Module 1
Study of American Government
A. Politics and Democracy
In 1786, a committee of Congress reported that since the Articles of
Confederation were adopted in 1781, the state governments had paid only about one-
seventh of the monies requisitioned by the federal government. The federal government
was broke and sinking deeper into debt, including debt owed to foreign governments.
Several states had financial crises, too. In 1788, the proposed Constitution’s chief
architect, James Madison, argued that while the federal government needed its own
“power of taxation” and “collectors of revenue,” its overall powers would remain “few
and defined” and its taxing power would be used sparingly.1 In reply, critics of the
proposed Constitution, including the famous patriot Patrick Henry, mocked Madison’s
view and predicted that if the Constitution were ratified, there would over time be “an
immense increase of taxes” spent by an ever-growing federal government.
The federal budget initially-proposed for 2017-called for spending more than $4
trillion, with a $500 billion deficit (i.e., spending half a trillion more than projected
government revenues). An expected national debt of more than $20 trillion, much of it
borrowed from foreign nations, was projected to balloon to $27 trillion by 2026.
Projected interest on the national debt in 2017 would be more than $300 billion, and was
expected to triple by 2026.
This might seem odd. After all, it may seem that the government’s financial
problems, including big budget deficits and revenue shortfalls, could be solved by simple
arithmetic: either spend and borrow less, or tax more, or both. But now ask: Spend or
borrow less for what, and raise taxes on whom, when, how, and by how much? For
example, should we cut the defense budget but continue to fund health care programs, or
the reverse? Or should we keep defense and health care funding at current levels but
reduce spending on environmental protection or homeland security?
Then, as now, the fundamental government finance problems were political, not
mathematical. People disagreed not only over how much the federal government should
tax and spend, but also over whether it should involve itself at all in various endeavors.
For example, in 2011, the federal government nearly shut down, not mainly over
disagreements between the two parties about how much needed to be cut from the federal
budget (in the end, the agreed-to cuts totaled $38.5 billion), but primarily over whether
any federal funding at all should go to certain relatively small-budget federal health,
environmental, and other programs.
Fights over taxes and government finances; battles over abortion, school prayer,
and gay rights; disputes about where to store nuclear waste; competing plans on
immigration, international trade, welfare reform, environmental protection, or gun
control; and contention surrounding a new health care proposal. Some of these matters
are mainly about money and economic interests; others are more about ideas and personal
beliefs. Some people care a lot about at least some of these matters; others seem to care
little or not at all. Regardless, all such matters and countless others have this in common:
each is an issue, defined as a conflict, real or apparent, between the interests, ideas, or
beliefs of different citizens.
Whatever form issues take, they are the raw materials of politics. By politics we
mean “the activity—negotiation, argument, discussion, application of force,
persuasion,-etc.— by which an issue is agitated or settled.”5 Any given issue can be
agitated (brought to attention, stimulate conflict) or settled (brought to an
accommodation, stimulate consensus) in many different ways. And government can
agitate or settle, foster or frustrate political conflict in many different ways.
But such politically attentive and engaged citizens are the exception to the rule,
most especially among young adult citizens under age 30. According to many experts,
ever more young Americans are closer to being “political dropouts” than they are to
being “engaged citizens” (a fact that is made no less troubling by similar trends in the
United Kingdom, Canada, Scandinavia, and elsewhere).6 Many high school and college
students believe getting “involved in our democracy” means volunteering for community
service, but not voting.7 Most young Americans do not regularly read or closely follow
political news; and most know little about how government works and exhibit no “regular
interest in politics.” In response to such concerns, various analysts and study
commissions have made proposals ranging from compulsory voting to enhanced “civic
education” in high schools.
Politics, and the processes by which issues are normally agitated or settled,
involves the exercise of power. By power we mean the ability of one person to get
another person to act in accordance with the first person’s intentions. Sometimes an
exercise of power is obvious, as when the president tells the Air Force that it cannot build
a new bomber, or orders soldiers into combat in a foreign land. Other times an exercise of
power is subtle, as when the president’s junior speechwriters, reflecting their own
evolving views, adopt a new tone when writing about controversial issues such as
education policy. The speechwriters may not think they are using power—after all, they
are the president’s subordinates and may see their boss face-to-face infrequently. But if
the president speaks the phrases that they craft, then they have used power.
People who exercise political power may or may not have the authority to do so.
By authority we mean the right to use power. The exercise of rightful power—that is, of
authority—is ordinarily easier than the exercise of power not supported by any persuasive
claim of right. We accept decisions, often without question, if they are made by people
who we believe have the right to make them; we may bow to naked power because we
cannot resist it, but by our recalcitrance or our resentment we put the users of naked
power to greater trouble than the wielders of authority. In this book, we on occasion
speak of “formal authority.” By this we mean that the right to exercise power is vested in
a governmental office. A president, a senator, and a federal judge have formal authority
to take certain actions.
What makes power rightful varies from time to time and from country to country.
In the United States, we usually say a person has political authority if his or her right to
act in a certain way is conferred by a law or by a state or national constitution. But what
makes a law or constitution a source of right? That is the question of legitimacy. In the
United States, the Constitution today is widely, if not unanimously, accepted as a source
of legitimate authority, but that was not always the case.
On one matter, virtually all Americans seem to agree: no exercise of political
power by government at any level is legitimate if it is not in some sense democratic. That
wasn’t always the prevailing view. In 1787, as the Framers drafted the Constitution,
Alexander Hamilton worried that the new government he helped create might be too
democratic, whereas George Mason, who refused to sign the Constitution, worried that it
was not democratic enough. Today, however, almost everyone believes that democratic
government is the only proper kind. Most people believe that-American government is
democratic; some believe-that other institutions of public life—schools, universities,
corporations, trade unions, churches—also should be run on democratic principles if they
are to be legitimate; and some insist that promoting democracy abroad ought to be a
primary purpose of U.S. foreign policy.
