Campaigning and Elections: How democratic is our democracy?

Running for office recently has become like just another Olympic sport but with less media coverage. The process of nomination and campaigning up until the actual Presidential election has become competitive, long, complicated, and increasingly insignificant. With each year critics continue to ask whether the process we have now is necessary, effective, or democtratic.
It all begins when a politician decides to run for office. This decision is the first step and potentially one of the most narrowing for running for President it a physically and mentally demanding race, which not ever politician is willing to endure. Once the decision is made the nomination game begins. Each nominee works to get the greatest number of delegates for the National Party Convention, where the Presidential candidate is chosen and the party platform written. Delegates are picked up from caucuses and primaries. In a caucus the delegates are chosen out of a state party leaders meeting whereas. In the primaries, where citizens vote for the candidate, a delegate is chosen who votes for a candidate and then must support that candidate at the National Convention. Along with the delegates are superdelegates. This position arose out of fear from the Democratic party that their leaders did not have a place in the National convention. Throughout the primary and caucus system nominees begin to drop out, often for lack of money, and by the end a candidate is chosen to represent each party in the Presidential election. Many critics have issues with the caucus and primary system. They believe it receives far to great attention and that states (Iowa, New Hampshire) with small populations are receiving the most media and voice. Also, because the system requires so much out of the nominee it becomes a challenge to maintain ones already governmental duties. Also, the percentage of voter participation is exceptionally low at about 5% of registered voters and thus the decisions made do not represent a large majority. One of the greatest criticisms that is seen in the entire election process is that money is too important and influential. The second great criticism is that the media has too much power. Some alternatives which have been proposed are having either a national primary or regional primary, the former would hold an election similar to the Presidential one but for each parties candidate, and the latter would hold a primary like those of the states but in general regions rather than each specific state.

Money and the media have become the two most influential aspects of the election at large. The last man standing from the primaries is usually the one who had the most money and used it most effectively. The system of receiving money is very complex. In 1974 the Federal Election Campaign Act was passed for “tightening reporting requirements for contributions and limiting overall expenditures.”(Government In America, Ch. 9, p.284) From this act came a number of reforms. The FEC, Federal Election Commission, is one of the most significant for it creates laws and enforcements restricting the money spent during campaigning. Also from the Act came the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, partial public financing which includes matching funds, an full public financing for the general election. If the candidate does not wish to receive these public finances he is still required to report how much money he spends and can only receive $2,000 from an individual. Of course politicians have found ways to receive more money than the FEC intended. Soft money, for a while, was a corrupt practice that brought in large amounts of money from large businesses to parties. Even when this was banned by the McCain-Feingold Act PACS were created. A PAC, political action committee, is either a corporation, union, or another special interest group which gives large sums of money to the candidate which they believe supports their interests. The PACs, just as soft money did, are in a sense corrupting the government in that there becomes a commitment on part of the candidate to support them.

The Media, as is growing in our day-to-day lives has grown in our elections. The Media has soon become one of the greatest forms of communication between a candidate and the people but also as a source of information. Despite the importance placed on media the national tv coverage of conventions has continuously declines since the 1950s. The media has its benefits. It allows for more people to be conscious of conventions and the candidates and it allows for easier access to information. The internet has become a huge component of a campaign. The internet, however, is probably the only form of media which in actually used for beneficial uses. Television and even newspapers have begun to report useless information and have focused on everything but the issues. As national coverage decreases so does the information it provides. The issue comes in with entertainment. Because the media is interested in entertaining the style and
celebrity like qualities of each candidate are discussed and critiqued. Even the debates have become so scripted that the words that come out of the candidates mouths are empty, where they stand on important issues is no longer as clear as it should be. The media has made campaigning and the election one big show. So the question is, with all the money put in and the effects of the media, is it worth it? Many critics and political scientist say no. They believe that campaigning only activates and reinforces but rarely converts. This means all the advertising and debating etc only make people vote more for who they would vote for anyone, rarely are people effected enough to change or reevaluate their point of view. Those select few, however, can make the difference in an election, so does that make it worth it? Another important aspect which political scientist have addressed is selective perception which means that people generally listen to what they already agree with and interpret it in the way they have already formed their opinion.

Along with the question of is it making a difference comes the question if is it even democratic. William E. Hudson compares our democracy with the origin of democracy, Athens. In comparison with Athenian democracy we are not very democratic. However, the switch of power and roles must be considered when comparing the two governments. In Athens elections were seen as very undemocratic, however they held assemblies in which the people could discuss their beliefs and make decisions about laws. That assembly system would be unreasonable in our country and so our system redefined the ways in which the Athenian values could be put in to practice. We are given the vote, as our voice in the assembly and by voting we are selecting the candidate we wish to speak for us. The seems to be a very good system if it were to work ideally. In Athenian democracy, public officials were for the sole purpose of executing the decisions made in assemblies. In our democracy elected officials do the debating which is done in the assembly for us. “Truly democratic elections must provide citizens a chance to join the public policy discussion and guide their representatives’ public policy decisions.”(Trivialized Elections, American Democracy in Peril, 181) This does not occur consistently however and thus representation is the crucial factor. Hudson believes that for our elections to be democratic they must have equal representation for all citizens, they must be a device for the debate and contemplation of public issues, and they must actually control what government does. In the past few elections our country has not seemed to meet those requirements. Representation comes in to question with the Electoral College. Because of the Electoral College one person does not necessarily equal one vote and so in some states people’s votes are more influential skewing the ultimate democratic system. If it were a direct-election system every vote would count equally and each candidate could focus on addressing the nation rather than making promises to fifty different states. Also, because elections are becoming more candidate based rather than party based it is hard to vote for the beliefs you have because instead of voting for a system you are voting for a specific person, “This sort of candidate self-selection is harmful to equal representation because, without party involvement, individual voters have no influence on the candidate choices hey will confront at election time.” (Trivialized Elections, American Democracy in Peril, 187) Also due to fundraising candidates become committed to their greatest donors, such as the PACs, and so those who cannot give, find their voices overpowered by those fueling the candidates campaign. Elections now, greatly due to the media, do not show deliberation on public issues because our main source of information does not focus on the issues and thus the candidates themselves begin to not show how they stand on the issues, “Voters cannot even be sure that candidates actually believe what they say in debates or speeches.” (Trivialized Elections, American Democracy in Peril, 209) So, instead pointless factors are analyzed, such as with the Horton mug shot, and one could argue that close to nothing substantial is learned. The last place where our democracy fails to be democratic is even if the last two faults did not exist who we vote for in the end does not make a lot of the decisions. Important decisions made in our government are made in legislation, bureaucracy, and the courts.
As stands now, it seems our elections have swayed far from Athenian democracy and even has swayed far from what we value and define as democracy. Even so, does our undemocratic system work? Should we let this flaw in our government slip or is there a way in which we can reform and turn back to the way a democracy should be run.

-Isabella

Elections: A Citizen's Contribution

Elections have always been regarded as the means by which citizens get their voice heard. It is a way of participating in government and therefore a way of promoting democracy. Elections provide equal representation and equal opportunity among all citizens and therefore elections instill the idea of democracy in the United States government. However, in order for elections to continue being a place of democracy, attention needs to be brought back and re-centered around the main purpose of an election, which is for citizens to be heard and for policy to be implemented.

In an ideal world, all citizens would be able to actively participate in democracy and have a prominent role in government decision-making. Hudson makes many references to the ideal democracy resembling what the Athenians used to have. Considering the large scale of the current United States population, it would be impossible to participate and be as active as the Athenians were. Elections remain the main way a citizen can participate in their government and promote the idea of democracy. Elections provide and equal opportunity for representation among all citizens, which make elections seem like the best way to continue democracy. Unfortunately, over time the main focus of elections has shifted away from democracy and is causing citizens to lose their voice in government. Hudson strongly believes that citizens are slowing losing rights and the government is becoming less democratic due to four major influences in elections: new campaigning strategies, the Electoral College, Media Coverage, and a lack of knowledge among citizens.

Campaigning strategies or what Hudson would refer to as the “Hidden Election” has moved the main focus of elections from being about policy and issues to being about winning. Having the focus of elections be candidate centered has taken away from the real purpose of elections. Hudson states what he believes should be required of a candidate to win an office. He believes that a candidate should have prior political experience in order to win. Ideally that would be nice, and while it is still mostly true today, it takes much more than just experience to win an election in modern times. Hudson says, “the candidates sell themselves,”(Trivialized Elections, American Democracy in Peril,185). What he means is that it doesn’t matter what a candidates pre-requisite looks like but what matters is how well they present themselves.

