
11. “Federal Employees by State,” Governing, www.governing . c om /g o v- d a t a / f e d e r a l - e mp l oy e e s -w o r k f o r c e -numbers-by-state.html (accessed 8/10/17).
12. Congressional Bu dget O ffice, “ Comparing t he C om- pensation o f F ederal a nd P rivate-Sector E mployees, 2011–2015,” April 2017, www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th -congress-2017-2018/reports/52637-federalprivatepay.pdf (accessed 12/20/17).
13. U.S. O ffice o f P ersonnel M anagement, “ Women i n Federal S ervice,” www.fedview.opm.gov/2014files/2014 _Womens_Report.pdf (accessed 8/10/17); Office of Personnel M anagement, “ Profile o f F ederal C ivilian Non-Postal Employees,” September 30, 2017, www.opm .gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/ federa l-employment-reports/reports-publications/ prof i le-of-federa l-civi l ian-non-posta l-employees/ (accessed 10/13/18).
14. The P resident’s Bu dget F Y18, A nalytical P erspectives, www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget (accessed 8/10/17).
15. President B arack O bama, F irst I naugural A ddress, January 2 1, 2 009, https://obamawhitehouse.archives .gov/blog/2009/01/21/president-barack-obamas-inaugural -address (accessed 8/5/17).
16. Office o f P ersonnel M anagement, “ Federal C ivilian Employment,” S eptember 20 17, w ww.opm.gov/policy -data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal -employment-reports/reports-publications/federal-civilian -employment/ (accessed 10/13/18); George M. Reynolds and A manda S hendruk, “ Demographics o f t he U .S. Military,” Council on Foreign Relations, April 24, 2018, www.cfr.org/article/demographics-us-military ( accessed 10/13/18).
17. Bureau o f L abor S tatistics, C urrent E mployment Statistics, “Table B-1. Employees on Nonfarm Payrolls by Industry Sector and Selected Industry Detail,” w ww.bls .gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm (accessed 7/15/16).
18. There are historical reasons that American Cabinet-level administrators are called “secretaries.” During the Second Continental Congress and the subsequent confederal gov- ernment, standing committees were formed to deal with executive functions related to foreign affairs, military and maritime issues, and public financing. The heads of those committees were called “secretaries” because their primary task was to handle all correspondence and documentation related to their areas of responsibility.
19. Lauren C amera, “ DeVos O utlines V ision f or ‘ Ameri- can E ducation,’” U.S. N ews a nd W orld R eport, Octo- ber 1 1, 2 017, w ww.usnews.com/news/education-news/
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 68 17/11/18 3:57 PM
ENDNOTES A69
-responsibilities-and-consolidating-offices-highlight -trump-reorganization-plan/145936/ (accessed 3/27/18).
40. Nicole Ogrysko, “ Omnibus Spending Bill Complicates Administration’s Reorg P lans,” Federal News Radio, March 2 2, 2 018, h ttps://federalnewsradio.com/ budget/2018/03/omnibus-complicates-administrations -reorganization-plans-as-congress-begins-votes/ (accessed 3/27/18).
41. Public L aw 1 01-510, Ti tle X XIX, S ections 2 ,901 a nd 2,902 of Part A (Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission); s ee t he 2 005 c ommission’s w ebsite, D e- fense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, www .brac.gov (accessed 1/3/12).
42. Walter P incus, “ For P entagon, I t’s A lways a T ough Battle t o G et C ongress t o C lose M ilitary B ases, Facilities,” Washington Post, March 1 7, 2014, www .washingtonpost.com/world/nationa l-security/for -pentagon-its-always-a-tough-battle-to-get-congress-to-close -military-bases-facilities/2014/03/17/a7eda064-a887 -11e3-8599-ce7295b6851c_story.html (accessed 9/30/15).
43. Dylan Mathews, “Everything You Could Possibly Need to K now,” Washington P ost, February 2 0, 2 013, w ww .washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/02/20/the -sequester-absolutely-everything-you-could-possibly-need -to-know-in-one-faq/?utm_term=.6785d26f55a f (accessed 8/6/17).
44. Eric Katz, “Social Security Offers Nearly Its Entire Work- force Early R etirement,” Government Executive, August 4, 20 17, h ttp://m.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2017/08/ socia l-security-has-sent-early-out-offers-nearly-its -entire-workforce/140008/?oref=govexec_today_pm_nl (accessed 8 /11/17); L ouis J acobson, “ Taking t he M ea- sure o f t he F ederal W orkforce u nder D onald T rump,” Politifact, J anuary 22 , 20 18, w ww.politifact.com/truth -o-meter/article/2018/jan/22/taking-measure-federal -workforce/ (accessed 3/27/18).
45. Lenny Bernstein, “Arizona Becomes Last State to Provide Health I nsurance t o L ow-Income C hildren,” Washing- ton Post, July 25, 2016, www.washingtonpost.com/news/ to-your-health/wp/2016/07/25/arizona-becomes-the -last-state-to-provide-health-insurance-to-low-income -children/?utm_term=.8c9293c169f2 (accessed 8/5/17).
46. Sheila R. Zedlewski, Pamela J. Loprest, and Erika Huber, “What R ole I s Welfare P laying i n This Period o f H igh Unemployment?” Urban Institute, Fact Sheet 3, August 17, 2 011, w ww.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412378-Role -of-Welfare-in-this-Period-of-High-Unemployment.pdf (accessed 7/4/12).
47. Sabrina Tavernise, “Food Stamps Helped Reduce Poverty Rate, Study Says,” New York Times, April 10, 2012, A16.
48. John J. Dilulio, Jr., Bring Back the Bureaucrats: Why More Federal Workers Will Lead to Better (and Smaller!) Govern- ment (West C onshohocken, PA: Templeton Press, 2014); Kimberly J. Morgan and Andrea Louise Campbell, The Delegated W elfare S tate (New Y ork: O xford U niversity Press, 2011).
.com/article/heres-whats-wrong-usa-freedom-act/ (accessed11/10/17).
30. U.S. Department of the Treasury, “The Debt to the Penny and W ho H olds I t,” w ww.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/ current (accessed 3/27/18).
31. Financial S tability O versight C ouncil, “ Designations,” www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/designations/Pages/ default.aspx (accessed 1/23/14).
32. Lisa Rein, “IRS Conference in Anaheim Featured Gifts, Other Excesses Approved by Top Officials, Report Says,” Washington P ost, June, 6, 2 013, www.washingtonpost .com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/06/04/irs-conference-in -anaheim-featured-gifts-other-excesses-approved-by-top -officials-report-says/ (accessed 1/31/14).
33. Alan R appeport, “ Under Trump, A n A lready D epleted I.R.S. Could Face Deep Cuts,” New York Times March 2, 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/us/politics/trump -mnuchin-irs.html ( accessed 8 /5/17); J oe D avidson, “IRS C hief S ays T rump’s Bu dget W ould S harply C ut Taxpayer Service,” Washington Post, June 1, 2018, www .washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/06/01/ irs-chief-says-trumps-budget-would-sharply-cut-taxpayer -service/?utm_term=.5c64e7ca25e9 (accessed 10/13/18).
34. U.S. Department o f Health a nd Human S ervices, O ffice of the Inspector General, “CMS Management of the Federal M arketplace: A C ase S tudy,” F ebruary 2 016, https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-06-14-00350.pdf (accessed 8/6/17).
35. U.S. D epartment o f V eterans A ffairs, “ Veterans A c- cess, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 Fact Sheet,” www.va.gov/opa/choiceact/documents/choice-act -summary.pdf (accessed 8/6/17).
36. Vice P resident G ore’s N ational P artnership f or R e- inventing G overnment, “ Appendix F , H istory o f t he National Partnership f or R einventing G overnment: A c- complishments, 1993–2000, A Summary,” http://govinfo .library.unt.edu/npr/whoweare/appendixf.html (accessed 3/28/08).
37. Social and Behavioral Sciences Team 2016 Annual Report, September 2016, https://sbst.gov/download/2016%20 SBST%20Annual%20Report.pdf (accessed 8/6/17).
38. Andy R udalevige, “ Trump W ants t o R eorganize t he Executive B ranch. G ood L uck w ith That.” The M onkey Cage (blog), M arch 1 6, 2 017, w ww.washingtonpost .com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/16/trump-wants -to-reorganize-the-executive-branch-good-luck-to -him/?utm_term=.8b1417c138a2 (accessed 8/6/17).
39. Mick M ulvaney, O ffice o f M anagement a nd Bu dget, “Comprehensive P lan f or R eforming t he F ederal G ov- ernment and Reducing the Federal Civilian Workforce” memorandum, April 12, 2017, www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2017/M-17-22 .pdf (accessed 8/6/17); Eric Katz, “Transferring Responsi- bility and Consolidating Offices Highlight Trump Reorga- nization Plan,” Government Executive, February 12, 2018, www.govexec.com/management/2018/02/transferring
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 69 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A70 ENDNOTES
60. Dan E gan, “ Democrats P roposing N ew L imits o n Corporate Campaign Donations,” Boston Globe, February 12, 2 010, w ww.boston.com/news/nation/washington/ articles/2010/02/12/democrats_proposing_new_limits_on _corporate_campaign_donations/ (accessed 2/27/10).
61. Peter Baker, “Obama Orders Federal Contractors to Pro- vide Workers Paid Sick Leave,” New York Times, Septem- ber 7 , 20 15, w ww.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/ obama-to-require-federal-contractors-to-provide-paid -sick-leave.html?_r50 (accessed 9/30/15).
62. Gregory K orte, “ Trump S igns F our B ills t o R oll B ack Obama-Era Regulations,” USA Today, March 27, 2017, www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/27/ trump-signs-four-bills-roll-back-obama-era-regulations/ 99690456/ (accessed 11/8/17).
63. The title of this section was inspired by Peri Arnold, Mak- ing th e Managerial P residency ( Princeton, N J: Princeton University Press, 1986).
64. Daniel P . G itterman, Calling the S hots: The P resident, Executive O rders, a nd P ublic P olicy (Washington, D C: Brookings Institution Press, 2017).
65. Paul C. Light, A Government Ill Executed: The Decline of the Federal Service and How To Revive It (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008).
66. For more details and evaluations, see David Rosenbloom, Public Administration (New York: Random House, 1986), 186–221; C harles H . L evine, The Q uiet C risis of t he Civil S ervice: The F ederal P ersonnel S ystem a t t he Crossroads, w ith t he a ssistance o f R osslyn S . K leeman (Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Admin- istration, 1986).
67. John Micklethwait, “Managing to Look Attractive,” New Statesman 125, November 8, 1996, 24.
68. Robert M . G ates, Duty: M emoirs of a S ecretary a t War (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014); Leon Panetta, Worthy Fights: A Memoir of Leadership in War and Peace (New York: Penguin, 2014).
69. Michael J. Glennon, National Security and Double Gov- ernment (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015).
70. Michael Crowley, “The Deep State Is Real. But It Might Not B e W hat You Think,” Politico M agazine, Septem- ber/October 2 017, w ww.politico.com/magazine/story/ 2017/09/05/deep-state-real-cia-fbi-intelligence-215537 (accessed 11/10/17).
71. David Epstein and Sharyn O’Halloran, Delegating Pow- ers: A T ransaction Cost Politics Approach t o Policymaking under S eparate P owers (Cambridge: C ambridge U niver- sity Press, 1999).
72. Robert J . McGrath, “Congressional O versight Hearings and Policy Control,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 38, no. 3 (2013): 349–76.
73. Mann and Ornstein, The Broken Branch. 74. Linette L opez a nd L ydia R amsey, “ ‘You A sked f or I t’—
Congress Railed on the Maker of EpiPen,” Business Insider, September 2 1, 2 016, w ww.businessinsider.com/mylan
49. Paul C . L ight, “ The N ew T rue S ize o f G overnment,” Organizational P erformance I nitiative, R esearch B rief no. 2, Wagner School of Public Service, New York Univer- sity, 8, https://wagner.nyu.edu/files/performance/True%20 Size%20Research%20Brief.pdf ( accessed 3 /11/08); O MB Watch, “Total Spending by Year,” FedSpending.org, www .fedspending.org/fpds/chart_total.php (accessed 1/2/12).
50. Scott Shane and Ron Nixon, “In Washington, Contrac- tors Take On Biggest Role Ever,” New York Times, Febru- ary 4, 2007, A1.
51. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “The Culture of Secrecy,” Public Interest (Summer 1997): 55–71.
52. Thomas E . Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, The Broken Branch: H ow C ongress I s F ailing A merica a nd H ow t o Get It Back on Track (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 155.
53. For t he e stimates o n w aste, s ee C ommission o n W ar- time Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, Transforming Wartime C ontracting: C ontrolling C osts, R educing R isks: Final Report to Congress, 18, August 2011, www.wartime contracting.gov (accessed 1/4/12).
54. Neil G ordon, “ Move o ver F CMD, M ake W ay f or FAPIIS,” POGO ( blog), S eptember 1 1, 2 009, h ttp:// pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2009/09/move-over-fcmd -make-way-for-fapiis.html (accessed 2/26/10).
55. Government A ccountability O ffice, Federal C ontractors: Better Performance Information Needed to Support Agency Contract Award Decisions, April 2009, G AO-09-374, www.gao.gov/new.items/d09374.pdf ( accessed 2 /26/10); Tom Lee, “FAPIIS May Be the Worst Government Web- site We’ve Ever Seen,” Sunlight Foundation, April 19, 2011, sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/04/19/fapiis -may-be-the-worst-government-website-weve-ever-seen/ (accessed 1/23/14).
56. Joe D avidson, “ OMB M oves t o C ut O utside C ontrac- tors,” Federal Diary, Washington Post, July 29, 2009, www .washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/ 28/AR2009072802812.html (accessed 2/18/10).
57. Joe Davidson, “Deficit-Cutters Must Also Weigh the Cost of Contractors,” Federal Diary, Washington Post, Febru- ary 4, 2011, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ a r t i c l e /2 011/02 /03/A R 2 01102 03 0 6 8 09.ht m l ? nav5emailpage (accessed 1/2/12).
58. Charlie Savage, “U.S. to Phase Out Use of Private Pris- ons f or F ederal I nmates,” New York T imes, August 18, 2016, w ww.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/us-to-phase-out -use-of-private-prisons-for-federal-inmates.html?_r=0 (accessed 11/8/17).
59. Marjorie Censer, “Five Provisions in the New Defense Policy Legislation for Contractors to Watch,” Washington Post, January 5 , 2 014, w ww.washingtonpost.com/business/ capitalbusiness/five-provisions-in-the-new-defense-policy -legislation-for-contractors-to-watch/2014/01/0/f6d- d00ec-6c10-11e3-a523-fe73f0ff6b8d_story.html (accessed 1/24/14).
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 70 17/11/18 3:57 PM
ENDNOTES A71
3. Celine M cNicholas a nd J anelle J ones, “ Black W omen Will B e M ost A ffected b y Janus,” E conomic P olicy Institute, Economic Snapshot, February 13, 2018, w ww .epi.org/publication/black-women-will-be-most-affected -by-janus/ (accessed 3/3/18); a nd K ayla Patrick, “Public Sector Unions Promote Economic Security and Equality for Women,” National Women’s Law Center Fact Sheet, January 2018, h ttps://nwlc.org/resources/public-sector -unions-promote-economic-security-and-equality-for -women/ (accessed 3/3/18).
4. U.S. C ourts S tatistical T ables, w ww.uscourts.gov/ statistics-reports/analysis-reports/statistical-tables-federal -judiciary (accessed 9/19/2015).
5. Michael A . F letcher, “ Obama C riticized a s T oo C au- tious, S low on Judicial Posts,” Washington Post, October 16, 2 009, w ww.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ article/2009/10/15/AR2009101504083.html ( accessed 3/1/10).
6. John B owden, “ Timeline: B rett K avanaugh’s N omina- tion to the Supreme Court,” The Hill, October 6, 2018, https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/410217-timeline -brett-kavanaughs-nomination-to-the-supreme-court (accessed 10/16/18).
7. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). 8. National F ederation o f I ndependent B usiness v. S ebelius,
567 U.S. — (2012). 9. Acts o f C ongress h eld u nconstitutional i n w hole
or i n p art b y t he S upreme C ourt o f t he United S tates, General P rinting O ffice, w ww.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ GPO-CONAN-2013/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2013-11.pdf (accessed 4/20/14).
10. Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 551 U.S. 449 (2007); McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commis- sion, 572 U.S. — (2014).
11. This review power was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816).
12. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 13. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). 14. Paven v. Smith, 582 U.S. — (2017). 15. Alabama L egislative B lack C aucus v . A labama, 575 U.S.
— (2015). 16. Arizona S tate L egislature v . A rizona I ndependent R edis-
tricting Commission, 576 U.S. — (2015). 17. Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. — (2017). 18. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. — (2012). 19. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. — (2014). 20. Theodore J. Lowi, The End of L iberalism, 2nd ed. (New
York: W . W . N orton, 1 979); a lso D avid S choenbrod, Power wi thout R esponsibility: H ow C ongress A buses the People through Delegation (New Haven, CT: Yale Univer- sity Press, 1993).
21. Kenneth C ulp D avis, Discretionary J ustice (Baton R ouge: L ouisiana S tate U niversity P ress, 1969), 15 –21.
22. Emergency Price Control Act, 56 Stat. 23 (1942).
-ceo-heather-bresch-house-oversight-committee-hearing -epipen-2016-9 ( accessed 1 1/9/17); s ee M athew D . McCubbins and Thomas Schwartz, “Congressional Over- sight Overlooked: Police Patrols versus Fire Alarms,” Ameri- can Journal of Political Science 28, no. 1 (1984): 165–79.
75. Douglas K riner a nd L iam S chwartz, “Divided G overn- ment and Congressional Investigations,” Legislative Stud- ies Quarterly 33, no. 2 (2008): 295–321.
76. Michael D . S hear a nd M ichael S . S chmidt, “ Benghazi Panel Engages Clinton in Tense Session,” New York Times, October 2 2, 2 015, w ww.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/us/ politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi-committee.html?_r50 (accessed 10/29/15).
77. Thomas E . M ann a nd N orman J . O rnstein, It’s E ven Worse Than It L ooks: H ow t he American C onstitutional System Collided with the New Politics of E xtremism (New York: Basic Books, 2012); Francine Kiefer, “Comey Hear- ing: Why Congressional Oversight Has Broken Down,” Christian S cience Monitor, July 7, 2016, w ww.csmonitor .com/USA/Politics/2016/0707/Comey-hearing-Why -congressional-oversight-has-broken-down ( accessed 11/9/17).
78. The Office of Technology A ssessment was a f ourth re- search agency serving Congress until 1995. It was one of t he first a gencies s cheduled f or e limination b y t he 104th Congress. Until 1983, Congress had still another tool of legislative oversight: the legislative veto. Each agency operating under such provisions was obliged to submit t o C ongress e very p roposed d ecision o r r ule, which would t hen l ie b efore b oth c hambers f or 3 0 to 60 d ays. I f C ongress t ook n o a ction b y o ne-house o r two-house r esolution e xplicitly t o v eto t he p roposed measure d uring t he p rescribed p eriod, t he m easure became l aw. The l egislative v eto w as d eclared u n- constitutional b y t he S upreme C ourt i n 1983 o n t he grounds that it violated the separation of powers—the resolutions Congress passed to exercise its veto were not subject to presidential veto, as required by the Consti- tution. S ee Immigration a nd N aturalization S ervice v . Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).
CHAPTER 15
1. This a ccount d raws f rom A ustin B erg, “ Meet t he M an Who C ould E nd F orced U nion F ees f or G overnment Workers,” I llinois P olicy, 2 018, w ww.illinoispolicy .org/story/meet-the-man-who-could-end-forced-union -fees-for-government-workers/ ( accessed 3 /3/18); a nd P. R . L ockhart, “ What t he L atest U nion C ase B efore the Supreme Court Could Mean for Workers of Color,” Vox, February 26, 2018, www.vox.com/policy-and -politics/2018/2/26/17053328/janus-afscme-supreme -court-unions-minorities (accessed 3/3/18).
2. Abood v . D etroit B oard of E ducation, 4 31 U .S. 2 09 (1977).
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 71 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A72 ENDNOTES
CHAPTER 16
1. Maureen H ayden, “ Prohibition-Era L aws K eep C ap o n Craft Beer Industry,” Indianapolis Tribune Star, February 5, 2 015, w w w.t r ibs t a r.com/news/ loca l _news/ prohibition-era-laws-keep-cap-on-craft-beer-industry/ article_35917c72-5072-5f2d-8b7a-ab829eb48390.html (accessed 10/31/17).
2. Matthew Mitchell and Christopher Koopman, “Bottling Up Innovation in Craft Brewing: A R eview of the Cur- rent Barriers and Challenges,” Mercatus Center, George Mason U niversity, J une 2 014, w ww.mercatus.org/ system/files/MitchellKoopman-CraftBrewing-MOP.pdf (accessed 10/31/17).
3. Compare with Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of C onserva- tism (New York: Free Press, 1963), chap. 6.
4. Bureau o f E conomic A nalysis, “ Gross D omestic P rod- uct: P ercent C hange f rom P receding P eriod” ( gdpchg .xls), October 27, 2017, w ww.bea.gov/national (accessed 11/1/17).
5. U.S. S ecurities a nd E xchange C ommission, I mple- menting t he D odd-Frank W all S treet R eform a nd t he Consumer P rotection A ct, w ww.sec.gov/spotlight/dodd -frank.shtml (accessed 7/10/16).
6. Alan R appeport a nd E mily F litter, “Congress A pproves First Big Dodd-Frank Rollback,” New York Times, May 22, 20 18, www.nytimes.com/2018/05/22/business/ congress-passes-dodd-frank-rollback-for-smaller-banks .html (accessed 7/27/18).
7. See D avid M . H art, Forged C onsensus: S cience, Technology a nd E conomic P olicy i n t he United S tates, 1921–1953 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998).
8. See M argaret Weir, Politics a nd J obs: The B oundaries of Employment P olicy i n t he U nited S tates ( Princeton, N J: Princeton University Press, 1992).
9. Adam A ndrzejewski, “ Meet A merica’s E lite F arm Subsidy Club,” RealClear Politics, August 8, 2018, www .realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/08/08/meet_americas _elite_farm_subsidy_club_137745.html ( accessed 10/12/2018).
10. The act of 1955 officially designated the interstate high- ways a s t he N ational S ystem o f I nterstate a nd D efense Highways. I t w as i ndirectly a m ajor p art o f P resident Dwight Eisenhower’s defense program.
11. Small Bu siness A dministration, A gency F inancial Report: F iscal Y ear—2016, p . 1 3, www.sba.gov/sites/ default/files/aboutsbaarticle/SBA_2016_AFR.pdf (accessed 10/6/17).
12. The members included AMD, Digital, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, Lucent, Motorola, National Semiconductor, Rockwell, and Texas Instruments.
13. Molly S herlock a nd J effrey M . S tupak, “ Energy T ax Policy: Issues in the 1 14th Congress,” Congressional Research S ervice, J une 1 5, 2 016, www.fas.org/sgp/crs/ misc/R43206.pdf (accessed 7/9/16).
23. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). 24. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006). 25. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008). 26. National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S.
— (2014). 27. Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. — (2018). 28. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). 29. Schuette v . C oalition t o D efend A ffirmative A ction, 5 72
U.S. — (2014). 30. Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. — (2016). 31. Robert Scigliano, The Supreme Court and the Presidency
(New Y ork: F ree P ress, 1 971), 1 62. F or a n i nterest- ing c ritique o f t he s olicitor g eneral’s r ole d uring t he Reagan administration, see Lincoln Caplan, “Annals of the Law,” New Yorker, August 17, 1987, 30–62.
32. Edward Lazarus, Closed C hambers ( New Y ork: Ti mes Books, 1998), 6.
33. NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963). The quotation is from the opinion in this case.
34. Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944). 35. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. — (2015). 36. Charles Krauthammer, “Why Roberts Did It,” Washington
Post, June 29, 2012, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ charles-krauthammer-why-roberts-did-it/2012/06/28/ gJQA4X0g9V_story.html (accessed 4/22/14).
37. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). 38. McCutcheon v . F ederal E lection C ommission, 5 72
U.S. — (2014). 39. R. W. Apple, Jr., “A Divided Government Remains, and
with It the Prospect of Further Combat,” New York Times, November 7, 1996, B6.
40. For limits on judicial power, see Alexander Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962).
41. Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832). 42. Walter Murphy, Congress and the Court (Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1962). 43. Robert Dahl, “The Supreme Court and National Policy
Making,” Journal of Public Law 6 (1958): 279. 44. Martin S hapiro, “ The S upreme C ourt: F rom W arren
to Bu rger,” i n The N ew A merican P olitical S ystem, ed. Anthony K ing ( Washington, D C: A merican E nterprise Institute, 1978).
45. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971). 46. Toni L ocy, “ Bracing f or H ealth C are’s C aseload,”
Washington Post, August 22, 1994, A15. 47. See “Developments in the Law—Class Actions,” Harvard
Law Review 89 (1976): 1318. 48. In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, 100 F.R.D.
718 (E.D.N.Y. 1983). 49. Donald Horowitz, The Courts and Social Policy (Washing-
ton, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1977). 50. Morgan v. McDonough, 540 F2d 527 (1 Cir., 1976; cert.
denied, 429 U.S. 1042 [1977]). 51. Alexander H amilton, J ames M adison, a nd J ohn J ay,
The F ederalist P apers, ed. C linton R ossiter ( New Y ork: New American Library, 1961), no. 10, 78.
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 72 17/11/18 3:57 PM
ENDNOTES A73
27. DeSilver, “5 Facts about the Minimum Wage.” 28. DeSilver, “5 Facts about the Minimum Wage.” 29. DeSilver, “5 Facts about the Minimum Wage.” 30. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Union Members Summary,”
January 8, 20 16, w ww.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0 .htm (accessed 7/9/16).
31. National R ight t o W ork L egal D efense F oundation, “Right t o W ork F requently A sked Q uestions,” 2 017, www.nrtw.org/right-to-work-frequently-asked-questions (accessed 10/24/17).
32. David E . S anger, D avid M . H erszenhorn, a nd B ill Vlasic, “ Bush A ids D etroit, b ut H ard C hoices A wait Obama,” New Y ork T imes, D ecember 1 9, 2 008, w ww .nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html?r53&hp (accessed 3/7/10).
33. Reuters, “ CBO R aises T ARP C ost E stimate t o $ 34 Billion,” D ecember 1 6, 2 011, w ww.reuters.com/ a r t ic le /2011/12/16/us-usa-ta rp-cost-idUSTR E7 BF1W920111216 (accessed 7/3/12).
34. Bureau o f L abor S tatistics, “ United S tates U nemploy- ment R ate,” w ww.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/ unemployment-rate (accessed 7/3/12).
35. Congressional Budget Office, “Estimated Impact of the American R ecovery a nd R einvestment A ct o n E mploy- ment and Economic Output from January 2012 through March 2 012,” T able 1 , M ay 2 012, w ww.cbo.gov/sites/ default/f iles/cbofiles/attachments/05-25-Impact_of _ARRA.pdf (accessed 7/10/16).
36. Ben Pershing, “House Passes $15 Billion Jobs Bill,” Wash- ington P ost, M arch 5 , 2 010, w ww.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR2010030402757 .html (accessed 3/5/10).
37. Natalie S herman, “ Fed N ominee J erome Powell S hares Views w ith C ongress,” B BC N ews, N ovember 2 8, 2017, www.bbc.com/news/business-42156529 (accessed 3/29/18).
38. Federal R eserve Board, Policy T ools: Open Market Operations, M arch 2 1, 2 018, w ww.federalreserve.gov/ monetarypolicy/openmarket.htm (accessed 3/29/18).
39. Binyamin A ppelbaum, “ Jerome P owell I s S worn i n a s Federal Reserve Chairman,” New York Times, February 5, 2018, w ww.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/us/politics/jerome -powel l-federa l-reser ve-cha irman-sworn-in.html (accessed 3/29/18).
40. ATTOM Data, “U.S. Foreclosure Activity Drops to 12- Year Low in 2017,” January 16, 2018, www.attomdata.com/ news/foreclosure-trends/2017-year-end-u-s-foreclosure -market-report/ (accessed 3/29/18).
41. Steven R . W eisman, “ Bernanke F aces B ear S tearns Queries,” New York Times, April 2, 2008, C1.
42. Federal R eserve, “ Why D id t he F ederal R eserve L end to B anks a nd O ther F inancial I nstitutions d uring t he Financial Crisis?” www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/why-did -the-Federal-Reserve-lend-to-banks-and-other-financial -institutions-during-the-financial-crisis.htm ( accessed 12/7/15).
14. Timothy Cama, “Trump Eyes 70 Percent Cut to DOE’s Renewables Office, The Hill, May 17, 2017, thehill.com/ policy/energy-environment/333816-trump-eyes-70 -percent-cut-to-does-renewables-off ice ( accessed 10/25/17); U .S. D epartment o f E nergy, “ DOE H ails Passage o f F Y 2 018 O mnibus B ill,” E nergy.gov, M arch 23, 20 18, w ww.energy.gov/articles/doe-hails-passage -fy-2018-omnibus-bill (accessed 3/29/18).
15. Drew DeSilver, “ 5 F acts a bout the M inimum Wage,” Pew Research Center, Fact Tank, January 4, 2017, www .pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/04/5-facts-about -the-minimum-wage/ (accessed 10/6/17).
16. U.S. C onsumer P roduct S afety C ommission, L etter t o Manufacturers, Importers, and Retailers of Self-Balancing Scooters, F ebruary 1 8, 2 016, www.cpsc.gov/Global/ Business-and-Manufacturing/Business-Education/ SelfbalancingScooterLetter.pdf (accessed 10/23/17).
17. Ronald Reagan, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1981, www .presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid543130 (accessed 4/27/14).
18. Gallup, T axes, n ews.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx (accessed 10/6/17).
19. Gallup, Taxes. 20. Tax Policy C enter, “Analysis o f t he Tax C uts a nd J obs
Act,” D ecember 22 , 20 17, w ww.taxpolicycenter.org/ feature/analysis-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act (accessed 3/29/18).
21. Pew R esearch C enter, “ With Bu dget D ebate L oom- ing, G rowing S hare o f P ublic P refers B igger G overn- ment,” U .S. P olitics & P olicy, A pril 24 , 2 017, w ww .people-press.org/2017/04/24/with-budget-debate-looming -growing-share-of-public-prefers-bigger-government/ (accessed 10/6/17).
22. Pew R esearch C enter, “ As S equester D eadline L ooms, Little S upport f or C utting M ost P rograms,” U .S. P oli- tics & P olicy, F ebruary 2 2, 2 013, w ww.people-press .org/2013/02/22/as-sequester-deadline-looms-little -support-for-cutting-most-programs/ (accessed 4/27/14).
23. See, f or e xample, P aul K rugman, “ The B ankruptcy Boys,” New Y ork T imes, F ebruary 2 1, 2 010, w ww .nytimes.com/2010/02/22/opinion/22krugman.html?_ r50 (accessed 4/27/14).
24. Robert G reenstein, “ Budget D eal, Though I mperfect, Represents Significant Accomplishment and Merits Sup- port,” C enter o n Bu dget a nd Policy P riorities, O ctober 27, 2015, www.cbpp.org/press/statements/greenstein -budget-deal-though-imperfect-represents-significant -accomplishment-and (accessed 12/16/15).
25. Pew R esearch C enter, “ Section 2: Government, R egula- tion, a nd t he S ocial S afety N et,” U .S. P olitics & P olicy, October 5 , 20 17, w ww.people-press.org/2017/10/05/ 2-government-regulation-and-the-social-safety-net/ (accessed 10/6/17).
26. Politico/Harvard School of Public Health, “The Public’s Views o f T ax R eform a nd O ther D omestic I ssues,” Social S cience R esearch S olutions, S eptember 2 017 www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015e-a4d7-d873-adfe -bdd740140000 (accessed 10/12/18).
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 73 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A74 ENDNOTES
53. David Espo, “Shutdown Orders Issued as Congress Misses Deadline,” A ssociated P ress, O ctober 1 , 2 013, b igstory . ap.org /a r t ic le /hea lt h- l aw-cha l lenge -t h re aten s -government-shutdown (accessed 4/26/14).
54. For a n a ccount o f t he r elationship b etween mechaniza- tion and law, see Lawrence Friedman, A History of Ameri- can Law (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1973), 409–29.
55. The Federal Register is the daily publication of all official acts o f C ongress, t he p resident, a nd t he a dministrative agencies. A l aw or executive order i s not legally binding until it is published in the Federal Register.
56. Renae Merle, “ Trump Administration Strips C onsumer Watchdog O ffice o f E nforcement P owers i n L ending Discrimination C ases,” Washington P ost, February 1 , 2018, w ww.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/ 2018/02/01/trump-administration-strips-consumer -watchdog-of f ice-of-enforcement-powers-aga inst -financial-firms-in-lending-discrimination-cases/?utm _term=.4ca043ab46f0 (accessed 3/29/18).
57. Michael B . T anner, “N o t o C oal S ubsidies, N o t o Corporate Welfare,” Cato Institute, August 16, 2017, www .cato.org/publications/commentary/no-coal-subsidies -no-corporate-welfare ( accessed 1 0/25/17); a nd T ad DeHaven, “ Corporate Welfare i n t he F ederal Bu dget,” Cato I nstitute, J uly 2 5, 2 012, o bject.cato.org/sites/cato .org/files/pubs/pdf/PA703.pdf (accessed 10/25/17).
58. James D ao, “ The Nation; B ig Bu cks Trip Up t he L ean New Army,” New York Times, February 10, 2002, www .nytimes.com/2002/02/10/weekinreview/the-nation-big -bucks-trip-up-the-lean-new-army.html?pagewanted5all (accessed 9/26/12).
59. See S amuel P . H ays, Beauty, H ealth, a nd P ermanence: Environmental P olitics i n t he U nited S tates, 1 955–1985 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).
60. U.S. D epartment o f t he I nterior, “ Interior D epartment Releases Final Well Control Regulations to Ensure Safe and R esponsible O ffshore O il a nd G as D evelopment,” April 1 4, 2 016, w ww.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior -department-releases-f inal-well-control-regulations -ensure-safe-and (accessed 10/24/17).
61. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, “Climate Change 101: The S cience a nd I mpacts,” w ww.pewclimate.org/ docUploads/101_Science_Impacts.pdf (accessed 3/21/08).
62. See t he d iscussion i n P eter R . O rszag, d irector C on- gressional Bu dget O ffice, “ Issues i n C limate C hange” (presentation for the CBO Director’s Conference on Cli- mate Change, November 16, 2007), w ww.cbo.gov/sites/ default/f i les/cbof iles/f tpdocs/88xx/doc8819/11-16 -climatechangeconf.pdf (accessed 3/21/08).