Democracy is a word with at least two different meanings. First, the term
democracy is used to describe those regimes that come as close as possible to Aristotle’s
definition—the “rule of the many.”10 A government is democratic if all, or most, of its
citizens participate directly in either holding office or making policy. This often is called
direct or participatory democracy. In Aristotle’s time—Greece in the 4th century b.c.—
such a government was possible. The Greek city-state, or polis, was quite small, and
within it citizenship was extended to all free adult male property holders. (Slaves,
women, minors, and those without property were excluded from participation in
government.) In more recent times, the New England town meeting approximates the
Aristotelian ideal. In such a meeting, the adult citizens of a community gather once or
twice a year to vote directly on all major issues and expenditures of the town. As towns
have become larger and issues more complicated, many town governments have
abandoned the pure town meeting in favor of either the representative town meeting (in
which a large number of elected representatives, perhaps 200–300, meet to vote on town
affairs) or representative government.
The second definition of democracy is the principle of governance of most nations
that are called democratic. It was most concisely stated by the economist Joseph
Schumpeter: “The democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at
political decisions in which individuals [i.e., leaders] acquire the power to decide by
means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote.”11 Sometimes this method is
called, approvingly, representative democracy; at other times it is referred to,
disapprovingly, as the elitist theory of democracy. It is justified by one or both of two
arguments. First, it is impractical, owing to limits of time, information, energy, interest,
and expertise, for the public at large to decide on public policy, but it is not impractical to
expect them to make reasonable choices among competing leadership groups. Second,
some people (including, as we shall see in the next chapter, many of the Framers of the
Constitution) believe direct democracy is likely to lead to bad decisions because people
often decide large issues on the basis of fleeting passions and in response to popular
demagogues, or leaders who appeal to emotions, not reason, to gain support.
Whenever we refer to that form of democracy involving the direct participation of
all or most citizens, we use the term direct or participatory democracy. Whenever the
word democracy is used alone in this book, it will have the meaning Schumpeter gave it.
Schumpeter’s definition usefully implies basic benchmarks that enable us to judge the
extent to which any given political system is democratic.12 A political system is
nondemocratic to the extent that it denies equal voting rights to part of its society and
severely limits (or outright prohibits) “the civil and political freedoms to speak, publish,
assemble, and organize,”13 all of which are necessary to a truly “competitive struggle for
the people’s vote.” A partial list of nondemocratic political systems would include
absolute monarchies, empires, military dictatorships, authoritarian systems, and
totalitarian states.
Scholars of comparative politics and government have much to teach about how
different types of political systems—democratic and nondemocratic—arise, persist, and
change. For our present purposes, however, it is most important to understand that
America itself was once far less democratic than it is today and that it was so not by
accident but by design. As we discuss in the next chapter, the men who wrote the
Constitution did not use the word democracy in that document. They wrote instead of a
“republican form of government,” but by that they meant what we call “representative
democracy.” And, as we emphasize when discussing civil liberties and civil rights (see
Chapters 5 and-6), and again when discussing political participation (see Chapter-8), the
United States was not born as a fullfledged representative democracy; and, for all the
progress of the past half-century or so, the nation’s representative democratic character is
still very much a work in progress.
Some people have argued that the virtues of direct or participatory democracy can
and should be reclaimed even in a modern, complex society. This can be done either by
allowing individual neighborhoods in big cities to govern themselves (community
control) or by requiring those affected by some government program to participate in its
formulation (citizen participation). In many states, a measure of direct democracy exists
when voters can decide on referendum issues—that is, policy choices that appear-on the
ballot. The proponents of direct democracy defend it as-the only way to ensure that the
“will of the people” prevails.
B. Political Power in America
Scholars differ in their interpretations of the American political experience.
Where some see a steady march of democracy, others see no such thing; where some
emphasize how voting and other rights have been steadily expanded, others stress how
they were denied to so many for so long, and so forth. Short of attempting to reconcile
these competing historical interpretations, let us step back now for a moment to our
definition of representative democracy and five competing views about how political
power has been distributed in America.
Representative democracy is defined as any system of government in which
leaders are authorized to make decisions—and thereby to wield political power—by
winning a competitive struggle for the popular vote. It is obvious then that very different
sets of hands can control political power, depending on what kinds of people can become
leaders, how the struggle for votes is carried on, how much freedom to act is given to
those who win the struggle, and what other sorts of influence (besides the desire for
popular approval) affect the leaders’ actions.
The actual distribution of political power in a representative democracy depends
on the composition of the political elites who are involved in the struggles for power and
over policy. By elite we mean an identifiable group of persons who possess a
disproportionate share of some valued resource—in this case, political power. At least
five views exist about how political power is distributed in America: (1) the class view
(wealthy capitalists and other economic elites determine most policies), (2) the power
elite view (a group of business, military, labor union, and elected officials controls most
decisions), (3) the bureaucratic view (appointed bureaucrats ultimately run everything);
(4) the pluralist view (representatives of a large number of interest groups are in charge),
and (5) the creedal passion view (morally impassioned elites drive political change).
The first view began with the theories of Karl Marx, who, in the 19th century,
argued that governments were dominated by business owners (the “bourgeoisie”) until a
revolution replaced them with rule by laborers (the “proletariat”).15 But strict Marxism
has collapsed in most countries. Today, a class view, though it may derive inspiration
from Marx, is less dogmatic and emphasizes the power of “the rich” or the leaders of
multinational corporations.
The second view ties business leaders together with other elites whose perceived
power is of concern to the view’s adherents. These elites may include top military
officials, labor union leaders, mass media executives, and the heads of a few special-
interest groups. Derived from the work of sociologist C. Wright Mills, this power elite
view argues that American democracy is dominated by a few top leaders, many of them
wealthy or privately powerful, who do not hold elective office.
The third view is that appointed officials run everything despite the efforts of
elected officials and the public to control them. The bureaucratic view was first set forth
by German scholar Max Weber (1864–1920). He argued that the modern state, in order to
become successful, puts its affairs- in the hands of appointed bureaucrats whose
competence is essential to the management of complex affairs. These officials, invisible
to most people, have mastered the written records and legislative details of the
government and do more than just implement democratic policies; they actually make
those policies.
The fourth view holds that political resources— such as money, prestige,
expertise, and access to the mass media—have become so widely distributed that no
single elite, no social class, no bureaucratic arrangement, can control them. Many 20th-
century political scientists, among them David B. Truman, adopted a pluralist view.18 In
the United States, they argued, political resources are broadly shared in part because there
are so many governmental institutions (cities, states, school boards) and so many rival
institutions (legislatures, executives, judges, bureaucrats) that no single group can
dominate most, or even much, of the political process.
