American Government

1.pdf

Home >Government homework help >American Government

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402c… 1/34

Editorial Director: Steve Wainwright

Director of Editorial Technology: Peter Galuardi

Sponsoring Editor: Anna Lustig

Development Editors: Cheryl Cechvala and Gregory Brueck

Assistant Editor: Kristine Maglunob

Editorial Assistant: Jessica Sarra

Media Editor: Lindsay Serra

Printing Services: Bordeaux

Composition/Illustration: Lachina Publishing Services

Cover Image: Exactostock/SuperStock

ISBN‐10: 1‐62178‐002‐1

ISBN‐13: 978‐1‐62178‐002‐1

GRANT OF PERMISSION TO PRINT: The copyright owner of this material hereby grants the holder of this publication the right to print these materials for personal use. The holder of this material may print the materials herein for personal use only. Any print, reprint, reproduction or distribution of these materials for commercial use without the express written consent of the copyright owner constitutes a violation of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101‐810, as amended.

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402c… 2/34

1 American Politics and Founding Principles

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

Define and compare the two core political philosophies of liberalism and republicanism. Understand the role political philosophy and competing ideologies played in developing foundational documents like the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Identify core American values and explain why they mean different things to different people.

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402c… 3/34

Is the government's role in the healthcare debate a government intrusion, or does it promote the general welfare of the population?

Define the meaning of politics and analyze specifically what constitutes American politics. Analyze the relationship between competing interpretations of core values and competing political ideologies, and understand how they shape American politics.

In March 2010, Congress passed, and the president signed, the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, a sweeping reform of the nation's healthcare system. The key goal of the law was to extend healthcare coverage so that most of the estimated 43 million Americans without insurance have access to healthcare. The plan would achieve this by requiring employers to provide insurance to their employees or face a fine. It also would require individuals to purchase insurance, with those who cannot afford it receiving a government subsidy. Individuals with plans valued at more than $18,000 for family coverage would be taxed to help pay the costs of the subsidies. Individuals whose incomes exceeded $200,000 and families whose incomes exceeded $250,000 would pay an additional tax.

Prior to its passing, political debates over the proposed law were intense and divided along liberal and conservative lines. Left‐leaning (liberal) supporters of the bill maintained that a wealthy industrialized nation like the United States owes its citizens some measure of universal healthcare. They argued that individuals who do not have insurance, either because their employers do not provide it or because they cannot afford it, should not be denied basic healthcare. A just society does not allow its citizens to starve; it also does not allow its citizens to go bankrupt because they get sick. The liberal view thus holds that healthcare reform furthers the core American values of liberty

and individual independence by providing greater security.

Right‐leaning (conservative) opponents, however, viewed the legislation as a government takeover of the nation's healthcare industry, and an example of encroachment upon the liberties of its citizens. Moreover, they argued, the law is unconstitutional because it effectively requires individuals to purchase something in the private marketplace.

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402c… 4/34

Though the two sides took opposite positions, both grounded their arguments in appeals to American values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This case thus illustrates how American politics are based in competing interpretations of the same core principles.

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402c… 5/34

English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) outlined the position that became known as classic liberalism. Classic liberalism emphasized the agency of individuals and rejected divine authority in favor of popular sovereignty.

1.1 The Classical Roots of American Government: Liberalism and Republicanism America's core principles—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—will be explored in depth in the next section. However, to understand where those ideas came from, we first need to explore certain political philosophies that originated in the ancient world, and then saw renewed appreciation in seventeenth‐ and eighteenth‐century Europe. The two most notable philosophies that influenced the Framers of America's key founding documents were liberalism and republicanism (which are different from today's liberals and Republicans, as we shall soon see). Contemporary American politics in many respects represents a combination of these two philosophical traditions. Go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTPoJZ8UD3k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTPoJZ8UD3k) to watch a video about the influences on the framers of the Constitution.

Liberalism and Its Grounding in John Locke

The political philosophy of classical liberalism derived from the seventeenth‐century English philosopher John Locke and was a response to the idea, common in continental Europe during the middle ages, that the authority of both kings and the Church were absolute. This worldview held that political authority was based on the divine right of kings, which essentially said that God instilled the king's absolute authority to govern. Similarly, the average person's place in society was also determined by God. Therefore, individuals did not get to decide for themselves what constituted a good life, and the notion that they were entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was unthinkable. Moreover, political authority could not be challenged because that would be akin to defying God's will.

John Locke rejected this argument and instead argued that individuals are the true basis of legitimate government, a concept known as popular sovereignty. This meant that "the people" held political authority and that leaders could not govern without their consent. Furthermore, many have concluded that Locke was a political theorist of limited government. This meant that the function of government was only to protect individual rights. This also meant that the role of public policy would be limited, because too much state

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTPoJZ8UD3k

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402c… 6/34

Traces of the original idea of commonwealth can still be found in the names and state seals of some states, such as the Commonwealth of Kentucky or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

power would threaten individual liberty. His position became known as classical liberalism.

Republicanism and the Basis for Representative Democracy

Although Americans often claim their government is a democracy, this is not technically the case. Rather, the American system is more accurately described as an indirect or representative democracy, which means that individual citizens elect representatives to speak and make decisions for them when it comes to legislative debate and votes. The Framers set up the government this way because they were concerned that direct democracy, which would involve debate and voting from all citizens, would lead to mob rule.

The concept of representative democracy has its roots in the political philosophy known as republicanism, which stresses personal independence for the sake of the community's public interest. Republicanism held that the state was a commonwealth, which was defined as a civil society of men and literally meant "for the common good." In fact, the concept of republican government comes from the Latin phrase Res Publica, which means public matter.

Republicanism rests on the belief that individuals are free and equal and have a public responsibility and a personal stake in promoting a better society. In a classical republican society, the public interest is known and understood by all because the community is small and made up of members who share a common culture and background. Further, individuals share the concept of citizenship, or the idea of belonging to a political community. Citizenship in the republican mind‐set required the pursuit of virtue, and in fact the attainment of virtue was the central goal of the political community.

