Download Unit I: Introduction to Economic Concepts - AP

AP Government and Economics 2010-11 Reader
Introduction
First: I’d like to congratulate you at reaching this point, only the most dedicated student even attempt to take an AP
class. Hopefully this class will be intellectually rewarding, interesting, and at times even fun.
Second: Don’t panic! This booklet is designed to cover the whole year. If you were given most of your assignments for
any class, it might seem overwhelming. I’ve created this booklet so that you can get ahead, but more importantly so you
can plan your time well. I know that you will have other classes and activities; this is my attempt to give you a way to
manage your time effectively.
Third For those of you who apply for the ACE program for the Second Semester, at the time of creating this reader, I
haven’t quite decided what the additional assignment will be, but don’t worry, it will come to me!
Fourth: You can write in this book, it’s yours. You can underline important passages, make corrections as needed and
make notes in the margins. For the readings, because they are primary sources, spelling was left as it was originally
written, but that doesn’t mean everything is perfect.
Fifth: Don’t get over confident. This is not “everything” that you will be doing this year. You will also be reading,
completing some small assignments, taking notes, reviewing your material, and just plain studying for quizzes and
exams. Additionally, if time is short, I may modify an assignment listed in this reader, especially with the changing
nature of a school day, who knows when we may have a fire drill or a rally to interrupt our perfect plan.
Syllabus Abbreviation Key
Wilson - The APGOV Textbook
Course Unit Topics
General Assignments
Assignments
Multiple Choice Hints
FRQ Rubric
In Class Debates
Study Guides and Notes
Prompted Essay Assignment
Summer Assignment
Semester Bridge Assignment
Online Class Component
Unit I- Constitutional
Underpinning of the U.S.
Government.
Assessments
Chapter 1 Exam- Multiple
Choice and 1 FRQ
Exam Chapter 2 (25
multiple choice questions 1
FRQ)
Section 1
Unit Exam Chapter 1,2, 3
Multiple Choice and FRQ
Chapter One Study Guide
Basic Politics Simulation
Chapter Two Study Guide
Chapter Three Study Guide
Plato- The Cave
Locke- Two Treaties
AntiFederalist #84
Federalist #51
Federalist #10
Beard- Framing the Constitution
Lawrence and Dorf- How not to read the
Constitution
McCulloch v. Maryland
United States v. Lopez
Unit II-Political Beliefs
and Behaviors
Unit II Exam Ch 4, 5 & 6Multiple Choice and FRQs
Chapter Four Study Guide
Opinion Poll Project
Chapter Five Study Guide
Chapter Six Study Guide
Tocqueville- Democracy in America
Brooks- One Nation Slightly Divisible
Unit III- Political Parties,
Elections
Unit III Exam Ch 7 & 8Multiple Choice
Chapter Seven Study Guide
Chapter Eight Study Guide
Election Project
Jefferson- A Profession of Political Faith
Unit IV- Interest Groups
and Media
Unit IV Exam- Chapters 9
& 10- Three FRQ’s
Chapter Nine Study Guide
Interest Group Project
Chapter Ten Study Guide
Reform the Media Project
Fallows- Why Americans Hate the Media
Page
Unit V- Branches of
GovernmentPart A Congress
Chapter 11 ExamMultiple Choice and One
FRQ
Study Guide for Chapter 11
Article on Congress Essay
Mock Legislation Simulation
Burke- Speech to the Electors of Bristol
Ellwood- In Praise of Pork
Riedl- Nine Thousand Earmarks
Starobin- Pork a Time Honored Tradition
Unit V- Branches of
GovernmentPart B -The Presidency
and the Bureaucracy
Chapter 12 and 13 Exam
Multiple Choice and Two
FRQs
Chapter 12 Study Guide
Chapter 13 Study Guide
Neustadt- Presidential Power and the
Modern President
Weber- Bureaucracy
Unit V- Branches of
GovernmentPart C- The Judiciary
Unit V Exam- Multiple
Choice
Chapter 14 Study Guide
Supreme Court Writing Assignment
Scalia- Liberty and Abortion; A Strict
Constructionist’s View
Unit VI- Policy Making
Economic, Foreign and
Social Policy
Not an error- Ch 20 is
grouped in the Policy unit
Not an error- Ch 21 is
grouped in the Policy unit
Unit Exam Multiple
Choice and FRQs
Chapter 15 Study Guide
Chapter 16 Study Guide
Chapter 17 Study Guide
Chapter 20 Study Guide
Chapter 21 Study Guide
Public Policy Project
Will- Why Didn’t Bush Ask Congress?
Easterbrook- Some Convenient Truths
Unit VII- Civil Liberties
and Civil Rights
Unit IX Exam Ch 18 & 19Multiple Choice and FRQs
Chapter 18 Study Guide
Chapter 19 Study Guide
Supreme Decisions- Civil Rights Project
Williams- Proposition 209
APGOV
Multiple Choice (45 minutes for 60 questions)
1. Don't panic if you come across difficult questions. The test is supposed to have some very hard questions so
they can tell the difference between more and less prepared students.
2. Use at least two go-throughs on the test. On you first run answer only the questions you are sure of. Then
go back and do the other you didn’t know. Often times you will get hints or your memory will be jogged by
the questions you did know.
3. Circle EXCEPT questions so you can remind yourself you are looking for a FALSE statement for the
answer.
4. Do not change an answer unless you are sure it is wrong. Make sure erasers are clear.
5. If a multiple choice question is left blank, no points are deducted. Since a quarter of a point is deducted for
incorrect answers, students should avoid making random guesses. Students may benefit from educated
guesses though.
6. You can and should make marks on the multiple choice test itself in order to keep track of the choices that
they have eliminated.You can write on the test, but not on the answer sheet.
7. Keep your eye on the clock. You have 45 minutes to answer 60 questions. If you have additional time,
double check your answers.
Free-Response (1 hour 45 minutes – 4 questions).
For the AP exam this section accounts for 50% of your overall score. There are four questions – you must answer all
four – which count equally. Because the free-response questions are open-ended, this is your opportunity to
demonstrate your broad understanding of U.S. government and politics. You will be asked to analyze some of the basic
concepts that form the foundation of the American political system. Most questions will ask you to characterize
relationships among various political institutions, their responsibilities, and the consequences of their actions. Some
questions will ask you to analyze both sides of an issue. You will see directives like analyze, assess, evaluate, examine,
and discuss. This means that knowing facts is not enough. You must be able to use facts to construct a thorough and
intelligent response.
1. Understand the Question: READ IT!!! Read and then reread the question for clarity. If it helps, rephrase the question
for clarity. Look for key words such as who, what, when, why, argue argument, explain, and discuss. Know what the
question is asking you. If you are asked to discuss the change in federalism over time, you won’t get full
credit for simply defining federalism. The rest of the answer involves your interpretation of federalism
changing through court cases, new policy, etc. READ THE QUESTION CORRECTLY.
2. Identify the question type
There are generally three types of questions on the exam. The verbs which the question uses will tell you
what kind of question is being asked
I. Write about the meaning of a concept. Key verbs: define, describe, identify, list, state, summarize.
II. Write about both sides of an issue or recognize similarities and differences. You don’t need a full
thesis statement to answer these questions because your not asked to take a position and argue for it,
however, you do need an organizing statement to orient the reader to the answer. Key verbs: compare,
contrast, discuss, explain, and illustrate.
III. Write about a position and argue for a specific point of view. A thesis statement is require for
this type of question. Key verbs: analyze, argue, and interpret.
3. Which path do I take?
Often times, FRQ’s will ask you to come up with several concepts and then to elaborate on them. They might
ask for “two reasons” or “three examples.” However, there is often 7 or 8 possible right answers. Therefore,
before you write, make a list of all possible answers that you know could work. Then, choose the ones that
you feel most comfortable writing about. HINT – AP readers do not penalize you for wrong answers, only
missing answers. Therefore, if they ask for “two examples,” then give three examples because it will give you
another possibility of getting points if your other answers missed the mark.. Aim for three pieces of supporting
evidence in your response. Three examples are just enough to prove your point. Any more than this will read too much
like a list and will detract from your essay and could cost you points.
4. Do I need an introduction?
Does the question ask you to take a position? If so, take one. Don’t sit in the middle, argue one side because
they don’t care which side you argue. They only care that your argument works. ONLY WRITE AN INTRO
IF THEY ASK YOU TO TAKE A DEFINITE STAND. Introductions in an other situation is a waste of time.
5. Format? Formulate and outline. Some questions are multiple-portioned and it will help to formulate an outline in
order to properly answer the entire question. Answers to some questions, even if they are multiple-portioned, might be
answered better in a more traditional format, with each paragraph addressing a piece of evidence. It may help to use
this basic outline format:
Paragraph 1: your position or interpretation of the given information.
Paragraph 2: your first piece of evidence and any supporting details. (The details can be in bullet form)
Paragraph 3: your second piece of evidence and any supporting details.
Paragraph 4: your third piece of evidence and any supporting details.
Paragraph 5: summary of your points and restatement of your position.
The example below is a good way to think about answering most FRQs. It is very mechanical in that you number your
answers, and it is also easy on the reader, which they will appreciate. ALWAYS WRITE LEGIBLY IN BLUE OR
BLACK PEN.
Sample Response from the 2005 Exam
Question: Explain how two factors keep the United States Supreme Court from deviating too far from public
opinion. (AP accepted 6 possible answers)
1. Presidents nominate Supreme Court justices so they can’t deviate too far from public opinion. Since the
president is elected, the general public shares his opinion on a lot of issues. When there is an opening on the
court, the President wants to make a choice that the people agree with, especially if he plans to run for reelection. If he nominates a person who deviates too far from public opinion, there will be a backlash in his
approval ratings.
2. Supreme Court rulings can be overruled with new laws or constitutional amendments so they can’t deviate
too far from public opinion. The members of Congress are responsible to the people, so they must guarantee
that law follows public opinion if they hope to be reelected.
6. Re-read your answers
Students always are in a rush to turn in their tests, but if you have to sit in the room for 100 minutes anyway,
why not re-read your answers? Each question is scored independently. Therefore, you will not be able to “make up”
points on questions that you feel you did not answer well by overcompensating. Go back and make sure you
answered each question fully. If you did not, you can write more at the end, and then draw an arrow to the
appropriate place where the information belongs.
General Tips
 Give concrete examples. Specific examples of your answers help solidify your answers.
 Answer all part of the question. Exam graders will reward students for more for answering all parts of
the question than for doing well on only one part.
 Understand what you are being asked before you start writing.
 Don’t panic and start making things up. It is better to just make a brainstorm list and you might get
lucky and stumble across a right answer.
Do’s and Don’ts of the FRQ
Do’s
Write as neatly as possible. If they can’t read it, they can’t grade it. Neatly draw a line through a mistake,
write correct information above.
Read the question. Then read the question again. Make sure you’re answering only what is being asked.
Reread your work if you have time. Make sure you LINK THE QUESTION TO THE ANSWER!
There is no penalty for wrong information, so write as much as you can. If they ask for two examples,
give three.
Use the EXACT VOCABULARY from the question in each component of your answer. Most rubrics ask
for linkage back to the question. This is the sure fire way to move in that direction.
Don’ts
1. Don’t give personal opinions (like your political affiliation or whether you like the president’s policy).
The exam tests your knowledge of political process, not opinion.
2. Don’t give long, unnecessary introductions, get right to the point.
3. Don’t give information they didn’t ask for. There are no extra credit or “brownie” points.
4. Don’t spend more than 25 minutes on any free response question.
5. Don’t fall asleep. Fight the fatigue. Time is generally not a factor. Do not look back and think about
how you wasted it because your were tired, bored, or indifferent. Bring a strong peppermint to the
test. This will jolt you awake, and stimulate your senses.
Scoring and Credit
The raw scores of the exam are converted into the following five-point scale:
5 - Extremely well qualified
4 – Well qualified
3 – Qualified
2 – Possibly qualified
1 – No recommendation
FRQ Rubric
Points given will be indicated on the left, and the reasoning behind the points circled on the chart below.
Points
5
4
3
2
1
0
AP
Rating
9-8
7-6
5-4
3-2
1
0
Thesis
Organization
Balance
Analysis
Evidence
Errors
Superior thesis Explicit and fully
responsive to the
question.
Extremely wellorganized- Essay
organization is
clear, consistently
followed, and
effective in
support of the
argument
Addresses all areas
of the prompt
evenly. If the
question requires
multiple arguments.
at least three ideas
are all covered at
some length
Excellent use
of analysis to
support thesis
and main
ideas.
All major assertions
in the essay are
supported by at least
three specific ideas,
events, or
individuals being
used as relevant
evidence
Extremely wellwritten essay
Strong thesis Explicit and
responsive to the
question,
contains general
analysis
Well-organized
essay – Essay
organization is
clear, effective in
support of the
argument, but not
consistently
followed, tends to
generalize.
Addresses all areas
of the prompt; may
lack some balance
between major areas.
Strong
analysis in
most areas;
needs more
detail.
All major assertions
in the essay are
supported by more
than one specific
ideas, events, or
individuals being
used as relevant
evidence
Well-written essay
Most of the major
assertions in the
essay are supported
by at least one
specific ideas,
events, or
individuals being
used as relevant
evidence
Good Essay
Only one or two
specific ideas,
events, or
individuals are
mentioned, but little
to no use as relevant
evidence
Adequate Essay,
but is somewhat
incomplete (too
short)
Essay is
incomplete
Little to no
relevant facts
No specific ideas,
events, or
individuals are
mentioned or used.
No analysis
No evidence
Clear thesisThesis is explicit,
but not fully
responsive to the
question, tends to
stylistically
wander before
reaching the core
argument to be
addressed.
Organization is
clear, consistently
followed, but not
effective
Underdeveloped
Thesis- Thesis
that merely
repeats/
paraphrases the
prompt
Organization is
unclear and
ineffective, tends
to jump
chronologically.
No discernable
attempt at a
thesis
No discernable
organization;
stylistically
wanders and
jumps
chronologically.
Little to no effort
shown
Thesis is off
topic.
If the question
requires multiple
arguments at least
three ideas suggested
by the prompt are
covered at least
briefly
Essay shows some
imbalance; there is a
discussion of ideas,
but generalized
arguments.
Some
important
information
left out
Contains some
analysis; much
more detail is
needed.
Important
information
left out.
Essay shows serious
imbalance, If the
question requires
multiple arguments.
less than three
specific ideas,
events, or
individuals being
used are discussed,
and only briefly.
Only one or no
arguments are
mentioned
No arguments
mentioned
Lacks analysis
of key issues
Most major
events omitted
No analysis
____ Introduction contains vague or “wasted” sentences
____ Essay contains vague statements or generalizations not supported by facts.
____ Essay attempted to tell a story rather than relaying facts.
____ Essay attempted to validate your personal opinion, rather than answering the prompt.
____ Don’t use “I” or “my” statements
____ Don’t connect issues to “today” (unless asked)
____ Don’t use “flowery” or slang style writing
____ Poor spelling and grammar
____ Poor penmanship: essay difficult to read
The errors that
exist do not detract
from the argument
May contain an
error that detracts
from the argument
such as the wrong
chronology,
associating the
ideas of one figure
with another.
Contains a few
errors that detract
from the argument,
Contains several
errors that detract
from the argument,
Contains numerous
errors that detract
from the argument
Completely
incorrect or not
turned in.
OBJECTIVE: Students in this AP section are required to deliver a formal debate to their class. This requirement may be met by an individual debate (one-on-one),
2v2, or 3v3. Each student will be required to address the class for a period of at least 4-7 minutes. During this time the students will debate issues relating to US
Government.
GRADING THE DEBATE: SEE ATTACHED
STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF THE FORMAL DEBATE: Students will be divided into two teams; an affirmative team, that will debate/defend the
resolution and a negative team that will oppose the resolution. Each side will research their position gathering facts, data, and other information to their position.
Students will be encouraged to use a variety of sources including information from the library, public institutions (public libraries, local universities), and the
internet. The structure of the debate is as follows:
5 minutes Affirmative Original Construction of the argument:
During this time period the affirmative side will present the major arguments
supporting the resolution based upon the research.
Name: __________________
4 Minutes Cross examination:
During this period the Negative may ask the Affirmative questions of
clarification.
Name: __________________
5 Minutes Negative Original Construction of the argument:
During this period the Negative side will present the major arguments against
the resolution based upon the research.
Name: __________________
4 Minutes Cross Examination:
During this time the Affirmative may ask the Negative questions of
clarification.
Name: __________________
4 Minutes Affirmative Rebuttal:
During this time the Affirmative may challenge the validity of the Negative's original argument. This can be done by introducing
information to counter the points made by the Negative side.
Name: __________________
5 Minutes Negative Rebuttal:
During this period the Negative may offer information to counter any points
brought up during Affirmative's original argument, defend points brought up
during Negative's original argument, defend points raised by Affirmative
rebuttal, and restate their original argument.
Name: __________________
1 Minute Affirmative Rebuttal:
During this time period the Affirmative may rebuttal any of the Negative's
major arguments and sum up their position.
Name: __________________
Original Construction of Argument Speeches: Speeches will allow the Affirmative and Negative speakers to offer evidence in support of their position in addition
to disprove the arguments offered by the opponent. In the original construction speech the student will research the resolution and create arguments in support of
their position.
HINTS:
1) 2-3 main points
3) Anticipate the other side
5) Talking is better than reading: personal experience
6) Strong opening and closing sentences
2) Have a road map
4) Quotes for support (but don’t overdo it)
7) USE note cards, do not read an ESSAY
Rebuttal Speeches: Serve as an opportunity to clarify the issues presented in the debate and to question the evidence presented by the other side. This is best done
by gathering information that rivals or contradicts the other side. The focus of a rebuttal speech should be only to address the information presented by the other
side. No new topics should be introduced.
Time Limits and Visual Aids: All time limits have an extended grace period of up to 15 seconds for each speech. This applies to speeches that go over the limit,
not those that are too brief. There will be a 3-5 minute question and answer period following each debate to allow the class members or instructor to participate by
questioning the speaker and/or discuss the information presented. Visual aids are optional but a good idea. The debates will be presented in front of the classroom,
with the speakers standing when presenting and addressing the audience as well as the opponent. FORMAL ATTIRE IS REQUIRED!
DEBATE TOPICS: To be completed over the course of the semester . Groups of no more than 3
students!
Constitutional Underpinnings
The Federal government has been devolving more power to the states. This trend is positive because it
allows states to better meet the individual needs of their citizens.
Political Beliefs and Behavior
Low voter turnout among people threatens democracy in America.

Because of political apathy among young people, their issues are not adequately addressed.
Political Parties and Interest Groups
Interest groups, PACs, and 527s have too much clout in shaping public policy.

Multi-party political systems more effectively represent citizen interests than does the American two-party
system.
Institutions/Three Branches of Government The Supreme Court is too heavily influenced by politics.

The United States should reduce the number of regulatory agencies, because they generate red tape, raise
prices, and reduce competitiveness in the world market.

Judicial review is undemocratic. It permits non-elected judges to decide whether or not a law is
constitutional. It can frustrate the intentions of democratic governments by overruling the actions of
elected officials.

The president has become so powerful that there is no longer an effective balance of powers.
Public Policy

The Congressional committee system gives too much power to the majority party in setting the political
agenda. As a result, the views of the minority party are ignored.
Civil Liberties and Civil Rights—

Affirmative Action programs are necessary to safeguard equal opportunity in both education and
employment for minorities.