63. World R esources I nstitute C limate A nalysis I ndicators Tool, 2014, http://cait.wri.org/historical/ (accessed 10/27/17).
64. Pew R esearch C enter, U .S. P olitics & P olicy, S ection 7, “Global W arming and E nvironmental R egulation, Personal Environmentalism,” October 5, 2017, www .people-press.org/2017/10/05/7-global-warming-and
43. Executive Office of the President of the United States, GPO Access, “Budget of the United States Government: His- torical Tables Fiscal Year 2009,” Table 2 .2—Percentage Composition o f R eceipts b y S ource: 1934–2013, w ww .gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2009-TAB/pdf/BUDGET -2009-TAB-4-2.pdf. (accessed 5/9/08).
44. There is an additional 1.45 percent tax on all income with- out limit that funds Medicare benefits, and an additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax for high earners (individuals earn- ing o ver $ 200,000 a nd c ouples e arning o ver $ 250,000) that was introduced by the Affordable Care Act.
45. For a systematic account of the role of government in pro- viding incentives and inducements to business, see C. E. Lindblom, Politics and Markets (New York: Basic Books, 1977), chap. 13. For a d etailed account of the d ramatic Reagan t ax cuts a nd reforms, s ee Jeffrey Birnbaum a nd Alan M urray, Showdown a t G ucci G ulch: L awmakers, Lobbyists, and the Unlikely Triumph of Tax Reform (New York: Random House, 1987).
46. Benjamin H. Harris and Adam Looney, “The Tax Cuts and J obs A ct: A M issed O pportunity t o E stablish a Sustainable T ax C ode,” U rban/Brookings T ax P olicy Center, May 24, 2018, www.brookings.edu/wp-content/ uploads/2018/05/es_20180524_harris-looney_taxreform .pdf (accessed 7/28/18).
47. Eric T oder, “ Explaining t he T CJA's I nternational Reforms,” T ax P olicy C enter, T axVox: Bu siness T axes, February 2, 2018, www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/ explaining-tcjas-international-reforms (accessed 7/28/18).
48. See Tax Foundation, “U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862–2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets),” h ttp://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal -individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal -and-inflation-adjusted-brackets (accessed 3/30/14).
49. Glen Kessler, “Revisiting the Costs of the Bush Tax Cuts,” Washington P ost, M ay 1 0, 2 011, w ww.washingtonpost .com/blogs/fact-checker/post/revisiting-the-cost-of-the -bush-tax-cuts/2011/05/09/AFxTFtbG_blog.html (accessed 12/7/15).
50. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Tax Cuts: Myths and Realities,” November 16, 2007, www.cbpp.org/9-27 -06tax.htm (accessed 6/1/16).
51. Jay H eflin, “ House D ems Want Bu sh Tax C uts t o E x- pire, but Say It’s Tough Sell,” The Hill, February 8, 2010, http://thehill.com/homenews/house/80133-democrats -supporting-ending-tax-cut-but-see-it-as-tough-sell (accessed 3/8/10).
52. Jackie Calmes, “Demystifying the Fiscal Impasse That Is Vexing Washington,” New York Times, November 15, 2012, www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/us/politics/the-f iscal -cliff-explained.html; J onathan W eisman, “Answers to Questions o n C apital’s T op T opic,” New Y ork T imes, February 2 1, 2 013, w ww.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/us/ politics/questions-and-answers-about-the-sequester.html (accessed 4/26/14).
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 74 17/11/18 3:57 PM
ENDNOTES A75
2. “Americans’ Views on Income Inequality and Workers’ Rights,” New Y ork T imes, J une 3 , 2 015, w ww.nytimes .com/interactive/2015/06/03/business/income-inequality -worker s -r i g ht s - i nte rna t iona l - t r ade -pol l .ht m l (accessed 10/31/15).
3. Fay L omax C ook a nd E dith B arrett, Support f or t he American Welfare State (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992).
4. A g ood s ource o f p re-1930s w elfare h istory i s J ames T. Patterson, America’s Struggle against Poverty, 1900–1994 (Cambridge, M A: H arvard U niversity P ress, 1 994), chap. 2.
5. Patterson, America’s Struggle against Poverty, 27. 6. This figure i s b ased o n a Works P rogress A dministra-
tion study by Ann E. Geddes, reported in Merle Fainsod et a l., Government a nd t he A merican E conomy, 3 rd e d. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1959), 769.
7. Social S ecurity A dministration, “ OASDI a nd S SI P ro- gram R ates & L imits, 2 018,” w ww.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ quickfacts/prog_highlights/RatesLimits2018.html (accessed 4/15/18).
8. Nikki Graf, Anna Brown, and Eileen Patten, “The Nar- rowing, But Persistent, Gender Gap in Pay,” Pew Research Center Fact Tank, April 9, 2018, www.pewresearch.org/ fact-tank/2018/04/09/gender-pay-gap-facts/ ( accessed 4/16/18); Dan C aplinger, “Social S ecurity Benefits: The Striking Gap Between Women and Men,” Motley Fool, September 2 1, 2014, w ww.fool.com/retirement/general/ 2014/09/21/social-security-benefits-the-striking-gap -between.aspx ( accessed 4 /16/18); C . E ugene S teuerle, Adam Carasso, and Lee Cohen, How Progressive Is Social Security a nd W hy? (Washington, D C: U rban I nsti- tute, 2 004), w ww.urban.org/research/publication/how -progressive-social-security-and-why (accessed 5/3/14).
9. John R . K earney, “ Social S ecurity a nd t he ‘ D’ i n OASDI: The H istory o f a F ederal P rogram I nsuring Earners a gainst D isability,” Social S ecurity B ulletin 66, no. 3 ( 2006); a nd w ww.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66n3/ v66n3p1.html (accessed 6/7/17).
10. Social S ecurity A dministration, “ Social S ecurity F act Sheet,” J une 20 18, w ww.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/ basicfact-alt.pdf (accessed 8/15/18).
11. Workers must have lost their job through no fault of their own. F or a f ull d escription o f t he p rogram, s ee C had Stone a nd W illiam C hen, “ Introduction t o U nemploy- ment Insurance,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, July 3 0, 2 014, w ww.cbpp.org/research/introduction-to -unemployment-insurance (accessed 11/18/15).
12. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). 13. Ife F loyd a nd L iz S chott, “ TANF C ash B enefits H ave
Fallen by More Than 20 Percent in Most States and Continue t o E rode,” C enter o n Bu dget a nd Policy P ri- orities, October 15, 2015, www.cbpp.org/research/family -income-support/tanf-cash-benefits-have-fallen-by-more -than-20-percent-in-most-states (accessed 10/31/15).
-environmental-regulation-personal-environmentalism/ (accessed 10/9/17).
65. Lisa F riedman a nd B rad P lumer, “ E.P.A. A nnounces Repeal o f M ajor O bama-Era C arbon E missions R ule,” New Y ork T imes, October 9 , 2 017, w ww.nytimes .com/2017/10/09/cl imate/clean-power-plan.html (accessed 10/24/17).
66. Michael D . S hear, “ Trump W ill W ithdraw U .S. f rom Paris Climate Agreement,” New York Times, June 1, 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/climate/trump-paris -climate-agreement.html (accessed 10/24/17).
67. Michael A ustin, “ Breaking D own t he N ew 2 016 F uel Economy S tandards,” Car a nd D river, A pril 2 , 2 010, http://blog.caranddriver.com/breaking-down-the-new -2016-fuel-economy-standards/ (accessed 9/26/12).
68. Dino G randoni, “ Trump O fficials B egin R eview o f Obama E missions S tandards f or C ars,” Washington Post, August 10, 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/ energy-environment/wp/2017/08/10/trump-officials -begin-review-of-obama-emissions-standards-for -cars/?utm_term=.e0811d78344e (accessed 10/24/17).
69. Some research has shown that when t axes a re l inked to specific p rojects, p ublic o pinion i s m ore f avorable. S ee Department o f Transportation, O ffice o f R esearch a nd Technology, UTC S potlight, “ Will A mericans S upport Fuel Tax I ncreases? The A nswer C ould B e S urprising,” March 2014, w ww.rita.dot.gov/utc/sites/rita.dot.gov.utc/ files/utc_spotlights/pdf/spotlight_0314.pdf ( accessed 7/10/16.)
70. Steve M ufson, “ Coalition A grees o n E missions C uts,” Washington Post, January 15, 2009, w ww.washingtonpost . c o m / w p - d y n /c o n t e n t / a r t i c l e / 2 0 0 9 / 01 /14 / AR2009011403850.html (accessed 7/10/16).
71. Hendrik Hertzberg, “Cooling on Warming,” New Yorker, February 7, 2011, 21.
72. White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “White House Announces Commitments to the American Business Act on Climate Pledge,” October 19, 2015, obamawhitehouse .archives.gov/the-press-off ice/2015/10/19/fact-sheet -white-house-announces-commitments-american -business-act (accessed 10/25/17).
73. Orszag, “Issues in Climate Change,” 6–7. 74. Joe P alca, “ California Turns t o H olland f or F lood E x-
pertise,” National Public Radio, January 14, 2008, www .npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId518080442 (accessed 3/21/08).
75. Steven Greenhouse, “Our Economic Pickle,” New York Times, January 12, 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/ sunday-review/americas-productivity-climbs-but-wages -stagnate.html?_r50 (accessed 5/2/14).
CHAPTER 17
1. See Andrea Louise Campbell, Trapped in America’s Safety Net (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014).
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 75 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A76 ENDNOTES
Brief, D ecember 1 1, 2 001, w ww.epi.org/content.cfm/ issuebriefs_ib172 ( accessed 4 /3/18); R obert G reenstein, “Social Security Commission Proposals Contain Serious Weaknesses but May Improve the Debate in an Important Respect,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Decem- ber 2 6, 2 001, w ww.cbpp.org/archives/12-11-01socsec .htm (accessed 3/26/08).
26. Quoted in Jill Quadragno, “Social Security Policy and the Entitlement D ebate,” i n Social P olicy a nd t he C onserva- tive Agenda, ed. Clarence Y. H. Lo and Michael Schwartz (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1998), 111.
27. “Full T ext: D onald T rump A nnounces a P residen- tial Bid ,” Washington P ost, www.washingtonpost.com/ news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-text-donald -trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/?tid=a_inl&utm _term=.074bad8f73a2 (accessed 5/28/17).
28. Kathleen R omig, “ Budget A greement F unding C ould Reduce S ocial S ecurity D isability B acklog,” Off the Charts ( blog), F ebruary 1 5, 2 018, w ww.cbpp.org/blog/ budget-agreement-funding-could-reduce-social-security -disability-backlog (accessed 4/15/18).
29. Juliette C ubanski a nd T ricia N euman, “ The F acts o n Medicare S pending a nd F inancing,” H enry J . K aiser Family F oundation, J uly 1 8, 2 017, w ww.kff.org/ medicare/issue-brief/the-facts-on-medicare-spending -and-financing/ (accessed 4/16/18).
30. A Better Way, “A Better Way to Fix Healthcare,” https:// abetterway.speaker.gov/ (accessed 5/28/17).
31. Congressional Bu dget O ffice, “ Long Term A nalysis o f a Budget Proposal by Chairman Ryan,” April 5, 2011, www .cbo.gov/publication/22085 (accessed 7/6/12); s ee a lso t he discussion in Kaiser Family Foundation Program on Medi- care Policy, “Proposed Changes to Medicare in the ‘Path to Prosperity’: Overview and Key Questions,” April 14, 2011, www.kff.org/medicare/upload/8179.pdf (accessed 3/1/12).
32. Kaiser Family Foundation, Kaiser Health Care Tracking Poll, February 2012, https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files .wordpress.com/2013/01/8281-c.pdf (accessed 5/29/17).
33. See M artin G ilens, Why A mericans H ate W elfare (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), chaps. 3, 4.
34. Gilens, Why Americans Hate Welfare. 35. U.S. G overnment A ccountability O ffice, “ Temporary
Assistance f or N eedy F amilies,” D ecember 2 012, www .gao.gov/assets/660/650635.pdf (accessed 10/31/15).
36. Center o n Bu dget a nd P olicy P riorities, C hart B ook TANF a t 19, M arch 2 9, 2 016, www.cbpp.org/research/ family-income-support/chart-book-tanf-at-19 (accessed 7/10/16).
37. LaDonna P avetti a nd L iz S chott, “ TANF’s I nadequate Response t o R ecession H ighlights W eakness o f B lock- Grant Structure,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, July 1 4, 2 011, w ww.cbpp.org/research/family-income -support/tanfs-inadequate-response-to-recession -highlights-weakness-of-block (accessed 6/1/16).
38. Center f or Bu dget a nd P olicy P riorities, “ Chartbook: SNAP Helps Struggling Families Put Food on the Table,”
14. This p overty t hreshold i s f or a h ousehold o f t hree p er- sons t hat i ncludes t wo c hildren. Department o f Health and H uman S ervices, O ffice o f t he A ssistant S ecre- tary for Planning and E valuation, Poverty Guidelines, January 25, 2016, http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines (accessed 7/10/16).
15. Center o n Bu dget a nd Policy P riorities, “ Policy B asics: How M any W eeks o f U nemployment C ompensation Are Available?” May 23, 2016, w ww.cbpp.org/research/ economy/policy-basics-how-many-weeks-of-unemployment -compensation-are-available (accessed 6/1/16).
16. Centers f or M edicare a nd M edicaid S ervices, “ Eligibil- ity f or N on-Citizens i n M edicaid a nd C HIP,” w ww .medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/ by-topics/outreach-and-enrollment/downloads/overview -of-eligibility-for-non-citizens-in-medicaid-and-chip .pdf (accessed 10/31/15).
17. Suzanne Mettler, The Submerged Welfare State (Chicago: University o f C hicago P ress, 2 011); C hristopher Faricy, Welfare for the Wealthy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015).
18. U.S. C ongress, J oint C ommittee o n T axation, “ Es- timates o f F ederal T ax E xpenditures f or F iscal Y ears 2016–2020,” January 30, 2017, www.jct.gov/publications .html?func=startdown&id=4971 ( accessed 5 /29/17). Note that there are tax breaks in the corporate tax code as well, but the tax breaks for individuals and households account for about 80 percent of the total.
19. Office o f M anagement a nd Bu dget, H istorical T ables, “Table 2 .2—Percentage C omposition o f R eceipts by S ource: 1 934–2023,” w ww.whitehouse.gov/omb/ historical-tables/ (accessed 4/16/18).
20. Office o f M anagement a nd Bu dget, H istorical T ables, “Table 1 1.3, O utlays f or P ayments f or I ndividuals b y Category a nd M ajor P rogram: 1 940–2023,” a nd “Table 10.1, Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in t he H istorical T ables, 1 940–2023,” w ww.whitehouse .gov/omb/historical-tables/ ( accessed 8 /19/18); C ongres- sional Bu dget O ffice, L ong-Term Bu dget P rojections (June 2 018), “ Table 1. S ummary D ata f or t he E xtended Baseline,” w ww.cbo.gov/about/products/budget-economic -data#2 (accessed 8/19/18).
21. Social Security Administration, “A Summary of the 2015 Annual Reports: Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees,” www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/ (accessed 11/14/15).
22. President’s C ommission t o S trengthen S ocial S ecurity, “Strengthening S ocial S ecurity a nd C reating P ersonal Wealth f or A ll A mericans,” D ecember 2 1, 2 001, w ww .ssa.gov/history/reports/pcsss/Final_report.pdf ( accessed 3/26/08).
23. Jason Barabas, “Rational Exuberance: The Stock Market and P ublic S upport f or S ocial S ecurity P rivatization,” Journal of Politics 68, no. 1 (February 2006): 50–61.
24. President’s Commission, “Strengthening Social Security.” 25. Christian E . W eller, “ Undermining S ocial S ecurity
with Private Accounts,” Economic Policy Institute Issue
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 76 17/11/18 3:57 PM
ENDNOTES A77
-left-behind-has-it-turns-out-big-problems-of-its-own/ (accessed 7/11/16).
48. Philip Bu mp, “ Why It Was S o E asy f or ‘60 M inutes’ to Rebut B etsy D eVos’s C harter-School A rguments,” Wash- ington P ost, March 1 2, 2 018, w ww.washingtonpost .com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/12/why-it-was-so-easy -for-60-minutes-to-rebut-betsy-devoss-charter-school -arguments/?utm_term=.035ec0dce3ba (accessed 4/16/18).
49. One o f t he m ost v ocal p roponents o f t his v iewpoint i s former a ssistant s ecretary o f e ducation D iane R avitch, The Life and Death of the Great American School System (New York: Basic Books, 2011).
50. Pew R esearch C enter, “ The R ising C ost o f N ot G oing to C ollege,” F ebruary 1 1, 2 014, w ww.pewsocialtrends .org/2014/02/11/the-rising-cost-of-not-going-to-college/ (accessed 7/14/17).
51. The College Board, “Trends in Student Aid 2 017,” 24, https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/2017 -trends-student-aid_0.pdf (accessed 4/15/18).
52. The College Board, “Trends in Student Aid 2017,” 20. 53. U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2011
National Healthcare Quality Report, chap. 9, “Access to Health Ca re,” w ww.ahrq.gov/research/findings/nhqrdr/ nhqr11/chap9.html (accessed 7/14/17).
54. Susan S cutti, “ How D oes N utrition A ffect C hildren’s School Performance?” CNN, March 21, 2017, www.cnn .com/2017/03/21/health/school-nutrition-program -benefits/index.html (accessed 7/18/17).
55. Office o f M anagement a nd Bu dget, H istorical T ables, “Table 1 2.3, T otal O utlays f or G rants t o S tate a nd Local Governments, by Function, Agency, and Program: 1940–2019,” www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/ (accessed 4/16/18).
56. Henry J . K aiser F amily F oundation, Medicaid: A Primer—Key I nformation o n the N ation’s H ealth C ov- erage P rogram f or L ow-Income P eople, M arch 1 , 2 013, ht tps : //k a i ser f a mi ly foundat ion.f i le s .wordpre s s .com/2010/06/7334-05.pdf (accessed 6/2/16) (see p. 26).
57. Henry J . K aiser F amily F oundation, “ Total M onthly Medicaid a nd C HIP E nrollment,” h ttp://kff.org/health -reform/state-indicator/total-monthly-medicaid-and -chip-enrollment/ (accessed 11/4/15).
58. Henry J . K aiser Family Foundation, “Health I nsurance Coverage o f N on-Elderly, 0 –64,” w ww.kff.org/other/ state-indicator/nonelderly-0-64/?curentTimeframe=0&s ortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22so rt%22:%22asc%22%7D (accessed 4/15/18).
59. Henry J . K aiser F amily F oundation, “ The C overage Gap: Uninsured Poor Adults in S tates that D o Not Expand Medicaid—An Update,” January 21, 2016, kff.org/ health-reform/issue-brief/the-coverage-gap-uninsured -poor-adults-in-states-that-do-not-expand-medicaid-an -update/ (accessed 6/2/16).
60. National Federation of I ndependent Businesses v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. — (2012).
61. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, “The Coverage Gap.”
April 18, 2012, w ww.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/ chart-book-snap-helps-struggling-families-put-food -on-the-table ( accessed 6/ 1/16); U .S. D epartment o f Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “National and/ or S tate L evel M onthly a nd/or A nnual D ata,” A pril 6 , 2018, h ttps://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ pd/34SNAPmonthly.pdf (accessed 4/15/18).
39. Jill Colvin, “Trump Signs Executive Order Pushing Work for W elfare,” Washington P ost, April 1 0, 2 018, w ww .washingtonpost.com/business/trump-signs-executive -order-pushing-work-for-welfare/2018/04/10/6bea20d4 -3d29-11e8-955b-7d2e19b79966_story.html?utm _term=.ce3c7603dfd6 (accessed 4/15/18).
40. President’s A dvisory P anel o n F ederal T ax R eform. https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/taxreformpanel/ (accessed 5/29/17); s ee J ames C . G ould, “ Tax R eform, C ongress, and Politics,” Tax Notes, February 23, 2015.
41. There w ere a c ouple o f m inor p recedents. F irst w as t he Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, which made federal funds avail- able to the states for vocational education at the elementary and secondary levels. Second, the Lanham Act of 1940 made federal funds available to schools in “federally impacted areas;” t hat i s, a reas w ith a n unusually l arge number of government e mployees a nd/or w here t he l ocal t ax b ase was r educed b y l arge a mounts o f g overnment-owned property.
42. New A merica F oundation, “ Federal, S tate a nd L ocal K–12 School Finance O verview,” June 29, 2015, http:// atlas.newamerica.org/school-finance (accessed 7/10/16).
43. David K . C ohen a nd S usan L . M offitt, The O rdeal of E quality: D id F ederal R egulation F ix t he S chools? (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009).
44. For a p ositive v iew of the standards, see Sonja Brookins Santelises, “Abandoning the Common Core Is Taking the E asy Way O ut,” The E quity L ine, M arch 31, 2 014, https://edtrust.org/the-equity-line/abandoning-the -common-core-is-taking-the-easy-way-out/ ( accessed 4/3/18); for a critique see Valerie Strauss, “The Coming Common C ore M elt-down,” Washington P ost, January 23, 2014, www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/ wp/2014/01/23/the-coming-common-core-meltdown (accessed 5/11/14).
45. Department o f E ducation, “ Fundamental C hange: I n- novation i n A merica’s S chools u nder R ace t o t he Top,” November 2 015, w ww2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/ rttfinalrptexecsumm.pdf (accessed 7/11/16).
46. Elaine W eiss, “ Mismatches i n R ace t o t he T op L imit Educational I mprovement: L ack o f Ti me, R esources, and T ools t o A ddress O pportunity G aps P uts L ofty State G oals O ut o f R each,” Economic Policy I nstitute, September 1 2, 2 013, w ww.epi.org/publication/race-to -the-top-goals/ (accessed 5/11/14).
47. Valerie Strauss, “The Successor to No Child Left Behind Has, It Turns Out, Big Problems of Its Own,” Washington Post, December 7, 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/news/ answer-sheet/wp/2015/12/07/the-successor-to-no-child
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 77 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A78 ENDNOTES
Population Estimates,” https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/ tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk (accessed 8/8/18).” www.census.gov/popest/data/national/ asrh/2015/index.html (accessed 7/17/16).
76. AARP, Annual Report 2016, www.aarp.org/content/dam/ aarp/about_aarp/about_us/2017/2016-annual-report -aarp.pdf (accessed 4/15/18); Center for Responsive Politics, “Lobbyists Representing AARP, 2017,” www.opensecrets .org/lobby/clientlbs.php?id=D000023726&year=2017 (accessed 4 /15/18); A ARP, P ublic P olicy I nstitute E x- perts G uide, 2 017, w ww.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ ppi/2017/09/public-policy-institute-experts-guide.pdf (accessed 4/15/18).
77. See Andrea Louise Campbell, How Policies Make Citizens: Senior Political Activism and the American Welfare State (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005).
78. Christopher Howard, The H idden W elfare S tate: T ax Expenditures a nd S ocial P olicy i n t he U nited S tates (Prince ton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999); Jacob S. Hacker, The Divided Welfare State: The Battle over Pub- lic a nd P rivate B enefits i n t he United S tates ( New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
79. U.S. C ongress Joint C ommittee on Taxation, “Estimates of Federal Tax Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2016–2020,” www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4971 (accessed 5/29/2017).
80. Center o n Bu dget a nd P olicy P riorities, “ A Q uick Guide t o S NAP E ligibility a nd B enefits,” F ebrurary 7, 20 18, w ww.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/ a-qu ick-g u ide -to - snap -e l ig ibi l it y-a nd-bene f it s (accessed 4/15/18).
81. “Panera CEO: On Food Stamps, I Can’t Eat in My Own Restaurant,” September 25, 2013, http://eatocracy.cnn .com/2013/09/25/panera-ceo-on-food-stamps-i-cant-eat -in-my-own-restaurant (accessed 5/12/14).
82. Samantha A rtiga, A nthony D amico, a nd R achel Garfield, “The Impact of the Coverage Gap for Adults in States Not Expanding Medicaid by Race and Ethnicity,” October 2 6, 2 015, k ff.org/disparities-policy/issue-brief/ the-impact-of-the-coverage-gap-in-states-not-expanding- medicaid-by-race-and-ethnicity/ (accessed 11/11/15).
83. Frances Fox Piven and R ichard Cloward, Poor People’s Movements (New York: Pantheon, 1977), chap. 5.
84. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Ser- vice, “National and/or State Level Monthly and/or Annual Data,” April 6, 2018, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/ default/files/pd/34SNAPmonthly.pdf (accessed 4/15/18).
85. U.S. Census Bureau, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016,” Tables 1 a nd 3, w ww.census.gov/content/ dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo/P60-259 .pdf (accessed 4/16/18).
86. See, for example, Sharon Hayes, Flat Broke with Children: Women in the Age of Welfare Reform (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).
87. U.S. Census Bureau, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016,” Table B-2.
62. Jennifer Steinhauer, “House Votes to Send Bill to Repeal Health Law to Obama’s Desk,” New York Times, January 6, 2 016, w ww.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/politics/ house-votes-to-send-bill-to-repeal-health-law-to-obamas -desk.html (accessed 7/11/16).
63. Amy G oldstein, “ ACA E nrollment f or 2 018 N early Matches L ast Y ear’s, D espite T rump A dministration Efforts to Undermine It,” Washington Post, December 21, 2017, w ww.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/ wp/2017/12/21/aca-enrollment-for-2018-nearly-matches -last-years-despite-trump-administration-efforts-to -undermine-it/?utm_term=.71fd6fc2204e (accessed 4/15/18).
64. James K rieger a nd D onna L . H iggins, “ Housing a nd Health: Time Again for Public Health Action,” American Journal of P ublic H ealth 92, n o. 5 ( May 2 002): 758–68.
65. John E. Schwarz, America’s Hidden Success, 2nd ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1988), 41–2.
66. Congressional Budget Office, “Federal Housing Assistance for L ow-Income H ouseholds,” S eptember 2 015, w ww .cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/ reports/50782-lowincomehousing-onecolumn.pdf (accessed 5/29/17).
67. See, f or e xample, L awrence V ale, “ Housing C hicago: Cabrini-Green to Parkside of Old Town,” Places Journal, February 2 012, h ttps://placesjournal.org/article/housing -chicago-cabrini-green-to-parkside-of-old-town/ (accessed 3/1/12).
68. Edward R. Goetz, New Deal Ruins: Race, Economic Justice, a nd P ublic H ousing P olicy ( Ithaca, N Y: C ornell University Press, 2013).
69. Congressional Budget Office, “Federal Housing Assistance for L ow-Income H ouseholds,” S eptember 2 015, w ww .cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/ reports/50782-lowincomehousing-onecolumn.pdf (accessed 5/29/17).
70. ATTOM Data, “U.S. Foreclosure Activity Drops to 12-Year Low in 2017,” January 16, 2018, www.attomdata .com/news/foreclosure-trends/2017-year-end-u-s-foreclosure -market-report/ (accessed 3/29/18).
71. U.S. Census Bureau, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016” Table 3, www.census.gov/content/dam/ Census/library/publications/2017/demo/P60-259.pdf (accessed 4/16/18).
72. See, for example, Theodore R. Marmor, Jerry L. Mashaw, and P hilip L . H arvey, America’s M isunderstood W elfare State (New York: Basic Books, 1990), 156.
73. U.S. Census Bureau, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2 016,” www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/ library/publications/2017/demo/P60-259.pdf (accessed 4/16/18).
74. U.S. Census Bureau, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016,” Table B-2.
75. U.S. C ensus Bu reau, “Annual E stimates of t he Resident Population f or S elected A ge G roups b y S ex, A ge, R ace, and Hispanic Origin for the United States and States: 2017
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 78 17/11/18 3:57 PM
ENDNOTES A79
9. Kurt M. C ampbell and J ames B . S teinberg, Difficult Transitions: Foreign Policy Troubles at the Outset of P resi- dential P ower (Washington, D C: B rookings I nstitution Press, 2008).
10. U.S. S enate, “ Treaties,” w ww.senate.gov/artand history/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm (accessed 4/15/18).
11. P. D. M iller, “Organizing t he National S ecurity C oun- cil: I L ike Ike’s,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 43, no. 3 (2013): 592–606.
12. Ivo H . D aalder a nd I . M . D estler, In t he S hadow of t he Oval O ffice: P rofiles of t he National S ecurity Advisers and the Presidents They Served (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2009).
13. Department of Defense, “About,” January 27, 2017, www .defense.gov/About/ (accessed 7/23/18).
14. John J. McGrath, The Other End of the Spear: The Tooth- to-Tail Ratio (T3R) In Modern Military Operations (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2007), www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/mcgrath_op23.pdf (accessed 7/15/18).
15. D. R obert W orley, Shaping U .S. M ilitary F orces (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2006), chap. 3.
16. Harold Seidman, Politics, P osition, a nd P ower, 5 th e d. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 209.
17. Mark Riebling, Wedge: From Pearl Harbor to 9/11 (New York: Touchstone, 2002).
18. Benjamin Ginsberg, The W orth of W ar ( New Y ork: Prometheus Books, 2014), chap. 5.
19. Clinton R ossiter, e d., The Federalist ( New York: Si gnet, 1961), 418.
20. Steven Lee Myers, “U.S. Move to Give Egypt $450 Million in Aid Meets Resistance,” New York Times, September 28, 2012, w ww.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/world/middleeast/ white-house-move-to-give-egypt-450-million-in-aid -meets-resistance.html?_r=0 (accessed 4/27/18).
21. Bill Gertz, “Congress: U.S. M ilitary H ighly Vulnerable to Cyber Attacks,” Washington Free Beacon, June 1, 2015, www.freebeacon.com/national-security/congress-u-s -m i l i t a r y-h ig h ly-v u lner able - to - c yber- a t t a ck s / (accessed 4/12/18).
22. “Sleeve-Rolling Time: IMF,” The Economist, May 2, 1992, 98–9.
23. James Dao and Patrick E. Tyler, “U.S. Says Military Strikes Are Just a P art of Big Plan,” The Alliance, September 27, 2001; a nd J oseph K ahn, “A N ation C hallenged: G lobal Dollars,” New York Times, September 20, 2001, B1.
24. Bessma M omani, “ The I MF, t he U .S. W ar o n T er- rorism, a nd P akistan,” Asian Affairs, 3 1, n o. 1 ( 2004), www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/AAFS.31.1.41 -51?journalCode=vasa20 (accessed 4/15/18).
25. For i nformation o n c urrent U .S. s anctions p rograms, visit U.S. D epartment o f t he Treasury, “ Sanctions P ro- grams a nd C ountry I nformation,” w ww.treasury.gov/ resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/Programs.aspx (accessed 6/1/14).
88. For an argument that children should be given the vote, see Paul E. Peterson, “An Immodest Proposal,” Daedalus 121, no. 4 (Fall 1992): 151–74.
89. John W . K ingdon, Agendas, A lternatives a nd P ublic Policies, 2nd edition (New York: Harper Collins, 1995).
90. On t he h istory a nd p olitics o f t he Family a nd Medical Leave Act, see Anya Bernstein, The Moderation Dilemma: Legislative Coalitions and the Politics of Family and Medical Leave (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2001).
91. This account is from Bernstein, The Moderation Dilemma, chap. 5.
92. Eileen A ppelbaum a nd R uth M ilkman, “ Leaves That Pay: Employer and Worker Experiences with Paid Fam- ily Leave in California,” Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2 011, h ttp://cepr.net/documents/publications/ paid-family-leave-1-2011.pdf (accessed 5/14/18).
93. See L . Free a nd Hadley Cantril, The Political B eliefs of Americans (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968); and Benjamin I. Page and Lawrence R . Jacobs, Class War? W hat A mericans R eally T hink a bout E conomic Inequality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009).
94. See Fay Lomax Cook and Edith Barrett, Support for the American Welfare State (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992); a nd H ugh H eclo, “ The P olitical F ounda- tions o f A ntipoverty P olicy,” i n Fighting P overty: W hat Works and What D oesn’t, e d. Sheldon H . D anziger a nd Daniel H. Weinberg (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- sity Press, 1986), 312–40.
CHAPTER 18
1. Lyric Lewin, “In Support of a Travel Ban,” CNN Politics, March 2017, www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/03/politics/ travel-ban-supporters-cnnphotos/ (accessed 2/1/18).
2. Vivian Yee, “Meet the Everyday People Who Have Sued Trump. So Far, They’ve Won,” New York Times, March 29, 2 017, w ww.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/us/trump -travel-ban.html (accessed 4/12/18).
3. Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. — (2018). 4. Rupert Smith, The Utility of F orce: The Art of War in the
Modern World (New York: Vintage, 2008). 5. D. Robert Worley, Shaping U.S. Military Forces: Revolu-
tion o r R elevance i n a P ost–Cold War World ( Westport, CT: Praeger Security International, 2006).
6. Colin S. Gray, “The Implications of Preemptive and Pre- ventive War Doctrines,” Strategic Studies Institute, July 2007, w ww.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ pub789.pdf (accessed 8/1/14).
7. U.S. D epartment o f S tate, “ U.S. H umanitarian A ssis- tance i n R esponse t o t he Syrian C risis,” S eptember 21, 2017, w ww.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/09/274360.htm (accessed 7/20/18).
8. U.S. D epartment o f S tate, “U.S. R elations w ith H aiti,” March 2 018, w ww.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1982.htm (accessed 4/15/18).
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 79 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A80 ENDNOTES
30. Shane a nd M azzetti, “ Inside a Three-Year R ussian Campaign to Influence U.S. Voters.”
31. Elias Groll, “Feds Quietly Reveal Chinese State-Backed Hacking O peration,” Foreign Po licy, N ovember 3 0, 2017, w ww.foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/30/feds-quietly -revea l-chinese-state-backed-hack ing-operat ion/ (accessed 4/15/18).
32. Jonathan W atts a nd K ate C onnolly, “ World L eaders React after Trump Rejects Paris Climate Deal,” Guard- ian, J une 1 , 2 017, www.theguardian.com/environment/ 2017/jun/01/trump-withdraw-paris-climate-deal-world -leaders-react (accessed 4/15/18).
33. Benjamin Ginsberg, The American Lie: Government by the People and Other Political Fables (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2007), 3.
26. Loveday M orris, “ Yazidis W ho S uffered G enocide Are F leeing A gain,” Washington P ost, M arch 2 1, 2 017, www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/yazidis -who-suffered-genocide-are-f leeing-again-but-this -time-not-from-the-islamic-state/2017/03/21/6392fe26 - 0 3 5 3 - 1 1 e 7 - 9 d 1 4 - 9 7 2 4 d 4 8 f 5 6 6 6 _ s t o r y .html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c2dbf2c8c6a1 (accessed 4/15/18).