The public good could not revolve around the desires of any one person because that would be the basis for a despotic government, where the leaders seek only to serve their own interests and could potentially fall to corruption. Rather, in republicanism, each individual values the common good more highly than his or her own individual good, and this forms the

basis of virtue.

Who Was Considered a Citizen?

The republic was to be a partnership of all men. Women and minorities were not generally included in this partnership. Classical republics, dating back to ancient Rome, limited citizenship to free men, and although the American republic in the beginning would recognize both free white men and

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402c… 7/34

Thomas Jefferson believed that the independent farmer was the ideal citizen and that each person should own his own parcel of land and be his own boss.

women as citizens, it restricted voting to white men who owned property. Only property owners, the thinking went, had a stake in society and could be trusted to promote the public good.

Classical republicanism assumed that a citizen achieved his greatest moral fulfillment by participating in a self‐governing republic. The citizens most capable of governing themselves were those who were economically independent and not beholden to others. In fact, people who were not independent would not qualify as citizens (this is why women and slaves could ultimately not be citizens, at least in classical republicanism; they were almost always economically dependent on someone else). A worker would achieve independence through the ownership of property, because then he would rely only upon his own labor for his livelihood. In fact, many of those who argue that America was born a republican nation maintain that the Framers' true desire was to create a commercial republic—a marketplace for the free exchange of goods and services. Everybody would be able to participate equally and trade freely, and it was this commercial republic that would define the public good.

Thomas Jefferson exemplified the premium the Framers placed on economic independence by celebrating the independent yeoman farmer, the small‐scale agriculturalist who held title to his own land and tilled it with his own labor, as the ideal citizen. Jefferson was very much opposed to the prospect that factories or manufacturing would replace farming. Rather, each individual should own his own parcel of land and, in effect, be his own boss.

Republicanism and Separation of Powers

The ancient political philosophers, particularly Aristotle, believed that a successful republic could best be achieved through a mixed constitution (also called a mixed government), whereby power would be divided among a sovereign, a legislature, and the aristocracy. Politically, this entailed the separation of powers into distinct branches of government so that one branch could prevent another from tyrannizing the majority. The tendency toward despotism and corruption, in other words, would be limited because of the checks placed on power.

But it was not enough to have checks and balances between different branches of government; there also had to be checks and balances within the legislative branch. Republicanism specifically called for a bicameral legislature, which was the division of the legislative body into two chambers.

John Locke

Many of the ideas put forth in the American Declaration of Independence, including the references

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402c… 8/34

Signed on July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence stated the nation's core values and declared its separation from Great Britain.

to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, were originally included in John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, which was published in 1690. The expression that Locke used was Life, Liberty, and the Preservation of Property. (Happiness was Jefferson's substitution for Locke's "property," in part because he wanted to downplay the emphasis on private property.)

The Social Contract

Also put forth in Locke's Second Treatise was the idea that the individual existed in a state of nature. In this hypothetical state, which is devoid of all human law and government, individuals are born with unalienable or natural rights that are derived from nature or from God. All individuals are equal, especially with regard to human agency, which is the capacity to decide for themselves what type of life they would like to live. Because the state of nature can also be dangerous, Locke observed that individuals come together in a social contract and form a government that will protect them and their rights.

The idea of a state of nature as a dangerous place, and the remedy of a social contract, was expressed even earlier, in a seventeenth‐century

work called Leviathan, by another English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes argues that life in a state of nature, where predatory and survival instincts carry free reign, was "nasty, brutish, and short." While individuals might enjoy liberty to do as they pleased, they were not free from the threat of an untimely death. The remedy for this was to surrender liberty to a monarch—a king with absolute authority—who would in exchange provide protection. Locke ultimately sought to use this argument to justify the political structure known as a constitutional monarchy—a government where a king has to share power with a legislative body, such as a parliament or congress.

Since government was created through contract, its legitimacy stemmed from popular sovereignty. The central thrust of Locke's Two Treatises can be briefly summed up as the idea that a community of equal individuals has the right to resist

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402c… 9/34

In Leviathan, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1617–1700) argued that the state of nature was "nasty, brutish and short" and that people should surrender their liberty to a monarch who would protect them.

an authority that has ceased to be legitimate.

The Importance of Property

For Locke, individuals surrender their liberties in exchange for political freedom, or the freedom to do what they want within certain, defined limits. But they surrender only enough of their liberty so the government can protect individuals' most fundamental rights to property, which includes not only land but all physical possessions. In Locke's time, property was viewed as an extension of the individual because the property's value was derived from the labor that the individual put into it. Therefore, any encroachment on property would be taken as an encroachment on the individual himself. If the government violated individuals' rights to property, the people would be within their rights to rise up and dissolve or overthrow it and create a new government that would be responsive to them.

Locke's use of the term "property" served as a defense against the arbitrary exercise of power by any part of that government. In the U.S. Constitution, the Fifth Amendment expresses this idea, declaring that property cannot be seized without just compensation. That means, for instance, that if you own a piece of land on which the government wants to construct a new highway, it cannot seize the land without compensating you at fair market value. Further, the government has to justify its decision to take the property and establish a set of procedures that allows the affected party to challenge it. Without these provisions, government could arbitrarily seize any citizen's property.

The Rule of Law Versus the Rule of Man

For the framers of the Constitution, the arbitrary exercise of power—usually by the rule of man— could be checked through the rule of law. This was an important distinction: Men, in the pursuit of their passions, are bound to act arbitrarily. But under rule of law, the passions of men are checked because the law clearly establishes what men can and cannot do.