In the interest of public safety, the Fourth Amendment rights of those under the age of 18 should be
severely limited.
Student Critique Form
YOUR NAME:________________________________________________________
DEBATE TOPIC:______________________________________________________
TEAM BEING CRITIQUED:____________________________________________
Positive aspects of opening statement:
How opening could have been improved:
Were the questions clear and focused? Did they challenge the opponent's position?
Did the debaters directly and persuasively respond to questions?
Positive aspects of closing statement:
How closing could have been improved:
How effective was the use of statistics?
How effective was the use of quotations?
What would have improved this debate?
What did these debaters do best?
Debate Grade Sheet
DEBATE TOPIC:
POSITION/STANCE:
TEAM BEING GRADED: 1. _________________________ 2.
___/15 OPENING STATEMENT
TIME: ________
___/10 DIRECT QUESTIONING
TIME: ________
___/15 CLOSING STATEMENT
TIME: ________
___/10 RESPONSE TO QUESTIONING
___/10 USE OF STATISTICS/QUOTATIONS
___/5 ENNUNCIATION, VOLUME, ETC.
___/5 DRESS AND APPEARANCE
___/70 Total
3.
APGOV Study Guide and Note-taking Assignment
For APGOV the college board has broken the course into six major themes:
I. Constitutional Underpinnings of United States Government
II. Political Beliefs and Behaviors
III. Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Mass Media
IV. Institutions of National Government
V. Public Policy
VI . Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Even though there are less major units than APUSH or APEH, there is still a great deal of information to learn
for this course. This assignment will be the method you will use to organize the course content and how I will
keep you accountable for keeping pace with the reading. I will check your notes on exam days.
For each chapter, you will have a series of questions in a study guide. These study guides will be due on the
day of the chapter or unit exam. In order to be efficient with our time in class, you will have to do some
reading and notetaking at home. Here is the format for notes for APGOV.
For most note taking, the typical Cornell note system follows this format:
1. Record: During the lecture, use the note taking column to record the lecture using telegraphic sentences.
2. Questions: As soon after class as possible, formulate questions based on the notes in the right-hand column.
Writing questions helps to clarify meanings, reveal relationships, establish continuity, and strengthen memory.
Also, the writing of questions sets up a perfect stage for exam-studying later.
3. Recite: Cover the note taking column with a sheet of paper. Then, looking at the questions or cue-words in the
question and cue column only, say aloud, in your own words, the answers to the questions, facts, or ideas
indicated by the cue-words.
4. Reflect: Reflect on the material by asking yourself questions, for example: “What’s the significance of these
facts? What principle are they based on? How can I apply them? How do they fit in with what I already know?
What’s beyond them?
5. Review: Spend at least ten minutes every week reviewing all your previous notes. If you do, you’ll retain a
great deal for current use, as well as, for the exam.
For the notes that I give you in class, or my powerpoints via the web page, they should be written on the right hand side
of your note sheet as you would on typical Cornell notes. For the left hand side however, I would like you to “Enhance”
your notes. What I am looking for, is that you go through the chapter and that you add anything I may have missed,
specficially incorporating the list of terms included on each study guide. Most of the terms are included in the chapter,
but others are not. These terms become important for two major reasons:
1. They serve as the basis of information for many of your multiple choice exams
2. They serve as factual hooks that you can use in your FRQ essays.
For the question area of your notes, you should indicate as you review your notes, which themes did the particular topic,
person, or event address? You could streamline your note-taking with symbols, numbers or letters indicating which part
or parts relates to the PERSIA acronym. This will help with your overall review of your notes.
APGOV Note Organization
Your notes should have the following parts
Enhanced Notes: Notes you have added to the Core Notes
Chapter Terms
Core Notes: Notes provided by Guemmer
Your Notes should look something like this:
APGOV Note Sheet
Enhanced Notes
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
Summary
Core Notes
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
Prompted Essay Assignment
In a democracy the free flow of opinions is critical for a vital government. To be an active member of society,
you need to be able to express your opinion in an informed way.
The assignment: Choose eight of the following prompts, and write a 5 paragraph persuasive essay for each of
your chosen prompts. Choose a position either pro or con to argue.
Each essay is worth 20 points, and will be graded on the strength of your arguments and the clarity of your
writing. Each prompted essay will be due every week throughout the term on Fridays, unless there is no
Friday that week, in that case they will be due on Thursday. These essays will be due on the day assigned and
will not be accepted late, except in the case of a legitimate medical absence. Individuals who are participating
in athletic events are still obligated to turn their essays in on the due date.
1. A just government ought to value the redistribution of wealth over property rights.
2. In the US, the use of race as a deciding factor in college admissions is just.
3. As general principle, individuals have an obligation to value the common good above their own
interests
4. Individual claims of privacy ought to be valued above competing claims of societal welfare.
5. The US has a moral obligation to promote democratic ideals in other nations.
6. The government’s obligation to protect the environment ought to take precedence over its obligation
to promote economic development.
7. Even if disclosure is legally permissible, journalists have an ethical obligation to limit material
released to the public.
8. A just society ought to value the legal rights of people with mental illness above its obligation to
protect itself.
9. The US has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts
10. A society has a moral obligation to redress its historical injustices, such as slavery.
11. When in conflict a business' responsibility to itself ought to be valued above responsibility to
society.
12. In the US Judicial system, truth seeking ought to take precedence over privileged communication
13. In the near future we will be able to build robots that are as intelligent and powerful as humans, and
will therefore have the ability to take over from humans. We should therefore stop conducting
research into robotic intelligence.
14. Should voting in elections be compulsory?
15. The US Constitution prohibits people originally from other countries from being President, and
should be amended to change this
16. The constitutional limit preventing US Presidents from serving more than two terms should be
repealed
17. Young people should be subjected to night-time curfews as a way to reduce crime
18. America should change its Immigration Policy, so children born to illegal immigrants would not
automatically become citizens.
19. The United States federal government should substantially decrease its authority either to detain
without charge or to search without probable cause in the name of national security.
20. The Federal Government should punish states that knowingly attempt to violate Federal Drug laws.
21. Congress should establish English as the national language
22. The government should set minimum education standards as part of voting rights
23. The state of California should be split into two or three parts in order to govern it more efficiently
24. The Federal government should create national identity cards in order to eliminate the problem of
illegal immigration and terrorism in the United States.
25. Teenagers who commit a felony should be charged and tried as adults.
26. California high schools should adopt a statewide uniform dress code in order to eliminate
inappropriate attire.
27. Private businesses should have the right to ban cell phone signals.
28. The age to vote should be raised to the drinking age in order to be more consistent
29. The U.S. should reinstitute a military draft
30. Restrictions on stem cell research should be eliminated in order research cures for neurological
diseases such as Parkinson’s
31. The United States should limit its involvement in international conflicts to those countries that pose
an economic or military threat.
32. Congress should reinstitute the “Fairness Doctrine” on broadcast media.
33. Corporal punishment should be reinstituted in California schools to improve student discipline.
34. The California High School Exit Exam should be expanded to include science and history
35. The California government should allow private corporations to manage their prisons like other
states allow.
ATTENTION !!!
ARE YOU READING THIS !!
THE SUMMER ASSIGNMENT IS ONLY FOR STUDENTS WHO ARE ENROLLED IN THE FIRST AND
THIRD TERM CLASS. !!!
Summer 2010 Assignments
AP Government with Economics
A.P. Government requires different thinking and writing skills than you used in U.S. History. Writing for government
requires the understanding and analysis of abstract concepts and principles. You will depend less on recitation of facts
than on your interpretation of the facts. That means those of you who basically bluffed your way through World and US
History by knowing a laundry list of terms and dates will have to change your methodology.
With the current state of our government and economy, both on a national and a local level, we will be watching the
political battles for spending and foreign policy initiatives unfold. Throughout the year you will become aware of
politics and economics in general and specifically, have an opportunity to explore your own political and economic
ideologies.
This summer assignment is designed to help you to transition from thinking historically to thinking and writing from a
political and economic perspective. There are four parts to this assignment and each part is described below.
Assignments will be due the first day of class.
ASSIGNMENT # 1: Follow the News
Your first assignment is to read the newspaper, weekly news magazines, the internet news sources, and/or the nightly
network news. Keep track of the major news stories that are national or international in scope. (You may want to keep a
journal with a few sentences about the stories) This assignment does not require that you turn in anything but you will
have a quiz on the important big news events of the summer. This will be good practice for the regular news quizzes
you will have throughout the year.
ASSIGNMENT # 2: Comparison Essay (Relating to Smith and Marx/Engels readings)
These two documents have completely opposite views on the role of the market in society. In a comparative essayWhat does Adam Smith say a free market provides to society? What does Marx/Engels say a free market does to
society? Also, how is change accomplished in society according to Adam Smith? What has to occur to create change
for Marx/Engels?
Most students will be required to write a comparative essay at some point in their academic career. A comparative
essay is an academic paper which compares two or more topics, items, concepts, and more. Comparative essays seek to
discuss how items or concepts are similar, not how they are different.
Comparative essays are generally easy to write and should follow the same basic paper structure as any other academic
writing assignment. A comparative essay should have an introduction, a paper body, and a conclusion. The introduction
part of the paper should introduce the topic and should contain a thesis statement which will be supported throughout
the remainder of the paper.
The body of the paper is where the student should discuss the similarities of the items being compared. Although a
comparative essay is intended to primarily discuss the how items are similar, there can be some, very basic, references
to what makes the items different. However, it is imperative that students keep discussions of differences to a minimum
because then the paper becomes a compare and contrast essay instead of a comparative essay.
The conclusion of the comparative essay is where students should restate the thesis and wrap up the discussion. This is
generally where comparative essays give students trouble. It’s difficult to know when to stop comparing. It is not
necessary to compare each and every factor of the items or concepts in the paper. Students should select how many
comparisons to make based on the length of the paper.
For instance, in a one-page paper, students might want to select the number of comparisons based on the number of
body paragraphs. Since a one-page comparative essay generally has one introduction paragraph, three body paragraphs,
and one conclusion paragraph, the student might want to highlight three short comparisons, one per body paragraph, or
one in-depth comparison to discuss throughout the entire three body paragraphs. Longer papers invite longer discussions
and more comparisons.
Finally, comparative essays should follow the basic rules of paper writing. Students should proof their papers to ensure
that they have followed the citation guidelines given to them by the instructor. The paper should also be proofed for
grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Paragraphs should hold complete thoughts and the paper should be solid and
well-written to ensure the best grade possible.
Your essay should be 1-2 pages, typed using Times New Roman 12 point font, double spaced. If you use a specific
quote, indicate (Author) following the quote.
ASSIGNMENT # 3: Textbook Reading and Review: Read and review the first two chapters of the Economics
Textbook, you can also refer to the Introduction to Economics notes I have available online. You must have them read
and reviewed thoroughly enough to prepare for the Chapter 1 and 2 Test on the second day of the semester.
Additionally, the terms in the two chapters will help you with the last portion of the summer assignment. You can find
the Chapter 1 and 2 Term list in Unit I of the Economics Section toward the end of this reader. By completing the first
couple of chapters during the summer, it allows for some additional time to cover both more Economics and US
Government this year.
Assignment # 4: Local Business Project- Refer to the specific assignment sheet found in Unit I of the Economics
Section.
TITLE: Adam Smith and the Origin of Capitalism
SUBTITLE::
SOURCE:: Excerpt and condensation of Chapter 4 from The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times, and Ideas of the
Great Economic Thinkers by Robert L. Heilbroner, 7th ed., 1999.
COPYRIGHT::
TAGS:: Adam Smith, Smith, The Wealth of Nations, capitalism, market, markets,
free market, system of perfect liberty, liberty and profit, self interest, competition
COUNTRIES:: Europe
YEARS:: 1776-1800
INTRO:: Robert Heilbroner's The Worldly Philosophers is a uniquely readable introduction to the lives and ideas of the
great economic theorists of the last three centuries. The book has enlivened the study of economics for beginning
students for more than 40 years. Adam Smith published his Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
in 1776, adding a second revolutionary event to that fateful year. A political democracy was born on one side of the
ocean; an economic blueprint was unfolded on the other. But while not all Europe followed America's political lead,
after Smith had displayed the first true tableau of modern society, all the Western world became the world of Adam
Smith: his vision became the prescription for the spectacles of generations. Adam Smith would never have thought of
himself as a revolutionist; he was only explaining what to him was very clear sensible, and conservative. But he gave
the world the image of itself for which it had been searching. After The Wealth of Nations, men began to see the world
about themselves with new eyes; they saw how the tasks they did fitted into the whole of society, and they saw that
society as a whole was proceeding at a majestic pace toward a distant but clearly visible goal. In a word, a new vision
had come into
being. What was that new vision? As we might expect, it was not a State but a System -- more precisely, a System of
Perfect Liberty. Smith's vision is like a blueprint for a whole new mode of social organization, a mode called Political
Economy, or, in today's terminology, economics.
The Laws of the Market
At the center of this blueprint are the solutions to two problems that absorb Smith's attention. First, he is interested in
laying bare the mechanism by which society hangs together. How is it possible for a community in which everyone is
busily following his self-interest not to fly apart from sheer centrifugal force? What is it that guides each individual's
private business so that it conforms to the needs of the group? With no central planning authority and no steadying
influence of age-old tradition, how does
society manage to get those tasks done which are necessary for survival?
These questions lead Smith to a formulation of the laws of the market. What he sought was "the invisible hand," as he
called it, whereby "the private interests and passions of men" are led in the direction "which is most agreeable to the
interest of the whole society."
But the laws of the market will be only a part of Smith's inquiry. There is another question that interests him: whither
society? The laws of the market are like the laws that explain how a spinning top stays upright; but there is also the
question of whether the top, by virtue of its spinning, will be moved along the table.
To Smith and the great economists who followed him, society is not conceived as a static achievement of mankind
which will go on reproducing itself, unchanged and unchanging, from one generation to the next. On the contrary,
society is seen as an organism that has its own life history. Indeed, in its entirety The Wealth of Nations is a great
treatise on history, explaining how "the system of perfect
liberty" (also called "the system of natural liberty") -- the way Smith referred to commercial capitalism -- came into
being, as well as how it worked.
Adam Smith's laws of the market are basically simple. They tell us that the outcome of a certain kind of behavior in a
certain social framework will bring about perfectly definite and foreseeable results. Specifically they show us how the
drive of individual self-interest in an environment of similarly motivated individuals will result in competition; and they
further demonstrate how competition will result in the provision of those goods that society wants, in the quantities that
society desires,
and at the prices society is prepared to pay.
But self-interest is only half the picture. It drives men to action. Something else must prevent the pushing of profit
hungry individuals from holding society up to exorbitant ransom. This regulator is competition, the conflict of the selfinterested actors on the marketplace. A man who permits his self-interest to run away with him will find that
competitors have slipped in to take his trade away. Thus the selfish motives of men are transmuted by interaction to
yield the most unexpected of results: social harmony.
But the laws of the market do more than impose a competitive price on products. They also see to it that the producers
of society heed society's demands for the quantities of goods it wants. Let us suppose that consumers decide they want
more gloves than are being turned out, and fewer shoes. Accordingly the public will scramble for the stock of gloves on
the market, while the shoe business will be dull. As a result glove prices will tend to rise, and shoe prices will tend to
fall. But as glove
prices rise, profits in the glove industry will rise, too; and as shoe prices fall, profits in shoe manufacture will slump.
Again self-interest will step in to right the balance. Workers will be released from the shoe business as shoe factories
contract their output; they will move to the glove business, where business is booming. The result is quite obvious:
glove production will rise and shoe production fall.
Through the mechanism of the market, society will have changed the allocation of its elements of production to fit its
new desires. Yet no one has issued a dictum, and no planning authority has established schedules of output. Self-interest
and competition, acting one against the other, have accomplished the transition.
And one final accomplishment. Just as the market regulates both prices and quantities of goods according to the final
arbiter of public demand, so it also regulates the incomes of those who cooperate to produce those goods. If profits in
one line of business are unduly large, there will be a rush of other businessmen into that field until competition has
lowered surpluses. If wages are out of line in one kind of work, there will be a rush of men into the favored occupation
until it pays no more than comparable jobs of that degree of skill and training. Conversely, if profits or wages are too
low in one trade area, there will be an exodus of capital and labor until the supply is better adjusted to the demand.
All this may seem somewhat elementary. But consider what Adam Smith has done, he has found in the mechanism of
the market a self-regulating system for society's orderly provisioning.
Does the world really work this way? To a very real degree it did in the days of Adam Smith. Business was competitive,
the average factory was small, prices did rise and fall as demand ebbed and rose, and changes in prices did invoke
changes in output and occupation.
And today? Does the competitive market mechanism still operate?
This is not a question to which it is possible to give a simple answer. The nature of the market has changed vastly since
the 18th century. We no longer live in a world of atomistic competition in which no man can afford to swim against the
current. Today's market mechanism is characterized by the huge size of its participants: giant corporations and strong
labor unions obviously do not behave as if they were individual proprietors and workers. Their very bulk enables them
to stand out against
the pressures of competition, to disregard price signals, and to consider what their self-interest shall be in the long run
rather than in the immediate press of each day's buying and selling. That these factors have weakened the guiding
function of the market mechanism is apparent. But for all the attributes of modern-day economic society, the great
forces of self-interest and competition, however watered down or hedged about, still provide basic rules of behavior that
no participant in a market system can afford to disregard entirely. Although the world in which we live is not that of
Adam Smith, the laws of the market can still be discerned if we study its operations....
Smith's View of Economic Growth
"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which by far the greater part of the numbers are poor and
miserable," he wrote. And not only did he have the temerity to make so radical a statement, but he proceeded to
demonstrate that society was in fact constantly improving; that it was being propelled, willy-nilly, toward a positive
goal. It was not moving because anyone willed it to, or because
Parliament might pass laws, or England win a battle. It moved because there was a concealed dynamic beneath the
surface of things which powered the social whole like an enormous engine.
For one salient fact struck Adam Smith as he looked at the English scene. This was the tremendous gain in productivity
which sprang from the minute division and specialization of labor.
There is hardly any need to point out how infinitely more complex present-day production methods are than those of the
18th century. Smith was sufficiently impressed with a small factory of ten people to write about it; what would he have
thought of one employing ten thousand! But the great gift of the division of labor lies in its capacity to increase what
Smith calls "that universal opulence which extends
itself to the lowest ranks of the people." That universal opulence of the 18th century looks like a grim existence from
our modern vantage point. But if we view the matter in its historical perspective , it is clear that, mean as his existence
was, it constituted a considerable advance.
What is it that drives society to this wonderful multiplication of wealth and riches? Partly it is the market mechanism
itself, for the market harnesses man's creative powers in a milieu that encourages him, even forces him, to invent,
innovate, expand, take risks. But there are more fundamental pressures behind the restless activity of the market. In fact,
Smith sees two deep-seated laws of behavior which propel the market system in an ascending spiral of productivity.
The first of these is the Law of Accumulation. The object of the great majority of the rising capitalists was first, last, and
always, to accumulate their savings. But Adam Smith did not approve of accumulation for accumulation's sake. He was,
after all, a philosopher, with a philosopher's disdain for the vanity of riches. Rather, in the accumulation of capital Smith
saw a vast benefit to society. For capital -- if put to use in machinery -- provided just that wonderful division of labor
which multiplies
man's productive energy. Accumulate and the world will benefit, says Smith. But here is a difficulty: accumulation
would soon lead to a situation where further accumulation would be impossible. For accumulation meant more
machinery, and more machinery meant more demand for workmen. And this in turn would sooner or later lead to higher
and higher wages, until profits -- the source of accumulation -- were eaten away. How is this hurdle surmounted?
It is surmounted by the second great law of the system: the Law of Population. To Adam Smith, laborers, like any other
commodity, could be produced according to the demand. If wages were high, the number of workpeople would
multiply; if wages fell, the numbers of the working class would decrease. Smith put it bluntly: "... the demand for men,
like that for any other commodity, necessarily regulates the production of men."
If the first effect of accumulation would be to raise the wages of the working class, this in turn would bring about an
increase in the number of workers. And now the market mechanism takes over. Just as higher prices on the market will
bring about a larger production of gloves and the larger number of gloves in turn press down the higher prices of gloves,
so higher wages will bring about a larger number of workers, and the increase in their numbers will set up a reverse
pressure on the level of their
wages.
And this meant that accumulation might go safely on. The rise in wages which it caused and which threatened to make
further accumulation unprofitable is tempered by the rise in population. Smith has constructed for society a giant
endless chain. As regularly and as inevitably as a series of interlocked mathematical propositions, society is started on
an upward march. From any starting point the probing
mechanism of the market first equalizes the returns to labor and capital in all their different uses, sees to it that those
commodities demanded are produced in the right quantities, and further ensures that prices for commodities are
constantly competed down to their costs of production. But further than this, society is dynamic. From its starting point
accumulation of wealth will take place, and this accumulation will result in increased facilities for production and in a
greater division of labor.
This is no business cycle that Smith describes. It is a long-term process, a secular evolution. And it is wonderfully
certain. Provided only that the market mechanism is not tampered with, everything is inexorably determined by the
preceding link. A vast reciprocating machinery is set up with all of society inside it: only the tastes of the public -- to
guide producers -- and the actual physical resources of the nation are outside the chain of cause and effect.
But observe that what is foreseen is not an unbounded improvement of affairs. There will assuredly be a long period of
what we call economic growth but the improvement has its limits. In the very long run, well beyond the horizon, he saw
that a growing population would push wages back to their "natural" level. Growth would come to an end when the
economy had extended its boundaries to their limits, and then fully utilized its increased economic "space."
Smith did not see the organizational and technological core of the division of labor as a self-generating process of
change, but as a discrete advance that would impart its stimulus and then disappear. For all its optimistic boldness,
Smith's vision is bounded, careful, sober -- for the long run, even sobering.
No wonder, then, that the book took hold slowly. It was not until 1800 that the book achieved full recognition. By that
time it had gone through nine English editions and had found its way to Europe and America. Its protagonists came
from an unexpected quarter. They were the rising capitalist class excoriated for its "mean rapacity." AII this was ignored
in favor of the great point that Smith made in his inquiry: let the market alone.
In Smith's panegyric of a free and unfettered market the rising industrialists found the theoretical justification they
needed to block the first government attempts to remedy the scandalous conditions of the times. For Smith's theory does
unquestionably lead to a doctrine of laissez-faire. To Adam Smith the least government is certainly the best:
governments are spendthrift, irresponsible, and unproductive. And yet Adam Smith is not necessarily opposed to
government action that has as its end the promotion of the general welfare.
Government's Economic Role
Smith specifically stresses three things that government should do in a society of natural liberty. First, it should protect
that society against "the violence and invasion of other societies. Second, it should provide an "exact administration of
justice" for all citizens. And third, government has the duty of "erecting and maintaining those public institutions and
those public works which may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society," but which "are of such a nature
that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals." Put into today's
language, Smith explicitly recognizes the usefulness of public investment for projects that cannot be undertaken by the
private sector – he mentions roads and education as two examples.
What Smith is against is the meddling of the government with the market mechanism. He is against restraints on imports
and bounties on exports, against government laws that shelter industry from competition, and against government
spending for unproductive ends. These activities of the government all bear against the proper working of the market
system. Smith never faced the problem that was to cause such intellectual agony for later generations of whether the
government is
weakening or strengthening that system when it steps in with welfare legislation.
The Danger of Monopoly
The great enemy to Adam Smith's system is not so much government per se as monopoly in any form. The trouble with
such goings-on is not so much that they are morally reprehensible in themselves -- they are, after all, only the inevitable
consequence of man's self-interest -- as that they impede the fluid working of the market. Whatever interferes with the
market does so only at the expense of the true wealth of the nation.
In a sense the vision of Adam Smith is a testimony to the 18th-century belief in the inevitable triumph of rationality and
order over arbitrariness and chaos. Don't try to do good, says Smith. Let good emerge as the by-product of selfishness.
Smith was the economist of pre-industrial capitalism; he did not live to see the market system threatened by enormous
enterprises; or his laws of accumulation and population upset by sociological developments fifty years off. When Smith
lived and wrote, there had not yet been a recognizable phenomenon that might be called a "business cycle." The world
he wrote about actually existed, and his systematization of it provides a brilliant analysis of its expansive propensities.
Yet something must have been missing from Smith's conception. For although he saw an evolution for society, he did
not see a revolution -- the Industrial Revolution. Smith did not see in the ugly factory system, in the newly tried
corporate form of business organization, or in the weak attempts of journeymen to form protective organizations, the
first appearance of new and disruptively powerful social forces. In a sense his system presupposes that 18th-century
England will remain unchanged
forever. Only in quantity will it grow: more people, more goods, more wealth; its quality will remain unchanged. His
are the dynamics of a static community; it grows but it never matures. But, although the system of evolution has been
vastly amended, the great panorama of the market remains as a major achievement.
For Smith's encyclopedic scope and knowledge there can be only admiration. The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of
Moral Sentiments, together with his few other essays, reveal that Smith was much more than just an economist. He was
a philosopher-psychologist-historian-sociologist who conceived a vision that included human motives and historic
"stages" and economic mechanisms, all of
which expressed the plan of the Great Architect of Nature (as Smith called him). From this viewpoint, The Wealth of
Nations is more than a masterwork of political economy. It is part of a huge conception of the human adventure itself.
Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels - Manifesto of the Communist Party
A spectre is haunting Europe -- the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy
alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.
Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the
opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties,
as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
Two things result from this fact:
I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.
II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their
tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a manifesto of the party itself.
To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be
published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.
I -- BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS
The history of all hitherto existing society [2] is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master [3] and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and
oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight
that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending
classes.
In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a
manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebians, slaves; in the Middle Ages,
feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate
gradations.
The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class
antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old
ones.
Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms.
Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each
other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat. From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest
towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.
The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian
and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in
commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to
the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.
The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolized by closed guilds, now no longer suffices
for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed
aside by the manufacturing middle class; division of labor between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of
division of labor in each single workshop.
Meantime, the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturers no longer sufficed. Thereupon,
steam and machinery revolutionized industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, MODERN
INDUSTRY; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial
armies, the modern bourgeois.
Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has
given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in turn,
reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the
same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed
down from the Middle Ages.
We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of
revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.
Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance in that class.
An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association of medieval
commune [4]: here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable "third estate" of the monarchy
(as in France); afterward, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy
as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general -- the bourgeoisie has
at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern
representative state, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the
common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.
The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has
pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left no other nexus
between people than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned out the most heavenly ecstacies of
religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has
resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up
that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political
illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has
converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family
relation into a mere money relation.
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigor in the Middle Ages, which
reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show
what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts,
and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former exoduses of nations and crusades.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations
of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered
form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of
production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the
bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable
prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is
solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real condition
of life and his relations with his kind.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It
must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.
The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and
consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the
national ground on which it stood. All old established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being
destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized
nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones;
industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants,
satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant
lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every
direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual
production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National
one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local
literatures, there arises a world literature.
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of
communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the
heavy artillery with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all
nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls
civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased
the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the
idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian
countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.
The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production,
and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralized the means of production, and has concentrated property in a
few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralization. Independent, or but loosely connected
provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation,
with one government, one code of laws, one national class interest, one frontier, and one customs tariff.
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive
forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of nature's forces to man, machinery, application of
chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for
cultivation, canalization or rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground -- what earlier century had even a
presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor?
We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were
generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the
conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organization of agriculture and
manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already
developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the
economic and political sway of the bourgeois class.
A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of
exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the
sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many
a decade past, the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against
modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois
and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that, by their periodical return, put the existence of the
entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing
products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks
out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity -- the epidemic of overproduction. Society
suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears
as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and
commerce seem to be destroyed. And why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too
much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the
development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these
conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of
bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to
comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand, by enforced
destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough
exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by
diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.
The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.
But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men
who are to wield those weapons -- the modern working class – the proletarians.
In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working
class, developed -- a class of laborers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their
labor increases capital. These laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of
commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.
Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual
character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the
most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production
of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the
propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labor, is equal to its cost of production. In
proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. What is more, in proportion as the
use of machinery and division of labor increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by
prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time, or by increased speed of
machinery, etc.
Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory
of the industrial capitalist. Masses of laborers, crowded into the factory, are organized like soldiers. As privates of the
industrial army, they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they
slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois state; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the
overlooker, and, above all, in the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims
gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.
The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labor, in other words, the more modern industry becomes
developed, the more is the labor of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any
distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labor, more or less expensive to use, according to
their age and sex.
No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than
he is set upon by the other portion of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.
The lower strata of the middle class -- the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the
handicraftsmen and peasants -- all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does
not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large
capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus, the
proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.
The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At
first, the contest is carried on by individual laborers, then by the work of people of a factory, then by the operative of
one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not
against the bourgeois condition of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy
imported wares that compete with their labor, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to
restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.
At this stage, the laborers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual
competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active
union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the
whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do
not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-
industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the
bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.
But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater
masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of
the proletariat are more and more equalized, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labor, and nearly
everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting
commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery,
ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual
workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the
workers begin to form combinations (trade unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate
of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here
and there, the contest breaks out into riots.
Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lie not in the immediate
result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of
communication that are created by Modern Industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with
one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralize the numerous local struggles, all of the same character,
into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain
which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarian,
thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.
This organization of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently, into a political party, is continually being upset
again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It
compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the
bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the Ten- Hours Bill in England was carried.
Altogether, collisions between the classes of the old society further in many ways the course of development of the
proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those
portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with
the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for
help, and thus to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own
elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the
bourgeoisie.
Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling class are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the
proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh
elements of enlightenment and progress.
Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling
class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the
ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as,
therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie
goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the
level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.
Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a genuinely revolutionary
class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and
essential product.
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the
bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not
revolutionary, but conservative. Nay, more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If, by
chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend
not their present, but their future interests; they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.
The "dangerous class", the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society,
may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it
far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.
In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped The proletarian is without
property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations;
modern industry labor, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has
stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices,
behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.
All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at
large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society,
except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of
appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities
for, and insurances of, individual property.
All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian
movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense
majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole
superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.
Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle.
The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.
In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war,
raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent
overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.
Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed
classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its
slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty
bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the
contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his
own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it
becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of
existence upon society as an overriding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave
within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed
by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with
society.
The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of
capital; the condition for capital is wage labor. Wage labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The
advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to
competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts
from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the
bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally
inevitable.
FOOTNOTES
[1] By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of
wage labor.
By proletariat, the class of modern wage laborers who, having no means of production of their
own, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live. [Note by Engels - 1888 English
edition]
[2] That is, all _written_ history. In 1847, the pre-history of society, the social organization existing previous to
recorded history, all but unknown. Since then, August von Haxthausen (1792-1866) discovered common ownership of
land in Russia, Georg Ludwig von Maurer proved it to be the social foundation from which all Teutonic races started in
history, and, by and by, village communities were found to be, or to have been, the primitive form of society
everywhere from India to Ireland. The inner organization of this primitive communistic society was laid bare, in its
typical form, by Lewis Henry Morgan's (1818-1861) crowning discovery of the true nature of the gens and its relation to
the tribe. With the dissolution of the primeaval communities, society begins to be differentiated into separate and finally
antagonistic classes. I have attempted to retrace this dissolution in _Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigenthumus
und des Staats_, second edition, Stuttgart, 1886. [Engels, 1888 English edition]
[3] Guild-master, that is, a full member of a guild, a master within, not a head of a guild. [Engels:
1888 English edition]
[4] This was the name given their urban communities by the townsmen of Italy and France, after they had purchased or
conquered their initial rights of self-government from their feudal lords. [Engels: 1890 German edition] "Commune"
was the name taken in France by the nascent towns even before they had conquered from their feudal lords and masters
local self-government and political rights as the "Third
Estate". Generally speaking, for the economical development of the bourgeoisie, England is here
taken as the typical country, for its political development, France. [Engels: 1888 English edition]
II -- PROLETARIANS AND COMMUNISTS
In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not
form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement.
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:
(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the
common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.
(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass
through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the workingclass parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have
over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the
ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat
into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or
discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.
They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical
movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of
communism.
All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in
historical conditions.
The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favor of bourgeois property.
The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois
property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing
and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition
of private property.
We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the
fruit of a man's own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and
independence.
Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of
the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to
abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still
destroying it daily.
Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?
But does wage labor create any property for the laborer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which
exploits wage labor, and which cannot increase except upon conditions of begetting a new supply of wage labor for
fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor. Let us examine
both sides of this antagonism.
To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social STATUS in production. Capital is a collective
product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members
of society, can it be set in motion. Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.
When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal
property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It
loses its class character.
Let us now take wage labor.
The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is
absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer. What, therefore, the wage laborer appropriates by
means of his labor merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this
personal appropriation of the products of labor, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of
human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labor of others. All that we want to do away with is
the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the laborer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to
live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it
.
In bourgeois society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor. In communist society, accumulated
labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer.
In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in communist society, the present
dominates the past. In bourgeois society, capital is independent and has individuality, while the
living person is dependent and has no individuality.
And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly
so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.
By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.
But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying,
and all the other "brave words" of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with
restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the
communist abolition of buying and selling, or the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.
You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is
already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in
the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the
necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.
In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is
just what we intend.
From the moment when labor can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of
being monopolized, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois
property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.
You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class
owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the
power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations. It has been objected that upon the abolition of
private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.
According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those who
acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: There can no
longer be any wage labor when there is no longer any capital.
All objections urged against the communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same
way, been urged against the communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as to the
bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class
culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.
That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.
But don't wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your
bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your
bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for
all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your
class.
The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason the social forms
stringing from your present mode of production and form of property -- historical relations that rise and disappear in the
progress of production -- this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see
clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to
admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely
developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the
practical absence of the family among proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the
vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the
intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not intended the intervention
of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the
influence of the ruling class.
The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all
the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn
asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be
exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise
fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of
production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women
which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to
introduce free love; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of
common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. (Ah, those were the days!)
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might
possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly
legalized system of free love. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must
bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The workers have no country.
We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy,
must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in
the bourgeois sense of the word.
National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of
the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the
conditions of life corresponding thereto. The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United
action of the leading civilized countries at least is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.
In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation
by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the
hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.
The charges against communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint,
are not deserving of serious examination.
Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man's consciousness,
changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?
What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as
material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.
When people speak of the ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the
elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution
of the old conditions of existence.
When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas
succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then
revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway
of free competition within the domain of knowledge.
"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical, and juridicial ideas have been modified in the course of
historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."
"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But
communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new
basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."
What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class
antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.
But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society
by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it
displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total
disappearance of class antagonisms.
The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional relations; no wonder that its development involved
the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.
But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to communism.
We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of
ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all
instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase
the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and
on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and
untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social
order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive
monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands,
and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and
country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form.
Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in
the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power,
properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest
with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a
revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it
will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes
generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the
free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
III -- SOCIALIST AND COMMUNIST LITERATURE
1. REACTIONARY SOCIALISM
a. Feudal Socialism
Owing to their historical position, it became the vocation of the aristocracies of France and England to write pamphlets
against modern bourgeois society. In the French Revolution of July 1830, and in the English reform agitation, these
aristocracies again succumbed to the hateful upstart. Thenceforth, a serious political struggle was altogether out of the
question. A literary battle alone remained possible. But even in the domain of literature, the old cries of the restoration
period had become impossible. [1]
In order to arouse sympathy, the aristocracy was obliged to lose sight, apparently, of its own interests, and to formulate
its indictment against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class alone. Thus, the aristocracy took
their revenge by singing lampoons on their new masters and whispering in his ears sinister prophesies of coming
catastrophe.
In this way arose feudal socialism: half lamentation, half lampoon; half an echo of the past, half menace of the future; at
times, by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart's core, but always ludicrous in
its effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history.
The aristocracy, in order to rally the people to them, waved the proletarian alms-bag in front for a banner. But the
people, so often as it joined them, saw on their hindquarters the old feudal coats of arms, and deserted with loud and
irreverent laughter.
One section of the French Legitimists and "Young England" exhibited this spectacle:
In pointing out that their mode of exploitation was different to that of the bourgeoisie, the feudalists forget that they
exploited under circumstances and conditions that were quite different and that are now antiquated. In showing that,
under their rule, the modern proletariat never existed, they forget that the modern bourgeoisie is the necessary offspring
of their own form of society.
For the rest, so little do they conceal the reactionary character of their criticism that their chief accusation against the
bourgeois amounts to this: that under the bourgeois regime a class is being developed which is destined to cut up, root
and branch, the old order of society.
What they upbraid the bourgeoisie with is not so much that it creates a proletariat as that it creates a _revolutionary_
proletariat.
In political practice, therefore, they join in all corrective measures against the working class; and in ordinary life,
despite their high falutin' phrases, they stoop to pick up the golden apples dropped from the tree of industry, and to
barter truth, love, and honor, for traffic in wool, beetroot-sugar, and potato spirits. [2]
As the parson has ever gone hand in hand with the landlord, so has clerical socialism with feudal socialism.
Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private
property, against marriage, against the state? Has it not preached in the place of these, charity and poverty, celibacy and
mortification of the flesh, monastic life and Mother Church? Christian socialism is but the holy water with which the
priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat.
b. Petty-Bourgeois Socialism
The feudal aristocracy was not the only class that was ruined by the bourgeoisie, not the only class whose conditions of
existence pined and perished in the atmosphere of modern bourgeois society. The medieval burgesses and the small
peasant proprietors were the precursors of the modern bourgeoisie. In those countries which are but little developed,
industrially and commercially, these two classes still vegetate side by side with the rising bourgeoisie.
In countries where modern civilization has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed,
fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The
individual members of this class, however, as being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of
competition, and, as Modern Industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely
disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by
overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen.
In countries like France, where the peasants constitute far more than half of the population, it was natural that writers
who sided with the proletariat against the bourgeoisie should use, in their criticism of the bourgeois regime, the standard
of the peasant and petty bourgeois, and from the standpoint of these intermediate classes, should take up the cudgels for
the working class. Thus arose petty-bourgeois socialism. Sismondi was the head of this school, not only in France but
also in England.
This school of socialism dissected with great acuteness the contradictions in the conditions of modern production. It laid
bare the hypocritical apologies of economists. It proved, incontrovertibly, the disastrous effects of machinery and
division of labor; the concentration of capital and land in a few hands; overproduction and crises; it pointed out the
inevitable ruin of the petty bourgeois and peasant, the misery of the proletariat, the anarchy in production, the crying
inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the industrial war of extermination between nations, the dissolution of old
moral bonds, of the old family relations, of the old nationalities.
In it positive aims, however, this form of socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of
exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production
and of exchange within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by
those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian.
Its last words are: corporate guilds for manufacture; patriarchal relations in agriculture.
Ultimately, when stubborn historical facts had dispersed all intoxicating effects of self-deception,
this form of socialism ended in a miserable hangover.
c. German or "True" Socialism
The socialist and communist literature of France, a literature that originated under the pressure of a bourgeoisie in
power, and that was the expressions of the struggle against this power, was introduced into Germany at a time when the
bourgeoisie in that country had just begun its contest with feudal absolutism.
German philosophers, would-be philosophers, and beaux esprits (men of letters), eagerly seized on this literature, only
forgetting that when these writings immigrated from France into Germany, French social conditions had not immigrated
along with them. In contact with German social conditions, this French literature lost all its immediate practical
significance and assumed a purely literary aspect. Thus, to the German philosophers of the eighteenth century, the
demands of the first French Revolution were nothing more than the demands of "Practical Reason" in general, and the
utterance of the will of the revolutionary French bourgeoisie signified, in their eyes, the laws of pure will, of will as it
was bound to be, of true human will generally.
The work of the German literati consisted solely in bringing the new French ideas into harmony with their ancient
philosophical conscience, or rather, in annexing the French ideas without deserting their own philosophic point of view.
This annexation took place in the same way in which a foreign language is appropriated, namely, by translation.
It is well known how the monks wrote silly lives of Catholic saints _over_ the manuscripts on which the classical works
of ancient heathendom had been written. The German literati reversed this process with the profane French literature.
They wrote their philosophical nonsense beneath the French original. For instance, beneath the French criticism of the
economic functions of money, they wrote "alienation of humanity", and beneath the French criticism of the bourgeois
state they wrote "dethronement of the category of the general", and so forth.
The introduction of these philosophical phrases at the back of the French historical criticisms,
they dubbed "Philosophy of Action", "True Socialism", "German Science of Socialism", "Philosophical Foundation of
Socialism", and so on.
The French socialist and communist literature was thus completely emasculated. And, since it ceased, in the hands of
the German, to express the struggle of one class with the other, he felt conscious of having overcome "French onesidedness" and of representing, not true requirements, but the requirements of truth; not the interests of the proletariat,
but the interests of human nature, of man in general, who belongs to no class, has no reality, who exists only in the
misty realm of philosophical fantasy.
This German socialism, which took its schoolboy task so seriously and solemnly, and extolled its poor stock-in-trade in
such a mountebank fashion, meanwhile gradually lost its pedantic innocence.
The fight of the Germans, and especially of the Prussian bourgeoisie, against feudal aristocracy and absolute monarchy,
in other words, the liberal movement, became more earnest.
By this, the long-wished for opportunity was offered to "True" Socialism of confronting the political movement with the
socialistic demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas against liberalism, against representative government, against
bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality, and of
preaching to the masses that they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by this bourgeois movement. German
socialism forgot, in the nick of time, that the French criticism, whose silly echo it was, presupposed the existence of
modern bourgeois society, with its corresponding economic conditions of existence, and the political constitution
adapted thereto, the very things whose attainment was the object of the pending struggle in Germany.
To the absolute governments, with their following of parsons, professors, country squires, and officials, it served as a
welcome scarecrow against the threatening bourgeoisie. It was a sweet finish, after the bitter pills of flogging and
bullets, with which these same governments, just at that time, dosed the German working-class risings.
While this "True" Socialism thus served the government as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the
same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of German philistines. In Germany, the pettybourgeois class, a relic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up again under the various forms, is
the real social basis of the existing state of things.
To preserve this class is to preserve the existing state of things in Germany. The industrial and political supremacy of
the bourgeoisie threatens it with certain destruction -- on the one hand, from the concentration of capital; on the other,
from the rise of a revolutionary proletariat. "True" Socialism appeared to kill these two birds with one stone. It spread
like an epidemic.
The robe of speculative cobwebs, embroidered with flowers of rhetoric, steeped in the dew of sickly sentiment, this
transcendental robe in which the German Socialists wrapped their sorry "eternal truths", all skin and bone, served to
wonderfully increase the sale of their goods amongst such a public. And on its part German socialism recognized, more
and more, its own calling as the bombastic representative of the petty-bourgeois philistine.
It proclaimed the German nation to be the model nation, and the German petty philistine to be the typical man. To every
villainous meanness of this model man, it gave a hidden, higher, socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real
character. It went to the extreme length of directly opposing the "brutally destructive" tendency of communism, and of
proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all class struggles. With very few exceptions, all the so-called
socialist and communist publications that now (1847) circulate in Germany belong to the domain of this foul and
enervating literature. [3]
2. CONSERVATIVE OR BOURGEOIS SOCIALISM
A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of
bourgeois society.
To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class,
organizers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-andcorner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete
systems.
We may cite Proudhon's Philosophy of Poverty as an example of this form.
The socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers
necessarily resulting there from. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating
elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is
supreme to be the best; and bourgeois socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less
complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightaway into the
social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society,
but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.
A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary
movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material
conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material
conditions of existence, this form of socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations
of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued
existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labor, but, at
the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work of bourgeois government.
Bourgeois socialism attains adequate expression when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure
of speech.
Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison reform: for
the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois socialism.
It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois -- for the benefit of the working class.
3. CRITICAL-UTOPIAN SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM
We do not here refer to that literature which, in every great modern revolution, has always given voice to the demands
of the proletariat, such as the writings of Babeuf [4] and others.
The first direct attempts of the proletariat to attain its own ends, made in times of universal excitement, when feudal
society was being overthrown, necessarily failed, owing to the then undeveloped state of the proletariat, as well as to the
absence of the economic conditions for its emancipation, conditions that had yet to be produced, and could be produced
by the impending bourgeois epoch alone. The revolutionary literature that accompanied these first movements of the
proletariat had necessarily a reactionary character. It inculcated universal asceticism and social levelling in its crudest
form.
The socialist and communist systems, properly so called, those of Saint-Simon [5], Fourier [6], Owen [7], and others,
spring into existence in the early undeveloped period, described above, of the struggle between proletariat and
bourgeoisie (see Section 1. Bourgeois and Proletarians).
The founders of these systems see, indeed, the class antagonisms, as well as the action of the decomposing elements in
the prevailing form of society. But the proletariat, as yet in its infancy, offers to them the spectacle of a class without
any historical initiative or any independent political movement.
Since the development of class antagonism keeps even pace with the development of industry, the economic situation,
as they find it, does not as yet offer to them the material conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat. They
therefore search after a new social science, after new social laws, that are to create these conditions.
Historical action is to yield to their personal inventive action; historically created conditions of emancipation to fantastic
ones; and the gradual, spontaneous class organization of the proletariat to an organization of society especially contrived
by these inventors. Future history resolves itself, in their eyes, into the propaganda and the practical carrying out of their
social plans. In the formation of their plans, they are conscious of caring chiefly for the interests of the working class, as
being the most suffering class. Only from the point of view of being the most suffering class does the proletariat exist
for them.
The undeveloped state of the class struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes Socialists of this kind to consider
themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to improve the condition of every member of society, even
that of the most favored. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without the distinction of class; nay, by
preference, to the ruling class. For how can people when once they understand their system, fail to see in it the best
possible plan of the best possible state of society?
Hence, they reject all political, and especially all revolutionary action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means,
necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social gospel.
Such fantastic pictures of future society, painted at a time when the proletariat is still in a very undeveloped state and
has but a fantastic conception of its own position, correspond with the first instinctive yearnings of that class for a
general reconstruction of society
.
But these socialist and communist publications contain also a critical element. They attack every principle of existing
society. Hence, they are full of the most valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working class. The practical
measures proposed in them -- such as the abolition of the distinction between town and country, of the family, of the
carrying on of industries for the account of private individuals, and of the wage system, the proclamation of social
harmony, the conversion of the function of the state into a more superintendence of production -- all these proposals
point solely to the disappearance of class antagonisms which were, at that time, only just cropping up, and which, in
these publications, are recognized in their earliest indistinct and undefined forms only. These proposals, therefore, are of
a purely utopian character.
The significance of critical-utopian socialism and communism bears an inverse relation to historical development. In
proportion as the modern class struggle develops and takes definite shape, this fantastic standing apart from the contest,
these fantastic attacks on it, lose all practical value and all theoretical justifications. Therefore, although the originators
of these systems were, in many respects, revolutionary, their disciples have, in every case, formed mere reactionary
sects. They hold fast by the original views of their masters, in opposition to the progressive historical development of
the proletariat. They, therefore, endeavor, and that consistently, to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class
antagonisms. They still dream of experimental realization of their social utopias, of founding isolated phalansteres, of
establishing "Home Colonies", or setting up a "Little Icaria" [8] -- pocket editions of the New Jerusalem -- and to realize
all these castles in the air, they are compelled to appeal to the feelings and purses of the bourgeois. By degrees, they
sink into the category of the reactionary conservative socialists depicted above, differing from these only by more
systematic pedantry, and by their fanatical and superstitious belief in the miraculous effects of their social science.
They, therefore, violently oppose all political action on the part of the working class; such action, according to them,
can only result from blind unbelief in the new gospel.
The Owenites in England, and the Fourierists in France, respectively, oppose the Chartists and the Reformistes.
FOOTNOTES
[1] NOTE by Engels to 1888 English edition: Not the English Restoration (1660-1689), but the French Restoration
(1814-1830).
[2] NOTE by Engels to 1888 English edition: This applies chiefly to Germany, where the landed aristocracy and
squirearchy have large portions of their estates cultivated for their own account by stewards, and are, moreover,
extensive beetroot-sugar manufacturers and distillers of potato spirits. The wealthier british aristocracy are, as yet, rather
above that; but they, too, know how to make up for declining rents by lending their names to floaters or more or less
shady joint-stock companies.
[3] NOTE by Engels to 1888 German edition: The revolutionary storm of 1848 swept away this whole shabby tendency
and cured its protagonists of the desire to dabble in socialism. The chief representative and classical type of this
tendency is Mr Karl Gruen.
[4] Francois Noel Babeuf (1760-1797): French political agitator; plotted unsuccessfully to
destroy the Directory in revolutionary France and established a communistic system.
[5] Comte de Saint-Simon, Claude Henri de Rouvroy (1760-1825): French social philosopher; generally regarded as
founder of French socialism. He thought society should be reorganized along industrial lines and that scientists should
be the new spiritual leaders. His most important work is _Nouveau_Christianisme_ (1825).
[6] Charles Fourier (1772-1837): French social reformer; propounded a system of self-sufficient cooperatives known as
Fourierism, especially in his work _Le_Nouveau_Monde_industriel_ (1829-30)
[7] Richard Owen (1771-1858): Welsh industrialist and social reformer. He formed a model industrial community at
New Lanark, Scotland, and pioneered cooperative societies. His books include _New_View_Of_Society_ (1813).
[8] NOTE by Engels to 1888 English edition: "Home Colonies" were what Owen called his communist model societies.
_Phalansteres_ were socialist colonies on the plan of Charles Fourier; Icaria was the name given by Caber to his utopia
and, later on, to his American
communist colony.
IV -- POSITION OF THE COMMUNISTS IN RELATION TO
THE VARIOUS EXISTING OPPOSITION PARTIES
Section II has made clear the relations of the Communists to the existing working-class parties, such as the Chartists in
England and the Agrarian Reformers in America.
The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the
working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement. In
France, the Communists ally with the Social Democrats* against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving,
however, the right to take up a critical position in regard to phases and illusions traditionally handed down from the
Great Revolution.
In Switzerland, they support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this party consists of antagonistic
elements, partly of Democratic Socialists, in the French sense, partly of radical bourgeois.
In Poland, they support the party that insists on an agrarian revolution as the prime condition for national emancipation,
that party which fomented the insurrection of Krakow in 1846.
In Germany, they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the
feudal squirearchy, and the petty-bourgeoisie.
But they never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile
antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightway use, as so many
weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce
along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the
bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin.
The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution
that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilization and with a much more
developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and France in the eighteenth century, and because the
bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.
In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political
order of things.
In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its
degree of development at the time.
Finally, they labor everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by
the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The
proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.
They have a world to win.
Proletarians of all countries, unite!
FOOTNOTES
* NOTE by Engels to 1888 English edition: The party then represented in Parliament by Ledru- Rollin, in literature by
Louis Blanc (1811-82), in the daily press by the Reforme. The name of Social-Democracy signifies, with these its
inventors, a section of the Democratic or Republican Party more or less tinged with socialism.
Term One Semester Bridge Assignment
Holiday Song Project
Groups of no more than 3 (you can always work by yourself if you prefer) you will write a politically-satirical version of a
well-known holiday song , and then perform it in class on the Friday before break. Each group must get me a copy of their
song NO LATER THAN THE LAST THURSDAY OF THE QUARTER, AT THE BEGINNING OF CLASS!!!
I must approve all songs prior to the class period that we present! You will also let me know who you are working
with-sign up!!
Suggestions and considerations:
1. Your song should mirror the original song in terms of verse/chorus construction as well as length. You may
want to expand the song if it includes too many repeating “fa-la-la-la-las.”
2. You must incorporate material from the units already covered, in combination with current political events. A
minimum of SEVEN vocabulary words or concepts must be UNDERLINED in the lyrics. Also, feel free
to read ahead and include material from upcoming units, or material from class discussions and past experiences.
3. Props, signs, costumes, masks, musical instruments, and other forms of creative expression (interpretive dancing
anyone?) are strongly encouraged.
4. Anyone and anything in government and politics are fair game for your satire, so, by all means be funny and
irreverent. In fact, that’s the point. On the other hand, try to use good taste.
5. The best songs are those which mirror the actual phrasing and syllabic structure of the original. These are the
most difficult to write, but they are much easier to sing, which increases your chances of having the class sing along
with you! Please give your absolute best effort.
1. Santa Claus Is Coming to Town
2. The Christmas Song
3. Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas
4. Winter Wonderland
5. White Christmas
6. Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow
7. I'll Be Home for Christmas
8. Jingle Bell Rock
9. Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer
10. Little Drummer Boy
11. Sleigh Ride
12. Silver Bells
13. It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year
14. Feliz Navidad
15. Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree
16. Blue Christmas
17. Frosty The Snow Man
18. A Holly Jolly Christmas
19. I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus
GRADE=20 POINTS
20. Here Comes Santa Claus (Right Down Santa Claus
Lane)
21. (There's No Place Like) Home For The Holidays
22. Santa Baby
23. It’s Beginning To Look A Lot Like Christmas
24. Carol of the Bells
25. Wonderful Christmastime
26. What Child is This
27. All I Want for Christmas
28. Deck the Halls
29. O Come All Ye Faithful
30. Grandma Got Ran Over by a Reindeer
31. The Twelve Days of Christmas
32. Away in a Manger
33. Hark! The Herald Angels Sing
34. Angels We Have Heard on High
35. Up on The Housetop
…And Many More…
GRADE ASSESSMENT
NAMES: 1.
PERIOD:
ORIGINAL SONG:
GRADE:
/20pts + EC=
1. SONG LENGTH: 2-3 verses
5pts
2-3 verses and chorus
2.
3.
/20 (any props, costumes, instruments)
4
3pts
1 verse and chorus
2. 5 VOCABULARY WORDS OR CONCEPTS (Underlined):
5pts
4
3pts
Seven vocab/concepts are
Five vocab/concepts are
underlined
underlined
2
2
1pt
Only one vocab/concept is
underlined
3. CURRENT POLITICAL EVENTS
5pts
4
Verse and chorus contain politics
Current political events
3pts
either verse(s) or chorus do not
political material
4. SONG RESEMBLANCE:
5pts
Mirrors the actual phrasing and
syllabic structure of the original
3pts
2
mirrors majority of phrasing and
syllabic structure of the original
4
1pt
missing a chorus or does not
contain a verse
2
1pt
both chorus and verse(s) lack
current political events
1pt
does not mirror the phrasing
or syllabic structure of original
COMMENTS:
GRADE ASSESSMENT
NAMES: 1.
PERIOD:
ORIGINAL SONG:
GRADE:
/20pts + EC=
1. SONG LENGTH: 2-3 verses
5pts
2-3 verses and chorus
2.
3.
/20 (any props, costumes, instruments)
4
3pts
1 verse and chorus
2. 5 VOCABULARY WORDS OR CONCEPTS (Underlined):
5pts
4
3pts
Seven vocab/concepts are
Five vocab/concepts are
underlined
underlined
2
2
1pt
Only one vocab/concept is
underlined
3. CURRENT POLITICAL EVENTS
5pts
4
Verse and chorus contain politics
Current political events
