Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Introduction to GOVT 2301
American National & State Governments I
Welcome
As you know, this is one of two classes designed to introduce you
to the United States and Texas Constitutions, the basic language of government and politics, and the nature of American political
institutions.
These are the basic subjects we cover in this class
Natural RightsConstitutional Design
Civil Liberties and RightsElections
Political PartiesParticipatory Rights
Speech, Press, Interest Groups
Other items are covered in 2302
These will include the History, Constitutional Structure and Contemporary Design of the
Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches.
Why is it important that you know this stuff?
Why is this a required class?
Because you are citizens in a democratic republic.
Democracies are based on the people and its actions are the culmination of the preferences
of the population.
That is what “consent of the governed” means.
This is expressed subtly when individuals choose to follow or not follow the laws, pay taxes, in
protecting the republic when threatened, or in deciding to participate in public events like
elections.
An educated participatory and virtuous citizenry has always been considered to be necessary to the survival of a democratic republic.
Why?
Because democratic republics are fragile. History provides many examples of them losing public support and falling into anarchy
and then despotism.
The nation’s founders were generally classically educated and were familiar with the history of
Rome.
(Who were the founders? Here’s the Wikipedia page on who
qualifies as a “founder.”
After almost 500 years as a Republic (509 BC–27 BC), where it
was ruled by its citizens, Rome became an empire.
The driving force behind this change was Julius Caesar.
What is a Republic?
A republic is a type of government where the citizens choose the
leaders of their country and the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its
government. -Wikipedia
In short, a governing system where the people rule themselves.
But while a republic, Rome was also chaotic, unstable, and
sometimes ungovernable. Leaders were often corrupt and unpopular.
What is an Empire?
A major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples
under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state. The territory of such a political unit. Something
resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single
domination or control.
During the empire, all civil and military power rested with the
emperor. The people had no say in governance, though emperors had
to appease them in order to minimize the possibility of
rebellion.
In short, a governing system where the people are ruled by an
emperor and have little ability, if any, to directly participate in public
affairs.
But these could also be times of peace and prosperity.
Again, this shift from republic to empire was driven by Julius Caesar, an ambitious general who attempted to
turn the republic into an empire under his control.
He failed because he was assassinated by Senators who were aware of his plans, now you know why he was
killed.
But his nephew Augustus Caesar would succeed.
A quick video about him.
Here’s some irony: The chaotic republic was transformed into a more peaceful empire. After Augustus there would be over 200 years of peace in
Rome: The Pax Romana.
This creates a dilemma: Which system is preferable?
A bit more history from the movies: The emperor who would
end the Pax Romana was Commodus – the guy from the Gladiator. It is argued that the decline of the Roman Empire
began with his rule.
A few videos on You Tube try to explain this transition. Here are a
few you might want to watch:
Rome: The Fall of the Republic (1-4)
So the question became: What factors led to the decline of the Republic, and could the decline
have been prevented?
In short: Is a Republic – a system of government – based on the
people, sustainable?
As a practical matter – considering that the early empire seemed temporarily to be a successful
system – what balance ought to be struck between popular rule and a
central state?
What system of government can best preserve order and liberty in
the long run?
Mrs. Powel: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
Benjamin Franklin: "A republic if you can keep it“
- An exchange alleged to have taken place at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention.
Abraham Lincoln would also ask the question, posed differently,
during a challenge to the preservation of the republic:
“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. …”
Abraham LincolnThe opening of the Gettysburg Address
So why are republics difficult to maintain?
The founders argued that the basic problem stems from human nature. Are we naturally co-operative or do
we like to fight? Are we willing to make sacrifices for the greater good or
are we purely self interested?
A democratic republic can only be maintained if the people are
willing to look after a society’s long term needs.
The founders thought the public was not prone to do so.
"Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public
virtue is the only foundation of republics." - John Adams
Public Virtue
But people tend to be more focused on short term personal
needs. This is not conducive to the maintenance of a Republic.