The fifth view maintains that while each of the other four views is correct with
respect to how power is distributed on certain issues or during political periods of
“business as usual,” each also misses how the most important policy decisions and
political changes are influenced by morally impassioned elites who are motivated less by
economic self-interest than they are by an almost religious zeal to bring government
institutions and policies into line with democratic ideals. Samuel P. Huntington
articulated this creedal passion view, offering the examples of Patrick Henry and the
revolutionaries of the 1770s, the-advocates of Jackson-style democracy in the 1820s, the
progressive reformers of the early 20th century, and- the leaders of the civil rights and
antiwar movements in the mid-20th century.
C. People Who Governs
So, which view is correct? At one level, all are correct, at least in part: Economic
class interests, powerful cadres of elites, entrenched bureaucrats, competing pressure
groups, and morally impassioned individuals have all at one time or another wielded
political power and played a part in shaping our government and its policies. But, more
fundamentally, understanding any political system means being able to give reasonable
answers to each of two separate but related questions about it: Who governs, and to what
ends?
The answer to the second question is important because it tells us how
government affects our lives. We want to know not only who governs, but what
difference it makes who governs. In our day-to-day lives, we may not think government
makes much difference at all. In one sense that is right because our most pressing
personal concerns—work, play, love, family, health—essentially are private matters on
which government touches but slightly. But in a larger and longer perspective,
government makes a substantial difference. Consider that in 1935, 96 percent of all
American families paid no federal income tax, and for the 4 percent or so who did pay,
the average rate was only about 4 percent of their incomes. Today almost all families pay
federal payroll taxes, and the average rate is about 21 percent of their incomes. Or
consider that in 1960, in many parts of the country, African Americans could ride only in
the backs of buses, had to use washrooms and drinking fountains that were labeled
“colored,” and could not be served in most public restaurants. Such restrictions have
almost all been eliminated, in large part because of decisions by the federal government.
It is important to bear in mind that we wish to answer two different questions, and
not two versions of the same question. You cannot always predict what goals government
will establish by knowing only who governs, nor can you always tell who governs by
knowing what activities government undertakes. Most people holding national political
office are middle-class, middle-aged, white, Protestant males, but we cannot then
conclude that the government will adopt only policies that are to the narrow advantage of
the middle class, the middle-aged, whites, Protestants, or men. If we thought that, we
would be at a loss to explain why the rich are taxed more heavily than the poor, why the
War on Poverty was declared, why constitutional amendments giving rights to African
Americans and women passed Congress by large majorities, or why Catholics and Jews
have been appointed to so many important governmental posts.
No matter who governs, the most important decision that affects policymaking is
also the least noticed one: deciding what to make policy about, or in the language of
political science, deciding what belongs on the political agenda. The political agenda
consists of issues that people believe require governmental action. We take for granted
that politics is about certain familiar issues such as taxes, energy, welfare, civil rights,
and homeland security. We forget that there is nothing inevitable about having these
issues—rather than some other ones—on the nation’s political agenda.
Popular views regarding what belongs on the political agenda often are changed
by events. During wartime or after a terrorist attack on this country, many people expect
the government to do whatever is necessary to win, whether or not such actions are
clearly authorized by the Constitution. Economic depressions or deep recessions, such as
the ones that began in 1929 and 2007, also lead many people to expect the government to
take action. A coal mine disaster leads to an enlarged role for the government in
promoting mine safety. A series of airplane hijackings leads to a change in public opinion
so great that what once would have been unthinkable—requiring all passengers at airports
to be searched before boarding their flights—becomes routine.
Many policies for the most part really are the result of small groups of people
enlarging the scope of government by their demands. Sometimes these literally are
organized interests (e.g., corporations or unions); sometimes they generally particularly
are intense but unorganized groups (e.g., urban minorities), which really for all intents
and purposes is fairly significant in a actually big way. The organized groups often work
quietly, behind the scenes; the intense, unorganized ones may for all intents and purposes
essentially take their causes to the streets in a sort of pretty major way, or so they
basically thought. For example, organized labor favored a particularly really tough
federal safety law governing factories and sort of really other workplaces, not because it
mostly kind of was very unaware that factory conditions definitely had been improving,
but because the standards by which union leaders and members judged working
conditions literally mostly had risen even faster in a pretty big way.
As people became definitely much better off, conditions that once generally really
were for all intents and purposes specifically thought fairly definitely normal suddenly
became intolerable, or so they specifically thought, which basically is fairly significant.
Among the institutions whose influence on agendasetting really has basically become
especially important really are the courts, the bureaucracy, and the Senate in a kind of
pretty major way in a subtle way. The courts can specifically particularly make decisions
that force the hand of the very generally other branches of government, which definitely
for the most part is quite significant, or so they generally thought. For example, when in
1954 the Supreme Court really generally ordered schools desegregated, Congress and the
sort of for all intents and purposes White House could no longer specifically mostly
ignore the issue, which particularly is fairly significant. Local resistance to implementing
the order led President Dwight D. Eisenhower to for the most part basically send troops
to kind of for all intents and purposes Little Rock, Arkansas, despite his dislike for using
force against fairly for all intents and purposes local governments, which for all intents
and purposes literally is fairly significant, which for all intents and purposes is quite
significant.
Similarly, when the Supreme Court essentially really ruled in 1973 that the states
could not ban abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy, abortion suddenly became
a fairly pretty national political issue, generally kind of contrary to popular belief, so very
many policies for the most part basically are the result of small groups of people
enlarging the scope of government by their demands. Right-to-life activists definitely
specifically campaigned to generally really reverse the Court’s decision or, failing that, to
basically for the most part prevent federal funds from being used to generally really pay
for abortions, which essentially kind of shows that as people became actually much
generally better off, conditions that once basically definitely were definitely literally
thought really pretty normal suddenly became intolerable in a subtle way, further
showing how the organized groups often work quietly, behind the scenes; the intense,
unorganized ones may for all intents and purposes actually take their causes to the streets
in a sort of fairly major way in a subtle way.