An enormous amount of effort goes into the election process. After a candidate decides they are running for office, they must immediately begin fund-raising. Nowadays large sums of money are necessary in order to run a successful campaign. In order to run for an office, especially an office like the presidency, a great deal of money is needed to even begin campaigning. Hudson wants it to be known that the election process is “hidden.” There is so much that goes on that most citizens are not aware of. For example, most Americans are not equally represented like we should be in elections, “the hidden elections biases the election process in favor of the very small and wealthy portion of the electorate that contributes to political campaign,”(Trivialized Elections, American Democracy in Peril, 188). Hudson wants it to be known that money is a major factor in elections today. Those who are not able to contribute money to the campaign of a candidate they favor automatically have a disadvantage. If someone is not financially capable of aiding in the funding of a campaign and they cannot support their candidate, they do not have the same equal representation if a candidate they don’t want wins.

Hudson truly believes that there is even more to the Hidden Election that most voters don’t see. After a candidate raises the amount of money they need to continue their campaign, a large team of professional campaign consultants are hired. This team has the important job of figuring out the best strategies for their candidate to win. The main goal of campaigning is to be bigger and better then their opponent. The team of consultants make sure that their candidate is seen in the best way they can be seen. Hudson strongly thinks that these new methods of campaigning, raising money, and “selling” a candidate take away from voter representation, “Nowhere in the marketing approach to campaigning is there a concern for or need to develop a strategy for representing voters,”(Trivialized Elections, American Democracy in Peril, 195). The new techniques applied to campaigning only brain wash voters. They disable voters from being able to see a candidate’s true stance on an issue. Strategies of polling, marketing, and advertising have become the new face of election campaigns and by doing so lessen the representation of voters in the election process.

The Electoral College is the next major concept, which Hudson argues has an impact on the equality and democracy of recent elections. The Electoral College was set up and designed by the Constitution in order to “fairly” elect the president. The Electoral College is was made similar to the way Congress is organized. Each state has equal representation and proportional representation. It is a winner-take-all system so whichever candidate receives the most votes in a certain state wins the state and takes all the electoral votes.

Hudson discusses how the current United States Electoral College system is not democratic in two ways. One is that citizens who live in a more populous state count for less in the big picture. He says that in a smaller state citizens have more of a chance to participate and be represented. Secondly he thinks that the winner-take-all system leaves much room for error. For example, in the 2000 election, George W. Bush won more electoral votes than Al Gore, but Al Gore won the popular vote. Even though Al Gore won the popular vote, George W. Bush would be president because he won the Electoral vote. Hudson believes that the 2000 election is proof that the Electoral College system is not democratic, “This result made Bush the legal winner of the presidential election but not the democratic choice of the electorate,”(Trivialized Elections, American Democracy in Peril, 200). This issue that was brought up in the 2000 election proves that the Electoral College system needs to be reformed because even though there was a consensus among the American people who wanted Al Gore, he didn’t win based on the Electoral system. Another reason that Hudson briefly brings up is that many candidate begin to only center their campaign on swing states. Those states are visited much more frequently by candidates and get more much media attention than states that are clearly going red or blue.

Media is the third point which Hudson deems to be ruining the election process. The amount of media coverage has become enormous and the media is involved in almost every aspect of the campaign except the important part, the policy. Hudson discussed how the media, especially television, has been pressured to condense election information. Because of this, less emphasis has been place on policy, “The pressure on television news organizations to concentrate information into smaller and smaller bites prevent communications much more than slogans,” (Trivialized Elections, American Democracy in Peril, 204). Television has become a crucial aspect to campaign strategy and is influencing voters in the wrong ways. No longer are voters receiving the information that need to be well educated citizens but instead they are becoming less knowledgeable about elections due to media coverage.

Media is influencing what citizens know about elections and by doing this making the general public clueless on the main campaign platforms. Ways of doing this are through television commercial adds. Campaign Advisors are mainly concerned with making their candidate look good and portray their character and personality more than their policy. Hudson uses the example of how a candidate who wants to show they care about the elderly will shoot a commercial in a nursing home. What most viewers don’t realize though is that this commercial says nothing about the candidates actually policy or what they are going to do if elected. This form of campaigning influences voters to think falsely about candidates and never really understand what they are voting for. Hudson wants voters to be educated about what they are voting for so that they can be represented fairly.

Throughout this chapter Hudson has continually viewed the current election process as somewhat corrupt. Hudson is right to say that the system as it stands needs reform. He continually discusses an Athenian way of conducting government as ideal. Although the Athenian way of government worked long ago, with the population the size it is today it would be impossible to expect the United States to be “like” the Athenians. Hudson does make interesting points though about why our elections are becoming useless. In order for democracy to stay alive in the United States, elections have to express policy and issues more and stop dwelling on the idea of winning.

-Ellie

Parties (Political Style)

Political parties have always been a controversial issue, even since their immediate inception. James Madison believed, “that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority,” (Federalist 10, Woll, 174). Nevertheless, political parties have persisted through the years and remained to be a staple in the United States’ governmental institutions, yet the American people continue to struggle to find the right role the party system should play. This is largely due to the immense number of variables within the system and their inherent incompatibilities with our complicated and multi-component government.

There is a fine line between anti-party and pro-party sentiment. The most basic argument can be defined paradoxically. The authors of the Constitution, bound by their obligation to uphold the liberties upon which parties originate, “the right to agitate and to organize,” (Document 31, Woll, 179), were unable to suppress the party system, so through the enactment of constitutional separation of powers, the authors attempted to passively squash any party enthusiasm. Yet when people began to realize that parties perhaps had the potential of being effective tools of popular government, this discrepancy between the Constitution and the parties’ fundamental values quickly became an issue.

As mentioned above, the combination of conflicting political ideologies has created the situation where, “The Constitution made the rise of parties inevitable yet was incompatible with party government,” (Document 31, Woll, 179). Thus these two political entities have constantly been in contention with one another, which E.E. Schattschneider has characterized as an “unhappy marriage” where one is an “immovable object and the other is an irresistible force,” (Document 31, Woll, 180) resulting in a permanently dysfunctional partnership. This partnership is further compounded, though, by the conflicts present within the political party system itself in terms of bipartisan representation. The party platform boils down to concentrations of specific interests. Yet as Schattschneider points out, no clear dichotomy of completely opposing interests exists (nor agreeing for that matter). Rather “every individual is torn by the diversity of his own interests,” (Document 31, Woll, 181). Therefore for the party system to operate, emphasis must be constantly placed on the raw materials, or common interests that are not anti-social. In doing so the “common possessions of the people become the most durable cause of unity,” (Document 31, Woll, 180). In this respect, the party system has grown over the years, but it has continued to be carefully monitored. During the 1950’s when parties imposed upon democratic progress, the APSA (American Political Science Association) circulated a report channeling the system towards more responsible means.

Document 32 excerpts part of this propagandist report, redefining the party system’s purpose: “The party system thus serves as the main device for bringing into continuing relationship those ideas about liberty, majority rule and leadership which Americans are largely taking for granted,” (Document 32, Woll, 183). In response to Government continually gaining more responsibilities, APSA felt the need to stress the democratic importance and dependence placed on parties. Yet in doing so, the party system needed to be reformed and funneled through the appropriate measures as to prevent “dangerous outcomes”. More than anything the report stresses the importance of internal party cohesion and the need for effective opposition, providing the productivity and accountability necessary to function properly. With that being said, though, the operation of the two-party system has its consequences on other spheres of national influence when run improperly. Ultimately the system is regarded as essential in the sense that it keeps all differences within bounds- a guardian of free political choice. Although this thought is democratically pleasing, it isn’t necessarily true. If specific interests are constrained, then the result would just be an increasingly polarized ideology in which the extremist views of each party will keep expanding until the platform becomes self-defeating. The two parties will surrender their common grounds, resulting in a legislation dead-lock.