Common deficiencies:
CorruptionAmbition
ComplacencySelf Interest
All create problems for the maintenance of a republic. Note: A key philosophic dispute
is whether human nature can be improved. Enlightenment thinkers fought this out. The founders seemed to think it could not be improved and a governing
system had to compensate for this.
Click here for fuller background on the Enlightenment
.
What’s worse, democratic republics tend to develop the very
factors that will lead to their demise.
The freer people are, the more they can engage in conflict over
social affairs, including how government ought to be run and over who ought to be in charge.
This can create dissension that can lead to the dismantling of the
republic.
Notice that this conflict develops because people are free to
develop, articulate and act on their own opinions.
Is self government in fact possible?
American Government is founded, in a sense, on a contradiction. While it is
based on the people (popular sovereignty) historically the people
have demonstrated themselves not to be a solid foundation for government.
At least the elites thought so.
The country’s founders did not necessarily expect the republic to last. Previous republics had not. One of history’s lessons is that
democracies tend to be very short lived.
Many argued that the role of the general population needed to be
curtailed in order to maintain stability.
Here’s a quote from Alexander Hamilton.
“For my part, I am not much attached to the majesty of the multitude, and therefore waive all pretensions (founded on such conduct), to their countenance. I
consider them in general as very ill qualified to judge for themselves what government will best suit their
peculiar situations; nor is this to be wondered at. The science of government is not easily understood. Cato
will admit, I presume, that men of good education and deep reflection, only, are judges of the form of a government; whether it is constituted on such
principles as will restrain arbitrary power, on the one hand, and equal to the exclusion of corruption and the
destruction of licentiousness on the other” - (Caesar #2) Alexander Hamilton
This, by the way, was not an especially wise thing to say politically.
Neither was it wise to sign the document “Caesar.” He would not
repeat this mistake when he co-wrote the Federalist Papers and signed them
“Publius.”
The essence of the American Experiment is to discover whether self government is in fact possible.
Alexander Hamilton (later, when he seemed to have would claim
that this was the question America was to answer for the world.
“It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether
societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection
and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.”
- Publius (Alexander Hamilton), Federalist #1
Notice the choices:
Reflection and choice
Accident and force
American government, Texas included, is based on popular
consent. The governmental system is a choice, it only survives to the degree that people make choices
that maintain it.
Is the general population capable of offering informed consent?
What are people willing to consent to?
Is the general population willing to be persuaded to support one party or the other, or one candidate or
the other, for superficial short sighted reasons harmful to the
long term interests of the community?
Bread and Circuses
Can the support of the people be bought? At what price? This is one
of the reasons why we are a republic, not a pure democracy.
Government based on popular consent requires an educated
population capable of providing a solid basis for governing.
An educated choice
An understanding of the principles of government is argued necessary
to maintain the republic.
That’s what this class is supposed to accomplish.
But here’s the problem:
Most public opinion surveys demonstrate that people lack the knowledge about governmental
issues, and attentiveness to politics that was expected necessary
by the founders.
Some links to some disturbing poll results:
- PEW Research- How Dumb Are We?-
Is voter ignorance killing democracy
?
As we saw with Hamilton, many founders expected that the mass public would be incapable of self-government and purposely limited participation to a ruling class that would have the ability to govern
effectively.
Cato Institute: Why Policymakers Should Ignore Public Opinion Polls
.
Those who own America ought to govern it.
- John Jay
But since the early years of the republic, suffrage has expanded considerably. Participation has
broadened.
We have evolved into a more full democracy than we were at our founding. Public education has
been seen as being central to this effort. An educated citizenry can more effectively govern itself.
Here’s some interesting commentary:
Education for Civitas: The Lessons Americans Must
Learn
Thomas Jefferson was an early promoter of civic education. He was
influential on two pieces of legislation that promoted education.