3pts
either verse(s) or chorus do not
political material
4. SONG RESEMBLANCE:
5pts
Mirrors the actual phrasing and
syllabic structure of the original
3pts
2
mirrors majority of phrasing and
syllabic structure of the original
COMMENTS:
4
1pt
missing a chorus or does not
contain a verse
2
1pt
both chorus and verse(s) lack
current political events
1pt
does not mirror the phrasing
or syllabic structure of original
Term Two Semester Project
1.
Refer to the Summer Assignment, complete Assigments One and Two
2.
Refer to the Term One Semester Project- you will also create a song, but since we're going to be
meeting again in the middle of spring, doing holiday songs makes no sense. . . so. . instead you're going
to do the same assignment but using “camp” songs, tunes one would hear at camp!
3.
All of these assignment will be due the first day of the Third term.
Online Class Components
In an attempt to give students the closest approximation to a college class experience, without actually being there. To
be efficient with our time, to increase the variety of assignments and to increase group collaboration, several
assignments will have an online component.
Special Note: All these assignments can be completed in one way or another without a computer or online access.
Online Assessment Categories
Note taking
We can only cover about half of the content material in class, especially if we want to other activities
besides lectures (I know I do!), so you have to complete your notes at home. All the notes are available online,
in a couple of different locations- my web page at phs.wjusd.org or the online wiki page.
If you have a computer but do not have the internet, if you bring in a flash drive, I can give you a copy of all
of the notes. Barring that, all the notes come from the textbook directly, so you can get them from there as
well.
Discussions
We will have several Virtual Discussions online; a specific topic(s) will be given with some questions
to answer. You will go to the class wiki page, answer the questions, and then respond to at least two other
individual answers.
If you do not have a computer, you will have a series of similar questions to answer for the same amount of
points.
Collaboration
Study groups can use the class wiki page to compare notes, to leave notes for each other for projects.
Additionally, I can use the wiki page to send messages and reminders to the whole class.
Podcasting
Some of the assignments have an alternative podcast component, which do require a computer
generally to complete. Specific information is available on the class wiki page.
Assignments
I try to put copies of all the major assignments and worksheets online in case you lose one, or you need another
copy. I try not to make too many extra paper copies to save on ink.
Unit I- Constitutional underpinning of the U.S. Government
“The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single
citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure.”
Albert Einstein
Assignments
Chapter 1,2, and 3 Study Guides
Declaration of Independence Rewrite
Women- In the Constitution Discussion
Federalism Scavenger Hunt (ws)
Federalists vs. Anti- Federalist Chart (ws)
Federalism Power Chart (ws)
AP Government Debate #1
Assessments
Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 Exams – Multiple Choice and
FRQs
Unit I Exam- Two FRQs
Secondary Readings
Plato- The Cave
Locke- Two Treaties
AntiFederalist #84 On the Lack of a Bill of Rights
Federalist #51
Beard- Framing the Constitution
Lawrence and Dorf- How not to read the Constitution
McCulloch v. Maryland
United Stats v. Lopez
Chapter 1 Study Questions
The Study of American Government
6. What is meant by power, and by political power in particular?
7. Relate the latter to authority, legitimacy, and democracy.
8. Distinguish among the three concepts of democracy mentioned in the chapter.
9. Explain the three senses in which the textbook refers to the United States government as democratic.
10. Differentiate between majoritarian politics and elitist politics.
11. Explain the four major theories.
12. Why are political scientists cautious in stating how politics works or what values dominate it when confronted
by political change?
Authority
bureaucrats
Democracy
Direct or participatory democracy
Elite
Karl Marx
Legitimacy
Terms to Know
Majoritarian politics
Marxists
Max Weber
pluralists
Power
Representative democracy
Chapter 2 Study Questions
The Constitution
Use your own words to answer the following questions on a separate sheet of paper. This should be typed.
1. Make a list of the points that the text makes on what the “Colonial Mind” was thinking at the time of the
Revolution.
2. Make a detailed list of the weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation.
3. What was Shays’s Rebellion and what role did that play in the push for changing the Articles of Confederation?
4. Why were the Framers suspicious of democracy? What is the delicate problem for the Framers as stated on p.
25?
5. Make a chart comparing and contrasting the Virginia Plan, New Jersey Plan, and the Great Compromise
6. What were the other compromises involving the president and the Supreme Court decided at the Convention?
7. What is the difference between a democracy and a republic and how did the Constitution strike a balance
between these two forms of government?
8. What is judicial review?
9. List and define the two major principles of American representative democracy?
10. Start memorizing the list of checks and balances on p. 29 in the green box. We will be referring to this list for
the rest of the year. You also need to start learning which powers are given only to the Senate.
11. What was the founders’ solution to the problem that people will pursue their own self-interest? How is that
different from what ancient philosophers believed? What did Madison argue and propose in this context?
12. Make a chart showing the Federalist and Antifederalist arguments about the Constitution. Leave room to add to
it.
13. The book lists liberties that are guaranteed in the body of the Constitution. Learn that list. Define writ of
habeas corpus, bill of attainder, and an ex post facto law.
14. What arguments did the Federalists use against having a bill of rights?
15. Summarize the three provisions in the Constitution regarding slavery. Why didn’t the Founders abolish
slavery?
16. Study the box on p. 41 outlining how to propose and ratify an amendment. Read over the language in Article V
of the Constitution. Memorize these methods.
17. What was Charles Beard’s interpretation of the Framers of the Constitution? What is now known to counter his
interpretation?
18. In the ratifying conventions, what were the economic divisions of who favored the Constitution?
19. What are the arguments that women were or weren’t left out of the Constitution?
20. Outline the criticisms presented of the separation of powers and the counter arguments.
21. What are the proposals of those who the government is too large and who would seek changes in the
Constitution to limit the government? What are the counter arguments?
By the end of chapter Two, you will be responsible for being able to define and explain all these items.
John Locke
social contract
Natural Rights
State of Nature
unalienable rights
Thomas Hobbes
Democracy
Oligarchy
Monarchy
Mixed Government
Articles of Confederation
Constitutional
Convention
Shays’s Rebellion
Northwest Ordinance
factions
Federalist Papers
Virginia Plan
New Jersey Plan
The Great (Connecticut) Compromise
Republic
judicial review
separation of powers
federalism
Popular sovereignty
Federalists and Antifederalists
James Madison
Alexander Hamilton
Ex post facto law
Bill of Rights
Proportional Representation
Enumerated Powers
Separated Powers
Necessary and Proper Clause
Apportionment
Supremacy Clause
Treason
Fugitive Slave Clause
Veto
Electoral College
Federalist Nos. 10 and 51
Coalition
Bill of Attainder
Original Jurisdiction
Appellate Jurisdiction
Line-item veto
AntiFederalist No. 84
On the lack of a bill of rights
By "BRUTUS"
When a building is to be erected which is intended to stand for ages, the foundation should be firmly laid. The
Constitution proposed to your acceptance is designed, not for yourselves alone, but for generations yet unborn. The
principles, therefore, upon which the social compact is founded, ought to have been clearly and precisely stated, and the
most express and full declaration of rights to have been made. But on this subject there is almost an entire silence.
If we may collect the sentiments of the people of America, from their own most solemn declarations, they hold this truth
as self-evident, that all men are by nature free. No one man, therefore, or any class of men, have a right, by the law of
nature, or of God, to assume or exercise authority over their fellows. The origin of society, then, is to be sought, not in
any natural right which one man has to exercise authority over another, but in the united consent of those who associate.
The mutual wants of men at first dictated the propriety of forming societies: and when they were established, protection
and defense pointed out the necessity of instituting government. In a state of nature every individual pursues his own
interest; in this pursuit it frequently happened, that the possessions or enjoyments of one were sacrificed to the views
and designs of another; thus the weak were a prey to the strong, the simple and unwary were subject to impositions from
those who were more crafty and designing. In this state of things, every individual was insecure; common interest,
therefore, directed that government should be established, in which the force of the whole community should be
collected, and under such directions, as to protect and defend every one who composed it. The common good, therefore,
is the end of civil government, and common consent, the foundation on which it is established. To effect this end, it was
necessary that a certain portion of natural liberty should be surrendered, in order that what remained should be
preserved. How great a proportion of natural freedom is necessary to be yielded by individuals, when they submit to
government, I shall not inquire. So much, however, must be given, as will be sufficient to enable those to whom the
administration of the government is committed, to establish laws for the promoting the happiness of the community, and
to carry those laws into effect. But it is not necessary, for this purpose, that individuals should relinquish all their natural
rights. Some are of such a nature that they cannot be surrendered. Of this kind are the rights of conscience, the right of
enjoying and defending life, etc. Others are not necessary to be resigned in order to attain the end for which government
is instituted; these therefore ought not to be given up. To surrender them, would counteract the very end of government,
to wit, the common good. From these observations it appears, that in forming a government on its true principles, the
foundation should be laid in the manner I before stated, by expressly reserving to the people such of their essential
rights as are not necessary to be parted with. The same reasons which at first induced mankind to associate and institute
government, will operate to influence them to observe this precaution. If they had been disposed to conform themselves
to the rule of immutable righteousness, government would not have been requisite. It was because one part exercised
fraud, oppression and violence, on the other, that men came together, and agreed that certain rules should be formed to
regulate the conduct of all, and the power of the whole community lodged in the hands of rulers to enforce an obedience
to them. But rulers have the same propensities as other men; they are as likely to use the power with which they are
vested, for private purposes, and to the injury and oppression of those over whom they are placed, as individuals in a
state of nature are to injure and oppress one another. It is therefore as proper that bounds should be set to their authority,
as that government should have at first been instituted to restrain private injuries.
This principle, which seems so evidently founded in the reason and nature of things, is confirmed by universal
experience. Those who have governed, have been found in all ages ever active to enlarge their powers and abridge the
public liberty. This has induced the people in all countries, where any sense of freedom remained, to fix barriers against
the encroachments of their rulers. The country from which we have derived our origin, is an eminent example of this.
Their magna charta and bill of rights have long been the boast, as well as the security of that nation. I need say no more,
I presume, to an American, than that this principle is a fundamental one, in all the Constitutions of our own States; there
is not one of them but what is either founded on a declaration or bill of rights, or has certain express reservation of rights
interwoven in the body of them. From this it appears, that at a time when the pulse of liberty beat high, and when an
appeal was made to the people to form Constitutions for the government of themselves, it was their universal sense, that
such declarations should make a part of their frames of government. It is, therefore, the more astonishing, that this grand
security to the rights of the people is not to be found in this Constitution.
It has been said, in answer to this objection, that such declarations of rights, however requisite they might be in the
Constitutions of the States, are not necessary in the general Constitution, because, "in the former case, every thing
which is not reserved is given; but in the latter, the reverse of the proposition prevails, and every thing which is not
given is reserved." It requires but little attention to discover, that this mode of reasoning is rather specious than solid.
The powers, rights and authority, granted to the general government by this Constitution, are as complete, with respect
to every object to which they extend, as that of any State government-it reaches to every thing which concerns human
happiness-life, liberty, and property are under its control. There is the same reason, therefore, that the exercise of power,
in this case, should be restrained within proper limits, as in that of the State governments. To set this matter in a clear
light, permit me to instance some of the articles of the bills of rights of the individual States, and apply them to the case
in question.
For the security of life, in criminal prosecutions, the bills of rights of most of the States have declared, that no man shall
be held to answer for a crime until he is made fully acquainted with the charge brought against him; he shall not be
compelled to accuse, or furnish evidence against himself-the witnesses against him shall be brought face to face, and he
shall be fully heard by himself or counsel. That it is essential to the security of life and liberty, that trial of facts be in the
vicinity where they happen. Are not provisions of this kind as necessary in the general government, as in that of a
particular State? The powers vested in the new Congress extend in many cases to life; they are authorized to provide for
the punishment of a variety of capital crimes, and no restraint is laid upon them in its exercise, save only, that "the trial
of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be in the State where the said crimes
shall have been committed." No man is secure of a trial in the county where he is charged to have committed a crime; he
may be brought from Niagara to New York, or carried from Kentucky to Richmond for trial for an offense supposed to
be committed. What security is there, that a man shall be furnished with a full and plain description of the charges
against him? That he shall be allowed to produce all proof he can in his favor? That he shall see the witnesses against
him face to face, or that he shall be fully heard in his own defense by himself or counsel?
For the security of liberty it has been declared, "that excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted. That all warrants, without oath or affirmation, to search suspected places, or
seize any person, his papers or property, are grievous and oppressive."
These provisions are as necessary under the general government as under that of the individual States; for the power of
the former is as complete to the purpose of requiring bail, imposing fines, inflicting punishments, granting search
warrants, and seizing persons, papers, or property, in certain cases, as the other.
For the purpose of securing the property of the citizens, it is declared by all the States, "that in all controversies at law,
respecting property, the ancient mode of trial by jury is one of the best securities of the rights of the people, and ought to
remain sacred and inviolable."
Does not the same necessity exist of reserving this right under their national compact, as in that of the States? Yet
nothing is said respecting it. In the bills of rights of the States it is declared, that a well regulated militia is the proper
and natural defense of a free government; that as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous, they are not to be kept
up, and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and controlled by, the civil power.
The same security is as necessary in this Constitution, and much more so; for the general government will have the sole
power to raise and to pay armies, and are under no control in the exercise of it; yet nothing of this is to be found in this
new system.
I might proceed to instance a number of other rights, which were as necessary to be reserved, such as, that elections
should be free, that the liberty of the press should be held sacred; but the instances adduced are sufficient to prove that
this argument is without foundation. Besides, it is evident that the reason here assigned was not the true one, why the
framers of this Constitution omitted a bill of rights; if it had been, they would not have made certain reservations, while
they totally omitted others of more importance. We find they have, in the ninth section of the first article declared, that
the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion,-that no bill of attainder, or ex post facto
law, shall be passed,-that no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, etc. If every thing which is not given
is reserved, what propriety is there in these exceptions? Does this Constitution any where grant the power of suspending
the habeas corpus, to make ex post facto laws, pass bills of attainder, or grant titles of nobility? It certainly does not in
express terms. The only answer that can be given is, that these are implied in the general powers granted. With equal
truth it may be said, that all the powers which the bills of rights guard against the abuse of, are contained or implied in
the general ones granted by this Constitution.
So far is it from being true, that a bill of rights is less necessary in the general Constitution than in those of the States,
the contrary is evidently the fact. This system, if it is possible for the people of America to accede to it, will be an
original compact; and being the last wilt, in the nature of things, vacate every former agreement inconsistent with it. For
it being a plan of government received and ratified by the whole people, all other forms which are in existence at the
time of its adoption, must yield to it. This is expressed in positive and unequivocal terms in the sixth article: "That this
Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every
State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution, or laws of any State, to the contrary notwithstanding."
"The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive
and judicial officers, both of the United States, and of the several States, shall be bound, by oath or affirmation, to
support this Constitution."
It is therefore not only necessarily implied thereby, but positively expressed, that the different State Constitutions are
repealed and entirely done away, so far as they are inconsistent with this, with the laws which shall be made in
pursuance thereof, or with treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States. Of what avail
will the Constitutions of the respective States be to preserve the rights of its citizens? Should they be pled, the answer
would be, the Constitution of the United States, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, is the supreme law, and all
legislatures and judicial officers, whether of the General or State governments, are bound by oath to support it. No
privilege, reserved by the bills of rights, or secured by the State governments, can limit the power granted by this, or
restrain any laws made in pursuance of it. It stands, therefore, on its own bottom, and must receive a construction by
itself, without any reference to any other. And hence it was of the highest importance, that the most precise and express
declarations and reservations of rights should have been made.
This will appear the more necessary, when it is considered, that not only the Constitution and laws made in pursuance
thereof, but alt treaties made, under the authority of the United States, are the supreme law of the land, and supersede
the Constitutions of all the States. The power to make treaties, is vested in the president, by and with the advice and
consent of two-thirds of the senate. I do not find any limitation or restriction to the exercise of this power. The most
important article in any Constitution may therefore be repealed, even without a legislative act. Ought not a government,
vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought.
So clear a point is this, that I cannot help suspecting that persons who attempt to persuade people that such reservations
were less necessary under this Constitution than under those of the States, are wilfully endeavoring to deceive, and to
lead you into an absolute state of vassalage.
BRUTUS
AntiFederalist No. 84
On the lack of a bill of rights
According to the author “Brutus” why is there a reason to debate the inclusion of a bill of rights?
According to “Brutus” what is the purpose of government when dealing with natural rights?
What evidence is given that a government without a bill of rights will exploit its citizens?
According to Brutus what important protections were omitted from the Constitution?
What are the problems with State Constitutions in regards to the Federal Government?
Federalist No. 51 – James Madison (Reading in Wilson Text)
1. What is the general theme of this paper? Why is this theme important, according to the author?
2. What are the four elements of the separation of powers?
a) “each department should have a will of its own
b) the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others
c) each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others for the emoluments annexed
to their offices
d) each department [should have] the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist
encroachments of the others
3. What does Madison mean by the statement, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition”?
4. Is government (and its form) merely “the greatest of all reflections on human nature”? How so or why not?
5. What is the “great difficulty” with government? Why?
6. What does the author mean when he asserts that “the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole
system of human affairs, private as well as public”?
7. What checks are placed by the Constitution on the legislative branch?
8. According to the author’s first of two “considerations,” how is the federal government divided into “two distinct
governments” and into “distinct and separate departments”?
9. According to the author’s second of two “considerations,” how do you protect the people from another? (cf.
Federalist No. 10; faction)
10. Is it true that “Justice is the end (i.e., goal or purpose) of government? It is the end of civil society”?
11. Do you agree with the author that “In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of
interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on
any other principles than those of justice and the general good”?
12. How does a federal principle enable the people inhabiting a republic to engage in self-government?
Federalist Number 10 By James Madison (In Wilson Text)
1. What is a faction? Why are factions a problem in government?
2. What are the two methods for curing the mischiefs of faction?
What are the two methods for removing the causes of faction?
3. What does Madison argue that the causes of faction cannot be removed?
4. Why does pure democracy have no cure for the mischiefs of faction?
Is Madison arguing against a system of majority rule? Why or why not?
5. To what extent will enlightened leadership solve the problems of factions? Why does Madison more trust
in the leaders than the people?
6. Why does a republic do a better job of controlling the effects of faction than a pure democracy? Why
does a large republic do a better job of controlling the effects of faction than a small republic?
Charles A. Beard
Excerpted from Charles Beard's "Framing the Constitution," in Peter Woll, ed., American Government: Readings and
Cases, 11th ed. (New York: Harper Collins, 1993)
In the following essay, which is adapted from The Supreme Court and the Constitution (1912), Charles Beard presents
evidence that the framers of the Constitution were less interested in furthering democratic principles than in protecting
private property and the interests of the wealthy class. Since this work was written over eighty years ago, there are a few
anachronisms you may want to keep in mind. First, when Beard speaks of the "Confederacy," he is referring to the
government that existed under the Articles of Confederation -- not to the Confederate states that seceded from the Union
during the Civil War. Also, it is important to remember that the Senate was still not elected by popular vote when Beard
was writing -- although that was changed in 1913 by the Seventeenth Amendment. Finally, when Beard speaks of
"republican" or "democratic" tendencies, he is not referring to the Republican or Democratic parties, but is instead using
the words in their more generic sense.
...The reason and spirit of a law are to be understood only by an inquiry into the circumstances of its enactment. The
underlying purposes of the Constitution, therefore, are to be revealed only by a study of the conditions and events which
led to formation and adoption.
At the outset it must be remembered that there were two great parties at the time of the adoption of the Constitution -one laying emphasis on strength and efficiency in government and the other on its popular aspects. Quite naturally the
men who led in stirring up the revolt against Great Britain and in keeping the fighting temper of the Revolutionaries at
the proper heat were the boldest and most radical thinkers -- men like Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry,
and Thomas Jefferson.
They were not, generally speaking, men of large property interests or of much practical business experience. In a time of
disorder, they could consistently lay more stress upon personal liberty than upon social control; and they pushed to the
extreme limits those doctrines of individual rights which had been evolved in England during the struggles of the small
landed proprietors and commercial classes against royal prerogative, and which corresponded to the economic
conditions prevailing in America at the close of the eighteenth century. They associated strong government with
monarchy, and came to believe that the best political system was one which governed least. A majority of the radicals
viewed all government, especially if highly centralized, as a species of evil, tolerable only because necessary and always
to be kept down to an irreducible minimum by a jealous vigilance.
Jefferson put the doctrine in concrete form when he declared that he preferred newspapers without government to
government without newspapers. The Declaration of Independence, the first state Constitutions, and the Articles of
Confederation bore the impress of this philosophy. In their anxiety to defend the individual against all federal
interference and to preserve to the states a large sphere of local autonomy, these Revolutionists had set up a system too
weak to accomplish the accepted objects of government; namely, national defense, the protection of property, and the
advancement of commerce. They were not unaware of the character of their handiwork, but they believed with Jefferson
that "man was a rational animal endowed by nature with rights and with an innate sense of justice and that he could be
restrained from wrong and protected in right by moderate powers confided to persons of his own choice." Occasional
riots and disorders, they held, were preferable to too much government.
The new American political system based on these doctrines had scarcely gone into effect before it began to incur
opposition from many sources. The close of the Revolutionary struggle removed the prime cause for radical agitation
and brought a new group of thinkers into prominence. When independence had been gained, the practical work to be
done was the maintenance of social order, the payment of the public debt, the provision of a sound financial system, and
the establishment of conditions favorable to the development of the economic resources of the new country. The men
who were principally concerned in this work of peaceful enterprise were not the philosophers, but men of business and
property and the holders of public securities. For the most part, they had had no quarrel with the system of class rule and
the strong centralization of government which had existed in England. It was on the question of policy, not of
governmental structure, that they had broken with the British authorities. By no means all of them, in fact, had even
resisted the policy of the mother country, for within the ranks of the conservatives were large numbers of Loyalists who
had remained in America, and, as was to have been expected, cherished a bitter feeling against the Revolutionists,
especially the radical section which had been boldest in denouncing the English system root and branch. In other words,
after the heat and excitement of the War of Independence were over and the new government, state and national, was
tested by the ordinary experiences of traders, financiers, and manufacturers, it was found inadequate, and these groups
accordingly grew more and more determined to reconstruct the political system in such a fashion as to make it subserve
their permanent interests.
Under the state constitutions and the Articles of Confederation established during the Revolution, every powerful
economic class in the nation suffered either immediate losses or from impediments placed in the way of the
development of their enterprises. The holders of the securities of the [government established by the Articles of
Confederation] did not receive the interest on their loans. Those who owned Western lands or looked with longing eyes
upon the rich opportunities for speculation there chaffed at the weakness of the government and its delays in
establishing order on the frontiers. Traders and commercial men found their plans for commerce on a national scale
impeded by local interference with interstate commerce. The currency of the states and the nation was hopelessly
muddled. Creditors everywhere were angry about the depreciated paper money which the agrarians had made and were
attempting to force upon those from whom they had borrowed specie. In short, it was a war between business and
populism. Under the Articles of Confederation, populism had a free hand, for majorities in the state legislatures were
omnipotent. Anyone who reads the economic history of the time will see why the solid conservative interests of the
country were weary of talk about the "rights of the people" and bent upon establishing firm guarantees for the rights of
property.
The Congress of the Confederation was not long in discovering the true character of the futile authority which the
Articles had conferred upon it. The necessity for new sources of revenue became apparent even while the struggle for
independence was yet undecided, and, in 1871, Congress carried a resolution to the effect that it should be authorized to
lay a duty of five percent on certain goods. This moderate proposition was defeated because Rhode Island rejected it on
the grounds that "she regarded it the most precious jewel of sovereignty that no state shall be called upon to open its
purse but by the authority of the state and by her own officers." Two years later, Congress prepared another amendment
to the Articles providing for certain import duties, the receipts from which, collected by state officers, were to be
applied to the payment of the public debt; but three years after the introduction of the measure, four states, including
New York, still held out against its ratification, and the project was allowed to drop. At last, in 1786, Congress in a
resolution declared that the requisitions for the last eight years had been so irregular in their operation, so uncertain in
their collection, and so evidently unproductive that a reliance on them in the future would be no less dishonorable to the
understandings of those who entertained it than it would be dangerous to the welfare and peace of the Union. Congress,
thereupon, solemnly added that it had become its duty "to declare most explicitly that the crisis had arrived when the
people of the United States, by whose will and for whose benefit the federal government was instituted, must decide
whether they will support their rank as a nation by maintaining the public faith at home and abroad, or rather for the
want of a timely exertion in establishing a general review and thereby giving strength to the Confederacy, they will
hazard not only the existence of the Union but those great and invaluable privileges for which they have so arduously
and so honorably contended."
In fact, the Articles of Confederation had hardly gone into effect before the leading citizens also began to feel that the
powers of Congress were wholly inadequate. In 1780, even before their adoption, Alexander Hamilton proposed a
general convention to frame a new constitution, and from that time forward he labored with remarkable zeal and
wisdom to extend and popularize the idea of a strong national government. Two years later, the Assembly of the State of
New York recommended a convention to revise the Articles and increase the power of the Congress. In 1783,
Washington, in a circular letter to the governors, urged that it was indispensable to the happiness of the individual states
that there should be lodged somewhere a supreme power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the
confederation. Shortly afterward (1785), Governor Bowdoin, of Massachusetts, suggested to his state legislature the
advisability of calling a national assembly to settle upon and define the powers of Congress; and the legislature resolved
that the government under the Articles of Confederation was inadequate and should be reformed; but the resolution was
never laid before Congress.
In January, 1786, Virginia invited all the other states to send delegates to a convention at Annapolis to consider the
question of duties on imports and the commerce in general. When this convention assembled in 1786, delegates from
only five states were present, and they were disheartened at the limitations on their powers and the lack of interest the
other states had shown in the project. With characteristic foresight, however, Alexander Hamilton seized the occasion to
secure the adoption of a recommendation advising the states to choose representatives for another convention to meet in
Philadelphia the following year "to consider the Articles of Confederation and to propose such changes therein as might
render them adequate to the exigencies of the union." This recommendation was cautiously worded, for Hamilton did
not want to raise any unnecessary alarm. He doubtless believed that a complete revolution in the old system was
desirable, but he knew that, in the existing state of popular temper, it was not expedient to announce his complete
program. Accordingly, no general reconstruction of the political system was suggested; the Articles of Confederation
were merely to be "revised"; and the amendments were to be approved by the state legislatures as provided by that
instrument.
The proposal of the Annapolis convention was transmitted to the state legislatures and laid before Congress. Congress
thereupon resolved in February, 1787, that a convention should be held for the sole and express purpose of revising the
Articles of Confederation and reporting to itself and the legislatures of the several states such alterations and provisions
as would when agreed to by Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the
exigencies of government and the preservation of the union.
In pursuance of this call, delegates to the new convention were chosen by the legislatures of the states or by the
governors in conformity to authority conferred by the legislative assemblies. The delegates were given instructions of a
general nature by their respective states, none of which, apparently, contemplated any very far-reaching changes. In
fact, almost all of them expressly limited their representative to a mere revision of the Articles of Confederation. For
example, Connecticut authorized her delegates to represent and confer for the purpose mentioned in the resolution of
Congress and to discuss such measures "agreeable to the general principles of Republican government" as they should
think proper to render the Union adequate. Delaware, however, went so far as to provide that none of the proposed
alterations should extend to the fifth part of the Articles of Confederation guaranteeing that each state should be entitled
to one vote.
It was a truly remarkable assembly of men that gathered in Philadelphia on May 17, 1787, to undertake the work of
reconstructing the American system of government. It is not merely patriotic pride that compels one to assert that never
in the history of assemblies has there been a convention of men richer in political experience and practical knowledge,
or endowed with a profounder insight into the springs of human action and the intimate essence of government. It is
indeed an astounding fact that at one time so many men skilled in statecraft could be found on the very frontiers of
civilization among a population numbering about four million whites. It is no less a cause for admiration that their
instrument of government should have survived the trials and crises of a century that saw the wreck of more than a score
of paper constitutions.[] All the members had had a practical training in politics. Washington, as commander-in-chief of
the Revolutionary forces, had learned well the lessons and problems of war, and mastered successfully the no less
difficult problems of administration. The two Morrises had distinguished themselves in grappling with financial
questions as trying and perplexing as any which statesmen had ever been compelled to face. Seven of the delegates had
gained political wisdom as governors of their native states; and no less than twenty-eight had served in Congress, either
during the Revolution or under the Articles of Confederation. These were men trained in the law, versed in finance,
skilled in administration, and learned in the political philosophy of their own and earlier times. Moreover, they were
men destined to continue public service under the government which they had met to construct -- Presidents, VicePresidents, heads of departments, Justices of the Supreme Court were in that imposing body. ...
The makers of the Constitution represented the solid, conservative, commercial and financial interests of the country -not the interests which denounced and proscribed judges in Rhode Island, New Jersey, and North Carolina, and stoned
their houses in New York. The conservative interests, made desperate by the imbecilities of the Confederation and
harried by state legislatures, roused themselves from the lethargy, drew together in a mighty effort to establish a
government that would be strong enough to pay the national debt, regulate interstate and foreign commerce, provide for
national defense, prevent fluctuations in the currency created by paper emissions, and control the propensities of
legislative majorities to attack private rights...The radicals, however, like Patrick Henry, Jefferson, and Samuel Adams,
were conspicuous by their absence from the Convention.
The Convention was convened to frame a government that would meet the practical issues that had arisen under the
Articles of Confederation. The objections they entertained to direct popular government, and they were undoubtedly
many, were based upon their experience with popular assemblies during the immediately preceding years. With many of
the plain lessons of history before them, they naturally feared that the rights and privileges of the minority would be
insecure if the principle of majority rule was definitely adopted and provisions made for its exercise. Furthermore, it
will be remembered that up to that time the right of all men, as men, to share in the government had never been
recognized in practice. Everywhere in Europe the government was in the hands of a ruling monarch or at best a ruling
class; everywhere the mass of the people had been regarded principally as an arms-bearing and tax-paying multitude,
uneducated, and with little hope or capacity for advancement. Two years were to elapse after the meeting of the grave
assembly at Philadelphia before the transformation of the Estates General into the National Convention in France
opened the floodgates of revolutionary ideas on human rights before whose rising tide old landmarks of government are
still being submerged. It is small wonder, therefore, that, under the circumstances, many members of that august body
held popular government in slight esteem and took the people into consideration only as far as it was imperative "to
inspire them with the necessary confidence," as Mr. Gerry [one of the framers of the Constitution] frankly put it.
Indeed, every page of the laconic record of the proceedings of the convention, preserved to posterity by Mr. Madison,
shows conclusively that the members of that assembly were not seeking to realize any fine notions about democracy and
equality, but were striving with all the resources of political wisdom at their command to set up a system of government
that would be stable and efficient, safeguarded on the one hand against the possibilities of despotism and on the other
against the onslaught of majorities. In the mind of Mr. Gerry, the evils they had experienced flowed "from the excess of
democracy," and he confessed that while he was still republican, he "had been taught by experience the danger of the
levelling spirit." Mr. Randolph, in offering to the consideration of the convention his plan of government, observed "that
the general object was to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that, in tracing these evils
to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy; that some check therefore was to be
sought for against this tendency of our governments; and that a good Senate seemed most likely to answer the purpose."
Mr. Hamilton, in advocating a life term for Senators, urged that "all communities divide themselves into the few and the
many. The first are the rich and well born and the other the mass of the people who seldom judge or determine right."
Governor Morris wanted to check the "precipitancy, changeableness, and excess" of the representatives of the people by
the ability and virtue of men" of great and established property -- aristocracy; men who from pride will support
consistency and permanency...Such an aristocratic body will keep down the turbulence of democracy." While these
extreme doctrines were somewhat counterbalanced by the democratic principles of Mr. Wilson, who urged that "the
government ought to possess, not only first, the force, but second, the mind or sense of the people at large," Madison
doubtless summed up in a brief sentence the general opinion of the convention when he said that to secure private rights
against minority factions, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and form of popular government, was the great
object to which their inquiries had been directed.
They were anxious above everything else to safeguard the rights of private property against any leveling tendencies on
the part of the propertyless masses. Governor Morris, in speaking on the problem of apportioning representatives,
correctly stated the sound historical fact when he declared: "Life and liberty were generally said to be of more value
than property. An accurate view of the matter, nevertheless, would prove that property was the main object of
society...If property, then was the main object of government, certainly it ought to be one measure of the influence due
to those who were to be affected by the government." Mr. King also agreed that "property was the primary object of
society," and Mr. Madison warned the convention that in framing a system which they wished to last for ages they must
not lose sight of the changes which the ages would produce in the forms and distribution of property. In advocating a
long term in order to give independence and firmness to the Senate, he described these impending changes: "An
increase in the population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labor under all the hardships of life
and secretly sigh for a more equitable distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed
above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the
former. No agrarian attempts have yet been made in this country, but symptoms of a levelling spirit, as we have
understood have sufficiently appeared, in a certain quarter, to give notice of the future danger." And again, in support of
the argument for a property qualification on voters, Madison urged: "In future times, a great majority of the people will
not only be without land, but without any other sort of property. These will either combine, under the influence of their
common situation, -- in which case the rights of property and the public liberty will not be secure in their hands, -- or,
what is more probable, they will become the tools of opulence and ambition; in which case there will be equal danger on
another side." Various projects for setting up class rule by the establishment of property qualifications for voters and
officers were advanced in the convention, but they were defeated....
The absence of such property qualifications is certainly not due to any belief in Jefferson's free and equal doctrine. It is
due rather to the fact that the members of the convention could not agree on the nature and amount of the qualifications.
Naturally, a landed qualification was suggested, but for obvious reasons it was rejected. Although it was satisfactory to
the landed gentry of the South, it did not suit the financial, commercial, and manufacturing gentry of the North. If it was
high, the latter would be excluded; if it was low, it would let in the populistic farmers who had already made so much
trouble in the state legislatures with paper-money schemes and other devices for "relieving agriculture." One of the chief
reasons for calling the convention and framing the Constitution was to promote commerce and industry and to protect
personal property against the depredations of Jefferson's noble freeholders. On the other hand, a personal property
qualification, high enough to please merchant princes like Robert Morris or Nathaniel Gorham would shut out Southern
planters. Again, an alternative of land or personal property, high enough to afford safeguards to large interests, would
doubtless bring about the rejection of the whole Constitution by the troublemaking farmers who had to pass upon the
question of ratification.
Nevertheless, by the system of checks and balances placed in the government, the convention safeguarded the interests
of property against attacks by majorities. The House of Representatives, Mr. Hamilton pointed out, "was so formed as to
render it particularly the guardian of the poorer orders of citizens," while the Senate was to preserve the rights of
property and the interests of the minority against the demands of the majority. In the tenth number of The Federalist,
Mr. Madison argued in a philosophic vein in support of the proposition that it was necessary to base the political system
on the actual conditions of "natural inequality." Uniformity of interests throughout the state, he contended, was
impossible on account of the diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originated; the
protection of these faculties was the first object of government; from the protection of different and unequal faculties of
acquiring property the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately resulted; from the influence of
these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors ensued a division of society into different interests and
parties; the unequal distribution of wealth inevitably led to a clash of interests in which the majority was liable to carry
out its policies at the expense of the minority; hence, he added, in concluding this splendid piece of logic, "the majority,
having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered by their number and local situation unable to concert and
carry into effect schemes of oppression"; and in his opinion, it was the great merit of the newly framed Constitution that
it secured the rights of the minority against "the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."
This very system of checks and balances, which is undeniably the essential element of the Constitution, is built upon the
doctrine that the popular branch of the government cannot be allowed full sway, and least of all in the enactment of laws
touching the rights of property. The exclusion of the direct popular vote in the election of the President; the creation,
again by indirect election, of a Senate which the framers hoped would represent the wealth and conservative interests of
the country, and the establishment of an independent judiciary appointed by the President with the concurrence of the
Senate -- all these devices bear witness to the fact that the underlying purpose of the Constitution was not the
establishment of popular government by means of parliamentary majorities.
Page after page of The Federalist is directed to that portion of the electorate which was disgusted with the "mutability of
public councils." Writing on the presidential veto, Hamilton says: "The propensity of the legislative department to
intrude upon the rights and absorb the powers of other departments has already been suggested and repeated....It may
perhaps be said that the power of preventing bad laws included the power of preventing good ones; and may be used to
the one purpose as well as the other. But this objection will have little weight with those who can properly estimate the
mischiefs of that inconstancy and mutability in the laws which form the greater blemish in the character and genius of
our governments. They will consider every institution calculated to restrain the excess of law-making and to keep things
in the same state in which they happen to be at any given period, as more likely to do good than harm; because it is
favorable to greater stability in the system of legislation. The injury which may possibly be done by defeating a few
good laws will be amply compensated by the advantage of preventing a number of bad ones."
When the framers of the Constitution had completed the remarkable instrument which was to establish a national
government capable of discharging effectively certain great functions and checking the propensities of popular
legislatures to attack the rights of private property, a formidable task remained before them -- the task of securing the
adoption of the new frame of government by states torn with popular dissentions. They knew very well that the state
legislatures which had been so negligent in paying their quotas [of money] under the Articles of Confederation and
which had been so jealous of their rights, would probably stick at ratifying such a national instrument of government.
Accordingly, they cast aside that clause in the Articles requiring amendments to be ratified by the legislatures of all of
the states; and advised that the new Constitution should be ratified by conventions in the several states composed of
delegates chosen by the voters. It was largely because the framers of the Constitution knew the temper and class bias of
the state legislatures that they arranged that the new Constitution should be ratified by conventions. They furthermore
declared -- and this is an fundamental matter -- that when the conventions of nine states had ratified the Constitution the
new government should go into effect so far as those states were concerned. The chief reason for resorting to
ratifications by conventions is laid down by Hamilton in Federalist 22:
"It has not a little contributed to the infirmities of the existing federal system that it never had a ratification by the
people. Resting on no better foundation that the consent of the several legislatures, it has been exposed to frequent and
intricate questions concerning the validity of its powers; and has in some instances given birth to the enormous doctrine
of a right of legislative repeal. Owing its ratification to the law of a state, it has been contended that the same authority
might repeal the law by which it was ratified. However gross a heresy it may be to maintain that a party to a compact
has a right to revoke that compact, the doctrine itself has respectable advocates. The possibility of a question of this
nature proves the necessity of laying the foundations of our national government deeper than in the mere sanction of
delegated authority. The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. The
streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure original foundation of all legitimate authority."
Of course, the convention did not resort to the revolutionary policy of transmitting the Constitution directly to the
conventions of the several states. It merely laid the finished instrument before the Confederate Congress with the
suggestion that it should be submitted to "a convention of delegates chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the
recommendation of its legislature, for them assent and ratification; and each convention assenting thereto and ratifying
the same should give notice thereof to the United States in Congress assembled." The convention went on to suggest
that when nine states had ratified the Constitution, the Confederate Congress should extinguish itself by making
provisions for the elections necessary to put the new government into effect....
After the new Constitution was published and transmitted to the states, there began a long and bitter fight over
ratification. A veritable flood of pamphlet literature descended upon the country, and a collection of these pamphlets by
Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, brought together under the title of The Federalist -- though clearly a piece of campaign
literature -- has remained a permanent part of the contemporary sources on the Constitution and has been regarded by
many lawyers as a commentary second in value only to the decisions of the Supreme Court. Within a year the
champions of the new government found themselves victorious, for on June 21, 1788, the ninth state, New Hampshire,
ratified the Constitution, and accordingly the new government might go into effect as between the agreeing states.
Within a few weeks, the nationalist party in Virginia and New York succeeded in winning these two states, and in spite
of the fact that North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution, Congress determined to put the
instrument into effect in accordance with the recommendations of the convention.
Charles A. Beard
Framing the Constitution
1. Contrast the philosophy and forces behind the Articles of Confederation with those supporting the new
Constitution in 1787.
2. What was the effect of the state constitutions and the Articles of Confederation upon the dominant economic
classes?
3. How does Beard characterize the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787?
4. What were the views of the delegates to the Convention on democracy and equality, according to Beard?
5. Aside from describing the delegates as representatives of the propertied classes desiring to protect their
interests, what other evidence does Beard present to support his thesis that the principal purpose of the
Constitution was to protect most forms of private property?
6. Beard relies on The Federalist to support his argument that the Constitution was designed to protect the
economic interest of property holders. What arguments does Beard make based on The Federalist to support his
conclusion?
Chapter 3 Study Questions
Federalism
1. Define federalism and explain how such a system differs from a unitary or a confederal system.
2. Make a chart listing the positive and negative aspects of federalism. Leave room for additions
3. Using the chart on p. 53 and the rest of the material in the book to list the elements of the Constitution that
1) restrict the powers of the states 2) protect the powers of the states 3) describe how the states should deal
with each other and 4) have been used to expand the power of the federal government
4. What was the principle of nullification?
5. Define initiative, referendum, and recall
6. Define mandates. Give examples. Explain the disadvantages to states of federal mandates.
7. Explain what was in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the 1995 law that the Republicans passed.
8. What are other ways that the federal government imposes costs on state and local governments?
9. Why did the GOP in Congress embrace the idea of devolution and what was the effect of the reform of
AFDC?
10. Why was it possible to enact devolution for AFDC but not for Medicaid?
11. What are the explanations that the book gives for why members of Congress pass laws that cause governors
and mayors to complain about the role of the federal government?
Supreme Court Cases
I strongly recommend that you start flash cards on 3 x 5 cards for the Supreme Court cases. Include information on
the background of the case, ruling of the court, and significance of that particular case. You will have dozens of
cases by the end of the year and this will be very helpful for your study.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12
Fletcher v. Peck (1810)
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel (1937)
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)
South Dakota v. Dole (1987)
United States v. Lopez (1995)
Printz v. United States (1997)
United States v. Morrison (2000)
Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
Gonzales v. Oregon (2006)
Terms to Know
Federalism
Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions
Devolution
John C. Calhoun
Sovereignty
Dual Federalism
Unitary System
Layer Cake Federalism
Confederation
Marble Cake Federalism
Tenth Amendment
Creative Federalism and The Great Society (LBJ)
Supremacy Clause (Article VI)
New Federalism (Competitive Federalism)
Elastic or “Necessary and Proper” Clause (Art. I, Section 8, initiative
Clause 18)
referendum
Commerce Clause (Art. I, section 8, clause 3)
recall
“Full Faith and Credit” Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 1)
grants-in-aid
“Privileges and Immunities Clause (Art. IV, sec. 2)
categorical grants
Enumerated Powers (national) {also called Expressed or
block grants
Delegated Powers}
revenue sharing grants
Reserved Powers (state)Concurrent Powers
Mandates
Implied Powers
104th Congress
Denied Powers
Unfunded Mandates
John Marshall
Conditions of Aid
Nullification
Devolution
Second-order devolution
Third-order devolution
Significant Laws
I recommend that you start flash cards for these laws. Include a short summary of what the law did and its
significance. Some of these laws will appear several times in the course.
Civil Rights Act (1964)
Clean Air Act (1970)
Americans with Disabilities Act (1990)
National Voter Registration Act or Motor Voter
Registration Act (1993)
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (1995)
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 or Welfare Reform Act
No Child Left Behind (2002)
How Not To Read the Constitution
Laurence H. Tribe and Michael C. Dorf
From its very creation, the Constitution was perceived as a document that sought to strike a delicate balance between,
on the one hand, governmental power to accomplish the great ends of civil society and, on the other, individual liberty.
As James Madison put it in The Federalist Papers, "[i]f men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels
were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government
which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to
control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the
primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."
Although Madison initially opposed the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, as his correspondence with
Thomas Jefferson shows, he became convinced that judicially enforceable rights are among the necessary "auxiliary
precautions" against tyranny.
In the Constitution of the United States, men like Madison bequeathed to subsequent generations a framework for
balancing liberty against power. However, it is only a framework; it is not a blueprint. Its Eighth Amendment prohibits
the infliction of "cruel and unusual punishment," but gives no examples of permissible or impermissible punishments.
Article IV requires that "[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of
Government," but attempts no definition of republican government. The Fourteenth Amendment proscribes state
abridgments of the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," but contains no catalogue of privileges or
immunities.
How then ought we to go about the task of finding concrete commandments in the Constitution's majestically vague
admonitions? If there is genuine controversy over how the Constitution should be read, certainly it cannot be because
the disputants have access to different bodies of information. After all, they all have exactly the same text in front of
them, and that text has exactly one history, however complex, however multifaceted. But of course different people
believe different things about how that history bears on the enterprise of constitutional interpretation. . . .
Perhaps the disputants agree on what counts as "the Constitution," but simply approach the same body of textual and
historical materials with different visions, different premises, and different convictions. But that assumption raises an
obvious question: How are those visions, premises, and convictions relevant to how this brief text ought to be read? Is
reading the text just a pretext for expressing the reader's vision in the august, almost holy terms of constitutional law? Is
the Constitution simply a mirror in which one sees what one wants to see? . . .
Reading the Constitution or Writing One?
The belief that we must look beyond the specific views of the Framers to apply the Constitution to contemporary
problems is not necessarily a "liberal" position. Indeed, not even the most "conservative" justices today believe in a
jurisprudence of original intent that looks only to the Framers' unenacted views about particular institutions or practices.
Consider the following statement made by a Supreme Court justice in 1976:
The framers of the Constitution wisely spoke in general language and left to succeeding generations the
task of applying that language to the unceasingly changing environment in which they would live. . . .
Where the framers . . . used general language, they [gave] latitude to those who would later interpret the
instrument to make that language applicable to cases that the framers might not have foreseen.
The author was not Justice William Brennan or Justice Thurgood Marshall, but then-Justice William Rehnquist. Or
consider the statement by Justice White, joined by Justice Rehnquist in a 1986 opinion for the Court: "As [our] prior
cases clearly show, . . . this Court does not subscribe to the simplistic view that constitutional interpretation can possibly
be limited to the 'plain meaning' of the Constitution's text or to the subjective intention of the Framers. The
Constitution," wrote Justice White, "is not a deed setting forth the precise metes and bounds of its subject matter; rather,
it is a document announcing fundamental principles in value-laden terms that leave ample scope for the exercise of
normative judgment by those charged with interpreting and applying it."
So the "conservatives" on the Court, no less than the "liberals," talk as though reading the Constitution requires
much more than passively discovering a fixed meaning planted there generations ago. Those who wrote the document,
and those who voted to ratify it, were undoubtedly projecting their wishes into an indefinite future. If writing is wishprojection, is reading merely an exercise in wish-fulfillment-not fulfillment of the wishes of the authors, who couldn't
have begun to foresee the way things would unfold, but fulfillment of the wishes of readers, who perhaps use the
language of the Constitution simply as a mirror to dress up their own political or moral preferences in the hallowed
language of our most fundamental document? Justice Joseph Story feared that that might happen when he wrote in
1845: "How easily men satisfy themselves that the Constitution is exactly what they wish it to be."
To the extent that this is so, it is indefensible. The authority of the Constitution, its claim to obedience and the force
that we permit it to exercise in our law and over our lives, would lose all legitimacy if it really were only a mirror for the
readers' ideals and ideas. Just as the original intent of the Framers-even if it could be captured in the laboratory, bottled,
and carefully inspected under a microscope-will not yield a satisfactory determinate interpretation of the Constitution,
so too at the other end of the spectrum we must also reject as completely unsatisfactory the idea of an empty, or an
infinitely malleable, Constitution. We must find principles of interpretation that can anchor the Constitution in some
more secure, determinate, and external reality. But that is no small task.
One basic problem is that the text itself leaves so much room for the imagination. Simply consider the preamble, which
speaks of furthering such concepts as "Justice" and the "Blessings of Liberty." It is not hard, in terms of concepts that
fluid and that plastic, to make a linguistically plausible argument in support of more than a few surely incorrect
conclusions. Perhaps a rule could be imposed that it is improper to refer to the preamble in constitutional argument on
the theory that it is only an introduction, a preface, and not part of the Constitution as enacted. But even if one were to
invent such a rule, which has no apparent grounding in the Constitution itself, it is hardly news that the remainder of the
document is filled with lively language about "liberty," "due process of law," "unreasonable searches and seizures," and
so forth-words that, although not infinitely malleable, are capable of supporting meanings at opposite ends of virtually
any legal, political, or ideological spectrum.
It is therefore not surprising that readers on both the right and left of the American political center have invoked the
Constitution as authority for strikingly divergent conclusions about the legitimacy of existing institutions and practices,
and that neither wing has found it difficult to cite chapter and verse in support of its "reading" of our fundamental law.
As is true of other areas of law, the materials of constitutional law require construction, leave room for argument over
meaning, and tempt the reader to import his or her vision of the just society into the meaning of the materials being
considered. . . .
When all of the Constitution's supposed unities are exposed to scrutiny, criticisms of its inconsistency with various
readers' sweeping visions of what it ought to be become considerably less impressive. Not all need be reducible to a
single theme. Inconsistency-even inconsistency with democracy-is hardly earth-shattering. Listen to Walt Whitman:
"Do 1 contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself." "I am large, I contain multitudes," the Constitution
replies.
Woll, Peter, ed. American Government Readings and Cases. New York: Pearson Longman, 2004. 47-49.
How Not to Read the Constitution- Laurence H. Tribe and Michael C. Dorf
1. In your view, what is purpose of this document (the Constitution) Explain with a couple of examples from the
reading.
2. Explain a key point made by the authors that what Madison and the other Framers of the Constitution established was
“only a framework; it is not a blueprint.”
3. Because of how one “reads” the Constitution, interpretation of it is not an exact science. Explain how the authors
make the point that finding “original intent of the Framers” is often far from clear, but neither should the Constitution be
considered “infinitely malleable.”
4. Although “readers on both the right and left” claim to know what the Constitution really says, explain the point the
authors make in the final few sentences of the document.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
U.S. Supreme Court
M'CULLOCH v. STATE, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
17 U.S. 316 (Wheat.)
M'CULLOCH v. STATE OF MARYLAND et al.
February Term, 1819 - March 7th, 1819.
Points to Consider:
1. Argument used by Chief Justice Marshall to justify:
o the right of Congress to create a national bank
o reason why Maryland could not tax the national bank
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court.
In the case now to be determined, the defendant, a sovereign state, denies the obligation of a law enacted by the
legislature of the Union, and the plaintiff, on his part, contests the validity of an act which has been passed by the
legislature of that state. The constitution of our country, in its most interesting and vital parts, is to be considered; the
conflicting powers of the government of the Union and of its members, as marked in that constitution, are to be
discussed; and an opinion given, which may essentially influence the great operations of the government….
If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would be this-that the
government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action. This would seem to
result, necessarily, from its nature. It is the government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts
for all. Though any one state may be willing to control its operations, no state is willing to allow others to control them.
The nation, on those subjects on which it can act, must necessarily bind its component parts. But this question is not left
to mere reason: the people have, in express terms, decided it, by saying, [17 U.S. 316, 406] 'this constitution, and the
laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof,' 'shall be the supreme law of the land,' and by
requiring that the members of the state legislatures, and the officers of the executive and judicial departments of the
states, shall take the oath of fidelity to it….
A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the
means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely
be embraced by the human mind. It would, probably, never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires,
that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose
those objects, be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the
American constitution, is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language….
Although, among the enumerated powers of government, we do not find the word 'bank' or 'incorporation,' we find the
great powers, to lay and collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a war; and to
raise and support armies and navies. The sword and the purse, all the external relations, and no inconsiderable portion of
the industry of the nation, are entrusted to its government. It can never be pretended, [17 U.S. 316, 408] that these vast
powers draw after them others of inferior importance, merely because they are inferior. Such an idea can never be
advanced. But it may with great reason be contended, that a government, entrusted with such ample powers, on the due
execution of which the happiness and prosperity of the nation so vitally depends, must also be entrusted with ample
means for their execution. The power being given, it is the interest of the nation to facilitate its execution. It can never
be their interest, and cannot be presumed to have been their intention, to clog and embarrass its execution, by
withholding the most appropriate means. Throughout this vast republic, from the St. Croix to the Gulf of Mexico, from
the Atlantic to the Pacific, revenue is to be collected and expended, armies are to be marched and supported. The
exigencies of the nation may require, that the treasure raised in the north should be transported to the south, that raised
in the east, conveyed to the west, or that this order should be reversed. Is that construction of the constitution to be
preferred, which would render these operations difficult, hazardous and expensive? Can we adopt that construction
(unless the words imperiously require it), which would impute to the framers of that instrument, when granting these
powers for the public good, the intention of impeding their exercise, by withholding a choice of means? If, indeed, such
be the mandate of the constitution, we have only to obey; but that instrument does not profess to enumerate the means
by which the powers it confers may be executed; nor does it prohibit the creation of a corporation, [17 U.S. 316, 409] if
the existence of such a being be essential, to the beneficial exercise of those powers. It is, then, the subject of fair
inquiry, how far such means may be employed….
We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended.
But we think the sound construction of the constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion, with
respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to
perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be
within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which
are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional….
It being the opinion of the court, that the act incorporating the bank is constitutional; and that the power of establishing a
branch in the state of Maryland might be properly exercised by the bank itself, we proceed to inquire-Whether the state of Maryland may, without violating the constitution, tax that branch?
That the power of taxation is one of vital importance; that it is retained by the states; that it is not abridged by the grant
of a similar power to the government of the Union; that it is to be concurrently exercised by the two governments-are
truths which have never been denied. But such is the paramount character of the constitution, that its capacity to
withdraw any subject from the action of even this power, is admitted. The states are expressly forbidden to lay any
duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing their inspection laws. If the
obligation of this prohibition must be conceded-if it may restrain a state from the exercise of its taxing power on imports
and exports-the same paramount character would seem to restrain, as it certainly may restrain, a state from such other
exercise of this power, as is in its nature incompatible with, and repugnant to, the constitutional laws of the Union. A
law, absolutely repugnant to another, as entirely [17 U.S. 316, 426] repeals that other as if express terms of repeal were
used.
On this ground, the counsel for the bank place its claim to be exempted from the power of a state to tax its operations.
There is no express provision for the case, but the claim has been sustained on a principle which so entirely pervades the
constitution, is so intermixed with the materials which compose it, so interwoven with its web, so blended with its
texture, as to be incapable of being separated from it, without rending it into shreds.
This great principle is, that the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme; that they control the
constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them. From this, which may be almost termed
an axiom, other propositions are deduced as corollaries, on the truth or error of which, and on their application to this
case, the cause has been supposed to depend. These are, 1st. That a power to create implies a power to preserve: 2d.
That a power to destroy, if wielded by a different hand, is hostile to, and incompatible with these powers to create and to
preserve: 3d. That where this repugnancy exists, that authority which is supreme must control, not yield to that over
which it is supreme….
If we apply the principle for which the state of Maryland contends, to the constitution, generally, we shall find it capable
of changing totally the character of that instrument. We shall find it capable of arresting all the measures of the
government, and of prostrating it at the foot of the states. The American people have declared their constitution and the
laws made in pursuance thereof, to be supreme; but this principle would transfer the supremacy, in fact, to the states….
The court has bestowed on this subject its most deliberate consideration. The result is a conviction that the states have
no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the
constitutional laws enacted by congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government. This is, we
think, the unavoidable consequence of that supremacy which the constitution has declared….
McCulloch v Maryland Questions to Consider:
1. What are the advantages for the federal government of establishing a national bank? Read through Article I,
Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution to determine which functions of Congress might be helped by
such a bank.
2. Why would states feel threatened by a national bank?
3. In your opinion, does the United States government have the authority to establish a national bank? Provide
justification for your answer. You may want to review Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution to see
what powers it specifically gives Congress.
4. If the United States does have authority to establish a bank, does Maryland have the authority to tax that bank?
Why or why not?
5. Why do you think the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear this case? What larger principles were
at stake?
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
514 U.S. 549
United States v. Lopez
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 93-1260 Argued: November 8, 1994 --- Decided:
After respondent, then a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed handgun into his high school, he was charged with
violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a
place that [he] knows . . . is a school zone," 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A). The District Court denied his motion to dismiss
the indictment, concluding that § 922(q) is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to regulate activities in and
affecting commerce. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that, in light of what it characterized as insufficient
congressional findings and legislative history, § 922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress' power under the Commerce
Clause.
Held: The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of
congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the
possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere,
have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that, by its terms, has nothing
to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined. Nor is it an
essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the
intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court's cases upholding regulations of
activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially
affects interstate commerce. Second, § 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-bycase inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite nexus with interstate commerce. Respondent was
a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no
requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. To uphold the
Government's contention that § 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed
substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that
would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by
the States. Pp. ___.
REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS,
JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which O'CONNOR, J., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a
concurring opinion. STEVENS, J., and SOUTER, J., filed dissenting opinions. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion,
in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined
1.
What are the 3 categories of activities that can be regulated under the Commerce Clause?
2.
What were the arguments made on behalf of the US Government in Lopez?
3.
What reasoning was used by the Court in rejecting the government’s arguments?
4.
What is the standard used to determine whether the Commerce Clause applies to a particular activity?
5.
What is the standard used by the dissenters to determine whether the Commerce Clause applies to a particular
activity?
6.
Do you agree with the Court’s decision in US v. Lopez? Why or Why not?
7.
What impact does the Lopez case have on federalism?
Unit II - Political Beliefs and Behaviors
The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have
the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would
somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the
economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to
stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club.
Dave Barry
Assignments
Chapter 4,5,6 Study Guides
Stock Project (Only for 1st Term Class)- See Econ section
AP Government Debate #2
Opinion Poll Project
Liberals vs. Conservatives Chart (ws)
Assessments
Chapter Exam 4 – 25 Multiple Choice Questions
Unit Exam Chapter 4,5,6 – 2 FRQ Questions
Secondary Readings
Tocqueville Democracy in America
Chapter 4 Study Questions
1. What do scholars mean by political culture?
2. What is the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of results?
3. List the dominant aspects of political culture.
4. What difference does our American political culture have with other countries’ political cultures? (Use bullet
points)
5. Summarize (you can use bullet points) what the book says about the “culture war” in America.
6.
What is the difference between internal and external efficacy? Look at Figure 4.2 on p. 93 and decide if you
agree or disagree with these statements.
7. As you read through the rest of the chapter, think about how you’d answer the questions asked in Figures 4.3
to 4.5.
Civic competence
Civic duty
Class consciousness
External efficacy
Internal efficacy
Orthodox
Terms
Political culture
Political efficacy
Political ideology
Political subculture
Progressive
Work ethic
Alexis de Tocqueville: Democracy in America
Characteristics of the Federal Constitution of the United States of America as Compared with All
Other Federal Constitutions
The United States of America does not afford the first or the only instance of a confederation, several of
which have existed in modern Europe…. Switzerland, the Germanic Empire, and the Republic of the Low
Countries either have been or still are confederations. In studying the constitution of these different countries
one is surprised to see that the powers with which they invested the federal government are nearly the same as
those awarded by the American Constitution to the government of the United States. They confer upon the
central power the same rights of making peace and war, of raising money and troops, and of providing for the
general exigencies and the common interests of the nation. Nevertheless, the federal government of these
different states has always been as remarkable for its weakness and inefficiency as that of the American Union
is for its vigor and capacity. Again, the first American Confederation perished through the excessive weakness
of its government…. But the present Constitution of the United States contains certain novel principles which
exercise a most important influence, although they do not at once strike the observer.
This Constitution … rests in truth upon a wholly novel theory, which may be considered as a great discovery
in modern political science. In all the confederations that preceded the American Constitution of 1789, the
states allied for a common object agreed to obey the injunctions of a federal government; but they reserved to
themselves the right of ordaining and enforcing the execution of the laws of the union. The American states
which combined in 1789 agreed that the Federal government should not only dictate the laws, but execute its
own enactments. In both cases the right is the same, but the exercise of the right is different; and this
difference produced the most momentous consequences.
In all the confederations that preceded the American Union the federal government, in order to provide for its
wants, had to apply to the separate governments; and if what it prescribed was disagreeable to any one of
them, means were found to evade its claims…. Under these circumstances one of two results invariably
followed: either the strongest of the allied states assumed the privileges of the federal authority and ruled all
the others in its name1; or the federal government was abandoned by its natural supporters, anarchy arose
between the confederates, and the union lost all power of action.
In America the subjects of the Union are not states, but private citizens: the national government levies a tax,
not upon the state of Massachusetts, but upon each inhabitant of Massachusetts. The old confederate
governments presided over communities, but that of the Union presides over individuals. Its force is not
borrowed but self-derived; and it is served by its own civil and military officers, its own army, and its own
courts of justice. It cannot be doubted that the national spirit, the passions of the multitude, and the provincial
prejudices of each state tend singularly to diminish the extent of the Federal authority thus constituted and to
facilitate resistance to its mandates; but the comparative weakness of a restricted sovereignty is an evil
inherent in the federal system….
In all former confederations the privileges of the union furnished more elements of discord than of power,
since they multiplied the claims of the nation without augmenting the means of enforcing them; and hence the
real weakness of federal governments has almost always been in the exact ratio of their nominal power. Such
is not the case in the American Union, in which, as in ordinary governments, the Federal power has the means
of enforcing all it is empowered to demand….
Advantages of the Federal System in General, and Its Special Utility in America
... In small states, the watchfulness of society penetrates everywhere, and a desire for improvement pervades
the smallest details; the ambition of the people being necessarily checked by its weaknesses, all the efforts and
resources of the citizens are turned to the internal well-being of the community and are not likely to be wasted
upon an empty pursuit of glory. The powers of every individual being generally limited, his desires are
proportionally small. Mediocrity of fortune makes the various conditions of life nearly equal, and the manners
of the inhabitants are orderly and simple. Thus, all things considered, and allowance being made for various
degrees of morality and enlightenment, we shall generally find more persons in easy circumstances, more
contentment and tranquility, in small nations than in large ones.
When tyranny is established in the bosom of a small state, it is more galling than elsewhere, because, acting
narrower circle, everything in that circle is affected by it. It supplies the place of those- great designs which it
cannot entertain, by a violent or exasperating interference in a multitude of minute details; and it leaves the
political world, to which it properly belongs, to meddle with the arrangements of private life. Tastes as well as
actions are to be regulated; and the families of the citizens, as well as the state, are to be governed. This
invasion of rights occurs but seldom, however, freedom being in truth the natural state of small communities.
The temptations that the government offers to ambition are too weak and the resources of private individuals
are too slender or the sovereign power easily to fall into the grasp of a single man; and should such an event
occur, the subjects of the state can easily unite and overthrow the tyrant and the tyranny at once by a common
effort.
Small nations have therefore always been the cradle of political liberty; and the fact that many of them have
lost their liberty by becoming larger shows that their freedom was more a consequence of their small size than
of the character of the people.
The history of the world affords no instance of a great nation retaining the form of republican government for
a long series of years….3 But it may be said with confidence, that a great republic will always be exposed to
more perils than a small one.
All the passions that are most fatal to republican institutions increase with an increasing territory…. The
ambition of private citizens increases with the power of the state; the strength of parties with the importance
of the ends they have in view; but the love of country, which ought to check these destructive agencies, is not
stronger in a large than in a small republic. It might, indeed, be easily proved that it is less powerful and less
developed. Great wealth and extreme poverty, capital cities of large size, a lax morality, selfishness, and
antagonism of interests are the dangers which almost invariably arise from the magnitude of states. Several of
these evils scarcely injure a monarchy, and some of them even contribute to its strength and duration. In
monarchical states the government has its peculiar strength; it may use, but it does not depend on, the
community; and the more numerous the people, the stronger is the prince. But the only security that a
republican government possesses against these evils lies in the support of the majority. This support is not,
however, proportionably greater in a large republic than in a small one; and thus, while the means 'of attack
perpetually increase, in both number and influence, the power of resistance remains the same; or it may rather
be said to diminish, since the inclinations and interests of the people are more diversified by the increase of
the population, and the difficulty of forming a compact majority is constantly augmented. It has been
observed, moreover, that the intensity of human passions is heightened not only by the importance of the end
which they propose to attain, but by the multitude of individuals who are animated by them at the same
time…. In great republics, political passions become irresistible, not only because they aim at gigantic objects,
but because they are felt and shared by millions of men at the same time.
… Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge the peculiar advantages of great states. For the very reason
that the desire for power is more intense in these communities than among ordinary men, the love of glory is
also more developed in the hearts of certain citizens, who regard the applause of a great people as a reward
worthy of their exertions and an elevating encouragement to man…. To this it may be added that most
important discoveries demand a use of national power which the government of a small state is unable to
make: in great nations the government has more enlarged ideas, and is more completely disengaged from the
routine of precedent and the selfishness of local feeling; its designs are conceived with more talent and
executed with more boldness.
In time of peace the well-being of small nations is undoubtedly more general and complete; but they are apt to
suffer more acutely from the calamities of war than those great empires whose distant frontiers may long avert
the presence of the danger from the mass of the people, who axe therefore more frequently afflicted than
ruined by the contest.
But in this matter, as in many others, the decisive argument is the necessity of the case. If none but small
nations existed, I do not doubt that mankind would be more happy and more free; but the existence of great