27. Eleanor A lbert, “ China i n A frica,” C ouncil o n F oreign Relations, J uly 1 2, 2 017, w ww.cfr.org/backgrounder/ china-africa (accessed 4/15/18).
28. Graham T. A llison, Destined for War: Can America and China E scape Thucydides’s Trap? ( New York: H oughton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017).
29. Scott S hane a nd M ark M azzetti, “ Inside a Three-Year Russian Campaign to Influence U.S. Voters,” New York Times, Febuary 1 6, 2 018, www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/us/ politics/russia-mueller-election.html (accessed 4/15/18).
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a35-a80.indd 80 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A81
Chapter 1 1. d 2. c 3. c 4. c 5. d 6. e 7. a 8. d 9. b 10. e 11. c 12. a 13. a 14. d 15. b
Chapter 2 1. b 2. a 3. b 4. c 5. e 6. c 7. c 8. d 9. b 10. e 11. e 12. b 13. d 14. a
Chapter 3 1. c 2. c 3. b 4. e
5. a 6. c 7. d 8. b 9. b 10. b 11. a 12. d 13. d 14. b
Chapter 4 1. a 2. e 3. b 4. e 5. b 6. e 7. b 8. b 9. d 10. a 11. e 12. c 13. a 14. d
Chapter 5 1. b 2. e 3. a 4. c 5. b 6. d 7. a 8. a 9. d 10. a
11. d 12. a 13. c 14. c
Chapter 6 1. c 2. c 3. a 4. d 5. e 6. d 7. e 8. a 9. c 10. b 11. a 12. b
Chapter 7 1. b 2. a 3. b 4. c 5. e 6. c 7. a 8. b 9. b 10. c 11. b 12. c 13. c
Chapter 8 1. e 2. a 3. d
4. e 5. e 6. c 7. d 8. d 9. c 10. d 11. d 12. c
Chapter 9 1. a 2. c 3. b 4. d 5. e 6. a 7. d 8. e 9. e 10. e 11. d 12. e 13. a
Chapter 10 1. c 2. e 3. e 4. c 5. c 6. b 7. c 8. b 9. d 10. a 11. d 12. c
13. c 14. a 15. a 16. b
Chapter 11 1. a 2. b 3. e 4. c 5. d 6. b 7. d 8. a 9. e 10. c 11. a 12. d
Chapter 12 1. b 2. a 3. d 4. c 5. d 6. c 7. a 8. a 9. d 10. d 11. e 12. c 13. a 14. a
Chapter 13 1. a 2. c
Answer Key
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_03answer_a81-a82.indd 81 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A82 ANSWER KEY
3. b 4. e 5. b 6. b 7. b 8. a 9. a 10. c 11. c 12. b 13. b 14. a
Chapter 14 1. d 2. c 3. c 4. b 5. b
6. e 7. c 8. d 9. d 10. e 11. b 12. a 13. d 14. a
Chapter 15 1. a 2. c 3. a 4. c 5. d 6. d 7. e 8. e
9. c 10. a 11. b 12. a 13. a 14. c
Chapter 16 1. a 2. b 3. c 4. e 5. a 6. c 7. c 8. d 9. d 10. b
11. e 12. a 13. c 14. d
Chapter 17 1. c 2. d 3. b 4. c 5. a 6. c 7. e 8. d 9. d 10. a 11. d 12. c
13. b 14. c 15. b
Chapter 18 1. b 2. a 3. e 4. c 5. b 6. d 7. c 8. b 9. c 10. d 11. a 12. b 13. e
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_03answer_a81-a82.indd 82 17/11/18 3:57 PM
A83
Credits
PHOTOGRAPHS
Frontmatter: Page vi: AP Photo/Cliff Owen; p. vii (top): Alex Wong/Getty I mages; (bottom): R ob Hotakainen/ MCT/Newscom; p . viii: Anthony P idgeon/Redferns/ Getty Images; p. ix: US Navy/Erwin Jacob V. Miciano; p. x (top): J ay M allin/ZUMAPRESS.com/Alamy liv e news; (bottom): L yndon French/The New York Times/ Redux; p . xi: N extGen America; p . xii: R od Lamkey/ Getty Images; p . xiii (top): Cour tesy The Texas Young Republicans; (bottom): American B enefits Council; p. xiv: Courtesy Guy Berkebile; p. xv (top): Cheriss May/ ZUMA Press/Newscom; (bottom): © G92, MJ3, F31/ Zuma Press; p . x vi: AP P hoto/Andrew H arnik; p . x vii (top): © Lindsay G allup P hotography; (bottom): AP Photo/Record Searchlight, Andreas Fuhrmann; p. xviii: Jerry Holt/Star Tribune/ZUMA Press.
Chapter 1: Page 2: S hutterstock; p. 3 (left): AP P hoto/ Cliff Owen; (right): Cour tesy K endric J ones; p . 8 (both): Bettmann/Corbis via G etty Images; p. 10: E rik McGregor/Pacific Press/Newscom; p . 11 (left): E rik McGregor/Pacific Press/Newscom; (right): Peter Casolino/ Alamy Stock Photo; p. 14: Librar y of Congress; p. 16: Rue des Ar chives/Granger, NY C—All rights r eserved; p. 18: Jim West/Alamy Stock Photo; p. 22: Keith Lane/ McClatchy/TNS/Alamy Liv e N ews; p . 23: B ettmann/ Corbis via Getty Images; p. 25 (left): Christian Hansen/ The New York Times/Redux; (right): Scott Sommerdorf/ The Salt Lake Tribune via AP; p. 26: Mike Nelson/EPA/ Shutterstock; p. 29 (left): © I ra Lippke/ZUMA P ress/ Alamy Stock Photo; (right): Ethan Miller/Getty Images; p. 30: Scr eenshot 2016 U.S. D epartment of E ducation Office of Federal S tudent Aid; p . 31: D aniel A cker/ Bloomberg via Getty Images.
Chapter 2: Page 40: Shutterstock; p. 41: Alex Wong/Getty Images; p. 43: Granger, NYC—All rights reserved; p. 45: Bettmann/Corbis via Getty Images; p. 46: Paul J. Richards/ AFP/Getty I mages; p . 48: S arin I mages/Granger, NYC—All rights r eserved; p . 49: H oward S un/Alamy Stock Photo; p. 52: Samuel Jennings (active 1789–1834). Liberty Displaying the A rts and Sciences, or The Genius of A merica E ncouraging the E mancipation of the B lacks, 1792. Oil on canvas. 60 1/4" 3 74" Librar y Company of Philadelphia. Gift of the ar tist, 1792; p . 57: B illion Photos/Shutterstock; p. 63: Librar y of Congr ess; p. 64: Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images; p. 68: Rohn Engh/ FPG/Getty Images; p. 69: Alex Wong/Getty Images.
Chapter 3: Page 76: Sergey Pykhonin/Alamy Stock Vector; p. 77: R ob H otakainen/MCT/Newscom; p . 83: AP Photo/Adam Beam; p. 86: © Collection of the New-York Historical S ociety/Bridgeman I mages; p . 88: Librar y of Congr ess; p . 89: Librar y of Congr ess; p . 95 (top): AP P hoto/Sue O groki (bottom): Librar y of Congr ess; p. 99: Ilene MacDonald/Alamy Stock Photo; p. 101 (left): AP Photo; (right): AP Photo/Paul Vathis; p. 106: Ethan Miller/Getty Images; p. 107: AP Photo/Skip Foreman.
Chapter 4: P age 114: S hutterstock; p . 115: Anthony Pidgeon/Redferns/Getty I mages; p . 124: ©The Star- Ledger/Aristide E conomopoulos/The Image Works; p. 125 (left): Gary Tramontina/Getty Images; (right): Gary Tramontina/Getty I mages; p . 126: Chip S omodevilla/ Getty I mages; p . 128: E verett Collection/Alamy S tock Photo; p. 131: © G92, MJ3, F31/Z uma Press; p. 132: Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via G etty Images; p. 133 (left): Saul Loeb/AFP/G etty I mages; (right): K yodo via AP Images; p . 138: Drew Anger er/
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_04credit_a83-a86.indd 83 27/11/18 10:29 AM
A84 CRED ITS
p. 262 (left): Mike Blake/REUTERS/Newscom; (right): Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images; p. 263: Vario images GmbH & Co .KG/Alamy S tock P hoto; p . 268: D rew Kelly/The New York Times/Redux; p . 269: B ryan Thomas/The New York Times/Redux; p. 272 (left): Albin Lohr-Jones/Pacific Press/Sipa via AP Images; (right): Tim Carroll/Redux; p. 274 (left): Bob Daemmrich/Alamy Stock P hoto; (right): B rendan S mialowski/Getty I m- ages; p. 276 (left): P aul Marotta/Getty Images; (right): AP P hoto/Richard D rew; p . 277: F actCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg P ublic Policy Center; p . 280: Melina M ara/The Washington P ost via G etty I mages; p. 281: Charles Moore/Getty Images; p. 283: Paul Davey/ Barcroft Images/Barcroft Media via Getty Images; p. 284: AP Photo/Nick Ut; p. 286: AP Photo/Mary Altaffer.
Chapter 8: P age 294: S hutterstock; p . 295: N extGen America; p. 298: Richard Ellis/Alamy Stock Photo; p. 299 (left): AP Photo/Stephen Brashear; (right): Samuel Corum/ Anadolu Agency/G etty I mages; p . 301: B ettmann/ Getty I mages; p . 306 (top): Xinhua/E yevine/Redux; (bottom): The Photo Works/Alamy Stock Photo; p. 307: Inked P ixels/Shutterstock; p . 312: AP P hoto/Matt Rourke, File; p. 313: Josh Brasted/Getty Images; p. 315 (left): B rooks Kraft/G etty I mages; (right): AP P hoto/ David Goldman; p. 318 (left): Jonathan Ernst/REUTERS/ Newscom; (right): B rooks Kraft/Getty Images; p . 320: Mario Tama/Getty I mages; p . 323: S mith Collection/ Gado/Getty Images; p. 327: Scott O lson/Getty Images; p. 328: Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
Chapter 9: P age 334: S hutterstock; p . 335 (photo): Rod Lamkey/G etty I mages; (v ector): S hutterstock; p. 338 (left): Duane Prokop/Getty Images for MoveOn. org; (right): Tom Brenner/The New York Times/Redux; p. 343: AP Photo/Elise Amendola; p. 344: Melina Mara/ The Washington Post via Getty Images; p . 346 (left): Michael R obinson Chav ez/The Washington P ost via Getty Images; (right): Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/ Getty Images; p . 347: B ettmann/Getty Images; p . 348 (top): Bettmann/Getty Images; (bottom): Paul J. Richards/ AFP/Getty I mages; p . 354: D arren H uack/Getty I m- ages; p. 355 (left): Barbara Davidson/Los Angeles Times via Getty I mages; (right): B rooks Kraft/G etty I mages; p. 361: G ranger, NY C—All rights r eserved; p . 362: Granger, NYC—All rights reserved; p. 364: Nixon Presi- dential Library & Museum; p. 368: EPA European Press Photo Agency B.V./Alamy Stock Photo; p. 369 (left): Drew Anger er/Getty I mages; (right): J im Thompson/ The Albuquerque Journal via AP.
Getty I mages; p . 140: AP P hoto/Matt York; p . 141: Michael Matthews—Police Images/Alamy Stock Photo; p. 143: B ettmann/Getty I mages; p . 145: Tracy A. Woodward/The Washington Post via Getty Images; p. 148: Win McNamee/Getty Images; p. 151: Gabriella Demczuk/The New York Times/Redux.
Chapter 5: P age 158: S hutterstock; p . 59: US N avy/ Erwin J acob V. M iciano; p . 161 (left): Lanmas/Alamy Stock Photo; (right): MPI/Getty Images; p. 163: World History Archive/Alamy Stock Photo; p. 164: Librar y of Congress; p. 165 (left): Library of Congress; (right): Un- derwood Photo Archives/Superstock; p. 168: Bettmann/ Getty I mages; p . 170 (left): B ettmann/Getty I mages; (right): AP P hoto/File; p. 171 (left): AP P hoto; (right): Tony Savino/The Image Works; p . 173: www .Stanley Formanphotos.com Pulitzer Prize 1977; p. 178: Marilyn Humphries/Newscom; p. 179: Bettmann/Getty Images; p. 182 (left): Ben Solomon/NCAA Photos via Getty Images; (right): Dina Rudick/The Boston Globe via Getty Images; p. 183 (left): AP P hoto/Ron Edmonds; (right): Scott O lson/Getty Images; p . 186 (left): K ent S ievers/ The World-Herald via AP; (right): AP P hoto/Elliott Spagat, File; p. 187: Alex Milan Tracy/Sipa via AP Images; p. 189: Stephanie Strasburg/Pittsburgh Post-Gazette via AP; p. 193: Drew Angerer/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom.
Chapter 6: P age 204: S hutterstock; p . 205 (left): J ay Mallin/ZUMAPRESS.com/Alamy liv e ne ws; (right): Tom Brenner/The New York Times/Redux; p. 208: AP Photo/Evan Vucci; p . 213: Chip S omodevilla/Getty Images; p . 214: Cheriss M ay/NurPhoto via G etty I m- ages; p. 216: S helly Rivoli/Alamy Stock Photo; p. 217: Gabriel O lsen/WireImage/Getty I mages; p . 222 (left): Alex Wong/Getty I mages; (right): E d Lefko wicz P ho- tography; p . 224: AP P hoto/Carmen Taylor; p . 226 (left): S aul Loeb/AFP/G etty I mages; (right): Twitter/@ realDonaldTrump; p. 229: AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana; p. 230: Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty Images; p. 233 (left): ©The Star-Ledger/Robert Sciarrino/The Image Works; (right): J ohn Rudoff/Polaris/Newscom; p . 235: CALVIN AND HOBBES © 1994 Watterson. Reprinted with permission of Andr ews M cMeel S yndication. All rights reserved; p. 236: Bo Rader/The Wichita Eagle via AP, File; p. 243 (left): B ettmann/Getty Images; (right): Lionel Hahn/ABACAPRESS.com/Sipa via AP Images.
Chapter 7: P age 254: S hutterstock; p . 255: L yndon French/The New York Times/Redux; p . 258: Richar d B. Levine/Newscom; p. 259: AP Photo/Branden Camp;
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_04credit_a83-a86.indd 84 27/11/18 10:29 AM
A85CRED ITS
Harnik; p . 505 (left): Science H istory I mages/Alamy Stock Photo; (right): William Philpott/Getty Images.
Chapter 13: Page 512: S hutterstock; p. 513: Cheriss May/ZUMA Press/Newscom; p . 515: B ettmann/Getty Images; p . 517 (left): AP P hoto/File; (right): U.S. Army photo b y Capt. Tyson F riar; p . 518: Anthony Wallace/AFP/Getty I mages; p . 519: AP P hoto/File; p. 521: The Asahi Shimbun via G etty Images; p . 525: Joe Raedle/G etty I mages; p . 528: J im Watson/AFP/ Getty I mages; p . 532: B ill P ugliano/Getty I mages; p. 533: Chip S omodevilla/Getty I mages; p . 535 (top): B ettmann/Getty I mages; (bottom): Twitter/ @realDonaldTrump; p. 541: T.J. Kirkpatrick/Bloomberg via Getty Images.
Chapter 14: P age 550: S hutterstock; p . 551: © G92, MJ3, F31/Zuma Press; p. 555: Michael Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images; p. 556: U.S. Depart- ment of S tate; p. 561: NG I mages/Alamy Stock Photo; p. 563: Richar d T. N owitz/Science S ource; p . 565: Timothy A. Clar y/AFP/Getty I mages; p . 568: Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu Agency/G etty I mages; p . 569 (left): Yasin O zturk/Anadolu Agency/G etty I mages; (right): Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images; p. 570: Department of J ustice/FOIA.gov; p . 572: S aul Loeb/AFP/G etty Images; p . 573 (left): Tom Williams/CQ R oll Call/ Getty Images; (right): Joe Raedle/Getty Images; p. 574: Alan Singer/CBS via G etty Images; p. 575: AP P hoto/ Ben Chrisman; p . 577: J effrey M acMillan/For The Washington P ost via G etty I mages; p . 582: Andr ew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images.
Chapter 15: Page 590: Shutterstock; p. 591: AP P hoto/ Andrew H arnik; p . 593: AP P hoto/Michael Tarm; p . 601: Cheriss M ay/NurPhoto via G etty Images; p. 602: The Asahi Shimbun via G etty Images; p. 607: M ichael Hibblen/KUAR News; p. 609: Mark Wilson/Getty Images; p . 612: M ark Wilson/Getty I mages; p . 613: Jonathan E rnst/REUTERS/Newscom; p . 617 D ana Verkouteren via AP P hoto; p . 618: B ill O'Lear y/The Washington Post via Getty Images; p. 623: Alex Wong/ Getty Images.
Chapter 16: Page 630: S hutterstock; p. 631: © Lindsay Gallup Photography; p. 633: Robert Mullan/Incamerstock/ Corbis via G etty I mages; p . 634: Camer on D avidson/ Getty I mages; p . 636 (left): Cour tesy of Gw en B ell/ Computer M useum; (right): Chip S omodevilla/Getty Images; p. 637: J eff Kowalsky/EPA/Shutterstock; p. 638
Chapter 10: Page 378: Shutterstock; p. 379: Cour tesy The Texas Young R epublicans; p . 381: B ettmann Ar chive/ Getty I mages; p . 383 (left): M arc S erota/Reuters/ Newscom; (right): N icholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images; p. 385 (left): Granger, NYC—All rights reserved; (right): OpenStreetMap contributors; p. 387: Port Gifford/Getty Images; p. 389: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images; p. 394: Brendan S mialowski/AFP/Getty I mages; p . 398 (left): Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via G etty I mages; (right): Hillary for America, Campaign; p. 397 (left): Bettmann/ Getty Images; (right): Yin Bogu Xinhua/eyevine/Redux; p. 400: M atthew Cav anaugh/Getty I mages; p . 402 © G92, MJ3, F31/Zuma Press; p. 409: Robyn Beck/AFP/ Getty Images; p. 410: Richard Ellis/Alamy Stock Photo; p. 412: AP P hoto/Richard Drew; p . 413: M ike Segar/ Reuters/Newscom; p. 418: Visions of America/UIG via Getty I mages; p . 419: Whitney C urtis/Getty I mages; p. 420: Michael B. Thomas/Getty Images.
Chapter 11: Page 428: S hutterstock; p . 429: American Benefits Council; p. 432: AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki; p. 433: AP P hoto/Robert F . B ukaty; p . 437: B randon S loter via AP; p . 438: Amanda Co wan/The Columbian via AP; p. 439 (left): Matthew Busch/Bloomberg via Getty Images; (right): AP P hoto/Bloomington H erald- Times, J eremy H ogan; p . 440: Tasos Katopodis/G etty Images for M oveOn.org; p . 444: Karl S onnenberg/ Shutterstock; p . 445: N et P hotos/Alamy S tock P hoto; p. 447: Alex Wong/Getty I mages; p . 450 (left): AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File; (right): AP P hoto/Jacquelyn Martin; p . 451: Scott M cIntyre/Bloomberg via G etty Images; p . 453: U.S. F ood and D rug A dministration; p. 454 (left): S teve Schapir o/Corbis via G etty I m- ages; (right): © N orth County Times/ZUMAPRESS .com/Alamy S tock P hoto; p . 455 (left): Tomas A bad/ Alamy S tock P hoto; (right): J ustin S ullivan/Getty I m- ages; p . 459: Theresa M cCracken/www.CartoonStock .com.
Chapter 12: Page 466: Shutterstock; p. 467 (left): Courtesy G uy B erkebile; (right): Scott O lson/Getty Images; p. 470: B ettmann/Getty Images; p. 474: Chip Somodevilla/Getty I mages; p . 479: AP P hoto/Ross D. F ranklin; p . 486: B rendan S mialowski/AFP/Getty Images; p . 487: Scott J. F errell/Getty I mages; p . 492: Senate TV via AP; p . 494: Rachel M ummey for The Washington Post via Getty Images; p. 499: DPA Picture Alliance/Alamy Stock Photo; p. 500: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images; p. 504 (left): O livier Douliery/ Abaca/Sipa via AP I mages; (right): AP P hoto/Andrew
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_04credit_a83-a86.indd 85 27/11/18 10:29 AM
A86 CRED ITS
TEXT
Figure 3.7: State Marijuana Laws in 2018 Map, originally published by Governing.com, March 30, 2018. Reprinted by permission of Governing.
Figure 6.1: Graph from “Large Majorities See Checks and Balances, Right to P rotest as Essential for Democracy,” Pew Research Center, Washington, DC (May 2017) http:// www.people-press.org/2017/03/02/large-majorities -see-checks-and-balances-right-to-protest-as-essential -for-democracy/democracy_11/. Reprinted with permission.
Figure 9.7: Figure from “Key Takeaways on Americans ’ Growing P artisan D ivide o ver P olitical Values,” P ew Research Center , Washington, DC (O ctober, 2 017) http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/05/ takeaways-on-americans-growing-partisan-divide-over -political-values/. Reprinted with permission.
Table 11.1: Table: “ Top Spending on Lobb ying Activi- ties b y I ndustry, 1998–2018” fr om O penSecrets.org. Reprinted by permission of Center for Responsive Politics.
Figure 14.3: “Iron Triangles” republished with permis - sion of Wadsworth, a division of Cengage Learning from Incomplete Conquest: G overning A merica, 2nd ed. b y Theodore J. Lo wi (N ew York: H olt, Rinehar t and Winston, 1981), p. 139. © 1981 by CBS College.
Figure 14.4: “Number of F ederal, Contract, and G rant Employees (in millions),” from The True Size of Govern- ment: Tracking Washington’s Blended Workforce, 1984–2015 (New York: The Volcker Alliance, 2017), p. 4. Reprinted by permission.
Table 16.1: Tax Brackets and Rates, 2018. Originally pub- lished by Tax Foundation, January 2, 2018. Reprinted by permission.
(left): G ranger, NY C—All rights r eserved; (center): Bettmann/Getty images; (right): D ania M axwell/ Bloomberg via Getty Images; p. 639: Bloomberg via Getty I mages; p . 640 (left): Zbignie w Bz dak/Chicago Tribune/TNS via G etty I mages; (right): Timothy A. Clark/AFP/Getty Images; p. 643: AP Photo/Scott Stew- art; p . 649: N orma J ean G argasz/Alamy S tock P hoto; p. 651: Drew Angerer/Getty Images; p. 660: Library of Congr ess; p . 662: Camer on D avidson/Corbis via Getty I mages; p . 663: Scott Peterson/Getty I mages; p. 665: L uke S harrett/Bloomberg via G etty I mages image p. 666: Dennis McDonald/Getty Images; p. 667: Ethan Miller/Getty Images.
Chapter 17: P age 674: LEO crafts/iStock/Getty I m- ages; p . 675: AP P hoto/Record S earchlight, Andr eas Fuhrmann; p. 678: J oseph Barnell/SuperStock; p. 681: Derek D avis/Portland P ress H erald via G etty I mages; p. 686: S aul Loeb/Getty Images; p. 689: J im West Im- age Broker/Newscom; p. 692: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images; p. 694: Education & Exploration 1/Alamy Stock Photo; p. 697: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images; p. 699 (left): Lee Balterman/The LIFE Images Collection/ Getty Images; (right): J.B. Forbes/St Louis Post Dispatch/ Polaris; p . 700: B ryan R. S mith/AFP/Getty I mages; p. 704: ©John Birdsall/The Image Works.
Chapter 18: Page 714: Shutterstock; p. 715: Jerry Holt/ Star Tribune/ZUMA P ress; p . 719: B ettmann/Getty Images; p . 724: P ete S ouza/The White H ouse via AP; p. 726: Mikhail Metzel/TASS via Getty Images; p. 729: B Christopher/Alamy Live News; p. 730: Matt McClain/ The Washington Post via G etty I mages; p . 732: K ena Betancur/AFP/Getty Images; p. 733 (left): M ichele Eve Sandberg/Corbis via Getty Images; (right): Nicholas Kamm/Getty I mages; p . 734: K orean Central N ews Agency/Korea News S ervice via AP , F ile; p . 735: D on Emmert/AFP/Getty Images; p. 736: B ay Ismoyo/Getty Images; p . 738: A dek B erry/Stringer/Getty I mages; p. 742: Delil Souleiman/Stringer/Getty Images.
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_04credit_a83-a86.indd 86 27/11/18 10:29 AM
A87
Page numbers in italic refer to figures or photos.