1- A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge
2 – The Northwest Ordinance
Preamble to a Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge
A link to the entire bill.
“Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect
individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy,
yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow
operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition
under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes.” – From the Preamble.
The Northwest Ordinance (1787) established the rules regarding the development of the territory that
would become Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin.
It encouraged the development of schools.
Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to
good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and
the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
The lack of a system of public education was used as by the
Texas settlers as a reason to justify revolution against Mexico.
It [the Mexican Government] has failed to establish any public system of education, although possessed of almost boundless
resources, (the public domain,) and although it is an axiom in political science, that unless a
people are educated and enlightened, it is idle to expect the continuance of civil liberty, or the
capacity for self government.
- one of the grievances in the Texas Declaration of Independence.
But over American history there has been a struggle over what civic education means, what should be
taught, how And by whom.
This overview should explain why you are taking this class.
After this semester is through, you should have a general sense of the principles of American government and the various debates that have
occurred over history regarding those principles.
For purposes of this class, this means having an understanding of basic governing principles, a basic
appreciation of the rules of the game, and the terminology of
government.
We will begin with a definition of a few terms.
The two basic terms:
“Government”
“Politics”
Two Definitions of “Government”
- The institution, or institutions, with the monopoly on the legitimate use of
coercion in society
- The institutions and procedures through which a land and its people are ruled.
Three Definitions of “Politics”
1- The authoritarian allocation of values in society.
2 - The struggle over who gets what when and how.
3 - Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit in order to gain control or
power
These terms are distinct.
“Government” refers to the institutions that possess the
authority to rule, “politics” refers to the efforts to influence what
those rules will look like.
We should discuss one more term so that the rest of these slides
make sense.
Sovereignty
Three definitions of “sovereignty”
1 - supreme power, especially over a body politic
2 - the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a territory
3 - the power to do everything in a state without accountability
In the U.S. we claim that sovereignty rests with the people.
Of course, things get complicated after that since the people cannot directly rule – but we will dig into
this later.
A key controversy concerning sovereignty:
Do the people always retain sovereignty or, once they agree to establish governing institutions, do they surrender that right to those
institutions with the understanding that they can keep them in check
through periodic elections?
Back to the first definition:
“What is Government?”
This is the term used to define the institutions that have evolved to
establish and implement rules that determine how a group of people
will live together in some agreeable way.
Here’s a trivial way to approach the issue. Among other things, a
government determines what types of transportation systems
will be developed and what rules will determine how people use
them.
Think of roads and the various rules (drive on the right hand side,
stop for red lights, and drive at reasonable rates of speed) that allow people to use them safely.
We will discuss controversies regarding what types of goods and services are best provided by the
public or private sector soon enough, but for now think of government as the entity that has the authority to
make – and more importantly implement – rules that govern
interrelationships and transactions among people.
Here’s some history: There are two models which describe the evolution
and origins of government.
1 - Coercion: Government based on force.
2 - Consent: Government based on an agreement.
Governments historically evolve due to “coercion.” One group
forces another to join with them, or fall under their dominion.
This is the most historically accurate description about how
governments evolve.
Examples:
- Roman conquest of Britain- Muslim conquests - Mongol conquests
- Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire
Sovereignty rests with the rulers, not the ruled. The ruled are
subject to whatever the conquerors choose.
These governments are kept in place through violence.
A government that rests on consent derives its authority from the general population. The ruled
are the rulers. The only justification for governmental authority is the consent of the
governed.
American government is based on “consent.” A group of individuals in a state of nature join together for
mutual security and in order to better achieve group goals.
This is stated in the Declaration of Independence.
While we will dig into this document more fully soon, why
don’t you read the first two paragraphs top get an idea of what
the argument is.
As we will see in the next section, the Declaration of Independence was
based on John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government
(1689), which develops the idea that man is born in a state of nature and consents to form a government for
mutual security, among other reasons.