One way the rule of law works is to create a zone of protection around individual interests. This has often been done through the definition of interests as property rights. As an example, imagine you decide to pursue your interest to practice law. You finish college, go to law school, and get licensed by the state to practice. If your license could be taken away at any time and for any reason, you

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 10/34

would be arbitrarily deprived of your livelihood. This would be an example of the rule of man. But if your license is defined in terms of a property right that adds a layer of protection to your interest, i.e., being a lawyer, then it can be taken away only for wrongdoing on your part. You would also have the right to challenge a move to take away your license in a hearing before the state bar commission, making this an example of the rule of law.

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 11/34

1.2 Core American Values: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness The American Declaration of Independence, written primarily by Thomas Jefferson and signed on July 4, 1776, is one of our nation's foundational documents. A short statement intended to separate the American colonies from Great Britain, the Declaration establishes our core values as a nation. It is also a statement of classical liberal political philosophy. American core values can be found in the following section:

We hold these truths to be self‐evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers 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 Government, 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.

Jefferson echoes Locke when he says that individuals are created equal with rights that were granted to them by their Creator. Among those unalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life means that we control our physical bodies. The right to liberty refers to our capacity to make decisions about how we want to live our lives. In short, we are free to pursue our self‐interests. Our right to pursue happiness refers to our ability to make choices that will be satisfying to us.

Hobbes and Locke shared the view that individuals are guided by reason and all governing arrangements should be based on reason, and this greatly influenced the Framers. Governments based on reason are based in law and not arbitrary passions.

Locke's Influence on Jefferson

As individuals born with unalienable rights, American colonists came together to create a government whose legitimacy was derived from their consent. By stating that a just government was based on popular sovereignty, Jefferson challenged the idea that the king's authority was derived from God. In fact, he argued that because the king's authority was not based on the consent of the governed, it was illegitimate, and the colonists were therefore within their rights to reject it. The American Revolution was essentially the dissolution of a government that, as Jefferson argued in the Declaration, had ceased to be legitimate.

Employing Lockean language of the right of the people to overthrow a government that fails to fulfill its obligations, Jefferson listed the British Crown's abuses of power. These included refusal to abide

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 12/34

Thomas Jefferson was heavily influenced by John Locke's Second Treatise in writing the Declaration of Independence. Like Locke, he rejected the notion that divine authority was the basis of legitimate political authority.

by laws, taxation without representation, quartering of troops in people's homes, the maintenance of standing armies without the consent of the colonial congress, making judges dependent on the king's will, denying colonists trial by jury, taking colonists back to England for trial before hostile juries, and a number of others.

How Republicanism Shaped the American System of Government

Republicanism in America was specifically a response to the corruption of the British political system. It was so corrupt, reports historian Gordon Wood, that Americans in the eighteenth century did not believe it would be possible to reform and renew the British Constitution. Americans created their own commonwealths, which they believed would embody virtue because power was divided between the two houses of the legislature and an executive whose power would not be hereditary. By dividing power, it was assumed that virtue would balance the natural tendency toward corruption.

Power was further divided within the legislature by adopting the bicameral division of the two houses. The lower chamber, the House of Representatives, represents the people and was seen as more susceptible to corruption because the people were assumed to be driven by their irrational passions rather than reason. The upper chamber, or Senate, represents the aristocracy (though its members are selected for their talent, rather than wealth; this is also known as a natural aristocracy), and was thought to be driven by reason. The legislative chamber most susceptible to corruption—the House—would be checked by the legislative chamber possessing the virtue—the Senate.

Individuals who owned property were assumed to be autonomous and virtuous by definition, but their representatives were constantly exposed to the temptations of power and corruption. Representatives, therefore, needed to stand for regular elections, which would help hold them accountable to the people.

In the next chapter, when we consider the construction of the U.S. Constitution, it will become apparent that the Framers were very much influenced by both liberal and republican ideologies. The notion that a constitutional system would protect liberty was certainly a liberal value. That this liberal value could best be protected through the separation of powers was a republican idea. The

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 13/34

Constitution assumes, but does not state, that the United States is liberal, but it does state that it is republican. Moreover, the Constitution states in Article III, Section 4, that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government." In practical terms, this means that every state is to have separation of powers and a bicameral legislature. (The only exception to this is the state of Nebraska, which has a unicameral, or single‐chamber, legislature. But that structure came much later. Nebraska was originally admitted to the union with a bicameral legislature).

The Idea of American Exceptionalism

American politics, as political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset famously observed, is characterized by American exceptionalism—the theory that we, as a nation, do not conform to the patterns of the rest of the world. This exceptionalism is rooted in America's unique history. The United States was founded in opposition to the European feudalistic tradition. In a traditional feudalistic society, such as those prevalent in Europe for most of the last millennium, people were born into a class from which they could not easily escape. The lowly peasants worked the land for their property‐owning lords, and the only way they could leave the bottom of the class structure was through death or revolution. This feudal arrangement never existed in America.

American exceptionalism is also characterized by the opportunities promised to its citizens. Because we were born free from the feudal constraints of the old order in Europe, the United States provided greater opportunity for upward socioeconomic mobility. American exceptionalism offered the hope that individuals could improve themselves, which is why the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were embraced. If individuals were free to pursue their self‐interests as an expression of their human agency, they all could potentially rise from humble beginnings to become wealthy. It was this exceptionalism that would promote the American dream that this was a land of plenty where anybody who was willing to work hard could succeed.

Finally, unlike other nations that were born out of revolution, whereby one government is violently overthrown by another, America's inception was a war of separation from a colonial power. Ever since the colonists established self‐rule, each administration has transferred power to the next peacefully, through the political process and elections. The stability that results from the peaceful transfer of power allows citizens to safely accumulate wealth and pass it on to the next generation and to continue to enjoy their liberties.