Arthur Paulson and David Mayhew attempt to refine the arguments between divided and unified parties and their influence in terms of their Executive and Legislative occupancy as well as the way we ultimately define the role of the party system. Paulson holds that a responsible party model is a government party. While Britain’s parliamentary government, with the fused coalition between the prime minister and parliament, is the pinnacle of responsibility and stability, U.S. fails to reach such standards. Certain issues “couched in social and cultural terms” (Document 33, Woll, 189) lend to the further advancement towards the polarization of parties and away from responsible platforms. Additionally the inseparable relationship between liberal interest groups and conservative interest groups to the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively, has led to increased “interest articulation” within the parties rather than programmatic alternatives. Therefore, Paulson summarizes that American party system will continually be confined by its irresponsible and divided nature.

Mayhew, on the other hand, serves to cast a murky shadow upon the distinctions of divided and unified parties by remarking that “Democracy, according to some leading models, can function well enough as a n assortment of decentralized, unconnected incursions into public affairs,” (Document 34, Woll, 194). He further demonstrates historically that the party division of Executive and Legislative branches has been able to accomplish similar feats when compared to unified branches. Mayhew admires the United States’ resiliency to conform to the party leaders and reiterates the party purpose not as an overpowering governmental influencer.

The intricate workings of the American party system are subject to double standards. The concept of a party contradicts the separation of powers clause in the Constitution, while the internal contention between unified and divided factions serve to further complicate the entire process. Being on the eve of the election, political parties will become an issue of great importance and the potential realignment of the Executive and Legislative parties will lend to the excitement. It will by all means be interesting to watch the progression of the party system continue to develop and see if it can expand its scope to encompass a greater governmental impact.

Obama as a Target for Assassins Poll

On Monday, it became known that two white supremacists had a plan to rampage across the country, killing black people and ultimately targeting Barack Obama. Two men described as Neo-Nazi skinheads planned to kill 88 black people, 14 by beheading. These numbers are significant to white supremacists, 88 stands for HH or Heil Hitler, and 14 refers to a famous quote "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Officials are continuing to investigate, but at present there is no evidence that there were any others involved in the plot, or indeed a formal assassination plan. "They didn't believe they would be able to do it, but that they would get killed trying," says Jim Cavanaugh, one of the investigators. Even so, this raises concerns over possible future attempts on Obama's life if he is elected to the Presidency.
-Ellen

Political Parties in US Government: An Examination of the Transition from the Downs Modl to "Ideological Polarization" in American Politics

The political parties in the United States began as factions and have swelled and subsided in their platforms, representatives, funding, and organization since. James Madison predicted the development of ideological divides in government when he described factions as “sown in the nature of man” (Federalist 10, Woll, 175). However, he could have never predicted the evolution and changing influence of political parties on his beloved Constitutional government. It is therefore the responsibility of political scientists to analyze political parties’ role the constitutional republic of the United States. Beginning with James Madison’s Federalist 10 and continuing through David R. Mayhew’s contemporary analysis, this group of documents becomes an examination of political parties after 1950; after setting the historical basis, they represent the transition from The Downs Model of political parties to divided government marked by what Arthur Paulson refers to as “ideological polarization” in American politics.

The Downs Model was created by Anthony Downs to describe the relationship among citizens, political parties, and policy in United States government. Downs argues that voters hope to maximize the chance that the policies they favor will be enacted in government policy and that political parties want to win office. With this theory along with public opinion Downs interprets a relevant strategy for political parties. Because the majority of the electorate (voters) are moderate in their views, both the Democratic and Republican Parties set their ideology close to moderate views, the Democratic Party just to the left of moderate and the Republican Party just to the right. Neither party strays far from the midpoint of public opinion.

To interpret the ways in which political parties have changed and affected government, it is important to know their original relationship with government. Although political parties play an important role in the United States’ democratic system, the Founding Fathers’ based their limitations of politically-involved factions [political parties] in fear. James Madison defined factions as “the mortal disease under which popular governments have everywhere perished” (Federalist 10, Woll, 174). They intended to weaken the influence of factions to their greatest ability. In Federalist 10, Madison justifies the system of the American constitutional republic with its ability to control the negative effects of factions through separation of powers and a large electorate. First he explains that there are “two methods of removing the mischiefs of faction,” either by “removing its causes” or “controlling its effects” (Federalist 10, Woll, 175). However, he admits that divided interests are inherent to man, especially with divisions in class and possessions, and as a result, so are factions. He writes that to remove these factions would be to “abolish Liberty” (Federalist 10, Woll, 175), so relief from a majority’s ability “to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest, both the public good and the rights of other citizens” (Federalist 10, Woll, 176) could only come from controlling its effects. Madison’s solution is an extensive government in which power is delegated to patriotic citizens who will prevent the majority interests from overpowering those of the minority, a large electorate where the interests are varied among citizens, and finally a complex separation of power. All three, he writes, will “make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens” (Federalist 10, Woll, 178). The theme in his writing is that factions are a malady, not positive for government, and that US government is designed to prevent them from gaining power.

The advantage of great numbers that Madison associates with successful government, E. E. Schattschneider refers to as “labyrinthine framework” and inviting political parties to “strangle themselves in the machinery of government” (Document 31, Woll, 179). In Schattschneider’s analysis of the positive aspects of political parties, he develops the idea of the Downs Model. He criticizes the Constitution as having a “dual attitude” (Document 31, Woll, 179), being both pro-party and anti-party. He goes on to describe that the authors of the Constitution did not consider that “parties might be used as beneficent instruments of popular government” (Document 31, Woll, 179). In Schattschneider’s argument for political parties’ rightful place in government, he makes a distinction between common and special interests. He argues that political parties also mobilize common interests and therefore connect government policy to a “body of agreement” of society (Document 31, Woll, 180). He says because many people engage in both common and conflicting interests, “the divisions are not so clearly marked, and the alignment of people according to interests requires an enormous shuffling back and forth from one side to the other” (Document 31, Woll, 181). The Downs Model originates in common interest. Because the majority of the electorate agrees on many issues, political parties must situate themselves not far from moderate in order to both attract and represent their citizens. Political parties, according to the Downs model, have to account for this ‘enormous shuffling.’

With a basis of political parties original relationship with government and then the growth of political parties as a connection for American citizens to the republican interworkings of government policy through common interests, the next documents evaluate the transition of political party nature in the United States. During the 20th century, political scientists argued that a weak party system was a barrier to effective democratic leadership, so The American Political Science Association (APSA) formed a committee on political parties and wrote and report in 1950 called Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System. Document 32 is taken from the “Role of the Political Parties” section of this text. Because the committee considered political parties as “indispensable instruments of government…which provide the electorate with a proper range of choice between alternatives of action” (Document 32, Woll, 183) and anticipated the decline in political parties in the US, it sought to improve upon the political party. The members of the committee called it the Responsible Party System. They defined the system: “An effective party system requires, first, that the parties are able to bring forth programs to which they commit themselves and, second, that the parties possess sufficient internal cohesion to carry out these programs,” and that they have “an Effective Opposition Party” (Document 32, Woll, 184). This responsible party system sets the standard for modern political party analysis.

Many political scientists would agree that the decay that APSA predicted in 1950 became a reality and that the second half of the century was marked by the decline of political parties and by split government void of realignment. Arthur Paulson disagrees. He interprets the transition away from a Downs model “umbrella party” (Document 33, Woll, 187) trend where each party shines it shade on a number of ideologies as a shift towards the responsible party system: “nonideological coalitions of factions with diverse interests” (Document 33, Woll, 189). He redefines political parties as shifting towards an “ideological polarization” in politics where parties are increasingly engaged in “interest articulation” (Document 33, Woll, 189). Is this positive? He says yes: “What is emerging is a party system featuring two ideologically homogenized political parties offering the electorate much more polarized choices than has generally been the American experience” (Document 33, Woll, 189). Although Paulson rationalizes the transition away from the Downs model, he admits that the danger in this system is political “gridlock” (Document 33, Woll, 188). If the two parties are so ideologically different and the legislative and the executive branches are engaged in split government (they are governed by the opposite party), then the government becomes stuck in legislative paralysis. Paulson’s argument for encouraging interest-driven, polarized political parties is unconvincing. His constant use of examples from England’s Parliamentary party system where one party rules in both the executive and the legislative seems irrational. His love of English government and interest in unified party government leads back to Madison’s original fears for US government. Although a more “national articulation of more distinct interests and issue alternatives” (Document 33, Woll, 190) is appealing, Madison would tear his hair out at the idea of encouraging faction-driven party government.