The theory begins with the assumption that people are
endowed with rights and argues that a government is consented to
in order to secure those rights.
Otherwise these rights are insecure.
Others are always interested in taking your stuff.
In addition, justice, as we know it, cannot happen unless there exists
a neutral means of reconciling disputes. That is what a
government – an independent court system – is supposed to
provide.
Governing Institutions
In the American system, there are three types of governing powers
and these are vested in three types of institutions:
Legislative Executive
Judicial
As we will see soon enough, these are the separated powers.
These are, in turn, the:
Law Making BranchesLaw Implementing Branches
Adjudicating Branches
They are generally composed of:
Representative AssembliesEffective Administration
Impartial Courts
Note the adjectives. The legislative assembly is designed to represent the will of the electorate, the executive is designed to effectively implement the decisions made by the legislature, and the judiciary is supposed to impartially
adjudicate disputes over the implementation of that law.
As we will see in future lectures, in the American system, these three
institutions are designed to be independent and serve to check
each other’s power.
We will also note that these institutions exist on the national,
state and local levels. The term for this, we will discover, is federalism.
The American governing system is very decentralized and very
complex as well.
While each is held to be equal, they aren’t really.
In reality, the legislative and executive branches are stronger
than the judicial.
The Legislature possesses the power of the purse
It can impose taxes and distribute spending.
The Executive possesses the power of the sword.
It implements the law. In some sense, the term government in the
minds of many means the executive.
This is an important point. In order to be a called a “government,” a
governing entity has to be able to (1) compel individuals to follow the law
and (2) to collect revenue.
The executive has the power to do both, but is supposed to be restrained
by the legislature and judiciary.
Everything else that a government does is up to the sovereign.
EducationHealth Services
Business Developmentetc . . .
The Judiciary is only as strong as the other branches are willing to allow it
to be. It has no control over the purse or the sword, apart from its ability to
check the powers of the executive and legislature. Its primary power is
influence. Its influence depend on how fair people think its decisions are.
One of the major accomplishments of Anglo-American governance was
the development of separate governing institutions with defined job descriptions and the ability to
restrain each other.
The most important of these accomplishments was the ability to
restrain executive power.
We will discuss this more thoroughly in the next section.
What different types of government can exist?
There are many.
There are two ways to distinguish types of government. We can ask
two questions:
1- Where is sovereignty located?2 – How much individual freedom
is allowed?
First way to distinguish between governmental systems is to
determine where is sovereignty located.
There are three possibilities.
Autocracy - where there is rule by the one
Oligarchy – Where there is rule by the few
Democracy – Where there is rule by the many
Each has advantages and disadvantages, and as we will see,
each aspect of American government tends towards one of
these types.
Autocracies are efficient, meaning they can act quickly. The fewer people
needed to respond to a crisis, the more effectively it can be addressed.
But the rule can also be very arbitrary. There are no rules in place that can
limit the actions of government, so the autocrat can do what he or she
pleases.
Oligarchies are capable, meaning that the ruling class is often composed of people
who have some general skills, knowledge or ability that makes it more likely that they can rule well, but their rule can be
biased. The benefits handed out by government are more likely to flow to
them and those they choose to reward. Oligarchies commonly use hereditary or
class distinctions to confer these advantages.
Democracies are generally considered to be legitimate by the
populations they rule over, meaning that their decisions are more likely to be accepted by the general population since they see
themselves as being participants in their formation.
But democracies, since they are driven by a majority, prone to passion and
succumb to mob violence.
They have a tendency to not respect the rights of the minority, and can be
as tyrannical as any other type of government. It was a Greek
democracy that executed Socrates.
The founders believed that they were prone to chaos and
instability.
Unstable Greek democracies were taken over by tyrants.
Remember the Greek troops in 300?
They were Spartans – that was a military dictatorship, not a
democracy.
As we will see, each is incorporated into the American constitutional
system.