The U.S. Constitution Institutionalizes American Values

The Declaration of Independence puts forth many core American values. However, these values have to be institutionalized, or made concrete in an established system, which is where the U.S. Constitution comes into play. Even though it does not

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 14/34

The U.S. Constitution established three separate branches of government: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary.

mention "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," the Constitution creates institutions that reflect those values. The principal institutions in the Constitution, which have also become values unto themselves, are the separate branches of government. The Constitution creates three of these: the legislative (which, as we explained earlier, is further divided into two chambers, providing an additional separation of powers), the executive, and the judiciary.

The Framers assumed power to be a finite commodity (something that could be measured and contained), and they believed it needed to be divided among these separate but equal institutions. This separation of powers ensures that no one branch of government has enough power to encroach upon the liberties of its citizens. Rather, government is able to act only upon the agreement of all the branches. The separation of powers is the key theme of American constitutional government, and it results in government by consensus, whereby there is general agreement among the actors involved in governing. Separation of powers also effectively establishes the principle of rule of law. Additionally, as we will see in later chapters, because consensus is very difficult to achieve, government often cannot act, thereby protecting the rights and liberties of its citizens by default.

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 15/34

1.3 What Is the Definition of Politics? One classic definition of politics, offered by British political scientist Harold Lasswell in the 1930s, is "who gets what, when, and how." Lasswell's definition captures the connection between politics and power. Who gets what says something about who has power. When one gets what one wants says something about how important that individual or group is, and just how much power the person or group has. How the power is obtained also says something about the individual's or group's strength. In a political system where scarce resources are to be distributed, various groups will compete to determine who gets what, how much they get, and under what circumstances they get it. This usually means that if one group derives benefits, others bear costs.

The casual observer need only look at the battles that routinely occur in local city councils, state legislatures, the U.S. Congress, and other venues to see that this observation is largely true. In the case of healthcare reform, those who previously were not insured will derive benefit and those who have to pay an additional tax will bear additional costs. But patients and taxpayers are not the only interested parties. Insurance companies will benefit from the increased numbers of individuals now purchasing their products.

Political scientist E. E. Schattschneider took this idea further when he characterized politics as conflict. Those actively involved in the conflict are considered actors, while those who sit on the sidelines and observe are known as spectators. Politics then becomes a mobilization of bias, whereby the actors seek to "socialize" the conflict. That is, they attempt to show the spectators why they should care about and become actively involved with the conflict. This way, the actors build a base of support for their cause and achieve victory if they are able to mobilize enough others to join them. However, there are occasions when actors seek to "localize" a conflict by keeping the spectators out. In these cases, actors on the one side would seek to localize to keep potentially hostile spectators out of the conflict, while actors on the other side would seek to socialize to invite them in.

As an example, a local school board in a small town, responding to the wishes of the majority, wants to teach "creationism," the literal reading of the Bible that states that the world was created in six days. It does not want to teach "evolution," the idea that all organisms, including humans and animals, change over time as a result of natural selection and other factors. The minority that wants evolution taught will seek to socialize the conflict by arguing that this school board decision is an example of government violating the constitutional separation of church and state. They are hoping that those who live in large cities will become involved in an effort to preserve this fundamental value. Meanwhile, those seeking to teach creationism will try to localize the conflict by arguing that this is a matter of local democracy, with the hope that outsiders can understand their desire to

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 16/34

make their own decisions about local affairs. The side that proves to be more successful in its efforts will succeed in getting what it wants, when it wants it, and how it wants it.

A key factor in this understanding of politics is that resolution is always achieved through peaceful means. It is when conflict becomes violent that politics can be said to have failed.

What Is the Nature of American Politics?

American politics certainly involves Lasswell's formulation of who gets what, when, and how, but it also has its own set of unique attributes. Political scientist Theodore Lowi identified three types of activities characteristic of American politics: regulation, distribution, and redistribution.

Regulation involves restricting the activities, or limiting the rights, of some for the benefit—usually the protection—of others. In other words, one group will bear a cost so that another group can enjoy a benefit. In this vein, regulation is considered to be zero‐sum because for every winner, there is a loser. As an example, the government seeks to regulate air pollution by requiring power plants to include scrubbers in their emissions stacks. The power plants incur a cost because they have to spend money that they otherwise would not, while those who live near the plants derive the benefit of cleaner air.

In contrast, distribution involves the political system providing benefits to whatever group makes a request. The costs of distribution are not borne by any clearly identifiable group, but instead are passed on to everyone. Consider the following scenario: Congress passes a budget in which farmers receive millions of dollars from the federal government, banks receive millions more, and a variety of other groups receive something. Because the payouts all ultimately come from tax dollars, all taxpaying citizens cover the cost. This is considered distributive.

Redistribution involves taking from one group in society—usually in the form of a tax—and giving to others—usually in the form of a program. An example of this might be a tax on individuals with annual incomes above a certain level, such as $1 million, to pay for a healthcare program that benefits the poor. As with regulation, with redistribution it is clear who benefits and who bears the cost.

Table 1.1 Three Definitions of Politics

Lasswell Schattschneider Lowi

Who gets what, when, and how

Two sides to conflict: actors and spectators Mobilization of bias

Regulation Distribution Redistribution

American Politics Are Rooted in Core American Values

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 17/34

Though the concept of liberty is foundational to the American government, it means different things to different people.

We can look further into what lies beneath these ideas. Politics over who gets what, when, and how, or regulation, distribution, and redistribution, are really the public and practical expression of disagreements about the meaning of core values. If we take liberty to be a core value, then regulation of an individual's activities, or redistribution of his or her wealth through a tax, some will argue, is in effect an infringement of that individual's liberty. At the same time, there are those who will argue that regulation is necessary to preserve an individual's liberty. For instance, regulation of pollution may deprive manufacturers of their liberties, but preserves people's right to breathe clean air and the liberty to maintain their health. As we will see, each conception of liberty has some validity, and different constructions of it are the stuff of which American politics are made.