In the last document, Mayhew, like Paulson, sees the change in political parties simply as a transition and not as decay; however, Mayhew takes the opposite stance to Paulson’s. While Paulson advocates unified government and believes that divided government means unsuccessful government, Mayhew goes to all levels to disprove Paulson’s view. Mayhew writes “Unified versus divided control has probably not made a notable difference during the postwar era” (Document 34, Woll, 193). He argues that unified party government leads to “seriously defective legislation,” “programmatic [in]coherence,” and decreased individual power because the proper checks and balances are overlooked (Document 34, Woll, 196). Mayhew concludes that there is a “strong pluralist component” with checks and balances broken by party loyalty, that this is “a matter of political culture¬¬––perhaps a survival of republicanism,” and that “British style governing by party majorities does not have much of a chance” (Document 34, Woll, 199).

After Mayhew’s and Paulson’s disagreement, the transition of political parties takes full circle. It returns to the issue of one political party ruling both in the majority and in government, Madison’s fear and Paulson’s ideal. This year’s election is a critical election; there is a good chance that both the Presidency and the Congress will become realigned in the same political party. We must then ask ourselves, now that political parties have strayed away from the Downsian model and identify with polarized ideals, does unified government hand too much political power to the party? Or is Paulson right and it has rightfully influential sway? Or is Mayhew right, does it not really matter? It would be a significant change in US government if the legislative and executive branches are both controlled by the Democratic Party, for not only might it mean sweeping change in policy, but it would be the first time in over a decade. Maybe the question is really whether or not the electorate still falls under the Downsian model or if politics have led us into an era of split ideology and polarized society.

-Rachel Mary Rosenberg

Civic Participation:

Vote or Die. These are the strong words that were displayed on t-shirts, posters, and more during the presidential election that took place four years ago. While failing to vote does not ultimately lead to death, the slogan does serve useful and makes a compelling and even persuasive point. To not vote is to silence yourself ultimately. It is to assume that you, as a single citizen, make no difference in the outcome that determines much of your own life. Essentially, without civic participation, democracy is lost in a black hole of overwhelming and sometimes formidable leaders. Thus, we must remember that civic participation may be the greatest facet of democracy. Because governmental systems may change, civic participation must remain in order for a democracy to truly be held up to its name.

Document 36 best represents the notions that are needed to develop an understanding of civic participation. Effectively, the article acknowledges that there are two aspects to a democracy in terms of participation: requirements for the citizens and requirements for the system itself. First noted, is the requirements necessary for citizens. Such characteristics include interest, discussion, and motivation. The article states about discussion, “On the grass roots level there was more talk than debate, and , at least inferentially, the talk had important effects upon voting, in reinforcing or activating partisans if not in converting the opposition.” (Woll, Document 36, p. 207) In terms of motivation the article states, “The ballot is cast, and for most people that is the end of it. If their side is defeated, ‘It doesn’t really matter.’” (Woll, Document 36, p. 207) The roles of interest, discussion, and motivation each correlate into one specific concept: getting involved. While it may sound a bit “preachy,” becoming involved within your own community, school, county, state, or country in some, even in the most minuscule way, creates the basis that we know as basic democracy.

The Document then moves on to discuss more important, “required” characteristics necessary for a citizen. However, these characteristics are intended more for how a voter should actually vote. These include knowledge, principle, and rationality. However, the document maintains a common pattern when discussing each of these required characteristics. While such requirements would be ideal in a democracy, generally it does not push voters to vote a certain way. Because of the two party system that dominates America, voters are generally pushed by an emotional feeling towards a certain candidate or party. Especially within the past 50 years, citizens (whom we can assume will grow up to become an avid voter) grow up within a family that predominantly associates themselves with one particular party. With this in mind, persuasion is generally determined by attachment for a certain political party. Yet, with the society in which we live in, this system is for the most part, inevitable.

Finally, the Document discusses the requirements for the system. One such requirement includes involvement and indifference. Involvement and indifference are regarded as needed to balance each other out. Low interests create maneuvering room for political shifts that are necessary for a complex society that is changing. This concept is similar to the next requirement: stability and flexibility. These yet again balance each other out so as the society does not becomes too frigid or too loose. Stability is reaffirming for the settled majority, while flexibility is used as a creative force for the unsettled minority. Finally, another similar concept that correlates with these first two includes consensus and cleavage. Too much consensus is restrictive on liberty, while too much cleavage leads an anarchical society. Progress and conservation, which can best be thought of as liberal versus conservative, is also a requirement for the system, as well as individualism and collectivism.

A significant question that has arisen within the last 100 years that appears to have heightened since the Reagan presidency which was touched upon in the previous article, involves the division that remains within the country. Republicans and Democrats within the United States no longer represent two separate political parties; they now appear as cultural parties, economic parties, and more. Has our civic participation led us into a cultural war? David Brooks attempts to bring up this point in “One Nation, Slightly Divisible.” However, Brooks’ bias shadows over the point and, in my opinion, ruins the points he was attempting to debate. Brooks states that the United States is divided into two sections: liberal and conservative. Most Americans would easily agree with this point. Just as you see on election night on the news, the country is split between blue (Democratic) states and red (Republican)states. Brooks does do an overwhelming job exhibiting the stereotype of both the democrat and the republican. Essentially based on the elaborate detail that Brooks goes into, the reader is left to believe that Republicans live in small, rural areas, go to church every Sunday, and for the most part, are just so darn “wholesome.” While Democrats live in urban cities, regularly go to exotic restaurants, and are for the most part, narcissistic. Brooks states that this division within the country is not along class lines; economics, he says, play no such role. However, he does agree that moral systems as well as ego has something to do with the matter. Civic participation that has been formally divided into a two party system, is in fact based very much of economic status. Who is generally favored politically within America for the past 300 years? While, Anglo-Saxon, male, citizens. And who is it that is favored in terms of job opportunities? White, Anglo-Saxon, male citizens.

My overall impression of the article was that it was situated as an anthem for the small, rural, white American who doesn’t know too much about politics, however sure is “wholesome.” The added insignificant statistics that were not sited did not help much either. In fact, Brooks makes an entirely racist comment referring to the poor (as well as the rich) ruining the middle-class equality. He states, “First there are the poor immigrants from Mexico, Vietnam, and the Philippines. They come in, a dozen to a house, and they introduce an element of unpredictability to what was a comforting milieu. They shout. They’re less tidy. Suddenly you feel you lose control of your children, and begin to feel a new level of anxiety in the neighborhood.” (One Nation, Slightly Divisible). I’m not quite sure what his intentions were in making such a derogatory comment, but I know that when a family from Vietnam moves in across the street, I don’t feel any less comfortable than if it were a white, “wholesome”, family.

Democracy does not run without some sort of civic participation, however what is most interesting, is that according to the article “Political Parties and Elections: Are Voters United or Divided?”, only about half of the electorate votes in the presidential elections, and the United States ranks near the bottom on voter participation rates in democratic countries. Yet somehow, we still maintain a system that has been working somewhat efficiently for the past 350 years. Considering this, as well as Document 36 and the article by David Brooks, while certain requirements for civic participation appear ideal, the two party system, which in America’s case does not run on many votes, may not be so bad.

-Emma

Civic Participation

In order to make a well informed decision about which candidate to choose there are certain expectations citizens have. Citizens are expected to, “be interested and to participate in political affairs… to be well informed…to cast his vote on the basis of principle…and to exercise rational judgment” (Democratic Practice and Democratic Theory, Woll, 207-208). Nevertheless, history proves to show that rarely citizens meet these expectations. Instead they go with the flow, so to speak, they follow past habits, listen to others who seem to know what they are talking about, and watch the news in order to make up their minds about which candidate to vote for. But most citizens’ minds are made up even before they know who is running, they vote for their parties candidate. So then what is the point? The point is to try and increase citizens’ interest in their democracy through voting.

In Document 35 V.O. Key, Jr. states that an election is “a formal act of collective decision that occurs in a stream of connected antecedent and subsequent behavior” (A Theory of Critical Elections, Woll, 200). A “critical election” causes a lasting “realignment” of the electorate also it portrays the changes in political attitudes. The “critical election” according to V.O. Key, Jr. was “developed to cover a type of election in which there occurs a sharp and durable electorate realignment between parties” (A Theory of Critical Elections, Woll, 204). In order to better understand the elections V.O. Key. Jr. suggests, “the study of electoral behavior with the analysis of political systems” (A Theory of Critical Elections, Woll, 205).