A AARP, 428, 444–45, 445, 686, 702 Abbott, Greg, 528 ABC News, 265, 278 Abedin, Huma, 394 Abercrombie & Fitch, 126 abolitionist movement, 161–62 Abood v. Detroit, 591 abortion, 148, 148–49, 226, 227, 233–34 Abramoff, Jack, 452, 496 absentee voting, 327 Abu Ghraib prison, 502 access
to government, 8–9 of interest groups, 614 to public institutions, 26 to Supreme Court, 610–11, 614
ACLU. See American Civil Liberties Union activism
environmental, 733 human rights, 733 judicial, 619–21
acts of Congress, judicial review of, 604–5 ADA. See Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Adams, John, 44, 45, 47, 361, 604 Adams, Samuel, 44 ADC (Aid to Dependent Children), 705 administrative orders, 540 Administrative Procedure Act, 451, 594 administrative strategies, of presidents, 534,
536–42 Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA),
552, 555–56 adversarial journalism, 264, 284–85 advice and consent (Congress), 503–5 advisers
in election campaigns, 394 to presidents, 530
Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, 689 advocacy organizations, 447 AFDC. See Aid to Families with Dependent Children
affirmative action, 195–97 government policies or programs that seek to redress past injustices against specified groups by
southern states’ treatment of, 91 and states’ refusal of Medicaid expansion, 703 trust in government, 31 voting rights for, 28, 161, 163, 299–300,
313–14 voting rights of felons, 326 and welfare assistance, 677–78
age; see also older Americans and diversity of political views, 224 and online political participation, 302 and party affiliation, 358, 359 and political participation, 311, 311–13
agency representation, 471, 474–75 a type of representation in which a representative is held accountable to a constituency if he or she fails to represent that constituency properly; this is incentive for the representative to provide good representation when his or her personal backgrounds, views, and interests differ from those of his or her constituency
agenda setting, 280–82 the power of the media to bring public attention to particular issues and problems
Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, In re, 622–23
agents of socialization, 216 social institutions, including families and schools, that help to shape individuals’ basic political beliefs and values
age profile, of American population, 20 Agnew, Spiro, 532 agricultural interest groups, 433 Agriculture, Department of, 564, 572, 640 agriculture subsidies, 638, 662 AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome), 694 Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), 705 Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC), 680, 703, 705 AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs
Committee), 732, 733 Alabama, 83, 162, 169–70, 188, 480, 607 “alarm mode,” 280, 281
making special efforts to provide members of those groups with access to educational and employment opportunities
burden of proof, 195–97 controversy over, 26–28 Supreme Court rulings on, 196, 611
Affordable Care Act of 2010, 525, 573, 695–98 administration of, 525 business opposition to, 24 debate surrounding, 11 delays in rollout of portions of, 541, 657–58 framing of, 282 health insurance coverage, 696 and individual mandate, 106 Maine voter initiative, 9 Medicaid expansion under, 9, 99, 682, 703 and Medicare tax, 653, 679 opposition to, 534 as presidential initiative, 521 and public opinion, 235 Supreme Court rulings, 11, 106, 605, 619 and working poor, 703
Afghanistan War, 234, 283, 579, 736, 738, 738 Africa, 19 African Americans
abolitionist movement, 162 child poverty rate, 705–6 and citizenship, 16 in Congress, 471, 472 and digital divide, 309 elderly poverty rate for, 700 internet access, 282 lending discrimination against, 177–78, 178 news media and, 272 party affiliations of, 353–54 political participation by, 313–14 political values, 218–19 population demographics, 13, 17 poverty rate for, 700, 704 in prisons, 147 public opinion on racism, 218–19 on racism, 218–19, 219 and religious identity, 318 in the Republican Party, 163 and “separate but equal,” 26 and slavery, 13, 23
Glossary/Index
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 87 17/11/18 3:58 PM
A88 GLOSSARY/ INDEX
Alaska, 83, 360, 481 Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB), 631 alcohol testing, 140 Aldrich, John, 340 Alien and Sedition Acts, 127, 361 Aliste, Ethan, 379 Alito, Samuel, 601 Al Jazeera, 273 Allison, Graham, 741 alternative technologies, 666–67 Al Thani, Mohammed bin Abdulrahman, 568 Alvarez, Maximo, 451 Amazon, 259, 262, 450
Amendment, 6, 66–68 a change added to a bill, law, or constitution to the Constitution, 58, 65–69; see also
Bill of Rights; individual Amendments
Civil War Amendments, 163–64 list of, 67 methods for passage/incorporation,
65–66, 66 and the Supreme Court, 68–69
in lawmaking process, 492–93
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 135, 454, 614
American Conservative Union, 447 American Family Association, 447 American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME), 590
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), 733
American Medical Association, 695 American National Election Studies (ANES),
241 American people
in the 21st century, 17–22 changes in, 13–22 dependence on government, 6, 29–30
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), 637, 639, 649, 649, 666–67, 688, 692
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, 692 American Revolution, 8, 43–46 Americans for Prosperity (Super PAC), 294–95,
443 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA),
99, 104–5, 191 AM/FM radio, 266
amicus curiae, 613, 615, 625 literally, “friend of the court”; individuals or groups who are not parties to a lawsuit but who seek to assist the Supreme Court in reaching a decision by presenting additional briefs
Amnesty International, 732, 733 Andrus, Ethel Percy, 444 Annapolis Convention, 48 Anthony, Susan B., 163, 300
Antifederalists those who favored strong state governments and a weak national government and who were opponents of the Constitution
assembly, right of, 132 Associated Press, 260 Association of Young Americans (AYA), 428–29,
460 Astroturf lobbying, 456, 495
attitude (or opinion), 207 a specific preference on a particular issue
Australian, New Zealand, United States Security (ANZUS) Treaty, 737
authoritarian government, 7 a system of rule in which the government recognizes no formal limits but may nevertheless be restrained by the power of other social institutions
autocracy, 7 a form of government in which a single individual—a king, queen, or dictator—rules
auto industry, 648 automatic voter registration, 295, 324 Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New
England, 148–49
B background checks, 138 bailouts, 648 Baker v. Carr, 384 Bakke, Allan, 195 balance of power, federal and state governments,
47–48
ballot initiative, 9, 322, 392–93, 459 a proposed law or policy change that is placed on the ballot by citizens or interest groups for a popular vote
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center (BISC), 459 ballots, 383, 383–84
bandwagon effect, 245 a shift in electoral support to the candidate whom public opinion polls report as the front-runner
bank bailouts. See bailouts Bank of the United States, 650 banks, 642, 648–52 Barreto, Matt, 315 Bartels, Larry, 223, 230, 328, 338 battleground states
and electoral college, 320, 322, 396 and exit polls, 319 and media attention, 386 and voter turnout, 319
BCRA. See Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
Beard, Charles, 49 Bear Stearns, 652 Beck, Nancy, 513 Bedford, Gunning, 50 Beer distribution, 630–32 beliefs, 207 Benghazi, Libya, consulate attack and
congressional investigation, 484, 493, 502–3, 582, 582
Benton, John, 142 Benton v. Maryland, 142
proposed at the American Constitutional Convention of 1787
and bill of rights, 118 defined, 62 and ratification of the Constitution, 62,
62–64 and states’ powers amendment, 81
antitrust policy, 659–61 government regulation of large businesses that have established monopolies
anti–Vietnam War demonstrations, 224 ANZUS (Australian, New Zealand, United States
Security) Treaty, 737
appeasement, 718 the effort to forestall war by giving in to the demands of a hostile power
appellate courts, federal, 590, 596–99, 610 Apple, 24, 141, 259, 262 appointments, by president, 514, 518–19, 522,
542
apportionment, 477 the process, occurring after every decennial census, that allocates congressional seats among the 50 states
appropriations, 502 the amounts of money approved by Congress in statutes (bills) that each unit or agency of government can spend
arbitration, 740–41 Arizona
congressional seats of, 478–79 immigration law, 188 public assistance in, 576 redistricting in, 478–79 SCHIP program in, 576 voter ID law, 177
Arkansas, 126, 168, 168–69, 516–17 arms race, 718–19, 719 Army, U.S., 727 Army Corps of Engineers, 553 ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency),
552, 555–56 Arpaio, Joe, 517 ARPANET, 555–56, 636, 636 ARRA. See American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 Arthur, John, 40–41
Articles of Confederation, 46, 53, 54 America’s first written constitution; served as the basis for America’s national government until 1789
Asaei, Ali, 715 Ashcroft, John, 93–94 Asia, immigrants from, 16–17 Asian Americans
civil rights for, 189–91 in Congress, 471 dance-rock band, 114–16 party affiliations of, 354 political participation by, 316 voter turnout, 316
Assad, Bashar al-, 566, 742
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 88 17/11/18 3:58 PM
GLOSSARY/ INDEX A89
Berinsky, Adam, 242–43 Berkebile, Guy, 466 Bernanke, Ben, 651, 652 Bezos, Jeffrey, 262, 263
bicameral, 53, 469 having a legislative assembly composed of two chambers or houses; distinguished from unicameral
bicameral legislature, 53, 469–70 “big data,” 245–47, 344
bill, 489–94 a proposed law that has been sponsored by a member of Congress and submitted to the clerk of the House or Senate; see also lawmaking
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 273 “bill of information,” 142
Bill of Rights, 59, 69, 119 the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791; they ensure certain rights and liberties to the people First Amendment, 118, 120, 123–36, 255,
285, 287, 401, 402, 449, 605; see also freedom of religion; freedom of speech
Second Amendment, 136–38 Third Amendment, 146 Fourth Amendment, 139–41, 146 Fifth Amendment, 68, 119–20, 141–43, 146 Sixth Amendment, 144 Eighth Amendment, 144–45 Tenth Amendment, 56, 81, 94–95 addition of, 54 defined, 54, 118 due process of law, 138–46 freedoms in, 23 history of, 117–18 incorporation into Fourteenth Amendment,
118–22, 121–22 nationalization of, 118–22 personal liberties and rights in, 23 and right to die, 150 and right to privacy, 146–49
Bimber, Bruce, 307 bin Laden, Osama, 724, 724 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
(BCRA; McCain-Feingold Act), 128, 346, 458, 605
birth control, 146 “birther” controversy, 274 BISC (Ballot Initiative Strategy Center), 459 Bismarck, Otto von, 8 Black Lives Matter, 170, 218, 272, 282, 298,
354, 455 Blackmun, Harry, 614, 620 BlackPAC, 295 Blades, Joan, 439 Blair, Saira, 2–4
block grants, 96, 98 federal grants-in-aid that allow states considerable discretion in how the funds are spent
blogs, 271, 272 Bloomberg News, 264 blue states, 354
bureaucracy, 550–85 the complex structure of offices, tasks, rules, and principles of organization that is employed by all large- scale institutions to coordinate the work of their personnel agencies of executive branch, 563 defined, 553 in a democracy, 583–84 employment figures (2015), 557 FOIA requests, 585 goals of, 563–73 for maintaining a strong economy, 571–73 managing, 579–83 organization of the executive branch, 559–62 for promotion of the public welfare, 563–65 for providing national security, 565–70, 567 reformation of, 573–79, 575–79 size in various countries, 562, 562 size of federal service, 558, 559
bureaucrats, 556–58 Burger, Warren, 181 Burnham, Walter Dean, 337 Bush, George H.W., and administration
attempts to shrink bureaucracy`, 575 education policies, 690 executive order of, 540 judicial appointments, 602, 620 State Department, 725 Supreme Court nominees of, 602 tax brackets under, 655 war powers of, 525
Bush, George W., and administration administrative directives, 537 antiterrorism initiatives, 608–9 approval ratings, 536 as “compassionate conservative,” 215 congressional scrutiny of, 502 courting of religious groups, 356 economic policies, 648 education policies, 690 election of 2000, 245, 364, 368–69, 384, 390 emergency declaration following terror
attacks, 528 EPA under, 513 executive orders of, 538 and financial crisis of 2008, 648 foreign policy, 722, 724 foreign policy after 9/11 attacks, 232–34 growth of government under, 102 immigration law enforcement, 188 inherent powers, 525, 526 and Iraq War, 722, 724 judicial appointments, 620 management strategy, 581 and micro-targeting, 398–99 military spending, 639 Pentagon budget under, 663 presidential initiatives, 521 preventive war policy, 719–20 privatization under, 577 public opinion of tax cuts, 223, 230 public relations by, 535 and religious conservatives, 319 SCHIP regulation under, 98 and Social Security reform, 685–86 taxation reviews under, 689
Bodine, Brian, 378–79, 379 Boehner, John, 450, 499, 506, 658 Boeing, 727 Boggess, Chris, 630, 631, 668 Booker, Cory, 233 Bork, Robert, 602 Boston, Massachusetts, 173, 174 Boston Massacre, 44 Boston Tea Party, 44–45, 45 Boumediene v. Bush, 608 bourgeoisie, 8 Bowers v. Hardwick, 149, 192 Boyd, Wes, 439 Boydstun, Amber, 280 BRAC (Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Commission), 575 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 95 Brandeis, Louis, 94, 146 Brandenburg, Charles, 128 Brandenburg v. Ohio, 128 branding, 340 BRCA. See Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of
2002 Brennan, William, 135, 600 Bretton Woods conference, 735 Breyer, Stephen, 125
briefs, 615 written documents in which attorneys explain, using case precedents, why the court should find in favor of their client
British Broadcasting Company (BBC), 273, 285
broadcast media, 265–66 television, radio, or other media that transmit audio and/or video content to the public
Brookings Institution, 272 Brown, Ben, 428, 460 Brown, Linda, 167 Brown, Michael, 218, 536 Brown, Oliver, 167 Brown University, 182
Brown v. Board of Education, 26, 167–70, 186, 453, 605 the 1954 Supreme Court decision that struck down the “separate but equal” doctrine as fundamentally unequal; this case eliminated state power to use race as a criterion of discrimination in law and provided the national government with the power to intervene by exercising strict regulatory policies against discriminatory actions
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 136
Bryan, William Jennings, 362, 365 Buckley v. Valeo, 128, 405 budget, federal, 655–58, 659 Budget Control Act (2011), 568, 575–76, 657 budget crisis (2011), 575
budget deficit, 657, 657–58 amount by which government spending exceeds government revenue in a fiscal year
budget surplus, 240, 657 burden of proof, 195–97
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 89 17/11/18 3:58 PM
A90 GLOSSARY/ INDEX
children political socialization of, 216, 217 social policy for, 704
Children’s Defense Fund, 706 Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP),
467 China, 285, 287
cyberattacks from, 717 and human rights, 721–22 human rights violations by, 721–22 manufacturing in, 668 and U.S. foreign policy, 742–45
Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, 16, 190 Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), 234 Christian Coalition, 459 Christian right, 318 Chrysler, 637 church and state. See separation of church and
state CIA. See Central Intelligence Agency Citadel military college, 182–83 Citigroup, 495 citizen groups, 435
citizen journalism, 271–72 news reported and distributed by citizens, rather than professional journalists and for-profit news organizations
citizenship, 10–13 informed and active membership in a political community; see also digital citizen
African American rights, 161 defined, 11 digital, 11 and political efficacy, 12 and political knowledge, 10–13, 12, 228–29 and undocumented immigrants, 120
Citizens United, 447 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,
128, 128–29, 397, 401–2, 458
civil law, 594 the branch of law that deals with disputes that do not involve criminal penalties
civil liberties, 114–53 areas of personal freedom constitutionally protected from government interference
Bill of Rights; see also specific amendments, e.g.: First Amendment
Constitution, 117–22 defined, 118, 160 freedom of religion, 123–26 freedom of speech, 127–33 freedom of the press, 133–36 rights of the criminally accused, 138–46 right to bear arms, 136–38 right to privacy, 146–49 and USA PATRIOT Act, 570 in various nations, 150
Civil Liberties Act of 1988, 190
civil rights, 158–99, 168 obligation imposed on government to take positive action to protect citizens from any illegal action of government agencies and of other private citizens
Carender, Keli, 334–35, 335 Carlson, Tucker, 276 Carter, Aston, 158 Carter, Jimmy, 528, 574, 580, 641 Case Act of 1972, 503–4 caseloads, 598 cash assistance, 687–88, 688
categorical grants, 91, 638–39 congressional grants given to states and localities on the condition that expenditures be limited to a problem or group specified by law
Catholics, 14, 18, 220, 234, 355–56 Cato Institute, 272 Catt, Carrie Chapman, 300
caucus (political), 342, 343, 373, 386–88, 482, 489 a normally closed political party business meeting of citizens or lawmakers to select candidates, elect officers, plan strategy, or make decisions regarding legislative matters
CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network), 234 CBO (Congressional Budget Office), 649, 656 CBS News, 260, 265, 278 CDA (Communications Decency Act), 135, 285 CDC (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention), 694 CEA (Council of Economic Advisers), 531, 637 Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 573 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), 694 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 639, 717,
726 certiorari. See writ of certiorari Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 568 Chamber of Commerce, U.S., 646 Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. EPA,
615 Charlotte bathroom bill. See Public Facilities
Privacy and Security Act Charlotte City Council, 107 Charlottesville white nationalist rally, 208, 208,
272, 298 charter schools, 692–93 Chàvez, César, 186
checks and balances, 53, 60 mechanisms through which each branch of government is able to participate in and influence the activities of the other branches; major examples include the presidential veto power over congressional legislation, the power of the Senate to approve presidential appointments, and judicial review of congressional enactments; see also separation of powers
Cheney, Dick, 746 Chicago Daily Tribune, 243 Chicago Tribune, 263
chief justice, 600, 616 justice on the Supreme Court who presides over the Court’s public sessions and whose official title is “chief justice of the United States”
child labor, 88, 88
tax brackets under, 655 tax cuts, 281, 650, 655 unitary executive theory and, 522 and United Nations, 735 veto power used by, 520 voter mobilization in 2004 election, 320 White House Communications Office, 535
Bush, Jeb, 281
Bush Doctrine, 724 foreign policy based on the idea that the United States should take preemptive action against threats to its national security
Bush v. Gore, 390 business development, promoting, 637–39 business interest groups, 433 business organizations, 646 Business Roundtable, 646 busing, school desegregation via, 173–74 butterfly ballots, 383
C cabinet, 529, 530, 529 the secretaries, or chief
administrators, of the major departments of the federal government; Cabinet secretaries are appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate
Cable News Network (CNN), 260, 265, 278 cable television, 265 Calhoun, John C., 94–95, 95 California
Asian Americans, 189–91, 316 electoral college votes from, 389 federal employees in, 558 gun laws, 136 immigration and voter demographics, 354 initiative campaigns in, 9, 392 migrant workers in, 186 Proposition 30, 323 Proposition 62, 323 Proposition 187, 187 recall of Gray Davis in, 393 redistricting rules, 478–79 Sacramento Delta, 667 shifting political demographics, 224–25 smoking bans in, 98 unauthorized immigrants in, 187
California Paid Family Leave, 707 campaign activism, 459 campaign consultants, 393–94, 394 campaign finance reform. See Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act of 2002 campaign laws, in various countries, 403, 403 campaign strategy, 340, 395–400 Campbell, Andrea, 675–76 Canada, 606, 721 candidates
for Congress, 476 recruitment of, 340 for vice president, 531
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 126 cap-and-trade system, 666 capitalism, 23, 86, 642–43 capital punishment, 144–45 Cardozo, Benjamin, 120
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 90 17/11/18 3:58 PM
GLOSSARY/ INDEX A91
CNN (Cable News Network), 260, 265, 278 Coast Guard, 568 Code of Federal Regulations, 537 coercion, power of, 81 Cohen, Michael, 450 COLAs (cost-of-living adjustments), 680
Cold War, 718, 737 the period of struggle between the United States and the former Soviet Union lasting from the late 1940s to about 1990
collective goods, 441 benefits sought by groups that are broadly available and cannot be denied to nonmembers
collective security, 737–38 college education
and public opinion, 209–10 and sexual assault/harassment procedures, 183
colleges, 693 colonists, political strife among, 44–45 Colorado, 9, 104, 165–66, 360 comedy talk shows, 266 Comey, James, 273, 280, 280, 351, 503 comity, 57–58 comity clause, 83
commander in chief, 516 the role of the president as commander of the national military and the state National Guard units (when called into service)
commerce clause, 87, 88, 106 Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which delegates to Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States and with the Indian tribes”; this clause was interpreted by the Supreme Court in favor of national power over the economy
Commerce Department, 573, 728 commercial speech, 131–32 Commission on Wartime Contracting, 579
committee markup, 489 the session in which a congressional committee rewrites legislation to incorporate changes discussed during hearings on a bill
committee system (Congress), 352, 483–87, 498, 502–3
Common Cause, 429 Common Core, 692
common law, 609 law made through court precedent rather than legislative enactments
Communications Decency Act (CDA), 135, 285 community, online, 304–7 Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, 178 compacts, 83–84 computer security, 717
concurrent powers, 82 authority possessed by both state and national governments, such as the power to levy taxes
confederation, 46 a system of government in which states retain sovereign authority except for the powers expressly delegated to the national government
bureaucracy under, 558, 574, 575 congressional investigation of, 502 election of 1992, 390 election of 1996, 364 Family and Medical Leave Act, 707 and gays in the military, 192 health care reform initiative of, 533, 695 on Hillary’s role in administration, 533 impeachment, 440, 542 impeachment inquiry, 494–95, 504–5, 505 Monica Lewinsky scandal, 281 management strategy of, 580–81 National Performance Review, 574, 574–75 polls on use for budget surplus under, 241 public relations by, 232, 535 tax brackets under, 655 welfare reform under, 687 White House Communications Office, 535
Clinton, Hillary, 354, 394 in 2016 debates, 399 advertisements against in 2016 election, 308–9 African American support for, 354 Asian American support for, 316 Benghazi hearings, 484, 502–3, 582, 582 campaign spending, 401, 405 and Citizens United case, 128 cyberattacks of 2016 campaign, 210–11, 308–9 in debates, 398 demographics in election of 2016, 545 DNC support for, 409 economic inequality discussed by, 28 election campaign of 2008, 388 election of 2008, 312–13 election of 2016, 28, 312–13, 378, 379,
389, 390 email server as campaign issue, 280, 280, 282 as first lady, 533 and gender gap, 316, 355 health care reform, 695 income inequality discussed by, 222 Latino support for, 315 media coverage of, 260 momentum in 2016 primaries, 387, 409 polling during 2016 election, 242 as presidential candidate, 533 public offices of, 533 superdelegates and, 389 trustworthiness issue, 408 Twitter use in 2016 election, 535 voter demographics, 355–58 voter race/ethnicity, 355 youth vote, 358
closed primary, 382 a primary election in which voters can participate in the nomination of candidates but only of the party in which they are enrolled for a period of time prior to primary day
closed rule, 491 a provision by the House Rules Committee limiting or prohibiting the introduction of amendments during debate
cloture, 492 a rule or process in a legislative body aimed at ending debate on a given bill; in the U.S. Senate, 60 senators (three-fifths) must agree in order to impose a time limit and end debate
and affirmative action, 195–97 after Brown v. Board of Education, 167–70 for Asian Americans, 189–91 Civil Rights Acts, 170–79 Civil War amendments to the Constitution,
163–64 defined, 161 for disabled Americans, 191–92 effect on New Deal coalition, 363 following World War II, 166–67 for Latinos/Hispanics, 184–89, 186 for Native Americans, 191–92 organizations working for, 164–65 “separate but equal” rule, 164–65 and sexual orientation, 192–93 slavery and abolitionist movement, 161–62 struggle for, 161 Supreme Court rulings on state laws, 605 and white southerners’ party affiliations, 364 for women, 180–85, 185 women’s rights movement, 162
Civil Rights Act of 1875, 95, 164 Civil Rights Act of 1964, 117, 171–79, 177–85 Civil Rights Acts, 170–79
busing, 173–74 employment discrimination, 174–75 housing, 177–78 marriage, 179 public accommodations, 171–72 school desegregation, 172–74 voting rights, 175–77, 176
civil rights movement, 169, 172, 277, 281, 299–300, 313–14, 318
Civil Service Act of 1883, 556 Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 580 civil unrest, 297 Civil War, 162, 362, 525, 533 Civil War amendments, 163–64; see also
individual amendments Clapper, James, 151 class, socioeconomic. See poverty; socioeconomic
status
class-action suit, 622 a legal action by which a group or class of individuals with common interests can file a suit on behalf of everyone who shares that interest
Clausewitz, Carl von, 738 Clayton Antitrust Act, 660 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, 663–64 Clean Power Plan, 554 Clean Water Act of 1972, 663–64 “clear and present danger” test, 128 Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy, 512–14 Cleveland, Grover, 362, 390 clicktivism, 304 climate change, 664–67, 665
adaptation policies, 667 alternative technologies promotion, 666–67 mitigation approach, 665–66 public opinion on, 238, 238
Clinton, Bill, and administration administrative directives of, 537 approval rating of, 536 on big government, 558 block grant vetoes, 98
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 91 17/11/18 3:58 PM
A92 GLOSSARY/ INDEX
contracting, government, 662–63, 663
contracting power, 662–63 the power of government to set conditions on companies seeking to sell goods or services to government agencies
contributory programs, 679–80 social programs financed in whole or in part by taxation or other mandatory contributions by their present or future recipients
Controlled Substances Act, 105 convenience voting, 327 Coons, Chris, 308 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 241
cooperative federalism, 91, 91–93, 97 a type of federalism existing since the New Deal era in which grants-in-aid have been used strategically to encourage states and localities (without commanding them) to pursue nationally defined goals; also known as intergovernmental cooperation
Cooper v. Harrts, 607 corporate inversion, 655
cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), 680 changes made to the level of benefits of a government program based on the rate of inflation
Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), 531, 571, 637
Council on Environmental Quality, 531 counsel, right to, 144 court cases, 593–94 Courtney, Joe, 476
court of appeals, 594 a court that hears appeals of trial court decisions
courts, 593; see also federal courts CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission),
641, 660 cracking technique, 385 credit, 650 Crimea, 727, 737–38, 742 criminal cases, 593–97 criminal justice
rights of the criminally accused, 137, 138–46
states’ return of fugitives, 83
criminal law, 593 the branch of law that regulates the conduct of individuals, defines crimes, and specifies punishment for proscribed conduct
Croker, Richard, 347 cross burning, 130 cruel and unusual punishment, 83, 144–45 Cruz, Ted, 32, 387, 387, 733 Cuba, 287, 517 Cuban Americans, 354, 733 culture war, 318 Cunningham, Randy “Duke,” 480 currency, 633 Curtiss-Wright decision, 526 cybersecurity, 717
unfunded mandates of, 99 and voter demographics, 507 waning powers of, 543 war power of, 525
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 649, 656 congressional campaign committees, 347–48 Congressional Hispanic Caucus, 474 congressional oversight, 523 Connecticut, 146, 360 Connecticut Compromise, 50; see also Great
Compromise conservatism, 30–31, 213, 214, 366, 367,
619–20
constituency, 469, 474–75, 484, 494, 494–95 the residents in the area from which an official is elected
constituent services, 481 Constitution, U.S., 40–42, 53–59
amending, 58; see also amendment Annapolis Convention, 48 Articles of Confederation vs., 54 Bill of Rights, 59 on congressional powers, 649 executive branch, 56 on federal courts, 596 federalism in, 79–84 foreign policy provisions of, 725, 731 Founding and, 53–75 judicial branch, 56–57 legislative branch, 55–56 liberty in, 23 limits on power of national government, 30,
58, 59 local government and, 84 nationalistic interpretation of, 87–88 national unity and power provisions, 57–58 original rights in, 118 powers of the presidency, 515–29 presidency established by, 515 and presidential foreign policy powers, 722 president’s interpretation of, 522 on racial discrimination, 171 ratification of, 58, 60–65, 63 and weakness of Articles of Confederation,
47–48 Constitutional Convention of 1787, 49, 49–53,
64–65, 604 constitutional democracy, 7–8
constitutional government, 7 a system of rule in which formal and effective limits are placed on the powers of the government
constitutional rights, in states of emergency, 528 consultants, campaign, 393–94, 394 Consumer Confidence Index, 407, 408 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB),
561, 639, 661 Consumer Product Safety Act of 1972, 525 Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC),
640, 641, 660 consumer protection policies, 639–41
containment, 718–19 a policy designed to curtail the political and military expansion of a hostile power
conference, 482, 616 a gathering of House Republicans every two years to elect their House leaders; Democrats call their gathering the “caucus”
conference committees, 485–86, 493 joint committees created to work out a compromise on House and Senate versions of a piece of legislation
Congress, 466–507; see also House of Representatives; Senate
advice and consent by, 503–4 and Affordable Care Act, 106 and budget process, 657–58 caucuses, 489 committee system of, 352, 483–87, 485 conference committees, 493 congressional oversight of executive branch,
523 constitutional powers of, 649 Constitutional provision for, 55–56 decision making by, 494–502 and democracy, 505–6 differences between House and Senate, 469,
469–70 direct patronage by, 480–82 election of, 475–80 emergency power limitations, 528 federal courts and, 621–22 and foreign policy, 730–32 and impeachment, 504–5 impeachment power of, 542 implied powers of, 79 influence of interest groups on, 448, 449–52 iron triangles, 451–52 and limits of presidential power, 522, 541–43 lobbying, 449–52 majority party structure, 483–84 member demographics, 473 minimum wage, 646 natural disaster response, 528 organization of, 482–89 oversight by, 502–3, 581–83 parties in, 351–52 party leadership in, 482–83, 496–500 party polarization in, 367–68, 501 and population shift, 20, 22 powers delegated by, 523, 525 power under Articles of Confederation, 46, 48 presidential orders revoked by, 540 and presidential policy-making, 522, 533,
541–42 profile of, 473 and recession of 2008, 648–49 and regulatory review process, 537 representation by, 481 rules of lawmaking in, 489–94, 490 and separation of powers, 58, 59 sociological vs. agency representation,
471–75, 474–75 staff system of, 487, 487 and Supreme Court, 619–20 and tax cuts, 655 and Twenty-Seventh Amendment, 68 unemployment insurance extension
authorization, 680
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 92 17/11/18 3:58 PM
GLOSSARY/ INDEX A93
and minimum wage, 645 origins of, 361–63 party identification, 352–53 and polarization, 276–77, 366, 367–68 and primary delegates, 388 and Progressive Party reforms, 369–70 and proportional representation voting, 345,
388 and public works financing, 89 recruitment of candidates by, 476 and redistricting, 479–80 and regulation, 644, 646 religious affiliations of members, 221 responsiveness of, 338 and social programs, 31 tax and social spending views of, 356, 643–44 and voter ID laws, 324, 326 voter mobilization, 320 and white southerners, 224–25 and young Americans, 358, 358 and youth vote, 358
democratic socialism, 214 demonstrations, 455 Denmark, 259 Dennis v. United States, 129
department, 559 the largest subunit of the executive branch; the secretaries of the 15 departments form the Cabinet
deportation policies, 105–7, 120
deregulation, 661 a policy of reducing or eliminating regulatory restraints on the conduct of individuals or private institutions
descriptive representation, 315 desegregation, 516–17
deterrence, 719 An effort to prevent hostile action by promising to retaliate forcefully against an attacker
devolution, 96, 100–102, 576–77 a policy to remove a program from one level of government by delegating it or passing it down to a lower level of government, such as from the national government to the state and local governments
DeVos, Betsy, 565, 683 Dewey, John, 243, 257 DHS. See Homeland Security, Department of digital advertising, 267
digital citizen a daily internet user with broadband (high-speed) home internet access and the technology and literacy skills to go online for employment, news, politics, entertainment, commerce, and other activities; see also internet
defined, 11, 268 offline political participation of, 304–7
digital divide, 268, 309 the gap in access to the internet among demographic groups based on education, income, age, geographic location, and race/ethnicity
digital media, 267–71; see also internet
delegated powers, 515, 523, 525 constitutional powers that are assigned to one governmental agency but that are exercised by another agency with the express permission of the first
democracy, 28–29 a system of rule that permits citizens to play a significant part in the governmental process, usually through the election of key public officials as basic political value, 23 and Congress, 505–6 in the Constitution, 69 constitutional, 7–8 core values of, 210 defined, 7, 209–10 functioning of, 10, 11 function of political parties in, 337–38 function of the press in, 257–58 ideal of vs. practice of, 28 interest groups as challenge to, 460 and the judiciary, 624 and the media, 288 and national security, 569–70 and opinions based on inadequate knowledge,
230–32 and political culture, 28–29 and presidential power, 514 and public opinion, 247–48 responsible bureaucracy in, 583–84
Democracy in America (Tocqueville), 460 Democratic National Committee (DNC), 346 Democratic National Convention (1972), 345 Democratic National Convention (2012), 346 Democratic National Convention (2016),
210–11, 389, 409 Democratic Party, 339; see also political parties
and 2009 economic stimulus package, 648–49
and ACA, 697–98 and Affordable Care Act, 282 anti-incumbent sentiment, 477 Asian American voters, 316 characteristics of, 353 and civil rights of African Americans, 163 conference committees, 483–84 conflict with Republican Party, 348 congressional party unity, 496–98, 497 data mining, 246–47 demographics of, 339, 353–58 distrust in government among members of, 31 and economic policy, 641 factions within, 351 and Federal Reserve, 652 fund-raising activities of, 346 and gender gap, 316 gerrymandering, 478 and health care reform, 695, 697–98 ideology, 356 immigration stance, 348 key policy positions of, 348 and labor groups, 646 and laissez-faire economics, 642–43 Latino voters, 314–15, 353–54 and leadership PACs, 498 and lower-income voters, 356 members’ characteristics, 221–22
D DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals),
105, 187–88, 350 Daily Show, The, 266 Dalton, Russell, 307 DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of
Americans), 105 dark money, 404–5 Dasari, Anooha, 255 Daschle, Tom, 497 databases, 321, 343–44 data mining, 246 Davids, Sharice, 419, 419 Davie, William R., 53 Davis, Gray, 393 Dawson, Michael, 314 DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration), 530
dealignment, 358 a movement away from the major political parties; a decline in partisan attachment
death penalty, 144–45 debates, 399
campaign, 398 congressional, 491–93
de Blasio, Bill, 141 decision making
by Congress, 494–502 by Supreme Court, 618–24 by voters in elections, 406–8
Declaration of Independence, 23, 25, 45–46
Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions, 162
de facto literally, “by fact”; refers to practices that occur even when there is no legal enforcement, such as school segregation in much of the United States today segregation, 168
defendant, 593 the one against whom a complaint is brought in a criminal or civil case
Defense, Department of, 530, 558, 566, 725, 727–28
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC), 575
Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA), 40–42, 80–81, 180, 192
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), 105, 187–88, 350
Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), 105
deficits, 644, 649
de jure literally, “by law”; refers to legally enforced practices, such as school segregation in the South before the 1960s segregation, 168
Delaware, 167 DeLay, Tom, 452, 657
delegate a representative who votes according to the preferences of his or her constituency congressional, 470 to political conventions, 388
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 93 17/11/18 3:58 PM
A94 GLOSSARY/ INDEX
economic development agencies, 572–73 economic equality/inequality, 20, 21, 25–26 economic freedom, 24–25 economic growth
environmental policy vs., 238 measuring, 634–36
economic inequality. See income equality/inequality Economic Opportunity Act, 91–92 economic policy, 630–69
for business development, 637–39 for economic prosperity, 634–37 and the environment, 663–67 fiscal policies, 652–58 goals of, 633–41 government spending, 643–44 monetary policies, 649–52 politics of, 641 to protect employees and consumers,
639–41 regulation, 644–46 regulation and antitrust policy, 659–61 and special interest groups, 646 for stable markets, 633–34 subsidies and contracting, 661–63 taxation, 643
economic populism, 356 economic power, political power and, 28 economic prosperity
economic policy for, 634–37 foreign policy for, 720–21
economic stimulus package (2009). See American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
economy bureaucracy for maintaining, 571–73 as campaign influence, 407 and federal control, 88
education of Congress members, 473, 474 elementary and secondary, 690, 692–93 and gender discrimination, 182–83 government relief for student loans, 709 higher, 693–94 party affiliation and, 359 and political participation, 310–11, 311 for a productive workforce, 636 and public opinion, 217 public policies for, 689–94 school segregation/desegregation, 25–26,
167–70, 623 state laws on, 86
Education, Department of, 530, 552, 564–65 Education Act of 1972, 182 EEOC. See Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission Eighth Amendment, 144–45 Eisenhower, Dwight D., 168–69, 363, 516–17,
517, 662 EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit), 703
elastic clause, 56, 64 The concluding paragraph of Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution (also known as the “necessary and proper clause”), which provides Congress with the authority to make all laws “necessary and proper” to carry out its enumerated powers
DNA testing, 140–41 DNC. See Democratic National Committee Dodd–Frank Act, 495–96, 661 Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol, 745 Dole, Bob, 95 domestic military power, 516–17 domestic social spending, 500 donations (political campaigns). See fund-raising Donovan, Todd, 245, 321 “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” 192 double government, 581
double jeopardy, 120, 142 the Fifth Amendment right providing that a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime
Douglas, William O., 146 Douglass, Frederick, 162 DREAM Act, 187, 229 Dreamers. See DACA (Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals) Dred Scott v. Sandford, 162 Druckman, James, 229 Drudge Report, 264 Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 76,
530 drug testing, 140
dual federalism, 85–86, 91 the system of government that prevailed in the United States from 1789 to 1937 in which most fundamental governmental powers were shared between the federal and state governments
Du Bois, W.E.B., 165 due process clause, 120
due process of law, 138–46 the right of every individual against arbitrary action by national or state governments cruel and unusual punishment, 144–45 defined, 597 double jeopardy, 142 eminent domain, 143 grand juries, 142 right to counsel, 144 and same-sex marriage ruling, 193 searches and seizures, 139–41 self-incrimination, 142–43
Duke Power Company, 175
E Early, Stephen, 535
early voting, 327 the option in some states to cast a vote at a polling place or by mail before the election
earmarks, 480–81 Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), 702, 703 East India Company, 44, 45, 45 e-commerce, 105 economic aid and sanctions, 736–37 economic class, public opinion and, 222–24 economic crisis of 2008. See financial crisis and
recession of 2008
digital political participation, 303–10 activities designed to influence politics using the internet, including visiting a candidate’s website, organizing events online, and signing an online petition
digital revolution, 261–63 digital subscription models, 264
diplomacy, 734 the representation of a government to other governments
diplomatic power (president), 517–18 diplomatic recognition, 517, 725 direct-action politics, 10
direct democracy, 9, 392–93 a system of rule that permits citizens to vote directly on laws and policies
direct lobbying, 449–52 direct mail campaigns, 400 Director of National Intelligence (DNI), 728 direct patronage, 480–82 Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund,
191–92 disabled Americans, civil rights for, 191–92
discretionary spending, 658, 658, 659 federal spending on programs that are controlled through the regular budget process
discrimination the use of any unreasonable and unjust criterion of exclusion; see also segregation against African Americans, 95 against Asian Americans, 189–91 based on sexual orientation, 192–93 against citizens of other states, 83 defined, 161 against disabled Americans, 99, 191–92 employment, 171, 174–75, 195 gender, 180–85 in housing, 177–78 against Latinos/Hispanics, 184–89, 186 in lending, 177–78 against Native Americans, 191–92 positive, 198 racial, 161–79, 678 against white Americans, 198 against women, 171
Disney, 260
dissenting opinion, 617 a decision written by a justice in the minority in a particular case in which the justice wishes to express his or her reasoning in the case
district courts, federal, 596, 596–97, 598, 599 district judges, appointment of, 599 District of Columbia, 82, 143, 167, 326, 327 District of Columbia v. Heller, 136–38 diversity, news media and, 273
divided government, 365 the condition in American government wherein the presidency is controlled by one party while the opposing party controls one or both houses of Congress
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 94 17/11/18 3:58 PM
GLOSSARY/ INDEX A95
ballot measures, 9, 323, 392–93 “big data,” 246, 344 campaign spending, 401, 402 campaign strategies, 396 Christian right, 318 Clinton’s email server as campaign issue, 280, 282 Clinton’s email server controversy, 503 James Comey and, 503 congressional inaction on Supreme Court
nominations, 602 debates, 398 early voting, 327 and economic inequality, 28 economy issue, 407 electoral college, 390, 414 fundraising, 404 gender and political knowledge, 220 gender gap, 355 health care, 697 immigration, 120, 189, 265, 407 incumbency, 476, 477 individual contribution limits, 458 investigative reporting, 274 lack of party control over, 342 Latino vote, 315, 353–54 libertarianism, 214 media coverage, 398, 411 momentum in primaries, 387 online news, 273, 275 outsider candidates, 31, 32, 339 outside spending, 405 PACs, 458 parties and candidates, 370 party conventions, 389 party identification, 406 party platforms, 346 populism, 338 presidential vote by county, 357 public funding, 405 racial diversity of voters, 316 rallies and campaign events, 237 realignment, 365 referenda, 9, 323, 392 religion, 356 Russian hacking of, 284, 416–17 same-day registration, 327 self-funded candidates, 405 social composition of Congress, 471, 472 socialism, 214 social media, 303–10, 321 sound bites, 265 state by state results, 415 superdelegates, 389 Super PACs, 458, 496 third parties, 369, 414 Donald Trump and, 281, 365, 382 trustworthiness issue, 408 Twitter, 535 voter demographics, 329, 545 voter mobilization, 344 voter race/ethnicity, 353–54 voter registration, 295 voter turnout, 295, 301–2, 327 women and, 316 youth participation, 29, 29, 311, 312–13,
313, 358
election of 2004 Christian right and, 318 microtargeting, 398–99 religious conservatives, 318–19, 356 voter mobilization, 320
election of 2008 age and party affiliation, 358 anti-incumbent sentiment, 477 “birther” controversy, 274 campaign strategies, 396 campaign themes, 346 Citizens United case, 128–29 Hillary Clinton and, 533 fundraising, 401 internet strategies, 535 Iowa caucuses, 388 issues focus, 407 Latino vote, 354 micro-targeting, 398–99 minority vote, 314 Barack Obama and, 281 PAC contributions, 457 party politics, 364 polling, 246 public funding, 405 voter mobilization, 320, 344 voter turnout, 29, 29, 295, 301, 337, 373 youth vote, 311, 312, 358
election of 2010 anti-incumbent sentiment, 477 Citizens United case and, 401–2, 458 Facebook and voter mobilization in, 319–20 Ralph Nader and, 369 social media and voter turnout, 319–20 Tea Party movement and, 368, 368, 455 youth vote in, 311
election of 2012 accuracy of final preelection polls, 244 campaign spending, 402 campaign strategies, 396 donor demographics, 423 fundraising, 401 gerrymandering, 478 income of voters, 311 minority vote, 313–16 online organizing, 535 PAC contributions, 457 polling, 243, 244, 246 pro-choice voters, 459 proportional representation in conventions, 345 public funding, 405 telephone surveys, 241 third parties, 369 voter demographics, 35 voters’ reasons for non-participation in, 310 white evangelical vote, 356 Wisconsin recall vote, 393 youth vote, 311–13
election of 2014, 302, 305 election of 2016, 319, 378–80, 409–17; see also
Clinton, Hillary; Sanders, Bernie; Trump, Donald
Affordable Care Act and, 697 African American participation, 353–54, 354 age of voters, 311 Asian voters, 316, 354
Elauf, Samantha, 126 elderly. See older Americans election(s) (generally)
advisers, 394 ballots, 383–84 campaign consultants, 393–94 candidate recruitment, 340 competitiveness of, 321–22 Congress, 475–80 direct-democracy, 392–93 electoral districts, 384–86 fundraising, 394–95 incumbents, 367, 385 internet use in, 535 majority systems, 382 midterm, 302, 381; see also specific
midterm elections, e.g.: election of 2010
mobilizing voters, 343–44 money’s influence on, 29 nominations, 342 online participation in, 303–10 participation in, 29, 301–2 plurality systems, 382 as political participation, 298–99; see also
political participation political parties, 340–44 polling, 236–37 presidential, 386–92 priming, 282 proportional representation, 382–83 spending on, 400–405, 458–59 strategy, 395–400 third parties in, 368–71 types of, 382–83 voter decision making in, 406–8 voter turnout, 301–2, 302, 310–19, 311,
312, 418 voting, 381–82
election of 1824, 361 election of 1828, 361 election of 1832, 361 election of 1840, 361 election of 1856, 362 election of 1860, 362 election of 1864, 362 election of 1892, 362 election of 1896, 362–63, 365 election of 1928, 363 election of 1932, 363, 365 election of 1936, 243, 365 election of 1964, 364 election of 1968, 363 election of 1980, 318 election of 1984, 318 election of 1992, 368 election of 1994, 364, 459 election of 1996, 301, 364, 369 election of 2000
Florida recount, 176, 383, 384, 390 microtargeting, 398–99 Ralph Nader and third parties, 368–69, 369 push polling, 245 regionalism, 357 religion, 318 Republican Party, 364
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 95 17/11/18 3:58 PM
A96 GLOSSARY/ INDEX
Europe; see also individual countries heads of state in, 515 proportional representation in, 382–83
European immigrants, 18 Evangelical Christians
and conservatism, 221 and political participation, 318, 319
Every Student Succeeds, 104, 693
exclusionary rule, 139 the ability of courts to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment
executive agreement, 503, 518, 725, 730–31 an agreement, made between the president and another country, that has the force of a treaty but does not require the Senate’s “advice and consent”
executive branch, 514, 524; see also presidency agencies of, 563 Constitutional provisions for, 56 lobbying of, 450–51 organization of, 559–62 separation of powers, 58, 59
executive–congressional agreements, 518
Executive Office of the President (EOP), 529, 530–31, 536–38 the permanent agencies that perform defined management tasks for the president; created in 1939, the EOP includes the OMB, the CEA, the NSC, and other agencies
executive order, 530, 534, 537, 538–40, 539, 579 a rule or regulation issued by the president that has the effect and formal status of legislation
executive power (president), 518–19, 522–23, 526, 543–44
executive privilege, 519 the claim that confidential communications between a president and close advisers should not be revealed without the consent of the president
exit polls, 314
expressed powers, 56, 79, 515–21 specific powers granted by the Constitution to Congress (Article I, Section 8) and to the president (Article II)
expressive politics, 307 external mobilization, 339
F Facebook
editorial control at, 262 and election of 2016, 303–4, 396, 743 fake news on, 275 as news source, 267, 269, 270 Obama’s page on, 232 as shaper of public opinion, 217 and Supreme Court same-sex marriage
decision, 307, 307 as tool in 2016 election, 303–4 and voter mobilization, 319–20 and voter participation, 306 and Washington Post, 264
creation of, 530 in Flint drinking water disaster, 551, 552 toxic substances regulation, 512–14
EOP. See Executive Office of the President EpiPen price hike, hearing on, 582 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC), 175, 181 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v.
Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 126, 126 equality, 25–28
of access to public institutions, 26 as basic political value, 23 in the Constitution, 69 economic, 25–26 and federalism, 108 income, 27–28 of opportunity, 25–28, 209–10, 689 political, 25–26 and political culture, 25–28 racial, 197–98 social, 26 and social policy, 708
equality of opportunity, 25–28, 209–10, 689 a widely shared American ideal that all people should have the freedom to use whatever talents and wealth they have to reach their fullest potential
Equal Pay Act of 1963, 184 equal protection, 162–63, 164, 193; see also
Fourteenth Amendment
equal protection clause, 161, 179–80, 195 provision of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing citizens “the equal protection of the laws.” This clause has been the basis for the civil rights of African Americans, women, and other groups
equal rights, 160 Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), 69, 181
equal time rule, 286 the requirement that broadcasters provide candidates for the same political office equal opportunities to communicate their messages to the public
Erikson, Robert, 235 ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965), 690 Espionage Act of 1917, 127–28
establishment clause, 123–25 the First Amendment clause that says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”; this law means that a “wall of separation” exists between church and state
ethics, congressional, 480, 496 ethnic diversity
in congressional representation, 471–75, 472, 473, 474
global changes in, 19, 19 and immigration, 14–16 and political culture, 13–22, 15
ethnicity party affiliation and, 353–54 public opinion and, 219–20
election of 2018, 405, 417–21 ballot measures, 393, 420–21 “blue wave,” 417–21 implications of, 421 incumbency, 385, 476, 477 Latino vote, 315 spending, 394, 395, 458–59 Super PACs, 458–59 turnout, 302, 312, 418 women candidates, 317, 355, 417, 418–19 women vote, 355, 417, 418 youth vote, 312
election reform, 347, 370–71 electoral alignments and realignments, 366
electoral college, 53, 299, 389–90, 392, 396 the presidential electors from each state who meet after the general election to cast ballots for president and vice president
electoral districts, 384–86, 477–80, 478; see also gerrymandering
electoral politics, 161 and incumbency, 476–77 and interest groups, 456–59
electoral realignment, 366 the point in history when a new party supplants the governing party, becoming in turn the dominant political force
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), 690
elementary education, 690, 692–93 Ellis Island, 16 Ellsberg, Daniel, 283 Elmer’s restaurant, 172 emails, Hillary Clinton and, 280, 282, 484, 503 embassies, 725–26 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008,
639 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor
Act (EMTALA), 18 emergency powers, 528 Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 608 EMILY’s List, 317
eminent domain, 143 the right of government to take private property for public use
employee protection policies, 639–40 employment, 637, 646, 648, 650–51, 704 employment discrimination, 171, 174–75, 181, 195 EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and
Active Labor Act), 18 Energy Policy Act of 2005, 639
entitlement, 680–81 a legal obligation of the federal government to provide payments to individuals, or groups of individuals, according to eligibility criteria or benefit rules; see also specific entitlement programs, e.g.: Social Security
Entman, Robert, 282 environment, 663–67; see also climate change environmental policy, 228, 238, 745 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 512,
554, 555, 555, 563, 661, 664–65
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 96 17/11/18 3:58 PM
GLOSSARY/ INDEX A97
Fifth Amendment, 141–43 double jeopardy, 142 eminent domain, 143 grand juries, 142 incorporated in Fourteenth Amendment, 120 provisions of, 119–20 rights of the accused, 68 right to privacy, 146 self-incrimination, 142–43
“Fight for Fifteen” campaign, 646
fighting words, 129 speech that directly incites damaging conduct
filibuster, 368, 492, 506 a tactic used by members of the Senate to prevent action on legislation they oppose by continuously holding the floor and speaking until the majority backs down; once given the floor, senators have unlimited time to speak, and it requires a vote of three-fifths of the Senate to end a filibuster
filter bubble, 275 financial crisis and recession of 2008 (Great
Recession), 28, 576, 637, 688 and federal deficit, 657 Federal Reserve’s response to, 650 and financial industry regulation reform, 661 foreclosure crisis, 651, 699–700 government response, 648 and public opinion, 226 and SNAP benefits, 704 stimulus package, 637
financial industry reform, 661 Financial Stability Oversight Council, 571–73 Fiorina, Morris, 221–22
“fire alarm” oversight, 582 episodic, as-needed congressional hearings on bureaucratic agency operations, usually prompted by media attention or advocacy group complaints
firearms. See gun control First Amendment, 118–19, 123–36, 124
and campaign contribution limits, 401, 402, 605
case with the Slants, 114–15 and freedom of religion, 123–26; see also
freedom of religion and freedom of speech, 127–33; see also
freedom of speech and freedom of the press, 133–36 incorporated in Fourteenth Amendment,
120 and lobbying, 449 and media, 257, 285 and net neutrality, 255 and press freedom around the world, 287
First Continental Congress, 45 First Founding, 43–46 “first past the post,” 340, 341 first spouse, 532–33 fiscal agencies, 571–73
fiscal policy, 571, 652–58 the government’s use of taxing, monetary, and spending powers to manipulate the economy
federalism, 76–109 a system of government in which power is divided, by a constitution, between a central government and regional governments and business, 88 and changing role of states, 94–95 in the Constitution, 54, 59, 79–84 cooperative, 89–93, 91, 91–93 defined, 54, 79 and devolution, 100–102 dual, 85–86 dual vs. cooperative, 91 federal grants, 90, 91 and growth of national government’s power,
87–88 in modern era, 89–99 New Deal, 89 politics of, 102–7 public spending, 103 regulated, 93–99, 96, 100 traditional system of, 84–95
Federalist Papers, 62, 730 a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay supporting ratification of the Constitution
Federalists those who favored a strong national government and supported the Constitution proposed at the American Constitutional Convention of 1787 and bill of rights, 117–19 defined, 60 and electoral realignment, 365 origin of, 339 and ratification of the Constitution, 60–65, 62 and states’ powers amendment, 82 and two-party system, 339, 360–61
federal judges, 600–603, 603 Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), 580 Federally Funded Research and Development
Centers (FFRDCs), 727 Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906, 660, 660 Federal Register, 537, 661 Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946, 449 Federal Reserve Act, 650–51 Federal Reserve banks, 650 Federal Reserve Board (the Fed), 571, 572, 650–51, 651
Federal Reserve System, 571, 650–51 a system of 12 Federal Reserve banks that facilitates exchanges of cash, checks, and credit; regulates member banks; and uses monetary policies to fight inflation and deflation
federal service, 558, 559; see also bureaucracy federal system, 79, 85, 97, 381; see also federalism Federal Trade Commission (FTC), 660 Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, 660 Feeding America, 703 fee shifting, 622 Feingold, Russell, 404 felons, voting rights of, 326 Ferguson, Missouri, 170, 218, 536
Fifteenth Amendment, 28, 163, 299–300 one of three Civil War amendments; it guaranteed voting rights for African American men
FactCheck.org, 275, 277 Fair Housing Act, 177–78 Fair Housing Amendments Act, 177 Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 640, 645 fairness doctrine, 286 fake news, 274, 275, 275, 277 Fallon, Brian, 394 family, political socialization by, 216–17 Family and Medical Leave Act, 104–5, 706–7 farm subsidy program, 638 Farook, Syed, 141 Faubus, Orval, 168, 516–17 FBI. See Federal Bureau of Investigation FCC (Federal Communications Commission),
254, 255, 285, 286 FDA. See Food and Drug Administration FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation),
651 FEC (Federal Election Commission), 404 Fed, the. See Federal Reserve Board federal agencies, 523, 525, 530
created by executive order, 538 implementation of laws by, 537
federal agencies, judicial review of, 608 federal aid, 92 Federal Aviation Administration, 552 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 24, 141, 273,
280, 280, 284, 503, 566, 725, 728 Federal Communications Commission (FCC),
254, 255, 285, 286 federal courts, 595, 604–24; see also individual
courts, e.g.: Supreme Court appellate courts, 599 caseloads, 598 court cases, 593–94 and judicial revolutions, 622–24 and the legal system, 593–97 traditional limitations on, 621–22 transformation of role and power of, 621–24 trial courts, 599 types of courts, 594–97
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), 651
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 404, 456 Federal Election Commission (FEC), 404 Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to
Life, 128 Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), 528, 530, 553
federal funds rate, 650 the interest rate on loans between banks that the Federal Reserve Board influences by affecting the supply of money available
federal government; see also bureaucracy; federalism; government(s)
Constitutional limits on power of, 58, 59 Constitutional provisions on power of,
57–58, 59 and dual federalism, 85–86 effect on daily life at state universities, 80 growth in power of, 87–88 role as defined in Articles of Confederation, 46 spending by, 560 traditional system of, 84–95
federal grants, 90, 91, 92, 96
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 97 17/11/18 3:58 PM
A98 GLOSSARY/ INDEX
fund-raising (election campaigns), 304, 328, 371–72, 394–95, 395, 400–405, 403, 422, 423; see also Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
G Gadsden, Christopher, 45 Gainous, Jason, 269, 270 Gallup polls, 243 Gannett, 260 GAO (Government Accountability Office), 579 Garland, Merrick, 602 Garner, Eric, 218 Garrity, W. Arthur, Jr., 174, 623 gas crisis of 1973, 101 Gates, Bill, 273, 450 Gates, Rick, 284 Gates Foundation, 273 GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade),
518, 721 gay marriage. See same-sex marriage gay rights, 192–93; see also same-sex marriage GDP. See gross domestic product Geer, John, 397 gender
and party affiliation, 355, 359 and political opinions, 220, 222 and political participation, 316–17 public opinion questions of, 242–43
gender discrimination, 180–85, 182
gender gap, 220, 222, 355 a distinctive pattern of voting behavior reflecting the differences in views between women and men
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), 518, 721 international trade organization, in existence from 1947 to 1995, that set many of the rules governing international trade
general election, 382 a regularly scheduled election involving most districts in the nation or state, in which voters select officeholders; in the United States, general elections for national office and most state and local offices are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in even-numbered years (every four years for presidential elections)
General Motors, 550
general revenue sharing, 96 the process by which one unit of government yields a portion of its tax income to another unit of government, according to an established formula; revenue sharing typically involves the national government providing money to state governments
genetics, political beliefs and, 216 Georgia, 149, 188, 478, 621 Gerber, Alan, 319 Gerber, Elizabeth, 459 Germany, 259
cooperative federalism in, 97 term limits for judges in, 606
Gerry, Elbridge, 385
and Constitution, 40–53 Declaration of Independence, 45–46 First, 43–46 Second, 47–53
Fourteenth Amendment, 83, 618 one of three Civil War amendments; it guaranteed equal protection and due process
citizenship for freed slaves, 16 civil rights, 161 and double jeopardy, 142 due process clause, 119–20 equal protection, 163, 164, 193 first definitive interpretation of, 198 incorporation of Bill of Rights into, 118–22,
121–22 levels of scrutiny under equal protection
clause, 179–80 Obergefell v. Hodges, 41, 193 and voting rights, 170–71
Fourth Amendment, 139–41, 146 Fourth of July (Independence Day) celebration,
46 Fox News, 265, 276, 278 Frahm, Stephen, 568
framing, 234, 282 the power of the media to influence how events and issues are interpreted
France, 19, 43, 79, 259, 524 Franken, Al, 258 Frankfurter, Felix, 600, 616–17, 619 Franklin, Benjamin, 45 Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 182 Franscisco, Noel, 612 Frederick, Joseph, 130 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 569–70,
570, 583, 585 freedom of religion, 123–26
free exercise clause, 126 separation of church and state, 123–25
freedom of speech, 114–16, 127–33, 401, 402, 605
freedom of the press, 257, 287, 287 free elections, as essential to democracy, 210
free exercise clause, 126 the First Amendment clause that protects a citizen’s right to believe and practice whatever religion he or she chooses
free markets, 23
free riders, 441 those who enjoy the benefits of collective goods but did not participate in acquiring or providing them
Free Soil Party, 162 French and Indian War, 43 FTC (Federal Trade Commission), 660
full faith and credit clause, 82 provision from Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution requiring that the states normally honor the public acts and judicial decisions that take place in another state
Fulton, Robert, 87
Fisher, Louis, 526, 543 Fisher v. University of Texas, 180, 197, 611
501(c)(4) committees (dark money), 404–5 politically active nonprofits; under federal law, these nonprofits can spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns and not disclose their donors as long as their activities are not coordinated with the candidate campaigns and political activities are not their primary purpose
527 committee (Super PAC), 346, 404–5, 458 a nonprofit independent political action committee that may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, and individuals but is not permitted to contribute to or coordinate directly with parties or candidates
FiveThirtyEight.com, 246 flag burning, 132 Flint drinking water disaster, 246, 550–52 Flint Water Advisory Task Force, 551 Florida
congressional seats of, 478 election of 2000, 176, 383, 384, 390
FLRA (Federal Labor Relations Authority), 580 Flynn, Michael, 531 FOIA. See Freedom of Information Act Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 93, 552,
640, 660 Ford, Gerald, 517, 532 foreclosure crisis, 699–700 foreclosures, 651 foreign aid, 721–22, 736–37 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 729 foreign policy, 526, 714–47
after 9/11 attacks, 234 and America’s role in the world, 746 arbitration, 740–41 with China and Russia, 741–43 for collective security, 737–38 diplomacy, 734 for economic aid and sanctions, 736–37 for economic prosperity, 720–21 and global environmental policy, 745 goals of, 717–22 human rights, 721–22 instruments of, 733–41 international humanitarian policies, 722 and international monetary structure, 735–36 with Iran and North Korea, 743–44 makers of, 722–33 and military force, 738–40 for security, 717–20 and trade policy, 744–45 and the United Nations, 734–35
Foreign Service, U.S., 725 foreign service officer, 556 formula grants, 91 foundations, as media revenue source, 272–73 Founding, 64–65
American demographics at time of, 13 Articles of Confederation, 46 and British taxes, 43–44 and colonists’ political strife, 44–45
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 98 17/11/18 3:58 PM
GLOSSARY/ INDEX A99
gross national product (GNP), 634 group politics, 9–10 growth. See economic growth Gruber, Justin, 204–5 Grutter, Barbara, 197 Grutter v. Bollinger, 197 Guantánamo Bay prison camp, 540, 608, 746 gun control, 136–38, 205, 227 Gun-Free School Zones Act, 95 gun rights, 119, 136–38, 204–5
H habeas corpus. See writ of habeas corpus hacking, 743 Hacking the Electorate (Eitan Hersh), 321 Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization,
132 Hamdan, Salim, 608 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 608–9 Hamdi, Yaser Esam, 608 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 608–9 Hamilton, Alexander
and Bank of the United States, 650 on a bill of rights, 117 on the Constitution, 64 and economic policy, 634 on excessive democracy, 55 and Federalist Papers, 60 foreign policy, 730 on political factions, 339 on the presidency, 56
Hannity, Sean, 265 Hardwick, Michael, 149 Harris, Kamala, 229 Harrison, Benjamin, 362, 390 Harrison, William Henry, 361 Hartley, Kevin, 512, 513 Harvey, Larry, 76–78, 104 Hastert rule, 506 hate crimes, 193 hate speech, 129–30 HAVA (Help Americans Vote Act), 384 Hawaii, 192 Hawley, Josh, 420 Hayes, Rutherford B., 163, 390 HB2 (Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act),
107 HEA (Higher Education Act), 693 heads of state, 515, 517–19, 518, 524 Health and Human Services, Department of
(HHS), 525, 563, 573 health care, 106; see also Affordable Care Act of
2010; Medicaid; Medicare costs vs. outcomes, 691, 691 and immigration status, 18 and public opinion, 235 social policies for, 694–98
healthcare.gov, 573 health care reform, 11, 98, 99, 106, 671, 695 health care spending, and life expectancy, 691, 691 health insurance, 11, 695–98, 696 Hearst, 260 Helms, Jesse, 499 Help Americans Vote Act (HAVA), 383, 384 Henry, Patrick, 23 Here Comes Everybody (Shirky), 440
Government Accountability Office (GAO), 579 government bailouts. See bailouts
government corporation, 561 government agency that performs a market-oriented public service and raises revenues to fund its activities
government policy, public opinion and, 235–37 government shutdowns, 350, 658 government spending, 655–58 Graham, Lindsey, 493
grand jury, 141 jury that determines whether sufficient evidence is available to justify a trial; grand juries do not rule on the accused’s guilt or innocence
Granger, Kay, 731 grants, federal, 90, 91, 92, 96, 103
grants-in-aid, 90, 90, 92 programs through which Congress provides money to state and local governments on the condition that the funds be employed for purposes defined by the federal government; see also block grants
Grassley, Chuck, 494
grassroots campaigns, 396 political campaigns that operate at the local level, often using face-to-face communication to generate interest and momentum by citizens
grassroots mobilization, 455–56 a lobbying campaign in which a group mobilizes its membership to contact government officials in support of the group’s position
Great Britain, 43, 43–44
Great Compromise, 50–52, 51, 53 the agreement reached at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that gave each state an equal number of senators regardless of its population but linked representation in the House of Representatives to population
Great Depression, 89, 243, 363, 637, 641, 642, 677–78, 678, 698; see also New Deal
Great Recession. See financial crisis and recession of 2008
Greeks, ancient, 11 Green, Donald, 319 greenhouse gas emissions, 664–67 greenhouse gas regulation, 548, 555 Green Party, 369, 369 Greenspan, Alan, 575, 650 green technologies, 667, 667 Griffin, John, 236 Grisham, Lujan, 474 Griswold, Estelle, 146 Griswold v. Connecticut, 146, 620 Grodzins, Morton, 91
gross domestic product (GDP), 634, 635, 654 the total value of goods and services produced within a country
gerrymandering, 175–76, 321, 367, 385, 385–86, 478, 479 the apportionment of voters in districts in such a way as to give unfair advantage to one racial or ethnic group or political party
Gibbons v. Ogden, 87 GI Bill of Rights, 690, 693 Gideon, Clarence Earl, 144 Gideon v. Wainwright, 144 GI Forum, 186 Gilens, Martin, 236, 687 Gillespie, Ed, 294 Gillibrand, Kirsten, 498 Gill v. Whitford, 386 Gingrich, Newt, 486, 497 Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, 184, 617–18 Glennon, Michael, 581 globalization, 723 global warming. See climate change GNP (gross national product), 634 “going public,” 534–36 Goldberg, Arthur, 146 Goldberg v. Kelly, 680–81 Goldwater, Barry, 364, 396 Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reform Act, 568 Gonzales v. Carhart, 149 Gonzales v. Oregon, 149 Google, 262, 267 Google News, 267 Google search data, 246 Gore, Al, 384, 390, 574 Gorsuch, Neil, 504, 591, 600, 601, 601, 602,
606, 619
government, 5–10 institutions and procedures through which a territory and its people are ruled; see also bureaucracy; federal government; local governments; state governments access to, 8–9 Americans’ knowledge of, 12, 12–13 Americans’ view of, 29–33 beliefs about, 13, 30–31 defined, 5 dependence on, 6, 29–30 divided, 365 economic role of, 632 effect on daily life at state universities, 80 establishing a, 5 expansion of, 446–47 forms of, 5–8, 7 gridlock of, 105 influence over, 13 limited, 23 limiting, 5–8 media’s role in public trust/distrust of, 234 need for, 5 organization of power by, 79 and political parties, 337, 348–52 and politics, 9–10 regulation by, 24–25 relationship of parties and, 337 responsiveness to public opinion, 235–36 shutdowns, 350 systems in various countries compared, 61 trust/distrust in, 6, 31–32, 33–34 in the United States, 84
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 99 17/11/18 3:58 PM
A100 GLOSSARY/ INDEX
implementation, 553 the efforts of departments and agencies to translate laws into specific bureaucratic rules and actions
implied powers, 79, 515, 526 powers derived from the necessary and proper clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; such powers are not specifically expressed but are implied through the expansive interpretation of delegated powers
inalienable rights, 23, 46 incarceration rates, 147 income equality/inequality, 20, 21, 27–28, 668
and economic populism, 356 Latino public opinion on, 219–20 and political influence of the affluent, 236–37 and public opinion, 222–23, 231, 236
income levels; see also poverty; socioeconomic status
internet access and, 268 political opinion expression and, 249
income taxes, 652, 655 increased defense, 500
incumbency, 476–77 holding the political office for which one is running
incumbency advantage, 367, 385, 394, 395, 476–77, 477
incumbent, 393, 394, 395 a candidate running for re-election to a position that he or she already holds
Independence Day celebration, 46
independent agency, 560 agency that is not part of a Cabinet department
independent regulatory commissions, 561 independent voters, 358, 359
indexing, 680 periodic process of adjusting social benefits or wages to account for increases in the cost of living
Indiana, 177, 188 Indiana Beverage Alliance, 630 Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act, 191 individual mandate, 696 Indivisible Oregon, 233
inflation, 637, 650 a consistent increase in the general level of prices
informational benefits, 442 special newsletters, periodicals, training programs, conferences, and other information provided to members of groups to entice others to join
inherent powers, 515, 525–26 powers claimed by a president that are not expressed in the Constitution but are inferred from it
initiatives (ballot measures), 9, 322
in-kind benefits, 680 noncash goods and services provided to needy individuals and families by the federal government
House Rules Committee, 484 House Select Committee on Benghazi, 484,
502–3 House Select Committee on Homeland Security,
484 housing, 699
as civil right, 177–78 social policies for, 698–700
Housing and Urban Development, Department of (HUD), 178, 651
housing bubble, 699 housing crisis (2007–2008), 651, 699 housing market, 651 hoverboards, 640, 641 Howes, Will, 254 HUD. See Housing and Urban Development,
Department of Hull, Cordell, 725 Human Genome Project, 636 humanitarian policies, 722 human rights
internet access as, 286 policy for, 721–22
Human Rights Campaign, 193 human rights policies, 721–22 Hungary, 287 Hunt, Ward, 163–64 Hupp, Suzanna, 204–5 Hurricane Katrina, 553 Hussein, Saddam, 746
I ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission), 660 Idaho, 165–66, 479, 576 ideas, marketplace of, 232 ideological groups, 435 ideology. See political ideology “I Have a Dream” speech (King), 170 Illinois, 384, 385, 677 IMF (International Monetary Fund), 735–36 immigrants, 16
civil rights of, 187–89 impact of languages/customs of, 22–23 and Medicaid, 682 undocumented, 18, 18, 102, 105–7, 187
immigration, 13–22, 15 Congressional Hispanic Caucus and, 474 by continent of origin, 17 and ethnic diversity, 14–16, 15 Kamala Harris and, 229 as issue in 2016 presidential election, 189 Latino public opinion on, 219–20 and race, 15, 16 state and local policies for, 102, 105–7
Immigration Act of 1965, 189, 190 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),
188, 729 immigration reform, 315 Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986,
188
impeachment, 504–5, 542 the formal charge by the House of Representatives that a government official has committed “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”
Hersh, Eitan, 321 HHS. See Health and Human Services,
Department of higher education, 693–94 Higher Education Act (HEA), 693 highway system, 638–39 Hill, Anita, 602 Hispanic Americans. See Latinos/Hispanics Hispanic Caucus, 188 Hispanics. See Latinos/Hispanics HIV/AIDS, 694 Hoffman, Hazel, 466 Holder, Eric, 181, 519, 526 holds, 492 Holmes, Oliver Wendell, 127 Holt, Gregory, 126 Holt v. Hobbs, 126 Homeland Security, Department of (DHS), 567,
211, 565, 565–66 congressional battle over funding, 493 creation of, 102, 523, 525, 552 immigration enforcement, 188 and NSC, 728–29 oversight of, 581–83 in Trump administration, 558, 566
home rule, 84 power delegated by the state to a local unit of government to manage its own affairs
homosexuality, 149, 192–93; see also same-sex marriage
Honest Ads Act, 309 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act
(2007), 492–93 Hoover, Herbert, 89, 363 Hoovervilles, 89 HOPE VI program, 698–99 House Armed Services Committee, 731 House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 731 House Intelligence Committee, 731, 732 House Judiciary Committee, 486 House of Representatives; see also Congress
ACA repeal votes, 696 allocation of floor time, 498 campaign funding for, 394, 395 conference committees, 493 constituency service time in, 475 Constitutional provision for, 55–56 costs of campaigning for seat in, 342 differences between Senate and, 469,
469–70 domestic social spending (2018), 500 ethics law of, 480 and foreign policy, 731 gerrymandering, 478 Great Compromise provision for, 50, 51 and impeachment, 504–5 majority party structure, 483 majority rule through, 28–29 number of representatives in, 22 party leadership in, 482 polarization in, 367–68 political parties’ function in, 351–52 redistricting, 384 Three-Fifths Compromise, 52–53 women serving in, 317
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 100 17/11/18 3:58 PM
GLOSSARY/ INDEX A101
J Jackson, Andrew, 361, 621, 650 Jackson, Robert H., 617 Janus, Mark, 590–91, 591 Janus v. AFSCME, 590–91 Japan, 19, 718 Japanese Americans, internment of, 190 Jay, John, 60 JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff ), 728 Jefferson, Thomas, 45, 118, 256, 361, 604, 650 Jeffersonian Republicans, 339, 360–61, 365 Jehovah’s Witnesses, 125, 146 Jewish Americans
in American population, 14, 18 as Democrats, 355–56 and Israel policy, 731, 732–33 political participation by, 318
Jim Crow laws, 163 laws enacted by southern states following Reconstruction that discriminated against African Americans
job creation, 648–49 Johnson, Andrew, 504, 517, 522, 534, 542 Johnson, Lyndon
on affirmative action, 195 campaign of 1964, 396 civil rights victories, 544 executive order of, 538 executive orders for minority employment, 195 as vice president, 531
Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), 568, 728
joint committees, 485 legislative committees formed of members of both the House and Senate
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, 234
Jones, Kendric D., 2–4 journalism, 258–59
adversarial, 264, 284–85 citizen, 271–72 nonprofit, 272–73
JPMorgan Chase, 652 judges
Constitutional provision for, 56–57 federal, 600–603, 603 Supreme Court, 601, 601–2 term limits for, 606
judicial activism, 619–21 judicial philosophy that posits that the Court should go beyond the words of the Constitution or a statute to consider the broader societal implications of its decisions
judicial branch, 56–57, 467–68; see also federal courts
judicial power, 522; see also federal courts of the courts, 621–24 extent of, 606 of the president, 517
judicial restraint, 619–21 judicial philosophy whose adherents refuse to go beyond the clear words of the Constitution in interpreting the document’s meaning
International Monetary Fund (IMF), 735–36 an institution established in 1944 that provides loans and facilitates international monetary exchange
international monetary structure, 735–36 international trade, 744 internet; see also social media
access to, 209–10 access to as human right, 286 attempt to regulate content of, 286, 287 Congress members’ presence on, 475 creation of, 555–56 digital political participation, 303–10 federal support for, 636 interest groups and, 443–45 lack of access to, 309 and libel laws, 134 and modern elections, 372 Obama’s use of, 232, 312, 535, 536 online advocacy groups, 440, 443–45, 455 online news, 273–76, 306 online-processing model of political opinion
formation, 235 online surveys, 240–41 and presidential campaigns, 398 for presidential communications, 535–36 regulating content of, 135 as source of political knowledge, 230, 230 taxation of online purchases, 105
Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), 93 interracial marriage, 82, 179 interstate commerce, 88 Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, 660 Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), 660 interstate compact clause, 83–84 inversion, corporate, 655 investigative reporting, 274 investment, 651 Iowa, 360 Iowa caucuses, 281, 387, 388 iPhone, 24 Iran, 504, 719–20, 724, 726, 737, 740 Iran nuclear deal, 233, 733, 737, 743–44 Iraq, 579 Iraq War, 234, 283, 525, 740 Irish Americans, 732–33
iron triangle, 451, 452, 564, 564 the stable, cooperative relationship that often develops among a congressional committee, an administrative agency, and one or more supportive interest groups; not all of these relationships are triangular, but the iron triangle is the most typical
IRS. See Internal Revenue Service IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, 572 Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), 740, 742
isolationism, 718 avoidance of involvement in the affairs of other nations
Israel, 733 Issenberg, Sasha, 245 issue networks, 452 Italy, 741 ITFA (Internet Tax Freedom Act), 93 Iye, Mohamed, 714–15, 715
in-lind benefits, 680 innovation, 635–36, 639 In-Q-Tel, 639 In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation,
622–23 Inslee, Jay, 77 Instagram, 270
institutional advertising, 454 advertising designed to create a positive image of an organization
institutional presidency, 529, 529, 533 insurance exchanges, state, 696 intelligence agencies, 516, 728–29 Intercept, 262
interest groups individuals who organize to influence the government’s programs and policies, 233, 428–60, 432 access to courts, 614 active members of, 436, 436 advocacy organizations, 447 benefits of membership in, 441–43, 442 as challenge to democracy, 460 character of, 431–33 congressional influence of, 448, 495–96 defined, 431–32 direct lobbying by, 449–52 economic, 433, 437 and economic policy, 646 electoral politics used by, 456–59 and foreign policy, 722, 732–33 function of, 337 human rights, 733 influence on Congress, 449–50 interests not represented by, 437–39, 438 internet and, 443–45 litigation by, 453 mobilization of public opinion by, 454–55 organizational components of, 439–45 political parties and, 334, 337 political parties vs., 438–39 proliferation of, 446–47 public, 435 and shaping of public opinion, 233–34 strategies of, 447–59 types of, 433–37 upper-class, 437 Web outreach by, 307
interest on federal debt, 658 interest rates, 651
intermediate scrutiny, 180 a test used by the Supreme Court in gender discrimination cases that places the burden of proof partially on the government and partially on the challengers to show that the law in question is unconstitutional
“internal improvements,” 86 internal mobilization, 339 Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 523, 572 International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (World Bank), 735, 736 International Court of Justice, 741 international humanitarian policies, 722
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 101 17/11/18 3:58 PM
A102 GLOSSARY/ INDEX
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), 186
leaks, media, 283 Ledbetter, Lily, 184 Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 184 Lee, Barbara, 491 Lee, Richard Henry, 62 Legal Defense and Educational Fund (NAACP),
166–67 legal system, 593–97; see also federal courts legislative branch; see also Congress; House of
Representatives; Senate Constitutional provisions for, 55–56 separation of powers, 58, 59
legislative initiative, 521 the president’s inherent power to bring a legislative agenda before Congress
legislative power (president), 519–21 Lehman Brothers, 652
Lemon test, 124 a rule articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman that government action toward religion is permissible if it is secular in purpose, neither promotes nor inhibits the practice of religion, and does not lead to “excessive entanglement” with religion
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 124 LePage, Paul, 433 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer
(LGBTQ) movement, 192–93 lesbian marriage, 80–81; see also same-sex marriage Lewinsky, Monica, 505 LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
queer) movement, 192–93
libel, 134 a written statement made in “reckless disregard of the truth” that is considered damaging to a victim because it is “malicious, scandalous, and defamatory”
liberal governments, 7 liberalism, 30, 212, 213, 234, 368, 619–20
liberals, 356 today this term refers to those who generally support social and political reform, governmental intervention in the economy, more economic equality, expansion of federal social services, and greater concern for consumers and the environment
Libertarian Party, 369
libertarians, 214 someone who emphasizes freedom and believes in voluntary association with small government
liberty, 26–27, 33–34 freedom from governmental control; see also civil liberties central underpinnings of, 8 in the Constitution, 69 defined, 23, 209 and political culture, 24–25 as political value, 23, 209
Liberty Displaying the Arts and Sciences, 52 Liberty Party, 162
Ku Klux Klan, 128 Kushner, Jared, 530 Kyoto Protocol, 745
L labor (unions). See organized labor Labor, Department of, 640 labor interest groups, 433, 435, 646 labor relations, 640, 660 Ladd, Jonathan, 276
laissez-faire capitalism, 24, 642 an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately owned and operated for profit with minimal or no government interference
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, 193
Landon, Alf, 243 Land Ordinance of 1785, 689 Landrieu, Mary, 450 Lanham Act of 1946, disparagement clause of,
115 Lansing, John, 50 Lasswell, Harold, 9 Late Show, The, 266 Latin America, immigrants from, 18 Latinos/Hispanics
and 2012 election, 243 child poverty rate, 705–6 civil rights of, 184–89, 186 in Congress, 471, 472 and Democratic Party, 353–54 and digital divide, 309 elderly poverty rate for, 700 immigration of, 17–18 lending discrimination against, 178, 178 news sources for, 269 party affiliations of, 353–54 policy attitudes of, 219–20 political participation by, 314–15, 353–54 population demographics, 13, 16–17 poverty rate for, 700, 704 racial classification, 16–17 and states’ refusal of Medicaid expansion, 703 trust in government, 31 voter discrimination in Texas, 176–77 voting rights of felons, 326
Lau, Richard, 229 Lau v. Nichols, 190, 191 Lavrov, Sergei, 727 law(s)
implementation of, 537 presidential nonenforcement of, 540–41
law clerks, 613, 613–14 law enforcement, judicial review of, 605–7 lawmaking
committee deliberation, 489–91 conference committee, 493 debate, 491–93 presidential approval, 494 rules of, 489–94, 490
Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), 730–31 Lawrence v. Texas, 149, 192 Lead and Copper Rule, 552 leadership PACs, 498
judicial review, 57, 69, 604–10 the power of the courts to review and, if necessary, declare actions of the legislative and executive branches invalid or unconstitutional; the Supreme Court asserted this power in Marbury v. Madison (1803) of acts of Congress, 604–5 of federal agency actions, 608 and presidential power, 608–9 of state actions, 605–7 in various countries, 606
judicial revolutions, 622–24 Judiciary Act of 1789, 605 Juneau-Douglas High School, 130 Jungle, The (Sinclair), 640, 660
jurisdiction, 595 the sphere of a court’s power and authority
Justice Department, 198 immigration law challenges, 188–89 and internal security, 566 job discrimination cases, 174–75 and LBGT rights, 182 private prison use, 579 school desegregation, 172–73 and school desegregation, 690
K Kagan, Elena, 602, 606 Kaine, Tim, 389 Kansas, 167 Karpf, David, 443 Kavanaugh, Brett, 500, 592, 600–601, 602, 619 Keating-Owen Child Labor Act of 1916, 88 Kelo v. City of New London, 144 Kennedy, Anthony, 140, 592, 600, 601, 602, 618 Kennedy, John F.