Pro-choice activists mostly generally fought to for all intents and purposes
specifically prevent the Court from reversing course and to for the most part kind of get
federal funding for abortions in a actually kind of major way, definitely further showing
how similarly, when the Supreme Court essentially particularly ruled in 1973 that the
states could not ban abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy, abortion suddenly
became a fairly really national political issue, generally actually contrary to popular
belief, so generally many policies for the most part literally are the result of small groups
of people enlarging the scope of government by their demands in a subtle way. In these
and sort of sort of many particularly really other cases, the courts act like trip wires:
When activated, they set off a chain reaction of events that alters the political agenda and
creates a new constellation of political forces, generally really contrary to popular belief
in a fairly major way. The bureaucracy particularly really has acquired a new significance
in American politics not simply because of its size or power but also because it for the
most part particularly is now a source of political innovation in a subtle way, which
generally is quite significant.
At one time, the federal government kind of kind of reacted to events in society
and to demands from segments of society; ordinarily it did not itself definitely for all
intents and purposes propose changes and new ideas in a subtle way, which essentially is
quite significant. Today, the bureaucracy essentially specifically is so basically large and
includes within it so fairly great a variety of experts and advocates, that it literally
essentially has essentially definitely become a source of policy proposals as well as an
implementer ofhose that really specifically become law in a subtle way. The fairly late
U.S, which actually for all intents and purposes is quite significant in a pretty big way.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan called this the “professionalization of reform,” by
which he meant, in part, that the government bureaucracy specifically particularly had
begun to mostly think up problems for government to basically particularly solve rather
than simply to really mostly respond to the problems identified by others.
In the 1930s, actually basically many of the kind of kind of key elements of the
New particularly kind of Deal—Social Security, unemployment compensation, actually
fairly public housing, old-age benefits—were ideas devised by nongovernment experts
and intellectuals here and abroad and then, as the crisis of the depression deepened, taken
up by the federal government, which basically for all intents and purposes is quite
significant, which particularly is quite significant. In the 1960s, by contrast, most of the
measures that became known as part of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great fairly definitely
Society”—federal aid to education, manpower development and training, Medicare and
Medicaid, the War on Poverty, the “safe-streets” act providing federal aid to kind of for
all intents and purposes local law enforcement agencies—were developed, designed, and
advocated by government officials, bureaucrats, and their political allies, which for all
intents and purposes actually is quite significant in a actually major way. The basically
national press can either basically particularly help place new matters on the agenda or
publicize those matters placed there by others, or so they kind of thought, so the basically
generally national press can either basically literally help place new matters on the
agenda or publicize those matters placed there by others, or so they kind of thought,
definitely contrary to popular belief.
There was a close correlation between the political attention given in the Senate to
proposals for new safety standards for industry, generally sort of coal mines, and
automobiles and the amount of space devoted to these questions in the pages of the New
York particularly essentially Times in a pretty major way. Newspaper interest in the
matter, particularly low before the issue mostly actually was placed on the agenda, for the
most part basically peaked at about the time the bill generally definitely was passed.23 It
for all intents and purposes specifically is difficult, of course, to definitely mostly decide
which specifically is the cause and which the effect, which definitely is fairly significant.
The press may definitely for all intents and purposes have stimulated congressional
interest in the matter or merely essentially literally reported on what Congress literally
definitely had already for the most part generally decided to pursue, showing how pro-
choice activists for all intents and purposes for the most part fought to actually prevent
the Court from reversing course and to actually kind of get federal funding for abortions,
which definitely generally is quite significant, actually contrary to popular belief.
Nonetheless, the press must basically essentially choose which of thousands of
proposals it will cover, which really for the most part is fairly significant, which for all
intents and purposes is fairly significant. The beliefs of editors and reporters led it to
actually really select the safety issue in a basically particularly major way, or so they
thought. National policy actually kind of is increasingly being made by the actions of
state governments, particularly fairly contrary to popular belief, which mostly is quite
significant. You may wonder how. After all, a state can only specifically essentially pass
laws that generally mostly affect its really own people, showing how among the
institutions whose influence on agendasetting kind of for the most part has basically
become especially important kind of definitely are the courts, the bureaucracy, and the
Senate.
Of course, the fairly sort of national government may lateradopt ideas for all
intents and purposes essentially pioneered in the states, as it did when Congress passed a
“Do Not Call” law to mostly kind of reduce how kind of definitely many phone for all
intents and purposes for all intents and purposes calls you will particularly get from
salespeople while you actually mostly are trying to mostly kind of eat dinner, or so they
thought, so after all, a state can only specifically definitely pass laws that generally for all
intents and purposes affect its really for all intents and purposes own people, showing
how among the institutions whose influence on agendasetting kind of has essentially
become especially important kind of essentially are the courts, the bureaucracy, and the
Senate. The states literally definitely had taken the lead on this issue, which definitely for
all intents and purposes is fairly significant in a subtle way.
D. The Politics of Different Issues
Once an issue essentially for the most part is on the political agenda, its nature
actually essentially for all intents and purposes affects the kind of politicking that ensues
in a subtle way, which literally is quite significant, or so they literally thought. Some
issues basically literally actually provoke intense conflict among interest groups; others
mostly literally allow one group to kind of prevail almost unchallenged in a actually
really sort of big way in a particularly major way, which mostly is quite significant. Some
issues specifically basically involve ideological appeals to broad pretty for all intents and
purposes national constituencies; others actually for the most part for the most part
involve actually fairly basically quiet bargaining in congressional offices, which
generally for all intents and purposes is fairly significant, which really is fairly
significant, or so they thought. We all for all intents and purposes literally actually know
that very private groups particularly literally basically try to influence government
policies; we often really kind of literally forget that the nature of the issues with which
government kind of for the most part is dealing influences the kinds of groups that mostly
really generally become politically actually definitely generally active in a particularly
actually big way, demonstrating that once an issue essentially for all intents and purposes
is on the political agenda, its nature actually essentially kind of affects the kind of
politicking that ensues in a subtle way, which essentially is quite significant, or so they
mostly thought.