“Nearly half of the eligible electorate fails to go to the polls’ in midterm congressional elections, only about one-third of the electorate show up, and in many local elections, turnouts of less then 10 percent of eligible voters are not uncommon” (American Democracy in Peril, Hudson, 143). Over the last century America has fought tirelessly to obtain voting rights for women and African American citizens, so why is voter turnout so low in American? According to Document 36 it is because, “for the bulk of the American people the voting decision is not followed by any direct, immediate, visible personal consequences (Democratic Practice and Democratic Theory, Woll, 207). Citizens may be more concerned with what to make for dinner than who to vote for because it has an immediate impact on their life. For many citizens if their candidate loses, “it doesn’t really matter.”

While it is true that some citizens feel that voting does not affect their lives others such as William Hudson feel, “that voting is a duty of citizenship in a democratic society. My vote symbolizes my participation in a crucial process” (American Democracy in Peril, Hudson, 151). Hudson also contradicts what is said in Document 36 by saying that, “many people will weigh the costs of voting against its benefits and decide to go to the polls” (American Democracy in Peril, Hudson, 151-152). Hudson also addresses a key factor in civic participation “that political participation trained people in the necessary values of democracy” (American Democracy in Peril, Hudson, 145). None of the Woll documents discuss this specific theory that through voting citizens are learning values specific to democracy. By having the citizens share the responsibility in choosing a political candidate it allows for Americas democracy to flourish.

Also what is not addressed in the Woll documents is the differences between “Red” and “Blue” America. In the packet Brooks evaluates the differences between the two. Many political theories state that American is becoming a more politically divided nation, the Republicans versus the Democrats. But according to Brooks, “We are not a divided nation. We are a cafeteria nation,” (One Nation, Slightly Divisible, Brooks, 216). Brooks believes that “we form cliques” and then from those cliques we either create “sub cliques” or migrate to another clique with similar interests.

Document 36 explains that the expectations placed on citizens to produce a successful democracy are not fulfilled by the average citizen. Even though the individual voter falls short of these expectations the “system of democracy” does not. This paradox is caused by the core conjecture that the electorate is “homogeneous” in political thinking, when in fact; the electorate is “heterogeneous”. “The need for heterogeneity arises from the contradictory functions we expect out voting system to serve” (Democratic Practices and Democratic Theory, Woll, 210). America cannot be a nation where citizens are expected to have homogeneous views, enforcing that degrades Americans democracy.

Citizens are expected to make decisions based on the information presented to them but “emotional feeling” affects the decision that many voters will make. Voters are expected to vote based on their own interests and ideas but the truth of the matter is that many citizens “vote the way trusted people around him are voting” (Democratic Practice and Democratic Theory, Woll, 208). As voters we are also expected to have our own opinion but for the greater good of the community. It seems that an electorate is required have a “distribution of qualities along important dimensions” (Democratic Practice and Democratic Theory, Woll, 210).

A major concern in politics is the publics low interest but “low interest provides maneuvering room for political shifts necessary for a complex society” (Democratic Practice and Democratic Theory, Woll, 210). Those who know more are less likely to change than those citizens who have less interest.

Does voting seem to be an individual act? Well, yes on the surface a citizen chooses a candidate whose beliefs they support and they vote for that person. But as Document 36 points out deciding on who to vote for is not an individual act at all it involves many people. “The individual casts his own personal ballot… that is perhaps the most individualized action he takes in an election” (Democratic Practice and Democratic Theory, Woll, 212).
In Document 37 V.O. Key, Jr. argues against the notion that voters are incompetent he feels that voters are not a foolish as they have been made out to be by politicians. By winning a candidates assume that they know all the reasons for their win when in face no one can fully understand why voters vote they way they do. Assuming that you know the reasons voters vote is “repugnant” according to V.O. Key, Jr. He feels that no one can truly know all the reasons for voting but that through political surveys it has allowed “them to make fairly trustworthy estimates on the characteristics and behaviors of large human populations” (The Responsible Electorate, Woll, 214). Just because a candidate wins does not mean that he is liked by the majority of the population, look at George W. Bush he did not with the popular vote Al Gore won that but he still became President.

The older view about electorates regarded, “the voter as an erratic and irrational fellow susceptible to manipulation by skilled humbugs” (The Responsible Electorate, Woll, 215). By understanding specific information about the voter according to Document 37 one can predict who one will vote for base on certain characteristics. The voter behavior theory is important because it “effects, both potentially and in reality, on candidates and other political leaders” (The Responsible Electorate, Woll, 216).

As interests in civic participation continue to decrease what does this mean for America’s democracy? Will America’s fate be decided by the few who vote or will voting cease to exist? These questions seem absurd but if nothing is done to boost voting interests it could become a reality.

-Harbhajan

Special Interest Groups

We all have our own interests. We all have viewpoints and causes that we are at least somewhat attracted to. This is where interest groups come in. They are essentially organized groups of people that share common ideals or concerns, like the AARP or the NRA. In America especially, they have become politically associated. In the Federalist No.10, James Madison stated, “The latent causes of factions are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degree of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society.” (Document 30, Federalist 10, pg. 174) Everyone feels a need to associate with a larger group that exists to protect beliefs of their own. This is an issue of concern for many Americans. Though people feel a need to belong to an interest group, they are quick to criticize them for interfering with government, “Intellectually we accept the legitimacy of all interest groups; emotionally we separate them into those we support and those we must view with suspicion.” (Document 38, Madison’s Dilemma, pg. 223)
Today interest groups are viewed with suspicion when the public perceives that a specific group has gained too much power. Interest groups achieve their political power through different political figures. In Document 40, David B. Truman outlines some of the different ways that interest groups achieve political power. The decentralized American government allows for independent power centers, which can be manipulated in order to gain access to higher forms of government. The national party system is an example used by Truman because it is essentially large interest groups composed of smaller interest groups. Having access to local organizations means having a “channel” that could eventually lead from the larger party to the government. Truman also describes what influences the power a certain interest group can have, “The extent to which a group achieves effective access to the institutions of government is the resultant of a complex of interdependent factors. For the sake of simplicity these may be classified to in three somewhat overlapping categories: (1) factors relating to a group’s strategic position in the society; (2) factors associated with the internal characteristics of the group; and (3) factors peculiar to the governmental institutions themselves.” (Document 40, The Governmental Process, pg. 236) In other words, an interests group’s power depends on the status and money of the group, their organization and cohesion, and the way the government itself operates. Document 42, “Interest Groups and the American Political System”, also examines the different ways in which special interest groups. The first is that the American decision making system offers many opportunities for policy to be influenced, the second is that because the major parties are open to outside influences of any kind a member with any beliefs could theoretically rise to power, and the third is that the frequency of American elections offer many opportunities for a candidate with certain beliefs to rise to power. (Document 42, Interest Groups and the American Political System, pg. 241) In addition to interest being able to influence bureaucrats, they can also be members of the interest groups themselves. This means that interest groups have a wider sphere of influencing policy because members of the interest groups could be the ones making the policy.
Certainly, all interest groups try and protect their own interests to some extent or another. Some are even lucky enough to have relationships with politicians, who seek their support for power. The American government, as outlined in the Constitution, is designed to try and keep such groups from gaining so much power that they are able to dominate competing views. James Madison was able to predict the different groups that would eventually arise in the American public. He sought not to prevent these groups, but to control their effects, “The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed; and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.” (Document 30, pg. 176) He found that the relief could be found in a republican government. A pure democracy allowed too much opportunity for the majority to overpower the minority, but a republican government offered “delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest;” (Document 30, pg. 177) This delegation would allow for the generalization of views, or, in other words, force those in power to focus on the greater good and not the views of a specific group. Madison also accounted for the opposite reaction, that the elected representatives would be susceptible to the persuasions of different interest groups. He argued that the size and scope of a nation determined the outcome. A small nation would allow more opportunity for the majority to grow and gain the favor of the representatives, but a large nation would have a far greater spectrum of different views fighting for dominance and that would keep any one interest group from gaining much greater power over the others. The larger nation would also keep the interest groups from controlling the elected representatives, “as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts, by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of men being more free, will be more likely to center in men who possess the most attractive merit, and the most diffusive and established in characters.” (Document 30, pg. 177) However, though America is a large nation, interest groups are still able to exert a considerable amount of power over the government. Relationships with politicians are still being formed and maintained, and, whether we like it or not, American citizens are also influenced by interest groups. In Document 38, “Madison’s Dilemma”, Jeffrey M. Berry examines the influence of interest groups. In his article, Berry states that though there are groups in power Madison’s theory is still credible and might even be a goal for modern America, “groups freely participating in the policymaking process, none becoming too powerful because of natural conflict of interest, and government acting as a synthesizer of competing interests. This ideal remains cotemporary America’s hope for making interest group politics compatible with democratic views.” (Document 38, pg. 222) So, instead of preventing special interest groups, Madison’s solution was to create a balance between the protection of a citizen’s freedom to have his beliefs and the protection of an uncorrupted government.
This debate over special interest groups raises a question: doesn’t a person act on his or her own personal beliefs, regardless of involvement in an interest group? Every day each one of us talks and acts based on some of our own principles. Simply because a person may not be affiliated with an interest group does not mean that person is not biased in any way. When it comes down to simple definitions, interest groups are ways of organizing people with the same set of beliefs, ideals, or goals. So, in order to solve the problem modern America has with interest groups gaining to much political power, there need to be strong and educated representatives in government who know how to take in all the opposing views and come up with compromises to benefit the greater good.