nations is unavoidable.
Political strength thus becomes a condition of national prosperity…. Small nations are often miserable, not
because they are small, but because they are weak; and great empires prosper less because they are great than
because they are strong. Physical strength is therefore one of the first conditions of the happiness and even of
the existence of nations. Hence it occurs that, unless very peculiar circumstances intervene, small nations are
always united to large empires in the end, either by force or by their own consent. I do not know a more
deplorable condition than that of a people unable to defend itself or to provide for its own wants.
The federal system was created with the intention of combining the different advantages which result from the
magnitude and the littleness of nations; and a glance at the United States of America discovers the advantages
which they have derived from its adoption.
In great centralized nations the legislator is obliged to give a character of uniformity to the laws, which does
not always suit the diversity of customs and of districts; as he takes no cognizance of special cases, he can
only proceed upon the general principles; and the population are obliged to conform to the requirements of the
laws, since legislation cannot adapt itself to the exigencies and the customs of the population, which is a great
cause of trouble and misery. This disadvantage does not exist in confederations; Congress regulates the
principle measures of the national government, and all the details of the administration are reserved to the
provincial legislatures. One can hardly imagine how much this division of sovereignty contributes to the wellbeing of each of the states that compose the Union. In these small communities, which are never agitated by
the desire of aggrandizement or the care of self-defense, all public authority and private energy are turned
towards internal improvements. The central government of each state, which is in immediate relationship with
the citizens, is daily apprised of the wants that arise in society; and new projects are proposed every year,
which are discussed at town meetings or by the legislature, and which are transmitted by the press to stimulate
the zeal and to excite the interest of the citizens. This spirit of improvement is constantly alive in the
American republics,… the ambition of power yields to the less refined and less dangerous desire for wellbeing. It is generally believed in America that the existence and the permanence of the republican form of
government in the New World depend upon the existence and the duration of the federal system; and it is not
unusual to attribute a large share of the misfortunes that have befallen the new states of South America to the
injudicious erection of great republics instead of a divided and confederate sovereignty.
It is incontestably true that the tastes and the habits of republican government in the United States were first
created in the townships and the provincial assemblies. In a small state, like that of Connecticut, for instance,
where cutting a canal or laying down a road is a great political question, where the state has no army to pay
and no wars to carry on, and where much wealth or much honor cannot be given to the rulers, no form of
government can be more natural or more appropriate than a republic. But it is this same republican spirit, it is
these manners and customs of a free people, which have been created and nurtured in the different states, that
must be afterwards applied to the country at large. The public spirit of the Union is … nothing more than an
aggregate or summary of the patriotic zeal of the separate provinces. Every citizen of the United States
transfers … his attachment to his little republic into the common store of American patriotism. In defending
the Union he defends the increasing prosperity of his own state or county, the-right of conducting its affairs,
and the hope of causing measures of improvement to be adopted in it which may be favorable to his own
interests; and these are motives that … stir men more than the general interests of the country amid the glory
of the nation.
On the other hand, if the temper and the manners of the inhabitants especially fitted them to promote the
welfare of a great republic, the federal system renders their task less difficult. The confederation of all the
American states presents none of the ordinary inconveniences resulting from large associations of men. The
Union is a great republic in extent, but the paucity of objects for which its government acts assimilates it to a
small state. Its acts are important, but they are rare. As the sovereignty of the Union is limited and incomplete,
its exercise is not dangerous to liberty; for it does not excite those insatiable desires for fame and power which
have proved so fatal to great repub1ic. As there is no common center to the country, great capital cities,
colossal wealth, abject poverty, and sudden revolutions are alike unknown; and political passion; … spends it
strength against the interests and the individual passions of every state.
Nevertheless, tangible objects and ideas circulate throughout the Union as freely as in a country inhibited by
one people. Nothing checks the spirit of enterprise. The government invites the aid of all who have talents or
knowledge to serve it. Inside of the frontiers of the Union profound peace prevails, as within the heart of some
great empire; abroad it ranks with the most powerful nations of the earth: two thousand miles of coast are
open to the commerce of the world; and as it holds the keys of a new world, its flag is respected in the most
remote seas. The Union is happy and free as a small people, and glorious and strong as a great nation.
Why the Federal System is Not Practicable for All Nations, and How the Anglo-Americans Were
Enabled to Adopt It
… I have shown the advantages that the Americans derive from their federal system; it remains for me to
point out the circumstances that enabled them to adopt it, as its benefits cannot be enjoyed by all nations. The
accidental defects of the federal system which originate in the laws may be corrected by the skill of the
legislature, but there are evils inherent in the system which cannot be remedied by any effort. The people must
therefore find in themselves the strength necessary to bear the natural imperfections of their government.
The most prominent evil of all federal systems is the complicated nature of the means they employ. Two
sovereignties are necessarily in presence of each other. The legislator may simplify and equalize as far as
possible the action of these two sovereignties, by limiting each of them to a sphere of authority accurately
defined; but he cannot combine them into one or prevent them from coming into collision at certain points.
The federal system … rests upon a theory … which demands the daily exercise of a considerable share of
discretion on the part of those it governs
In examining the Constitution of the United States, which is the most perfect federal constitution that ever
existed, one is startled at the variety of information and the amount of discernment that it presupposes in the
people whom it is meant to govern….
After the general theory is comprehended, many difficulties remain to be solved in its application; for, the
sovereignty of the Union is so involved in that of the states that it is impossible to distinguish its boundaries,
at the first glance. The whole structure of the government is artificial and conventional, and it would be ill
adapted to a people which have not been long accustomed to conduct its own affairs, or to one in which the
science of politics has not descended to the humblest classes of society. I have never been more struck by the
good sense and the practical judgment of the Americans than in the manner in which they elude the
numberless difficulties resulting from their Federal Constitution. I scarcely ever met with a plain American
citizen who could not distinguish with surprising facility the obligations created by the laws of Congress from
those created by the laws of his own state, and who … could not point out the exact limit of the separate
jurisdictions of the Federal courts and the tribunals of the state.
The Constitution of the United States resembles those fine creations of human industry which ensure wealth
and renown to their inventors, but which are profitless in other hands....
The second and most fatal of all defects … inherent in the federal system, is the relative weakness of the
government of the Union. The principle upon which all confederations rest is that of a divided sovereignty.
Legislators may render this partition less perceptible, they may even conceal it for a time from the public eye,
but they cannot prevent it from existing; and a divided sovereignty must always be weaker than an entire one.
The remarks made on the Constitution of the United States have shown with what skill the Americans, while
restraining the power of the Union within the narrow limits of a federal government, have given it the
semblance, and to a certain extent the force, of a national government. By this means the legislators of the
Union have diminished the natural danger of confederations, but have not entirely obviated it.
The American government … does not address itself to the states, but transmits its injunctions directly to the
citizens and compels them individually to comply with its demands. But if the Federal law were to clash with
the interests and the prejudices of a state, it might be feared that all the citizens of that state would conceive
themselves to be interested in the cause of a single individual who refused to obey. If all the citizens of the
state were aggrieved at the same time and in the same manner by the authority of the Union, the Federal
government would vainly attempt to subdue them individually; they would instinctively unite in a common
defense and would find an organization already prepared for them in the sovereignty that their state is allowed
to enjoy. Fiction would give way to reality, and an organized portion of the nation might then contest the
central authority.
The same observation holds good with regard to the Federal jurisdiction. If the courts of the Union violated an
important law of a state in a private case, the real though not the apparent contest would be between the
aggrieved state represented by a citizen and the Union represented by its courts of justice.
He would have but a partial knowledge of the world who should imagine that it is possible by the aid of legal
fictions to prevent men from finding out and employing those means of gratifying their passions which have
been left open to them. The American legislators, though they have rendered a collision between the two
sovereignties less probable, have not destroyed the causes of such a misfortune…. The Union is possessed of
money and troops, but the states have kept the affections and the prejudices of the people. The sovereignty of
the Union is an abstract being, which is connected with but few external objects; the sovereignty of the states
is perceptible by the senses, easily understood, and constantly active. The former is of recent creation, the
latter is coeval with the people itself. The sovereignty of the Union is factitious, that of the states is natural
and self-existent, without effort, like the authority of a parent. The sovereignty of the nation affects a few of
the chief interests of society; it represents an immense but remote country, a vague and ill-defined sentiment.
The authority of the states controls every individual citizen at every hour and in all circumstances; it protects
his property, his freedom, and his life; it affects at every moment his well-being or his misery. When we
recollect the traditions, the customs, the prejudices of local and familiar attachment with which it is
connected, we cannot doubt the superiority of a power that rests on the instinct of patriotism, so natural to the
human heart.
Since legislators cannot prevent such dangerous collisions as occur between the two sovereignties which
coexist in the Federal system, their first object must be, not only to dissuade the confederate states from
warfare, but to encourage such dispositions as lead to peace. Hence it is that the Federal compact cannot be
lasting unless there exists in the communities which are leagued together a certain number of inducements to
union which render their common dependence agreeable and the task of the government light. The Federal
system cannot succeed without the presence of favorable circumstances added to the influence of good laws.
All the nations that have ever formed a confederation have been held together by some common interests,
which served as the intellectual ties of association….
The circumstance which makes it easy to maintain a Federal government in America is not only that the states
have similar interests, a common origin, and a common language, but they have also arrived at the same stage
of civilization, which almost always renders a union feasible. I do not know of any European nation, however
small, that does not present less uniformity in its different provinces than the American people, which occupy
a territory as extensive as one half of Europe. The distance from Maine to Georgia is about one thousand
miles; but the difference between the civilization of Maine and that of Georgia is slighter than the difference
between the habits of Normandy and those of Brittany. Maine and Georgia, which are placed at the opposite
extremities of a great empire, have therefore more real inducements to form a confederation than Normandy
and Brittany, which are separated only by a brook.
The geographical position of the country increased the facilities that the American legislators derived from the
usages and customs of the inhabitants; and it is to this circumstance that the adoption and the maintenance of
the Federal system are mainly attributable.
The most important occurrence in the life of a nation is the breaking out of a war.... A long war almost always
reduces nations to the wretched alternative of being abandoned to ruin by defeat or to despotism by success.
War therefore renders the weakness of a government most apparent and most alarming; and I have shown that
the inherent defect of federal governments is that of being weak.
The federal system not only has no centralized administration, and nothing that resembles one, but the central
government itself is imperfectly organized, which is always a great cause of weakness when the nation is
opposed to other countries which are themselves governed by a single authority. In the Federal Constitution of
the United States, where the central government has more real force than in any other confederation, this evil
is extremely evident.
How does it happen, then, that the American Union … is not dissolved by the occurrence of a great war? It is
because it has no great wars to fear. Placed in the center of an immense continent, which offers a boundless
field for human industry, the Union is almost as much insulated from the world as if all its frontiers were girt
by the ocean....
The great advantage of the United States does not, then, consist in a Federal Constitution which allows it to
carry on great wars, but In a geographical position which renders such wars extremely improbable.
No one can be more inclined than I am to appreciate the advantages of the federal system, which I hold to be
one of the combinations most favorable to the prosperity and freedom of men. I envy the lot of those nations
which have been able to adopt it; but I cannot believe that any confederate people could maintain a long or an
equal contest with a nation of similar strength in which the government is centralized. A people which, in the
presence of the great military monarchies of Europe, should divide its sovereignty into fractional parts would,
in my opinion, by that very act abdicate its power, and perhaps its existence and its name. But such is the
admirable position of the New World that man has no other enemy than himself, and that, in order to be happy
and to be free, he has only to determine that he will be so.
___________________________________
1. The case in Greece when Philip undertook to execute the decrees of the Amphictyons; in the Low Countries, where the province
of Holland always gave the law; and in our own time in the Germanic Confederation, In which Austria and Prussia make themselves
the agents of the Diet and rule the whole confederation in its name.
2. Such has always been the situation of the Swiss Confederation, which would have perished ages ago but for the mutual jealousies
of its neighbors.
3. I do not speak of a confederation of small republics, but of a great consolidated republic.
Democracy in America Questions
1. Which is worse, according to Tocqueville, the tyranny of the majority or the unrestrained liberty of
association? Why?
2. What differences does Tocqueville find between the use of the right of association in Europe and in
America? What accounts for those differences?
3. Tocqueville writes, "extreme liberty sometimes corrects the abuses of liberty, and ... extreme democracy
obviates the dangers of democracy." Explain.
4. How do voluntary associations prevent tyranny from increasing as equality increases?
5. What would produce tyranny? Could democracy produce despotism, according to Tocqueville? How?
6. Does Tocqueville believe the government should intervene in or even take over business affairs? Why or
why not?
7. What must aristocratic countries do in the democratic age, according to Tocqueville?
US Government Public Opinion Poll Project
SURVEYS: Each group is responsible for administering 100 surveys. You must have a written record of
each individual’s answers to the survey questions on the official survey form. 50 surveys will be used to
construct a “straw poll.” This is a very unscientific poll designed to use any sample of the population that
you wish. The other 50 surveys will be used for a “quota sample.” The quota sample is based on the
makeup of the American population using numbers from the 2000 US Census. This makeup is explained
below.
Ethnic groups: white 83.5% (41-42 people)
black 12.4% (6 people)
Asian and American-Indian 4.1% (2-3 people)
note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US
Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean a person of Latin
American descent (especially of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican
origin) living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group
(white, black, Asian, etc.)
Age structure: 0-19 years: 28% (13-15 people)
20-54 years: 50% (24-26 people)
55 and over: 22% (10-12 people)
Gender:
Female: 51% (26 people)
Male: 49% (24 people)
PRESENTATION OF THE DATA: The information that you gather in the surveys is to be presented in
the form of charts and/or graphs on a PowerPoint presentation, poster board, in a three-ring binder,
etc…just make sure that it looks professional. There are examples of bar graphs in your book on pages
95. This is just one of the many ways that you can choose to compile your data. Once the data is input
into the program, you can decide what type of graph that you want to use. Each question should have a
chart relating to each answer, with the data compiled from that question. In other words, if the question
that you are asking has 5 possible answers, you will have a total of 15 charts.
I know that there will be a lot of questions over this project. Bear with me when I try and answer your
questions…and if I still don’t make it clear to you…please LET ME KNOW!!!
The questions to ask are on the following pages…remember that you MUST have a written record of
each survey participant. For the quota sample, you will also want to have written on the answer sheet
what gender, age group, and ethnicity they fall under. Actually, on ALL of them, you should have that
written on it since you will be using those classifications to create your charts.
1. Which of the following best reflects your attitude towards the job the President has done thus far?
(Strongly approve/Approve/Ambivalent/ Disapprove/Strongly disapprove)
2. Which of the following best reflects your attitude towards the choice of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of
State? (Strongly approve/Approve/Ambivalent/ Disapprove/Strongly disapprove)
3. How would you rate your confidence in the American economy? (High/Ambivalent/Low)
4. How much of an effect do you feel the Department of Homeland Security will have in protecting our
borders? (Strong effect/Little effect/No effect at all)
5. Of the following choices, who do you feel is the most to blame for the current recession?
(Congress/the previous presidents administration/the current administration/None of the above)
6. How important do you feel the role is of family in shaping American society today? (not
important/somewhat important/important/very important/ extremely important)
7. How would you best classify your feelings on having a female candidate for president? (strongly
support/support/oppose/strongly oppose)
8. How would you best classify your feelings on having a minority candidate for president? (strongly
support/support/oppose/strongly oppose)
9. How justified do you feel America is in the quest to create an “umbrella” missile defense system to
shield against Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles? (Strongly
justified/justified/ambivalent/unjustified/strongly unjustified)
10. How important do you feel the role is of religion in shaping American society today? (not
important/somewhat important/important/very important/ extremely important)
11. How would you rate your confidence in the world economy? (High/Ambivalent/Low)
12. Which of the following best reflects your attitude towards the American government’s handling of
terrorists? (Strongly approve/Approve/Ambivalent/ Disapprove/Strongly disapprove)
13. Which of the following statements best reflects your attitude about the Electoral College? (it should
be abolished/it should be reformed/it should be left alone)
14. Which of the following statements best reflects your attitude toward abortion? (I am pro-life/I am
pro-life with some exceptions/I am pro-choice with some exceptions/I am pro-choice)
15. Which of the following best reflects your attitude toward affirmative action programs in the United
States? (strongly support/support/ambivalent/oppose/ strongly oppose)
16. How much would you support a raise in the national income tax to strengthen our military? (strongly
support/support/ambivalent/oppose/strongly oppose)
17. How much would you support a raise in the national income tax to strengthen the Social Security
program? (strongly support/support/ambivalent/oppose/ strongly oppose)
18. Which of the following best reflects your views towards expanding gay and lesbian rights? (strongly
agree/agree/ambivalent/disagree/strongly disagree)
19. Which of the following best reflects your views on increasing the military presence on our borders
with neighboring nations? (strongly agree/agree/ ambivalent/disagree/strongly disagree)
20. Which of the following best describes your self-professed political affiliation?
(Democrat/Republican/Libertarian/Green/Independent/No affiliation)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Name the two senators from the state of California.
In what document would you find the phrase “all men are created equal”?
How many United States senators are there?
If the president and the vice-president were to die at the same time, who would become president,
according to the Constitution?
5. In your opinion, what is the most serious problem facing America today?
Public Opinion Poll EXAMPLE
QUESTION 1
Which of the following best reflects your attitude towards the job the President has done thus far?
AGE
Strong
Approve
8%
0-19 years
20-54 years
55 and over
Disapprove
15%
Approve
50%
Ambiv.
22%
ETHNICITY
White
Strong
Disappr
ove 5%
Black
Asian and Amer-Indian
GENDER
Male
Female
Creating Charts
1.
Open Excel
2.
Type in data as shown in
example:
3.
Select data from worksheet that
you want to include in your chart
4. Click on Chart Wizard
5. Select type of graph
6. Final Product
Chapter 5 Study Questions
Public Opinion
1. What was the Founders’ attitude towards public opinion? Give examples of how we see that attitude reflected
in how they wrote the Constitution.
2. Identify three problems in assessing public opinion.
3. The book gives four factors that affect political attitudes. Identify those four factors and summarize the
conclusions about how those factors affect people’s political attitudes. Memorize this list.
4. The book gives three factors that divide people’s political beliefs. Identify those three factors and summarize
the conclusions about the correlation between these factors and people’s political opinions. Memorize this.
5. What were the meanings of the words “liberal” and “conservative” in the 19th century and how did these
meanings change in the 20th century?
6. Summarize the four ideological labels the authors describe on pp. 121-22. Feel free to use a chart or bullet
points for your summary.
7. What are the two reasons the book gives why activists or the political elite tend to have more ideological
consistency than those who aren’t active? What effect does this ideological consistency have on the difference
ideologically between politicians and voters?
8. What does the term “new class” mean? What political ideology to those in the “new class” ascribe to? Why?
9. How do elites influence public opinion? What are the limits to their ability to shape public opinion?
10. If David Brooks was to represent the average voter who votes “Blue” what are his initial impressions of a
typical “Red” voter?
11. According to Brooks, what causes the ideological divide between “Blue” and “Red” voters in the United States?
Do you think his opinions are accurate? Explain your viewpoint.
Conservative
Gender gap
John Q. Public
Liberal
Libertarians
Middle America
Norm
Political elite
Terms
Political ideology
Poll
Populists
Random sample
Religious tradition
Sampling error
Silent majority
Social status
ONE NATION, SLIGHTLY DIVISIBLE
The electoral map of the 2000 presidential race became famous: big blocks of red (denoting states that went for
Bush) stretched across the heartland, with brackets of blue (denoting states for Gore) along the coasts. Our Blue
America correspondent has ventured repeatedly into Red territory. He asks the question—after September 11, a
pressing one—Do our differences effectively split us into two nations, or are they just cracks in a still-united
whole?
BY
D AVID B ROOKS
Sixty-five miles from where I am writing this sentence is a place with no Starbucks, no Pottery Barn, no
Borders or Barnes & Noble. No blue New York Times delivery bags dot the driveways on Sunday mornings.
In this place people don't complain that Woody Allen isn't as funny as he used to be, because they never
thought he was funny. In this place you can go to a year's worth of dinner parties without hearing anyone
quote an aperçu he first heard on Charlie Rose. The people here don't buy those little rear-window stickers
when they go to a summer-vacation spot so that they can drive around with "MV" decals the rest of the year;
for the most part they don't even go to Martha's Vineyard.
The place I'm talking about goes by different names. Some call it America. Others call it Middle America. It
has also come to be known as Red America, in reference to the maps that were produced on the night of the
2000 presidential election. People in Blue America, which is my part of America, tend to live around big
cities on the coasts. People in Red America tend to live on farms or in small towns or small cities far away
from the coasts. Things are different there.
Everything that people in my neighborhood do without motors, the people in Red America do with motors.
We sail; they powerboat. We cross-country ski; they snowmobile. We hike; they drive ATVs. We have
vineyard tours; they have tractor pulls. When it comes to yard work, they have rider mowers; we have illegal
aliens.
Different sorts of institutions dominate life in these two places. In Red America churches are everywhere. In
Blue America Thai restaurants are everywhere. In Red America they have QVC, the Pro Bowlers Tour, and
hunting. In Blue America we have NPR, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and socially conscious investing. In Red
America the Wal-Marts are massive, with parking lots the size of state parks. In Blue America the stores are
small but the markups are big. You'll rarely see a Christmas store in Blue America, but in Red America, even
in July, you'll come upon stores selling fake Christmas trees, wreath-decorated napkins, Rudolph the RedNosed Reindeer collectible thimbles and spoons, and little snow-covered villages.
We in the coastal metro Blue areas read more books and attend more plays than the people in the Red
heartland. We're more sophisticated and cosmopolitan—just ask us about our alumni trips to China or
Provence, or our interest in Buddhism. But don't ask us, please, what life in Red America is like. We don't
know. We don't know who Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins are, even though the novels they have co-written
have sold about 40 million copies over the past few years. We don't know what James Dobson says on his
radio program, which is listened to by millions. We don't know about Reba or Travis. We don't know what
happens in mega-churches on Wednesday evenings, and some of us couldn't tell you the difference between a
fundamentalist and an evangelical, let alone describe what it means to be a Pentecostal. Very few of us know
what goes on in Branson, Missouri, even though it has seven million visitors a year, or could name even five
NASCAR drivers, although stock-car races are the best-attended sporting events in the country. We don't
know how to shoot or clean a rifle. We can't tell a military officer's rank by looking at his insignia. We don't
know what soy beans look like when they're growing in a field.
All we know, or all we think we know, about Red America is that millions and millions of its people live
quietly underneath flight patterns, many of them are racist and homophobic, and when you see them at
highway rest stops, they're often really fat and their clothes are too tight.
And apparently we don't want to know any more than that. One can barely find any books at Amazon.com
about what it is like to live in small-town America—or, at least, any books written by normal people who
grew up in small towns, liked them, and stayed there. The few books that do exist were written either by
people who left the heartland because they hated it (Bill Bryson's The Lost Continent, for example) or by
urbanites who moved to Red America as part of some life-simplification plan (Moving to a Small Town: A
Guidebook for Moving from Urban to Rural America; National Geographic's Guide to Small Town Escapes).
Apparently no publishers or members of the Blue book-buying public are curious about Red America as seen
through Red America's eyes.
CROSSING THE MEATLOAF LINE
Over the past several months, my interest piqued by those stark blocks of color on the election-night maps, I
have every now and then left my home in Montgomery County, Maryland, and driven sixty-five miles
northwest to Franklin County, in south-central Pennsylvania. Montgomery County is one of the steaming-hot
centers of the great espresso machine that is Blue America. It is just over the border from northwestern
Washington, D.C., and it is full of upper-middle-class towns inhabited by lawyers, doctors, stockbrokers, and
establishment journalists like me—towns like Chevy Chase, Potomac, and Bethesda (where I live). Its central
artery is a burgeoning high-tech corridor with a multitude of sparkling new office parks housing technology
companies such as United Information Systems and Sybase, and pioneering biotech firms such as Celera
Genomics and Human Genome Sciences. When I drive to Franklin County, I take Route 270. After about
forty-five minutes I pass a Cracker Barrel—Red America condensed into chain-restaurant form. I've crossed
the Meatloaf Line; from here on there will be a lot fewer sun-dried-tomato concoctions on restaurant menus
and a lot more meatloaf platters.
Franklin County is Red America. It's a rural county, about twenty-five miles west of Gettysburg, and it
includes the towns of Waynesboro, Chambersburg, and Mercersburg. It was originally settled by the ScotchIrish, and has plenty of Brethren and Mennonites along with a fast-growing population of evangelicals. The
joke that Pennsylvanians tell about their state is that it has Philadelphia on one end, Pittsburgh on the other,
and Alabama in the middle. Franklin County is in the Alabama part. It strikes me as I drive there that even
though I am going north across the Mason-Dixon line, I feel as if I were going south. The local culture owes
more to Nashville, Houston, and Daytona than to Washington, Philadelphia, or New York.
I shuttled back and forth between Franklin and Montgomery Counties because the cultural differences
between the two places are great, though the geographic distance is small. The two places are not perfect
microcosms of Red and Blue America. The part of Montgomery County I am here describing is largely the
Caucasian part. Moreover, Franklin County is in a Red part of a Blue state: overall, Pennsylvania went for
Gore. And I went to Franklin County aware that there are tremendous differences within Red America, just as
there are within Blue. Franklin County is quite different from, say, Scottsdale, Arizona, just as Bethesda is
quite different from Oakland, California.
Nonetheless, the contrasts between the two counties leap out, and they are broadly suggestive of the sorts of
contrasts that can be seen nationwide. When Blue America talks about social changes that convulsed society,
it tends to mean the 1960s rise of the counterculture and feminism. When Red America talks about changes
that convulsed society, it tends to mean World War II, which shook up old town establishments and led to a
great surge of industry.
Red America makes social distinctions that Blue America doesn't. For example, in Franklin County there
seems to be a distinction between those fiercely independent people who live in the hills and people who live
in the valleys. I got a hint of the distinct and, to me, exotic hill culture when a hill dweller asked me why I
thought hunting for squirrel and rabbit had gone out of fashion. I thought maybe it was just more fun to hunt
something bigger. But he said, "McDonald's. It's cheaper to get a hamburger at McDonald's than to go out and
get it yourself."
There also seems to be an important distinction between men who work outdoors and men who work indoors.
The outdoor guys wear faded black T-shirts they once picked up at a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert and wrecked
jeans that appear to be washed faithfully at least once a year. They've got wraparound NASCAR sunglasses,
maybe a NAPA auto parts cap, and hair cut in a short wedge up front but flowing down over their shoulders in
the back—a cut that is known as a mullet, which is sort of a cross between Van Halen's style and Kenny
Rogers's, and is the ugliest hairdo since every hairdo in the seventies. The outdoor guys are heavily
accessorized, and their accessories are meant to show how hard they work, so they will often have a gigantic
wad of keys hanging from a belt loop, a tape measure strapped to the belt, a pocket knife on a string tucked
into the front pants pocket, and a pager or a cell phone affixed to the hip, presumably in case some power
lines go down somewhere and need emergency repair. Outdoor guys have a thing against sleeves. They work
so hard that they've got to keep their arm muscles unencumbered and their armpit hair fully ventilated, so they
either buy their shirts sleeveless or rip the sleeves off their T-shirts first thing, leaving bits of fringe hanging
over their BAD TO THE BONE tattoos.
The guys who work indoors can't project this rugged proletarian image. It's simply not that romantic to be a
bank-loan officer or a shift manager at the local distribution center. So the indoor guys adopt a look that a
smart-ass, sneering Blue American might call Bible-academy casual—maybe Haggar slacks, which they
bought at a dry-goods store best known for its appliance department, and a short-sleeved white Van Heusen
shirt from the Bon-Ton. Their image projects not "I work hard" but "I'm a devoted family man." A lot of
indoor guys have a sensitive New Age demeanor. When they talk about the days their kids were born, their
eyes take on a soft Garth Brooks expression, and they tear up. They exaggerate how sinful they were before
they were born again. On Saturdays they are patio masters, barbecuing on their gas grills in full Father's Dayapron regalia.
At first I thought the indoor guys were the faithful, reliable ones: the ones who did well in school, whereas the
outdoor guys were druggies. But after talking with several preachers in Franklin County, I learned that it's not
that simple. Sometimes the guys who look like bikers are the most devoted community-service volunteers and
church attendees.
The kinds of distinctions we make in Blue America are different. In my world the easiest way to categorize
people is by headroom needs. People who went to business school or law school like a lot of headroom. They
buy humongous sport-utility vehicles that practically have cathedral ceilings over the front seats. They live in
homes the size of country clubs, with soaring entry atriums so high that they could practically fly a kite when
they come through the front door. These big-headroom people tend to be predators: their jobs have them
negotiating and competing all day. They spend small fortunes on dry cleaning. They grow animated when
talking about how much they love their blackberries. They fill their enormous wall space with huge
professional family portraits—Mom and Dad with their perfect kids (dressed in light-blue oxford shirts)
laughing happily in an orchard somewhere.
Small-headroom people tend to have been liberal-arts majors, and they have liberal-arts jobs. They get
passive-aggressive pleasure from demonstrating how modest and environmentally sensitive their living
containers are. They hate people with SUVs, and feel virtuous driving around in their low-ceilinged little
Hondas, which often display a RANDOM ACTS OF KINDNESS bumper sticker or one bearing an image of
a fish with legs, along with the word "Darwin," just to show how intellectually superior to fundamentalist
Christians they are.
Some of the biggest differences between Red and Blue America show up on statistical tables. Ethnic diversity
is one. In Montgomery County 60 percent of the population is white, 15 percent is black, 12 percent is
Hispanic, and 11 percent is Asian. In Franklin County 95 percent of the population is white. White people
work the gas-station pumps and the 7-Eleven counters. (This is something one doesn't often see in my part of
the country.) Although the nation is growing more diverse, it's doing so only in certain spots. According to an
analysis of the 2000 census by Bill Frey, a demographer at the Milken Institute, well over half the counties in
America are still at least 85 percent white.
Another big thing is that, according to 1990 census data, in Franklin County only 12 percent of the adults have
college degrees and only 69 percent have high school diplomas. In Montgomery County 50 percent of the
adults have college degrees and 91 percent have high school diplomas. The education gap extends to the
children. At Walt Whitman High School, a public school in Bethesda, the average SAT scores are 601 verbal
and 622 math, whereas the national average is 506 verbal and 514 math. In Franklin County, where people are
quite proud of their schools, the average SAT scores at, for example, the Waynesboro area high school are
495 verbal and 480 math. More and more kids in Franklin County are going on to college, but it is hard to
believe that their prospects will be as bright as those of the kids in Montgomery County and the rest of
upscale Blue America.
Because the information age rewards education with money, it's not surprising that Montgomery County is
much richer than Franklin County. According to some estimates, in Montgomery County 51 percent of
households have annual incomes above $75,000, and the average household income is $100,365. In Franklin
County only 16 percent of households have incomes above $75,000, and the average is $51,872.
A major employer in Montgomery County is the National Institutes of Health, which grows like a scientific
boomtown in Bethesda. A major economic engine in Franklin County is the interstate highway Route 81.
Trucking companies have gotten sick of fighting the congestion on Route 95, which runs up the Blue corridor
along the northeast coast, so they move their stuff along 81, farther inland. Several new distribution centers
have been built along 81 in Franklin County, and some of the workers who were laid off when their factories
closed, several years ago, are now settling for $8.00 or $9.00 an hour loading boxes.
The two counties vote differently, of course—the differences, on a nationwide scale, were what led to those
red-and-blue maps. Like upscale areas everywhere, from Silicon Valley to Chicago's North Shore to suburban
Connecticut, Montgomery County supported the Democratic ticket in last year's presidential election, by a
margin of 63 percent to 34 percent. Meanwhile, like almost all of rural America, Franklin County went
Republican, by 67 percent to 30 percent.
However, other voting patterns sometimes obscure the Red-Blue cultural divide. For example, minority voters
all over the country overwhelmingly supported the Democratic ticket last November. But—in many respects,
at least—blacks and Hispanics in Red America are more traditionalist than blacks and Hispanics in Blue
America, just as their white counterparts are. For example, the Pew Research Center for the People and the
Press, in Washington, D.C., recently found that 45 percent of minority members in Red states agree with the
statement "AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behavior," but only 31 percent of minority
members in Blue states do. Similarly, 40 percent of minorities in Red states believe that school boards should
have the right to fire homosexual teachers, but only 21 percent of minorities in Blue states do.
FROM CRACKS TO A CHASM?
These differences are so many and so stark that they lead to some pretty troubling questions: Are Americans
any longer a common people? Do we have one national conversation and one national culture? Are we loyal
to the same institutions and the same values? How do people on one side of the divide regard those on the
other?
I went to Franklin County because I wanted to get a sense of how deep the divide really is, to see how people
there live, and to gauge how different their lives are from those in my part of America. I spoke with ministers,
journalists, teachers, community leaders, and pretty much anyone I ran across. I consulted with pollsters,
demographers, and market-research firms.
Toward the end of my project the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked. This put a new slant
on my little investigation. In the days immediately following September 11 the evidence seemed clear that
despite our differences, we are still a united people. American flags flew everywhere in Franklin County and
in Montgomery County. Patriotism surged. Pollsters started to measure Americans' reactions to the events.
Whatever questions they asked, the replies were near unanimous. Do you support a military response against
terror? More than four fifths of Americans said yes. Do you support a military response even if it means
thousands of U.S. casualties? More than three fifths said yes. There were no significant variations across
geographic or demographic lines.
A sweeping feeling of solidarity was noticeable in every neighborhood, school, and workplace. Headlines
blared, "A NATION UNITED" and "UNITED STATE." An attack had been made on the very epicenter of
Blue America—downtown Manhattan. And in a flash all the jokes about and seeming hostility toward New
Yorkers vanished, to be replaced by an outpouring of respect, support, and love. The old hostility came to
seem merely a sort of sibling rivalry, which means nothing when the family itself is under threat.
But very soon there were hints that the solidarity was fraying. A few stray notes of dissent were sounded in
the organs of Blue America. Susan Sontag wrote a sour piece in The New Yorker about how depressing it was
to see what she considered to be a simplistically pro-American reaction to the attacks. At rallies on college
campuses across the country speakers pointed out that America had been bombing other countries for years,
and turnabout was fair play. On one NPR talk show I heard numerous callers express unease about what they
saw as a crude us-versus-them mentality behind President Bush's rhetoric. Katha Pollitt wrote in The Nation
that she would not permit her daughter to hang the American flag from the living-room window, because, she
felt, it "stands for jingoism and vengeance and war." And there was evidence that among those with lessstrident voices, too, differences were beginning to show. Polls revealed that people without a college
education were far more confident than people with a college education that the military could defeat the
terrorists. People in the South were far more eager than people in the rest of the country for an American
counterattack to begin.
It started to seem likely that these cracks would widen once the American response got under way, when the
focus would be not on firemen and rescue workers but on the Marines, the CIA, and the special-operations
forces. If the war was protracted, the cracks could widen into a chasm, as they did during Vietnam. Red
America, the home of patriotism and military service (there's a big military-recruitment center in downtown
Chambersburg), would undoubtedly support the war effort, but would Blue America (there's a big gourmet
dog bakery in downtown Bethesda) decide that a crude military response would only deepen animosities and
make things worse?
So toward the end of my project I investigated Franklin County with a heightened sense of gravity and with
much more urgency. If America was not firmly united in the early days of the conflict, we would certainly not
be united later, when the going got tough.
"THE PEOPLE VERSUS THE POWERFUL"
There are a couple of long-standing theories about why America is divided. One of the main ones holds that
the division is along class lines, between the haves and the have-nots. This theory is popular chiefly on the
left, and can be found in the pages of The American Prospect and other liberal magazines; in news reports by
liberal journalists such as Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, of Time; and in books such as Middle Class
Dreams (1995), by the Clinton and Gore pollster Stanley Greenberg, and America's Forgotten Majority: Why
the White Working Class Still Matters (2000), by the demographer Ruy Teixeira and the social scientist Joel
Rogers.
According to this theory, during most of the twentieth century gaps in income between the rich and the poor
in America gradually shrank. Then came the information age. The rich started getting spectacularly richer, the
poor started getting poorer, and wages for the middle class stagnated, at best. Over the previous decade, these
writers emphasized, remuneration for top-level executives had skyrocketed: now the average CEO made 116
times as much as the average rank-and-file worker. Assembly-line workers found themselves competing for
jobs against Third World workers who earned less than a dollar an hour. Those who had once labored at wellpaying blue-collar jobs were forced to settle for poorly paying service-economy jobs without benefits.
People with graduate degrees have done well over the past couple of decades: their real hourly wages climbed
by 13 percent from 1979 to 1997, according to Teixeira and Rogers. But those with only some college
education saw their wages fall by nine percent, while those with only high school diplomas saw their wages
fall by 12 percent, and high school dropouts saw a stunning 26 percent decline in their pay.
Such trends have created a new working class, these writers argue—not a traditional factory-and-mill working
class but a suburban and small-town working class, made up largely of service workers and low-level whitecollar employees. Teixeira and Rogers estimate that the average household income for this group, which
accounts for about 55 percent of American adults, is roughly $42,000. "It is not hard to imagine how [recent
economic trends] must have felt to the forgotten majority man," they write.
As at least part of America was becoming ever more affluent, an affluence that was well covered on television
and in the evening news, he did not seem to be making much progress. What could he be doing wrong to be
faring so poorly? Why couldn't he afford what others could? And why were they moving ahead while he was
standing still?
Stanley Greenberg tailored Al Gore's presidential campaign to appeal to such voters. Gore's most significant
slogan was "The People Versus the Powerful," which was meant to rally members of the middle class who felt
threatened by "powerful forces" beyond their control, such as HMOs, tobacco companies, big corporations,
and globalization, and to channel their resentment against the upper class. Gore dressed down throughout his
campaign in the hope that these middle-class workers would identify with him.
Driving from Bethesda to Franklin County, one can see that the theory of a divide between the classes has a
certain plausibility. In Montgomery County we have Saks Fifth Avenue, Cartier, Anthropologie, Brooks
Brothers. In Franklin County they have Dollar General and Value City, along with a plethora of secondhand
stores. It's as if Franklin County has only forty-five coffee tables, which are sold again and again.
When the locals are asked about their economy, they tell a story very similar to the one that Greenberg,
Teixeira, Rogers, and the rest of the wage-stagnation liberals recount. There used to be plenty of good factory
jobs in Franklin County, and people could work at those factories for life. But some of the businesses,
including the textile company J. Schoeneman, once Franklin County's largest manufacturer, have closed.
Others have moved offshore. The remaining manufacturers, such as Grove Worldwide and JLG Industries,
which both make cranes and aerial platforms, have laid off workers. The local Army depot, Letterkenny, has
radically shrunk its work force. The new jobs are in distribution centers or nursing homes. People tend to
repeat the same phrase: "We've taken some hits."
And yet when they are asked about the broader theory, whether there is class conflict between the educated
affluents and the stagnant middles, they stare blankly as if suddenly the interview were being conducted in
Aramaic. I kept asking, Do you feel that the highly educated people around, say, New York and Washington
are getting all the goodies? Do you think there is resentment toward all the latte sippers who shop at Nieman
Marcus? Do you see a gulf between high-income people in the big cities and middle-income people here? I
got only polite, fumbling answers as people tried to figure out what the hell I was talking about.
When I rephrased the question in more-general terms, as Do you believe the country is divided between the
haves and the have-nots?, everyone responded decisively: yes. But as the conversation continued, it became
clear that the people saying yes did not consider themselves to be among the have-nots. Even people with
incomes well below the median thought of themselves as haves.
What I found was entirely consistent with the election returns from November of last year. Gore's pitch failed
miserably among the voters it was intended to target: nationally he lost among non-college-educated white
voters by 17 points and among non-college-educated white men by 29 points. But it worked beautifully on the
affluent, educated class: for example, Gore won among women with graduate degrees by 22 points. The
lesson seems to be that if you run a campaign under the slogan "The People Versus the Powerful," you will
not do well in the places where "the people" live, but you will do fantastically well in the places where "the
powerful" live. This phenomenon mirrors, on a larger scale, one I noted a couple of years ago, when I traveled
the country for a year talking about Bobos in Paradise, a book I had written on upscale America. The richer
the community, the more likely I was to be asked about wage inequality. In middle-class communities the
subject almost never came up.
Hanging around Franklin County, one begins to understand some of the reasons that people there don't spend
much time worrying about economic class lines. The first and most obvious one is that although the incomes
in Franklin County are lower than those in Montgomery County, living expenses are also lower—very much
so. Driving from Montgomery County to Franklin County is like driving through an invisible deflation
machine. Gas is thirty, forty, or even fifty cents a gallon cheaper in Franklin County. I parked at meters that
accepted only pennies and nickels. When I got a parking ticket in Chambersburg, the fine was $3.00. At the
department store in Greencastle there were racks and racks of blouses for $9.99.
The biggest difference is in real-estate prices. In Franklin County one can buy a nice four-bedroom split-level
house with about 2,200 square feet of living space for $150,000 to $180,000. In Bethesda that same house
would cost about $450,000. (According to the Coldwell Banker Real Estate Corporation, that house would
sell for $784,000 in Greenwich, Connecticut; for $812,000 in Manhattan Beach, California; and for about
$1.23 million in Palo Alto, California.)
Some of the people I met in Franklin County were just getting by. Some were in debt and couldn't afford to
buy their kids the Christmas presents they wanted to. But I didn't find many who assessed their own place in
society according to their income. Rather, the people I met commonly told me that although those in affluent
places like Manhattan and Bethesda might make more money and have more-exciting jobs, they are the
unlucky ones, because they don't get to live in Franklin County. They don't get to enjoy the beautiful green
hillsides, the friendly people, the wonderful church groups and volunteer organizations. They may be nice
people and all, but they are certainly not as happy as we are.
Another thing I found is that most people don't think sociologically. They don't compare themselves with
faraway millionaires who appear on their TV screens. They compare themselves with their neighbors. "One of
the challenges we face is that it is hard to get people to look beyond the four-state region," Lynne Woehrle, a
sociologist at Wilson College, in Chambersburg, told me, referring to the cultural zone composed of the
nearby rural areas in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, and Virginia. Many of the people in Franklin
County view the lifestyles of the upper class in California or Seattle much the way we in Blue America might
view the lifestyle of someone in Eritrea or Mongolia—or, for that matter, Butte, Montana. Such ways of life
are distant and basically irrelevant, except as a source of academic interest or titillation. One man in
Mercersburg, Pennsylvania, told me about a friend who had recently bought a car. "He paid twenty-five
thousand dollars for that car!" he exclaimed, his eyes wide with amazement. "He got it fully loaded." I didn't
tell him that in Bethesda almost no one but a college kid pays as little as $25,000 for a car.
Franklin County is a world in which there is little obvious inequality, and the standard of living is reasonably
comfortable. Youth-soccer teams are able to raise money for a summer trip to England; the Lowe's hardware
superstore carries Laura Ashley carpets; many people have pools, although they are almost always above
ground; the planning commission has to cope with an increasing number of cars in the county every year,
even though the population is growing only gradually. But the sort of high-end experiences that are
everywhere in Montgomery County are entirely missing here.
On my journeys to Franklin County, I set a goal: I was going to spend $20 on a restaurant meal. But although
I ordered the most expensive thing on the menu—steak au jus, "slippery beef pot pie," or whatever—I always
failed. I began asking people to direct me to the most-expensive places in town. They would send me to Red
Lobster or Applebee's. I'd go into a restaurant that looked from the outside as if it had some pretensions—
maybe a "Les Desserts" glass cooler for the key-lime pie and the tapioca pudding. I'd scan the menu and
realize that I'd been beaten once again. I went through great vats of chipped beef and "seafood delight" trying
to drop twenty dollars. I waded through enough surf-and-turfs and enough creamed corn to last a lifetime. I
could not do it.
No wonder people in Franklin County have no class resentment or class consciousness; where they live, they
can afford just about anything that is for sale. (In Montgomery County, however—and this is one of the most
striking contrasts between the two counties—almost nobody can say that. In Blue America, unless you are
very, very rich, there is always, all around you, stuff for sale that you cannot afford.) And if they sought to
improve their situation, they would look only to themselves. If a person wants to make more money, the
feeling goes, he or she had better work hard and think like an entrepreneur.
I could barely get fifteen minutes into an interview before the local work ethic came up. Karen Jewell, who
helps to oversee the continuing-education program for the local Penn State branch campus, told me, "People
are very vested in what they do. There's an awareness of where they fit in the organization. They feel
empowered to be agents of change."
People do work extremely hard in Franklin County—even people in supposedly dead-end jobs. You can see it
in little things, such as drugstore shelves. The drugstores in Bethesda look the way Rome must have looked
after a visit from the Visigoths. But in Franklin County the boxes are in perfect little rows. Shelves are fully
stocked, and cans are evenly spaced. The floors are less dusty than those in a microchip-processing plant. The
nail clippers on a rack by the cash register are arranged with a precision that would put the Swiss to shame.
There are few unions in Franklin County. People abhor the thought of depending on welfare; they consider
themselves masters of their own economic fate. "People are really into the free market here," Bill Pukmel,
formerly the editor of the weekly paper in Chambersburg, told me.
In sum, I found absolutely no evidence that a Stanley Greenberg-prompted Democratic Party (or a Pat
Buchanan-led Republican Party) could mobilize white middle-class Americans on the basis of class
consciousness. I found no evidence that economic differences explain much of anything about the divide
between Red and Blue America.
Ted Hale, a Presbyterian minister in the western part of the county, spoke of the matter this way: "There's
nowhere near as much resentment as you would expect. People have come to understand that they will
struggle financially. It's part of their identity. But the economy is not their god. That's the thing some others
don't understand. People value a sense of community far more than they do their portfolio." Hale, who worked
at a church in East Hampton, New York, before coming to Franklin County, said that he saw a lot more
economic resentment in New York.
Hale's observations are supported by nationwide polling data. Pew has conducted a broad survey of the
differences between Red and Blue states. The survey found that views on economic issues do not explain the
different voting habits in the two regions. There simply isn't much of the sort of economic dissatisfaction that
could drive a class-based political movement. Eighty-five percent of Americans with an annual household
income between $30,000 and $50,000 are satisfied with their housing. Nearly 70 percent are satisfied with the
kind of car they can afford. Roughly two thirds are satisfied with their furniture and their ability to afford a
night out. These levels of satisfaction are not very different from those found in upper-middle-class America.
The Pew researchers found this sort of trend in question after question. Part of the draft of their report is titled
"Economic Divide Dissolves."
A LOT OF RELIGION BUT FEW CRUSADERS
This leaves us with the second major hypothesis about the nature of the divide between Red and Blue
America, which comes mainly from conservatives: America is divided between two moral systems. Red
America is traditional, religious, self-disciplined, and patriotic. Blue America is modern, secular, selfexpressive, and discomfited by blatant displays of patriotism. Proponents of this hypothesis in its most radical
form contend that America is in the midst of a culture war, with two opposing armies fighting on behalf of
their views. The historian Gertrude Himmelfarb offered a more moderate picture in One Nation, Two Cultures
(1999), in which she argued that although America is not fatally split, it is deeply divided, between a heartland
conservative population that adheres to a strict morality and a liberal population that lives by a loose one. The
political journalist Michael Barone put it this way in a recent essay in National Journal: "The two Americas
apparent in the 48 percent to 48 percent 2000 election are two nations of different faiths. One is observant,
tradition-minded, moralistic. The other is unobservant, liberation-minded, relativistic."
The values-divide school has a fair bit of statistical evidence on its side. Whereas income is a poor predictor
of voting patterns, church attendance—as Barone points out—is a pretty good one. Of those who attend
religious services weekly (42 percent of the electorate), 59 percent voted for Bush, 39 percent for Gore. Of
those who seldom or never attend religious services (another 42 percent), 56 percent voted for Gore, 39
percent for Bush.
The Pew data reveal significant divides on at least a few values issues. Take, for example, the statement "We
will all be called before God on Judgment Day to answer for our sins." In Red states 70 percent of the people
believe that statement. In Blue states only 50 percent do.
One can feel the religiosity in Franklin County after a single day's visit. It's on the bumper stickers:
WARNING: IN CASE OF RAPTURE THIS VEHICLE WILL BE UNMANNED. REAL TRUCKERS
TALK ABOUT JESUS ON CHANNEL 10. It's on the radio. The airwaves are filled not with the usual
mixture of hit tunes but with evangelicals preaching the gospel. The book section of Wal-Mart features titles
such as The Beginner's Guide to Fasting, Deepen Your Conversation with God, and Are We Living in the End
Times? Some general stores carry the "Heroes of the Faith" series, which consists of small biographies of
William Carey, George Müller, and other notable missionaries, ministers, and theologians—notable in Red
America, that is, but largely unknown where I live.
Chambersburg and its vicinity have eighty-five churches and one synagogue. The Bethesda-Chevy Chase
area, which has a vastly greater population, has forty-five churches and five synagogues. Professors at the
local college in Chambersburg have learned not to schedule public lectures on Wednesday nights, because
everybody is at prayer meetings.
Events that are part of daily life in Franklin County are unheard of in most of Blue America. One United
Brethren minister told me that he is asked to talk about morals in the public school as part of the health and
sex-education curriculum, and nobody raises a fuss. A number of schools have a "Bible release program,"
whereby elementary school students are allowed to leave school for an hour a week to attend Bible-study
meetings. At an elementary school in Waynesboro the Gideons used to distribute Bibles to any students who
wanted them. (That ended after the village agnostic threatened to simultaneously distribute a booklet called
God Is Just Pretend.)
There are healing ministries all throughout Franklin County, and even mainstream denominations have
healing teams on hand after Sunday services. As in most places where evangelism is strong, the locals are
fervently pro-Israel. Almost every minister I visited has mementos in his study from visits to Jerusalem. A
few had lived in Israel for extended periods and spoke Hebrew. One delivered a tirade against CNN for its
bias against the Jewish state. One or two pointed out (without quite bragging) that whereas some Jewish
groups had canceled trips to Israel since the upsurge in intifada violence, evangelical groups were still going.
David Rawley, a United Brethren minister in Green castle, spoke for many of the social conservatives I met
when he said that looking at the mainstream Hollywood culture made him feel that he was "walking against
the current." "The tremendous force of culture means we can either float or fight," Rawley said. "Should you
drift or stand on a rock? I tell people there is a rock we can hang on—the word of God. That rock will never
give way. That rock's never going to move." When I asked Rawley what he thought of big-city culture, he
said, "The individual is swallowed up by the largeness of the city. I see a world that doesn't want to take
responsibility for itself. They have the babies but they decide they're not going to be the daddies. I'd really
have to cling to the rock if I lived there."
I met with Rawley at the height of the scandal involving Representative Gary Condit and the missing intern
Chandra Levy. Levy's mother was quoted in The Washington Times as calling herself a "Heinz 57 mutt" when
it came to religion. "All religions tie to similar beliefs," she said. "I believe in spirituality and God. I'm Jewish.
I think we have a wonderful religion. I'm also Christian. I do believe in Jesus, too." The contrast between her
New Age approach to spirituality and Rawley's Red America one could not have been greater.
Life is complicated, however. Yes, there are a lot of churches in Franklin County; there are also a lot of tattoo
parlors. And despite all the churches and bumper stickers, Franklin County doesn't seem much different from
anywhere else. People go to a few local bars to hang out after softball games. Teenagers drive recklessly
along fast-food strips. Young women in halter tops sometimes prowl in the pool halls. The local college has a
gay-and-lesbian group. One conservative clergyman I spoke with estimated that 10 percent of his congregants
are gay. He believes that church is the place where one should be able to leave the controversy surrounding
this sort of issue behind. Another described how his congregation united behind a young man who was dying
of AIDS.
Sex seems to be on people's minds almost as much as it is anywhere else. Conservative evangelical circles
have their own sex manuals (Tim LaHaye wrote one of them before he moved on to the "Left Behind" series),
which appear to have had some effect: according to a 1994 study conducted by researchers at the University
of Chicago, conservative Protestant women have more orgasms than any other group.
Franklin County is probably a bit more wholesome than most suburbs in Blue America. (The notion that
deviance and corruption lie underneath the seeming conformism of suburban middle-class life, popular in
Hollywood and in creative-writing workshops, is largely nonsense.) But it has most of the problems that
afflict other parts of the country: heroin addiction, teen pregnancy, and so on. Nobody I spoke to felt part of a
pristine culture that is exempt from the problems of the big cities. There are even enough spectacular crimes
in Franklin County to make a devoted New York Post reader happy. During one of my visits the front pages of
the local papers were ablaze with the tale of a young woman arrested for assault and homicide after shooting
her way through a Veterans of the Vietnam War post. It was reported that she had intended to rob the post for
money to run away with her lesbian girlfriend.
If the problems are the same as in the rest of America, so are many of the solutions. Franklin County residents
who find themselves in trouble go to their clergy first, but they are often referred to psychologists and
therapists as part of their recovery process. Prozac is a part of life.
Almost nobody I spoke with understood, let alone embraced, the concept of a culture war. Few could see
themselves as fighting such a war, in part because few have any idea where the boundary between the two
sides lies. People in Franklin County may have a clear sense of what constitutes good or evil (many people in
Blue America have trouble with the very concept of evil), but they will say that good and evil are in all
neighborhoods, as they are in all of us. People take the Scriptures seriously but have no interest in imposing
them on others. One finds little crusader zeal in Franklin County. For one thing, people in small towns don't
want to offend people whom they'll be encountering on the street for the next fifty years. Potentially
controversial subjects are often played down. "We would never take a stance on gun control or abortion," Sue
Hadden, the editor of the Waynesboro paper, told me. Whenever I asked what the local view of abortion was,
I got the same response: "We don't talk about it much," or "We try to avoid that subject." Bill Pukmel, the
former Chambersburg newspaper editor, says, "A majority would be opposed to abortion around here, but it
wouldn't be a big majority." It would simply be uncivil to thrust such a raw disagreement in people's faces.
William Harter, a Presbyterian minister in Chambersburg, spans the divide between Red and Blue America.
Harter was raised on a farm near Buffalo. He went to the prestigious Deerfield Academy, in Massachusetts,
before getting a bachelor's degree in history from Williams College, a master's in education from Harvard,
and, after serving for a while in the military, a Ph.D. in Judaism and Christian origins from the Union
Theological Seminary, in Manhattan. He has lived in Chambersburg for the past twenty-four years, and he
says that the range of opinion in Franklin County is much wider than it was in Cambridge or New York.
"We're more authentically pluralistic here," he told me.
I found Harter and the other preachers in Franklin County especially interesting to talk with. That was in part
because the ones I met were fiercely intelligent and extremely well read, but also because I could see them
wrestling with the problem of how to live according to the Scriptures while being inclusive and respectful of
others' freedoms. For example, many of them struggle over whether it is right to marry a couple who are
already living together. This would not be a consideration in most of Blue America.
"Some of the evangelicals won't marry [such couples]," Harter told me. "Others will insist that they live apart
for six months before they'll marry them. But that's not the real world. These couples often don't understand
the theological basis for not living together. Even if you don't condone their situations, you have to start where
they are—help them have loyal marriages."
Divorce is tolerated much more than it used to be. And none of the ministers I spoke with said that they would
condemn a parishioner who was having an affair. They would confront the parishioner, but with the goal of
gently bringing that person back to Jesus Christ. "How could I love that person if I didn't?" Patrick Jones, of
the United Brethren's King Street Church, in Chambersburg, asked. People in Franklin County are
contemptuous of Bill Clinton and his serial infidelities, but they are not necessarily fans of Kenneth Starr—at
least not the Kenneth Starr the media portrayed. They don't like public scolds.
Roger Murray, a Pentecostal minister in Mercersburg, whose father was also a Pentecostal minister,
exemplifies the way in which many church authorities are torn by the sometimes conflicting desires to uphold
authority and respect personal freedom. "My father would preach about what you could do and what you
couldn't do," Murray recalls. "He would preach about smoking, about TV, about ladies who dress
provocatively, against divorce." As a boy, Murray used to go visit his uncle, and he would sit in another room
when his uncle's family watched television. "I was sure they were going to hell," he told me. But now he
would never dream of telling people how to live. For one thing, his congregants wouldn't defer. And he is in
no rush to condemn others. "I don't think preaching against homosexuality is what you should do," he told me.
"A positive message works better."
Like most of the people I met in Franklin County, Murray regards such culture warriors as Jerry Falwell and
Pat Robertson as loose cannons, and televangelists as being far too interested in raising money. "I get pretty
disgusted with Christian TV," he said. And that was before Falwell and Robertson made their notorious
comments about the attacks of September 11 being a judgment from God. When I asked locals about those
remarks, they answered with words like "disgusting," "horrendous," and "horrible." Almost no one in the
county voted for Pat Buchanan; he was simply too contentious.
Certainly Red and Blue America disagree strongly on some issues, such as homosexuality and abortion. But
for the most part the disagreements are not large. For example, the Pew researchers asked Americans to
respond to the statement "There are clear guidelines about what's good or evil that apply to everyone
regardless of their situation." Forty-three percent of people in Blue states and 49 percent of people in Red
states agreed. Forty-seven percent of Blue America and 55 percent of Red America agreed with the statement
"I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage." Seventy percent of the people in Blue states and 77
percent of the people in Red states agreed that "too many children are being raised in day-care centers these
days." These are small gaps. And, the Pew researchers found, there is no culture gap at all among suburban
voters. In a Red state like Arizona suburban voters' opinions are not much different from those in a Blue state
like Connecticut. The starkest differences that exist are between people in cities and people in rural areas,
especially rural areas in the South.
The conservatism I found in Franklin County is not an ideological or a reactionary conservatism. It is a
temperamental conservatism. People place tremendous value on being agreeable, civil, and kind. They are
happy to sit quietly with one another. They are hesitant to stir one another's passions. They appreciate what
they have. They value continuity and revere the past. They work hard to reinforce community bonds. Their
newspapers are filled with items about fundraising drives, car washes, bake sales, penny-collection efforts,
and auxiliary thrift shops. Their streets are lined with lodges: VFW, Rotarians, Elks, Moose. Luncheons go on
everywhere. Retired federal employees will be holding their weekly luncheon at one restaurant, Harley riders
at another. I became fascinated by a group called the Tuscarora Longbeards, a local chapter of something
called the National Wild Turkey Federation. The Longbeards go around to schools distributing Wild About
Turkey Education boxes, which contain posters, lesson plans, and CD-ROMs on turkey preservation.
These are the sorts of things that really mobilize people in Franklin County. Building community and
preserving local ways are far more important to them than any culture war.
THE EGO CURTAIN
The best explanation of the differences between people in Montgomery and Franklin Counties has to do with
sensibility, not class or culture. If I had to describe the differences between the two sensibilities in a single
phrase, it would be conception of the self. In Red America the self is small. People declare in a million ways,
"I am normal. Nobody is better, nobody is worse. I am humble before God." In Blue America the self is more
commonly large. People say in a million ways, "I am special. I have carved out my own unique way of life. I
am independent. I make up my own mind."
In Red America there is very little one-upmanship. Nobody tries to be avant-garde in choosing a wardrobe.
The chocolate-brown suits and baggy denim dresses hanging in local department stores aren't there by
accident; people conspicuously want to be seen as not trying to dress to impress.
For a person in Blue America the blandness in Red America can be a little oppressive. But it's hard not to be
struck by the enormous social pressure not to put on airs. If a Franklin County resident drove up to church one
day in a shiny new Lexus, he would face huge waves of disapproval. If one hired a nanny, people would
wonder who died and made her queen.
In Franklin County people don't go looking for obscure beers to demonstrate their connoisseurship. They wear
T-shirts and caps with big-brand names on them—Coke, McDonald's, Chevrolet. In Bethesda people prefer
cognoscenti brands—the Black Dog restaurant, or the independent bookstore Politics and Prose. In Franklin
County it would be an affront to the egalitarian ethos to put a Princeton sticker on the rear window of one's
car. In Montgomery County some proud parents can barely see through their back windows for all the Ivy
League stickers. People in Franklin County say they felt comfortable voting for Bush, because if he came to
town he wouldn't act superior to anybody else; he could settle into a barber's chair and fit right in. They
couldn't stand Al Gore, because they thought he'd always be trying to awe everyone with his
accomplishments. People in Montgomery County tended to admire Gore's accomplishments. They were leery
of Bush, because for most of his life he seemed not to have achieved anything.
I sometimes think that Franklin County takes its unpretentiousness a little too far. I wouldn't care to live there,
because I'd find it too unchanging. I prefer the subtle and not-so-subtle status climbing on my side of the Ego
Curtain—it's more entertaining. Still, I can't help respecting the genuine modesty of Franklin County people.
It shows up strikingly in data collected by Mediamark Research. In survey after survey, residents of
conservative Red America come across as humbler than residents of liberal Blue America. About half of those
who describe themselves as "very conservative" agree with the statement "I have more ability than most
people," but nearly two thirds of those who describe themselves as "very liberal" agree. Only 53 percent of
conservatives agree with the statement "I consider myself an intellectual," but 75 percent of liberals do. Only
23 percent of conservatives agree with the statement "I must admit that I like to show off," whereas 43 percent
of liberals do.
A CAFETERIA NATION
These differences in sensibility don't in themselves mean that America has become a fundamentally divided
nation. As the sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset pointed out in The First New Nation (1963), achievement
and equality are the two rival themes running throughout American history. Most people, most places, and
most epochs have tried to intertwine them in some way.
Moreover, after bouncing between Montgomery and Franklin Counties, I became convinced that a lot of our
fear that America is split into rival camps arises from mistaken notions of how society is shaped. Some of us
still carry the old Marxist categories in our heads. We think that society is like a layer cake, with the upper
class on top. And, like Marx, we tend to assume that wherever there is class division there is conflict. Or else
we have a sort of Crossfire model in our heads: where would people we meet sit if they were guests on that
show?
But traveling back and forth between the two counties was not like crossing from one rival camp to another. It
was like crossing a high school cafeteria. Remember high school? There were nerds, jocks, punks, bikers,
techies, druggies, God Squadders, drama geeks, poets, and Dungeons & Dragons weirdoes. All these cliques
were part of the same school: they had different sensibilities; sometimes they knew very little about the people
in the other cliques; but the jocks knew there would always be nerds, and the nerds knew there would always
be jocks. That's just the way life is.
And that's the way America is. We are not a divided nation. We are a cafeteria nation. We form cliques (call
them communities, or market segments, or whatever), and when they get too big, we form subcliques. Some
people even get together in churches that are "nondenominational" or in political groups that are
"independent." These are cliques built around the supposed rejection of cliques.
We live our lives by migrating through the many different cliques associated with the activities we enjoy and
the goals we have set for ourselves. Our freedom comes in the interstices; we can choose which set of
standards to live by, and when.
We should remember that there is generally some distance between cliques—a buffer zone that separates one
set of aspirations from another. People who are happy within their cliques feel no great compulsion to go out
and reform other cliques. The jocks don't try to change the nerds. David Rawley, the Greencastle minister who
felt he was clinging to a rock, has been to New York City only once in his life. "I was happy to get back
home," he told me. "It's a planet I'm a little scared of. I have no desire to go back."
What unites the two Americas, then, is our mutual commitment to this way of life—to the idea that a person is
not bound by his class, or by the religion of his fathers, but is free to build a plurality of connections for
himself. We are participants in the same striving process, the same experimental journey.
Never has this been more apparent than in the weeks following the September 11 attacks. Before then
Montgomery County people and Franklin County people gave little thought to one another: an attitude of
benign neglect toward other parts of the country generally prevailed. But the events of that day generated
what one of my lunch mates in Franklin County called a primal response. Our homeland was under attack.
Suddenly there was a positive sense that we Americans are all bound together—a sense that, despite some
little fissures here and there, has endured.
On September 11 people in Franklin County flocked to the institutions that are so strong there—the churches
and the American Legion and the VFW posts. Houses of worship held spontaneous prayer services and large
ecumenical services. In the weeks since, firemen, veterans, and Scouts have held rallies. There have been
blood drives. Just about every service organization in the county—and there are apparently thousands—has
mobilized to raise funds or ship teddy bears. The rescue squad and the Salvation Army branch went to New
York to help.
Early every morning Ted Hale, the Presbyterian minister who once worked in East Hampton, goes to one of
the local restaurants and sits as the regulars cycle through. One of the things that has struck him since the
attacks is how little partisan feeling is left. "I expected to hear a certain amount of Clinton bashing, for
creating the mess in which this could take place," he told me in October. "But there's been absolutely none of
that." Instead Hale has been deluged with questions—about Islam, about why God restrains himself in the
face of evil, about how people could commit such acts.
The area's churches have not been monolithic in their responses. Many of the most conservative churches—
the Mennonites and the Brethren, for example—have pacifist traditions. Bill Harter, in contrast, told his
congregation during a recent sermon that the pacifist course is not the right one. "We must face the fact that
there is a power of evil loose in the universe, which is dedicated to attacking all that is good, all that comes
from God," he said. This evil, Harter continued, has cloaked itself in a perverted form of one of the world's
major faiths. Citing the Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, he reminded his congregants that there is no
sinless way to defend ourselves against this hostile ideology. But defend we must. "We must humbly make
our choice while recognizing that we must constantly turn to God for forgiveness," he told them.
The churches and synagogues in Bethesda, too, have been struggling. Over the Jewish High Holy Days, I
heard of three synagogues in which the sermon was interrupted by a member of the congregation. In one
instance the rabbi had said that it is always impossible to know where good and evil lie. A man rose up
angrily to declare that in this case that sentiment was nonsense.
Most people in my part of Blue America know few who will be called on to fight in the war. In Franklin
County military service is common. Many families have an enlisted son or daughter, and many more have a
relative in the reserves or the National Guard. Franklin County is engaged in an urgent discussion, largely
absent where I live, about how to fill in for the reservists called up for active duty.
Still, there's an attitude of determination in both places. If I had to boil down all the conversations I have had
in Franklin and Montgomery Counties since September 11, the essence would be this: A horrible thing
happened. We're going to deal with it. We're going to restore order. We got through Pearl Harbor. We're going
to get through this. "There is no flaccidity," Harter observed, in words that apply to both communities.
If the September 11 attacks rallied people in both Red and Blue America, they also neutralized the political
and cultural leaders who tend to exploit the differences between the two. Americans are in no mood for a class
struggle or a culture war. The aftermath of the attacks has been a bit like a national Sabbath, taking us out of
our usual pleasures and distractions and reminding us what is really important. Over time the shock will
dissipate. But in important ways the psychological effects will linger, just as the effects of John F. Kennedy's
assassination have lingered. The early evidence still holds: although there are some real differences between
Red and Blue America, there is no fundamental conflict. There may be cracks, but there is no chasm. Rather,
there is a common love for this nation—one nation in the end.
Chapter 6 Study Questions
Political Participation
1. Why does the text claim that the description, analysis, and many of the proposed remedies for low voter turnout
rates in the U.S. are generally off base?
2. Why does the book say that it is incorrect to say that Americans don’t vote as a result of apathy?
3. What did Congress pass to increase voter participation and what has been the result of that law?
4. How did states try to keep blacks from voting? Summarize those tactics and how they gradually were changed.
Make sure you know what a literacy test, poll tax, grandfather clause, and the white primary were.
5. What political effects have there been since the Nineteenth and Twenty-sixth Amendments?
6. Describe the factors that tend to hold down voter turnout in the U.S.
7. Make a list of the generalizations that the book makes (p. 136-7) about which groups tend to be more or less
likely to vote. Memorize this list.
8. Summarize the five reasons the book gives for why Americans register and vote less frequently.
Australian ballot
Grandfather clause
Literacy test
Motor-voter law
Terms
Poll tax
Registered voters
Voting-age population
White primary
Unit III Political Parties, Interest Groups
George Washington is the only president who didn't blame the previous administration for his
troubles. ~Author Unknown
Assignments
Study Guide for Chapter 7 and 8
AP Govt Debate #3
Persuasive Essay
Election Project
Assessments
Unit III Exam Ch 7 & 8- Multiple Choice
Secondary Readings
Jefferson- A Profession of Political Faith
Chapter 7 Study Questions
Political Parties
1. Define the term political party.
2. In what ways are American political parties weak? (This is an extremely important point so be sure that you
understand it and can explain all the reasons. This concept will turn up again and again in this class.) This
would be a good question for writing a detailed answer. As you read through the chapter, any time you see a
mention of weakened parties, add to this list. Then leave room for more notes or plan to add more later since
we’ll be talking about this all unit (and year).
3. Briefly summarize the differences between political parties in the United States and in Europe. You can make a
bullet point chart.
4. Briefly trace the development of the party system through its four periods, and give reasons for why the parties
have been in decline since the New Deal period. Do not go overboard in your notes on the four party systems;
just make sure you’re familiar with the parties and the terms and the chronology. Basically, the important thing
is that you understand the broad pattern in Figure 7.2 on p. 162.
5. Describe the structure of the major political parties, making sure you understand the roles of the national
committees, congressional committees, and the national chairmen.
6. What has been the difference between the two parties in terms of structure and organization?
7. How have changes in how they choose delegates affected the last few Democratic nominating conventions?
Take note of the 1972 McGovern changes (known as the McGovern-Frasier Commission) and the 1981 Hunt
Commission. What were the effects of these changes?
8. What is a political party machine? How has the power of party machines been weakened? What were some of
the positive aspects of party machines?
9. Define and give examples of an ideological party.
10. How does having a personal following reflect a weakened party system?
11. What explanations does the book give for the persistence of the two-party system?
12. Explain why minor parties form, and discuss different kinds of parties.
13. Analyze why third parties are so rarely successful.
14. Describe some of the issue differences between delegates at Democratic and Republican conventions, and
indicate whether there are major differences between the parties. Compare these differences with those between
delegates of each party and average voters.
Terms to Know
caucus
Congressional campaign committee
Critical or realigning periods
Ideological party
Mugwumps or progressives
National chairman
National committee
National convention
Office-bloc ballot
Party column ballot
Personal following
Plurality system
Political machine
Political party
Solidary incentives
Split Tickets
Sponsored party
Straight tickets
Superdelegates
Two party system
Chapter 8 Study Questions
Elections and Campaigns
1. Examine the differences between the party-oriented campaigns of the nineteenth century and the Candidatesoriented campaigns of today, contrasting the major elements of successful campaigns.
2. Discuss the importance of campaign funding to election outcomes.
3. What are the major sources of this funding under current law?
4. How successful has reform legislation been in removing improper monetary influences elections in the U.S.?
5. Define the term realigning election and discuss the major examples of such elections in the past.
6. Describe what Democrats and Republicans each must do to put together a successful coalition to win an
election.
7. Outline the major arguments on the question of whether elections do or do not result in major changes in public
policy in the United States.
8. In A Profession of Political Faith, Thomas Jefferson outlines an early version of a political platform, in essence
what he stood for politically. What were the major political ideas that would have made up Jefferson’s platform
and would they still be valid topics in modern politics?
Terms to Know
Blanket primary
Closed primary
Coattails
General election
Gerrymandering
Incumbent
Independent expenditure
Malapportionment
Open primary
Political action committee (PAC)
Position issue
Presidential primary
Primary election
Prospective voting
Retrospective voting
Runoff primary
Soft money
Sophomore surge
Valence issue
Premise: Congratulations ! Through your hard work and dedication, you’ve achieved success in your private
career, and now you want to spread your talents to the public sector. You’ve decided to run for political
office- specifically Yolo county’s representative to the State Assembly. As a local Assembly person, you will
need to appeal to the widest segment of the population, so you will have to research some controversial issues,
so you can debate intelligently with your political opponents.
Persuasive Essay (50 points)