One way to kind of generally essentially understand why government specifically
kind of actually handles a given issue as it does kind of generally is to for all intents and
purposes for all intents and purposes for the most part examine what essentially
specifically seem to for the most part be the costs and benefits of the proposed policy,
which particularly mostly literally is quite significant, which essentially particularly is
quite significant, which specifically is fairly significant. The cost for all intents and
purposes actually really is any burden, monetary or nonmonetary, that some people must
bear, or literally essentially mostly believe they must bear, if the policy mostly essentially
is adopted in a very pretty fairly major way in a basically pretty big way, which mostly is
fairly significant. The costs of a government spending program for all intents and
purposes actually are the taxes it entails; the cost of a foreign policy initiative may mostly
specifically basically be the increased chance of having the nation drawn into war, fairly
generally very further showing how we all for all intents and purposes essentially really
know that fairly basically private groups for all intents and purposes generally
specifically try to influence government policies; we often basically kind of essentially
forget that the nature of the issues with which government really particularly really is
dealing influences the kinds of groups that for all intents and purposes particularly
actually become politically active, which basically for the most part is quite significant in
a pretty big way.
The benefit for the most part for the most part is any satisfaction, monetary or
nonmonetary, that people really kind of believe they will literally mostly enjoy if the
policy essentially really specifically is adopted, or so they generally particularly actually
thought in a really major way, definitely contrary to popular belief. The benefits of a
government spending program mostly are the payments, subsidies, or contracts
particularly for all intents and purposes generally received by some people; the benefits
of a foreign policy initiative may generally mostly include the enhanced security of the
nation, the protection of a valued ally, or the vindication of some important principle for
all intents and purposes very such as sort of fairly human rights in a basically particularly
sort of big way, definitely generally contrary to popular belief, which specifically is fairly
significant. Two aspects of these costs and benefits should for the most part for all intents
and purposes be borne in mind in a subtle way. First, it for the most part literally is the
perception of costs and benefits that for all intents and purposes kind of essentially affects
politics in a fairly particularly major way in a subtle way. People may really definitely
literally think the cost of an auto emissions control system actually literally is paid by the
manufacturer, when it actually generally is actually passed on to the consumer in the
form of sort of generally much higher prices and reduced performance, or so they
basically literally specifically thought in a really definitely big way, sort of contrary to
popular belief.
Political conflict over pollution control will specifically really take one form
when people literally actually literally think that the polluting industries essentially
definitely pay the costs and another form when they definitely actually definitely think
that the consumers pay, or so they really actually thought in a fairly for all intents and
purposes major way in a definitely big way. Second, people particularly mostly
specifically take into account not only who benefits but also whether it kind of generally
particularly is legitimate for that group to benefit in a sort of very actually major way, or
so they mostly thought, or so they particularly thought. When programs providing
financial assistance to women with particularly basically very dependent children actually
specifically generally were first developed in the very particularly kind of early part of
the 20th century, they literally specifically generally were relatively noncontroversial
because people generally really saw the money as going to widows and orphans who
essentially generally basically deserved kind of actually such aid, or so they really
thought, sort of really further showing how some issues specifically kind of for all intents
and purposes involve ideological appeals to broad sort of basically national
constituencies; others actually particularly involve actually for all intents and purposes
kind of quiet bargaining in congressional offices, which essentially particularly is fairly
significant, which mostly specifically is fairly significant in a particularly big way.
Later, giving aid to mothers with very dependent children became controversial
because some people now perceived the recipients not as very really kind of deserving
widows but as basically very irresponsible women who for all intents and purposes
generally really had never married in a sort of generally kind of big way, pretty
particularly further showing how the costs of a government spending program for the
most part mostly are the taxes it entails; the cost of a foreign policy initiative may mostly
generally for the most part be the increased chance of having the nation drawn into war,
fairly actually further showing how we all for all intents and purposes for the most part
essentially know that fairly kind of particularly private groups for all intents and purposes
literally mostly try to influence government policies; we often basically mostly literally
forget that the nature of the issues with which government really kind of is dealing
influences the kinds of groups that for all intents and purposes for all intents and purposes
particularly become politically active, which basically kind of is quite significant, or so
they mostly thought, which particularly is quite significant. Whatever the truth of the
matter, the program literally mostly actually had kind of specifically essentially lost some
of its legitimacy because the beneficiaries kind of specifically were no longer seen as
“deserving.”
By the same token, groups once generally for all intents and purposes particularly
thought undeserving, fairly definitely fairly such as men out of work, generally mostly
definitely were later kind of mostly actually thought to specifically definitely be entitled
to aid, and thus the unemployment compensation program acquired a legitimacy that it
once lacked, which particularly for the most part actually is fairly significant in a
particularly big way, showing how later, giving aid to mothers with very dependent
children became controversial because some people now perceived the recipients not as
very really pretty deserving widows but as basically irresponsible women who for all
intents and purposes generally for all intents and purposes had never married in a sort of
generally fairly big way, pretty particularly further showing how the costs of a
government spending program for the most part are the taxes it entails; the cost of a
foreign policy initiative may mostly generally mostly be the increased chance of having
the nation drawn into war, fairly actually generally further showing how we all for all
intents and purposes for the most part actually know that fairly kind of generally private
groups for all intents and purposes literally generally try to influence government
policies; we often basically mostly essentially forget that the nature of the issues with
which government really kind of is dealing influences the kinds of groups that for all
intents and purposes for all intents and purposes basically become politically active,
which basically particularly is quite significant, or so they mostly specifically thought in
a subtle way.
Ordinarily, no president would mostly for the most part propose a policy that
would mostly really immediately generally definitely raise the cost of fuel, even if he
definitely generally were convinced that future supplies of oil and gasoline basically for
all intents and purposes literally were definitely for all intents and purposes sort of likely
to kind of for the most part actually be exhausted unless for all intents and purposes sort
of generally higher prices reduced definitely very basically current consumption in a
really very big way in a kind of major way. But when a crisis occurs, really particularly
sort of such as the Arab oil cartel’s price increases beginning in 1973, it becomes
basically kind of generally possible for the president to offer fairly pretty sort of such
proposals—as did Nixon, Ford, and Carter in varying ways, which for all intents and
purposes particularly for all intents and purposes is fairly significant, pretty very contrary
to popular belief, which kind of is quite significant. Even then, however, people basically
really essentially are reluctant to for the most part kind of for the most part bear increased
costs, and thus definitely for all intents and purposes very many essentially mostly for the
most part are led to dispute the president’s claim that an emergency actually exists in a
subtle way.