This allows for the benefits of each to be incorporated into the government,
and the disadvantages of each to – hopefully - be checked by the other
two.
Legislatures are DemocraticExecutives are AutocraticJudiciaries are Oligarchic
Since we identify ourselves as democratic, here’s more detail on
democracy.
Definition: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people
and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of
representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
There are generally three components of democracy
Universal Adult SuffrageMajority Rule
Minority Rights
All adults should be able to vote.
The majority (or some such criteria) should make decision about public
affairs.
But there ought to be limits to what the majority can do in order to protect
the rights of minorities.
We will note in coming sections the tension between majority rule and minority rights. We will point out that democratic societies are
not necessarily free. Majorities can tyrannize minorities quite easily in
a democracy.
There are two types of democracy
Direct (or Pure)Indirect (or Representative)
In a pure democracy, the people are able to directly vote for
legislation while in a representative democracy the
people vote for others who will pass laws, and then hold them
accountable in periodic elections.
The United States is an indirect democracy.
The distinction touches on a critical issue. Democracy means rule by the people, but how closely should the
people be able to rule?
Should decisions be instantaneously implemented, or should there be institutions to modify their direct
impact?
And example of a pure, or direct, democracy:
The New England town hall meeting.
Are these good or bad? Decision making is kept close to the people,
but passionate, unjust decisions can be made by them.
We will note in Federalist #10 that James Madison did not like these
type of government.
“Alexis de Tocqueville once said that "local institutions," such as town meetings, were ‘to liberty
what primary schools are to science.’“ – WaPo.
- History of Town Meeting in New England.
The Founders were uninterested in founding a direct – or “pure” –
democracy. They believed that many of the problems they faced were
caused by the excessive democracies created under the Articles of
Confederation. Institutions composed of representatives should come
between the people and the law.
They were suspicious of democracy
Click here for quotes regarding the excesses of democracy
.
The second way to distinguish between governmental systems: How much individual freedom is
allowed?
Three relevant terms:
TotalitarianAuthoritarianConstitutional
A constitutional system is also called a system of limited
government.
It is the only one where meaningful limits are placed on the powers of government. The others are prone
to arbitrary rule.
In a totalitarian system, all power rests with the state. There is no
sense of individualism as we might recognize it.
But totalitarian governments are difficult and costly to sustain. The bright individual can be seen as a threat and resource are used to
contain them. The most totalitarian countries tend to also
be the poorest.
Here is Parade Magazine’s list of the ten worst dictators of 2009.
Authoritarian governments wish to expand their power, but tend to have to share power with other
institutions in society and are unable to have total control.
They are totalitarian wannabes.
Constitutional governments are based on enforceable
constitutions. These place limits on their power. As a consequence, a
priority is placed on individual freedom.
These nature of these freedoms ands limitations are spelled out in
a country’s constitution.
We will spend several weeks on this subject soon.
First, a definition: what is a Constitution?
“A set of rules for a government that articulate its powers and functions, and establishes its
institutions, principles, structures and procedures. It also establishes its relationship
with the general population by clearly stating its limits and the rights of the people.”
A Constitution does not simply limit power by stating what its
institutions cannot do, but by also properly balancing the various
powers within society so that no one can dominate the others.
Later this semester we will discuss substantive and procedural
freedoms.
But why value individual freedom?
Why allow people to be free?
Two answers
1 – Freedom is a natural right
2 – There are tangible benefits to living in a free society.
The first is a philosophical question which we will save for next week.
For now simply recall the argument in the Declaration of
Independence above. It states that it is a self evident truth that people
are born with unalienable rights and that governments are
established to preserve them.
As for the second: Free societies tend to be wealthier than un-free
societies. An independent business and academic sector can emerge and introduce new ideas that can
enhance the well being of the people and the nation.
Minimal governmental interference with business and
social affairs allows for innovation and development.
There tends to be a positive relationship between freedom and national wealth.