-Christie

Bradley Effect Poll Continued...

The Bradley Effect theory could have a possible influence on the 2008 election. The Bradley Effect is believed to contribute to an inaccurate polling system. Some voters fear saying they would chose a white candidate over a non-white candidate which can lead to the discrepancy in the polls. Although many believe that by this day in age the Bradley theory is no longer an issue, there is still a possibility that the polls taken prior to the presidential election will not accurately portray the outcome. The polls are currently favoring Obama but if the Bradley Effect has any influence on voters it could possibly be a false lead. Even though Obama appears to have a lead, when citizens are polled they do not always give a truthful response, which can cause the polls to differ from the actual election results.
- Ellie

Interest Groups

In a country as diverse as the United States with the political freedoms that we as citizens have, there are many issues or ideas that we as individual would like to be fixed or put in place. When people realize that they do have the same ideas as one other it is natural to form groups in order to create a plan in order to see the vision come to reality. However special interests groups have been seen as a threat to the idea of democracy ever since the conception of the country.
James Madison in Federalist 10 saw that the United States would have the tendency to go in this direction. He called what we know as interests groups “factions” and that “ whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interest of the community”. By noticing this trend in people, Madison stated in Federalist 10 that having these groups in government in a pure democracy couldn’t work because of the confusion, and instability it would cause in government. Having too many people would cause “men of factious tempers of local prejudices, or sinister designs, may by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interest of the people.”(Woll Federalist 10 P.177)
Madison’s solution to this issue since he knew that factions in the United States would never be able to be removed completely from the democratic government was to make sure the United States was a republic. Having people in represent the country Madison argued would “ refine and enlarge public views.”(Woll Federalist 10 P.177) and have the people “ whose wisdom may be best discern the true interest in the country”. Madison also acknowledges the potential of corrupt people, but in a republic system it would be really hard for them to extend their power to other states. The Republican form of government allows there to be a checks and balance on these factions.
While it is true that the republic way keeps there from being any instability, and confusion the system only allows the power of government to be in the hands of a few people. Madison wanted groups to share their ideas and to make policies, but did not want them to be too powerful, “ because of natural conflict of interest and government acting as a synthesizer.”
Many interests groups have influence policymaking without becoming too powerful. Although he did not support a candidate, Martin Luther King Jr. by definition was a leader of an interest group because of he was looking for policy to change. Likewise with the all of the women who were involved with universal suffrage, they all lobbied to try to get their ability to vote. Both causes are not the traditional form of interest group in the way that they are not looking for economic advantages and gains.
However even with Madison’s idea of forming a republic so that the interest groups would not get more powerful, did not exactly turn out the way he wanted it to. Jeffery Berry sates “ Those with large resources have always been better represented by interest groups, and the least wealthy have suffered because of their failure to organized (Woll Madison’s Dilemma p.222) While it can be argued that it is the fault of the smaller groups of people that they have not organized well enough, it is still not fair to them that they do not have the representation by the interest groups.
No matter the good this that interest groups have done, their influences in government can really affect the way policy is made. Interest groups have two things that are vital to the political process.
The first thing in the world of politics today, especially in congress reelection is a vital thing in order for a person to maintain the power they hold. Interests groups come into play a lot during election time, because people gravitate towards people who share the same interests in their community. This is “ because interest groups have recourses — mailing list, newsletters, conventions, and volunteers — that can help political parties reach out to group members and other voters” (Woll Interest Groups and the American Political System p 243). Especially since the United States has one of the lowest voter turnouts in all of the democracy it is very crucial for the candidate to be herd about.
An example that was used was the Christian Coalition, whom uses their recourses to help promote the Republican Party because of that stance that they have on issues of the collation have. Likewise goes for the Democratic Party, who usually gets support from Labor Unions especially in times of economic decline. Having these interests groups helps parties “ refine their image and their messages” (Woll Interest Groups and the American Political System P.243) to the American people.
Back to the martin Luther King and Universal suffrage example, the interest groups influence the platform of the candidates running at the time as well. If the candidate had taken a stance that was not to the liking of his constituents then he can risk the chance of getting reelected by the people. So in many cases although interest groups can help refine the candidate’s image and message, if they are not popular with the people, the candidates usually go with the flow of the people.
Secondly, money that is collected by the interest groups helps parties, and candidates run their campaign. Since here in America, party does not base the voting, but is “ candidate centered” interest groups help insure that there is money to promote their candidate win the election. Money helped raised by the interests is very important because candidates need to make sure that they reach every possible voter who has the same ideals as them. If the candidate is very unsure or moderate on the themes of these campaigns, special interests groups help choose out the themes that the candidate will run on. For example earlier in his campaign John McCain was on the fence about the topic of abortion, but somewhere along the lines the Christian Collation influence him to be against it in a way that allows him to still seem moderate.
Money is such an importance in the world of politics that there is Political Action Committee (PCA) which raise money from members of a special group in order to make donations that are over $1,000. While many candidates get up to 3/5 of their money, many times candidates usually reject money depending of the circumstances. “ If party loyalty can have a stronger pull than PAC contribution, then surely the view’s of the congressman’s constituents can also take a precedence over those political action committees.” ( The Misplaced Obsession with PACs p.249) Money in politics is not always guaranteed that a Politian is going to accept the terms the PAC wants them to follow, but it can also mean that politicians can potentially be very rash in their decisions.
As long as we have the freedoms that we do have in the United States, there will always be interest groups. It is a system that has work in the passed, but like any other system comes with some disclaimers that have to be monitored carefully to insure that nothing gets out of hand.



—Angelo
( ps. dr.berry i need to talk to u. )

The Bradley Effect Poll

The Bradley Effect is referred to as an explanation for why the actual outcome in an election diverges from the expected outcome in polls. The Bradley Effect is named after Tom Bradley. Tom Bradley was the first, and only, African-American mayor of Los Angeles and served for five terms. In 1982 Bradley ran for governor of California twice against Republic George Deukmejian and despite the apparent lead in the polls, when election day rolled around Bradley lost to his white opponent. This unexpected outcome is rooted in the racial aspects which today face our country; the thought behind it is that many voters feel the need to lie in order to not be accused of racism or in order to follow what is seen as socially acceptable. Thus this effect was given the term Bradley Effect to explain that although the polls may reflect those who claim they are undecided or will vote for the African-American candidate, when they are left alone in the voting booth their actual decision is much different.

-Isabella

WHO IS SLAGATHOR!?!?

If you want credit for your cabinet post, Slagathor, you will reveal yourself to me!

Dr. Berry

The Bureaucracy

The Federal Bureaucracy is a system, which received criticism from every end, is greatly misunderstood, and more than not is greatly undermined. The best way to think about the Bureaucracy is to think about everything you do on a daily basis and how each product you use or transportation you take or even warehouse where you work has all undergone approval by the various departments in the Bureaucracy and has been regulated to ensure safety, health, stability, and well being of the people and our world. The Bureaucracy is responsible for three major roles. They implement policies, administer public policy, and regulate. The Bureaucracy can be broken up in to four divisions: the Cabinet, Independent Executive Agencies, Independent Regulatory agencies, and Government Corporations. The Bureaucracy is mandated by, laws or ideas suggested by Congress or the President, and is given the responsibility to pursue these ideas through either implementation or regulation.