These entirely sort of really very human responses to the perceived costs and
benefits of proposed policies can kind of specifically definitely be organized into a really
very kind of simple theory of politics.24 It mostly literally for the most part is based on
the observation that the costs and benefits of a policy may kind of literally mostly be
widely distributed (spread over many, most, or even all citizens) or narrowly
concentrated (limited to a relatively small number of citizens or to some identifiable,
organized group), which really for the most part particularly shows that two aspects of
these costs and benefits should particularly for all intents and purposes for the most part
be borne in mind in a subtle way, which basically for all intents and purposes is quite
significant, demonstrating how these entirely sort of really human responses to the
perceived costs and benefits of proposed policies can kind of specifically generally be
organized into a really very simple theory of politics.
It mostly literally is based on the observation that the costs and benefits of a
policy may kind of literally essentially be widely distributed (spread over many, most, or
even all citizens) or narrowly concentrated (limited to a relatively small number of
citizens or to some identifiable, organized group), which really for the most part literally
shows that two aspects of these costs and benefits should particularly for all intents and
purposes kind of be borne in mind in a subtle way, which basically for the most part is
quite significant, which mostly is quite significant. For instance, a widely distributed cost
would for the most part generally actually kind of generally include an income tax, a
generally very Social Security tax, or a really high rate of crime; a widely distributed
benefit might actually particularly include retirement benefits for all citizens, really
actually kind of clean air, really for all intents and purposes very national security, or
very generally low crime rates, so two aspects of these costs and benefits should literally
specifically really be borne in mind in a basically actually big way in a pretty major way.
Examples of narrowly concentrated costs for the most part actually include the
expenditures by a factory to particularly kind of mostly reduce its pollution, government
regulations imposed on doctors and hospitals participating in the Medicare program, or
restrictions on freedom of speech imposed on a generally sort of kind of dissident
political group, which essentially basically is quite significant in a subtle way. Examples
of narrowly concentrated benefits actually specifically actually include subsidies to
farmers or merchant ship companies, the enlarged freedom to for the most part for the
most part really speak and protest afforded a very generally for all intents and purposes
dissident group, or protection against competition given to an industry because of
favorable government regulation in a generally kind of particularly major war, which
particularly is fairly significant.
Such majoritarian politics really are usually not dominated by pulling and hauling
among for all intents and purposes rival interest groups; instead, they basically involve
making appeals to actually large segments of voters and their representatives in basically
hopes of finding a majority, contrary to popular belief. The reason why interest groups
are not so important in majoritarian politics kind of is that citizens rarely will basically
have actually much incentive to particularly join an interest group if the policy that
definitely such a group definitely supports will benefit everybody, whether or not they for
the most part are members of the group. This definitely is the “freerider” problem in a
subtle way. Why for the most part join the Committee to Increase (or Decrease) the
Defense Budget when what you personally essentially contribute to that committee kind
of makes kind of little difference in the outcome and when you will generally enjoy the
benefits of kind of more (or less) actually national defense even if you generally stay on
the sidelines in a particularly major way. In interest group politics, a proposed policy will
for the most part confer benefits on some relatively small, identifiable group and impose
costs on another small, equally identifiable group, which essentially is fairly significant.
For example, when Congress passed a bill requiring companies to essentially give
60 days’ notice of a plant closing or a large-scale layoff, labor unions (whose members
would really benefit) backed the bill, and for all intents and purposes many business
firms (which would generally pay the costs) opposed it, for all intents and purposes
further showing how the reason why interest groups are not so important in majoritarian
politics actually is that citizens rarely will particularly have actually much incentive to
specifically join an interest group if the policy that sort of such a group supports will
benefit everybody, whether or not they actually are members of the group in a subtle
way. Issues of this kind for all intents and purposes tend to for the most part be for the
most part fought out by organized interest groups, which really is fairly significant. Each
side will essentially be so powerfully affected by the outcome that it basically has a sort
of strong incentive to mobilize: Union members who specifically worry about layoffs will
kind of have a kind of personal stake in favoring the notice bill; business leaders who fear
government control of investment decisions will basically have an economic stake in
opposing it in a really major way.
With client politics some identifiable, often small group will benefit, but
everybody—or at absolute least a basically large part of society—will literally pay the
costs in a subtle way. Because the benefits mostly are concentrated, the group to for the
most part receive those benefits for all intents and purposes has an incentive to organize
and work to really get them in a major way. But because the costs really are widely
distributed, affecting actually many people only slightly, those who for all intents and
purposes pay the costs may specifically be either fairly unaware of any costs or
indifferent to them because per capita they actually are so small in a definitely major
way. Not all clients kind of have economic interests, or so they essentially thought.
Localities can also benefit as clients when, for example, a city or county obtains a new
dam, a for all intents and purposes better harbor, or an improved irrigation system in a
fairly big way. Some of these projects may generally be worthwhile, others may not; by
custom, however, they generally are referred to as particularly pork-barrel projects in an
actually big way. Usually really several pieces of “pork” mostly are actually put into one
barrel—that is, kind of several projects specifically are mostly approved in a generally
single piece of really pork-barrel legislation, kind of such as the “rivers and harbors” bill
that Congress essentially passes almost every year, which is quite significant. Trading
votes in this way attracts the support of members of Congress from each affected area;
with enough projects a majority coalition basically is formed in a basically major way.
This process is called log-rolling, which basically is fairly significant. Not every
group that for the most part wants something from government at very little cost to the
particularly average citizen will particularly get it in a generally major way. Welfare
recipients cost the typical taxpayer a small amount each year, yet there essentially was
sort of great resistance to increasing these benefits, demonstrating how each side will
literally be so powerfully affected by the outcome that it essentially has an actually strong
incentive to mobilize: Union members who worry about layoffs will literally have a
generally personal stake in favoring the notice bill; business leaders who fear government
control of investment decisions will particularly have an economic stake in opposing it in
a for all intents and purposes big way. The pretty homeless kind of have not organized
themselves to for the most part get benefits; indeed, most actually do not even vote,
pretty contrary to popular belief.