Adam Smith argued that free markets promoted the general
welfare.
John Stuart Mill argued that free speech did the same. People should be free to challenge
orthodox beliefs.
But free markets allow for the development of powerful interests outside the control of government
BusinessesCorporationsUniversities
Religious Institutionsetc . . .
And free speech allows for those in charge to be challenged by others.
It leads to the development of a political sector. What had been
seditious libel, subject to punishment, is now politics.
Concluding point:
The restriction of the arbitrary use of governing power has led to the development of a political sector.
Central to this was the development of the right to peaceably assemble and to
petition government for a redress of grievances in late 17th Century Britain.
People were able to meet together and criticize the king.
This allows for the legal development of political organizations.
This allows for us to transition to a discussion of the second term”
“Politics”
To repeat an earlier slide: What is Politics?
Conflict over the authoritative allocation of values in society.
The struggle over who gets what when and how.
Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit or group in order to gain control or power
Politics almost inevitably involves conflict. Conflict often
revolves around two key factors:
ValuesInterests
Values
A sense of what is right and wrong, and whether a government has the
authority to address it. For examples, think of the ongoing
struggles over abortion and same-sex marriage.
Values: the ideals, customs, institutions, etc., of a society
toward which the people of the group have an affective regard. These values may be positive, as
cleanliness, freedom, or education, or negative, as cruelty, crime, or
blasphemy. – dictionary.com
Since the U.S. was based on a set of governing principles articulated
in founding documents, certain values are held to be distinctly
American
These include:
Natural RightsIndividual Liberty
Equality of OpportunitySelf Sufficiency
Self GovernmentCommunity
Some of these are in conflict.
We can’t be both free and equal. The same with individualism and communitarianism. These ideals are in conflict. At some point one
must choose one or the other.
Disputes over values have led to the development of broad
ideological movements organized around these disputes.
The same is true for interests
Interests
The tangible benefits one receives from government. Think of the
struggle over where tax rates are set, which industries are subsidized, what
regulations are set, and where spending is focused.
Interests: regard for one's own advantage or profit; self-interest: The partnership dissolved because
of their conflicting interests. – dictionary.com
According to James Madison, conflict over interests are
inevitable, and groups will always form around those interests.
He called these groups factions. We call them interest groups.
“As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his
opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will
attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable
obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of
different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property
immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.” –
continued
A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in
civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and
views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of
modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary
operations of the government.
- James Madison, Federalist #10
As we will see in future sections, the framers of the Constitution
took these factors into consideration and used the
Constitution’s design as a way to condition how these groups affect
governance.
Conflict over values and interests involve huge political fights and a
variety of organizations have developed in America to conduct
those fights.
These are properly called political institutions, since they attempt to
influence the decisions of government. These are three dominant types od
institutions.
Political PartiesInterest Groups
The Press
Political Party: A group of individuals that have organized
around shared political principles with the intent of winning
elections to governmental office and organizing governing institutions once in power
Interest Group: an organization that seeks to influence political
decisions often by lobbying elected leaders directly and becoming
active in elections.
The Press: Organizations with the technology and audience to
disseminate information. This can include the media and
public relations firms among others.
Each are external forces (though political parties have worked their
way into the operations of Congress) on government that
allow those not in power to have an influence on government, and
those in power to consolidate control.
In a democracy, the most important political force on
government is public opinion.
Public opinion directly impacts elections
A key question investigated by political scientists: Why do people take the positions they do? We will
explore this in future sections.
Political Ideologies have evolved as ways to make sense of the various
values people hold.
A simple definition of Political Ideology:
A set of positions on issues that are based on a fundamental value.
Two seemingly consistent values – freedom and equality – can
actually lead to different positions on political issues since these
values are often in conflict.
Two Dominant Ideologies in Contemporary Politics
ConservatismLiberalism
Some useful links:
- A list of policial ideologies.- Nolan Chart.