civil rights supported by, 364 media use by, 535 tax cut by, 637 in televised debates, 398, 399 vice president for, 531
Kentucky, 125, 326 Kerry, John, 504, 725, 727, 734 Keynes, John Maynard, 637
Keynesians, 637, 642, 644 followers of the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes, who argued that the government can stimulate the economy by increasing public spending or by cutting taxes
Keystone XL pipeline, 520–21 Kibby, Regan, 158–60 Kim Jong-un, 518, 518, 720, 725, 734, 743–44 King, Martin Luther, Jr., 170, 177, 300, 454,
454–55 King Caucus method, 388 Kingdon, John, 706 King v. Burwell, 107, 619 Kissinger, Henry, 531 knowledge, political, 10–13, 11–13, 12, 228–32 Knowledge Networks (KN), 241 Koch, Charles, 236 Korean War, 525, 719, 740 K Street Project, 496
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 102 17/11/18 3:58 PM
GLOSSARY/ INDEX A103
marketplace of ideas, 232 the public forum in which beliefs and ideas are exchanged and compete
markets federal support for, 638 stable, 633–34
marriage interracial, 82, 179, 179 same-sex. See Defense of Marriage Act of
1996; same-sex marriage Married Women’s Property Act (New York), 162 Marshall, John, 87–88, 526, 621 Marshall, Thurgood, 167 Martin, Lockheed, 662 Maryland, 479 Maryland v. King, 140 Massachusetts, 48–49, 98, 131, 365, 392 “massive resistance,” 168 mass media. See media mass shootings, 137–38, 138, 208–9 Matal v. Tam, 605
material benefits, 442 special goods, services, or money provided to members of groups to entice others to join
Mattis, James, 568, 725 McCain, John, 277, 351, 404, 522
campaign financing legislation. See Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
election of 2000, 245 election of 2008, 405
McCain–Feingold Act. See Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
McCarthy, Kevin, 500 McClatchy, 260 McConnell, Mitch, 351 McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 128 McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties
Union of Kentucky, 125 McCulloch v. Maryland, 87–88 McCutcheon et al v. FEC, 404, 620 McDonald v. Chicago, 137 McIver, John, 235 McKinley, William, 363, 365
means testing, 680 a procedure by which potential beneficiaries of a social assistance program establish their eligibility by demonstrating a genuine need for the assistance
meatpacking industry, 660, 660
media, 253–88 print and digital forms of communication, including television, newspapers, radio, and the internet, intended to convey information to large audiences advertising revenue, 264 defined, 257 and democracy, 288 distrust of, 276–77 influence of, 277–82 Iowa caucus coverage, 387, 388 news coverage, 283–85 ownership of mass media, 260 print, 263–65
Madison, James on division of power, 64 and Federalist Papers, 60 and Great Compromise, 50 and internal improvements, 86 on legislative branch, 55 on liberty, 69, 431, 460 and Marbury v. Madison, 604 and political conflict, 339 on representation, 63 on states’ interests, 50
mail-in ballots, 327 Maine, 9, 326, 392
majority leader, 482, 498 the elected leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives or in the Senate; in the House, the majority leader is subordinate in the party hierarchy to the Speaker of the House
majority-minority district, 386 an electoral district, such as a congressional district, in which the majority of the constituents belong to racial or ethnic minorities
majority party, 351 the party that holds the majority of legislative seats in either the House or the Senate
majority rule, minority rights, 28–29 the democratic principle that a government follows the preferences of the majority of voters but protects the interests of the minority
majority system, 382 a type of electoral system in which, to win a seat in the parliament or other representative body, a candidate must receive a majority of all the votes cast in the relevant district
MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund), 187
Malik, Tashfeen, 141 Malkin, Michelle, 335 Manafort, Paul, 284 managerial presidency, 581
mandatory spending, 658, 658 federal spending that is made up of budget items that cannot be controlled through the regular budget process, such as interest on the national debt, Social Security and Medicare benefits, and certain programs in the Departments of Agriculture and Veterans Affairs, among others
Manning, Bradley, 134 manufacturing, 668 Mapp, Dollree (Dolly), 139 Mapp v. Ohio, 139 Marbury, William, 604 Marbury v. Madison, 604 March for Our Lives, 456 March on Washington (1963), 170 margin of error, 239 marijuana, 9, 76–78, 104, 108, 224, 420 Marine Corps, 568 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School
shooting, 204–5, 208 Marketplace Fairness Act, 105
Libya attack. See Benghazi, Libya, consulate attack and congressional investigation
life expectancy, and health spending, 691, 691 Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, 182, 182,
184 Limbaugh, Rush, 265
limited government, 23, 64 a principle of constitutional government; a government whose powers are defined and limited by a constitution
limits of presidential power, 541–43 Lincoln, Abraham
debating skill of, 398 election of 1860, 362, 365, 390 executive orders of, 533 inherent powers of, 525, 526 oath of office, 515, 515 writ of habeas corpus, 515
linked fate, 218, 314 LinkedIn, 270 literacy tests, 300 Literary Digest poll, 243 Little Rock Central High School, 168–69 living Constitution concept, 69 Livingston, Robert, 45 lobbies, 433; see also interest groups
lobbying, 450, 614 a strategy by which organized interests seek to influence the passage of legislation by exerting direct pressure on government officials corporate, 450 defined, 461 direct, 449–52 regulation of, 452–53 spending, by industry, 434
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, 449, 453 local districts, third parties in, 369 local governments
categorical grants to, 638 and the Constitution, 84 effect on daily life at state universities, 80 election administration by, 381–82 and labor relations, 640
Locke, John, 8, 8
logrolling, 499 a legislative practice whereby agreements are made between legislators in voting for or against a bill; vote trading
loophole, 653 incentive to individuals and businesses to reduce their tax liabilities by investing their money in areas the government designates
Louisiana, 162 Love Canal, 664 Loving v. Virginia, 82, 179, 179 LULAC (League of United Latin American
Citizens), 186
M machine politics (party machines), 347, 347 machine politics, voter mobilization and, 320 Maddow, Rachel, 276
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 103 17/11/18 3:58 PM
A104 GLOSSARY/ INDEX
mixed regime, 58 Mnuchin, Steven, 572, 572 mobile devices, as news source, 268
mobilization the process by which large numbers of people are organized for a political activity data analysis for, 321 defined, 319 in early days of American elections, 371–72 in formation of parties, 339 for political participation, 319–21 of public opinion by interest groups, 454–55 of voters, 343–44
modern era, federalism and, 89–99 Moe, Terry, 542 momentum, 282, 387 monetary agencies, 571–73
monetary policies, 649–52 efforts to regulate the economy through the manipulation of the supply of money and credit; America’s most powerful institution in this area of monetary policy is the Federal Reserve Board
monetary structure, international, 735–36 money, politics and, 29, 395, 400–405, 422; see
also fund-raising “money bills,” 489
monopoly, 659 a single firm in a market that controls all the goods and services of that market; absence of competition
Monroe, James, 718 Monroe Doctrine, 718 Montana, 479 Montesquieu, Baron de la Brède et du, 58 Montgomery bus boycott, 169–70, 170 Montreal Protocol, 745 Moonves, Les, 260 Moore, Roy, 258
mootness, 610 a criterion used by courts to screen cases that no longer require resolution
Moral Majority, 318 Morrill Act of 1862, 689–90 Morse v. Frederick, 130 mortgage lending crisis, 651, 699 Mott, Lucretia, 162 MoveOn.org, 215, 233, 270, 439, 440, 440,
443–45, 444, 444 MSNBC, 265, 276, 278 MSPB (Merit Systems Protection Board), 580 Mueller, Robert, 284, 351 multi-party systems, 341 Mulvaney, Mick, 661 Murdoch, Rupert, 262, 278 Muslims, 18 Muslim travel ban, 526, 528, 538 Myers v. United States, 522
N NAACP. See National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund,
166
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), 187
Mexican American political movement, 184, 186 Mexican Americans, 16–17, 186, 186–87 Mexican border, 186, 187 Mexico, 721 Michigan, 107, 246, 392 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality,
551 Michigan Department of Health and Human
Services, 551 Microsoft, 273, 450, 661
micro-targeting, 344, 398–99 when political campaigns tailor messages to individuals in small homogenous groups based on their group interests to support a candidate or policy issue
middle class, social policy for, 702 Middle East, 742–43; see also individual countries Middle East wars, 525
midterm elections, 302, 302, 381 congressional elections that do not coincide with a presidential election; also called off-year elections; see also specific midterm elections, e.g.: election of 2010
military base closures, 575, 575 contracting for, 662–63, 663 demographics of U.S. forces, 739 differing views of, 224–25 homosexuals in, 192 privatization of operations, 577–79 sexual harassment in, 183–84 women in, 182–83, 183
Military Commissions Act of 2006, 609 military force, foreign policy and, 738–40 military power (of president), 516–17, 525–26 military spending, 639, 662–63, 720, 738 militias, 136 Mill, John Stuart, 8, 8 Miller v. Johnson, 479 minimum wage, 26, 236, 640, 645, 645, 646,
647, 668, 703 Minnesota, 98, 100, 323, 668 minorities, 704–6; see also specific minority groups
minority leader, 482 the elected leader of the minority party in the House or Senate
minority party, 351 the party that holds the minority of legislative seats in either the House or the Senate
minority rights, 28 Miranda, Ernesto, 142–43
Miranda rule, 143 the requirement, articulated by the Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, that persons under arrest must be informed prior to police interrogation of their rights to remain silent and to have the benefit of legal counsel
Mississippi, 98, 163, 176, 323–24 Missouri, 107, 166, 170, 392 Missouri Compromise, 162
and profit motive, 259–60 and public knowledge, 265 and public opinion, 232, 234, 247–48 regulation of, 285–87 traditional, 263–66
media monopoly, 260 the ownership and control of the media by a few large corporations
Medicaid a federally and state-financed, state- operated program providing medical services to low-income people and Affordable Care Act, 9, 99, 698 beneficiaries of, 701 costs of, 694–95 defined, 680 expansion of, 108 expansion under ACA, 695, 696 federal grants to states for, 695 government spending on, 686–87 as grant-in-aid, 90, 91 and health care reform, 106, 686 as in-kind benefit, 680 for the middle class, 702 for the poor, 703 for poor women, 705 and public welfare, 563 as social policy, 674–76 spending on, 683–87, 685 state implementation of, 92–93, 420–21 state variation in eligibility, 682 state variations in, 682 and undocumented immigrants, 98 as unfunded mandate, 99
medical care. See health care medical marijuana, 76–78, 108
Medicare, 700 a form of national health insurance for the elderly and the disabled costs of, 683, 685, 687, 694–95 creation of, 680 defined, 680 and elderly, 700–702 government spending on, 686–87 HHS and, 563 as portion of GDP, 683 proposed changes to, 687, 697–98 public support for, 644 as social policy, 675–76 taxes for, 653, 679
membership association, 440 an organized group in which members play a substantial role, sitting on committees and engaging in group projects
Mendez v. Westminster, 186 Menendez, Robert, 233
merit system, 556 a product of civil service reform, in which appointees to positions in public bureaucracies must objectively be deemed qualified for those positions
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), 580 Merrill, Nick, 394 Me Too movement, 217, 217, 417
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 104 17/11/18 3:58 PM
GLOSSARY/ INDEX A105
representation in the national legislature regardless of population
Newman, Brian, 236 new media, 372 New Politics movement, 447 news; see also media
in broadcast media, 265–66 “fake,” 274, 275, 275 followers by age, income, and education, 268 online, 273–76, 306 in print media, 263–65 types of coverage, 283–85
news aggregator, 267 an application or feed that collects web content such as news headlines, blogs, podcasts, online videos, and more in one location for easy viewing
News Corporation, 262, 278 newspapers, 263–65, 272–73 New York, 162 New York City
Eric Garner incident, 218 stop and frisk, 141
New York Convention, 741 New York Times, 180–81
circulation, 263 digital subscriptions to, 263 online presence of, 261 Pentagon Papers, 133, 234, 283, 284 revenue for, 263 Vietnam coverage, 283, 284 Watergate coverage, 284
New York Times v. Sullivan, 134 New York Times v. United States, 133; see also
Pentagon Papers New Zealand, 737 Next Gen, 295, 311 niche journalism, 288 NIH. See National Institutes of Health 9/11 attacks. See September 11, 2001 attacks Nineteenth Amendment, 28, 166, 302 Nixon, Richard, and administration, 399, 574
and block grants, 96 and budget process, 537 bureaucratic reform, 574 and election of 1968, 363 electronic surveillance by, 730 and employment discrimination, 175 on Keynesians, 642 and media coverage, 277 pardon of, 517 in presidential debates, 398, 399 regulatory review by, 537 resignation of, 532, 542 and school segregation, 174 “southern strategy” of, 364, 364 vice president of, 532 Watergate, 264, 284, 456, 484, 519, 519,
602 NLRB (National Labor Relations Board), 609,
640 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 102, 690,
692 “no excuse” absentee voting, 327 nominating conventions. See national convention
national standards regulation and, 93–99 and unfunded mandates, 99
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 641
national unity Constitutional provisions for, 57–58 and obligations among states, 82, 83
National Welfare Rights Organization, 703–4 National Woman’s Party, 166 National Women’s Political Caucus, 317
nation-states, 719 political entities consisting of a people with some common cultural experience (nation) who also share a common political authority (state), recognized by other sovereignties (nation-states)
Native Americans, 13, 14, 16, 115 and civil rights, 191 in Congress, 419
NATO. See North Atlantic Treaty Organization natural disaster response, 528, 528–29 NAWSA (National American Woman Suffrage
Association), 165–66 NBC News, 265, 278 NDEA (National Defense Education Act of
1958), 690, 693 NEA (National Endowment for the Arts), 499 Near v. Minnesota, 133
necessary and proper clause, 79, 87–88 Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which provides Congress with the authority to make all laws “necessary and proper” to carry out its expressed powers
negative campaign advertising, 397, 397 Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, 450–51 NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act of
1969), 622, 663 Netanyahu, Benjamin, 733 Netherlands, 341 net neutrality, 254–56 Nevada, 392, 478 Never Again MSD, 205 New Deal, 84, 89, 89, 363, 369–70
and African American voters, 353–54 and Democratic Party, 224–25 and employment, 637 and government expansion, 87, 89 and income-based voting, 356 and Jewish voters, 355–56 and judicial review of federal agency actions, 608 and middle class, 20 and party affiliation, 356 and Supreme Court, 594, 619, 622
Newdow, Michael A., 124–25
New Federalism, 96 attempts by presidents Nixon and Reagan to return power to the states through block grants
New Hampshire primaries, 322, 387, 388 New Jersey, 479
New Jersey Plan, 50 a framework for the Constitution, introduced by William Paterson, that called for equal state
Nader, Ralph, 368–69, 369, 641 Nashaw, Jerry L., 525 National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), 561, 561 National American Woman Suffrage Association
(NAWSA), 165–66 National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP), 146, 165, 453, 614
National Association of Evangelicals, 348 National Association of Manufacturers, 646 national bank, 87–88 national committees, 346
national convention, 345–46, 346, 388–89 convened by the Republican National Committee or the Democratic National Committee to nominate official candidates for president and vice president in the upcoming election, establish party rules, and adopt the party’s platform
national debt, 658 National Defense Education Act of 1958
(NDEA), 690, 693 National Emergencies Act of 1976, 528 National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), 499 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), 622, 663 national government. See federal government National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, 525 National Institutes of Health (NIH), 553, 563,
563, 636, 636, 694 National Labor Relations Act of 1935, 640 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), 609, 640 National Opinion Research Center, 240 National Organization for Women (NOW), 180–81 National Origins quota system, 16 National Park Service, 563 National Performance Review (NPR), 574, 574,
575 National Public Radio (NPR), 259, 265, 266,
273, 278 National Restaurant Association, 646 National Review, 264 National Rifle Association (NRA), 209, 294–95,
429, 432, 456, 459 National Science Foundation, 635–36 national security
bureaucracy for providing, 567, 565–70 and green technologies, 667 technological innovation for, 640
national security advisor (NSA), 725 National Security Agency (NSA), 24, 134, 141,
145, 283, 526, 570 cyberattacks of 2016 campaign, 211 electronic surveillance by, 151, 729
national security alliances, 737 National Security Archive, 569–70
National Security Council (NSC), 531, 725 a presidential foreign policy advisory council composed of the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, and other officials invited by the president
national security directives, 540
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 105 17/11/18 3:58 PM
A106 GLOSSARY/ INDEX
tax brackets under, 655 tax cuts, 281–82 and tax cuts, 230, 656 and Tea Party movement, 368 Toxic Substances Control Act reform, 512,
513 use of online fundraising, 304 veto power used by, 520–21 voter mobilization in 2008 and 2012
elections, 320 and voter turnout in 2008, 301 White House Communications Office, 535
Obamacare, 11, 282, 695–98; see also Affordable Care Act of 2010
Obergefell, Jim, 40–42 Obergefell v. Hodges, 41–42, 83, 193, 618 obscenity, 135–36 Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), 661 Occupy movement, 10, 297, 455 OCR (Department of Education’s Office of Civil
Rights), 183 OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development), 654, 691 Office of Civil Rights (OCR), 183 Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, 639 Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA), 537 Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 531,
537, 579, 656, 661 Office of Personnel Management (OPM),
580 Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD), 568 Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR),
728 Off the Sideline, 498 Off the Sidelines, 498 Ohio, 128 OIRA (Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs), 537 Oklahoma, 392 older Americans
and political culture, 33 political participation by, 311 social policy for, 700–702
oligarchy, 7 a form of government in which a small group—landowners, military officers, or wealthy merchants—controls most of the governing decisions
OMB. See Office of Management and Budget Omidyar, Pierre, 262 online advocacy groups, 440, 443–45, 455 online media. See internet online news, 273–76, 306 online political participation, 303–10 online-processing model of political opinion
formation, 235 online purchases, 105 Online surveys, 240–41
open primary, 382 a primary election in which the voter can wait until the day of the primary to choose which party to enroll in to select candidates for the general election
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, 105, 187–88
diplomatic power, 517, 734 “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal, 192 on earmarks, 480–81 economic development, 572 economic policies of, 648, 657–58 and economic recession of 2008, 637 education policies, 692, 692 election campaign of 2008, 281, 314, 344,
364, 388, 399, 401 election campaign of 2012, 243, 315, 401,
459 on energy and climate change, 666–67 establishment of Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, 639 Every Student Succeeds, 104 executive orders of, 538 executive privilege, 519 farewell address of, 2 on federal contractors, 579 and federal deficit, 652–53 and federal regulation of state laws, 94 and financial crisis of 2008, 648 foreign policy of, 720, 724, 726, 742 on function of government, 558 on government programs, 644 on government secrecy, 570 and greenhouse gas emissions, 554 and Guantánamo Bay prison camp, 746 health care, 534, 541, 695–98 holds on nominees of, 493 immigration law, 105–7 internet used by, 535, 536 and Israel, 733 issues focus in campaigns of, 407 judicial appointments, 602 and Latino voters, 315, 353–54 and LBGT rights, 181 liberalism under, 213 Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, 182, 182, 184 and limits of presidential power, 537 managerial presidency of, 581 on medical marijuana legalization, 77 and military powers, 526 minimum wage under, 646 and net neutrality, 254 net neutrality and, 254 and No Child Left Behind Act, 692 and nonenforcement of laws, 541 NSA investigation, 570 and political polarization in Congress, 368 presidential initiatives, 521 pro-choice voter support for, 459 on prosecution of marijuana use, 104 public opinion shaping by, 232 public relations by, 535 raid on bin Laden’s compound, 724, 724 recess appointments, 609 Secure Communities program, 105–7, 187 signing statements of, 540 Social and Behavioral Sciences, 574 social media use by, 232, 233, 312 State Department, 725 and states’ rights, 106 surveys during 2012 election, 241
nomination, 342, 382, 386–89 the process by which political parties select their candidates for election to public office
noncontributory programs, 680–81, 687–89 social programs that provide assistance to people on the basis of demonstrated need rather than any contribution they have made
nonenforcement of laws, 540–41 nonprofit journalism, 259, 272–73
non-state actors, 717 groups other than nation-states that attempt to play a role in the international system; terrorist groups are one type of non-state actor
nonworking poor, social policy for, 703–4, 704 North
Republican Party in, 362 slavery in, 162 and Three-Fifths Compromise, 52–53
Northam, Ralph, 294 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),
716, 737–38, 742–43 North Carolina, 107, 181 North Dakota, voter registration in, 323 North Korea, 518, 518, 719–20, 724–26,
743–44 Northwest Ordinance of 1787, 689 NOW. See National Organization for Women NPR (National Performance Review), 574, 574,
575 NPR (National Public Radio), 259, 278 NRA. See National Rifle Association NSA. See National Security Agency NSC. See National Security Council “nuclear option,” 492 nuclear proliferation, 743–44 nullification, 94–95
O OAS (Organization of American States), 737 oaths of office, 57–58 Obama, Barack, and administration, 574
and 2009 economic stimulus package, 648–49
administrative directives of, 537–38 Affordable Care Act, 99 and African American voters, 314 approval rating of, 536 background checks for gun owners, 137–38 “big data” use in election campaigns, 245 “birther” controversy, 274 branding, 340 bureaucratic reform, 573, 574 campaign funding of, 405 campaign strategies, 396 charter schools supported by, 692 on Citizens United, 129 classified information leak cases, 134 climate change focus of, 666–67 and congressional Democrats, 534 congressional foreign relations committees,
730, 731 continuation of George W. Bush’s policies, 215 debating skill of, 398
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 106 17/11/18 3:58 PM
GLOSSARY/ INDEX A107
to confer grants, licenses, or special favors to supporters
pattern-of-cases strategy, 614 Paul, Rand, 214, 492 Pavan v. Smith, 605 Paxton, Ken, 83 pay, congressional, 68 payroll taxes, Social Security and, 685 PBS, 259 peacekeeping efforts, 722, 735 Pearl Harbor, 718 Pell grants, 693 Pelosi, Nancy, 472, 498, 500 Pence, Mike, 531, 532 Pennsylvania, 47, 148, 322, 386
penny press, 267 cheap, tabloid-style newspaper produced in the nineteenth century, when mass production of inexpensive newspapers first became possible due to the steam-powered printing press; a penny press newspaper cost one cent compared with other papers, which cost more than five cents
Pentagon Papers, 133, 234, 283, 284
permanent absentee ballots, 327 the option in some states to have a ballot sent automatically to your home for each election, rather than having to request an absentee ballot each time
permanent committees. See standing committee Perot, Ross, 368, 405 Persian Gulf War, 525 personal freedom, 23 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act, 687 petition, right of, 132, 133 petitions, 536 Pew Research Center, 226, 272 Phillip, Celeste, 694 phone banks, 400 photo IDs, 324 physician-assisted suicide, 93, 105, 149–50 PIRG (Public Interest Research Group), 447
plaintiff, 593 the individual or organization that brings a complaint in court
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 148–49
platform, 345, 389 a party document, written at a national convention, that contains party philosophy, principles, and positions on issues
plea bargain, 595 a negotiated agreement in a criminal case in which a defendant agrees to plead guilty in return for the state’s agreement to reduce the severity of the criminal charge or prison sentence the defendant is facing
Pledge of Allegiance, 124–25, 146 Plessy v. Ferguson, 26, 164
pluralism, 9, 431 the theory that all interests are and should be free to compete for influence in the government; the outcome of this competition is compromise and moderation
their political opponents’ chance of winning an election and advantage their own political party
partisan loyalty, 406 partisan media, 276 partisan politics, 339, 500–501, 668; see also
party polarization
partisanship, 207, 337 identification with or support of a particular party or cause
and health care policies, 697–98 over economic policy, 668 in policymaking, 706–7 and social policy variations, 682
party activists, 352–53 partisans who contribute time, energy, and effort to support their party and its candidates
party affiliation, 221–22
party identification, 352–60, 353, 359, 406 an individual voter’s psychological ties to one party or another
party leadership, in Congress, 482–83, 496–500 party-line voting, 366, 367
party machines, 320, 347, 347 strong party organizations in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century American cities; these machines were led by often corrupt “bosses” who controlled party nominations and patronage
party organization, 344 the formal structure of a political party, including its leadership, election committees, active members, and paid staff
party platform a party document, written at a national convention, that contains party philosophy, principles, and policy positions
party polarization, 276–77, 339, 367, 367–68, 500–501, 501, 682 the division between the two major parties on most policy issues, with members of each party unified around their party’s positions with little crossover
party systems, 360–61, 366
party unity vote, 496, 497 a roll-call vote in the House or Senate in which at least percent of the members of one party take a particular position and are opposed by at least 50 percent of the members of the other party
Paterson, William, 50 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of
2010. See Affordable Care Act of 2010
Patrick, Amanda, 714 Patriot Act. See USA PATRIOT Act “patrol mode,” 280, 281
patronage, 347, 480 the resources available to higher officials, usually opportunities to make partisan appointments to offices and
open rule, 491 a provision by the House Rules Committee that permits floor debate and the addition of new amendments to a bill
Operation Fast and Furious, 519
opinion the written explanation of the Supreme Court’s decision in a particular case; see also public opinion defined, 207 dissenting, 617–18 forming of, 216–25 and political knowledge, 228–32 stability of, 225–32, 227 of the Supreme Court, 616–17
OPM (Office of Personnel Management), 580 opportunity, equality of, 25–28, 209–10, 689
oral argument, 616, 617 the stage in the Supreme Court procedure in which attorneys for both sides appear before the Court to present their positions and answer questions posed by justices
Oregon, 93, 105, 327, 576, 668 Oregon Music News, 114 Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), 654, 691 Organization of American States (OAS), 737 organized labor, 433, 646 “originalist” judges, 602
original jurisdiction, 596–97 the authority to initially consider a case; distinguished from appellate jurisdiction, which is the authority to hear appeals from a lower court’s decision
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), 661
outsourcing, 578, 583, 720; see also privatization
oversight, 502–3, 581–83 the effort by Congress, through hearings, investigations, and other techniques, to exercise control over the activities of executive agencies
P PAC. See political action committee; Super PACs packing, 385, 607 Page, Benjamin, 235 Pahlavi, Reza, 743 Pai, Ajit, 254, 255 paid media time, 397 Pakistan, 736 Palko, Frank, 120, 142 Palko v. Connecticut, 120, 122, 142 Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle
School District No. 1, 175 Paris Agreement, 227, 733, 745 Parks, Rosa, 169, 170 parliaments, 8 participation, political. See political participation
partisan gerrymandering, 385–86 occurs when politicians from one party intentionally manipulate the boundaries for drawing legislative election districts to disadvantage
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 107 17/11/18 3:58 PM
A108 GLOSSARY/ INDEX
party polarization, 339, 367–68 party systems, 360–61 and political socialization, 221–22 and presidential powers, 534 recent affiliation trends, 358–60, 359 as source of power for the presidency, 534 third parties, 368–71 two-party system, 339
political power, economic power and, 28
political socialization, 216–17 the induction of individuals into the political culture; learning the underlying beliefs and values on which the political system is based
political speech, 127–29 political values, public opinion and, 209–11 Politico, 264
politics, 9–10 conflict over the leadership, structure, and policies of governments defined, 5, 9 of economic policy, 641 media’s influence on, 278, 280–82 and monetary policy, 650 and money, 400–405 retail, 387
PolitiFact, 271, 275 polling, 236–37, 237–47, 398–400; see also
public-opinion polls poll taxes, 300 Pompeo, Mike, 440, 567, 568, 725, 734 poor, the. See poverty popular mobilization, expansion of presidential
power through, 534
popular sovereignty, a principle of democracy in which political authority rests ultimately in the hands of the people
population demographics in the 21st century, 17–22 changes in, 13–22 and representation, 22
populism, 356 Populist Party, 362–63, 368
pork barrel (or pork), 480–82 appropriations made by legislative bodies for local projects that are often not needed but that are created so that local representatives can win re-election in their home districts
Porkulus Protest, 334–35 pornography, 135–36 positive discrimination, 198 Postal Service, U.S., 552 poverty, 704, 704–6, 705; see also socioeconomic
status and African American voter turnout, 314 civil rights of those in, 193, 195 education policies concerning, 693 “feminization of,” 705 and political influence, 328 social policy for the nonworking poor, 703–4 social policy for the working poor, 702–3 and voter influence, 338
political ideology, a cohesive set of beliefs that forms a general philosophy about the role of government conservatism, 213, 214 current American state of, 215, 215 defined, 207 liberalism, 211, 213 libertarianism, 214 and party identification, 356, 359 and public opinion, 211–15 and Supreme Court decisions, 620–21
political knowledge, 10–13, 11–13, 12 possessing information about the formal institutions of government, political actors, and political issues costs to democracy, 230, 232 defined, 10 digital media’s effect on, 230 necessity of, 11–13 and public opinion, 228–32 shortcuts and cues, 229–30
political participation, 297–328, 300; see also turnout; voting
and access to government, 8–9 by African Americans, 313–14 age and, 311, 311, 311–13 by Asian Americans, 316 and beliefs about political efficacy, 12–13 citizenship and, 10–13 democracy and, 28–29 digital, 303–10 forms of, 297–310 gender and, 316–17 influencing government through, 9–10 by Latinos, 314–15 online vs. offline, 304–7 and political environment, 319–23 political equality and, 25 religious identity and, 318–19 socioeconomic status and, 310–11 and state electoral laws, 323–27, 325 through voting, 299–300, 311; see also voting traditional, 297–302
political parties, 334–73, 341, 366 organized groups that attempt to influence the government by electing their members to important government offices; see also specific parties and campaign funding, 404–5 congressional party unity, 496–98 defined, 337 in election of 2012, 370 and elections, 340–44 electoral alignments and realignments, 366 factions within, 350–51 formation of, 339 function of, 337–38 functions of, 339, 340 in government, 348–52 House steering committees of, 482 influence of money on, 29 influence of the wealthy on, 236 interest groups vs., 334, 438–39 as organizations, 344–48 party identification, 352–60
plurality system, 382 a type of electoral system in which, to win a seat in the parliament or other representative body, a candidate need only receive the most votes in the election, not necessarily a majority of the votes cast
Plyler v. Doe, 18
pocket veto, 494, 520 a presidential veto that is automatically triggered if the president does not act on a given piece of legislation passed during the final 10 days of a legislative session
polarization. See party polarization police brutality, 170
“police patrol” oversight, 581–82 regular or even preemptive congressional hearings on bureaucratic agency operations
police power, 82 power reserved to the state government to regulate the health, safety, and morals of its citizens
policy entrepreneur, 350 an individual who identifies a problem as a political issue and brings a policy proposal into the political agenda
policy feedback, 226 policymaking process, 706–7 policy preferences, 407
political action committee (PAC), 404, 432, 456–58, 457, 498 a private group that raises and distributes funds for use in election campaigns; see also Super PACs
political culture, 2–39 broadly shared values, beliefs, and attitudes about how the government should function; American political culture emphasizes the values of liberty, equality, and democracy Americans’ view of government, 29–33 and changes in American people, 13–22 citizenship, 10–13 defined, 23 and democracy, 28–29 and equality, 25–28 and ethnic diversity, 14–16, 15 future of, 33–34 government, 5–10 and immigration, 13–22 and liberty, 24–25 and race, 15, 16 thinking critically about, 22–29
political efficacy, 12 the ability to influence government and politics
political environment ballot measures, 322–23 electoral competition, 321–22 mobilization, 319–21 and political participation, 319–23 and public opinion, 224–25 state electoral laws, 323–27, 325
political equality, 25 the right to participate in politics equally, based on the principle of “one person, one vote”
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 108 17/11/18 3:58 PM
GLOSSARY/ INDEX A109
privatization, 577, 577–79, 578 a formerly public service that is now provided by a private company but paid for by the government
privileges and immunities clause, 83 provision, from Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution, that a state cannot discriminate against someone from another state or give its own residents special privileges
probability sampling, 237 procedural limits, 7 productivity, for economic growth, 636 professional association lobbies, 435 professional politicians, 488 Progressive movement, 347 Progressive Party, 368, 370
progressive taxation, 652 taxation that hits upper-income brackets more heavily
promotion of the public welfare, 563–65 property, private, 23, 68, 82, 86, 143 property rights, for women, 162
proportional representation, 340, 341, 345, 369, 370–71, 382–83 a multiple-member district system that allows each political party representation in proportion to its percentage of the total vote
Proposition 30 (California), 323 Proposition 187 (California), 187
prospective voting, 407 voting based on the imagined future performance of a candidate or political party
prosperity. See economic prosperity PROTECT Act of 2003, 135
protest, 297–99, 298, 418, 454, 455 participation that involves assembling crowds to confront a government or other official organization health care, 226 Porkulus, 334–35 against Trump, 297–98
Protestants, 14, 18, 221, 234, 356 Pruitt-Igoe public housing project, 699 public accommodations, as civil right, 171–72 public campaign funding, 405 Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act (HB2), 107