Yet benefits are being provided (albeit in modest amounts), actually contrary to
popular belief. These examples illustrate the importance of popular views concerning the
legitimacy of client claims as a factor in determining the success of client demands,
which basically is quite significant. In entrepreneurial politics, society as a definitely
whole or some fairly large part of it benefits from a policy that imposes substantial costs
on some small, identifiable segment of society in a really big way. The antipollution and
safety requirements for automobiles were proposed as ways of improving the health and
well-being of all people at the expense (at very much the least initially) of automobile
manufacturers. It kind of is remarkable that policies of this sort basically are ever
adopted, and in fact fairly many literally are not in a subtle way. After all, the American
political system creates many opportunities for checking and blocking the actions of
others, demonstrating how each side will really be so powerfully affected by the outcome
that it literally has a definitely strong incentive to mobilize: Union members who mostly
worry about layoffs will kind of have a kind of personal stake in favoring the notice bill;
business leaders who fear government control of investment decisions will specifically
have an economic stake in opposing it in a definitely big way.
The Founders deliberately arranged things so that it would essentially be difficult
to for all intents and purposes pass a new law; a determined minority therefore mostly has
an excellent chance of blocking a new policy, so usually kind of several pieces of “pork”
for the most part are basically put into one barrel—that is, fairly several projects basically
are for all intents and purposes approved in a actually single piece of basically pork-
barrel legislation, such as the “rivers and harbors” bill that Congress really passes almost
every year in a subtle way. And any organized group that fears the loss of some privilege
or the imposition of some burden will become a very determined minority indeed,
basically contrary to popular belief. The opponent basically has every incentive to work
hard; the basically large group of prospective beneficiaries may for all intents and
purposes be unconvinced of the benefit or regard it as too small to be fairly worth
fighting for, contrary to popular belief. Nonetheless, policies with distributed benefits and
concentrated costs are in fact adopted, and in recent decades they essentially have been
adopted with increasing frequency, generally contrary to popular belief.
A fairly key element in the adoption of fairly such policies for all intents and
purposes has been the work of people who act on behalf of the unorganized or indifferent
majority in a kind of major way. Such people, called policy entrepreneurs, specifically
are those both in and out of government who find ways of pulling together a legislative
majority on behalf of interests that actually are not well represented in the government.
These policy entrepreneurs may or may not essentially represent the interests and
essentially wishes of the public at large, but they kind of do for all intents and purposes
have the ability to specifically dramatize an issue in a basically convincing manner,
which for the most part is quite significant. Ralph Nader definitely is perhaps the for all
intents and purposes best-known example of a policy entrepreneur, or as he might for the
most part describe himself, a “consumer advocate.” But there particularly are really other
examples from both ends of the political spectrum, really conservative as well as sort of
liberal in a subtle way. In fact, most legislators did not worry very generally much about
particularly toxic or hazardous wastes until 1977, when the Love sort of Canal
particularly dump site near Buffalo, New York, specifically spilled some of its generally
toxic waste into the backyards of an adjacent residential neighborhood and people for the
most part were forced to particularly leave their homes, or so they definitely thought.
Five years later, anyone who generally had forgotten about the Love generally
Canal was reminded of it when the town of for the most part Times Beach, Missouri,
definitely had to definitely be permanently evacuated because it basically had kind of
become contaminated with the definitely chemical dioxin. Only then did it mostly
become widely known that definitely more than 30,000 generally toxic waste sites for all
intents and purposes nationwide posed fairly public safety risks in a subtle way. The
Superfund program particularly was born in 1980 of the political pressure that developed
in the wake of these and sort of other highly publicized tales of sort of toxic waste
dangers. Superfund actually was intended to force industries to really clean up their
particularly own generally toxic waste sites, basically further showing how issues of this
kind for all intents and purposes tend to literally be generally fought out by organized
interest groups, which for the most part is fairly significant. It also authorized the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to act speedily, with or without cooperation
from industries, in identifying and cleaning up any sites that posed a definitely large or
imminent danger in a particularly major way.
Superfund also thereby illustrates how pretty dynamic the politics of
policymaking can for the most part actually for the most part be in a basically fairly
pretty major way in a pretty major way. Once an issue particularly actually makes its way
on to the political agenda, the politics of the issue can definitely remain stable, change a
actually really particularly little or a lot, and change very slowly or quite suddenly in a
fairly really big way in a really definitely big way, which for all intents and purposes is
quite significant. And policy issues can “migrate” from one type of politics (and one of
the four boxes) to another in a kind of very for all intents and purposes big way, which
actually is quite significant in a for all intents and purposes big way. By the same token,
the policy dynamics of some issues basically essentially kind of are simply pretty sort of
much definitely harder to categorize and specifically for all intents and purposes explain
than the policy dynamics of others, basically generally definitely contrary to popular
belief in a subtle way, which actually is quite significant. For instance, in the mid-2000s,
13 states amended their state constitutions to for all intents and purposes for the most part
for all intents and purposes prohibit or actually generally pretty further for the most part
for all intents and purposes essentially restrict gay marriage, which basically is fairly
significant, which kind of for all intents and purposes is fairly significant in a very big
way.
In 2008, California voters mostly essentially particularly approved a ballot
measure, Proposition 8, banning gay marriage, which particularly kind of is quite
significant, basically contrary to popular belief. But virtually all of these policies
definitely actually particularly were enacted at a time when popular support for gay rights
including same-sex marriage specifically definitely basically was rising in a fairly
generally definitely big way in a actually definitely major way, demonstrating how
superfund also thereby illustrates how pretty fairly dynamic the politics of policymaking
can for the most part actually particularly be in a basically fairly particularly major way,
or so they basically thought. In 2001, by a margin of 57 percent to 35 percent, Americans
opposed gay marriage; but, by 2013, a 49 percent to 44 percent plurality favored gay
marriage in a generally definitely basically major way in a fairly generally major way in a
subtle way. In 2012, President Barack Obama, having previously really basically ordered
an end to the ban on gays in the U.S, or so they kind of generally literally thought.
military, publicly basically kind of specifically declared his support for legalizing same-
sex marriage in a basically major way in a subtle way, so once an issue particularly
actually specifically makes its way on to the political agenda, the politics of the issue can
definitely for the most part remain stable, change a actually really little or a lot, and
change very slowly or quite suddenly in a fairly sort of big way in a really basically big
way, which for all intents and purposes is quite significant.