If you were to stop average Americans on the street and ask what America stands for, most would probably answer with some combination of liberty; democracy; the right to pursue individual economic interest; the right to free speech, assembly, and religion; and/or constitutional government. We do not all agree on exactly what those concepts mean, but each of us believes strongly in our own interpretations. As a result, the way these concepts are interpreted in society is a matter of politics.

Negative Versus Positive Liberty

The above concepts are all rooted in the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness expressed in the Declaration of Independence. While Locke believed these terms had specific meanings, as explained in the previous section, they are also subject to interpretation in an evolving American context.

Consider that my right to "life" often means that I have a right to physical protection. More than that, it means that the state may not take my life away arbitrarily. This type of liberty, which conservatives often espouse, is known as negative liberty. Negative liberty means limitations are placed on state action, or the state is required to protect liberty by ensuring that it cannot be infringed. But, as passage of the healthcare law illustrates, the right to "life" could also mean that the state has an obligation to ensure that I have a long and healthy one. Therefore, it is not enough to limit the actions of the state so that I can live, but the state must actually provide me with healthcare services. This type of liberty is known as positive liberty, and it is usually championed by more liberal voices. Positive liberty is when the state takes active steps to guarantee that my liberties will have meaning.

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 18/34

As a further example, imagine that I am looking for a job. Negative liberty, in this scenario, means that the state cannot stop me from taking a job that is offered in the marketplace. But positive liberty means that the government must provide me with a job if I am unable to find one on my own. Both views are captured in the Declaration and in the promotion of the general welfare that appears in the Constitution's preamble. Although American politics is characterized by Lasswell's, Schattschneider's and Lowi's definitions, it also revolves around competing interpretations of core values, i.e., just what it means to talk about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 19/34

1.4 Modern American Politics Listening to talk radio these days, one could easily get the impression that American politics is driven by two ideological extremes: the left that wants an all‐encompassing government controlling people's lives, and the right that wants to limit government in favor of individual liberty and free markets. One talk show host in particular, Mark Levin, presents politics as a contest between liberty and tyranny. For Levin, the left, which includes liberals and progressives, seeks to impose a tyrannical regime that absolves individuals of all personal responsibility and strips them of the individual liberty guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Levin argues that the right, which includes true conservatives, seeks to preserve individual liberty and limit government.

Liberals and progressives generally respond to these claims by arguing that government can be a force for bringing about a fair and equitable society. They do not seek to infringe upon individual liberty; rather, they seek to ensure a level playing field so that those with limited incomes also enjoy the full fruits of liberty. Whereas the right sees only government as a threat to individual liberty, the left sees private interests, including big corporations, as posing a similar threat. On both sides of the political spectrum, the loudest voices fail to accurately capture the range of issues and opinions that their opponents care about.

While the preamble to the U.S. Constitution states that the document's purpose is to promote the "general welfare," the meaning of that phrase is not clear. It was perhaps inevitable, then, that the root of today's American politics is a contest among different groups, driven by different ideologies, to define the term for all people. The fight over the 2010 healthcare law mentioned at the beginning of this chapter illustrates the politics that can surround the interpretation and application of core American values.

How Does Contemporary Liberalism Compare with Classical Liberalism?

Classical liberalism stressed limited government in an era when society was largely agricultural and people mostly worked on farms and in small towns rather than in offices and factories in big cities. This meant that one person's private activity was unlikely to adversely affect another. Modern liberalism, however, is usually associated with big government and large social programs; it stresses a more expansive role for government precisely because society is no longer as simple as it once was. In particular, our modern, complex economy produces market failures that have as much capacity to deprive individuals of their "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as does government itself.

Further, modern liberalism understands corporate power to be as threatening to individual liberty as state power. Therefore, the state needs to regulate private affairs to (1) protect individuals from

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 20/34

harm caused by others and, (2) maintain a framework where individuals can freely choose for themselves the lives they would like to live. This may involve both distribution and redistribution of resources. Again, this is all a matter of interpretation, and different groups seeking to attain power will interpret these matters in a way that best furthers their ends. One might ask how liberal political philosophy changed over time. Truthfully, liberalism today stands for what it always stood for, but the issues it confronts have changed.

Understanding the distinction between classical and modern liberalism is critical to understanding the nature of contemporary American politics. Both versions of liberalism stress the ability of individuals to decide how they want to live their lives. American liberalism promotes citizens' freedom to pursue their self‐interest in the marketplace, and to a large extent the American public interest is based on every individual following his or her private interests.

Table 1.2 Understanding Liberalism

Classical Modern Common Thread

Human agency Human agency Individual capacity to make choices

Unfettered individual liberty

Restraints on some individual liberty for protection of community

Liberty

Limited government

Active government because complex society requires it

Limited government, but it is a question of relativity.

Pursuit of self‐ interest

Pursuit of self‐ interest so long as it doesn't cause harm to others

The definition of harm is a question of how complex society is.

Private property is a natural right

Property is defined by positive law

Property is important for creating zones of protection around our interests.

Individual responsibility

Individual behavior is affected by larger forces beyond our control

Individual behavior is a function of our social environment. Therefore, there is a presumption in favor of individual responsibility so long as there are no other forces affecting it.

The Harm Principle

Classical liberalism, even as Locke conceived it, allowed for

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 21/34

English philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) said that persons have liberty to pursue their own interests but not to the point that it causes harm to another individual or community.

government regulation if it was to protect the public interest. In the nineteenth century, the English philosopher John Stuart Mill put forth the "harm principle" as the basis for governmental interference with individual liberty: a person cannot pursue his or her own interests to the point where it causes harm to an individual or the general community. Mill believed that the sole role of government was the preservation of liberty. In his classic work, On Liberty, he stated:

. . . the sole end for which mankind are warranted individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action or any of their number is self protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

This principle has been used to define the appropriate use of the state's regulatory power. The standard interpretation has been that government may regulate individual liberty to protect the health, welfare, and morals of the community. In nineteenth‐century America, harm meant only physical harm. Consider that in Locke's time, when most of the economy was agrarian (based on farming), someone farming a plot of land was not likely to cause harm to his neighbor on the adjacent plot of land. In Mill's time, which was a period of industrialization when more of the economy was based on manufacturing, a group of people could be harmed in the town down the stream from a polluting factory because pollution travels. By the 1930s, when the country was in the throes of a deep depression, harm could be caused by the market forcing the layoff of millions of workers.