public goods, 5, 634 goods or services that are provided by the government because they either are not supplied by the market or are not supplied in sufficient quantities
public health agencies, 694–98
public interest groups, 435, 447, 447 groups that claim they serve the general good rather than only their own particular interests
Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), 447 public investment, 635
public opinion, 204–49 citizens’ attitudes about political issues, leaders, institutions, and events
party as source of power for, 534 and party lines in Congress, 500 and separation of powers, 58, 59 signing or vetoing bills, 494 unitary executive theory, 522–23 veto power of, 519–21, 520 vice presidency, 531–32 White House staff, 530, 537
president(s) appointments by, 514, 518–19, 522 as chief executive, 580 demographics of, 527 economic responsibility of, 642 expansion of powers by, 534 as head of state, 515, 517–19, 518 impeachment of, 542 lobbying of, 450 regulatory review by, 513, 523, 537–38 removal of appointed officials by, 522
presidential elections, 386–92; see also specific election years, e.g.: election of 2016
electoral college, 322, 389–90, 392 party conventions, 388–89 primaries and caucuses, 386–88 steps in process, 391
presidential findings, 540 presidential memoranda, 540 presidential primaries. See primary elections presidential proclamations, 540 Presidential Succession Act of 1947, 532 President’s Commission on Civil Rights, 166 press, freedom of, 133–36 press releases, 283
preventive war, 718 policy of striking first when a nation fears that a foreign foe is contemplating hostile action
primary elections, 32, 260, 281, 322, 342, 345, 367, 373, 381–82, 386–88 elections held to select a party’s candidate for the general election
priming, 226, 282 process of preparing the public to bring specific criteria to mind when evaluating a politician or issue
print media, 263–65; see also newspapers Printz v. United States, 95 Priority Enforcement Program, 106
prior restraint, 133 an effort by a governmental agency to block the publication of material it deems libelous or harmful in some other way; censorship; in the United States, the courts forbid prior restraint except under the most extraordinary circumstances
PRISM surveillance program, 728 prison inmates, 147, 326 Prison Litigation Reform Act, 621 privacy, 68–69, 146–49
private bill, 481 a proposal in Congress to provide a specific person with some kind of relief, such as a special exemption from immigration quotas
private property, 23, 68, 82, 86, 143
Powell, Jerome, 572, 650, 651 Powell, Lewis F., 197
power(s) influence over a government’s leadership, organization, or policies; see also separation of powers centralization of government’s power, 84 concurrent, 82 of Congress, 543 congressional, 55, 502–5, 649 contracting, 662 defined, 9 economic, 28 expressed, 56, 79 of federal courts, 621–24 with federalism, 85–88 Federalist vs. Antifederalist views on, 64 growth of national government’s power,
87–88 implied, 79 judicial, 610 limits of president’s, 541–43 nonenforcement of laws as, 540–41 police, 82 political, 28 of the presidency, 514–29, 533–44, 608–9 of the presidency in various countries, 524 reserved, 82
prayer, in public schools, 318–19
precedent, 594 prior case whose principles are used by judges as the basis for their decision in a present case
predatory lending, 699
preemption, 93, 93–99, 106, 724 the principle that allows the national government to override state or local actions in certain policy areas; in foreign policy, the willingness to strike first in order to prevent an enemy attack; see also preventive war
presidency, 512–45; see also president(s) administrative strategies of, 536–42 and budget process, 656 and Cabinet, 530 Constitutional powers of, 515–29 Constitutional provision for, 56 contemporary bases of power for, 533–44 delegated powers of, 515, 523 and democracy, 514 demographics of U.S. presidents, 527 emergency powers, 528 establishment of, 515 Executive Office of the President, 530–31 expressed powers of, 515–21 first spouse, 532–33 and foreign policy, 722–30 going public as source of power for, 534–36 implied powers of, 515, 522–23, 526 influence of, 514 inherent powers of, 515, 525–26, 528–29 as institution, 529, 529–33 judicial power of, 522 managerial, 581 nonenforcement of laws as power, 540–41
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 109 17/11/18 3:58 PM
A110 GLOSSARY/ INDEX
redistribution, 653 a policy whose objective is to tax or spend in such a way as to reduce the disparities of wealth between the lowest and the highest income brackets
redistributive programs, 100 economic policies designed to transfer income through taxing and spending, with the goal of benefiting the poor
redistricting, 367, 384–86, 477–80 the process of redrawing election districts and redistributing legislative representatives; this happens every 10 years, to reflect shifts in population or in response to legal challenges in existing districts
Redlawsk, David, 229
redlining, 178 a practice in which banks refuse to make loans to people living in certain geographic locations
Redskins (NFL), 115 red states, 353–54 Reed, Stanley, 617
referendum the practice of referring a proposed law passed by a legislature to the vote of the electorate for approval or rejection; see also ballot initiative
Reform Party, 369 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke,
195–97 region, party affiliation and, 357, 359
regressive taxation, 652 taxation that hits lower-income brackets more heavily
regular concurrences (Supreme Court), 617
regulated federalism, 96, 100 a form of federalism in which Congress imposes legislation on states and localities, requiring them to meet national standards
regulation, 659–61 costs of, 99 and economic policy, 644–46 environmental, 663–67 by the Fed, 650–51 of lobbying, 452–53 of media, 285–87 in the name of public protection, 24–25 national policies for, 633–34 opposition to, 646
regulatory agency, 563 department, bureau, or independent agency whose primary mission is to impose limits, restrictions, or other obligations on the conduct of individuals or companies in the private sector
regulatory review, by presidents, 513, 514, 523, 537–38
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 99, 191 Reid, Harry, 492 religion/religious affiliation; see also specific
religious groups of American population, 18 of congresspersons, 471, 473
and internet access, 309 and party affiliation, 353–54, 359 and perception of fair treatment, 219 and political culture, 16 and political participation, 311 and political socialization, 218–19 public opinion on, 218–19, 242–43
race relations, 208 Race to the Top, 692–93 racial categories/categorization, 18, 618–19; see
also affirmative action racial discrimination, 161–79, 678; see also
discrimination; segregation racial equality, 197–98 racial profiling, 141, 170, 188–89 racial segregation. See segregation racism, public opinion on, 218–19 radio, 265–66 railroad subsidies, 638, 638 Ramos, Jorge, 269 Randolph, Edmund, 50, 53
random digit dialing, 237–38 a polling method in which respondents are selected at random from a list of 10-digit telephone numbers, with every effort made to avoid bias in the construction of the sample
random sample public-opinion polling, 399 ranked choice voting (RCV), 371, 392 Rankin, Jeanette, 470 Ratification of U.S. Constitution, 58,
60–65, 63 rational basis test, 180 R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 130 RCV (ranked choice voting), 371, 392 Reagan, Ronald, and administration, 348
attempts to shrink bureaucracy`, 575 on big government, 558 block grants of, 96 bureaucracy under, 558 as California governor, 224 children’s political affiliations, 217 on Department of Education, 564–65 deregulation by, 661 education policies, 690 judicial appointments of, 620 and religious conservatives, 318 as Republican Party leader, 364 and strikes, 640 Supreme Court nominees of, 602 and taxation, 643 tax brackets under, 655
RealClear Politics, 267
recall, 393 a procedure to allow voters to remove state officials from office before their terms expire by circulating petitions to call a vote
recess appointments, 542, 609 recession of 2008. See financial crisis and
recession of 2008 Recovery Act of 2009. See American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Red Cloud, 14 Reddit, 267, 270
and “big data,” 245–47 on climate change, 664–65 definition of term, 207 and democracy, 247–48 disapproval of Congress, 500–502 elements of, 207–15 on equality, 27 errors in polling, 242–45 formation of, 216–25 government policy and, 235–37 government responsiveness to, 235–36 interest groups and, 233–34 measuring, 237–47; see also surveys, public
opinion media’s influence on, 234 and political ideology, 211–15 and political knowledge, 228–32 political leaders’ influence on, 232–33 and political socialization, 216–17 and political values, 209–11 social groups and, 218–25 of social policies, 707–8 stability of, 225–32, 226 survey construction, 237–47; see also surveys,
public opinion trust in government, 6, 31, 32, 33–34 view of government, 29–33
public-opinion polls, 237, 237–47 scientific instruments for measuring public opinion representative samples, 237–38 sources of error in, 242–45 survey design, 240
public policy, 633 a law, rule, statute, or edict that expresses the government’s goals and provides for rewards and punishments to promote those goals’ attainment; see also specific types of policy, e.g.: economic policy and public opinion, 235–37 voters’ policy preferences, 407
public relations, 534–35 public-sector groups, 435, 437 public spending, 103, 643–44 public welfare, promotion of, 563–65
purposive benefits, 442 selective benefits of group membership that emphasize the purpose and accomplishments of the group
push poll, 245 a polling technique in which the questions are designed to shape the respondent’s opinion
Putin, Vladimir, 210, 284, 720, 724, 726, 727, 742
Putnam, Robert, 307
Q questions, public opinion survey, 240
R race
and death penalty, 145 and electoral districts, 479–80 and immigration, 16
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 110 17/11/18 3:58 PM
GLOSSARY/ INDEX A111
“Right to work” provisions, 646 Rio Treaty, 737 ripeness, 610–11 RNC. See Republican National Committee Roberts, John, 130, 601, 618, 619, 697 Roberts, Owen, 619 Roberts, Pat, 492 Robertson, Pat, 318 Rock the Vote, 311 Roe v. Wade, 148–49, 233, 453–54, 610, 620 Rogers Act of 1924, 732 rogue states, 719–20 Rolf, Meredith, 303
roll-call vote, 496 a vote in which each legislator’s yes or no vote is recorded as the clerk calls the names of the members alphabetically
Roman Catholics. See Catholics Romer v. Evans, 192 Romney, Mitt, 243 Roosevelt, Eleanor, 533 Roosevelt, Franklin Delano, 725
and African American voters, 353–54 economic initiatives, 641 election of 1932, 363, 365 election of 1936, 242–43 executive orders of, 538 “fireside chats,” 232, 284 and first spouse’s role, 533 and internment camps, 190 and New Deal, 89, 363, 369–70 and partisan loyalty, 406 public appeals of, 534–35, 535 as strong president, 534 and Supreme Court, 608, 619, 622 war powers of, 525 and World War II, 718
Roosevelt, Theodore, 284, 534 Rothstein, Barbara, 622 Rubio, Marco, 28, 489, 732, 733 rules
issued by government agencies, 554–55 of lawmaking, 489–94
runoff election, 382 a “second-round” election in which voters choose between the top two candidates from the first round
rural areas, American population in, 20 Russia, 210–11, 284, 308–9, 718, 719–20,
724–26, 737, 741–42 Rutledge, John, 64 Ryan, Paul, 213, 214, 481, 500, 506, 687
S “safe” districts, 367 Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 552, 663–64 sales taxes, 105
same-day registration (SDR), 295, 327 the option in some states to register on the day of the election, at the polling place, rather than in advance of the election
same-sex marriage; see also Defense of Marriage Act of 1996
and redistricting, 479–80 and regulation, 644, 646 religious affiliations of members, 221 responsiveness of, 338 and slavery issue, 362 and social programs, 31 tax and social spending views of, 356, 643–44 and upper-income voters, 356 and voter ID laws, 324 voter mobilization, 320 and white southerners, 224–25 and young Americans, 358
reserved powers, 82 powers, derived from the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, that are not specifically delegated to the national government or denied to the states
restraint, judicial, 619–21
retail politics, 387 a style of campaigning where candidates connect to voters at intimate gatherings and local events
retrospective voting, 407 voting based on the past performance of a candidate or political party
revenue, advertising, 264
revenue agency, 572 an agency responsible for collecting taxes. Examples include the Internal Revenue Service for income taxes; the U.S. Customs Service for tariffs and other taxes on imported goods; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for collection of taxes on the sale of those particular products
Revolutionary War, 47 Reza Shah Pahlavi, 743 Rhode Island, 47–48, 53 Rice, Condoleezza, 725 Richardson, Susan, 714 right(s); see also civil rights
of assembly, 132 to bear arms, 119, 136–38 to counsel, 144 of the criminally accused, 138–46 to die, 150 of petition, 132, 134 to privacy, 146–49 of rebuttal, 286 to vote. See voting rights
right of rebuttal a Federal Communications Commission regulation giving individuals the right to have the opportunity to respond to personal attacks made on a radio or television broadcast
“right to die” law, 105; see also physician-assisted suicide
right-to-life movement, 233
right to privacy, 146–51, 192–93 the right to be left alone, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to entail individual access to birth control and abortions
freedom of. See freedom of religion of immigrants, 14–16 and Latino vote, 314–15 and party affiliation, 355–56 and political opinion, 220–21 and political participation, 318–19
religious symbols, 125–26 removal power, of presidents, 522 renewable energy, 639 Reno v. ACLU, 135 representation
by Congress, 481 descriptive, 315 Federalist vs. Antifederalist views on, 62 of minorities, 479 sociological vs. agency, 471–75, 474–75
representative democracy (republic), 9 a system of government in which the populace selects representatives, who play a significant role in governmental decision-making
representative samples, 237–38 Republican National Committee (RNC), 346 Republican National Convention (1984), 132 Republican Party; see also political parties
and 2009 economic stimulus package, 648–49
and ACA, 282, 696, 697–98 Asian Americans’ support for, 316 black citizens in, 163 characteristics of, 353 climate change views, 664 conference committees, 483–84 conflict with Democratic Party, 348 congressional party unity, 496–98, 497 data mining, 246 demographics of, 339, 353–58 distrust in government among members of, 32 and economic policy, 641 election of 2016, 339 electoral realignments, 365 evangelical Christians, 319 factions within, 351 and Federal Reserve, 652 fund-raising activities of, 346 gender gap, 316 gerrymandering, 175–76, 478 health care reform, 696, 697–98 ideology, 356 K Street Project, 496 and laissez-faire economics, 642–43 Latino voters and, 314–15 and leadership PACs, 498 in Massachusetts, 365 members’ characteristics, 221–22 and minimum wage, 645 origins of, 361–63 party-building by, 352 party identification, 352–53 and polarization, 276–77, 366, 367–68 and preemption power, 93 primary debates in 2016, 398 and primary delegates, 388 and proportional representation voting, 345,
388 recruitment of candidates by, 476
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 111 17/11/18 3:58 PM
A112 GLOSSARY/ INDEX
majority party structure, 484 party leadership in, 483 polarization in, 368 and population shift, 20, 22
Senate Armed Services Committee, 731 Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 504, 730,
730 Senate Intelligence Committee, 731, 732 Senate Watergate Committee, 484 Seneca Falls Convention, 162, 163 Senior Executive Service, 580
seniority, 486 the ranking given to an individual on the basis of length of continuous service on a committee in Congress
“separate but equal” rule, 26, 164, 164–65, 690 doctrine that public accommodations could be segregated by race but still be considered equal
separation of church and state, 123–25
separation of powers, 54, 55, 57–58, 59, 543 the division of governmental power among several institutions that must cooperate in decision making
September 11, 2001, attacks bureaucracy reorganization following, 552 and emergency powers of presidency, 528 and foreign policy, 724, 738 media framing of, 234 and national security, 719–20 national security following, 565–66 technological innovation support following,
639 and trust in government, 31
sequestration, 657 Sessions, Jeff, 104, 351, 486 settlement houses, 677 Seventeenth Amendment, 55 sexual harassment, 183–84, 217, 217 sexual orientation, 149, 192–93; see also same-sex
marriage shadow welfare state
housing policies and, 699 tax expenditures in, 682–83, 702
Shapiro, Robert, 235 Shaw v. Reno, 386 Shays, Daniel, 48 Shays’s Rebellion, 48, 48–49 Shelby County v. Holder, 177, 480 Shelley v. Kraemer, 166 Shepard, Matthew, 193 Sherman, Roger, 45 Sherman Antitrust Act, 660 shield laws, 134 Shirky, Clay, 440 Sierra Club, 448
signing statements, 540 announcements made by the president when signing bills into law, often presenting the president’s interpretation of the law
Silent Scream, The (film), 234 Silver, Nate, 246 simple random sample, 237
SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization), 737 SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), 635 Second Amendment, 119, 136–38; see also gun
control secondary education, 690, 692–93 Second Continental Congress, 46 Second Founding, 47–53 secrecy, government, 569–70 Secretary of Defense, 728 Secure Communities program, 105–7, 188 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 635 security; see also national security
collective, 737–38 foreign policy for, 717–20 public opinion on, 747
security agencies, 516 segregation, 164
evolving Supreme Court view of, 619 housing, 177–78, 623 Jim Crow laws and, 163 and poverty, 314 school, 163, 167–70, 168, 623, 690 and states’ rights, 91, 95 and voting rights, 314
Segura, Gary, 315
select committees, 484–85 (usually) temporary legislative committees set up to highlight or investigate a particular issue or address an issue not within the jurisdiction of existing committees
selection bias, 242–45 polling error that arises when the sample is not representative of the population being studied, which creates errors in overrepresenting or underrepresenting some opinions
selection bias (news), 281–82 the tendency to focus news coverage on only one aspect of an event or issue, avoiding coverage of other aspects
selective incorporation, 120, 122 the process by which different protections in the Bill of Rights were incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, thus guaranteeing citizens protection from state as well as national governments
self-incrimination, 142–43 self-interest, public opinion and, 222–24 self-selection bias, 275 Sematech, 639 Senate; see also Congress
affluent Americans’ influence on, 236 allocation of floor time, 498 campaign funding for, 394, 395 conference committees, 493 Constitutional provision for, 55–56 costs of campaigning for seat in, 342 differences between House and, 469, 469–70 ethics law of, 480 and federal judge appointments, 600–601 and foreign policy, 731 Merrick Garland and, 602 Great Compromise provision for, 50, 51 and limits of presidential power, 542
laws in various countries, 194 public opinion on, 213–14, 216, 217, 221,
224, 226–27 stability of public opinion, 227 state laws, 80–81 Supreme Court decision, 41–42, 108, 149,
192–94, 193, 307, 307, 618, 623
sample a small group selected by researchers to represent the most important characteristics of an entire population defined, 237 size of, 239–40
sampling error (or margin of error), 239 polling error that arises based on the small size of the sample
San Bernardino, California, terrorism incident (2015), 24, 141
sanctions, 737, 743 Sand, Leonard B., 623 Sanders, Bernie, 338
as democratic socialist, 214 and distrust of government, 32 DNC support, 409 economic inequality discussed by, 28 fundraising by, 308–9, 404 income inequality discussed by, 222 minimum wage, 646 momentum in 2016 primaries, 387, 409 New Hampshire primary, 387 as outsider candidate, 328, 338 social media participation by supporters, 304 and superdelegates, 389 youth vote, 313
Santelli, Rick, 335–36 Saturday Night Live, 266 Saudi Arabia, 722 SBA (Small Business Administration), 573, 638 Scalia, Antonin, 591, 601, 619
death of, 105 gun control ruling, 136 and oral arguments, 616 political battles after death of, 226, 601, 602 and same-sex marriage ruling, 618 voter ID ruling, 177
Scalise, Steve, 499, 500 Scanlon, Michael, 452 Schattschneider, E.E., 337, 338, 342, 437 Scheindlin, Shira, 141 Schiavo, Terri, 149 SCHIP. See State Children’s Health Insurance
Program school desegregation, 690 school prayer, 318–19 school segregation/desegregation, 167–70, 168,
623, 690 school shootings, 137 Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action,
611 Schwarzenegger, Arnold, 393 SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership
Conference), 455 Scott, Dred, 162 SDR. See same-day registration searches and seizures, 139–41, 140
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 112 17/11/18 3:58 PM
GLOSSARY/ INDEX A113
perspectives, then one can correctly represent the other’s views
soft money, 346, 404 money contributed directly to political parties and other organizations for political activities, such as voter mobilization drives, that is not regulated by federal campaign spending laws
soft power, 721, 740 sole executive agreements, 518
solicitor general, 612 the top government lawyer in all cases before the Supreme Court where the government is a party
solidary benefits, 442 selective benefits of group membership that emphasize friendship, networking, and consciousness-raising
Solove, Daniel, 151 Sotomayor, Sonia, 602, 606 sound bites, 265 South
black voter registration, 175–77, 176 black voting rights in, 299–300, 313–14 Democratic Party in, 362 post-Civil War, 362 school desegregation in, 167–70 slavery in, 162 and Three-Fifths Compromise, 52–53
South Carolina, 167, 188, 478 Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO),
737 Southern Christian Leadership Conference
(SCLC), 455 Southern Manifesto, 95 Soviet Union, 717–19, 737
Speaker of the House, 482, 498, 532 the chief presiding officer of the House of Representatives; the Speaker is the most important party and House leader and can influence the legislative agenda, the fate of individual pieces of legislation, and members’ positions within the House
special concurrences (Supreme Court), 617 speech, freedom of. See freedom of speech SpeechNow v. FEC, 401–2
“speech plus,” 134 speech accompanied by conduct such as sit-ins, picketing, and demonstrations; protection of this form of speech under the First Amendment is conditional, and restrictions imposed by state or local authorities are acceptable if properly balanced by considerations of public order
speed limit, national, 101–2 spending, federal, 655–58 Spicer, Sean, 495 Spirit of the Laws, The (Montesquieu), 58 split-ticket voting, 383 spoiler effect, 340 spoils system, 556 SSI (Supplemental Security Income) program, 680
staff agencies, 487 legislative support agencies responsible for policy analysis
as clicktivism, 304 defined, 268 and fake news, 228–29 and interest groups, 443 for measuring public opinion, 245–47 Obama’s use of, 232–33, 312, 535 partisan, 276, 307–8 and political participation, 303–4, 306 politicians’ use of, 303–4 and presidential campaigns, 397–98 and public interest groups, 447 public opinion shaping by, 217 and Supreme Court same-sex marriage
decision, 307, 307 Trump’s use of, 226, 233, 535, 536
social networks, 216–17, 319–21 social policy
beneficiaries of programs, 701 contributory welfare programs, 679–80 education policies, 689–94 for the elderly, 700–702 and equality, 708 and equality of opportunity, 689–700 health policies, 694–98 history of social welfare system, 677–79 housing policies, 698–700 for the middle and upper class, 702 for minorities, women, and children,
704–6 noncontributory welfare programs, 680–81 for the nonworking poor, 703–4 paying for the welfare state, 683–87 for the working poor, 702–3
Social Security, 31, 40, 643, 680, 683–87, 685, 702 a contributory welfare program into which working Americans contribute a percentage of their wages and from which they receive cash benefits after retirement or if they become disabled
Social Security Act of 1935, 679, 705 Social Security Administration, 530, 576 Social Security Commission, 685–86 Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), 679,
686 Social Security taxes, 653 Social Security Trust Fund, 685 social welfare. See social policy; welfare
programs
socioeconomic status, 310 status in society based on level of education, income, and occupational prestige; see also poverty and interest group membership, 438,
438–39, 447, 449 and party affiliation, 356, 359 and political culture, 20 and political participation, 310–11, 312 and voter influence, 338, 338
sociological representation, 471–75, 474 a type of representation in which representatives have the same racial, gender, ethnic, religious, or educational backgrounds as their constituents; it is based on the principle that if two individuals are similar in background, character, interests, and
simple random sample (or probability sample), 237–39 a method used by pollsters to select a representative sample in which every individual in the population has an equal probability of being selected as a respondent
Simpson, Alan, 428 Sinclair, Betsy, 216–17 Sinclair, Upton, 640, 660 Sixteenth Amendment, 652 Sixth Amendment, 144 Skimm, The (newsletter), 230 slacktivism, 307
slander, 134 an oral statement made in “reckless disregard of the truth” that is considered damaging to the victim because it is “malicious, scandalous, and defamatory”
Slants, The, 114–16 slavery, 161, 162
and abolitionist movement, 161–62 Three-Fifths Compromise, 52–53 at time of Founding, 13 and value of liberty, 23
Small Business Administration (SBA), 573, 638 smartphones, 268, 271 Smith, Adam, 642–43 Smith v. Allwright, 616–17 smoking bans, 98, 235 SNAP. See Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program Snopes.org, 275 Snowden, Edward, 24, 133, 134, 283, 283, 570,
579, 728 Snyder, Rick, 551 Snyder v. Phelps, 132–33 Social and Behavioral Sciences of 2015, 574
social desirability effect, 242 the effect that results when respondents in a survey report what they expect the interviewer wishes to hear rather than what they believe
social equality, 25 social groups, public opinion and, 218–25
economic class, 222–24 ethnicity, 219–20 gender, 220, 222 party affiliation, 221–22 political environment, 224–25 race, 218–19 religion, 220–21 self-interest, 222–24
socialist, 214 someone who generally believes in social ownership, strong government, free markets, and reducing economic inequality
socialization, political, 211–12, 216–17
social media, 267–71 web- and mobile- based technologies that are used to turn communication into interactive dialogue among organizations, communities, and individuals; social media technologies take on many different forms including text, blogs, podcasts, photographs, streaming video, Facebook, and Twitter
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 113 17/11/18 3:58 PM
A114 GLOSSARY/ INDEX
passed by the national government and all treaties are the supreme law of the land and superior to all laws adopted by any state or any subdivision
Supreme Court, 604–24 the highest court in a particular state or in the United States; this court primarily serves an appellate function on AFDC benefits, 680 and Affordable Care Act, 697 amicus briefs per case (average), 625 on campaign contributions, 401, 402, 404,
405, 422 campaign spending, 422 cases filed in, 612 cases heard by, 598–99 on civil rights, 165–66, 179–97 Clean Power Plan ruling, 554 on congressional inaction on presidential
orders, 540 constitutional interpretation by, 68–69 Constitutional provision for, 56–57 controlling flow of cases to, 612–14 and due process of law, 138–46 on education of undocumented students, 18 and election of 2000, 384 and expansion of federal power, 87–88 explaining decisions of, 618–24 on federal preemption, 93 and Fourteenth Amendment, 118–22 on freedom of religion, 126 on freedom of speech, 127–33 on freedom of the press, 133–36 and Gun-Free School Zones Act, 95 on health insurance subsidies, 106 influences on decisions of, 618–21 and interest group litigation, 453 on interstate commerce, 88 judicial review by, 604–10 justice appointment process, 601–2 on legislative districts, 384, 386 limiting of congressional powers by, 95 lobbying for access, 614 on Medicaid expansion, 99, 682 on medical marijuana legalization, 77 on national standards, 93 and party polarization in Congress, 367–68 procedures of, 614–18 pro-national stance of, 87–88 on racial redistricting, 479–80 redistricting rulings, 384 Republican obstruction of confirmation
hearings, 467–68 rights of the accused, 68 right to privacy, 145, 148–49 rules of access, 610–11 same-sex marriage, 83, 193, 226–27, 307, 307 school prayer decision, 318–19 on separate but equal accommodation, 26 on slavery, 162 on states’ return of fugitives, 83 term limits for justices of, 606 time-line of a case, 615 and travel ban, 189, 189, 207, 538 on union dues, 590–92, 591 on voter ID laws, 177 writs, 611–12
statutes, 594 Stein, Jill, 215 Stevens, John Paul, 135–36 Stewart, Potter, 135 Steyer, Tom, 215, 295 stimulus package (2009). See American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Stone, Harlan F., 95, 616 Stonewall riots (1969), 192 stop and frisk, 141, 141
straight-ticket voting, 383 selecting candidates from the same political party for all offices on the ballot
strategic voting, 340, 369 streaming video, 267, 273
strict scrutiny, 127, 167–68, 180 a test used by the Supreme Court in racial discrimination cases and other cases involving civil liberties and civil rights that places the burden of proof on the government rather than on the challengers to show that the law in question is constitutional
strikes, 639 structural remedies (judicial), 623 student loans, 209 student loans, government relief for, 709 student speech, 130–31
subsidies, 638, 638, 661–62, 662 government grants of cash or other valuable commodities, such as land, to an individual or an organization; used to promote activities desired by the government, reward political support, or buy off political opposition
substantive limits, 7
suffrage, 165–66, 299 the right to vote; also called franchise; see also voting rights
Sugar Act of 1764, 44 Sundquist, James, 91 “Supercommittee,” 657 superdelegates, 389 Super PACs, 338, 346, 397, 402, 404–5, 458,
496 “Super Tuesday,” 322
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), 680, 681, 685, 688, 703, 704 the largest antipoverty program, which provides recipients with a debit card for food at most grocery stores; formerly known as food stamps
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, 680
supply-side economics, 643 an economic theory that posits that reducing the marginal rate of taxation will create a productive economy by promoting levels of work and investment that would otherwise be discouraged by higher taxes
supremacy clause, 57, 64, 605 Article VI of the Constitution, which states that laws
Stafford Act of 1988, 528
staff organization, 441 a type of membership group in which a professional staff conducts most of the group’s activities
staff system (Congress), 487, 487 Stamp Act, 44
standing, 610 the right of an individual or organization to initiate a court case, on the basis of having a substantial stake in the outcome
standing committee, 483–84, 485 a permanent committee with the power to propose and write legislation that covers a particular subject, such as finance or agriculture
Stanford University, 275 Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, 162, 300
stare decisis, 594 literally, “let the decision stand”; the doctrine that a previous decision by a court applies as a precedent in similar cases until that decision is overruled
State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), 576, 695, 696
state courts, 594–95, 595 State Department, 566, 567, 568, 725–27 state governments; see also federalism
control on policy areas, 86 and cooperative federalism, 91–93 and dual federalism, 85–86 effect on daily life at state universities, 80 election administration by, 381–82 and gridlock of national government, 105 legislative races, 406 powers of, 57–58, 79, 82 preemption of local policy, 107 spending cuts by, 576
state insurance exchanges, 696 state legislatures, redistricting and, 384–86 State of the Union address, 519, 521 states
ballot access in, 371 ballot measures in, 322–23 categorical grants to, 638–39 changing role of, 94–95 children’s benefits from, 576 comity among, 57–58 electoral laws of, 323–27, 325 fiscal constraints of, 98–99 judicial review of actions by, 605–7 obligations among, 82 party organizations in, 347–48 role as defined in Articles of Confederation, 46 third parties in, 369 voter identification requirements, 324, 326 voter registration requirements, 324 voting and registration reforms, 327
states’ rights, 94–95 the principle that the states should oppose the increasing authority of the national government; this principle was most popular in the period before the Civil War
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 114 17/11/18 3:58 PM
GLOSSARY/ INDEX A115
allegedly caused by the actions of another (the defendant)
To Secure These Rights (President’s Commission on Civil Rights report), 166
totalitarian government, 7 a system of rule in which the government recognizes no formal limits on its power and seeks to absorb or eliminate other social institutions that might challenge it
town hall meeting, 396 an informal public meeting in which candidates meet with ordinary citizens; allows candidates to deliver messages without the presence of journalists or commentators
Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, 512 toxic substances regulation, 512–14 trade, international, 721, 723, 744 trade associations, 433 trade policy, 721, 744–45 traditional media, 263–66
traditional political participation, 297–302 activities designed to influence government, including voting, campaign contributions and face-to-face activities such as volunteering for a campaign or working on behalf of a candidate or political organization
traditional system, 85, 85, 86 transgender individuals, 158–60, 181 Trans-Pacific Partnership, 723, 744 Transportation, Department of, 552, 572, 641 travel ban, 189, 189, 207, 609, 609, 714–15 Treasury Department, 571, 572, 572, 575, 648,
728 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 184
trial court, 594, 599 the first court to hear a criminal or civil case
Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), 648 Truman, David, 437 Truman, Harry S., 166, 243, 500, 525 Trump, Donald, and administration, 31, 226,
338, 726 in 2016 debates, 389, 399 and ACA, 698 administrative directives of, 538 adversarial journalism under, 284 branding, 340 bureaucratic reform, 574 campaign spending, 401, 405 Clean Power Plan, 554 Hillary Clinton emails, 280, 282 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
under, 661 cyberattacks of 2016 campaign, 210, 308–9 Defense and Homeland Security, 558, 568, 569 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
program, 105 digital communication strategy, 396 diplomatic power, 517–18, 518, 734 on earmarks, 493 Education Department, 565 education under, 693
and proportional representation voting, 345 as protest, 215, 454 in the South, 224–25
technological innovation, 640 technologies, alternative, 666–67 Telecommunications Act of 1996, 135–36, 260,
285, 286 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF), 563, 680, 681, 681, 682, 687, 688, 703, 705
Ten Commandments, 125 Tennessee, 668 Tenth Amendment, 56, 81, 94–95 termination of agencies, 575
term limits legally prescribed limits on the number of terms an elected official can serve congressional, 477 Supreme Court, 606
terrorism, 24, 224, 234, 719–20, 727; see also September 11, 2001, attacks
terrorism prevention, 24; see also war on terror/ terrorism
Terry v. Ohio, 141 Texas, 107
congressional seats, 478 discrimination in, 166–67, 184 education funding, 18, 26 executions, 145 federal employees in, 558 flag desecration statute, 132 freedom of religion, 125 gerrymandering, 175–76, 479–80 redistricting, 479–80 same-sex marriage opposition, 83 sexual conduct statute, 192–93
Texas Young Republican Federation, 378, 379 “textualist” judges, 602 think tanks, 272 Third Amendment, 146
third parties, 340, 368–71, 369, 390–91 parties that organize to compete against the two major American political parties
Thirteenth Amendment, 163 one of three Civil War amendments; it abolished slavery 163
Thomas, Clarence, 601, 602, 616, 618, 619
Three-Fifths Compromise, 52–53 the agreement reached at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that stipulated that for purposes of the apportionment of congressional seats only three-fifths of slaves would be counted