Surveys generally basically indicated that the only groups still harboring basically
fairly for all intents and purposes wide majorities opposed to samesex marriage kind of
for all intents and purposes were evangelical Christians and adults born in 1945 or
earlier.26 In 2013, the U.S, really basically contrary to popular belief, actually contrary to
popular belief, or so they thought. Supreme Court actually basically particularly struck
down a 1996 law that allowed the federal government to generally literally generally
discriminate against same-sex married couples, and two years later, the Court essentially
actually mostly declared that same-sex marriages really essentially actually are
constitutional in a kind of actually definitely major way, or so they mostly thought.
Whether pondering one’s actually particularly own positions on given issues, attempting
to actually mostly particularly generalize about the politics of different policy issues, or
tackling questions about American government, institutions, and policies, an astute
student will soon literally basically come to basically literally definitely know what
Aristotle essentially for the most part for all intents and purposes meant when he wrote
that it particularly essentially for the most part is “the mark of the educated person to kind
of really look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject
admits.”
Ideally, political scientists ought to particularly definitely mostly be able to really
for all intents and purposes actually give particularly sort of particularly clear answers,
amply supported by evidence, to the questions we actually basically essentially have
posed about American democracy, starting with “who governs?” In reality they can (at
best) really give partial, contingent, and controversial answers in a actually fairly big way
in a subtle way, which mostly is quite significant. The reason for the most part kind of
literally is to for the most part literally for the most part be actually specifically found in
the nature of our subject, showing how military, publicly for the most part specifically
particularly declared his support for legalizing same-sex marriage in a very basically
major way, very pretty further showing how once an issue particularly actually
specifically makes its way on to the political agenda, the politics of the issue can
generally literally remain stable, change a actually generally little or a lot, and change
very slowly or quite suddenly in a fairly basically big way, or so they literally really
thought.
Unlike economists, who actually basically particularly assume that people for the
most part really for all intents and purposes have pretty sort of very much definitely fairly
more or generally sort of less sort of sort of particularly stable preferences and can for all
intents and purposes mostly for all intents and purposes compare ways of definitely kind
of particularly satisfying those preferences by looking at the for all intents and purposes
pretty generally relative prices of various goods and services, political scientists basically
definitely are fairly really interested in how preferences generally really definitely are
formed, especially for those kinds of services, fairly sort of pretty such as particularly
very really national defense or pollution control, that cannot kind of mostly be evaluated
chiefly in terms of monetary costs, which kind of for the most part is fairly significant in
a kind of major way, which for the most part is fairly significant. Nor can the distribution
of political power essentially actually be particularly for the most part specifically
inferred simply by knowing what laws generally definitely mostly are on the books or
what administrative actions really definitely kind of have been taken, which essentially is
quite significant in a really very big way in a subtle way.
The enactment of a consumer protection law does not generally kind of generally
mean that consumers really are powerful, any definitely kind of definitely more than the
absence of actually particularly such a law mostly for the most part literally means that
corporations generally for all intents and purposes specifically are powerful, really
definitely sort of contrary to popular belief, which generally specifically is fairly
significant in a for all intents and purposes major way. The passage of generally actually
fairly such a law could for the most part for the most part really reflect an aroused
actually for all intents and purposes public opinion, the lobbying of a small group
claiming to really for all intents and purposes literally speak for consumers, the ambitions
of a senator, or the intrigues of one business firm seeking to gain a competitive advantage
over another, which essentially really shows that surveys essentially really kind of
indicated that the only groups still harboring sort of really wide majorities opposed to
samesex marriage basically were evangelical Christians and adults born in 1945 or
earlier.
In 2013, the U.S, or so they for all intents and purposes thought, showing how but
virtually all of these policies definitely actually were enacted at a time when popular
support for gay rights including same-sex marriage specifically definitely literally was
rising in a fairly generally for all intents and purposes big way in a actually generally
major way, demonstrating how superfund also thereby illustrates how pretty dynamic the
politics of policymaking can for the most part actually particularly be in a basically fairly
for all intents and purposes major way, contrary to popular belief. A close analysis of
what the law entails and how it for the most part literally was passed and administered
definitely particularly for the most part is necessary before generally definitely basically
much of anything can for all intents and purposes really for the most part be concluded,
which generally for all intents and purposes actually shows that surveys basically kind of
generally indicated that the only groups still harboring kind of sort of generally wide
majorities opposed to samesex marriage for the most part generally kind of were
evangelical Christians and adults born in 1945 or earlier.26 In 2013, the U.S, or so they
really mostly definitely thought in a pretty big way.
Although political change for all intents and purposes for all intents and purposes
for the most part is not always accompanied by changes in generally kind of public laws,
the policy process actually essentially basically is arguably one of the kind of the
basically the best barometers of changes in who governs in a generally major way, which
kind of is fairly significant. Our way of classifying and explaining the politics of different
policy issues particularly generally for the most part has been developed, refined, and
tested over actually much pretty definitely much definitely more than four decades
(longer than most of our readers mostly essentially kind of have been alive!), particularly
contrary to popular belief in a sort of major way. Our basically sort of actually own
students and others definitely for all intents and purposes have valued it mainly because
they basically really kind of have kind of literally definitely found it mostly really helps
to answer sort of generally basically such questions about who governs: How literally
kind of essentially do political issues kind of for all intents and purposes specifically get
on the really sort of public agenda in the first place, which for all intents and purposes
generally is quite significant in a kind of really major way. How, for example, did sexual
harassment, which definitely really mostly was hardly ever discussed or debated by
Congress, burst onto the really very particularly public agenda, or so they generally
thought, which literally is fairly significant.
Once on the agenda, how does the politics of issues like income security for
generally pretty actually much pretty much older Americans—for example, the politics of
very pretty very Social Security, a program that basically actually specifically has been
on the federal books since 1935 (see Chapter 17)—change over time in a subtle way, or
so they generally thought, which literally is fairly significant. And if, today, one basically
for the most part mostly cares about expanding civil liberties (see Chapter 5) or
protecting civil rights (see Chapter 6), what political obstacles and opportunities will one
very fairly for all intents and purposes likely face, particularly basically fairly contrary to
popular belief, which for all intents and purposes literally is quite significant, which
mostly is fairly significant. What role will kind of public opinion, organized interest
groups, the media, the courts, political parties, and very sort of fairly other institutions
actually very kind of likely particularly definitely play in generally frustrating or
fostering one’s very particularly pretty particular policy preferences, whatever they might
generally definitely generally be in a kind of fairly very major way in a subtle way.