The evolution of liberalism from its classical conception to its modern‐day version involved a shift in how people interpreted the words "harm" and "public health and welfare." Arguably, the core values that informed the creation of the American republic are very much the same, and sorting out what those values mean and how they apply to current circumstances is ultimately what makes American politics distinctive.

Table 1.3 Liberalism Versus Republicanism

Liberalism Republicanism

Individualism/Pursuit of self‐interest Individualism is second to public interest

Human agency Government pursues public interest that transcends individual interests

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 22/34

The U.S. Constitution is a marriage between liberalism and republicanism. However, much of American politics revolves around conflict and tension.

Society is large and diverse Society is small and homogenous

Public interest is summation of individuals pursuing their self‐interests

Separation of powers preserves political virtue and safeguards against corruption

Separation of powers protects individual rights

Bicameral legislature

Tolerance of diversity Assumption of shared interests

Marriage of Liberalism and Republicanism

An ongoing debate throughout American history has been whether the nation is liberal or republican. That is, are our values more in line with classical liberalism or classical republicanism? In fact, the American constitutional system is a marriage of both. The influence of the two is evident in the nature of contemporary American political discourse. Each contemporary political ideology on some level represents a belief system in its pure form. Individuals express their passions for these systems in political debate. Consider that the American political system is composed of 50 states and one national government. Each state is a republic unto itself. Each state has its own distinctive political culture, its own beliefs and value system. The political culture of Texas is surely different from the political cultures of either New York or California (See Figure 1.1).

The key difference between liberalism and republicanism is that liberalism tolerates diversity and is thus heterogeneous (made up of dissimilar parts) while republicanism prefers small governance units and assumes homogeneity (a makeup of parts that are all alike). Take, for instance, the difference between a large city like New York or Los Angeles and a small town somewhere in New England. In the city there is great diversity, and the only way to maintain unity is to have a tolerant, liberal framework. But tolerance can come about only through the rejection of moral absolutes. In the larger liberal framework with its great diversity, the public interest that emerges is generally based on consensus and represents a compromise

position of all the various interests. In the small town there is probably very little diversity. Instead, everyone has a shared culture, and most people tend to share the same beliefs. Because there is greater homogeneity, there is greater agreement on the public interest.

The Constitution, as we will see in the next chapter, clearly allows states to retain their respective

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 23/34

cultural uniqueness as expressions of their own sovereignty. Each state may define the public interest differently. At the same time, each state is represented in the federal government. Thus, the Constitution is effectively a liberal framework open to the presence of diverse states. Consequently, the public interest ends up being the consensus among the states. It is in this vein that the American Constitution is a marriage between liberalism and republicanism. Still, conflict and tension do exist, and it is around that conflict and tension that American politics revolve.

Figure 1.1: Political Diversity

What Does Liberalism Mean in Practice?

Returning to the Declaration of Independence, the premise that individuals are born with unalienable rights means that on a political level all individuals are equal before the law. This means the state cannot show favoritism for one over another. In practical terms, liberalism as a political philosophy rests on this conception of equality. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness correspond to liberalism's belief that each of us can choose what a "good life" means to us and then decide on a path that makes that conception a reality. The state is prohibited from choosing one person's good over another, as this violates liberal equality. The liberal state, in essence, places limits on government action so that the individual will be free to pursue his or her happiness.

Modern America is very different from colonial America and consequently requires government action from time to time. Colonial Americans idealized economic independence, but in modern

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 24/34

Healthcare reform in the United States would allow people who were previously uninsured to derive benefit. That some will have to pay an additional tax to bear additional costs is a classic example of Lasswell's "who gets what, when, and how" connection between politics and power.

America, most people work for others and have little control over their own destinies. Had the farmer in an earlier period decided to plant a crop that perhaps was not profitable, the impact would most likely have been felt only by that farmer and his family. But consider that if the management of Factory X opts to disinvest from that factory to invest elsewhere, like Central America, the decision may result in thousands of people losing their jobs. Because more people are likely to be hurt by forces outside of their direct control in modern America, government may have to act to protect their interests. The action is justified on the grounds that it is essential to the maintenance of America's core values of liberty, equality, individualism, democracy, and rule of law. It should also be remembered that since the republican tradition stresses the public good as taking precedence over individual interests, the state has a right to take action to ensure the public good.

Political battles often arise over competing interpretations of how best to serve the public good. The liberal tradition in America has found visible expression in a style of politics that

has made it difficult to arrive at consensus and agreement. We do not all agree on what the American core values mean. The political process in the United States is essentially a liberal one because it is open to a multitude of interests, each lobbying for a position based on a particular ideological commitment. At the same time, the American political process is republican because it has established intermediaries that these competing ideologies have to go through. The modern conservative seeks to conserve the traditions of the past. If liberalism traditionally meant limited government, then conservatives seek to maintain that tradition.

The Importance of Constitutional Debates

Many of the tensions in modern American politics—including the tensions between conservatives and liberals—are, at heart, disagreements about the meaning of liberalism. The tension is contained in the ambiguous wording of the U.S. Constitution. Understanding constitutional ambiguity, as we will see later, is also essential to understanding the nature of American politics. The American Constitution is a short and very general document that does not give specifics. Some argue that this brevity makes it a living document that is just as relevant today as it was when it was written in 1787. Generality allows us as a society to reinterpret "first" principles to fit a changing world. It allows government to experiment in terms of policy.