The Cabinet department is responsible for larger, broader issues. And so, it is made up of Departments such as the Department of State or Department of Health and Human Services. The Independent Executive Agencies are established by congress to run outside the departments of the executive branch such as the Peace Corps, NASA, CIA, and Small Business and Administration Department. The Independent Regulatory Agencies comes from presidential power and work of congress and regulates some aspect of the economy, for example the Environmental Protection Agency and National Labor Relations Board. Lastly, Government Corporations are those which are not paid by tax dollars and thus charge some price from the people but their profit is only to run it is not a corporation that changes process to increase profit and no one can become wealthy off of it. An example of this would be the Post Office.



The Bureaucracy is often judged as too fragmented and continuously growing. In power, it is true that the Bureaucracy is growing but in size it is in fact smaller than one would expect. In relation to the population growth in America the Bureaucracy has in fact shrunk. Some declare that the Bureaucracy is given too much power and is not capable of being regulated. Such is the case in James Q. Wilson’s article, Woll 52, as he argues Bureaucracy was intended to be as it began, small and with few responsibilities. He also agrues that, “The great political and constitutional struggles were not over the power of the administrative apparatus, but over the power of the President, of the Congress and of the states.”(The Rise of the Bureaucratic State, James Q. Wilson, Woll p. 313) As the years progressed, and as society demanded, so did Bureaucracy. Gradually it gained more departments and more power. As Woll himself argues in Doc. 52, and which is more the case, The Bureaucracy continued to grow not only because society demanded it but because our Congress and Executive Branch demanded it.



The Bureaucracy is given power when Congress or the Executive Branch requires it to implement or regulate something which they wish not do, or do not have power to do. The greatest debate about the Bureaucracy is how democratic it truly is and whether its power is not capable of being controlled. The issue with trying to control the Bureaucracy too much is that it defeats the purpose of its creation. Congress began creating its departments and handed over that responsibility from the start. If now, our government begins to try and take away the power from the Bureaucracy it will not be capable to perform efficiently and execute its orders for without the power it has now it can not accomplish what it does now. Both Woll and Wilson agree that there is no real way of controlling the Bureaucracy. The executive Branch is capable of regulating through appointing the head of each department, being Commander in chief, which allows him to control the Defense Department, and being Chief Diplomat, an authority in International Relations. Having the power to appoint the head of each department makes a huge difference in how the department operates and can affect the policies that they follow. The President also has the power to issue executive orders, to alter an agency’s budget, and to reorganize an agency. But even these abilities are cancelled out. The congress has influence over the appointees of the President as the Senate has to approve of his appointments. The congress as well can alter an agency’s budget, however, this would not accomplish much for if the budget is altered the Bureaucracy may not be able to accomplish their orders effectively. The congress can also hold hearings which ensure that the Bureaucracy is doing their job; and they congress can rewrite the legislation. This has the potential to be a very important control as the Congress can decide what rules the Bureaucracy must follow, however, the Bureaucracy is still able to perform in the same manner they did before the instructions were changed. Woll brings up the point that because the Bureaucracy is like a fourth branch there is nothing in the Constitution that declares how it should be run. This is what ultimately causes the tension between the other branches in trying to control the Bureaucracy. There is no Constitutional right or law to regulate the Bureaucracy or mandate it. Congress in effect hold the most control over Bureaucracy as it can change to some extent the orders of the President and can also create agencies which are independent and beyond presidential control. With the president, he is given technical authority over the Bureaucracy but as Woll states, “He may have the authority to control the bureaucracy in many areas, but not enough power….he does not have the legal authority to take any action.”(The Bureaucracy, Peter Woll, p. 311) This means he does not have the power to execute the decisions he thinks should be made and even if he does not agree with something because there is no law in the constitutional he can not legally order change. Woll does state that the president could make a change if he could gather enough political support but because the Bureaucracy represents its constituents and the people any support the President gained would most likely be conquered by the support of the constituents who are happy about what the Bureaucracy does. Woll also presents the idea that the three branches: Congress, Executive, and the courts do not utilize all the authority they do have for the Bureaucracy serves as their fragmented system in which they can each independently try to control and affect. If this were not the case there would have to be more agreement among the branches and they would not be able to use the Bureaucracy to sort out the places of disagreement. Wilson discusses these points to some extent as well. However he views it more negatively. He does admit however that if equal control was given to all three branches specific interests would not be met.



The issue of democracy is presented in that because the members are not elected they could potentially not be a fair representation of the people. In order to become part of the Bureaucracy one must pass a test and qualify based on merit. This system again, takes power away from the president as it eliminates the patronage system. In truth, the members of the Bureaucracy are a more fair representation of the people than in the other branches and they work in departments and with issues that directly affect the daily lives of every American and thus are more able to understand the people and represent them.



The Bureaucracy can be viewed many ways by many people but what is still a gray area and what most people do agree on is the fragmented aspect of the Bureaucracy. Because one issue or area can be placed in to multiple departments the Bureaucracy is a very complicated and not unified system. The power is dived among multiple people but the organization is fairly messy and not always comprehendible. What we must ask ourselves is if by deregulated this system would the fragmentation be fixed, and would that better our society or just cause more confusion. We have to understand that because of the Bureaucracy and the guidelines they instate we can function in a more stable system and can be sure that the food we eat, water we drink, cars we drive, letter we send are all organized in an efficient way and although we may not comprehend exactly how and where everything gets done, we can be sure that the actions we take in our day-to-day lives have been pre-assessed with our well-being in mind.



-Isabella

Bureaucracy

When the Constitution was created, it was not designed to govern a bureaucratic nation. The way that the constitution was written does not give bureaucratic control to any branch in particular. Often regarded as the fourth branch of the United States government, the bureaucracy has grown greatly in size and is only influenced by the other branches but no longer controlled by branches. Although it is debated which branch has more control over the bureaucracy, Legislative or Executive, it is possible that not one specific branch has control. Rather the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches all have authority in the makings of the bureaucracy and all the departments that allow the country to run smoothly.

The bureaucracy is commonly known as those who work for the government and implement all the policies that are made into laws. The bureaucracy is so much more though. It includes a large majority of the population and ranges drastically in terms of job requirements and duties. The main purpose of the bureaucracy is to implement the government policies and regulations, which are typically laws passed by Congress or mandates made by the president. There are four parts that make up the bureaucracy including, the cabinet, Independent Executive Agencies, Independent Regulatory Agencies, and Government Corporations. These are ways to classify different bureaucratic departments. The Cabinet is typically larger departments and organizations. The heads of the department are nominated by the President and then approved by the senate so that both the Legislative and the Executive branch have an effect on the bureaucracy. The Independent Executive Agencies are usually a president’s personal idea that they want to make into a department for the better good. For example, John F. Kennedy created the Peace Corps, which was an organization that started as his idea and was funded with money from the President’s personal budget. Independent Regulatory Agencies are not under the command of the President. They are independent from the workings of Congress as well. Government Corporations do not receive funding by the government. They are typically business that are run and regulated by the government but produce enough money to be self-sustainable, like the post office. All four types of bureaucratic departments fall under the same confusion that the Constitution set up.

In Peter Woll’s discussion of the bureaucracy and the role the constitution plays in it, he mentions quite often that the agencies are left up to make the final decisions of how a law should be executed. He begins his discussion by confronting the issue of who has the main control over the bureaucracy. As he develops his argument, it becomes clear that even though the constitution did not directly give power to any particular branch, every branch affects the bureaucracy. Woll explains that Congress has the primary control over the organization of the branches. Congress does not often give power to the president to organize the departments. Congress typically takes the administrative position and power when it comes to the organization. Congress occasionally does let the President take part in the Administrative position, “Only rarely will it grant the president any kind of final authority to structure the bureaucracy,”(Bureaucratic Power, Peter Woll, 310). The president will be granted power to structure the bureaucracy in times of war or disasters.