Three Floyds Brewing Co., 630–32 Thucydides Trap, 741 Tilden, Samuel, 390 Tillerson, Rex, 566, 567, 725, 730, 731 Title IX, Education Act of 1972, 182 Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 175, 179–85,
185 Tocqueville, Alexis de, 429, 460
tort case, 609 a lawsuit by one individual (the plaintiff ) demanding compensation for harm
supreme courts (state), 595 surveillance, 151, 570 surveys, public opinion, 237–47
design of, 240 online, 240–41 question wording, 240 representative samples, 237–38 sample size, 239–40
survivor benefits, of Social Security, 679 suspect classifications, 180 swing states, 396 symbolic speech, 132–33 Syria, 722, 738, 742, 742, 743 Syrian refugees, 189
T “take care clause” (U.S. Constitution), 515 Taliban, 608–9, 736 talk show interviews, 396 Tam, Simon, 114 TANF. See Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families
tariff, 571, 637, 652, 716, 721 a tax on imported goods
TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), 648 Tauzin, Billy, 450 taxation, 652–55
648, 644 British, 43, 43–44 collection of, 572 and Democratic Party, 356 demographics of taxpayers, 669 e-commerce, 105 income, 652, 655 and income inequality, 27–28 influence of the wealthy on policy, 236 public opinion on, 240 rates in various countries, 654 revenues by type of, 653 as social policy, 682–83 Social Security, 653, 679, 686–87 and supply-side economics, 643 taxable income brackets/rates, 656 tax cuts, 230–32, 281–82, 637, 643–44, 655 tax policy, 572
tax brackets, 655 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, 107, 437, 438,
466, 643, 655, 698
tax expenditure system, 682–83, 689 subsidies in the tax code that achieve social goals by lowering the cost of homeownership, child raising, employer-provided health insurance and retirement pensions, etc., through reduced taxation
tax reform, 28, 521, 534 Tax Reform Act of 1986, 689 Tea Act, 45 teachers, as interest group, 432 Tea Party movement, 270, 334–36, 335, 368
and 2010 midterm elections, 455 candidate recruitment by, 342 origin of, 455 and polarization, 368
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 115 17/11/18 3:58 PM
A116 GLOSSARY/ INDEX
undocumented immigrants, 18, 18, 102, 105–7, 187
unemployment, 637, 648, 704 unemployment insurance, 680–81, 682, 685,
701
unfunded mandate, 99 a law or regulation requiring a state or local government to perform certain actions without providing funding for fulfilling the requirement
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), 99 UN General Assembly, 734–35 Unified Combatant Commands (COCOMs),
568 unions. See organized labor unitary executive theory, 522–23
unitary system, 79 a centralized government system in which lower levels of government have little power independent of the national government
United Airlines, 271 United Combatant Commands (COCOM), 568 United Kingdom, 734–35
United Nations (UN), 286, 734–35 an organization of nations founded in 1945 to be a channel for negotiation and a means of settling international disputes peaceably; the UN has had frequent successes in providing a forum for negotiation and, on some occasions, a means of preventing international conflicts from spreading; on a number of occasions, the UN has been a convenient cover for U.S. foreign policy goals
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 745
UN Security Council, 734–35
United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), 721 trade treaty between the United States, Canada, and Mexico to lower and eliminate tariffs among the three countries
United States v. Grubbs, 140 United States v. Jones, 140 United States v. Lopez, 95 United States v. Nixon, 519, 519 United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group,
135–36 United States v. Williams, 135 United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 190 University of California, 195–97 University of Michigan, 197 University of Texas, 197 Univision, 269 unreasonable searches. See searches and seizures Unsafe at Any Speed (Nader), 641 upper class, social policy for, 702 urban areas, American population in, 20 U.S. Chamber of Commerce. See Chamber of
Commerce, U.S. U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), 666 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 170, 176
White House Communications Office, 535 White House staff, 530 working-class supporters, 414
Trump, Ivanka, 530 Trump, Melania, 533, 533 Trump University, 265 Trump v. Hawaii, 715 Trump v. Hawatt, 609 trust
in government, 6, 31, 31, 32 in the press, 276–77
trustee, 470–71 a representative who votes based on what he or she thinks is best for his or her constituency
TTB (Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau), 631
Tubman, Harriet, 161, 161
turnout, 29, 109, 295, 301–2, 302, 310–19, 323 the percentage of eligible individuals who actually vote by Asian Americans, 316 battleground vs. non-battleground states,
321–22 election campaign of 2008, 337 international variations in, 305, 305 percentages (1976–2016), 311 primaries and caucuses, 373 by youth, 295
Tweeting to Power (Gainous and Wagner), 270 Twenty-Fifth Amendment, 532 21st Century Fox, 260, 278 Twenty-Fourth Amendment, 175 Twenty-Seventh Amendment, 68 Twenty-Sixth Amendment, 68, 300 Twin Towers, 224 Twitter
and election of 2016, 303–4, 535 as news source, 262, 268, 269, 270, 281 Obama’s use of, 232–33, 535 political participation via, 303–4, 306 public opinion measurement with, 246–47 public opinion shaping by, 217 and Supreme Court same-sex marriage
decision, 307, 307 Trump’s use of, 269, 270–71, 535, 536 and Washington Post, 264
two-party system, 339, 341 a political system in which only two parties have a realistic opportunity to compete effectively for control
Tyler, John, 532
tyranny, 63–64 oppressive government that employs cruel and unjust use of power and authority
U Ukraine, 737, 742 UMRA (Unfunded Mandates Reform Act), 99 UN. See United Nations uncontested elections, 322 Underground Railroad, 161, 161, 162
election campaign of 2016, 378, 390, 422 and electoral college, 390 environmental policy, 745 EPA under, 513 executive orders of, 538, 541 executive orders rescinded by, 538 and “fake news,” 275, 277 on federal contractors, 579 as financial boon for media industry, 260 firing of James Comey by, 273 fiscal policies of, 639 Flynn and, 531 foreign policy, 720, 724, 743, 744 gender gap, 355 on gun control, 209 health care policies, 698 Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 188 immigration stance, 120, 186, 189, 228, 407 income inequality discussed by, 222 inherent powers, 526, 528, 528 investigations on, 503 IRS budget, 572 judicial power, 517 Latino vote, 315 lobbyists, 450 on lobbyists, 450–51 management strategy of, 581 media coverage of, 281, 410 and media priming, 282 momentum in 2016 primaries, 387 Obamacare and, 521, 534, 541, 541 as outsider candidate, 338 and plurality system, 382 polling during 2016 election, 242–43 in primaries and caucuses, 388, 410 on prosecution of marijuana use, 104 regulatory review by, 513, 513 Republican establishment and, 342 response to hurricanes, 517, 517 self-financing, 405 Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 731 sexual misconduct, 411 social media use by, 226, 233, 306 social policy of, 686–87, 689 spending bill, 500 State Department, 725 State of the Union address, 521 Supreme Court nominees of, 591, 600–601,
602 tariffs, 716 tax brackets under, 655 tax cuts, 232, 451 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, 437, 438 tax reform and, 28, 521, 534 trade policy, 720, 744, 745 on transgender people in U.S. military,
159–60 travel ban, 189, 189, 207, 566, 609, 609,
714–15 trustworthiness issue, 408 Twitter use, 269, 270–71, 535, 535, 536 veto power, 521 vice president, 531, 532 voter demographics, 355–58, 545 voter distrust in government, 32 Washington Post reporting on, 264–65
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 116 17/11/18 3:58 PM
GLOSSARY/ INDEX A117
Warren, Elizabeth, 213, 639 Warsaw Pact, 737 Washington, George, 339, 519, 718 Washington Post
investigative journalism by, 262 online presence of, 261 Pentagon Papers, 283, 284 profitability of, 263–64 Watergate coverage, 284
Washington State, 104, 105, 115, 478, 479 Watergate, 264, 284, 456, 484, 519, 519 Watson, Gregory, 68 WEAL (Women’s Equity Action League), 181 wealth, political influence and, 236–37 wealth inequality. See income equality/inequality Weather Service, U.S., 552 Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 148,
453–54 wedge issues, 398–99 welfare programs
beneficiaries of, 701 caseload for, 688 contributory, 679–80 noncontributory, 680–81 public opposition to, 687 state variation in benefits, 681–82
welfare reform, 98, 100 welfare state, 677–89
costs of, 684 foundations of, 679–83 history of social welfare system, 677–79 paying for, 683–87 size of, 685
Westboro Baptist Church, 123, 132–33 West Virginia, 2 West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette,
125 Whig Party, 361, 362
whip, 482, 499 a party member in the House or Senate responsible for coordinating the party’s legislative strategy, building support for key issues, and counting votes
white Americans as naturalized citizens, 16 party affiliation of, 356, 357 poverty rate for, 704 and racism, 218–19, 219 and Republican Party, 356 trust in government, 31
White House Communications Office, 535 Whitehouse.gov website, 535
White House staff, 530, 529, 537 analysts and advisers to the president, each of whom is often given the title “special assistant”
white nationalists, 208, 272, 298 WikiLeaks, 134, 283 Wikipedia, 288 Wilcox County, Alabama, 381 Wilson, Daren, 218 Wilson, James, 50, 52–53 Wilson, Woodrow, 166, 284, 300, 534 Windsor v. U.S., 83, 180 winner-take-all system, 340, 388 Wisconsin, 322, 326, 386, 479
Virginia Plan, 50 a framework for the Constitution, introduced by Edmund Randolph, that called for representation in the national legislature based on the population of each state
VMI (Virginia Military Institute), 182 Volcker, Paul, 650–51 Volkswagen diesel emissions scandal, 555 voter ID laws, 177, 324 voter mobilization, 343–44 voter registration
automatic, 295 same-day, 295, 324 state requirements, 324
voters demographics in 2016, 55, 355–58 election decision making by, 406–8 emotions of, 306
voting, 8, 294–96, 299–302, 310–19 in Congress, 493, 497 for congressional representatives, 507 in election of 2008, 29 in election of 2016, 29 formal barriers to, 326 by mail, 327 and political knowledge, 226 political participation through, 299–300 split-ticket, 358, 383 state electoral laws, 323–27, 325 straight-ticket, 383 turnout. See turnout
voting rights, 29, 175–77, 176, 299–300 for African Americans, 161, 163, 299–300,
313–14 Amendments regarding, 71 for felons, 326 Twenty-Sixth Amendment, 68 and voter turnout, 301 for women, 29, 161, 163, 164–66, 165,
300–301, 301 Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 29, 175–77,
176, 190–91, 300, 364, 381, 479, 480
VRA. See Voting Rights Act of 1965
W wage inequality, 183–84, 185, 703; see also
minimum wage Wagner, Kevin, 269, 270 Wagner, Marcella, 674–76, 675 Wagner-Steagall National Housing Act of 1937,
698 Wales, Jimmy, 288 Walker, Scott, 393 Wallace, George, 92 Wall Street Journal
digital subscriptions to, 263 online presence of, 261
Walters, Lee Ann, 550, 551 War on Poverty, 91 war on terror/terrorism, 232, 569–70, 719–20,
738 war power (president), 525–26, 543 War Powers Resolution, 525–26 Warren, Earl, 142, 600, 619–20
U.S. Court of Appeals, 599 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
597 U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, 597 U.S. Court of Federal Claims, 596–97 U.S. Court of International Trade, 596 U.S. Court of Military Appeals, 597 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 115 U.S. Public Health Service, 694 U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS), 694 USA Freedom Act, 570 USA PATRIOT Act, 102, 570 USCAP (U.S. Climate Action Partnership), 666 USMCA (United States–Mexico–Canada
Agreement), 721 USPHS (U.S. Public Health Service), 694 Utah, 98, 165–66, 188, 478
V Valdes, Jessica, 379
values (or beliefs) basic principles that shape a person’s opinions about political issues and events consensus on, 210, 212 in the Constitution, 69 defined, 207 democracy, 28–29 equality, 25–28 immigration and, 22–23 liberty, 24–25 political, 209–11
Van Ordern v. Perry, 125 Varnum v. Brien, 226 Verizon, 254–55, 259 Vermont, voting rights of felons in, 326 vesting clause (U.S. Constitution), 515, 522 Veterans Affairs, Department of, 552,
564, 573 Veterans Health Administration, 573
veto, 494, 519–21, 520, 520 the president’s constitutional power to turn down acts of Congress; a presidential veto may be overridden by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress
vice presidency, 531–32 video, streaming, 267, 273 Vietnam War, 284
deterrence policy, 719 domestic repercussions, 740 media coverage, 277 and New Deal coalition, 363 Pentagon Papers case, 133, 283, 284 and public interest groups, 447 secret presidential agreements, 503–4 shaping of political environment by, 224 and Twenty-Sixth Amendment, 68, 300 veterans with Agent Orange exposure, 565,
622–23 Vilarino, Irina, 451 Virginia, 82, 167, 208, 294–95, 326 Virginia, Karena, 412 Virginia League of Conservation Voters, 295 Virginia Military Institute (VMI), 182
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 117 17/11/18 3:58 PM
A118 GLOSSARY/ INDEX
writ of habeas corpus, 118, 597, 609 a court order that the individual in custody be brought into court and shown the cause for detention; habeas corpus is guaranteed by the Constitution and can be suspended only in cases of rebellion or invasion
WTO (World Trade Organization), 721 Wyoming, 136, 165–66
Y Yates, Robert, 50, 62 Yellen, Janet, 651 YouGov, 241 Young, Don, 481 youth vote, 295 YouTube, 267, 270, 312, 535
Z Zaller, John, 225–26 zero-based budgeting, 580 Zika virus outbreak, 694
working-class voters, 356, 414 working poor, social policy for, 702–3, 704 work requirements, for social policy programs,
689 Works Progress Administration (WPA), 89, 637 World Bank, 735, 736
World Trade Organization (WTO), 721 international organization promoting free trade that grew out of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
World War I, 718 World War II, 525, 533
civil rights following, 166–67 Defense Department in, 568 internment camps, 190, 569 isolationism in early years of, 718 Pearl Harbor, 718
WPA (Works Progress Administration), 89, 637 Wright, Gerald, 235
writ of certiorari, 611–12 a decision of at least four of the nine Supreme Court justices to review a decision of a lower court; certiorari is Latin, meaning “to make more certain”
Wolfowitz, Paul, 746 women
in abolitionist movement, 162, 163 civil rights for, 180–85, 185 in Congress, 472, 472, 473, 474, 476–77,
488, 488 in elective office, 317, 317 gender discrimination, 180–85 gender gap, 220, 222, 316–17 in military, 182–83, 183 and political opinion, 220, 222 political participation, 316–17 and private inequalities, 27 recruited for Congress, 476–77 social policy for, 704–6 in social reform, 161 Title IX, 182 voting rights for, 29, 161, 163, 164–66, 165,
300, 301 women’s issues partisanship, 317
Women’s Campaign, 317 Women’s Equity Action League (WEAL), 181 Women’s March, 297, 298 women’s organizations, 165–66 women’s rights movement, 162, 180–85 workers’ compensation, 677
wtp12e_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a87-a118.indd 118 17/11/18 3:58 PM
Voter Registration Information
State Registration Deadline before Election*
Early Voting Permitted?**
Identification Required to Vote?**
More Information
Alabama 14 days No Photo ID requested
alabamavotes.gov
Alaska 30 days Yes ID requested; photo not required
elections.alaska.gov
Arizona 29 days Yes ID required; photo not required
azsos.gov/election
Arkansas 30 days Yes Photo ID requested sos.arkansas.gov
California 15 days; election-day registration permitted
Yes No sos.ca.gov
Colorado 8 days by mail or online; no in-person deadline
Yes (all voting by mail)
ID requested; photo not required
sos.state.co.us
Connecticut 14 days by mail; 7 days in person; election-day registration permitted
No ID requested; photo not required
ct.gov/sots
Delaware 24 days No ID requested; photo not required
elections.delaware.gov
District of Columbia
30 days by mail or online; no in-person deadline
Yes No dcboee.org
Florida 29 days Yes Photo ID requested dos.myflorida.com/elections
Georgia 28 days Yes Photo ID required sos.ga.gov
Hawaii 30 days; no in-person deadline Yes Photo ID requested hawaii.gov/elections
Idaho 25 days; election-day registration permitted
Yes Photo ID requested idahovotes.gov
Illinois 27 days; 16 days online Yes No elections.il.gov
Indiana 29 days Yes Photo ID required in.gov/sos/elections
Iowa 10 days; election-day registration permitted
Yes Photo ID required sos.iowa.gov
Kansas 21 days Yes Photo ID required kssos.org
Kentucky 27 days No ID requested; photo not required
elect.ky.gov
Louisiana 30 days; 20 days online Yes Photo ID requested sos.la.gov
Maine 21 days by mail; no in-person deadline
Yes No maine.gov/sos
Maryland 21 days Yes No elections.state.md.us
Massachusetts 20 days No No www.sec.state.ma.us
Michigan 30 days No Photo ID requested michigan.gov/sos
Minnesota 21 days; election-day registration permitted
Yes No mnvotes.org
Mississippi 30 days No Photo ID required sos.ms.gov
Missouri Fourth Wednesday prior to election
No ID requested; photo not required
sos.mo.gov
Montana 30 days by mail; no in-person deadline
Yes ID requested; photo not required
sos.mt.gov
wtp12e_ptr_Endpapers-back.indd 2 11/14/18 1:18 PM
State Registration Deadline before Election*
Early Voting Permitted?**
Identification Required to Vote?**
More Information
Nebraska Third Friday prior to election by mail; second Friday prior to election in person
Yes No www.sos.ne.gov
Nevada 31 days by mail; 21 days in person
Yes No nvsos.gov
New Hampshire 10 days; election-day registration permitted
No ID requested; photo not required
sos.nh.gov
New Jersey 21 days Yes No njelections.org
New Mexico 28 days Yes No sos.state.nm.us
New York 25 days No No www.elections.ny.gov
North Carolina 25 days Yes No ncsbe.gov
North Dakota No voter registration required
Yes ID required; photo not required
vote.nd.gov
Ohio 30 days Yes ID required; photo not required
sos.state.oh.us
Oklahoma 24 days Yes ID requested; photo not required
ok.gov/elections
Oregon 21 days Yes (all voting by mail)
No sos.oregon.gov
Pennsylvania 30 days No No votespa.com
Rhode Island 30 days; election-day registration permitted
No Photo ID requested www.elections.state.ri.us
South Carolina 30 days No ID requested; photo not required
scvotes.org
South Dakota 15 days Yes Photo ID requested sdsos.gov
Tennessee 30 days Yes Photo ID required tn.gov/sos/election
Texas 30 days Yes Photo ID requested votetexas.gov
Utah 30 days by mail; 7 days in person; election-day registration permitted
Yes ID requested; photo not required
elections.utah.gov
Vermont Wednesday before the election; no in-person deadline
Yes No www.sec.state.vt.us/elections
Virginia 22 days Yes Photo ID required sbe.virginia.gov
Washington 30 days by mail and online; 8 days in person
Yes (all voting by mail)
ID requested; photo not required
sos.wa.gov/elections/
West Virginia 21 days Yes ID requested; photo not required
sos.wv.gov
Wisconsin 20 days by mail; election- day registration permitted
Yes Photo ID required www.sos.state.wi.us
Wyoming 14 days; election-day registration permitted
Yes No soswy.state.wy.us
* Information collected from Project Vote Smart, votesmart.org/elections/voter-registration (accessed 11/1/18). ** Information collected from National Conference of State Legislatures, www.ncsl.org (accessed 11/1/18). In states where an ID is “requested,” voters who do not bring ID to the polls may be required to sign an affidavit of identity, vote on a provisional ballot, have a poll worker vouch for their identity, or take additional steps after Election Day to make sure their vote is counted. Note: In November 2018, Arkansas and North Carolina passed ballot measures requiring a photo ID to vote. Michigan passed ballot measures to implement same-day and automatic voter registration.
wtp12e_ptr_Endpapers-back.indd 3 11/14/18 1:18 PM
- Cover (We the People 12E)
- 116th Congressional Map
- United States Senate Map
- Front Matter
- Title Page
- Copyright
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Part I Foundations
- 1 American Political Culture
- Government
- Is Government Needed?
- Forms of Government
- Limiting Government
- Access to Government: The Expansion of Participation
- Influencing the Government through Participation: Politics
- Citizenship: Participation, Knowledge, and Efficiency
- Who Are Americans?
- Immigration and Ethnic Diversity
- Who Are Americans? An Increasingly Diverse Nation
- Immigration and Race
- Twenty-First-Century Americans
- America Side By Side Global Diversity
- American Political Culture
- Liberty
- Equality
- Democracy
- What Americans Think about Government
- Conservative in Theory, Liberal in Practice
- Trust in Government
- American Political Culture: What Do We Want?
- Who Participates? Who Voted In 2016?
- Study Guide
- For Further Reading
- Recommended Websites
- 2 The Founding and the Constitution
- The First Founding: Interests and Conflicts
- British Taxes and Colonial Interests
- Political Strife and the Radicalization of the Colonists
- The Declaration of Independence
- The Articles of Confederation
- The Second Founding: From Compromise to Constitution
- The Annapolis Convention
- Shays’s Rebellion
- The Constitutional Convention
- Who Are Americans? Who Benefits From The Great Compromise?
- The Constitution
- The Legislative Branch
- The Executive Branch
- The Judicial Branch
- National Unity and Power
- Amending and Ratifying the Constitution
- Constitutional Limits on the National Government’s Power
- The Fight for Ratification
- America Side By Side Comparing Systems Of Government
- Federalists versus Antifederalists
- Reflections on the Founding
- The Citizen’s Role and the Changing Constitution
- Amendments: Many Are Called; Few Are Chosen
- Which Were Chosen? An Analysis of the 27
- The Supreme Court and Constitutional Change
- The Constitution: What Do We Want?
- Who Participates? Who Gained the Right to Vote through Amendments?
- Study Guide
- For Further Reading
- Recommended Websites
- 3 Federalism
- Federalism in the Constitution
- The Powers of the National Government
- The Powers of State Government
- States’ Obligations to One Another
- Local Government and the Constitution
- Federalism in Practice
- The Traditional System of Federalism
- Restraining National Power with Dual Federalism
- Federalism and the Slow Growth of the National Government’s Power
- Federalism in the Modern Era
- The New Deal and World War II: New Roles for Government
- From Layer Cake to Marble Cake: Cooperative Federalism and the Use of Categorical Grants
- National Standards, Regulation, and Preemption
- Evolving Role of the States
- States’ Rights
- Devolution
- America Side By Side Cooperative Federalism: Competition or a Check on Power?
- Devolution: For Whose Benefit?
- The Politics of Federalism Today
- Expediency versus Ideology in Federalism
- Who Are Americans? Who Benefits from Federal Spending?
- Polarization and National Gridlock: States Step In
- State-Federal Tug of War
- State Preemption of Local Government Policy
- Federalism: What Do We Want?
- Who Participates? Who Participates in State and Local Politics?
- Study Guide
- For Further Reading
- Recommended Websites
- 4 Civil Liberties
- Civil Liberties and the Constitution
- A Brief History of the Bill of Rights
- Nationalizing the Bill of Rights
- The First Amendment and Freedom of Religion
- Separation between Church and State
- Free Exercise of Religion
- The First Amendment and Freedom of Speech and of the Press
- Political Speech
- Fighting Words and Hate Speech
- Student Speech
- Commercial Speech
- Symbolic Speech, Speech Plus, and the Rights of Assembly and Petition
- Freedom of the Press
- The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms
- Rights of the Criminally Accused
- The Fourth Amendment and Searches and Seizures
- The Fifth Amendment
- The Sixth Amendment and the Right to Counsel
- The Eighth Amendment and Cruel and Unusual Punishment
- The Right to Privacy
- Birth Control
- Who Are Americans? Who is in Prison?
- Abortion
- Sexual Orientation
- The Right to Die
- America Side By Side Civil Liberties Around the World
- Civil Liberties: What Do We Want?
- Who Participates? Religious Affiliation and Freedom of Religion
- Study Guide
- For Further Reading
- Recommended Websites
- 5 Civil Rights
- The Struggle for Civil Rights
- Slavery and the Abolitionist Movement
- The Women’s Rights Movement
- The Civil War Amendments to the Constitution
- Civil Rights and the Supreme Court: “Separate but Equal
- Organizing for Equality
- Litigating for Equality after World War II
- Civil Rights after Brown v. Board of Education
- The Civil Rights Acts
- Extending Civil Rights
- Levels of Scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause
- Women and Gender Discrimination
- Latinos
- Who Are Americans? Have Women Achieved Equal Rights?
- Asian Americans
- Native Americans
- Disabled Americans
- LGBTQ Americans
- Do the Poor Have Civil Rights?
- America Side By Side Women’s Rights
- Affirmative Action
- The Supreme Court and the Burden of Proof
- Civil Rights: What Do We Want?
- Who Participates? Who Has Fought for Their Rights?
- Study Guide
- For Further Reading
- Recommended Websites
- Part II Politics
- 6 Public Opinion
- Defining Public Opinion
- Political Values
- Political Ideology
- How We Form Political Opinions
- Political Socialization
- Social Groups and Public Opinion
- Political Knowledge and Changes in Public Opinion
- Stability and Change of Public Opinion
- Political Knowledge
- Who Are Americans? Where Does Income Inequality Stem From?
- The Media, Government, and Public Opinion
- Political Leaders
- Interest Groups
- The Mass Media
- Public Opinion and Government Policy
- Government Responsiveness to Public Opinion
- Does Everyone’s Opinion Count Equally?
- Measuring Public Opinion
- Measuring Public Opinion from Surveys
- America Side By Side Confidence in Democratic Institutions
- When Polls Are Wrong
- Big Data, Polling Aggregators, and Measuring Public Opinion
- Public Opinion and Democracy: What Do We Want?
- Who Participates? Who Expresses Their Political Opinions?
- Study Guide
- For Further Reading
- Recommended Websites
- 7 The Media
- The Media in American Democracy
- Journalism
- The Profit Motive
- Mass Media Ownership
- The Media Today
- Newspapers
- Broadcast Media
- Radio
- Digital Media
- Citizen Journalism
- Nonprofit Journalism
- Benefits of Online News
- Concerns about Online News
- Do Americans Trust the Media Today?
- Media Influence
- How the Media Influence Politics
- Who Are Americans? Where Do Americans Get Their News?
- News Coverage
- Media Leaks
- Adversarial Journalism
- Regulation of the Media
- America Side By Side The Internet and Global Democracy
- The Media and Democracy: What Do We Want?
- Who Participates? Civic Engagement in the Digital Age
- Study Guide
- For Further Reading
- Recommended Websites
- 8 Political Participation and Voting
- Forms of Political Participation
- Traditional Political Participation
- Digital Political Participation
- America Side By Side Voter Turnout in Comparison
- The Dark Side of Digital Politics: Russian Voter Suppression and Mobilization
- Summing Up Digital Participation
- Who Participates?
- Socioeconomic Status
- Age and Participation
- African Americans
- Latinos
- Asian Americans
- Gender and Participation
- Religious Identity
- Political Environment and Voter Mobilization
- Mobilization
- Data Analytics and Voter Mobilization
- Electoral Competition
- Ballot Measures
- State Electoral Laws and Participation
- Registration Requirements
- Who Are Americans? Which States Make Voting Easier?
- Voting Rights of Felons
- Voting and Registration Reforms
- Political Participation: What Do We Want?
- Who Participates? Who Participated in the 2016 Presidential Election?
- Study Guide
- For Further Reading
- Recommended Websites
- 9 Political Parties
- What Are Political Parties?
- How Do Political Parties Form and Change?
- The United States’ Two-Party System
- What Political Parties Do
- Parties, Voter Mobilization, and Elections
- America Side By Side Two-party Systems and Multi-party Systems
- Recruiting Candidates
- Party Nominations and Primaries
- General Election and Mobilizing Voters
- Parties as Organizations
- National Convention
- National Committees
- Congressional, State, and Local Campaign Committees
- Parties in Government
- Parties and Policy
- Partisanship and Government Shutdowns
- Factions within the Parties
- Parties in Congress
- Party Identification
- Who Are Republicans and Democrats?
- Recent Trends in Party Affiliation
- Who Are Americans? Who Identifies with Which Party?
- Party Systems
- The First Party System: Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans
- The Second Party System: Democrats and Whigs
- The Civil War and Post–Civil War Party System
- The System of 1896: Populism and Republican Responses
- The New Deal Party System: Government Helps the Working Class
- The Contemporary American Party System
- Party Polarization
- Third Parties
- Political Parties: What Do We Want?
- Who Participates? Who Votes in Primaries and Caucuses?
- Study Guide
- For Further Reading
- Recommended Websites
- 10 Campaigns and Elections
- Elections in America
- The Basic Rules of the Game for U.S. Elections
- What It Takes to Win—Winner Take All
- The Ballot
- Legislative Elections and Electoral Districts
- Presidential Elections
- Direct-Democracy Elections
- Election Campaigns
- Campaign Consultants
- Fundraising
- Campaign Strategy
- Money and Politics
- The Courts and Campaign Spending
- Sources of Campaign Funds
- America Side By Side Campaign Laws in Comparison
- How Voters Decide
- Partisan Loyalty
- Issues and Policy Preferences
- Candidate Characteristics
- The 2016 and 2018 Elections
- The 2016 Presidential Nomination
- The General Election
- Understanding the 2016 Results
- Who are Americans? Who Supported Trump in 2016?
- The 2018 Election: A Blue Wave Meets a Red Wall
- The 2018 Election and America’s Future
- Campaigns and Elections: What Do We Want?
- Who Participates? Who Donates to Political Campaigns?
- Study Guide
- For Further Reading
- Recommended Websites
- 11 Groups and Interests
- Defining Interest Groups
- Common Types of Interest Groups
- America Side By Side Civil Society Around the World
- What Interests Are Not Represented?
- How Groups Organize
- The “Free-Rider” Problem
- Why Join Groups?
- Digital Communication and Interest Groups
- Approaches to Interest Group Membership: Two Case Studies
- The Growth of Interest and Advocacy Groups
- The Expansion of Government
- Growth of Public Interest Groups in the 1960s and ’70s
- Interest Group Strategies
- Direct Lobbying
- Regulating Lobbying
- Using the Courts
- Mobilizing Public Opinion
- Using Electoral Politics
- Who Are Americans? Who is Represented by Pacs?
- Interest Groups: What Do We Want?
- Who Participates? How Much Do Major Groups Spend?
- Study Guide
- For Further Reading
- Recommended Websites
- Part III Institutions
- 12 Congress
- Congress: Representing the American People
- House and Senate: Differences in Representation
- Trustee versus Delegate Representation
- Sociological versus Agency Representation
- Who Are Americans? Who Are the Members of Congress?
- The Electoral Connection
- Direct Patronage
- The Organization of Congress
- Party Leadership in the House
- Party Leadership in the Senate
- The Committee System
- The Staff System: Staffers and Agencies
- America Side By Side Women’s Parliamentary Representation Worldwide
- Informal Organization: The Caucuses
- Rules of Lawmaking: How a Bill Becomes a Law
- Committee Deliberation
- Debate
- Conference Committee: Reconciling House and Senate Versions of Legislation
- Presidential Action
- How Congress Decides
- Constituency
- Interest Groups
- Party
- When Congress Can’t Decide
- Beyond Legislation: Other Congressional Powers
- Oversight
- Advice and Consent: Special Senate Powers
- Impeachment
- Congress: What Do We Want?
- Who Participates? Who Elects Congress?
- Study Guide
- For Further Reading
- Recommended Websites
- 13 The Presidency
- The Constitutional Powers of the Presidency
- Expressed Powers
- Implied Powers
- Delegated Powers
- America Side By Side Executive Branches in Comparison
- Inherent Powers
- Who Are Americans? Who Are America’s Presidents?
- The Presidency as an Institution
- The Cabinet
- The White House Staff
- The Executive Office of the President
- The Vice Presidency
- The First Spouse
- The Contemporary Bases of Presidential Power
- Going Public
- The Administrative Strategy
- The Limits of Presidential Power: Checks and Balances
- Presidential Power: What Do We Want?
- Who Participates? Who Voted for Donald Trump in 2016?
- Study Guide
- For Further Reading
- Recommended Websites
- 14 Bureaucracy in a Democracy
- Bureaucracy and Bureaucrats
- What Bureaucrats Do
- Who Are Beaurocrats?
- Who Are Americans? Who Are “Bureaucrats”?
- The Organization of the Executive Branch
- America Side By Side Bureaucracy in Comparison
- Goals of the Federal Bureaucracy
- Promoting Public Well-Being
- Providing National Security
- Maintaining a Strong Economy
- Can the Bureaucracy Be Reformed?
- Eliminating Programs and Agencies
- Devolution
- Privatization and Contracting Out
- Managing the Bureaucracy
- The President as Chief Executive
- Congressional Oversight
- Bureaucracy: What Do We Want?
- Who Participates? Waiting for a Veterans Affairs Health Care Appointment
- Study Guide
- For Further Reading
- Recommended Websites
- 15 The Federal Courts
- The Legal System
- Cases and the Law
- Types of Courts
- Federal Courts
- Federal Trial Courts
- Federal Appellate Courts
- The Supreme Court
- How Judges Are Appointed
- Who Are Americans? Who Are Federal Judges?
- The Power of the Supreme Court: Judicial Review
- Judicial Review of Acts of Congress
- Judicial Review of State Actions
- America Side By Side Term Limits for High Court Justices
- Judicial Review of Federal Agency Actions
- Judicial Review and Presidential Power
- Judicial Review and Lawmaking
- The Supreme Court in Action
- Controlling the Flow of Cases
- Lobbying for Access: Interests and the Court
- The Supreme Court’s Procedures
- Explaining Supreme Court Decisions
- Influences on Supreme Court Decision-Making
- Judicial Power and Politics
- The Federal Judiciary: What Do We Want?
- Who Participates? Influencing the Supreme Court?
- Study Guide
- For Further Reading
- Recommended Websites
- Part IV Policy
- 16 Government and the Economy
- The Goals of Economic Policy
- Promoting Stable Markets
- Promoting Economic Prosperity
- Promoting Business Development
- Protecting Employees and Consumers
- The Politics of Economic Policy Making
- How Much Should the Government Intervene in the Economy?
- Organized Interests and the Politics of Economic Policy
- Who Are Americans? Who Earns the Minimum Wage?
- Politics and the Great Recession of 2008
- The Tools of Economic Policy
- Monetary Policies
- Fiscal Policies
- America Side By Side Tax Rates Around the World
- Regulation and Antitrust Policy
- Subsidies and Contracting
- The Environment and the Economy
- The Debate on Climate Change
- Environmental Policies
- Economic Policy: What Do We Want?
- Who Participates? Who Pays Taxes?
- Study Guide
- For Further Reading
- Recommended Websites
- 17 Social Policy
- The Welfare State
- The History of the Social Welfare System
- Foundations of the Welfare State
- How Do We Pay for the Welfare State?
- Opening Opportunity
- Education Policies
- America Side By Side U.S. Health Care: High Cost, Poor Outcomes
- Health Policies
- Housing Policies
- Who Gets What from Social Policy?
- The Elderly
- Who Are Americans? Who Benefits from Social Programs?
- The Middle and Upper Classes
- The Working Poor
- The Nonworking Poor
- Minorities, Women, and Children
- The Policymaking Process
- Social Policy: What Do We Want?
- Who Participates? Growing Student Debt Burden
- Study Guide
- For Further Reading
- Recommended Websites
- 18 Foreign Policy and Democracy
- The Goals of Foreign Policy
- Security
- Economic Prosperity
- Human Rights
- Who Makes American Foreign Policy?
- Presidents and the Executive Branch
- America Side By Side Building Influence through International Connections
- Congress
- Interest Groups
- The Instruments of Modern American Foreign Policy
- Diplomacy
- The United Nations
- The International Monetary Structure
- Economic Aid and Sanctions
- Collective Security
- Military Force
- Who Are Americans? Who Serves in the U.S. Military?
- Soft Power
- Arbitration
- Current Foreign Policy Issues Facing the United States
- A Powerful China and a Resurgent Russia
- Nuclear Proliferation in Iran and North Korea
- Trade Policy
- Global Environmental Policy
- Foreign Policy: What Do We Want?
- Who Participates? Public Opinion on Security Issues
- Study Guide
- For Further Reading
- Recommended Websites
- Appendix
- The Declaration of Independence
- The Articles of Confederation
- The Constitution of the United States of America
- Amendments to the Constitution
- The Federalist Papers
- The Anti-Federalist Papers
- Presidents and Vice Presidents
- Endnotes
- Answer Key
- Credits
- Glossary/Index
- Voter Registration Information pg. 1
- Voter Registration Information pg. 2