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 25/34

These reinterpretations may lead to what the political scientist Samuel Huntington calls "creedal passion" periods, when large numbers of Americans return to first principles. This brings us to another key feature of American politics: history matters. How we understand the Constitution and its contemporary application to politics and public policy is shaped by past constitutional interpretation. Therefore, as creedal passion periods represent a return to first principles, they underscore the vestiges of the old that can be found in the new. The debate, however, always revolves around those first principles found in the nation's founding documents.

The Constitution establishes the parameters for who gets what, when, and how. But constitutionality is also important because when a matter is deemed constitutional, it effectively validates the ideological position that fought for that issue. In other words, constitutional debates help clarify the meaning of core American principles. When we talk about what government may be allowed to do constitutionally, the debate often revolves around whether government will continue being limited or become more expansive. On many issues of policy the Constitution does not give specific guidance, and ultimately the answer gets thrashed out in the Supreme Court. But what does it mean to maintain a limited government in a world where we also expect government to do so much?

The Role of Government Today

Until the 1930s, the federal government's primary duties were to deliver the mail, provide for national defense, and maintain foreign policy. Public assistance, if there was any, was the province of the states, and so, too, was education. But as Table 1.4 suggests, the role of the federal government is now quite extensive. It regulates any number of our activities and provides considerable services. Moreover, if one considers that as average Americans we purchase stamps in a federal post office, send our children to public schools, and obtain local permits to expand our homes, government— whether it be federal, state, or local—is a larger presence in our lives than supposed by the language of the Declaration of Independence.

As mentioned earlier, political and constitutional debates typically revolve around the specific meaning of promoting the general welfare. If general welfare means an environment where individuals can pursue their own interests free from government intrusion, then government is responsible only for our physical safety. And if the purpose of government is to provide for a common defense and secure our liberty, then government is assumed to be limited in its function consistent with the Lockean formula, also contained in the Declaration, of no more than protecting property. Contemporary conservatives take this narrower reading of the preamble to be a basic statement of our first principles. Contemporary liberals, however, take "providing for the general welfare" to mean meeting people's needs, such as public assistance, job creation, and healthcare.

How can each group walk away with different readings of these principles? Consider for a moment the issue of public assistance. The staunch conservative—one who believes that government should

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 26/34

always protect our liberty and should never pursue programs or policies that infringe on it— considers public assistance to be a form of tyranny. But how could this be? It is only helping the poor. The conservative, especially the one who espouses pure liberty, would argue that whenever government provides something there are usually rules attached, and those rules may prescribe behavior for the recipients. Therefore, as a matter of principle, the poor should not be given public assistance because it puts them in the position where their liberty will be encroached upon.

The contemporary liberal, however, holds public assistance, and other positive governmental programs, to be essential to the promotion of the general welfare because there is such a thing as market failure. The market can fail to produce sufficient opportunity for individuals to be employed and work. So, as liberals see it, if someone is poor it is not his or her fault but rather the fault of larger socioeconomic forces beyond his or her control, and so the government should help the individual overcome those circumstances.

Table 1.4: Selected Functions of Federal Government by Departments and Agencies

Department or Agency

Function

Central Intelligence Agency

Collects intelligence information

Department of Agriculture

Oversees farming and agriculture Administers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as Food Stamps, that provides assistance to low‐ and no‐income people to buy food

Department of Commerce

Oversees commercial activity Through the U.S. Census Bureau, collects statistics and demographic information about the U.S. population

Department of Defense

Oversees the U.S. Armed Forces, including the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard Operates the National Security Agency, which collects intelligence information

Department of Education

Formulates educational policy and offers it to the States

Department of Energy

Responsible for U.S. energy policy

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 27/34

Department of Health and Human Services

Oversees U.S. domestic and social policy Operates the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which provide medical care to older adults and the poor Operates the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which helps protect public health and safety Operates the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates food and drug safety Operates the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which conducts biomedical and health related research

Department of Homeland Security

Coordinates domestic security policy and operations Operates the Federal Emergency and Management Agency (FEMA), which provides disaster relief Operates the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Operates the U.S. Secret Service, which investigates crimes related to money and counterfeiting and protects the president of the United States

Department of the Interior

Maintains national parks and other public lands and resources

Department of Justice

Enforces federal law and prosecutes federal crimes

Department of Labor

Collects labor force information and enforces labor laws Operates the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which collects data on the labor force

Department of State

Conducts U.S. foreign policy

Department of Transportation

Responsible for transportation policy Operates the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA), which regulates the airline industry

Department of the Treasury

Manages government revenue Produces and manages U.S. currency

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 28/34

Supervises national banks Oversees the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which collects taxes and interprets and enforces the Internal Revenue Code

Federal Communications Commission

Regulates the television and broadcasting industries

Federal Election Commission

Regulates federal elections

Federal Reserve Board

Sets national monetary policy and regulates the U.S. banking system

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Explores and conducts experiments in space

National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)

Funds artistic expression

National Science Foundation

Funds scientific research

National Transportation Safety Board

Investigates civil transportation accidents

Securities and Exchange Commission

Regulates the stock market

Social Security Administration

Pays retirement benefits to older adults and disability benefits to the disabled.

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 29/34

Summary and Application To summarize the points that we have established in the chapter, and that will guide our understanding throughout the remainder of the book, politics is defined as who gets what, when, and how. A political universe is typically composed of various groups or interests, with each jockeying for position. When a group is able to beat out others to get what it wants, it can say that it truly has power. The same applies to the competing definitions of a nation's core values because how they are defined will affect a particular group's interests.

American politics revolves around the core values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that have been articulated in the Declaration of Independence. It also revolves around what it means to promote the general welfare, as stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. These core ideas, to which we would add equality, constitutionalism, rule of law, and the pursuit of self‐interest in a free marketplace, are very much rooted in two distinct, but not mutually exclusive, political ideologies: liberalism and republicanism. Over time, both have shaped the way we interpret our core values and principles and how we fight for the meaning of those values.