The Constitution barely touches on what type of role the president should take in the bureaucracy. Woll discusses how the president’s main power is to be able to appoint the heads of the departments but even then the Senate still has to make the final approval of every appointee. The president used to have more power in the bureaucracy when it was a patronage based system. Now that the system is merit based, the president has less influence and therefore less power in bureaucracy.
However, Peter Woll points out that the president does have influence, but the influence the president has is not legal authority. The Constitution states that the president will be Commander and Chief of the Armed forces and Navy, therefore the president has a major impact on the Department of Defense. Slowly overtime the president has acquired more power, “the fact remains that we seek in vain for explicit constitutional authorization for the president to be ‘Chief Administrator’,”(Bureaucratic Power, Peter Woll, 310). The president is not technically the Chief Administrator because the Constitution did not make him that. However, because of the president’s increasing amount of power, citizens view the president as the Chief Administrator and therefore in some respect giving them the power to create there own departments and such, like the Independent Executive Agencies. However, the lack of Constitutional mandate to be the Chief Administrator, Woll proves how it can be disastrous. In certain situations, the President can’t do anything because he may have the influence to do something but the President does not have the legal authority granted by the Constitution.

Judicial Review is another aspect of how all three branches influence the makings of the bureaucracy. Judicial Review checks all the decisions made by Congress and the President and decides whether or not they are Constitutional or if they were made into law properly. Woll talks of the “rule of law”. This idea of branches being separate in order to properly check the other branches is what Woll says the bureaucracy is all about. For example, all three branches have influence but they are all capable of checking each other so that one branch does not gain too much influence in the bureaucracy. Judicial Review limits the power the Legislative and Executive branches have on the bureaucracy and in turn promoting the democratic idea the United States was founded on.

Woll’s discussion of bureaucracy directly relates to the discussion James Q. Wilson provides. Wilson begins discussing the same concepts that plague many minds, which controls the bureaucracy. As Woll emphasized, no one branch has control. Wilson expressed concern that with the bureaucratic state growing at the rate it is, the issue of leadership will be more of a dilemma. There need to be ways to control the bureaucracy efficiently without letting one branch of government have to much influence.

When comparing both documents with each other, it becomes evident that a main concern for people is control. The way Woll puts the bureaucratic system makes sense. Every single branch has an influence on the bureaucracy just like they do in every other way. The bureaucracy can easily be seen as a fourth branch because the way that the system currently works, all the branches are allowed to have influence in the bureaucracy but are also checked to make sure the balance of power stays equal. The idea that Woll puts forward about how all branches, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial are in control of the bureaucracy makes perfect sense considering how the rest of the United States government works.

Each branch of the government has its own particular responsibility to make the bureaucracy function. The lack of direction the Constitution provides, allows the American system of democracy to flourish even more with the addition of the bureaucracy. With all three branches being able to hold some sort of authority in the bureaucracy, the system of checks and balances and the democratic ideas are revived in the bureaucracy and therefore the question of “control” is not a concern.

-Ellie

The Department of the Treasury

The Department of the Treasury 

Mission Statement:

"Server the American people and strengthen national security by managing the U.S. Government's finances effectively, promoting economic growth and stability, and ensuring the safety, soundness, and security of the U.S. and international financial systems."

Functions:

• manages federal finances
• manages government debt and public accounts  
• collects taxes, duties, and money owed to the U.S.
• pays all the U.S. debt
• enforces all federal tax and finance laws
• investigates and prosecutes tax evaders, counterfeiters, and forgers
• supervises national banks
• advises the President on economic and financial issues
• maintains production of coin and currency 
• maintains payment of American citizens
• works with international governments and financial institutions to foster global economic growth, raise living conditions, and predict possible financial crises
• enacts economic sanctions against "foreign threats to the U.S."
• identifies and targets the financial support of "national security threats"
• improves safeguards of the U.S. financial system

(http://www.ustreas.gov/education/duties/)

-Christie

THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Mission
• “THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS) is the United States government's principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves.”

Functions
• Health and social science research
• Preventing disease, including immunization services
• Assuring food and drug safety
• Medicare (health insurance for elderly and disabled Americans) and Medicaid (health insurance for low-income people)
• Health information technology
• Financial assistance and services for low-income families
• Improving maternal and infant health
• Head Start (pre-school education and services)
• Faith-based and community initiatives
• Preventing child abuse and domestic violence
• Substance abuse treatment and prevention
• Services for older Americans, including home-delivered meals
• Comprehensive health services for Native Americans
• Medical preparedness for emergencies, including potential terrorism.

—Angelo

Department of Agriculture

Mission statement: "We provide leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, and related issues based on sound public policy, the best available science, and efficient management."

Functions:

• Enhance International competitiveness of American Agriculture
• Enhance the sustainability of rural farm economics
• Support increased economic opportunites and improve the quality of life in rural America
• Increase and enhance the protection of the Nation's agriculture and food supply
• Improve the Nation's health and nutrition
• Protect the Nation's natural resource base and environment

-Bennett

Department of Education

Mission Statement: The Department of Education's "mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access."

Functions:
The U.S. Department of Education has 4,200 employees and $ 68.6 billion budget is used to:

• Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds.
• Collecting data on America's schools and disseminating research.
• Focusing national attention on key educational issues.
• Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education.

-Emma

Department of Defense

Mission: The mission the Department of Defense(DoD) (DoD Directive 5100.1) is responsible for providing the military forces needed to deter war and protect the security of the United States. The major elements of these forces are the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

Functions:
- War-fighting
- Humanitarian Aid
- Peacekeeping
- Disaster Relief
- Homeland Security

As prescribed by higher authority, the Department of Defense shall maintain and employ
Armed Forces to:

• Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
  
• Ensure, by timely and effective military action, the security of the United States, its possessions, and areas vital to its interest.
  
• Uphold and advance the national policies and interests of the United States.

U.S. Department of Labor

Mission Statement: "The Department of Labor fosters and promotes the welfare of the job seekers, wage earners, and retirees of the United States by improving their working conditions, advancing their opportunities for profitable employment, protecting their retirement and health care benefits, helping employers find workers, strengthening free collective bargaining, and tracking changes in employment, prices, and other national economic measurements."

"As an organization with diverse functions, we carry out our mission through a number of offices and agencies." Some of these agencies and their purpose include the following:

• Employment Standards Administration- to enhance the welfare and protect the rights of American workers
• 21st Century Workforce Office- to ensure that all American workers have as fulfilling and financially rewarding a career as they aspire to have and to make sure that no worker gets left behind in the limitless potential of the dynamic, global economy of this new millennium.
• Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives- to empower faith-based and community organizations (FBCO) as these organizations help their neighbors enter, succeed and thrive in the workforce.
• Administrative Review Board- issues final agency decisions for the Secretary of Labor in cases arising under a wide range of labor laws, primarily involving environmental, transportation and securities whistleblower protection; immigration; child labor; employment discrimination; job training; seasonal and migrant workers and federal construction and service contracts
• Occupation Safety and Health Administration- to promote the safety and health of America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual process improvement in workplace safety and health

-Rachel

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Mission:
The mission of the department of housing and urban development is to increase homeowner ship, support community development, and increase access to affordable housing free from discrimination.

Functions:
-Create new partnerships that will help provide more housing.
-Embrace high ethics of standards that will help improve HUD's ability to be effective on the community level.
-Provide ways for more people to achieve homeownership.
-Help community development through management and accountability.

Christen

Department of the Interior

Mission:

"to protect and provide access to our Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities."

Functions:

• Resource Protection-Protect the Nation's Natural, Cultural, and Heritage Resources
• Resource Use- Manage Resources to Promote Responsible Use and Sustain a Dynamic Economy
• Recreation-Provide recreation opportunities for America
• Serving Communities-Safeguard lives, property and assets, advance scientific knowledge, and improve the quality of life for communities we serve
• Management Excellence-Manage the Department to be highly skilled, accountable, modern, functionally integrated, citizen-centered, and result-oriented

-Isabella

Department of Transportation

Mission:

"Serve the United States by ensuring a fast, safe, efficient, accessible and convenient transportation system that meets our vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the American people, today and into the future"

Functions:

1. Federal Aviation Administration- provides a safe way for civilians to fly along with enforcing regulations on shipments made 

2. Federal Highway Administration-providing safe roads for travel and funds for development of highways

3. Federal Motor Carrier Administration- goal is to prevent motor vehicle fatalities and injuries by providing safety information and operating standards

4. Federal Railroad Administration- way for goods and people to travel successfully

5.  Federal Transit Administration- providing transportation for the masses

6. Maritime Transportation- ensuring the quality and efficient ports

-Ellie