- Political Spectrum.- For Fun: A quiz on ideology.
- And here’s another.
The more one prioritizes freedom, the more one is likely to be
conservative.
The more one prioritizes equality, the more one is likely to be liberal.
Conservatism
• Historically based on support for tradition, the status quo, and the preservation of privilege
• More recently also focused on individual liberty
• Private solutions preferred over public solutions. Smaller levels of government preferred over larger
• Most important historical figure: Edmund Burke
Liberalism
• Historically oriented towards reform and the liberation of lower classes.
• More recently focused also on equality.• Support for anti-poverty and civil rights
policies.• Governmental solutions often preferred over
private sector solutions
Neither is thoroughly cohesive. Disputes exist within each. Few
people are completely conservative or completely liberal.
Most people in the United States call themselves moderate, rather
than liberal or conservative.
Where do you fit?
Here are a few areas of dispute between liberalism and
conservatism.
Traditionalism vs. Reform
Conservatives argue that traditional relationships (think: heterosexual marriage) provide stability for a
society and that these should not be radically changed. Liberals argue that
these relationships should be modified to comply with changing morays of
society.
Religion
Conservatives historically have supported the promotion of Protestantism and the display of Protestant images in public buildings, thought these have been recently expanded to include
Catholicism and Judaism. Liberals are more supportive of a secular approach to government (the wall of separation), restrictions of religious imagery and inclusion of Islam, Hinduism and
other religions in their understanding of religion.
The Free Market
Conservatives support free markets (or more appropriately laissez-faire markets), with
minimal intervention by government, except to promote and enhance the marketplace. Liberals
are more willing to allow government to provide, or subsidize, certain services that
would not otherwise be provided by the market, such as Social Security and Medicare.
Regulations
Conservatives argue that private industry can regulate itself and there is no need for regulatory agencies, which only suppress
competition and inhibit innovation. Liberals argue that regulatory agencies are necessary to curb corruption, ensure fair, open transactions, and limit externalities
like pollution.
The Military v. Diplomacy
Conservatives believe in a large military and believe the use of the military should be based on the sole interests of the United States with
little regard for those of other countries (unilateralism). Liberals believe the military
should be smaller, the use military power should be coordinated with other countries (multilateralism), and diplomacy and
development are just as important as defense.
Civil Rights
Conservatives are usually opposed to civil rights measures since they disrupt
the status quo and create opportunities for certain groups to sue
for grievances. This is especially true for affirmative action. Liberals see civil rights as necessary to overcome long standing denials of equal protection.
Law Enforcement
Conservatives tend to take a hard line on law enforcement and oppose
measures, even constitutional measures, that enhance the rights of
criminal defendants. Liberals argue for the rights of criminal defendants and often support additional funding for
public defendants.
Interpreting the Constitution
Conservatives usually argue for limited interpretations of constitutional
language while liberals support loose interpretations. Looser interpretations
tend to allow for additional national power.
One final point before we conclude.
There is an area where government and politics overlaps, where strong
political forces have seemingly taken over governing functions and ensure
that they all act in their self interest at the expense of others.
Iron Triangles
- or -
Issue Networks
Over the years, various well connected groups have developed close relationships with governing institutions and have been able to
help write the legislation and regulations that govern the
industry
The key components of an iron triangle
Interest groupsCongressional Committees
Executive Agencies
If the interest group is strong enough to influence elections to congress and the appointment of
executive officials, they can effectively regulate themselves.
Example: The Securities and Exchange Commission is
commonly argued to have been captured by the financial sector.
Is this why no serious investigations have been made by the SEC of the
banks role in the 2008 crash?
Critics argue that a revolving door exists between people that work in
governmental agencies, congressional offices, and interest
groups.
These are the people that may really run things.
Now that we have an understanding of some terms and
concepts, we can turn to the development of the concept of
natural rights. This is perhaps the most important of the principles American government is founded
upon.