As an example, the taxpayers earning in excess of $250,000, who will have to pay higher taxes to cover healthcare, will most likely express their opposition in terms of liberty and contend that this bill infringes on that liberty. They want lower taxes, and they will appeal to the language that expresses our core beliefs in the Declaration of Independence. Their interpretation of those core beliefs will shape who gets what, when, and how. Others will argue that if healthcare offers greater security to the larger public, it gives their liberty more meaning, especially if it frees them from bankruptcy. They will further argue that those with more should pay for those with little or nothing because the system of liberty enabled the wealthy to acquire what they have. Their larger argument will be that healthcare is a matter of "the general welfare."

If politics is understood in terms of coalition building and the building of those coalitions through Schattschneider's mobilization of bias, it is the appeal to ideology that becomes the vehicle for that mobilization. American politics is distinctive because various groups in the American political arena mobilize bias through specific appeals to core American values contained in the nation's founding documents.

Key Ideas to Remember

The Framers of the Constitution were influenced by many ideas in sixteenth‐ and seventeenth‐century political thought. The most important of these were the political philosophies of liberalism and republicanism.

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 30/34

Politics is defined as who gets what, when, and, how. American politics specifically revolves around core values of liberty, equality, individualism, and democracy, which have different meanings for different people. Core American values can be found in the Declaration of Independence in the words life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These ideas are the basis of a liberal political philosophy that underlies American political culture and politics. The Framers sought to create a republican form of government that would protect Americans' basic liberties to pursue their own self‐interests and believed that if government left people alone, the overall public interest would be served. To protect individual liberty, the framers of the constitution believed that power should be divided up through a separation of powers, which was very similar to British mixed constitution. The U.S. Constitution talks about promoting the general welfare but does not specify what those words mean; therefore, American politics ends up being a question of who gets to define what it means and how a particular definition furthers a particular set of interests.

Questions to Consider

What are our core values as Americans? What is the basis for those beliefs? What is the difference between classical liberalism and republicanism and why is each important to American identity? Now that you understand America's core values, decide if the healthcare reform bill is consistent with American values or contrary to them. Explain your answer.

Web Links

The Declaration of Independence: http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/)

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, entry on liberalism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/)

The Citizens Compendium (an open wiki project), discussion of republicanism: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Republicanism,_U.S. (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Republicanism,_U.S.)

The Philosophy Pages, by Garth Kemerling: http://www.philosophypages.com/

http://www.philosophypages.com/

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Republicanism,_U.S.

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 31/34

(http://www.philosophypages.com/)

Key Terms

Key Term Definition

American exceptionalism The theory that the United States does not conform to the patterns of the rest of the world.

aristocracy Rule by the few landowners; it is rule by the wealthy elite.

bicameral legislature A legislature divided into two chambers: an upper house and a lower house.

checks and balances When one branch of government checks the other and balances out its power.

citizenship The idea that one belongs to a political community.

classical liberalism Seventeenth‐century liberalism based in writings of John Locke.

commercial republic A republic where the public interest is defined by a marketplace where goods are freely traded.

commonwealth A civil society where the ultimate goal is to serve the common good.

constitutional When an action or law is in agreement with the written constitution.

corruption When government officials pursue their self‐interests at the expense of the public good.

democracy Rule by the people.

despotic government Situation in which leaders seek to serve only their own interests.

distribution The granting of public goods to every individual.

equality

The principle under which each individual is subject to the same laws, with no individual or group having special privileges.

The person or branch of government that implements

http://www.philosophypages.com/

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 32/34

executive and administers laws passed by a legislative body.

general welfare

The general well‐being of all members of the community; the phrase is in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, but it means different things to different people.

government by consensus When decision‐making is based on general agreement among the actors in government.

human agency The idea that all people have the capacity to think for themselves and determine how best to live their lives.

judiciary The branch of government that uses the courts to determine whether acts of the government are constitutional.

legislative The branch of government that represents the people and passes laws.

liberalism Belief in the importance of individual liberty and equal rights.

liberty The idea that one should behave according to his or her own free will and take responsibility for his or her actions.

limited government The concept of small government that is limited in its function to protecting individual rights.

mixed constitution A constitution that combines democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy

modern liberalism A current version of liberalism that stresses more active government because society is more complex than during the seventeenth century.

natural rights Rights that people are born with.

negative liberty Limitations on what government can do so that individuals can enjoy their liberty.

political uuthority The power of the government.

mobilization of bias Getting people who aren't part of a cause to support it.

political culture The beliefs and values of the political community.

8/16/2015 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUPOL201.12.2?sections=copyright,ch01,sec1.1,sec1.2,sec1.3,sec1.4,ch1_eoc&content=all&clientToken=6930882e34b402… 33/34

political freedom The idea that in a political community the individual can do what he or she wants within certain limits.

popular sovereignty The idea that the people are the basis of legitimate authority and power.

positive liberty When government must actively provide people with things so that they can enjoy their liberty or so their liberty has meaning.

redistribution When government takes from one group to give to another.

regulation When government restricts the rights of one group for the benefit of others or all the people.

representative democracy When the people pick representatives to govern on their behalf; also known as indirect democracy.

republicanism A philosophy that stresses personal independence for the sake of the community's public interest.

revolution When one government is forcibly overthrown by another.

rule of law When government officials are restrained by reason and law.

rule of man When government officials govern on the basis of irrational passion and do so arbitrarily.

separation of powers The division of power into distinct branches of government.

social contract The idea that individuals come together to form a government for the sake of protection.

state of nature A term used in political philosophy to describe the hypothetical condition of humanity before the creation of governing states.

tyranny When a group or government infringes upon the rights of the people.

unalienable rights The idea that we are born with certain rights in nature.