Your essay must be at least 5 typed pages (12 point font, double spaced) in length.
You should introduce yourself with a brief description of your personality, personal history, and
political history. Why are you the best person for this position?
You must discuss your position of at least 6 of the following issues:
o Education
o Tax Cuts
o Prescription Drug Plans for Senior Citizens
o Gun Control
o Death Penalty
o Abortion
o State of the Armed Forces
o American Intervention in Foreign Countries
o Environment
o Illegal Immigration
o Any other controversial topic you may come across in your research
Where do you stand on each of these issues? What are the strengths and weaknesses of this position?
Why is your position more appropriate than opponent's?

You must also mention what type of person would be your political opposite. Where do they stand on
the issues you researched? What are their strengths and weaknesses? Why are they not the best
candidate for this position?

Within your essay, you must PERSUADE your reader to vote for you. The reader needs to know
WHY you are the one to vote for and WHY other candidates are the wrong person to vote for. You
must be CONVINCING of your arguments.
Campaign Poster (25 points)- Create A Campaign Poster for Yourself- It should have the following
components:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Your Name
For what office you are campaigning
Your Political Slogan
Your Party Affiliation
Position Views
Campaign Speech- You are going to give a one minute introductory campaign speech, explaining your
political positions, and why the people (the class) should vote for you. There will be several speeches in a
row, followed by an open forum debate on the issues that you researched. Each person will have a maximum
of 30 seconds to state their position on each issue, and then it will be opened to group debate.
Jefferson, Thomas
(spelling left in its original form)
A PROFESSION OF POLITICAL FAITH
To Elbridge Gerry
Philadelphia, Jan. 26, 1799
MY DEAR SIR, -- Your favor of Nov. 12 was safely delivered to me by Mr. Binney, but not till Dec. 28, as
I arrived here only three days before that date. It was received with great satisfaction. Our very long intimacy
as fellow-laborers in the same cause, the recent expressions of mutual confidence which had preceded your
mission, the interesting course which that had taken, & particularly & personally as it regarded yourself, made
me anxious to hear from you on your return. I was the more so too, as I had myself during the whole of your
absence, as well as since your return, been a constant butt for every shaft of calumny which malice &
falsehood could form, & the presses, public speakers, or private letters disseminate. One of these, too, was of
a nature to touch yourself; as if, wanting confidence in your efforts, I had been capable of usurping powers
committed to you, & authorizing negotiations private & collateral to yours. The real truth is, that though Dr
Logan, the pretended missionary, about 4. or 5. days before he sailed for Hamburg, told me he was going
there, & thence to Paris, & asked & received from me a certificate of his citizenship, character, &
circumstances of life, merely as a protection, should he be molested on his journey, in the present turbulent &
suspicious state of Europe, yet I had been led to consider his object as relative to his private affairs; and tho',
from an intimacy of some standing, he knew well my wishes for peace and my political sentiments in general,
he nevertheless received then no particular declaration of them, no authority to communicate them to any
mortal, nor to speak to any one in my name, or in anybody's name, on that, or on any other subject whatever;
nor did I write by him a scrip of a pen to any person whatever. This he has himself honestly & publicly
declared since his return; & from his well-known character & every other circumstance, every candid man
must perceive that his enterprise was dictated by his own enthusiasm, without consultation or communication
with any one; that he acted in Paris on his own ground, & made his own way. Yet to give some color to his
proceedings, which might implicate the republicans in general, & myself particularly, they have not been
ashamed to bring forward a suppositious paper, drawn by one of their own party in the name of Logan, and
falsely pretended to have been presented by him to the government of France; counting that the bare mention
of my name therein, would connect that in the eye of the public with this transaction. In confutation of these
and all future calumnies, by way of anticipation, I shall make to you a profession of my political faith; in
confidence that you will consider every future imputation on me of a contrary complexion, as bearing on its
front the mark of falsehood & calumny.
I do then, with sincere zeal, wish an inviolable preservation of our present federal constitution, according to
the true sense in which it was adopted by the States, that in which it was advocated by it's friends, & not that
which it's enemies apprehended, who therefore became it's enemies; and I am opposed to the monarchising it's
features by the forms of it's administration, with a view to conciliate a first transition to a President & Senate
for life, & from that to a hereditary tenure of these offices, & thus to worm out the elective principle. am for
preserving to the States the powers not yielded by them to the Union, & to the legislature of the Union it's
constitutional share in the division of powers; and I am not for transferring all the powers of the States to the
general government, & all those of that government to the Executive branch. I am for a government rigorously
frugal & simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt;
and not for a multiplication of officers & salaries merely to make partisans, & for increasing, by every device,
the public debt, on the principle of it's being a public blessing. I am for relying, for internal defence, on our
militia solely, till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbors from
such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of peace, which may overawe
the public sentiment; nor for a navy, which, by it's own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will
implicate us, will grind us with public burdens, & sink us under them. I am for free commerce with all
nations; political connection with none; & little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking
ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe; entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance,
or joining in the confederacy of kings to war against the principles of liberty. I am for freedom of religion, &
against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another: for freedom of the press, &
against all violations of the constitution to silence by force & not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just
or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents. And I am for encouraging the progress of science
in all it's branches; and not for raising a hue and cry against the sacred name of philosophy; for awing the
human mind by stories of raw-head & bloody bones to a distrust of its own vision, & to repose implicitly on
that of others; to go backwards instead of forwards to look for improvement; to believe that government,
religion, morality, & every other science were in the highest perfection in ages of the darkest ignorance, and
that nothing can ever be devised more perfect than what was established by our forefathers. To these I will
add, that I was a sincere well-wisher to the success of the French revolution, and still wish it may end in the
establishment of a free & well-ordered republic; but I have not been insensible under the atrocious
depredations they have committed on our commerce. The first object of my heart is my own country. In that is
embarked my family, my fortune, & my own existence. I have not one farthing of interest, nor one fibre of
attachment out of it, nor a single motive of preference of any one nation to another, but in proportion as they
are more or less friendly to us. But though deeply feeling the injuries of France, I did not think war the surest
means of redressing them. I did believe, that a mission sincerely disposed to preserve peace, would obtain for
us a peaceable & honorable settlement & retribution; and I appeal to you to say, whether this might not have
been obtained, if either of your colleagues had been of the same sentiment with yourself.
These, my friend, are my principles; they are unquestionably the principles of the great body of our fellow
citizens, and I know there is not one of them which is not yours also. In truth, we never differed but on one
ground, the funding system; and as, from the moment of it's being adopted by the constituted authorities, I
became religiously principled in the sacred discharge of it to the uttermost farthing, we are united now even
on that single ground of difference.
I turn now to your inquiries. The enclosed paper will answer one of them. But you also ask for such political
information as may be possessed by me, & interesting to yourself in regard to your embassy. As a proof of my
entire confidence in you, I shall give it fully & candidly. When Pinckney, Marshall, and Dana, were
nominated to settle our differences with France, it was suspected by many, from what was understood of their
dispositions, that their mission would not result in a settlement of differences, but would produce
circumstances tending to widen the breach, and to provoke our citizens to consent to a war with that nation, &
union with England. Dana's resignation & your appointment gave the first gleam of hope of a peaceable issue
to the mission. For it was believed that you were sincerely disposed to accommodation; & it was not long
after your arrival there, before symptoms were observed of that difference of views which had been suspected
to exist. In the meantime, however, the aspect of our government towards the French republic had become so
ardent, that the people of America generally took the alarm. To the southward, their apprehensions were early
excited. In the Eastern States also, they at length began to break out. Meetings were held in many of your
towns, & addresses to the government agreed on in opposition to war. The example was spreading like a
wildfire. Other meetings were called in other places, & a general concurrence of sentiment against the
apparent inclinations of the government was imminent; when, most critically for the government, the
despatches of Octr 22, prepared by your colleague Marshall, with a view to their being made public, dropped
into their laps. It was truly a God-send to them, & they made the most of it. Many thousands of copies were
printed & dispersed gratis, at the public expence; & the zealots for war co-operated so heartily, that there were
instances of single individuals who printed & dispersed 10. or 12,000 copies at their own expence. The
odiousness of the corruption supposed in those papers excited a general & high indignation among the people.
Unexperienced in such maneuvres, they did not permit themselves even to suspect that the turpitude of private
swindlers might mingle itself unobserved, & give it's own hue to the communications of the French
government, of whose participation there was neither proof nor probability. It served, however, for a time, the
purpose intended. The people, in many places, gave a loose to the expressions of their warm indignation, & of
their honest preference of war to dishonor. The fever was long & successfully kept up, and in the meantime,
war measures as ardently crowded. Still, however, as it was known that your colleagues were coming away,
and yourself to stay, though disclaiming a separate power to conclude a treaty, it was hoped by the lovers of
peace, that a project of treaty would have been prepared, ad referendum, on principles which would have
satisfied our citizens, & overawed any bias of the government towards a different policy. But the expedition
of the Sophia, and, as was supposed, the suggestions of the person charged with your despatches, & his
probable misrepresentations of the real wishes of the American people, prevented these hopes. They had then
only to look forward to your return for such information, either through the Executive, or from yourself, as
might present to our view the other side of the medal. The despatches of Oct 22, 97, had presented one face.
That information, to a certain degree, is now received, & the public will see from your correspondence with
Taleyrand, that France, as you testify, "was sincere and anxious to obtain a reconciliation, not wishing us to
break the British treaty, but only to give her equivalent stipulations; and in general was disposed to a liberal
treaty." And they will judge whether mr. Pickering's report shews an inflexible determination to believe no
declarations the French government can make, nor any opinion which you, judging on the spot & from actual
view, can give of their sincerity, and to meet their designs of peace with operations of war. The alien &
sedition acts have already operated in the South as powerful sedatives of the X. Y. Z. inflammation. In your
quarter, where violations of principle are either less regarded or more concealed, the direct tax is likely to
have the same effect, & to excite inquiries into the object of the enormous expences & taxes we are bringing
on. And your information supervening, that we might have a liberal accommodation if we would, there can be
little doubt of the reproduction of that general movement, by the despatches of Oct. 22. And tho' small checks
& stops, like Logan's pretended embassy, may be thrown in the way from time to time, & may a little retard
it's motion, yet the tide is already turned, and will sweep before it all the feeble obstacles of art. The
unquestionable republicanism of the American mind will break through the mist under which it has been
clouded, and will oblige it's agents to reform the principles & practices of their administration.
You suppose that you have been abused by both parties. As far as has come to my knowledge, you are
misinformed. I have never seen or heard a sentence of blame uttered against you by the republicans; unless we
were so to construe their wishes that you had more boldly co-operated in a project of a treaty, and would more
explicitly state, whether there was in your colleages that flexibility, which persons earnest after peace would
have practised? Whether, on the contrary, their demeanor was not cold, reserved, and distant, at least, if not
backward? And whether, if they had yielded to those informal conferences which Taleyrand seems to have
courted, the liberal accommodation you suppose might not have been effected, even with their agency? Your
fellow-citizens think they have a right to full information, in a case of such great concern to them. It is their
sweat which is to earn all the expences of the war, and their blood which is to flow in expiation of the causes
of it. It may be in your power to save them from these miseries by full communications and unrestrained
details, postponing motives of delicacy to those of duty. It rests for you to come forward independently; to
take your stand on the high ground of your own character; to disregard calumny, and to be borne above it on
the shoulders of your grateful fellow citizens; or to sink into the humble oblivion, to which the Federalists
(self-called) have secretly condemned you; and even to be happy if they will indulge you with oblivion, while
they have beamed on your colleagues meridian splendor. Pardon me, my dear Sir, if my expressions are
strong. My feelings are so much more so, that it is with difficulty reduce them even to the tone I use. If you
doubt the dispositions towards you, look into the papers, on both sides, for the toasts which were given
throughout the States on the 4th of July. You will there see whose hearts were with you, and whose were
ulcerated against you. Indeed, as soon as it was known that you had consented to stay in Paris, there was no
measure observed in the execrations of the war party. They openly wished you might be guillotined, or sent to
Cayenne, or anything else. And these expressions were finally stifled from a principle of policy only, & to
prevent you from being urged to a justification of yourself. From this principle alone proceed the silence and
cold respect they observe towards you. Still, they cannot prevent at times the flames bursting from under the
embers, as mr. Pickering's letters, report, & conversations testify, as well as the indecent expressions
respecting you, indulged by some of them in the debate on these despatches. These sufficiently show that you
are never more to be honored or trusted by them, and that they await to crush you for ever, only till they can
do it without danger to themselves.
When I sat down to answer your letter, but two courses presented themselves, either to say nothing or
everything; for half confidences are not in my character. I could not hesitate which was due to you. I have
unbosomed myself fully; & it will certainly be highly gratifying if I receive like confidence from you. For
even if we differ in principle more than I believe we do, you & I know too well the texture of the human
mind, & the slipperiness of human reason, to consider differences of opinion otherwise than differences of
form or feature. Integrity of views more than their soundness, is the basis of esteem. I shall follow your
direction in conveying this by a private hand; tho' know not as yet when one worthy of confidence will occur.
And my trust in you leaves me without a fear that this letter, meant as a confidential communication of my
impressions, will ever go out of your hand, or be suffered in anywise to commit my name. Indeed, besides the
accidents which might happen to it even under your care, considering the accident of death to which you are
liable, I think it safest to pray you, after reading it as often as you please, to destroy at least the 2d & 3d
leaves. The 1st contains principles only, which I fear not to avow; but the 2d & 3d contain facts stated for
your information, and which, though sacredly conformable to my firm belief, yet would be galling to some, &
expose me to illiberal attacks. I therefore repeat my prayer to burn the 2d & 3d leaves. And did we ever expect
to see the day, when, breathing nothing but sentiments of love to our country & it's freedom & happiness, our
correspondence must be as secret as if we were hatching it's destruction! Adieu, my friend, and accept my
sincere & affectionate salutations. I need not add my signature.
Unit IV Interest Groups and Media
“We are so cleverly manipulated and influenced by the media and establishments on both the right and left, that the truth has become
hopelessly lost in semantics.”
Jules Carlysle
Assignments
Chapter 9 and 10 Study Guides
Prompted Essay
Interest Groups Project
Reform the Media Project
Assessments
Unit IV Exam- Chapters 9 & 10- Three FRQ’s
Secondary Readings
Fallows- Why Americans Hate the Media
Chapter 9 Study Questions
Interest Groups
1. Why are interest groups so common in this country?
2. The book gives four factors that account for the rise of interest groups? Summarize those factors and give examples
for each.
3. Define what an interest group is and what its purpose is. What are the differences between institutional interests and
membership interests? Give examples of each.
4. Identify and define the incentives to join a mass-membership organization.
5. Define what a public-interest lobby is and give an example.
6. What is the difference between the staff and membership of an interest group?
7. The book discusses the environmental, feminist, and union movements. Outline or summarize the information on
each. (Bullet points are fine.)
8. How do interest groups get their funds?
9. Summarize the five activities that the book lists for how interest groups work to influence policy? Give examples for
each activity. Assess how successful each type of activity is in influencing policy. This is very important so be sure
that you understand this section.
10. What were the weaknesses of the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946 and why did Congress decide to enact
a new law in 1995?
11. How did the 1995 Lobbyist Disclosure Act strengthen the federal government’s regulation of interest groups?
You should be familiar with the following Interest Groups. Basically, I want you to know the types of issues these
groups are involved in and whether they are generally supporters of liberals or conservatives, or are non-ideological. If
I gave you an issue, you should know which interest groups would be involved. The groups with an asterisk by them
are ones you all need to know. There are, of course, many more organizations, but one must draw a line somewhere.
Use this list to pick an interest group for your assignment.
AARP – American Association of
Retired People*
ACLU – American Civil Liberties
Union*
AFL-CIO *
Christian Coalition*
Council on American-Islamic Relations
NARAL – National Abortion Rights
Action League*
NEA - National Education
Association*
National Resources Defense Council
ABA - American Bar Association*
American Conservative Union
Emily’s List
Environmental Defense Fund
NOW *
NRA – National Rifle Association*
American Farm Bureau
Family Research Council
AIPAC - American Israel Public
Affairs Committee
AMA*
ATLA - Association of Trial
Lawyers of America
The Business Roundtable
Handgun Control, Inc.
PETA – People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals
Public Citizen*
Lobby
lobbyist
interest group
Club for Growth
Moveon.org
NAACP – National Association of
Colored People*
NAM - National Association of
Manufacturers*
Sierra Club*
US Chamber of Commerce
Veterans of Foreign Wars*
Terms to Know
purposive incentive
ideological interest groups
Public-interest lobby
incentive
solidary incentives
material incentives
social movement
political cue
ratings
Interest Group Assignment
Due –
1. Pick one of the interest groups listed on your Study Guide. You are free to pick another group if you have a different
choice. Just ask or email me to be sure you have made a good choice.
2. Go to that group’s web site. I have some links on my links page. Also, go to News Google and search for
information on your group. That will help you find what issues they’ve been involved in recently. Research the
following topics and type up a report (about three pages, double-spaced) covering those topics. You can simply put the
topic as a heading and then give the information on that topic. (This isn’t meant to be a thesis-driven, unified essay.)
You can give your information in a bullet-points list
A. What are the issues your group is concerned with? What are some examples of legislation your group supports
or opposes? What actions does your group take to try to influence policy and the public agenda? What resources
make it influential? Give specific examples: (e.g. use of the media, law suits, direct lobbying, public information
contributions, etc.) Which parts of the government does your group target, i.e. which executive branch departments
and congressional committees?
B. What is the group’s political ideology? Does it favor one political party over the other? If so, does it have a
history of supporting certain political candidates? What is it doing to support their favored candidates? Make the
connection between their political ideology, the legislation they support, and the party they support.
OR
If you think your group is absolutely neutral, say so. Many interest groups are neutral. Discuss the issues that your
group is concerned with and then, for the points in this section you will do the following. Find and summarize two
news articles relevant to your interest group. You can use http://news.google.com/ to find such articles. Use the
information to show how your group is trying to influence public policy.
C. Assess your group: What are its strengths and weaknesses? How effective is it in achieving its agenda? Back
up what you say with specific examples demonstrating their effectiveness or lack thereof.
A. How it tries to influence policy and the public agenda
Possible
Points
35
B. Political Efforts/two news article summaries if your group is neutral
30
C. Assessment of your group’s strengths and weaknesses with examples
supporting your conclusions
35
TOTAL
100
(This rubric must be stapled to the front of your assignment.)
Your
Points
Chapter 10 Study Questions
The Media
1. In general, how does the American media differ from that of England and France?
2. Define the terms “yellow journalism” and “muckrakers.”
3. How have the characteristics of the electronic media and the Internet affected the actions of public
officials and candidates for national office?
4. What does the book conclude about the degree of competition in the media?
5. What is the impact of the “national press?” Define the roles of the national media as gateskeeper,
scorekeeper, and watchdog. Think of examples for each.
6. Summarize the rules regulating the media and the government including the following: prior restraint,
libel, confidentiality of sources, FCC regulations, Telecommunications Act (1996), Equal time rule,
Right-of-reply rule, political editorializing rule, fairness doctrine. Make sure you understand all these
rules.
7. Summarize what the book says about the effects of the media on politics.
8. How does press coverage of the president and of Congress differ?
9. What does the book say concerning press bias?
10. Why does American government have so many leaks?
11. Why do people have an increasing lack of confidence in the media? Summarize all the reasons that the
book gives.
Muckraker
Associated Press
yellow journalism
“Big Three” Networks
sound bites
Libel
Defamation
Prior Restraint
The Pentagon Papers
trial balloon
loaded languageEqual Time rule
Right-of-reply rule
Political editorializing rule
Fairness Doctrine
Selective attention
Editorial endorsement
Terms to Know
C-Span
Routine Stories
Feature Stories
Insider Stories
News Leaks
Adversarial Press
“Off/On the record”
“On (deep) background”
Feeding Frenzy
Pack Journalism
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
Federal Communications Commission
Telecommunications Act
Shield law
“Above” or “Below the fold” stories
Freedom of Information Act (1974)
12.
Reform the Media Project
What is the proper role of media in a Democratic society? Your job is to “reform the media” to address
shortcomings and orient it towards the real needs of people who want to make informed choices in society.
How would a newspaper look that has a genuine interest in the people’s welfare? What would a programming
guide look like for networks primarily concerned with providing people the news, information, and
programming needed to meet the best interests of the people?
Requirements:
Choose a format, such as print media or the television. Within that format, develop either a front page or a
programming guide that reflects how you believe the media should present information.
Print Media: Create either a front page for a newspaper (Think Sacramento Bee, New York Times) or a front
page and table or contents for a newsmagazine (Think Time, Newsweek). For either of these options you
need to select the headlines, by-lines and sample news articles and photos, etc. that would appear on the front
page. For the magazines, you’ll need to select an appropriate cover-page photo, then create an index of the
articles that appear on the inside of the front cover.
Television media: For the television you will create a 24-hour programming guide (Think TV Guide) of
network programs (you only need the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX, not cable), and include
programming from 8:00a.m. to 7:30 a.m. the next day. A brief description of each show is needed to inform
the viewer what the show is about.
Approaches:
Straightforward approach: Create articles, photos and news items that you feel are truly representative of the
kinds of news and information people need to make good choices, avoid propaganda, and become more
enlightened.
Satirical approach: What would happen if the media were totally biased (e.g., the world from an
ultraconservative perspective; world from an ultraliberal perspective; world from a communist perspective;
world from an anarchist perspective).
Grading:
Grades will be awarded based on creativity, thoughtfulness, clarity, artistic rendering of illustrations and
photos, and neatness.
Why Americans Hate the Media by James Fallows
In the late 1980s public-television stations aired a talking-heads series called Ethics in America. For each show more
than a dozen prominent citizens sat around a horseshoe-shaped table and tried to answer troubling ethical questions
posed by a moderator. The series might have seemed a good bet to be paralyzingly dull, but at least one show was
riveting in its drama and tension.
The episode was taped in the fall of 1987. Its title was "Under Orders, Under Fire," and most of the panelists were
former soldiers talking about the ethical dilemmas of their work. The moderator was Charles Ogletree, a professor at
Harvard Law School, who moved from panelist to panelist asking increasingly difficult questions in the law school's
famous Socratic style.
During the first half of the show Ogletree made the soldiers squirm about ethical tangles on the battlefield. The man
getting the roughest treatment was Frederick Downs, a writer who as a young Army lieutenant in Vietnam had lost his
left arm in a mine explosion.
Ogletree asked Downs to imagine that he was a young lieutenant again. He and his platoon were in the nation of "South
Kosan," advising South Kosanese troops in their struggle against invaders from "North Kosan." (This scenario was
apparently a hybrid of the U.S. roles in the Korean and Vietnam wars.) A North Kosanese unit had captured several of
Downs's men alive—but Downs had also captured several of the North Kosanese. Downs did not know where his men
were being held, but he thought his prisoners did.
And so Ogletree put the question: How far would Downs go to make a prisoner talk? Would he order him tortured?
Would he torture the prisoner himself? Downs himself speculated on what he would do if he had a big knife in his hand.
Would he start cutting the prisoner? When would he make himself stop, if the prisoner just wouldn't talk?
Downs did not shrink from the questions or the implications of his answers. He wouldn't enjoy doing it, he told
Ogletree. He would have to live with the consequences for the rest of his life. But yes, he would torture the captive. He
would use the knife. Implicit in his answers was the idea that he would do the cutting himself and would listen to the
captive scream. He would do whatever was necessary to try to save his own men. While explaining his decisions Downs
sometimes gestured with his left hand for emphasis. The hand was a metal hook.
Ogletree worked his way through the other military officials, asking all how they reacted to Frederick Downs's choice.
William Westmoreland, who had commanded the whole U.S. force in Vietnam when Downs was serving there,
deplored Downs's decision. After all, he said, even war has its rules. An Army chaplain wrestled with how he would
react if a soldier in a morally troubling position similar to Downs's came to him privately and confessed what he had
done. A Marine Corps officer juggled a related question: What would he do if he came across an American soldier who
was about to torture or execute a bound and unarmed prisoner, who might be a civilian?
The soldiers disagreed among themselves. Yet in describing their decisions they used phrases like "I hope I would have
the courage to . . ." and "In order to live with myself later I would . . ." The whole exercise may have been set up as a
rhetorical game, but Ogletree's questions clearly tapped into discussions the soldiers had already had about the
consequences of choices they made.
Then Ogletree turned to the two most famous members of the evening's panel, better known even than Westmoreland.
These were two star TV journalists: Peter Jennings, of World News Tonight and ABC, and Mike Wallace, of 60 Minutes
and CBS.
Ogletree brought them into the same hypothetical war. He asked Jennings to imagine that he worked for a network that
had been in contact with the enemy North Kosanese government. After much pleading Jennings and his news crew got
permission from the North Kosanese to enter their country and film behind the lines. Would Jennings be willing to go?
Of course, he replied. Any reporter would—and in real wars reporters from his network often had.
But while Jennings and his crew were traveling with a North Kosanese unit, to visit the site of an alleged atrocity by
U.S. and South Kosanese troops, they unexpectedly crossed the trail of a small group of American and South Kosanese
soldiers. With Jennings in their midst the Northern soldiers set up an ambush that would let them gun down the
Americans and Southerners.
What would Jennings do? Would he tell his cameramen to "Roll tape!" as the North Kosanese opened fire? What would
go through his mind as he watched the North Kosanese prepare to fire?
Jennings sat silent for about fifteen seconds. "Well, I guess I wouldn't," he finally said. "I am going to tell you now what
I am feeling, rather than the hypothesis I drew for myself. If I were with a North Kosanese unit that came upon
Americans, I think that I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans."
Even if it meant losing the story? Ogletree asked.
Even though it would almost certainly mean losing my life, Jennings replied. "But I do not think that I could bring
myself to participate in that act. That's purely personal, and other reporters might have a different reaction."
Ogletree turned for reaction to Mike Wallace, who immediately replied. "I think some other reporters would have a
different reaction," he said, obviously referring to himself. "They would regard it simply as another story they were
there to cover." A moment later Wallace said, "I am astonished, really." He turned toward Jennings and began to lecture
him: "You're a reporter. Granted you're an American" (at least for purposes of the fictional example; Jennings has
actually retained Canadian citizenship). "I'm a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you're an American, you
would not have covered that story."
Ogletree pushed Wallace. Didn't Jennings have some higher duty to do something other than just roll film as soldiers
from his own country were being shot?
"No," Wallace said flatly and immediately. "You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!"
Jennings backtracked fast. Wallace was right, he said: "I chickened out." Jennings said that he had "played the
hypothetical very hard."He had lost sight of his journalistic duty to remain detached.
As Jennings said he agreed with Wallace, several soldiers in the room seemed to regard the two of them with horror.
Retired Air Force General Brent Scowcroft, who would soon become George Bush's National Security Advisor, said it
was simply wrong to stand and watch as your side was slaughtered. "What's it worth?" he asked Wallace bitterly. "It's
worth thirty seconds on the evening news, as opposed to saving a platoon."
After a brief discussion between Wallace and Scowcroft, Ogletree reminded Wallace of Scowcroft's basic question.
What was it worth for the reporter to stand by, looking? Shouldn't the reporter have said something ?
Wallace gave a disarming grin, shrugged his shoulders, and said, "I don't know." He later mentioned extreme
circumstances in which he thought journalists should intervene. But at that moment he seemed to be mugging to the
crowd with a "Don't ask me!"expression, and in fact he drew a big laugh—the first such moment in the discussion.
Jennings, however, was all business, and was still concerned about the first answer he had given.
"I wish I had made another decision," Jennings said, as if asking permission to live the past five minutes over again. "I
would like to have made his decision"—that is, Wallace's decision to keep on filming.
A few minutes later Ogletree turned to George M. Connell, a Marine colonel in full uniform. Jaw muscles flexing in
anger, with stress on each word, Connell said, "I feel utter contempt."
Two days after this hypothetical episode, Connell said, Jennings or Wallace might be back with the American forces—
and could be wounded by stray fire, as combat journalists often had been before. When that happens, he said, they are
"just journalists." Yet they would expect American soldiers to run out under enemy fire and drag them back, rather than
leaving them to bleed to death on the battlefield.
"I'll do it!" Connell said. "And that is what makes me so contemptuous of them. Marines will die going to get . . . a
couple of journalists." The last words dripped disgust.
Not even Ogletree knew what to say. There was dead silence for several seconds. Then a square-jawed man with neat
gray hair and aviator glasses spoke up. It was Newt Gingrich, looking a generation younger and trimmer than he would
when he became speaker of the House, in 1995. One thing was clear from this exercise, Gingrich said. "The military has
done a vastly better job of systematically thinking through the ethics of behavior in a violent environment than the
journalists have."
That was about the mildest way to put it. Although Wallace and Jennings conceded that the criticism was fair—if
journalists considered themselves "detached,"they could not logically expect American soldiers to rescue them—
nevertheless their reactions spoke volumes about the values of their craft. Jennings was made to feel embarrassed about
his natural, decent human impulse. Wallace seemed unembarrassed about feeling no connection to the soldiers in his
country's army or considering their deaths before his eyes "simply a story." In other important occupations people
sometimes face the need to do the horrible. Frederick Downs, after all, was willing to torture a man and hear him
scream. But Downs had thought through all the consequences and alternatives, and he knew he would live with the
horror for the rest of his days. When Mike Wallace said he would do something horrible, he barely bothered to give a
rationale. He did not try to explain the reasons a reporter might feel obliged to remain silent as the attack began—for
instance, that in combat reporters must be beyond country, or that they have a duty to bear impartial witness to deaths
on either side, or that Jennings had implicitly made a promise not to betray the North Kosanese when he agreed to
accompany them. The soldiers might or might not have found such arguments convincing; Wallace didn't even make
them.
Not Issues But the Game of Politics
A generation ago political talk programs were sleepy Sunday-morning affairs. The Secretary of State or the Senate
majority leader would show up to answer questions from Lawrence Spivak or Bob Clark, and after thirty minutes
another stately episode of Meet the Press or Issues and Answers would be history.
Everything in public life is "brighter" and more "interesting" now. Constant competition from the weekday trash-talk
shows has forced anything involving political life to liven up. Under pressure from the Saturday political-talk shows—
The McLaughlin Group and its many disorderly descendants—even the Sunday-morning shows have put on rouge and
push-up bras.
Meet the Press, moderated by Tim Russert, is probably the meatiest of these programs. High-powered guests discuss
serious topics with Russert, who worked for years in politics, and with veteran reporters. Yet the pressure to keep things
lively means that squabbling replaces dialogue.
The discussion shows that are supposed to enhance public understanding may actually reduce it, by hammering home
the message that issues don't matter except as items for politicians to fight over. Some politicians in Washington may
indeed view all issues as mere tools to use against their opponents. But far from offsetting this view of public life, the
national press often encourages it. As Washington-based talk shows have become more popular in the past decade, they
have had a trickle-down effect in cities across the country. In Seattle, in Los Angeles, in Boston, in Atlanta, journalists
gain notice and influence by appearing regularly on talk shows—and during those appearances they mainly talk about
the game of politics.
In the 1992 presidential campaign candidates spent more time answering questions from "ordinary people"—citizens in
town-hall forums, callers on radio and TV talk shows—than they had in previous years. The citizens asked
overwhelmingly about the what of politics: What are you going to do about the health-care system? What can you do to
reduce the cost of welfare? The reporters asked almost exclusively about the how: How are you going to try to take
away Perot's constituency? How do you answer charges that you have flip-flopped?
After the 1992 campaign the contrast between questions from citizens and those from reporters was widely discussed in
journalism reviews and postmortems on campaign coverage. Reporters acknowledged that they should try harder to ask
questions about things their readers and viewers seemed to care about—that is, questions about the differences that
political choices would make in people's lives.
In January of last year there was a chance to see how well the lesson had sunk in. In the days just before and after Bill
Clinton delivered his State of the Union address to the new Republican-controlled Congress, he answered questions in a
wide variety of forums in order to explain his plans.
On January 31, a week after the speech, the President flew to Boston and took questions from a group of teenagers.
Their questions concerned the effects of legislation or government programs on their communities or schools. These
were the questions (paraphrased in some cases):
* "We need stronger laws to punish those people who are caught selling guns to our youth. Basically, what can you do
about that?"
* "I notice that often it's the media that is responsible for the negative portrayal of young people in our society." What
can political leaders do to persuade the media that there is good news about youth?
* Apprenticeship programs and other ways to provide job training have been valuable for students not going to college.
Can the Administration promote more of these programs?
* Programs designed to keep teenagers away from drugs and gangs often emphasize sports and seem geared mainly to
boys. How can such programs be made more attractive to teenage girls?
* What is it like at Oxford? (This was from a student who was completing a new alternative-school curriculum in the
Boston public schools, and who had been accepted at Oxford.)
* "We need more police officers who are trained to deal with all the other different cultures in our cities." What can the
government do about that?
* "In Boston, Northeastern University has created a model of scholarships and other supports to help inner-city kids get
to and stay in college. . . . As President, can you urge colleges across the country to do what Northeastern has done?"
Earlier in the month the President's performance had been assessed by the three network-news anchors: Peter Jennings,
of ABC; Dan Rather, of CBS; and Tom Brokaw, of NBC. There was no overlap whatsoever between the questions the
students asked and those raised by the anchors. None of the questions from these news professionals concerned the
impact of legislation or politics on people's lives. Nearly all concerned the struggle for individual advancement among
candidates.
Peter Jennings, who met with Clinton as the Gingrich-Dole Congress was getting under way, asked whether Clinton had
been eclipsed as a political leader by the Republicans. Dan Rather did interviews through January with prominent
politicians—Senators Edward Kennedy, Phil Gramm, and Bob Dole—building up to a profile of Clinton two days after
the State of the Union address. Every question he asked was about popularity or political tactics. He asked Phil Gramm
to guess whether Newt Gingrich would enter the race (no) and whether Bill Clinton would be renominated by his party
(yes). He asked Bob Dole what kind of mood the President seemed to be in, and whether Dole and Gingrich were, in
effect, the new bosses of Washington. When Edward Kennedy began giving his views about the balanced-budget
amendment, Rather steered him back on course: "Senator, you know I'd talk about these things the rest of the afternoon,
but let's move quickly to politics. Do you expect Bill Clinton to be the Democratic nominee for re-election in 1996?"
The CBS Evening News profile of Clinton, which was narrated by Rather and was presented as part of the series Eye on
America, contained no mention of Clinton's economic policy, his tax or budget plans, his failed attempt to pass a health-
care proposal, his successful attempt to ratify NAFTA, his efforts to "reinvent government," or any substantive aspect of
his proposals or plans in office. Its subject was exclusively Clinton's handling of his office—his "difficulty making
decisions," his "waffling" at crucial moments. If Rather or his colleagues had any interest in the content of Clinton's
speech as opposed to its political effect, neither the questions they asked nor the reports they aired revealed such a
concern.
Tom Brokaw's questions were more substantive, but even he concentrated mainly on politics of the moment. How did
the President feel about a poll showing that 61 percent of the public felt that he had no "strong convictions" and could
be "easily swayed"? What did Bill Clinton think about Newt Gingrich? "Do you think he plays fair?" How did he like it
that people kept shooting at the White House?
When ordinary citizens have a chance to pose questions to political leaders, they rarely ask about the game of politics.
They want to know how the reality of politics will affect them—through taxes, programs, scholarship funds, wars.
Journalists justify their intrusiveness and excesses by claiming that they are the public's representatives, asking the
questions their fellow citizens would ask if they had the privilege of meeting with Presidents and senators. In fact they
ask questions that only their fellow political professionals care about. And they often do so—as at the typical White
House news conference—with a discourtesy and rancor that represent the public's views much less than they reflect the
modern journalist's belief that being independent boils down to acting hostile.
Reductio Ad Electionem: The One Track Mind
The limited curiosity that elite reporters display in their questions is also evident in the stories they write once they have
received answers. They are interested mainly in pure politics and can be coerced into examining the substance of an
issue only as a last resort. The subtle but sure result is a stream of daily messages that the real meaning of public life is
the struggle of Bob Dole against Newt Gingrich against Bill Clinton, rather than our collective efforts to solve collective
problems.
The natural instinct of newspapers and TV is to present every public issue as if its "real" meaning were political in the
meanest and narrowest sense of that term—the attempt by parties and candidates to gain an advantage over their rivals.
Reporters do, of course, write stories about political life in the broader sense and about the substance of issues—the
pluses and minuses of diplomatic recognition for Vietnam, the difficulties of holding down the Medicare budget,
whether immigrants help or hurt the nation's economic base. But when there is a chance to use these issues as props or
raw material for a story about political tactics, most reporters leap at it. It is more fun—and easier—to write about Bill
Clinton's "positioning" on the Vietnam issue, or how Newt Gingrich is "handling" the need to cut Medicare, than it is to
look into the issues themselves.
Examples of this preference occur so often that they're difficult to notice. But every morning's newspaper, along with
every evening's newscast, reveals this pattern of thought.
* Last February, when the Democratic President and the Republican Congress were fighting over how much federal
money would go to local law-enforcement agencies, one network-news broadcast showed a clip of Gingrich denouncing
Clinton and another of Clinton standing in front of a sea of uniformed police officers while making a tough-on-crime
speech. The correspondent's sign-off line was "The White House thinks 'cops on the beat' has a simple but appealing
ring to it." That is, the President was pushing the plan because it would sound good in his campaign ads. Whether or not
that was Clinton's real motive, nothing in the broadcast gave the slightest hint of where the extra policemen would go,
how much they might cost, whether there was reason to think they'd do any good. Everything in the story suggested that
the crime bill mattered only as a chapter in the real saga, which was the struggle between Bill and Newt.
* Last April, after the explosion at the federal building in Oklahoma City, discussion changed quickly from the event
itself to politicians' "handling" of the event. On the Sunday after the blast President Clinton announced a series of new
anti-terrorism measures. The next morning, on National Public Radio's Morning Edition, Cokie Roberts was asked
about the prospects of the proposals' taking effect. "In some ways it's not even the point," she replied. What mattered
was that Clinton "looked good" taking the tough side of the issue. No one expects Cokie Roberts or other political
correspondents to be experts on controlling terrorism, negotiating with the Syrians, or the other specific measures on
which Presidents make stands. But all issues are shoehorned into the area of expertise the most-prominent
correspondents do have:the struggle for one-upmanship among a handful of political leaders.
* When health-care reform was the focus of big political battles between Republicans and Democrats, it was on the
front page and the evening newscast every day. When the Clinton Administration declared defeat in 1994 and there
were no more battles to be fought, health-care news coverage virtually stopped too—even though the medical system
still represented one seventh of the economy, even though HMOs and corporations and hospitals and pharmaceutical
companies were rapidly changing policies in the face of ever-rising costs. Health care was no longer political news, and
therefore it was no longer interesting news.
* After California's voters approved Proposition 187 in the 1994 elections, drastically limiting the benefits available to
illegal immigrants, the national press ran a trickle of stories on what this would mean for California's economy, its
school and legal systems, even its relations with Mexico. A flood of stories examined the political impact of the
immigration issue—how the Republicans might exploit it, how the Democrats might be divided by it, whether it might
propel Pete Wilson to the White House.
* On August 16 last year Bill Bradley announced that after representing New Jersey in the Senate for three terms he
would not run for a fourth term. In interviews and at the news conferences he conducted afterward Bradley did his best
to talk about the deep problems of public life and economic adjustment that had left him frustrated with the political
process. Each of the parties had locked itself into rigid positions that kept it from dealing with the realistic concerns of
ordinary people, he said. American corporations were doing what they had to do for survival in international
competition: they were downsizing and making themselves radically more efficient and productive. But the result was
to leave "decent, hardworking Americans" more vulnerable to layoffs and the loss of their careers, medical coverage,
pension rights, and social standing than they had been in decades. Somehow, Bradley said, we had to move past the
focus on short-term political maneuvering and determine how to deal with the forces that were leaving Americans
frustrated and insecure.
That, at least, was what Bill Bradley said. What turned up in the press was almost exclusively speculation about what
the move meant for this year's presidential race and the party lineup on Capitol Hill. Might Bradley challenge Bill
Clinton in the Democratic primaries? If not, was he preparing for an independent run? Could the Democrats come up
with any other candidate capable of holding on to Bradley's seat? Wasn't this a slap in the face for Bill Clinton and the
party he purported to lead? In the aftermath of Bradley's announcement prominent TV and newspaper reporters
competed to come up with the shrewdest analysis of the political impact of the move. None of the country's major
papers or networks used Bradley's announcement as a news peg for an analysis of the real issues he had raised.
The day after his announcement Bradley was interviewed by Judy Woodruff on the CNN program Inside Politics.
Woodruff is a widely respected and knowledgeable reporter, but her interaction with Bradley was like the meeting of
two beings from different universes. Every answer Bradley gave was about the substance of national problems that
concerned him. Every one of Woodruff's responses or questions was about short-term political tactics. Woodruff asked
about the political implications of his move for Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. Bradley replied that it was more
important to concentrate on the difficulties both parties had in dealing with real national problems.
Midway through the interview Bradley gave a long answer to the effect that everyone involved in politics had to get out
of the rut of converting every subject or comment into a political "issue," used for partisan advantage. Let's stop talking,
Bradley said, about who will win what race and start responding to one another's ideas.
As soon as he finished, Woodruff asked her next question: "Do you want to be President?" It was as if she had not heard
a word he had been saying—or couldn't hear it, because the media's language of political analysis is utterly separate
from the terms in which people describe real problems in their lives.
The effect is as if the discussion of every new advance in medicine boiled down to speculation about whether its creator
would win the Nobel Prize that year. Regardless of the tone of coverage, medical research will go on. But a relentless
emphasis on the cynical game of politics threatens public life itself, by implying day after day that the political sphere is
nothing more than an arena in which ambitious politicians struggle for dominance, rather than a structure in which
citizens can deal with worrisome collective problems.
Pointless Prediction: The Political Experts
On Sunday, November 6, 1994, two days before the congressional elections that swept the Republicans to power, The
Washington Post published the results of its "Crystal Ball" poll. Fourteen prominent journalists, pollsters, and all-around
analysts made their predictions about how many seats each party would win in the House and Senate and how many
governorships each would take.
One week later many of these same experts would be saying on their talk shows that the Republican landslide was
"inevitable" and "a long time coming" and "a sign of deep discontent in the heartland." But before the returns were in,
how many of the fourteen experts predicted that the Republicans would win both houses of Congress and that Newt
Gingrich would be speaker? Exactly three.
What is interesting about this event is not just that so many experts could be so wrong. Immediately after the election
even Newt Gingrich seemed dazed by the idea that the forty-year reign of the Democrats in the House had actually
come to an end. Rather, the episode said something about the futility of political prediction itself—a task to which the
big-time press devotes enormous effort and time. Two days before the election many of the country's most admired
analysts had no idea what was about to happen. Yet within a matter of weeks these same people, unfazed, would be
writing articles and giving speeches and being quoted about who was "ahead" and "behind" in the emerging race for the
White House in 1996.
As with medieval doctors who applied leeches and trepanned skulls, the practitioners cannot be blamed for the limits of
their profession. But we can ask why reporters spend so much time directing our attention toward what is not much
more than guesswork on their part. It builds the impression that journalism is about what's entertaining—guessing what
might or might not happen next month—rather than what's useful, such as extracting lessons of success and failure from
events that have already occurred. Competing predictions add almost nothing to our ability to solve public problems or
to make sensible choices among complex alternatives. Yet such useless distractions have become a specialty of the
political press. They are easy to produce, they allow reporters to act as if they possessed special inside knowledge, and
there are no consequences for being wrong.
Spoon Feeding: The White House Press Corps
In the early spring of last year, when Newt Gingrich was dominating the news from Washington and the O. J. Simpson
trial was dominating the news as a whole, The Washington Post ran an article about the pathos of the White House press
room. Nobody wanted to hear what the President was doing, so the people who cover the President could not get on the
air. Howard Kurtz, the Post's media writer, described the human cost of this political change:
Brit Hume is in his closet-size White House cubicle, watching Kato Kaelin testify on CNN. Bill Plante, in the adjoining
cubicle, has his feet up and is buried in the New York Times. Brian Williams is in the corridor, idling away the time with
Jim Miklaszewski.
An announcement is made for a bill-signing ceremony. Some of America's highest-paid television correspondents begin
ambling toward the pressroom door.
"Are you coming with us?" Williams asks.
"I guess so," says Hume, looking forlorn.
The White House spokesman, Mike McCurry, told Kurtz that there was some benefit to the enforced silence: "Brit
Hume has now got his crossword puzzle capacity down to record time. And some of the reporters have been out on the
lecture circuit."
The deadpan restraint with which Kurtz told this story is admirable. But the question many readers would want to
scream at the idle correspondents is Why don't you go out and do some work?
Why not go out and interview someone, even if you're not going to get any airtime that night? Why not escape the
monotonous tyranny of the White House press room, which reporters are always complaining about? The knowledge
that O.J. will keep you off the air yet again should liberate you to look into those stories you never "had time" to deal
with before. Why not read a book—about welfare reform, about Russia or China, about race relations, about anything?
Why not imagine, just for a moment, that your journalistic duty might involve something more varied and constructive
than doing standups from the White House lawn and sounding skeptical about whatever announcement the President's
spokesman put out that day?
What might these well-paid, well-trained correspondents have done while waiting for the O.J. trial to become boring
enough that they could get back on the air? They might have tried to learn something that would be of use to their
viewers when the story of the moment went away. Without leaving Washington, without going farther than ten minutes
by taxi from the White House (so that they could be on hand if a sudden press conference was called), they could have
prepared themselves to discuss the substance of issues that affect the public.
For example, two years earlier Vice President Al Gore had announced an ambitious plan to "reinvent" the federal
government. Had it made any difference, either in improving the performance of government or in reducing its cost, or
was it all for show? Republicans and Democrats were sure to spend the next few months fighting about cuts in the
capital-gains tax. Capital-gains tax rates were higher in some countries and lower in others. What did the experience of
these countries show about whether cutting the rates helped an economy to grow? The rate of immigration was rising
again, and in California and Florida it was becoming an important political issue. What was the latest evidence on the
economic and social effects of immigration? Should Americans feel confident or threatened that so many foreigners
were trying to make their way in? Soon both political parties would be advancing plans to reform the welfare system.
Within a two-mile radius of the White House lived plenty of families on welfare. Why not go and see how the system
had affected them, and what they would do if it changed? The federal government had gone further than most private
industries in trying to open opportunities to racial minorities and women. The Pentagon had gone furthest of all. What
did people involved in this process—men and women, blacks and whites—think about its successes and failures? What
light did their experience shed on the impending affirmative-action debate?
The list could go on for pages. With a few minutes' effort—about as long as it takes to do a crossword puzzle—the
correspondents could have drawn up lists of other subjects they had never before "had time" to investigate. They had the
time now. What they lacked was a sense that their responsibility involved something more than standing up to rehash
the day's announcements when there was room for them on the news.
Glass Houses: Journalists and Financial Disclosure
Half a century ago reporters knew but didn't say that Franklin D. Roosevelt was in a wheelchair. A generation ago many
reporters knew but didn't write about John F. Kennedy's insatiable appetite for women. For several months in the early
Clinton era reporters knew about but didn't disclose Paula Jones's allegation that, as governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton
had exposed himself to her. Eventually this claim found its way into all the major newspapers, proving that there is no
longer any such thing as an accusation too embarrassing to be printed if it seems to bear on a politician's "character."
It is not just the President who has given up his privacy in the name of the public's right to know. Over the past two
decades officials whose power is tiny compared with the President's have had to reveal embarrassing details about what
most Americans consider very private matters: their income and wealth. Each of the more than 3,000 people appointed
by the President to executive-branch jobs must reveal previous sources of income and summarize his or her financial
holdings. Congressmen have changed their rules to forbid themselves to accept honoraria for speaking to interest groups
or lobbyists. The money that politicians do raise from individuals and groups must be disclosed to the Federal Election
Commission. The information they disclose is available to the public and appears often in publications, most
prominently The Washington Post.
No one contends that every contribution makes every politician corrupt. But financial disclosure has become
commonplace on the "Better safe than sorry" principle. If politicians and officials are not corrupt, the reasoning goes,
they have nothing to fear from letting their finances be publicized. And if they are corrupt, public disclosure is a way to
stop them before they do too much harm. The process may be embarrassing, but this is the cost of public life.
How different the "Better safe than sorry" calculation seems when journalists are involved! Reporters and pundits hold
no elected office, but they are obviously public figures. The most prominent TV-talk-show personalities are better
known than all but a handful of congressmen. When politicians and pundits sit alongside one another on Washington
talk shows and trade opinions, they underscore the essential similarity of their political roles. The pundits have no vote
in Congress, but the overall political impact of a word from George Will, Ted Koppel, William Safire, or any of their
colleagues who run the major editorial pages dwarfs anything a third-term congressman could do. If an interest group
had the choice of buying the favor of one prominent media figure or of two junior congressmen, it wouldn't even have
to think about the decision. The pundit is obviously more valuable.
If a reporter is sued for libel by a prominent but unelected personality, such as David Letterman or Donald Trump, he or
she says that the offended party is a "public figure"—about whom nearly anything can be written in the press. Public
figures, according to the rulings that shape today's libel law, can win a libel suit only if they can prove that a reporter
knew that what he or she was writing was false, or had "reckless disregard" for its truth, and went ahead and published it
anyway. Public figures, according to the law, pay a price for being well known. And who are these people? The
category is not limited to those who hold public office but includes all who "thrust themselves into the public eye."
Most journalists would eloquently argue the logic of this broad definition of public figures—until the same standard was
applied to them.
In 1993 Sam Donaldson, of ABC, described himself in an interview as being in touch with the concerns of the average
American. "I'm trying to get a little ranching business started in New Mexico," he said. "I've got five people on the
payroll. I'm making out those government forms." Thus he understood the travails of the small businessman and the
annoyances of government regulation. Donaldson, whose base pay from ABC is reported to be some $2 million a year,
did not point out that his several ranches in New Mexico together covered some 20,000 acres. When doing a segment
attacking farm subsidies on Prime Time Live in 1993 he did not point out that "those government forms" allowed him to
claim nearly $97,000 in sheep and mohair subsidies over two years. William Neuman, a reporter for the New York Post,
said that when his photographer tried to take pictures of Donaldson's ranch house, Donaldson had him thrown off his
property. ("In the West trespassing is a serious offense," Donaldson explained.)
Had Donaldson as a journalist been pursuing a politician or even a corporate executive, he would have felt justified in
using the most aggressive reportorial techniques. When these techniques were turned on him, he complained that the
reporters were going too far. The analysts who are so clear-eyed about the conflict of interest in Newt Gingrich's book
deal claim that they see no reason, none at all, why their own finances might be of public interest.
Last May one of Donaldson's colleagues on This Week With David Brinkley, George Will, wrote a column and delivered
on-air comments ridiculing the Clinton Administration's plan to impose tariffs on Japanese luxury cars, notably the
Lexus. On the Brinkley show Will said that the tariffs would be "illegal" and would merely amount to "a subsidy for
Mercedes dealerships."
Neither in his column nor on the show did Will disclose that his wife, Mari Maseng Will, ran a firm that had been paid
some $200,000 as a registered foreign agent for the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, and that one of the
duties for which she was hired was to get American commentators to criticize the tariff plan. When Will was asked why
he had never mentioned this, he replied that it was "just too silly" to think that his views might have been affected by his
wife's contract.
Will had, in fact, espoused such views for years, since long before his wife worked for the JAMA and even before he
had married her. Few of his readers would leap to the conclusion that Will was serving as a mouthpiece for his wife's
employers. But surely most would have preferred to learn that information from Will himself.
A third member of the regular Brinkley panel, Cokie Roberts, is, along with Will and Donaldson, a frequent and highly
paid speaker before corporate audiences. She has made a point of not disclosing which interest groups she speaks to or
how much money she is paid. She has criticized the Clinton Administration for its secretive handling of the controversy
surrounding Hillary Clinton's lucrative cattle-future trades and of the Whitewater affair, yet like the other pundits, she
refuses to acknowledge that secrecy about financial interests undermines journalism's credibility too.
Out of Touch With America
In the week leading up to a State of the Union address White House aides always leak word to reporters that this year
the speech will be "different." No more laundry list of all the government's activities, no more boring survey of every
potential trouble spot in the world. This time, for a change, the speech is going to be short, punchy, and thematic. When
the actual speech occurs, it is never short, punchy, or thematic. It is long and detailed, like all its predecessors, because
as the deadline nears, every part of the government scrambles desperately to have a mention of its activities crammed
into the speech somewhere.
In the days before Bill Clinton's address a year ago aides said that no matter what had happened to all those other
Presidents, this time the speech really would be short, punchy, and thematic. The President understood the situation, he
recognized his altered role, and he saw this as an opportunity to set a new theme for his third and fourth years in office.
That evening the promises once again proved false. Bill Clinton gave a speech that was enormously long even by the
standards of previous State of the Union addresses. The speech had three or four apparent endings, it had ad-libbed
inserts, and it covered both the details of policy and the President's theories about what had gone wrong with America.
An hour and twenty-one minutes after he took the podium, the President stepped down.
Less than a minute later the mockery from commentators began. For instant analysis NBC went to Peggy Noonan, who
had been a speechwriter for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush. She grimaced and barely tried to conceal her
disdain for such an ungainly, sprawling speech. Other commentators soon mentioned that congressmen had been
slipping out of the Capitol building before the end of the speech, that Clinton had once more failed to stick to an agenda,
that the speech probably would not give the President the new start he sought. The comments were virtually all about
the tactics of the speech, and they were almost all thumbs down.
A day and a half later the first newspaper columns showed up. They were even more critical. On January 26 The
Washington Post's op-ed page consisted mainly of stories about the speech, all of which were withering. "All Mush and
No Message" was the headline on a column by Richard Cohen. "An Opportunity Missed" was the more statesmanlike
judgment from David Broder. Cohen wrote: "Pardon me if I thought of an awful metaphor: Clinton at a buffet table,
eating everything in sight."
What a big fat jerk that Clinton was! How little he understood the obligations of leadership! Yet the news section of the
same day's Post had a long article based on discussions with a focus group of ordinary citizens in Chicago who had
watched the President's speech. "For these voters, the State of the Union speech was an antidote to weeks of unrelenting
criticism of Clinton's presidency," the article said.
"Tonight reminded us of what has been accomplished," said Maureen Prince, who works as the office manager in her
husband's business and has raised five children. "We are so busy hearing the negatives all the time, from the time you
wake up on your clock radio in the morning. . . ."
The group's immediate impressions mirrored the results of several polls conducted immediately after the president's
speech.
ABC News found that eight out of 10 approved of the president's speech. CBS News said that 74 percent of those
surveyed said they had a "clear idea" of what Clinton stands for, compared with just 41 percent before the speech. A
Gallup Poll for USA Today and Cable News Network found that eight in 10 said Clinton is leading the country in the
right direction.
Nielsen ratings reported in the same day's paper showed that the longer the speech went on, the larger the number of
people who tuned in to watch.
The point is not that the pundits are necessarily wrong and the public necessarily right. The point is the gulf between the
two groups' reactions. The very aspects of the speech that had seemed so ridiculous to the professional commentators—
its detail, its inclusiveness, the hyperearnestness of Clinton's conclusion about the "common good"—seemed attractive
and worthwhile to most viewers.
"I'm wondering what so much of the public heard that our highly trained expert analysts completely missed," Carol
Cantor, a software consultant from California, wrote in a discussion on the WELL, a popular online forum, three days
after the speech. What they heard was, in fact, the speech, which allowed them to draw their own conclusions rather
than being forced to accept an expert "analysis" of how the President "handled" the speech. In most cases the analysis
goes unchallenged, because the public has no chance to see whatever event the pundits are describing. In this instance
viewers had exactly the same evidence about Clinton's performance that the "experts" did, and from it they drew
radically different conclusions.
In 1992 political professionals had laughed at Ross Perot's "boring" and "complex" charts about the federal budget
deficit—until it became obvious that viewers loved them. And for a week or two after this State of the Union speech
there were little jokes on the weekend talk shows about how out of step the pundit reaction had been with opinion "out
there." But after a polite chuckle the talk shifted to how the President and the speaker and Senator Dole were handling
their jobs.
Term Limits
As soon as the Democrats were routed in the 1994 elections, commentators and TV analysts said it was obvious that the
American people were tired of seeing the same old faces in Washington. The argument went that those who lived inside
the Beltway had forgotten what it was like in the rest of the country. They didn't get it. They were out of touch. The only
way to jerk the congressional system back to reality was to bring in new blood.
A few days after the new Congress was sworn in, CNN began running an updated series of promotional ads for its
program Crossfire. (Previous ads had featured shots of locomotives colliding head-on and rams locking horns, to
symbolize the meeting of minds on the show.) Everything has been shaken up in the capital, one of the ads began. New
faces. New names. New people in charge of all the committees.
"In fact," the announcer said, in a tone meant to indicate whimsy, "only one committee hasn't changed. The welcoming
committee."
The camera pulled back to reveal the three hosts of Crossfire—Pat Buchanan, John Sununu, and Michael Kinsley—
standing with arms crossed on the steps of the Capitol building, blocking the path of the new arrivals trying to make
their way in. "Watch your step," one of the hosts said.
Talk about not getting it! The people who put together this ad must have imagined that the popular irritation with insidethe-Beltway culture was confined to members of Congress—and didn't extend to members of the punditocracy, many of
whom had held their positions much longer than the typical congressman had. The difference between the "welcoming
committee" and the congressional committees headed by fallen Democratic titans like Tom Foley and Jack Brooks was
that the congressmen can be booted out.
"Polls show that both Republicans and Democrats felt better about the Congress just after the 1994 elections," a Clinton
Administration official said last year. "They had 'made the monkey jump'—they were able to discipline an institution
they didn't like. They could register the fact that they were unhappy. There doesn't seem to be any way to do that with
the press, except to stop watching and reading, which more and more people have done."
Lost Credibility
There is an astonishing gulf between the way journalists—especially the most prominent ones—think about their impact
and the way the public does. In movies of the 1930s reporters were gritty characters who instinctively sided with the
common man. In the 1970s Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman, starring as Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in All
the President's Men, were better-paid but still gritty reporters unafraid to challenge big power. Even the local-TV-news
crew featured on The Mary Tyler Moore Show had a certain down-to-earth pluck. Ted Knight, as the pea-brained news
anchor Ted Baxter, was a ridiculously pompous figure but not an arrogant one.
Since the early 1980s the journalists who have shown up in movies have often been portrayed as more loathsome than
the lawyers, politicians, and business moguls who are the traditional bad guys in films about the white-collar world. In
Absence of Malice, made in 1981, an ambitious newspaper reporter (Sally Field) ruins the reputation of a businessman
(Paul Newman) by rashly publishing articles accusing him of murder. In Broadcast News, released in 1987, the
anchorman (William Hurt) is still an airhead, like Ted Baxter, but unlike Ted, he works in a business that is
systematically hostile to anything except profit and bland good looks. The only sympathetic characters in the movie, an
overeducated reporter (Albert Brooks) and a hyperactive and hyperidealistic producer (Holly Hunter), would have
triumphed as heroes in a newspaper movie of the 1930s. In this one they are ground down by the philistines at their
network.
In the Die Hard series, which started in 1988, a TV journalist (William Atherton) is an unctuous creep who will lie and
push helpless people around in order to get on the air. In The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990) the tabloid writer Peter
Fallow (Bruce Willis) is a disheveled British sot who will do anything for a free drink. In Rising Sun (1993) a
newspaper reporter known as "Weasel" (Steve Buscemi) is an out-and-out criminal, accepting bribes to influence his
coverage. As Antonia Zerbisias pointed out in the Toronto Star in 1993, movies and TV shows offer almost no
illustrations of journalists who are not full of themselves, shallow, and indifferent to the harm they do. During Operation
Desert Storm, Saturday Night Live ridiculed American reporters who asked military spokesmen questions like "Can you
tell us exactly when and where you are going to launch your attack?" "The journalists were portrayed as ignorant,
arrogant and pointlessly adversarial," Jay Rosen, of New York University, wrote about the episode. "By gently
rebuffing their ludicrous questions, the Pentagon briefer [on SNL] came off as a model of sanity."
Even real-life members of the Washington pundit corps have made their way into movies—Eleanor Clift, Morton
Kondracke, hosts from Crossfire—in 1990s releases such as Dave and Rising Sun. Significantly, their role in the
narrative is as buffoons. The joke in these movies is how rapidly the pundits leap to conclusions, how predictable their
reactions are, how automatically they polarize the debate without any clear idea of what has really occurred. That reallife journalists are willing to keep appearing in such movies, knowing how they will be cast, says something about the
source of self-respect in today's media: celebrity, on whatever basis, matters more than being taken seriously.
Movies do not necessarily capture reality, but they suggest a public mood—in this case, a contrast between the apparent
self-satisfaction of the media celebrities and the contempt in which they are held by the public. "The news media has a
generally positive view of itself in the watchdog role," wrote the authors of an exhaustive survey of public attitudes and
the attitudes of journalists themselves toward the press. (The survey was conducted by the Times Mirror Center for the
People and the Press, and was released last May.)But "the outside world strongly faults the news media for its
negativism. . . . The public goes so far as to say that the press gets in the way of society solving its problems. . . ."
According to the survey, "two out of three members of the public had nothing or nothing good to say about the media."
The media establishment is beginning to get at least an inkling of this message. Through the past decade discussions
among newspaper editors and publishers have been a litany of woes: fewer readers; lower "penetration" rates, as a
decreasing share of the public pays attention to news; a more and more desperate search for ways to attract the public's
interest. In the short run these challenges to credibility are a problem for journalists and journalism. In the longer run
they are a problem for democracy.
Turning a Calling Into a Sideshow
Even if practiced perfectly, journalism will leave some resentment and bruised feelings in its wake. The justification
that journalists can offer for the harm they inevitably inflict is to show, through their actions, their understanding that
what they do matters and that it should be done with care.
This is why the most depressing aspect of the new talking-pundit industry may be the argument made by many
practitioners: the whole thing is just a game, which no one should take too seriously. Michael Kinsley, a highly
respected and indisputably talented policy journalist, has written that his paid speaking engagements are usually mock
debates, in which he takes the liberal side.
Since the audiences are generally composed of affluent businessmen, my role is like that of the team that gets to lose to
the Harlem Globetrotters. But Ido it because it pays well, because it's fun to fly around the country and stay in hotels,
and because even a politically unsympathetic audience can provide a cheap ego boost.
Last year Morton Kondracke, of The McLaughlin Group, told Mark Jurkowitz, of The Boston Globe, "This is not
writing, this is not thought." He was describing the talk-show activity to which he has devoted a major part of his time
for fifteen years. "You should not take it a hundred percent seriously. Anybody who does is a fool." Fred Barnes wrote
that he was happy to appear in a mock McLaughlin segment on Murphy Brown, because "the line between news and fun
barely exists anymore."
The McLaughlin Group often takes its act on the road, gimmicks and all, for fees reported to be about $20,000 per
appearance. Crossfire goes for paid jaunts on the road. So do panelists from The Capital Gang. Contracts for such
appearances contain a routine clause specifying that the performance may not be taped or broadcast. This provision
allows speakers to recycle their material, especially those who stitch together anecdotes about "the mood in Washington
today." It also reassures the speakers that the sessions aren't really serious. They won't be held to account for what they
say, so the normal standards don't apply.
Yet the fact that no one takes the shows seriously is precisely what's wrong with them, because they jeopardize the
credibility of everything that journalists do. "I think one of the really destructive developments in Washington in the last
fifteen years has been the rise in these reporter talk shows,"Tom Brokaw has said. "Reporters used to cover policy—not
spend all of their time yelling at each other and making philistine judgments about what happened the week before. It's
not enlightening. It makes me cringe."
When talk shows go on the road for performances in which hostility and disagreement are staged for entertainment
value; when reporters pick up thousands of dollars appearing before interest groups and sharing tidbits of what they
have heard; when all the participants then dash off for the next plane, caring about none of it except the money—when
these things happen, they send a message. The message is: We don't respect what we're doing. Why should anyone else?
Why Americans Hate the Media by James Fallows
1. How did the answers to the hypothetical question that Charles Ogletree asked Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace
horrify military leaders? What would have been your answer?
2. How were the types of questions that average Americans asked during the 1992 presidential campaign different
than those of reporters?
3. According to Fallows, what is the rationale behind reporters focusing on the politics of an issue rather than the
facts behind an issue?
4. Why don’t reporters spend more time investigating stories and issues rather than just reporting what information
is given to them?
5. Should reporters on the national level be treated with the same “star” treatment as other celebrities? Why don’t
Americans treat them that way?
6. According to Fallows, how is the modern media out of touch with its viewers and readers when it comes to
politics?
7. How have television and movies portrayed journalists in recent years?
8. How has television news become more like an entertainment show? What types of stories are on television
news that a generation ago, would have never made headlines?
9. How have “news” talk shows changed the public perception of journalism?
Unit V- Branches of GovernmentPart A- The Congress
Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
Mark Twain
Assignments
Study Guide for Chapter 11,
Article on Congress Essay
Mock Legislation Simulation
Prompted Essay
Assessments
Chapter 11 Exam- Multiple Choice and One FRQ
Secondary Readings
Burke- Speech to the Electors of Bristol
Ellwood- In Praise of Pork
Riedl- Nine Thousand Earmarks
Starobin- Pork a Time Honored Tradition
Chapter 11 Study Questions
The Congress
1. Summarize the differences between Congress and a parliament.
2. Why is Congress a decentralized institution and why is Congress inevitably unpopular with voters.
3. Read through the six phases of the House of Representatives so that you are clear about the rules changes and
the balance of power between the Speaker and committee chairmen. Briefly summarize phases four-six. (It is
not important for you to learn the name of individual Speakers – unless you want to be a history major or quiz
bowl whiz.)
4. How has the history and structure of the Senate meant that it would be different from the House of
Representatives?
5. What were the main issues in the development of the Senate and how were these issues settled? Make sure that
you understand what these terms refer to: filibuster, cloture, Rule 22
6. Summarize the points that Edmund Burke made in his speech to the Bristol Electors about the responsibilities of
a representative to his constituents.
7. Briefly summarize the trends in the sex and race of members of Congress.
8. What were the reasons why there were more new members to the House in the early 1990s?
9. Why have more congressional districts become safer for incumbent reelection?
10. What are the possible explanations for why the Democrats dominated Congress from 1933-1994?
11. Why has Congress become more ideologically partisan since the 1980s?
12. Define malapportionment, gerrymandering, majority-minority districts.
13. How have districts been designed to increase minority representation and what has the Supreme Court ruled
about this? What is the difference between descriptive and substantive representation?
14. What is the sophomore surge? Why does it happen? What effects does it have?
15. Summarize the three theories of how members of Congress behave.
16. Why has civility decreased among legislators?
17. What are the principal jobs and responsibilities in the party leadership in the Senate?
18. What are the powers of the Speaker of the House? How did Newt Gingrich change the structure of the House?
19. Why are the members of each party so polarized today?
20. What are caucuses and why are they important?
21. Define the four different types of committees.
22. How has the committee structure changed in the past 30 years? What has been the effect of these changes and
how does having a large staff create a demand for more staff?
23. What do the GAO, and CBO do?
24. You must know 16 terms in bold on pages 313 – 318. Find some way to memorize them: choose what works
for you – flashcards, notes, sleeping on them. You will be quizzed on them
25. How can a filibuster be broken? What do the changes for breaking a filibuster mean for trying to pass a bill in
the Senate.
26. Think about it and give your opinion as to the impact the differences between the House and Senate have on
policy-making. You must know the chart on p. 319 summarizing the differences between the House and
Senate. Figure out a way to learn it.
27. Make a list of the different powers that the Constitution gives to either the House or Senate. This is a review
question and you should be able to do it off the top of your head. Then go check yourself by looking at the
Constitution. (It’s in an appendix in the back of the book or you have your own copy.) Read through Article I,
Sections 1, 3, and 7 and Article II, Section 2. Add in anything you may have forgotten.
28. What are the arguments for and against term limits?
29. How have the Congressmen’s powers and perks been reduced?
30. In general, what type of rules are there to make sure our Congress members are ethical?
31. After reading the articles by Paul Starobin, John Ellwood and Eric Patashik, and Brian Riedl, make a list of the
arguments for and against pork. Include arguments from the textbook.
32. Look at the short article regarding Gerrymandering. How has the practice of Gerrymandering made it easier for
members of Congress to remain in office? What political hurdles does a newcomer have when dealing with
districts like the examples shown?
Terms to Know
“one man, one vote”
17th Amendment
Attitudinal theory
Baker v. Carr (1962)
bicameral
Blue Dog Democrats
Caucus
Christmas tree bill
closed rule
cloture
cloture rule
Committee of the Whole
Committee on Committees (R)
Concurrent resolution
Conference Committees
Congressional Black Caucus
Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
Congressional courtesy
Congressional Research Service
descriptive representation
discharge petition
double-tracking
Earmarks
Edmund Burke
filibuster
franking privilege
General Accounting Office (GAO)
gerrymandering
Harry Reid
Holds
House Banking scandal
House Post office scandal
Joint Committees
Joint resolution
logrolling
Majority and Minority leaders
majority-minority districts
malapportionment
Marginal districts
multiple referral
Nancy Pelosi
Newt Gingrich
Nongermane amendment
open rule
Organizational theory
Party caucus
Party polarization
Party Whip
Policy Committee
Pork-Barrel
President Pro Tempore
privileged speech
quorum
quorum call
Reapportionment
redistricting
Representational theory
restrictive rule
rider
roll-call vote
Rule 22
Rules Committee
Safe districts
Select Committees
seniority system
sequential referral
Shaw v. Reno (1993)
Simple resolution
sophomore surge
Speaker of the House
Standing Committees
Steering Committee (D)
substantive representation
term limits
Unanimous consent
unicameral
US Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995)
Wesberry v. Sanders 1964
Article on Congress Assignment
Due Date – by
but feel quite free to turn it in earlier.
Find one article or editorial on Congress from the past three months. The article must relate to themes that we have
studied in class or in the book. Print out or cut out the article.
1. First, write up a short summary of the main points in the article.
2. Then write up how what the article says supports or contradicts what we have been studying. This is the most
important part of your write-up, so be sure to pick an article that lends itself to this assignment. Also, make sure that you
pick an article of sufficient length to have substance in it. My secret, nefarious goal is for you to develop your own
current example of some aspect of political theory and practice that we’re studying. You will be handing this in for a
grade.
Here is an easy way to find an article.
1. Go to News Google http://news.google.com/
2. Type in Congress plus one of the key terms from your study guide about something that you’re interested in such as
redistricting, cloture, filibuster, pork, gerrymander, congressional courtesy, Speaker of the House, etc. Remember to put
quotation marks around phrases or your search will turn up anything that has speaker, of, house in the same article. You
could also put in the names of prominent members of Congress. Any article about Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid, for
example, is probably about something that relates to this course.
3. Pick one of the choices that looks substantial (as in having substance and sufficient length to cover material and get
you an excellent grade.)
4. Double check that the article refers to the U.S. Congress and not a state legislature. If you have any doubt, ask me.
5. You’re ready to write up the assignment.
Mock Legislation
For homework- you will write up an idea that could be proposed as a possible law. Feel free to do some
research to back up your idea; facts and figures always impress members of the legislature (your class)
Your “Law Book”- The PHS Student Handbook
The Constitution- CA Ed Code and actual Constitution (Your instructor will be playing the role of the
Supreme Court)
1. You will be divided into groups of 4-5 members each. Each group will assign different committee
chairperson and a recording secretary.
2. Each committee will discuss the different bills written by each student before the activity. The committee
chairperson will lead the discussion. Each student must be given at least 2 minutes to present his/her bill.
3. After the discussions, each committee will choose one particular bill to propose to the whole assembly of
legislators. This shall be done through voting. Decisions will be made through majority vote.
4. After a bill has been considered, the committee will now decide what changes to make, if any, this is called
the mark-up session.
5. When all changes have been made, the committee votes either to kill the bill or to report it.
6. If the committee decides to report it, they send the revised bill to the whole legislative assembly. All the
members of the committees will now assume the role of the whole assembly. At this point the following
leaders are chosen, presiding officer, or speaker, Sergeant at Arms, and recording-clerk.
The Speaker- They will run the assembly, deciding which order each committee will present.
Sergeant at Arms- They make sure the committees stay on track, and do not deviate from the task at hand.
Recording-clerk- They keep a written record of the decisions of the assembly.
7. Each committee will present its own proposed bill by allowing one person from the group to present the
bill to the whole assembly. After the presentation, questions will be asked by members of the assembly.
These questions must be on the mechanics of the bill, in essence what impact the bill would have on the
American public.
8. After all committees have made their presentations; members of the assembly will now vote for the bill(s)
they would propose to become a law(s).
Step 1- Bill Draft
What is your initial idea?
What problem would your idea solve?
How would the school enforce your idea?
Does your idea require any money to make it work?
Side A
Side B
Side A will vote on the following positions
Side B will vote on the following positions
Speaker
Sergeant at Arms
Speaker
Sergeant at Arms
Recording Clerk
Recording Clerk
Step 2: You will introduce your initial idea to
Step 2: You will introduce your initial idea to your
your Side
part of the assembly
The two Sides will compare all the potential bills. Only ideas that both groups have in common will move on to the next
round.
Step 3: Based on your idea(s) you will be
placed into a committee to discuss the
strengths and weaknesses of your idea. You
will debate each person’s ideas
Step 3: Based on your idea(s) you will be placed
into a committee to discuss the strengths and
weaknesses of your idea. You will debate each
person’s ideas
Your committee must choose only ONE idea to
take back to Side A
Step 4: What is your committees bill?
Your committee must choose only ONE idea to take
back to Side B
Step 4: What is your committees bill?
Is it good enough to win? Why?
Is it good enough to win? Why?
Each committee will appoint a spokesperson
who will discuss the strengths and weaknesses
of your group’s idea.
Each committee will appoint a spokesperson who
will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of your
group’s idea.
Step 5: Your Speaker will decide on the order in
which the committees will present with time for
debate (4 minutes maximum for each committee)
Sergeant at Arms will keep track of the remaining
time
Step 5: Your Speaker will decide on the order in which
the committees will present with time for debate (4
minutes maximum for each committee)
Sergeant at Arms will keep track of the remaining time
Side A will vote and choose one bill to
move forward
Side B will vote and choose one bill to move
forward
At this time, the two sides will swap their two bills. Side A will debate the merits of Side B and vice versa If the two bills
are radically different from each other, both of the sides must draft their own version of the bill. If the two bills are similar,
they will move to the next step
Step 6: Both Sides will discuss the one shared bill that both groups have agreed upon. Both sides
must agree that the idea has merit, has a chance of working. Both sides must agree on the language of
the policy being written.
The two recording clerks will work together to draft the final version of the bill
The two Sides will vote on the Final version
The bill proposal will be presented to the Administration
Step 7 – The Administration either approves or denies the idea (veto)
Step 8- (Not going to happen tomorrow) Idea is written into the Student Handbook
Step 9- Administration begins to enforce policy in August 2010
Description of Activity
Step 1- Draft Bill
Step 2- Introduction
Step 3- Committee Action
Step 4- Vote to Report Bill
Step5- Floor Activity
Step 6- Conference
Step 7 – Presidential Action
Step 8- Law is codified
Step 9 –Regulatory Activity
What is done at each level
Edmund Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol
3 Nov. 1774 Works 1:446--48
I am sorry I cannot conclude without saying a word on a topic touched upon by my worthy colleague. I wish
that topic had been passed by at a time when I have so little leisure to discuss it. But since he has thought
proper to throw it out, I owe you a clear explanation of my poor sentiments on that subject.
He tells you that "the topic of instructions has occasioned much altercation and uneasiness in this city;" and he
expresses himself (if I understand him rightly) in favour of the coercive authority of such instructions.
Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union,
the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought
to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to
sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer
their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought
not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure;
no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is
deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays,
instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent. If
government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But
government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason
is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another
decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who
hear the arguments?
To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which
a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But
authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to
vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,--these are
things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole
order and tenor of our constitution.
Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must
maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative
assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices,
ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member
indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the
local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good
of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to
give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject. I have been unwillingly drawn into it; but I
shall ever use a respectful frankness of communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I
shall be to the end of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for.
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 13, Document 7 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html
The University of Chicago Press
Burke- Speech at Bristol Questions
1. Do you agree that the public will, or opinions of constituents, should be subordinate to the judgment of the
elected representative. If 80% of a congressional district’s voters desire one policy outcome, and the
representative desires another, is the representative justified in voting his conscience and not the will of his
constituents? Should officials be subject to mandates and instructions from the populace?
2. What is the national interest? Can it be defined? Burke argues that a deliberative body serves on national
interest, and not the diverse and hostile interests of different localities and districts. Critics of Congress often
argue that it fails to serve the nation, fragmenting instead into warring factions serving narrow, local interests.
Is Burke’s reasoning still valid if there is no national interest?
3. Have recent development in American politics taken us away from Burkean theory of representation?
Recall elections, candidate-centered elections, pandering to public opinion through photo opportunities, and
constant poling – do these mechanisms of modern politics threaten the freedom of elected officials to decide
based on their own judgment, their trust from Providence?
JOHN ELLWOOD ERIC PATASHNIK
In Praise of Pork
Pork-barrel spending is high on Americans' list of gripes against Congress. "Asparagus research and mink
reproduction" typify the wasteful spending that seems to enrich congressional districts and states while
bankrupting the nation. John Ellwood and Eric Patashnik take a different view. Pork is not the real cause of
the nation's budget crisis, they feel. In fact, pork projects may be just what members of the House and Senate
need to be able to satisfy constituents in order to summon the courage to vote for real
significant,' painful budget cuts. .
IN A WHITE HOUSE address. . . [in] March [1992], President Bush challenged Congress to cut $5.7 billion
of pork barrel projects to help reduce the deficit. * Among the projects Bush proposed eliminating were such
congressional favorites as funding for asparagus research, mink reproduction, and local parking garages. The
examples he cited would be funny, said the President, "if the effect weren't so serious." . . .
Such episodes are a regular occurrence in Washington. Indeed, since the first Congress convened in 1789 and
debated whether to build a lighthouse to protect the Chesapeake Bay, legislators of both parties have
attempted to deliver federal funds back home for capital improvements and other projects, while presidents
have tried to excise pork from the congressional diet. . . .
In recent years, public outrage over government waste has run high. Many observers see pork barrel spending
not only as a symbol of an out of control Congress but as a leading cause of the nation's worsening budget
deficit. To cite one prominent example, Washington Post editor Brian Kelly claims in his recent book,
Adventures in Porkland: My Washington Can't Stop Spending Your Money, that the 1992 federal budget alone
contains $97 billion of pork projects so entirely without merit that they could be "lopped out" without
affecting the "welfare of the nation."
Kelly's claims are surely overblown. For example, he includes the lower prices that consumers would
pay if certain price supports were withdrawn, even though these savings (while certainly desirable) would for
the most part not show up in the government's ledgers. Yet reductions in pork barrel spending have also been
advocated by those who acknowledge that pork, properly measured, comprises only a tiny fraction of total
federal outlays. For example, Kansas Democrat Jim Slattery, who led the battle in the House in 1991 against
using $500,000 in federal funds to turn Lawrence WeIk's birthplace into a shrine, told Common Cause
Magazine, "it's important from the standpoint of restoring public confidence in Congress to show we are
prepared to stop wasteful spending," even if the cuts are only symbolic.
In a similar vein, a recent Newsweek cover story, while conceding that "cutting out the most extreme
forms of pork wouldn't eliminate the federal deficit;' emphasizes that doing so "would demonstrate that
Washington has the political will to reform its profligate ways."
The premise of these statements is that the first thing anyone-whether an individual consumer or the United
States government-trying to save money should cut out is the fluff. As Time magazine rhetorically asks:
"when Congress is struggling without much success to reduce the federal budget deficit, the question naturally
arises: is pork really necessary?"
Our answer is yes. We believe in pork not because every new dam or overpass deserves to be funded, nor
because we consider pork an appropriate instrument of fiscal policy (there are more efficient ways of
stimulating a $5 trillion economy). Rather, we think that pork, doled out strategically, can help to sweeten an
otherwise unpalatable piece of legislation.
No bill tastes so bitter to the average member of Congress as one that raises taxes or cuts popular
programs. Any credible deficit-reduction package will almost certainly have to do both. In exchange for an
increase in pork barrel spending, however, members of Congress just might be willing to bite the bullet and
make the politically difficult decisions that will be required if the federal deficit is ever to be brought under
control.
In a perfect world it would not be necessary to bribe elected officials to perform their jobs well. But, as
James Madison pointed out two centuries ago in Federalist 51, men are not angels and we do not live in a
perfect world. The object of government is therefore not to suppress the imperfections of human nature, which
would be futile, but rather to harness the pursuit of self-interest to public ends.
Unfortunately, in the debate over how to reduce the deficit, Madison's advice has all too often gone
ignored. Indeed, if there is anything the major budget-reform proposals of the last decade (Gramm-Rudman,
the balanced-budget amendment, an entitlement cap*) have in common, it is that in seeking to impose
artificial limits on government spending without offering anything in return, they work against the electoral
interests of congressmen instead of with them - which is why these reforms have been so vigorously resisted.
No reasonable observer would argue that pork barrel spending has always been employed as a force for good
or that there are no pork projects what would have been better left unbuilt. But singling out pork as the culprit
for our fiscal troubles directs attention away from the largest sources of budgetary growth and contributes to
the illusion that the budget can be balanced simply by eliminating waste and abuse. While proposals to
achieve a pork-tree budget are not without superficial appeal, they risk depriving leaders trying to enact real
deficit-reduction measures of one of the most effective coalition-building tools at their disposal.
In order to appreciate why congressmen are so enamored of pork it is helpful to understand exactly
what pork is. But defining pork is not as easy as it sounds. According to Congressional Quarterly, pork is
usually considered to be "wasteful" spending that flows to a particular state or district in order to please voters
back home. Like beauty, however, waste is in the eye of the beholder. As University of Michigan budget
expert Edward M. Gramlich puts it, "one guy's pork is another guy's red meat" To a district plagued by
double-digit unemployment, a new highway project is a sound investment, regardless of local transportation
needs.
Some scholars simply define pork as any program that is economically inefficient-that is, any program
whose total costs exceed its total benefits. But this definition tars with the same brush both real pork and
programs that, while inefficient, can be justified on grounds of distributional equity or
in which geographic legislative influence is small or nonexistent.
A more promising approach is suggested by political scientist David Mayhew in his 1974 book,
Congress: The Electoral Connection. According to Mayhew, congressional life consists largely of "a
relentless search" for ways of claiming credit for making good things happen back home and
thereby increasing the likelihood of remaining in office. Because there are 535 congressmen and not one, each
individual congressman must try to "peel off pieces of governmental accomplishment for which he can
believably generate a sense of responsibility." For most congressmen, the easiest way of doing this is to
supply goods to their home districts.
From this perspective, the ideal pork barrel project has three key properties. First, benefits are
conferred on a specific geographical constituency small enough to allow a single congressman to be
recognized as the benefactor. Second, benefits are given out in such a fashion as to lead constituents to believe
that the congressman had a hand in the allocation. Third, costs resulting from the project are widely diffused
or otherwise obscured from taxpayer notice.
Political pork, then, offers a congressman's constituents an array of benefits at little apparent cost.
Because pork projects are easily distinguished by voters from the ordinary outputs of government, they
provide an incumbent with the opportunity to portray himself as a "prime mover" who deserves to be
reelected. When a congressman attends a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a shiny new building in his district,
every voter can see that he is accomplishing something in Washington. . . .
"It's outrageous that you've got to have such political payoffs to get Congress to do the nation's
business," says James Miller, OMB director under Ronald Reagan. Miller's outrage is understandable but
ultimately unproductive. Human nature and the electoral imperative being what they are, the
pork barrel is here to stay.
But if pork is a permanent part of the political landscape, it is incumbent upon leaders to ensure that
taxpayers get something for their money. Our most effective presidents have been those who have linked the
distribution of pork to the achievement of critical national objectives. When Franklin Roosevelt discovered he
could not develop an atomic bomb without the support of Tennessee Senator Kenneth McKellar, chairman of
the Appropriations Committee, he readily agreed to locate the bomb facility in Oak Ridge. By contrast, our
least effective presidents-Jimmy Carter comes to mind-have either given away plum projects for nothing or
waged hopeless battles against pork, squandering scarce political capital and weakening their ability to govern
in the process.
The real value of pork projects ultimately lies in their ability to induce rational legislators into taking
electorally risky actions for the sake of the public good. Over the last ten years, as the discretionary part of the
budget has shrunk, congressmen have had fewer and fewer opportunities to claim credit for directly aiding
their constituents. As Brookings scholar R. Kent Weaver has argued, in an era of scarcity and difficult
political choices, many legislators gave up on trying to accomplish anything positive, focusing their energies
instead on blame avoidance. The result has been the creation of a political climate in which elected officials
now believe the only way they can bring the nation back to fiscal health is to injure their own
electoral chances. This cannot be good for the future of the republic.
Politics got us into the deficit mess, however, and only politics can get us out. According to both
government and private estimates, annual deficits will soar after the mid-1990s, and could exceed $600 billion
in 2002 if the economy performs poorly. Virtually every prominent mainstream economist agrees that
reducing the deficit significantly will require Congress to do what it has been strenuously trying to avoid for
more than a decade-rein in spending for Social Security, Medicare, and other popular, middle-class
entitlement programs. Tax increases may also be necessary. From the vantage point of the average legislator,
the risk of electoral retribution seems enormous.
If reductions in popular programs and increases in taxes are required to put our national economic
house back in order, the strategic use of pork to obtain the support of key legislators for these measures will
be crucial. . . .
. . . [T]he president should ignore the advice of fiscal puritans who would completely exorcise pork from the
body politic. Favoring legislators with small gifts for their districts in order to achieve great things for the
nation is an act not of sin but of statesmanship. To be sure, determining how much pork is needed and to
which members it should be distributed is difficult. Rather than asking elected officials to become selfless
angels, however, we would ask of them only that they be smart politicians. We suspect Madison would agree
that the latter request has a far better chance of being favorably received.
Starobin, Paul. “Pork: A Time-Honored Tradition.”
POLITICAL PORK. Since the first Congress convened two centuries ago, lawmakers have ladled it out to
home constituencies in the form of cash for roads, bridges and sundry other civic projects. It is a safe bet that the
distribution of such largess will continue for at least as long into the future.*
Pork-barrel politics, in fact, is as much a part of the congressional scene as the two parties or the rules of
courtesy for floor debate. . . .
And yet pork-barrel politics always has stirred controversy. Critics dislike seeing raw politics guiding decisions
on the distribution of federal money for parochial needs. They say disinterested experts, if possible, should guide that
money flow.
And fiscal conservatives wonder how Congress will ever get a handle on the federal budget with so many
lawmakers grabbing so forcefully for pork-barrel funds. "Let's change the system so we don't have so much porking,"
says James C. Miller III, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Miller says he gets
complaints on the order of one a day from congressional members taking issue with OMB suggestions that particular
"pork" items in the budget are wasteful.
But pork has its unabashed defenders. How, these people ask, can lawmakers ignore the legitimate demands of
their constituents? When a highway needs to be built or a waterway constructed, the home folks quite naturally look to
their congressional representative for help. Failure to respond amounts to political suicide.
I’ve really always been a defender of pork-barreling because that's what I think people elect us for," says Rep.
Douglas H. Bosco, D-Calif.
Moreover, many accept pork as a staple of the legislative process, lubricating the squeaky wheels of Congress
by giving members a personal stake in major bills. . . .
Not only does the flow of pork continue pretty much unabated, it seems to be spreading to areas that
traditionally haven't been subject to pork-barrel competition. Pork traditionally was identified with public- works
projects such as roads, bridges, dams and harbors. But, as the economy and country have changed, lawmakers have
shifted their appetites to what might be called "post-industrial" pork. Some examples:
Green Pork. During the 1960s and 1970s, when dam-builders fought epic struggles with environmentalists,
"pork-barrel" projects stereotypically meant bulldozers and concrete. But many of today's projects are more likely to
draw praise than blame from environmentalists. The list includes sewer projects, waste-site cleanups, solar energy
laboratories, pollution-control research, parks and park improvements and fish hatcheries, to name a few. . . .
Academic Pork. Almost no federal funds for construction of university research facilities are being appropriated
these days, except for special projects sponsored by lawmakers for campuses back home. Many of the sponsors sit on
the Appropriations committees, from which they are well positioned to channel such funds. . . .
Defense Pork. While the distribution of pork in the form of defense contracts and location of military
installations certainly isn't new, there's no question that Reagan's military buildup has expanded opportunities for
lawmakers to practice pork-barrel politics. . . .
This spread of the pork-barrel system to new areas raises a question: What exactly is pork? Reaching a
definition isn't easy. Many people consider it wasteful spending that flows to a particular state or district and is sought
to please the folks back home.
But what is wasteful? One man's boondoggle is another man's civic pride. Perhaps the most sensible definition
is that which a member seeks for his own state or district but would not seek for anyone else's constituency.
Thus, pork goes to the heart of the age-old tension between a lawmaker's twin roles as representative of a
particular area and member of a national legislative body. In the former capacity, the task is to promote the local
interest; in the latter it is to weigh the national interest. . . .
Like other fraternities, the system has a code of behavior and a pecking order. It commands loyalty and serves
the purpose of dividing up federal money that presumably has to go somewhere, of helping re-elect incumbents and of
keeping the wheels of legislation turning. . . .
When applied with skill, pork can act as a lubricant to smooth passage of complex legislation. At the same time,
when local benefits are distributed for merely "strategic" purposes, it can lead to waste. . . .
Just about everyone agrees that the budget crunch has made the competition to get pet projects in spending
legislation more intense. Demand for such items has not shrunk nearly as much as the pool of available funds.
*The interesting, little-known, and ignominious origin of the tenn "pork barrel" comes from early in American history, when a barrel of
salt pork was given to slaves as a reward for their work. The slaves had to compete among themselves to get their piece of the handout. -Eds.
Nine Thousand Earmarks
By: Brian Riedl
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Even a recession and record $1.4 trillion budget deficit has not altered Congress's business-as-usual culture of spending and
pork. While families and entrepreneurs are responsibly bringing their own budgets under control, Congress is spending and
earmarking as if nothing has changed in the economy. The House has already passed—and the Senate will soon take up—a
mammoth FY 2009 omnibus appropriation bill[1] that:





Provides an 8 percent discretionary spending hike for the second consecutive year;
Combines with the "stimulus" bill for a staggering 80 percent increase in these discretionary programs;
May contribute to a permanent $2,000 per-household tax hike;
Contains 9,287 pork projects at a cost of nearly $13 billion; and
Likely terminates the Washington, D.C., school voucher program, removing 1,715 low-income students from their
current schools.
This bill represents nearly everything Democrats had criticized about the earlier Republican Congresses. It forces lawmakers
to vote quickly on a bloated package combining nine separate appropriations bills. It irresponsibly expands the already-record
budget deficit. And despite strongly worded proclamations about cleaning up Washington, the 2009 appropriation bills will
have the second-most earmarks in history. During this time of recession and skyrocketing budget deficits, America cannot
afford budgets that continue to spend and earmark as usual.
Runaway Spending
The omnibus spending bill increases discretionary spending by 8 percent for the second consecutive year. But that is only part
of the story. These same discretionary programs have already received much of the colossal $1.1 trillion stimulus bill enacted
recently. Counting those funds, this omnibus spending will finalize a staggering 80 percent spending increase for these
programs in 2009—from $378 billion to $680 billion (see Chart 1).[2] This spending binge is virtually unprecedented in
American history.
Domestic discretionary programs—the subject of most of the omnibus bill—have not exactly been starved in the past, either.
From 2001 through 2008, these programs grew 23 percent faster than inflation, due in part to large increases for education (35
percent), health research (37 percent), and veterans' benefits (54 percent).[3] Clearly, these programs do not need even more
budget increases. Yet rather than ask federal agencies to join the American people in some recessionary belt-tightening,
Congress expanded these programs by 8 percent last year and is in the process of adding another 8 percent this year—not
even counting the historic 71 percent hike resulting from the "stimulus."
Some insist that this "stimulus" spending will be only temporary. Yet it is difficult to imagine lawmakers allowing programs
like Pell grants and health spending to return to their original levels in two years. Consequently, much of this 80 percent
discretionary spending surge is likely to eventually become part of the permanent discretionary spending baseline. This would
permanently raise spending—and therefore taxes—by over $2,000 per household annually.
Regrettably, the omnibus bill does not offset this new spending. In failing to offer spending reductions, congressional
appropriators ignored:





At least $55 billion in annual program overpayments;
$60 billion for corporate welfare;
$123 billion for programs for which government auditors can find no evidence of success;
$140 billion in potential budget savings identified in the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) "Budget Options"
books; and
Massive program duplication, such as the 342 economic development programs, the 130 programs serving the
disabled, the 130 programs serving at-risk youth, and the 90 early childhood development programs.[4]
Unfortunately, taxpayers should perhaps expect more of the same over the next few years. President Obama has already
signed into law a large expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), as well as a budget-busting $1.1
trillion "stimulus" bill. Many of the "stimulus" provisions—such as education, infrastructure, and the weakening of the 1996
welfare reforms—are long-term government expansions that have nothing to do with immediate stimulus. President Obama
has not yet offered the tough decisions he has promised.
9,287 Earmarks
Although Democrats strongly criticized the proliferation of earmarks under Republican rule, they have made no serious
efforts to pare them back. The omnibus bill spends $12.8 billion on 9,287 earmarks.[5] When combined with the early 2009
spending bills ($16.1 billion spent on 2,627 earmarks[6]), the 2009 total comes to 11,914 earmarks at a cost of $28.9 billion.
This represents the second most earmarks—and the second highest cost—in American history.[7]
Clearly, the earmark culture has not been swept away. The Washington Post recently summarized a Taxpayers for Common
Sense study that found that "60 percent of the members of the House Armed Services Committee who arranged earmarks also
received campaign contributions from the companies that received the funding. Almost all the members of the committee
received campaign contributions from companies that got earmarks this year."[8] And yet despite repeated scandals—some
resulting in lawmakers being sentenced to prison—the number of annual earmarks continues to increase. Lawmakers have
even rejected a modest proposal to temporarily suspend earmarks until the process can be cleaned up.[9]
In addition to waste and corruption, lawmakers' obsession with pork raises a larger concern about the role of Congress.
Members of the U.S. Congress—a national legislature that has historically debated war, Americans' rights, and broad
economic policy—have become, in the words of Rep. Dan Lungren (R–CA), "mere errand boys for local government and
constituents."[10]
The American people elected their federal lawmakers to focus on national priorities like recession, job losses, the financial
collapse, and the war on terrorism. And yet these lawmakers failed to pass appropriations bills by the start of the fiscal year
and instead spent a substantial portion of 2008 securing pork projects such as:
* $1,049,000 to combat Mormon Crickets in Utah;
* $332,500 to build a school sidewalk in Franklin, Texas;
* $225,000 for Everybody Wins!;
* $200,000 for a tattoo removal program in Mission Hills, California;
* $190,000 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming;
* $237,500 for theater renovation in Merced, California; and
* $75,000 for the Totally Teen Zone in Albany, Georgia.
View a list of pork projects in the FY 2009 omnibus.
Tending to such matters is why state and local governments exist. Perhaps Congress does not believe that local governments
can handle the job; former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R–IL) endorsed congressional pork by asking rhetorically, "Who
knows best where to put a bridge or a highway or a red light in their district?"[11] Not mayors or city councils, apparently.
Of course, lawmakers say these projects are vital to "bringing home federal dollars." In reality, many earmarks are carved out
of funding streams that were already coming back to state and local governments and local organizations anyway. All of the
earmarks taken from the $5 billion Community Development Block Grant program for parks, pools, street signs, and
community centers just reduce the pot of money left over to distribute to local governments for the projects they would
choose. And by diverting transportation dollars into projects that are often frivolous and having nothing to do with reducing
congestion or improving mobility, earmarks starve higher-priorities like road maintenance and construction, which in turn
forces Congress to increase spending to replenish that funding. But earmarks generate press releases and campaign
contributions for lawmakers who have only tied strings to federal money that was already coming home.
Last year, President Bush signed an executive order mandating that federal agencies ignore earmarks that appear in nonbinding conference reports and instead implement only those in the bill text.[12] That executive order currently remains in
effect. President Obama, who campaigned on ending politics-as-usual in Washington, could strike a blow to the earmark
culture by simply leaving this executive order in place. Doing so would eliminate all earmarks that Congress has not
incorporated by reference into the omnibus bill text. He should go one step further and veto any omnibus bill that explicitly
has earmarks.
No End in Sight
In the past six months, Congress has enacted a $700 billion financial bailout and a $1.1 trillion stimulus. It has also expanded
health insurance subsidies and is considering an expensive homeowner bailout. Now, with an 8 percent discretionary
spending hike, Congress has seemingly lost the ability to say "no." Runaway spending and budget deficits threaten to steeply
increase interest rates and eventually result in painful tax increases. If Congress cannot even reduce the number of pork
projects in this environment, there is little reason to believe it is ready to make the truly difficult choices on large programs
like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. If Congress cannot strip the unnecessary earmarks and pare back the spending
increase in this omnibus bill, the President should show the nation he is well prepared to use his veto pen.
ENDNOTES:
[1] Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, H.R. 1105, 111th Cong., 1st Sess.
[2] Based on data provided by the House Appropriations Committee, Minority Staff.
[3] Brian M. Riedl, "Federal Spending by the Numbers: 2008," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1829, February 25, 2008,
at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1829.cfm.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Earlier FY 2009 earmark totals are listed at CR + Minibus + Supplemental Spending, Budget Committee, U.S. House of
Representatives, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., September 24, 2008, at http://www.house.gov/budget_
republicans/press/2007/pr20080924minibus.pdf (March 2, 2009).
[6] Omnibus earmark totals calculated by The Heritage Foundation using Congressional data.
[7] See Citizens Against Government Waste, "Pork-Barrel Report," at
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_porkbarrelreport (March 2, 2009). Only in FY 2005 did
the number and (inflation-adjusted) cost of earmarks exceed this year's total.
[8] Robert O'Harrow, Jr., "Earmark Spending Makes a Comeback," The Washington Post, June 13, 2008 at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/06/12/AR2008061204282_pf.html (March 2, 2009).
[9] By a 71–29 vote, the Senate rejected a temporary earmark moratorium on March 13, 2008. See U.S. Senate, "U.S. Senate
Roll Call Votes 110th Congress: 2nd Session," at http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_c
all_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00075 (March 2, 2009).
[10] John Fund, "Time for a Time-Out?" OpinionJournal.com, September 18, 2006, at
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110008960 (March 2, 2009).
[11] Robert Novak, "Looking to Fry Pork," The Washington Post, January 30, 2006, p. A17.
[12] Executive Order No. 13457, January 29, 2008.
Gerrymandering
The term gerrymandering is derived from Elbridge Gerry (1744-1814), the governor of Massachusetts from 1810 to
1812. In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill into law that redistricted his state to overwhelmingly benefit his party, the
Republican Party. The opposition party, the Federalists, were quite upset.
Governor Gerry went on to become vice president under James Madison from 1813 until his death a year later. Gerry
was the second vice president to die in office.
One of the congressional districts was shaped very strangely and, as the story goes, one Federalist remarked that the
district looked like a salamander. No, said another Federalist, it’s a gerrymander. The Boston Weekly Messenger
brought the term gerrymander into common usage when it subsequently printed an editorial cartoon that showed the
district in question with a monster’s head, arms, and tail and named the creature a gerrymander.
Gerrymandering Examples
The unusual earmuff shape of Illinois's 4th congressional district connects two Hispanic neighborhoods while remaining
connected by narrowly tracing Interstate 294.
A similar district is New York's 28th congressional district which connects the heavily Democratic cities of Rochester
and Buffalo with a narrow strip of territory hugging the Lake Ontario and Niagara River coastlines to connect them.
Arizona's 2nd congressional district contains the northwestern corner of the state, and some of the western suburbs of
Phoenix. The odd shape of the district is indicative of the use of gerrymandering in its construction. The unusual
division was not, however, drawn to favor politicians. Owing to historic tensions between the Hopi and the Navajo, and
since tribal boundary disputes are a Federal matter, it was thought inappropriate that both tribes should be represented
by the same U.S. House of Representatives member. Since the Hopi reservation is completely surrounded by the Navajo
reservation, and in order to comply with current Arizona redistricting laws, some means of connection was required that
avoided including large portions of Navajo land, hence the narrow riverine connection.
List of faithless electors
The following is a list of all faithless electors (most recent first). The number preceding each entry is the number of
faithless electors for the given year.
(1) 2004 election: A Minnesota elector, pledged for Democrats John Kerry and John Edwards, cast his or her
presidential vote for John Ewards (sic), apparently accidentally. (All of Minnesota's electors cast their vice presidential
ballots for John Edwards.) Minnesota's electors cast secret ballots, so unless one of the electors claims responsibility, it
is unlikely that the identity of the faithless elector will ever be known. As a result of this incident, Minnesota Statutes
were amended to provide for public balloting of the electors' votes and invalidation of a vote cast for someone other
than the candidate pledged for by the elector.
(1) 2000 election: D.C. Elector Barbara Lett-Simmons, pledged for Democrats Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, cast
no electoral votes as a protest of Washington D.C.'s lack of statehood, which she described as the federal district's
"colonial status".
(1) 1988 election: West Virginia Elector Margaret Leach, pledged for Democrats Michael Dukakis and Lloyd
Bentsen, instead of casting her votes for the candidates in their positions on the national ticket, cast her presidential
vote for Bentsen and her vice presidential vote for Dukakis.
(-) 1984 election: In Illinois, the electors, pledged to Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, conducted their vote
in a secret ballot. When the electors voted for Vice President, one of the votes was for Geraldine Ferraro, the
Democratic nominee. After several minutes of confusion, a second ballot was taken. Bush won unanimously in this
ballot, and it was this ballot that was reported to Congress.
(1) 1976 election: Washington Elector Mike Padden, pledged for Republican Gerald Ford and Bob Dole, cast his
presidential electoral vote for Ronald Reagan, who had challenged Ford for the Republican nomination. He cast his
vice presidential vote, as pledged, for Dole.
(1) 1972 election: Virginia Elector Roger MacBride, pledged for Republicans Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew,
cast his electoral votes for Libertarian candidates John Hospers and Theodora Nathan. MacBride's vote for Nathan
was the first electoral vote cast for a woman in U.S. history. MacBride became the Libertarian candidate for President in
the 1976 election.
(1) 1968 election: North Carolina Elector Lloyd W. Bailey, pledged for Republicans Richard Nixon and Spiro
Agnew, cast his votes for American Independent Party candidates George Wallace and Curtis LeMay
(1) 1960 election: Oklahoma Elector Henry D. Irwin, pledged for Republicans Richard Nixon and Henry Cabot
Lodge, Jr., cast his presidential electoral vote for independent candidate Harry Flood Byrd. Unlike other electors who
voted for Byrd for president, Irwin cast his vice presidential electoral vote for Barry Goldwater.
(1) 1956 election: Alabama Elector W. F. Turner, pledged for Democrats Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver,
cast his votes for Walter Burgwyn Jones and Herman Talmadge.
(1) 1948 election: Two Tennessee electors were on both the Democratic Party and the States' Rights Democratic
Party slates. When the Democratic Party slate won, one of these electors voted for the Democratic nominees Harry
Truman and Alben Barkley. The other, Preston Parks, cast his votes for States' Rights Democratic Party
candidates Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright, making him a faithless elector.
(8) 1912 election: Republican vice presidential candidate James S. Sherman died before the election. Eight
Republican electors had pledged their votes to him but voted for Nicholas Murray Butler instead.
(4) 1896 election: The Democratic Party and the People’s Party both ran William Jennings Bryan as their
presidential candidate, but ran different candidates for Vice President. The Democratic Party nominated Arthur Sewall
and the People’s Party nominated Thomas Watson. The People’s Party won 31 electoral votes but four of those
electors voted with the Democratic ticket, supporting Bryan as President and Sewall as Vice President.
(63) 1872 election: 63 electors for Horace Greeley changed their votes after Greeley's death. Greeley's remaining
three electors cast their presidential votes for Greeley and had their votes discounted by Congress.
(23) 1836 election: The Democratic Party nominated Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky as their vice presidential
candidate. The 23 electors from Virginia refused to support Johnson with their votes upon learning of the allegation
that he had lived with an African-American woman. There was no majority in the Electoral College and the decision
was deferred to the Senate, which supported Johnson as the Vice President.
(32) 1832 election: Two National Republican Party electors from the state of Maryland refused to vote for presidential
candidate Henry Clay and did not cast a vote for him or for his running mate. All 30 electors from Pennsylvania
refused to support the Democratic vice presidential candidate Martin Van Buren, voting instead for William Wilkins.
(7) 1828 election: Seven (of nine) electors from Georgia refused to vote for vice presidential candidate John
Calhoun. All seven cast their vice presidential votes for William Smith instead.
(1) 1820 election: William Plumer pledged to vote for Democratic Republican candidate James Monroe, but he
cast his vote for John Quincy Adams who was also a Democratic Republican, but was not a candidate in the 1820
election. Some historians contend that Plumer did not feel that the Electoral College should unanimously elect any
President other than George Washington, but this claim is disputed. (Monroe lost another three votes because three
electors died before casting ballots and were not replaced.)
(4) 1812 election: Three electors pledged to vote for Federalist vice presidential candidate Jared Ingersoll voted for
Democratic Republican Elbridge Gerry. One Ohio elector did not vote.
(6) 1808 election: Six electors from New York were pledged to vote for Democratic Republican James Madison as
President and George Clinton as Vice President. Instead, they voted for Clinton to be President, with three voting for
Madison as Vice President and the other three voting for James Monroe to be Vice President.
(1) 1796 election: Samuel Miles, an elector from Pennsylvania, was pledged to vote for Federalist presidential
candidate John Adams, but voted for Democratic Republican candidate Thomas Jefferson. He cast his other
presidential vote as pledged for Thomas Pinckney. (This election took place prior to the passage of the 12th
Amendment, so there were not separate ballots for president and vice president.)
Unit V- Branches of GovernmentPart B - The Presidency and the Bureaucracy
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
Ronald Reagan
Assignments
Chapter 12 and 13 Study Guides
Checks that Weaken the Presidency (ws)
Congress v. The President: Who Has More Power (ws)
Federal Government Leaders Chart (ws)
Assessments
Unit Exam- Chapter 12 and 13- Multiple Choice and Two
FRQs
Secondary Readings
Neustadt- Presidential Power and the Modern PresidentPresidential Power Questions
Weber- Bureaucracy
Chapter 12 Study Questions
The Presidency
1. List the differences between a president and a prime minister.
2. What does it mean to have a divided or a unified government? Why do we still have gridlock, even with a
unified government?
3. What are the arguments for why we have gridlock?
4. How does the difference between representative and direct democracy explain gridlock?
5. What concerns did the Founders have about the idea of having of president? How did the creation of the
Electoral College allay those fears?
6. You don’t need to know the details of presidencies before FDR, but the historical trends are important. The
book talks about our modern concept of the presidency. When did that really begin and what counter-evidence
is there to that concept?
7. Learn the list of presidential powers. You should know all of them. Pay attention to which powers the
Presidents shares with the Senate or Congress as a whole or has sole power.
8. What are the three structures for a president to organize his staff? What are the advantages and disadvantages
of each?
9. Explain how much influence the president has over his cabinet officials and agency heads.
10. Why is there a tension between the White House staff and cabinet secretaries?
11. Explain the differences in the three audiences that the president speaks to. Think about how Presidents Clinton
and Bush have managed to address these three audiences.
12. Explain the reasons why the president’s popularity does and does not have an effect on getting congressional
support for his programs.
13. Give details about the following terms: veto message, pocket veto, line-item veto, and executive privilege, and
impoundment of funds
14. What are the four groups that the book talks about who have input on a president’s program? Be familiar with
the strengths and weaknesses
15. What are the three constraints on the president’s ability to plan a program?
16. What is the role of political polls in decision-making? What are the two models the book describes for using
polls?
17. What is the present line of succession if the president should die in office?
18. Summarize the conclusion the text makes about the power of the president and the federal government.
Ad hoc structure
Cabinet
Circular structure
Delegate model
Direct democracy
Divided government
Impeachment
Lame duck
Legislative veto
Terms to Know
Line item veto
Perks
Pocket veto
Pyramid structure
Representative democracy
Trustee approach
Unified government
Veto message
December 20, 2005
RICHARD NEUSTADT
Presidential Power and the Modern President
From this often-read book comes the classic concept of presidential power as "the power to persuade. " Richard Neustadt observed
the essence of presidential power when working in the executive branch during Franklin Roosevelt's term as president. He stayed to
serve under President Truman. It is said that President Kennedy brought Presidential Power with him to the White House, and
Neustadt worked briefly for JFK. The first half of the excerpt, in which he shows how presidents' well-developed personal
characteristics permit successful persuasive abilities, comes from the book's first edition. The excerpt's closing pages reflect
Neustadt's recent musings on the nation, on world affairs, and on the challenges presidents face.
IN THE EARLY summer of 1952, before the heat of the campaign, President [Harry] Truman used to contemplate the problems of
the general-become-President should [Dwight David] Eisenhower win the forthcoming election. "He'll sit here," Truman would
remark (tapping his desk for emphasis), "and he'll say, 'Do this! Do that!' And nothing will happen. Poor Ike-it won't be a bit like the
Army. He'll find it very frustrating."
Eisenhower evidently found it so. "In the face of the continuing dissidence and disunity, the President sometimes simply exploded
with exasperation," wrote Robert Donovan in comment on the early months of Eisenhower's first term. "What was the use, he
demanded to know, of his trying to lead the Republican Party. ..... And this reaction was not limited to early months alone, or to his
party only. "The President still feels," an Eisenhower aide remarked to me in 1958, "that when he's decided something, that ought to
be the end of it ... and when it bounces back undone or done wrong, he tends to react with shocked surprise."
Truman knew whereof he spoke. With "resignation" in the place of "shocked surprise," the aide's description would have fitted
Truman. The former senator may have been less shocked than the former general, but he was no less subjected to that painful and
repetitive experience: "Do this, do that, and nothing will happen." Long before he came to talk of Eisenhower he had put his own
experience in other words: "I sit here all day trying to persuade people to do the things they ought to have sense enough to do
without my persuading them.... That's all the powers of the President amount to."
In these words of a President, spoken on the job, one finds the essence of the problem now before us: "powers" are no guarantee of
power; clerkship is no guarantee of leadership. The President of the United States has an extraordinary range of formal powers, of
authority in statute law and in the Constitution. Here is testimony that despite his "powers" he does not obtain results by giving
orders-or not, at any rate, merely by giving orders. He also has extraordinary status, ex officio, according to the customs of our
government and politics. Here is testimony that despite his status he does not get action without argument. Presidential power is the
power to persuade....
The limits on command suggest the structure of our government. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 is supposed to have
created a government of "separated powers." It did nothing of the sort. Rather, it created a government of separated institutions
sharing powers. "I am part of the legislative process," Eisenhower often said in 1959 as a reminder of his veto. Congress, the
dispenser of authority and funds, is no less part of the administrative process. Federalism adds another set of separated institutions.
The Bill of Rights adds others. Many public purposes can only be achieved by voluntary acts of private institutions; the press, for
one, in Douglass Cater's phrase, is a "fourth branch of government." And with the coming of alliances abroad, the separate
institutions of a London, or a Bonn, share in the making of American public policy.
What the Constitution separates our political parties do not combine. The parties are themselves composed of separated
organizations sharing public authority. The authority consists of nominating powers. Our national parties are confederations of state
and local party institutions, with a headquarters that represents the White House, more or less, if the party has a President in office.
These confederacies manage presidential nominations. All other public offices depend upon electorates confined within the states.
All other nominations are controlled within the states. The President and congressmen who bear one party's label are divided by
dependence upon different sets of voters. The differences are sharpest at the stage of nomination. The White House has too small a
share in nominating congressmen, and Congress has too little weight in nominating presidents for party to erase their constitutional
separation. Party links are stronger than is frequently supposed, but nominating processes assure the separation.
The separateness of institutions and the sharing of authority prescribe the terms on which a President persuades. When one man
shares authority with another, but does not gain or lose his job upon the other's whim, his willingness to act upon the urging of the
other turns on whether he conceives the action right for him. The essence of a President's persuasive task is to convince such men
that what the White House wants of them is what they ought to do for their sake and on their authority. (Sex matters not at all; for
man read woman.)
Persuasive power, thus defined, amounts to more than charm or reasoned argument. These have their uses for a President, but these
are not the whole of his resources. For the individuals he would induce to do what he wants done on their own responsibility will
need or fear some acts by him on his responsibility. If they share his authority, he has some share in theirs. Presidential "powers"
may be inconclusive when a President commands, but always remain relevant as he persuades. The status and authority inherent in
his office reinforce his logic and his charm....
A President's authority and status give him great advantages in dealing with the men he would persuade. Each "power" is a vantage
point for him in the degree that other men have use for his authority. From the veto to appointments, from publicity to budgeting,
and so down a long list, the White House now controls the most encompassing array of vantage points in the American political
system. With hardly an exception, those who share in governing this country are aware that at some time, in some degree, the doing
of their jobs, the furthering of their ambitions, may depend upon the President of the United States. Their need for presidential
action, or their fear of it, is bound to be recurrent if not actually continuous. Their need or fear is his advantage.
A President's advantages are greater than mere listing of his "powers" might suggest. Those with whom he deals must deal with him
until the last day of his term. Because they have continuing relationships with him, his future, while it lasts, supports his present
influence. Even though there is no need or fear of him today, what he could do tomorrow may supply today's advantage. Continuing
relationships may convert any "power,' any aspect of his status, into vantage points in almost any case. When he induces other
people to do what he wants done, a President can trade on their dependence now and later.
The President's advantages are checked by the advantages of others. Continuing relationships will pull in both directions. These are
relationships of mutual dependence. A President depends upon the persons whom he would persuade; he has to reckon with his need
or fear of them. They too will possess status, or authority, or both, else they would be of little use to him. Their vantage points
confront his own; their power tempers his....
The power to persuade is the power to bargain. Status and authority yield bargaining advantages. But in a government of "separated
institutions sharing powers," they yield them to all sides. With the array of vantage points at his disposal, a President may be far
more persuasive than his logic or his charm could make him. But outcomes are not guaranteed by his advantages. There remain the
counter pressures those whom he would influence can bring to bear on him from vantage points at their disposal. Command has
limited utility; persuasion becomes give-and-take. It is well that the White House holds the vantage points it does. In such a business
any President may need them all-and more....
When a President confronts divergent policy advisers, disputing experts, conflicting data, and uncertain outlooks, yet must choose,
there plainly are some other things he can do for himself besides consulting his own power stakes. But there is a proviso-provided
he has done that first and keeps clear in his mind how much his prospects may depend on his authority, how much on reputation,
how much on public standing. In the world Reagan inhabited where reputation and prestige are far more intertwined than they had
been in Truman's time, or even LBJ's, this proviso is no easy test of presidential expertise. It calls for a good ear and a fine eye....
But when a President turns to others, regardless of the mode, he is dependent on their knowledge, judgment, and good will. If he
turns essentially to one, alone, he puts a heavy burden on that other's knowledge. If he chooses not to read or hear details, he puts an
even greater burden on the other's judgment. If he consents, besides, to secrecy from everyone whose task in life is to protect his
flanks, he courts deep trouble. Good will should not be stretched beyond endurance. In a system characterized by separated
institutions sharing powers, where presidential interests will diverge in some degree from those of almost everybody else, that
suggests not stretching very far....
Personally, I prefer Presidents ... more skeptical than trustful, more curious than committed, more nearly Roosevelts than Reagans. I
think the former energize our governmental system better and bring out its defects less than do the latter. Reagan's years did not
persuade me otherwise, in spite of his appeal on other scores. Every scandal in his wake, for instance, must owe something to the
narrow range of his convictions and the breadth of his incuriosity, along with all that trust. A President cannot abolish bad behavior,
but he sets a tone, and if he is alert to possibilities he can set traps, and with them limits. Reagan's tone, apparently, was heard by all
too many as "enrich yourselves," while those few traps deregulation spared appear to have been sprung and left unbaited for the
most part. But this book has not been written to expound my personal preferences. Rather it endeavors to expose the problem for a
President of either sort who seeks to buttress prospects for his future influence while making present choices-"looking toward
tomorrow from today," as I wrote at the start. For me that remains a crucial enterprise. It is not, of course, the only thing a President
should put his mind to, but it is the subject to which I have put my own throughout this book. It remains crucial, in my view, not
simply for the purposes of Presidents, but also for the products of the system, whether effective policy, or flawed or none. Thus it
becomes crucial for us all.
We now stand on the threshold of a time institutions, Congress and the President, share in which those separated powers fully and
uncomfortably across the board of policy, both foreign and domestic. From the 1940s through the 1960s-"midcentury" in this book's
terms--Congress, having been embarrassed at Pearl Harbor by the isolationism it displayed beforehand, gave successive Presidents
more scope in defense budgeting and in the conduct of diplomacy toward Europe and Japan than was the norm between the two
world wars. Once the Cold War had gotten under way, and then been largely militarized after Korea, that scope widened. With the
onset of the missile age it deepened. Should nuclear war impend, the President became the system's final arbiter. Thus I
characterized JFK against the background of the Cuban missile crisis. But by 1975 the denouement of Watergate and that of
Vietnam, eight months apart, had put a period to what remained of congressional reticence left over from Pearl Harbor. And the
closing of the Cold War, now in sight though by no means achieved, promises an end to nuclear danger as between the Soviet Union
and the United States. Threats of nuclear attack could well remain, from Third World dictators or terrorists, but not destruction of
the Northern Hemisphere. So in the realm of military preparationseven, indeed, covert actions-the congressional role waxes as the
Cold War wanes, returning toward normality as understood in Franklin Roosevelt's first two terms.
In a multipolar world, crisscrossed by transnational relations, with economic and environmental issues paramount, and issues of
security reshaped on regional lines, our Presidents will less and less have reason to seek solace in foreign relations from the piled-up
frustrations of home affairs. Their foreign frustrations will be piled high too.
Since FDR in wartime, every President including Bush has found the role of superpower sovereign beguiling: personal
responsibility at once direct and high, issues at once gripping and arcane, opposite numbers frequently intriguing and wellmannered, acclaim by foreign audiences echoing well at home, foreign travel relatively glamorous, compared with home, interest
groups less clamorous, excepting special cases, authority always stronger, Congress often tamer. But the distinctions lessencompare Bush's time with Nixon's to say nothing of Eisenhower's-and we should expect that they will lessen further.
Telecommunications, trade, aid, banking and stock markets combined with AIDS and birth control and hunger, topped off by toxic
waste and global warming-these are not the stuff of which the Congress of Vienna* was made, much less the summits of yore.
Moreover, Europeans ten years hence, as well as Japanese, may not resemble much the relatively acquiescent "middle powers" we
grew used to in the 1960s and 1970s. Cooperating with them may come to seem to Presidents no easier than cooperating with
Congress. Our friends abroad will see it quite the other way around: How are they to cooperate with our peculiar mix of separated
institutions sharing powers? Theirs are ordered governments, ours a rat race. Complaints of us by others in these terms are nothing
new. They have been rife throughout this century. But by the next, some of the chief complainants may have fewer needs of us,
while ours of them grow relatively greater, than at any other time since World War II. In that case foreign policy could cease to be a
source of pleasure for a President. By the same token, he or she would have to do abroad as on the Hill and in Peoria: Check
carefully the possible effects of present choices on prospective reputation and prestigethinking of other governments and publics
quite as hard as those at home. It is not just our accustomed NATO and Pacific allies who may force the pace here, but the Soviet
Union, if it holds together, and potentially great powers-China, India, perhaps Brazil-as well as our neighbors, north and south.
From the multicentered, interdependent world now coming into being, environmentally endangered as it is, Presidents may look
back on the Cold War as an era of stability, authority, and glamour. They may yearn for the simplicity they see in retrospect, and
also for the solace. Too bad. The job of being President is tougher when incumbents have to struggle for effective influence in
foreign and domestic spheres at once, with their command of nuclear forces losing immediate relevance, and the American economy
shorn of its former clout. There are, however, compensations, one in particular. If we outlive the Cold War,* the personal
responsibility attached to nuclear weapons should become less burdensome for Presidents themselves, while contemplation of their
mere humanity becomes less haunting for the rest of us. To me that seems a fair exchange.
*After the 1814 defeat of the French leader Napoleon by Russia, Prussia, Austria, and Britain, these great powers met in Vienna,
Austria, to ensure that the future of Europe would be peaceful. At the Congress of Vienna, they created a "balance of power" system
so that no single European nation could dominate the continent.-Ens.
*The Cold War refers to the hostility that existed between the United States and the Soviet Union from the end of World War 11
until recent times. The Cold War involved many forms of hostility: democracy versus communism; America's NATO allies versus
the Soviet Union's Warsaw Pact military partners; the threat of nuclear war; economic competition; the dividing of Third World
nations into pro-U.S. and pro-Soviet camps. With the demise of communism in Eastern Europe and the disintegration of the Soviet
Union, the Cold War era has ended.-Em.
From Alpha.Fdu.Edu online at http://alpha.fdu.edu/~peabody/neustadt.html.
Presidential Power and the Modern President
Richard Neustadt
1.
To what degree do you agree with the following statement: “’powers’ are no guarantee of power;
clerkship is no guarantee of leadership?” Give two examples of your own.
2.
What is Neustadt’s take on the concept of separation of powers? Do you agree with him? What
evidence does he give?
3.
Distinguish between “command” and “persuade.” How does this related to presidential power?
4.
How does the following passage relate to Federalist 10?
The President's advantages are checked by the advantages of others. Continuing relationships will
pull in both directions. These are relationships of mutual dependence. A President depends upon
the persons whom he would persuade; he has to reckon with his need or fear of them. They too will
possess status, or authority, or both, else they would be of little use to him. Their vantage points
confront his own; their power tempers his....
5.
Assess Neustadt’s conclusions on nuclear proliferation. Do you agree with him? Explain.
Chapter 13 Study Questions
The Bureaucracy
1. What makes American bureaucracy distinctive?
2. What controls does Congress have over the bureaucracy?
3. What concerns does the president have in choosing whom to appoint? How have these concerns changed since
the 19th century?
4. How and why has the role of bureaucratic agencies changed since the Civil War?
5. How does the manner in which officials are recruited and rewarded explain their behavior?
6. How do the personal attributes and political attitudes affect their behavior?
7. How can bureaucrats sabotage their political bosses?
8. What are the constraints on what an agency can do? Why do we have such constraints and what effect do these
constraints have on agency behavior?
9. Explain what iron triangles are and why they are less common today.
10. How does Congress exercise supervision over the bureaucracy? Explain all the different methods of oversight.
11. What are the five bureaucratic pathologies that the book identifies? Explain why each exists. Why is it so
difficult to reform the bureaucracy?
Representative democracy
Direct democracy
Electoral college
Faithless electors
Pyramid structure
Circular structure
Terms to Know
United States v. Nixon (1973)
Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Act (1974)
Impoundment
War Powers Act (1973)
Trustee approach and Delegate model
Independent Counsel law
Lame duck
Presidential Succession Act of 1947
Ad hoc structure
Cabinet
12th Amendment
22nd Amendment
Divided government
Unified Government
Executive Office of the President
25th Amendment
Office of Management and Budget Impeachment
(OMB)
National Security Council (NSC)
Bully Pulpit
Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) Inherent power
Executive Agencies
Executive orders
Independent Agencies
Approval ratings
Acting appointments
Imperial presidency
Presidential honeymoon
Rule of propinquity
Veto message and pocket veto
bureaucracy
Line-item veto
patronage
Clinton v. New York City (1998)
spoils system
Executive privilege
Pendleton Act (1883)
Laissez-faire economics
16th Amendment
Discretionary authority
Competitive service
Office of Personnel Management
Excepted service
Merit system
Civil Service Reform Act of
1978
Hatch Act (1933 and 1993)
Whistle Blower Protection Act
(1989)
Issues network
Authorization legislation
Appropriations
Committee clearance
Legislative veto
INS v. Chadha 1983)
Red tape
National Performance Review
Going native
Freedom of Information Act
(1966)
National Environmental Policy
Act (1969)
Max Weber: Bureaucracy (1922)
Any discussion about bureaucracy-in the United States or anywhere else-must begin with Max Weber, who is
best known for his work laying the intellectual foundation for the study of modern sociology. Weber wrote
extensively on modern social and political organization; his works include the unfinished Wirtschaft und
Gesellschaft (Economy and Society) (1922) and the influential The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism
(1904-1905).
His observations on bureaucracy were heavily informed by his experiences in the United States. While
traveling in the New World, Weber was struck by the role of bureaucracy in a democratic society. The
problem, as he saw it, was that a modern democracy required bureaucratic structures of all kinds in the
administration of government and even in the conduct of professional party politics. Handing over the reins to
a class of unelected "experts," however, threatened to undermine the very basis of democracy itself. In
particular, Weber stressed two problems: the unaccountability of unelected civil servants and the
bureaucratic tendency toward inflexibility in the application of rules. In this brief selection, Weber describes
the essential nature of bureaucracy.
I: Characteristics of Bureaucracy
Modern officialdom functions in the following specific manner:
I. There is the principle of fixed and official jurisdictional areas, which are generally ordered by rules, that is,
by laws or administrative regulations.
1. The regular activities required for the purposes of the bureaucratically governed structure are distributed in
a fixed way as official duties.
2. The authority to give the commands required for the discharge of these duties is distributed in a stable way
and is strictly delimited by rules concerning the coercive means, physical, sacerdotal, or otherwise, which may
be placed at the disposal of officials.
3. Methodical provision is made for the regular and continuous fulfillment of these duties and for the
execution of the corresponding rights; only persons who have the generally regulated qualifications to serve
are employed.
In public and lawful government these three elements constitute "bureaucratic authority." In private economic
domination, they constitute bureaucratic "management." Bureaucracy, thus understood, is fully developed in
political and ecclesiastical communities only in the modern state, and, in the private economy, only in the
most advanced institutions of capitalism. Permanent and public office authority, with fixed jurisdiction, is not
the historical rule but rather the exception. This is so even in large political structures such as those of the
ancient Orient, the Germanic and Mongolian empires of conquest, or of many feudal structures of state. In all
these cases, the ruler executes the most important measures through personal trustees, table-companions, or
court-servants. Their commissions and authority are not precisely delimited and are temporarily called into
being for each case.
II. The principles of office hierarchy and of levels of graded authority mean a firmly ordered system of superand subordination in which there is a supervision of the lower offices by the higher ones. Such a system offers
the governed the possibility of appealing the decision of a lower office to its higher authority, in a definitely
regulated manner. With the full development of the bureaucratic type, the office hierarchy is monocratically
organized. The principle of hierarchical office authority is found in all bureaucratic structures: in state and
ecclesiastical structures as well as in large party organizations and private enterprises. It does not matter for
the character of bureaucracy whether its authority is called "private" or "public."
When the principle of jurisdictional "competency" is fully carried through, hierarchical subordination-at least
in public office-does not mean that the "higher" authority is simply authorized to take over the business of the
"lower." Indeed, the opposite is the rule. Once established and having fulfilled its task, an office tends to
continue in existence and be held by another incumbent.
III. The management of the modem office is based upon written documents ("the files"), which are preserved
in their original or draught form. There is, therefore, a staff of subaltern officials and scribes of all sorts. The
body of officials actively engaged in a "public" office, along with the respective apparatus of material
implements and the files, make up a "bureau." In private enterprise, "the bureau" is often called "the office."
In principle, the modern organization of the civil service separates the bureau from the private domicile of the
official, and, in general, bureaucracy segregates official activity as something distinct from the sphere of
private life. Public monies and equipment are divorced from the private property of the official. This
condition is everywhere the product of a long development. Nowadays, it is found in public as well as in
private enterprises; in the latter, the principle extends even to the leading entrepreneur. In principle, the
executive office is separated from the household, business from private correspondence, and business assets
from private fortunes. The more consistently the modern type of business management has been carried
through the more are these separations the case. The beginnings of this process are to be found as early as the
Middle Ages.
It is the peculiarity of the modem entrepreneur that he conducts himself as the "first official" of his enterprise,
in the very same way in which the ruler of a specifically modern bureaucratic state spoke of himself as "the
first servant" of the state. The idea that the bureau activities of the state are intrinsically different in character
from the management of private economic offices is a continental European notion and, by way of contrast, is
totally foreign to the American way.
IV. Office management, at least all specialized office management-and such management is distinctly
modem-usually presupposes thorough and expert training. This increasingly holds for the modern executive
and employee of private enterprises, in the same manner as it holds for the state official.
V. When the office is fully developed, official activity demands the full working capacity of the official,
irrespective of the fact that his obligatory time in the bureau may be firmly delimited. In the normal case, this
is only the product of a long development, in the public as well as in the private office. Formerly, in all cases,
the normal state of affairs was reversed: official business was discharged as a secondary activity.
VI. The management of the office follows general rules, which are more or less stable, more or less
exhaustive, and which can be learned. Knowledge of these rules represents a special technical learning which
the officials possess. It involves jurisprudence, or administrative or business management.
The reduction of modem office management to rules is deeply embedded in its very nature. The theory of
modem public administration, for instance, assumes that the authority to order certain matters by decreewhich has been legally granted to public authorities-does not entitle the bureau to regulate the matter by
commands given for each case, but only to regulate the matter abstractly. This stands in extreme contrast to
the regulation of all relationships through individual privileges and bestowals of favor, which is absolutely
dominant in patrimonialism, at least in so far as such relationships are not fixed by sacred tradition....
Technical Advantages of Bureaucratic Organization
The decisive reason for the advance of bureaucratic organization has always been its purely technical
superiority over any other form of organization. The fully developed bureaucratic mechanism compares with
other organizations exactly as does the machine with the nonmechanical modes of production.
Precision, speed, unambiguity, knowledge of the files, continuity, discretion, unity, strict subordination,
reduction of friction and of material and personal costs-these are raised to the optimum point in the strictly
bureaucratic administration, and especially in its monocratic form. As compared with all collegiate, honorific,
and avocational forms of administration, trained bureaucracy is superior on all these points. And as far as
complicated tasks are concerned, paid bureaucratic work is not only more precise but, in the last analysis, it is
often cheaper than even formally unremunerated honorific service.
Honorific arrangements make administrative work an avocation and, for this reason alone, honorific service
normally functions more slowly; being less bound to schemata and being more formless. Hence it is less
precise and less unified than bureaucratic work because it is less dependent upon superiors and because the
establishment and exploitation of the apparatus of subordinate officials and filing services are almost
unavoidably less economical. Honorific service is less continuous than bureaucratic and frequently quite
expensive. This is especially the case if one thinks not only of the money costs to the public treasury-costs
which bureaucratic administration, in comparison with administration by notables, usually substantially
increases-but also of the frequent economic losses of the governed caused by delays and lack of precision.
The possibility of administration by notables normally and permanently exists only where official
management can be satisfactorily discharged as an avocation. With the qualitative increase of tasks the
administration has to face, administration by notables reaches its limits-today, even in England. Work
organized by collegiate bodies causes friction and delay and requires compromises between colliding interests
and views. The administration, therefore, runs less precisely and is more independent of superiors; hence, it is
less unified and slower. All advances of the Prussian administrative organization have been and will in the
future be advances of the bureaucratic, and especially of the monocratic, principle.
Today, it is primarily the capitalist market economy which demands that the official business of the
administration be discharged precisely, unambiguously, continuously, and with as much speed as possible.
Normally, the very large, modem capitalist enterprises are themselves unequalled models of strict bureaucratic
organization. Business management throughout rests on increasing precision, steadiness, and, above all, the
speed of operations. This, in turn, is determined by the peculiar nature of the modern means of
communication, including, among ~other things, the news service of the press. The extraordinary increase in
the speed by which public announcements, as well as economic and political facts, are transmitted exerts a
steady and sharp pressure in the direction of speeding up the tempo of administrative reaction towards various
situations. The optimum of such reaction time is normally attained only by a strictly bureaucratic
organization.
Bureaucratization offers above all the optimum possibility for carrying through the principle of specializing
administrative functions according to purely objective considerations. Individual performances are allocated
to functionaries who have specialized training and who by constant practice learn more and more. The
"objective" discharge of business primarily means a discharge of business according to calculable rules and
"without regard for persons.
"Without regard for persons" is also the watchword of the "market" and, in general, of all pursuits of naked
economic interests. A consistent execution of bureaucratic domination means the leveling of status "honor."
Hence, if the principle of the free-market is not at the same time restricted, it means the universal domination
of the class situation." That this consequence of bureaucratic domination has not set in everywhere, parallel to
the extent of bureaucratization, is due to the differences among possible principles by which polities may meet
their demands.
The second element mentioned, "calculable rules," also is of paramount importance for modern bureaucracy.
The peculiarity of modern culture, and specifically of its technical and economic basis, demands this very
"calculability" of results.
… [The] specific nature [of bureaucracy], which is welcomed by capitalism, develops the more perfectly the
more the bureaucracy is "dehumanized," the more completely it succeeds in eliminating from official business
love, hatred, and all purely -personal, irrational, and emotional elements which escape calculation. This is the
specific nature of bureaucracy and it is appraised as its special virtue.
The more complicated and specialized modern culture becomes, the more its external supporting apparatus
demands the personally detached and strictly "objective" expert, in lieu of the master of older social
structures, who was moved by personal sympathy and favor, by grace and gratitude. Bureaucracy offers the
attitudes demanded by the external apparatus of modern culture in the most favorable combination. As a rule,
only bureaucracy has established the foundation for the administration of a rational law conceptually
systematized on the basis of such enactments as the latter Roman imperial period first created with a high
degree of -technical perfection. During the Middle Ages, this law was received along with the
bureaucratization of legal administration, that is to say, with the displacement I of the old trial procedure
which was bound to tradition or to irrational presuppositions, by the rationally trained and specialized expert.
Questions to think about
1. What are the characteristics of the bureaucratic form of governmental power? What are bureaucracy's
strong points? weak points?
2. Why are the rules so important in a bureaucracy? What are the advantages and disadvantages of making
decisions on the basis of general rules, rather than on a case-by-case basis?
Unit V- Branches of GovernmentPart C -The Judiciary
All the rights secured to the citizens under the Constitution are worth nothing, and a mere bubble,
except guaranteed to them by an independent and virtuous Judiciary.
Andrew Jackson
Assignments
Chapter 14 Study Guide
Supreme Court Writing Assignment
Assessments
Unit V Exam- Multiple Choice
Secondary Readings
Scalia- Liberty and Abortion; A Strict Constructionist’s
View”
Chapter 14
The Judiciary
6. Define judicial review. Make sure you memorize the case, Marbury v. Madison
7. Summarize the two approaches to using the Constitution to decide cases.
8. The book discusses three main stages in the evolution of today’s Supreme Court. Give brief generalizations that
summarize the main issues of each of these three stages.
9. Define: district court, courts of appeals, senatorial courtesy, blue slips, and litmus tests. Explain why litmus
tests have grown in importance.
10. List and understand the ten reasons why David Yalof says that the modern selection process for justices has
changed.
11. What does it mean to say that our system is a dual court system? Explain how our dual court system works.
12. Find a way to commit to memory the path that a case takes to get to the Supreme Court.
13. Summarize rules governing standing.
14. Explain what a class action suit is. What are the pros and cons of having class action suits?
15. Define brief, amicus curiae, Solicitor General, per curiam opinion, opinion of the Court, concurring opinion,
dissenting opinion.
16. The book discuses four indicators of how courts have become more powerful. Explain what these four
measures are.
17. What arguments does the book present in favor of and against judicial activism?
18. What explanations does the book give for why we have activist courts?
19. List and explain the checks on judicial power from both the other branches of government and public opinion.
20. According to Scalia, what issues would a strict constitutional constructionist have with the current Roe v. Wade
debate?
Terms to Know
Amicus curiae
Antonin Scalia
In forma pauperis
John Marshall
Appellate jurisdiction
Blue Slips
Judicial activist
Judicial review
Law clerks
Briefs
Burger Court
Civil law
Clarence Thomas
Class action suit
Legislative courts
Litmus test
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Concurrent jurisdiction
Opinion of the Court
Concurring opinion
Original jurisdiction
per curiam opinion
Plaintiff
Political question
Constitutional court
Courts of Appeals
Court order
Court packing plan
Criminal law
David Souter
Defendant
Rehnquist Court
Remedy
Robert Bork
Roger B. Taney
Dissenting opinion
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
District court
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
Senatorial courtesy
Dual Court System
Dual sovereignty
Exclusive jurisdiction
Federalist No. 78
Federal-question cases
Fee shifting
Gang of 14
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Impeachment
Solicitor General
Sonia Sotomayor
Sovereign immunity
Standing
Stare decisis
Strict constructionist
Warren Court
William Rehnquist
Writ of certiorari
Supreme Court Writing Assignment
You must pick your case by
although you can do so earlier.
Your paper is due on ______________________*
For this assignment, you will choose one Supreme Court case from the past fifty years that you think was decided
wrongly. (You may not choose Roe v. Wade or Bush v. Gore. They’ve been done way too much!! .) You may also not
pick a case that has since been overturned. Your task will be to write a convincing argument to explain why the
Supreme Court’s decision was, in your opinion, incorrect. You must base your reasoning on Constitutional arguments,
precedents, and history. It is not enough to say that the decision was wrong and unfair. You must demonstrate your
grasp of the issues we have discussed throughout the year in your analysis.
This is not as intimidating as it may sound. Few decisions are decided unanimously. The justices in the minority have
issued dissenting opinions explaining why they think the majority decided the case incorrectly. These dissenting
opinions would be a good starting point for your preparation for the essay. You may quote from the dissents (with
appropriate citations, of course) but I am not looking for a simple cut and paste job. You have the advantage of
hindsight and so know the impact the decision has had on American life and jurisprudence. What problems do we
encounter in today’s society because of the way that your case was decided? I encourage you to explore that approach.
Here are some sites that might help you find a good case on issues that interest you:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/home.html (Scroll down for links by topic)
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/topicssummary.aspx
I have also provided several links on the Links page for AP Government under the Constitution and Supreme Court that
may help you. You may access all Supreme Court decisions at the Oyez site. http://oyez.nwu.edu/cases/cases.cgi or
at Cornell’s site http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/
This is what I’m looking for in an ‘A’ paper:







You show your understanding of the facts, issues involved in the case, and the factors that went into the
decision for each side.
You argue that the Supreme Court decided the case incorrectly with an impressive array of Constitutional
arguments, discussion of applicable precedents, and an examination of how their decision has had or will have a
deleterious effect on the country.
You write beautifully with excellent English. You make no ugly grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors. You
do not use the first person.
Your writing flows from paragraph to paragraph without abrupt transitions that jar the reader’s attention.
You cite all quotations and analyses that you borrow. It is not enough to simply cite that which you quoted. If
you adapted an argument from some source, you should acknowledge your work’s provenance. To do
otherwise is outright theft.
You include a bibliography of all sources that you consulted. For citing a SC decision I want to see: Name of
the case (in italics), year, and URL. Indicate if the opinion is the main opinion, concurring, or dissenting.
Your paper uses a 12 pt. font and is typed and double-spaced.
I would predict that your papers would be in the four-to-six-page range.
* Papers that do not fully meet these criteria will receive lesser grades. This will count as a test grade. You will lose 10
points per day that your paper is late. If you are going to be absent on the day its due, please find a way to get the paper
to me. Try messengers, e-mail, or carrier pigeons. You may receive two points per day that you hand this in early for a
maximum of 10 points extra credit. If you’re not going to be here on the due date, you must turn in your paper earlier.
You will lose 10 points per day for being late.
Liberty and Abortion: A Strict Constructionist's View
Justice Antonin Scalia
. . . Laws against bigamy. . . which entire societies of reasonable people disagree with-intrude upon men
and women's liberty to marry and live with one another. But bigamy happens not to be a liberty specially
"protected" by the Constitution.
That is, quite simply, the issue in this case: not whether the power of a woman to abort her unborn
child is a "liberty" in the absolute sense; or even whether it is a liberty of great importance to many
women. Of course it is both. The issue is whether it is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the
United States. I am sure it is not. I reach that conclusion not because of anything so exalted as my views
concerning the "concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
Rather, I reach it for the same reason I reach the conclusion that bigamy is not constitutionally protectedbecause of two simple facts: (1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the
longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed. . . .
The emptiness of the "reasoned judgment" that produced Roe is displayed in plain view by the fact
that, after more than 19 years of effort by some of the brightest (and most determined) legal minds in the
country, after more than 10 cases upholding abortion rights in this Court, and after dozens upon dozens
of amicus briefs submitted in this and other cases, the best the Court can do to explain how it is that the
word "liberty" must be thought to include the right to destroy human fetuses is to rattle off a collection of
adjectives that simply decorate a value judgment and conceal a political choice. The right to abort, we
are told, inheres in "liberty" because it is among "a person's most basic decisions," it involves a "most
intimate and personal choic[e]," it is "central to personal dignity and autonomy," it "originate[s] within
the zone of conscience and belief," it is "too intimate and personal" for state interference, it reflects "intimate
views" of a "deep, personal character," it involves "intimate relationships," and notions of "personal autonomy
and bodily integrity," and it concerns a particularly "important decision[n]." But it is obvious to anyone
applying "reasoned judgment" that the same adjectives can be applied to many forms of conduct that this
Court ... has held are not entitled to constitutional protection-because, like abortion, they are forms of conduct
that have long been criminalized in American society. Those adjectives might be applied, for example, to
homosexual sodomy, polygamy, adult incest, and suicide, all of which are equally "intimate" and "deep[ly]
personal" decisions involving "personal autonomy and bodily integrity," and all of which can constitutionally
be proscribed because it is our unquestionable constitutional tradition that they are proscribable. It is not
reasoned judgment that supports the Court's decision; only personal predilection. . .
.
[W]hether it would "subvert the Court's legitimacy" or not, the notion that we would decide a case
differently from the way we otherwise would have in order to show that we can stand firm against public
disapproval is frightening. It is a bad enough idea, even in the head of someone like me, who believes that the
text of the Constitution, and our traditions, say what they say and there is no fiddling with them. But when it
is in the mind of a Court that believes the Constitution has an evolving meaning; that the Ninth Amendment's
reference to "othe[r]" rights is not a disclaimer, but a charter for action; and that the function of this Court is
to "speak before all others for constitutional ideals" unrestrained by meaningful text or tradition-then the
notion that the Court must adhere to a decision for as long as the decision faces "great opposition" and the
Court is "under fire" acquires a character of almost czarist arrogance. We are offended by these marchers who
descend upon us, every year on the anniversary of Roe, to protest our saying that the Constitution requires
what our society has never thought the Constitution requires. These people who refuse to be "tested by
following" must be taught a lesson. We have no Cossacks, but at least we can stubbornly refuse to abandon an
erroneous opinion that we might otherwise change-to show how little they intimidate us. . . . We should get
out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by
remaining.
Scalia, Justice Antonin. “Liberty and Abortion: A Strict Constructionist’s View”. Ed. Peter Woll. New York.
Pearson Longman, 2004. 444-445.
Unit VI- Public Policy
I want to make a policy statement. I am unabashedly in favor of women.
Lyndon B. Johnson
Assignments
Chapter 15, 16, 16, 17, 20, 21 Study Guides (Most are
short so don’t freak out !)
Public Policy Project
Assessments
Unit Exam Multiple Choice and FRQs
Secondary Readings
Will- Why Didn’t Bush Ask Congress?
Easterbrook- Some Convenient Truths
Chapter 15 Study Questions
The Policy Making Process
1. How are certain issues (at certain times) placed on the public agenda for action?
2. Define the following terms as used in this chapter: a) costs; b) benefits; c) perception
3. Use the above terms to explain the four types of politics presented in the text: majoritarian, client, interest
group, and entrepreneurial.
4. Discuss the roles played in the process of public policy formation by people’s perceptions, beliefs, interests, and
values.
Terms to Know
Poltical agendas
costs
benefit
majoritarian politics
interest group policy
client politics
pork barrel projects
logrolling
entrepreneurial politics
policy entrepreneurs
boycott
process regulation
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
Superfund
Sherman Act
Federal Trade Commission Act
Clayton Act
The Grange
Wagner Act
National Labor Relations Board
Pure Food and Drug Act
deregulation
Public Policy Project
You will be assigned one of the following policy areas to research:
Economic Policy (Ch. 16)
Social Welfare Policy (Ch. 17)
Foreign and Military Policy (Ch. 20)
Environmental Policy (Ch 21)

Begin by reading about the Policy-Making Process in general from Ch. 15 in your textbook.

Then, using your textbook, the Internet, library materials, and other resources available to you,
thoroughly research your policy area paying attention to 1) historical development, 2) current policy,
3) issues at debate.

Next, having researched your assigned policy area, develop your own opinion in regard to the
appropriateness, and/or efficacy of current policy. Express your opinion in 5-paragraph essay format.

The results of your research and thought will be presented in two ways: an individual student paper,
and a group presentation.
Individual paper requirements:
a. Title Page
b. Historical Development section (1-3 pages)
c. Current Policy section (1-3 Pages)
d. Issues-at-debate section (1-3 pages)
e. Position Essay (1-2 pages)—defend a position related to one of the issues-at-debate. (Special Note- This
will replace the normal Prompted Essay assignment for the week!)
f. Visual Aid (graph, chart, drawing, etc.) that you create and that helps explain or illustrate some key point of
your paper. Note: this is separate from whatever visual your group might have uses in their presentation
g. Bibliography (MLA Format)
All papers must be typed, double-spaced (12 point font, 1 inch margins) and properly documented (MLA).
Submit a hard copy of your paper to Mr. Guemmer or an electronic copy through Classjump.
You should work in cooperation with others in the class who have been assigned the same policy area, but
each student is to complete an individual report on a specific issue if possible (“sharing” information is O.K.,
but write your own paper, using your own words)
Wherever possible, your discussion of your specific policy area should reflect an understanding of the policymaking process in general as discussed in Ch. 15 of your textbook (I will look for key terms and concepts, e.g.
“majoritarian politics,” “client politics,” etc.).
Chapter 16 Study Questions
Economic Policy
1. Summarize how economics affects politics and how politicians respond.
2. How do two kinds of majoritarian politics complicate the politics of taxing and spending?
3. Summarize the following economic theories: Monetarism, Keynesianism, economic planning, industrial policy,
supply-side, Reaganomics.
4. Define fiscal policy, budget deficit, budget surplus, monetary policy, and fiscal year.
5. Summarize the role of the CEA, OMB and secretary of the treasury.
6. What are the two sides of the debate on free trade?
7. How did the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 change the budget process? In your answer indicate how the
budget process is supposed to work.
8. What are entitlements? What impact do they have on the federal budget?
9. What was in the Gramm-Rudman Act or Balanced Budget Act of 1985? Define sequester. What strategy was
adopted when sequestration didn’t work?
10. Using the handout, define gross domestic product, recession, fiscal policy, discretionary spending, mandatory
spending
11. How did the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 reform the process?
12. Define tax loopholes, progressive tax, marginal rate, regressive tax, sin taxes, flat tax, capital-gains tax (from
handout)
13. What is the main function of the Federal Reserve and what are the three main tools they at their disposal to
implement their policies? Make sure you know this. (Of course, that’s true for everything….)
Adam Smith
Arthur Laffer
Budget deficit
Budget Resolution
budget surplus
Council of Economic Advisers (CEA)
Economic planning
entitlements
Federal Reserve
Fiscal policy
Fiscal Year (FY)
Inflation
John Maynard Keynes
Terms to Know
Keynesianism
Milton Friedman
Monetary policy
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
Monetarism
Opportunity costs
Price and wage controls
Reaganomics
Recession
Scarcity
sequester
Substitutability
Supply-side theory
Chapter 17
Social Welfare
1. Describe the goals of the welfare system.
2. Contrast its programs with those of the British in terms of centralization.
3. Describe the major elements of the system, including the Social Security Act of 1935, the Medicare Act of
1965, and the abolition of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program.
4. Why are some welfare policies considered majoritarian politics and other client politics?
5. Give examples and indicate the political consequences of each. Discuss the politics of welfare reform.
Terms to Know
Majoritarian politics
client politics
insurance program
assistance program
means test
Earned Income Tax Credit
service strategy
income strategy
Social Security Act
Medicare
Chapter 20
Foreign and Military Policy
1. List the constitutional powers of the president and compare them with the authority of Congress in foreign
affairs.
2. Why is it naïve to read the Constitution literally with regards to foreign affairs?
3. Explain the changing role of public opinion in shaping foreign policy.
4. Why are checks on the powers of the national government in foreign affairs primarily political rather than
constitutional?
5. Analyze the key allocative decisions about the defense budget.
6. According to George Will, what were the justifications the Bush Administration used to order the NSA to start
electronic surveillance following 9/11?
7. Looking back, did the Bush Administration, at the time and based on their interpretation of the Constitution,
have a strong argument for electronic surveillance? Could that interpretation be used by the current
administration? Why or why not?
Terms to Know
Military-industrial complex
“Peace dividend”
“World’s policeman”
Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS)
Armed Services Committees
Strategic defense Initiative (SDI) or “Star Wars”
Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMS)
Mutual assured destruction (MAD)
“Don ask, don’t tell”
Cost overruns
Gold plating
Readiness
Commission on Base Realignment and closure (BRAC)
National Security Act (1947)
Chain of Command
Goldwater-Nichols Act (1986)
Chapter 21 Environmental Policy

Why is environmental policy frequently controversial?

Outline the major provisions of the Clean Air Act (1970), the Water Quality Improvement Act (1970), the
revised Clean Air Act (1990), and the National Environmental Policy Act (1969).

What political point of view does Gregg Easterbrook have in regards to Global Warming and the United States
environmental policies? Does he have any points that you agree with? What parts of his arguments are not
particularly strong?
Terms to Know
Clean Air Act (1963)
Auto emission standards
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1970)
Water Quality Improvement Act (1970)
Endangered Species Act (1973)
Kyoto Protocol
Smog
toxic Waste
Acid Rain
Environmental impact statement (EIS)
Why Didn't Bush Ask Congress?
By George Will
WASHINGTON -- The president's authorization of domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency
contravened a statute's clear language. Assuming that urgent facts convinced him that he should proceed
anyway and on his own, what argument convinced him that he lawfully could?
Presumably the argument is that the president's implied powers as commander in chief, particularly with the
nation under attack and some of the enemy within the gates, are not limited by statutes. A classified legal brief
probably makes an argument akin to one Attorney General John Ashcroft made in 2002: ``The Constitution
vests in the president inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or
otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional
authority.''
Perhaps the brief argues, as its author John Yoo -- now a professor of law at Berkeley, but then a deputy
assistant attorney general -- argued 14 days after 9/11 in a memorandum on ``the president's constitutional
authority to conduct military operations against terrorists and nations supporting them,'' that the president's
constitutional power to take ``military actions'' is ``plenary.'' The Oxford English Dictionary defines
``plenary'' as ``complete, entire, perfect, not deficient in any element or respect.''
The brief should be declassified and debated, beginning with this question: Who decides which tactics -- e.g.,
domestic surveillance -- should be considered part of taking ``military actions''?
Without more information than can be publicly available concerning threats from enemies operating in
America, the executive branch deserves considerable discretion in combating terrorist conspiracies utilizing
new technologies such as cell phones and the Internet. In September 2001 the president surely had sound
reasons for desiring the surveillance capabilities at issue.
But did he have sound reasons for seizing them while giving only minimal information to, and having no
formal complicity with, Congress? Perhaps. But Congress, if asked, almost certainly would have made such
modifications of law as the president's plans required. Courts, too, would have been compliant. After all, on
Sept. 14, 2001, Congress had unanimously declared that ``the president has authority under the Constitution to
take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism,'' and had authorized ``all necessary and
appropriate force'' against those involved in 9/11 or threatening future attacks.
For more than 500 years -- since the rise of nation-states and parliaments -- a preoccupation of Western
political thought has been the problem of defining and confining executive power. The problem is expressed
in the title of a brilliant book, ``Taming the Prince: The Ambivalence of Modern Executive Power,'' by
Harvey Mansfield, Harvard's conservative.
Particularly in time of war or the threat of it, government needs concentrated decisiveness -- a capacity for
swift and nimble action that legislatures normally cannot manage. But the inescapable corollary of this need is
the danger of arbitrary power.
Modern American conservatism grew in reaction against the New Deal's creation of the regulatory state, and
the enlargement of the executive branch power that such a state entails. The intellectual vigor of conservatism
was quickened by reaction against the Great Society and the aggrandizement of the modern presidency by
Lyndon Johnson, whose aspiration was to complete the project begun by Franklin Roosevelt.
Because of what Alexander Hamilton praised as ``energy in the executive,'' which often drives the growth of
government, for years many conservatives were advocates of congressional supremacy. There were, they said,
reasons why the Founders, having waged a revolutionary war against overbearing executive power, gave the
legislative branch pride of place in Article I of the Constitution.
One reason was that Congress' cumbersomeness, which is a function of its fractiousness, is a virtue because it
makes the government slow and difficult to move. But conservatives' wholesome wariness of presidential
power has been a casualty of conservative presidents winning seven of the last 10 elections.
On the assumption that Congress or a court would have been cooperative in September 2001, and that the
cooperation could have kept necessary actions clearly lawful without conferring any benefit on the nation's
enemies, the president's decision to authorize NSA's surveillance without the complicity of a court or
Congress was a mistake. Perhaps one caused by this administration's almost metabolic urge to keep Congress
unnecessarily distant and hence disgruntled.
Charles de Gaulle, a profound conservative, said of another such, Otto von Bismarck -- de Gaulle was
thinking of Bismarck not pressing his advantage in 1870 in the Franco-Prussian War -- that genius sometimes
consists of knowing when to stop. In peace and in war, but especially in the latter, presidents have pressed
their institutional advantages to expand their powers to act without Congress. This president might look for
occasions to stop pressing.
© 2005, Washington Post Writers Group
Some Convenient Truths
Runaway global warming looks all but unstoppable. Maybe that’s because we haven’t really tried to
stop it
by Gregg Easterbrook
If there is now a scientific consensus that global warming must be taken seriously, there is also a related
political consensus: that the issue is Gloom City. In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore warns of sea levels rising
to engulf New York and San Francisco and implies that only wrenching lifestyle sacrifice can save us. The
opposing view is just as glum. Even mild restrictions on greenhouse gases could “cripple our economy,”
Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri said in 2003. Other conservatives suggest that greenhouse-gas rules
for Americans would be pointless anyway, owing to increased fossil-fuel use in China and India. When
commentators hash this issue out, it’s often a contest to see which side can sound more pessimistic.
Here’s a different way of thinking about the greenhouse effect: that action to prevent runaway global warming
may prove cheap, practical, effective, and totally consistent with economic growth. Which makes a body
wonder: Why is such environmental optimism absent from American political debate?
Greenhouse gases are an air-pollution problem—and all previous air-pollution problems have been reduced
faster and more cheaply than predicted, without economic harm. Some of these problems once seemed scary
and intractable, just as greenhouse gases seem today. About forty years ago urban smog was increasing so fast
that President Lyndon Johnson warned, “Either we stop poisoning our air or we become a nation [in] gas
masks groping our way through dying cities.” During Ronald Reagan’s presidency, emissions of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, threatened to deplete the stratospheric ozone layer. As recently as George H. W. Bush’s
administration, acid rain was said to threaten a “new silent spring” of dead Appalachian forests.
But in each case, strong regulations were enacted, and what happened? Since 1970, smog-forming air
pollution has declined by a third to a half. Emissions of CFCs have been nearly eliminated, and studies
suggest that ozone-layer replenishment is beginning. Acid rain, meanwhile, has declined by a third since
1990, while Appalachian forest health has improved sharply.
Most progress against air pollution has been cheaper than expected. Smog controls on automobiles, for
example, were predicted to cost thousands of dollars for each vehicle. Today’s new cars emit less than 2
percent as much smog-forming pollution as the cars of 1970, and the cars are still as affordable today as they
were then. Acid-rain control has cost about 10 percent of what was predicted in 1990, when Congress enacted
new rules. At that time, opponents said the regulations would cause a “clean-air recession”; instead, the
economy boomed.
Greenhouse gases, being global, are the biggest air-pollution problem ever faced. And because widespread
fossil-fuel use is inevitable for some time to come, the best-case scenario for the next few decades may be a
slowing of the rate of greenhouse-gas buildup, to prevent runaway climate change. Still, the basic pattern
observed in all other forms of air-pollution control—rapid progress at low cost—should repeat for
greenhouse-gas controls.
Yet a paralyzing negativism dominates global-warming politics. Environmentalists depict climate change as
nearly unstoppable; skeptics speak of the problem as either imaginary (the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated,” in
the words of Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate’s environment committee) or ruinously expensive
to address.
Even conscientious politicians may struggle for views that aren’t dismal. Mandy Grunwald, a Democratic
political consultant, says, “When political candidates talk about new energy sources, they use a positive, can-
do vocabulary. Voters have personal experience with energy use, so they can relate to discussion of solutions.
If you say a car can use a new kind of fuel, this makes intuitive sense to people. But global warming is of such
scale and magnitude, people don’t have any commonsense way to grasp what the solutions would be. So
political candidates tend to talk about the greenhouse effect in a depressing way.”
One reason the global-warming problem seems so daunting is that the success of previous antipollution efforts
remains something of a secret. Polls show that Americans think the air is getting dirtier, not cleaner, perhaps
because media coverage of the environment rarely if ever mentions improvements. For instance, did you
know that smog and acid rain have continued to diminish throughout George W. Bush’s presidency?
One might expect Democrats to trumpet the decline of air pollution, which stands as one of government’s
leading postwar achievements. But just as Republicans have found they can bash Democrats by falsely
accusing them of being soft on defense, Democrats have found they can bash Republicans by falsely accusing
them of destroying the environment. If that’s your argument, you might skip over the evidence that many
environmental trends are positive. One might also expect Republicans to trumpet the reduction of air
pollution, since it signifies responsible behavior by industry. But to acknowledge that air pollution has
declined would require Republicans to say the words, “The regulations worked.”
Does it matter that so many in politics seem so pessimistic about the prospect of addressing global warming?
Absolutely. Making the problem appear unsolvable encourages a sort of listless fatalism, blunting the drive to
take first steps toward a solution. Historically, first steps against air pollution have often led to pleasant
surprises. When Congress, in 1970, mandated major reductions in smog caused by automobiles, even many
supporters of the rule feared it would be hugely expensive. But the catalytic converter was not practical then;
soon it was perfected, and suddenly, major reductions in smog became affordable. Even a small step by the
United States against greenhouse gases could lead to a similar breakthrough.
And to those who worry that any greenhouse-gas reductions in the United States will be swamped by new
emissions from China and India, here’s a final reason to be optimistic: technology can move across borders
with considerable speed. Today it’s not clear that American inventors or entrepreneurs can make money by
reducing greenhouse gases, so relatively few are trying. But suppose the United States regulated greenhouse
gases, using its own domestic program, not the cumbersome Kyoto Protocol; then America’s formidable
entrepreneurial and engineering communities would fully engage the problem. Innovations pioneered here
could spread throughout the world, and suddenly rapid global warming would not seem inevitable.
The two big technical advances against smog—the catalytic converter and the chemical engineering that
removes pollutants from gasoline at the refinery stage—were invented in the United States. The big economic
advance against acid rain—a credit-trading system that gives power-plant managers a profit incentive to
reduce pollution—was pioneered here as well. These advances are now spreading globally. Smog and acid
rain are still increasing in some parts of the world, but the trend lines suggest that both will decline fairly
soon, even in developing nations. For instance, two decades ago urban smog was rising at a dangerous rate in
Mexico; today it is diminishing there, though the country’s population continues to grow. A short time ago
declining smog and acid rain in developing nations seemed an impossibility; today declining greenhouse
gases seem an impossibility. The history of air-pollution control says otherwise.
Americans love challenges, and preventing artificial climate change is just the sort of technological and
economic challenge at which this nation excels. It only remains for the right politician to recast the challenge
in practical, optimistic tones. Gore seldom has, and Bush seems to have no interest in trying. But cheap and
fast improvement is not a pipe dream; it is the pattern of previous efforts against air pollution. The only reason
runaway global warming seems unstoppable is that we have not yet tried to stop it.
Unit VII- Civil Liberties – Civil Rights
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or
wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. “
Theodore Roosevelt
Assignments
Study Guide for Chapter 18 and 19
Supreme Decisions- Civil Rights Project
Assessments
Unit IX Exam Ch 18 & 19- Multiple Choice and FRQs
Secondary Readings
Williams- Proposition 209
Chapter 18 Study Questions
Civil Liberties.
1. What are the three reasons why the liberties claimed by some people become major issues? Give one or two
examples for each reason.
2. Explain briefly how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses.
3. What are the difficulties in using the “wall of separation” principle?
4. List and explain the circumstances when the Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of speech may be limited.
5. Define the “clear-and-present-danger test,” libel, preferred position, prior restraint, imminent danger, and
symbolic speech. You may just want to put these straight onto your flashcards
6. Summarize the Supreme Court’s changing interpretations of how to protect both the due process rights of
accused criminals and to preserve the safety of the community. Define the exclusionary rule and the “good
faith exception.”.
Terms to Know
Civil Liberties
McCarthyism
Incorporation Doctrine*
Fourteenth Amendment
Equal protection clause*
Due process clause*
Selective Incorporation*
Preferred freedoms*
Establishment Clause*
Free Exercise Clause*
Wall of Separation Principle
Lemon Test*
Equal Access Act
Parochial Schools
School Vouchers
Freedom of Expression*
Oliver Wendell Holmes
“Clear and Present Danger”
“time, place, and manner” restrictions*
Symbolic Speech*
“Hate Crime”
Speech codes
Prior Restraint*
Libel*
“actual malice”
Obscenity
“Community standards”
“Prurient interests”
Preferred position
Imminent danger*
Neutrality and Clarity
Least-restrictive means
John Peter Zenger
Pentagon Papers
Slander
Commercial speech
Right to assemble
Right to associate*
Search warrant
Indictment*
Grand Jury*
Substantive due process*
Procedural due process
Probable cause*
Exclusionary rule*
“fruit of the poison tree”
“good faith” exception*
Miranda rights
Capital Punishment
Self-incrimination*
Patriot Act
Chapter 19 Study Questions
Civil Rights
1. Why did ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment prove impossible, despite strong congressional and
popular support? What does the book say is the pertinent question regarding civil rights?
2. What were the strategies that black leaders followed in order to obtain civil rights? Once basic rights such as
voting and integration had been obtained, what issues did civil rights leaders focus on?
3. Briefly outline the steps in the NAACP’s strategy in the fight against segregated schools and indicate the
success they had in the courts and in implementing desegregation.
4. What was the issue concerning desegregation vs. integration? How has this issue been resolved?
5. What were the four developments that made it possible to pass civil rights bills?
6. What accounts for the change in attitude in Congress towards civil rights issues from the 1960s to the present?
7. How has the Supreme Court changed in its attitudes towards equal rights for women from the early 20th century
to today? What are the two standards the Court uses today to in considering sex discrimination cases?
8. What is the debate between those who support “equality of result” and those who support “equality of
opportunity”?
9. What are the criteria that the Supreme Court has adapted in defining strict scrutiny of any law involving racial
preferences?
10. Briefly summarize the highlights of the government’s response to abortion.
11. How did activists for the disabled manage to get The Americans with Disabilities Act passed? Briefly
summarize what is included in the law and the objections that some have had to the law.
12. In Walter Williams’s article, he expressed a very strong opinion regarding Proposition 209. Summarize his
argument and express your own opinions on the subject.
Terms to Know
Civil Rights
Suspect classifications*
Strict Scrutiny and semi-strict
scrutiny*
Reasonabless or rationality standard*
Jim Crow laws*
“equal protections of the laws”
“separate but equal”
“with all deliberate speed”
Segregation and desegregation *
integration*
de jure segregation
de facto segregation
Civil disobedience
Civil Rights Act of 1957
Equal Pay Act of 1963
Civil Rights Act of 1964*
Voting Rights Act of 1965*
Reverse discrimination*
“Equality of opportunity:
“Equality of result”
Open Housing Act of 1968 (Title VIII)
Higher Education Act of 1972 (Title IX) *
Education of All Handicapped Children Act of
1975)
Voting Rights Act of 1982
Civil Rights Act of 1988
American with Disabilities Act of 1990*
Sexual harassment
Equal Employment Opportunities Commission
Equal Rights Amendment*
Right to privacy*
Affirmative Action*
Quotas and preferences
Compensatory action
“compelling government
interest” *
“narrowly tailored” *
Concurring opinion*
Dissenting opinion*
“comparable worth”
Supreme Court Cases for this unit
Incorporation
Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
*Gitlow v. New York (1925)
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
Palko v. Connecticut (1937)
Freedom of Religion: Establishment Clause
*Everson v. Board of Education (1942)
*Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1990)
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)
Ten Commandments cases: McCreary County, KY v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky and Van Orden v.
Perry (2005)
Freedom of Religion: Free Exercise Clause
Reynolds v. United States (1879)
Sherbert v. Verner (1963)
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990)
Church of the Lukuani Babalu Ave., v. City of Hialeah (1993)
Freedom of Speech and Press
*Schenck v. United States (1919)
*Gitlow v. New York (1925)
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
*Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)
*New York Times Co. v. U.S. (1971)
Miller v. California (1973)
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Freedom of Assembly and Petition
NAACP v. Alabama (1958)
Boy Scouts of American v. Dale (2000)
2nd Amendment rights
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
Due Process and the Rights of the Accused
*Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
*Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
*Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Death Penalty cases: Furman v. Georgia (1972) and Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985)
Equal Protection of the Laws – Minorities
*Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
*Korematsu v. United States (1944)
*Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)
*Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)
Equal Protection of the Laws – Women and the Rights to Privacy and Abortion
*Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Reed v. Reed (1971)
*Roe v. Wade (1973)
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)
* indicates you should know this case by name. You can know them by their shorthand name such as Plessy or Bakke.
For the others knowing them by name would be ideal, but is not required. Its more important to understand the cases
and their ramifications.
Supreme Decision Project
(Civil Rights)
The Process
The Procedure:




Get into a group of six people.
Enter the lottery and win your choice of a landmark Supreme Court case.
Research your case. Find out the story behind the case. What really happened to cause this case to
come to the court.
Read the text of the court’s majority opinion.
Possible sources:
In the Reference section (these do not circulate, so they will always be there!):



Landmark Decisions of the United States Supreme Court (Five volumes), R 347.7326.
Johnson, John W., Editor. Historic U.S. Court Cases, 1690-1990: An Encyclopedia, R 349.73026.
Knappman, Edward W., Editor. Great American Trials: From Salem Witchcraft to Rodney King. R
347.737
Internet:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/
http://www.fedworld.gov/supcourt/csearch.htm
THE PRODUCT:

Each person in the group will: Write a one page legal brief for your case which will be presented in
typed form.
o
Create a presentation which supplies all of the facts regarding your case BEFORE it came to
the Court. You may NOT have actual Supreme Court room scenes in your drama. This will be
presented by your group in the formal setting of a drama. You may present your project as a
live performance complete with props and costumes or as a video documentary. Remember
that your goal is to enlighten your audience. Of course, it's nice to be entertained too! Your
presentation must be 10 minutes in length. Projects will be presented on:
Grading will be based on:








Variety, quality, and breadth of scholarly research
Historical accuracy of information presented
Clarity of expression, both written and oral
Creativity of presentation, not of factual information
Effective conveying of information to the class
Incorporation of legal precedents and issues rather than your opinions
Length of presentation (10 minutes). Major penalties will be assessed to presentations that are too
short.
For subjects that are controversial, how you TASTEFULLY present the facts of the case.
How to Write a Legal Brief
There will be three parts to your legal brief regarding your landmark Supreme Court Case. They are:



Statement of the case: State the question to be settled by the court. For example, Shall there be
mandatory testing for AIDS for all pregnant women?
Summary of the argument: Summarize the pro and con arguments. This will state the principles
involved in the case.
Conclusion of the court: State the principle which the court handed down in its majority opinion. For
example, There will be no mandatory testing for AIDS for all pregnant women.
Format:



The brief will include the title of the case and everybody's name in your group (in the upper-right
corner). Your case’s brief must be two pages (limited to one piece of paper, both sides).
The brief must be typed, double spaced.
The brief must have the lines numbered down the left column of the page (for reference purposes)
Proposition 209
Walter E. Williams, June 5, 1997
California voters passed the California Civil Rights Initiative of 1996, more popularly known as Proposition
209 that says, "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or
group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment,
public education, or public contracting." The spirit of Proposition 209 is identical to the Civil Rights Act of
1964: "No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded
from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity
receiving federal financial assistance." Through logical contortionism, liberals and the civil rights
establishment praise the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and condemn Proposition 209 as racist and unconstitutional.
Let's look at some of Proposition 209's initial results.
Recently released acceptance figures, by UCLA's School of Law, show that only 21 black applicants were
accepted, down 80 percent from the 104 accepted the previous year. At UC Berkeley's Law School, of the 792
students accepted this year, there were only 14 blacks compared to 75 last year. There were also declines in
the number of Mexican-American students accepted. At each school, the number of white and Asian students
accepted rose.
How should people concerned with the upward mobility of blacks and Mexican-Americans respond? One
strategy is to try to overturn Proposition 209. The first attempt to do so failed where the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals overruled a lower court's preliminary injunction. Another strategy is to support President Clinton's
legal manipulation to "mend not end" affirmative action. A far superior strategy emerges if we ask why blacks
need preferential treatment in the first place. We darn sure don't need preferential treatment to be in, and in
fact dominate, the NBA or the NFL.
It all has to do with excellence. If blacks graduated from college with the same grade point averages and
LSAT scores there'd be no question, they'd be admitted to law schools at the same rate as whites and Asians.
Nobody has claimed that law schools are turning away blacks with academic credentials equal to and higher
than whites and Asians. The truth of the matter is that too many blacks receive twelve years of fraudulent
primary and secondary education that cannot be overcome by four years of college. Unfortunately, liberals
and civil rights organizations add to that disaster by giving unquestioned support to a corrupt education
establishment that produces the fraud. Any kind of effective education reform, including educational
vouchers, tuition tax credits and even private voucher programs, are fought tooth and nail.
I reject the notion that blacks need preferential treatment. What's needed is more of what my friend Mr. Alfred
Jenkins, a retired Los Angeles Assistant District Attorney, is doing. Al is concerned about the problems blacks
have passing the bar examination, but he doesn't charge the exam as racist or culturally biased. He conducts a
free intensive tutorial program. To give you a flavor of his approach, he asks students, "How many hours can
you study for the bar each day?" Students might respond with 6 hours, 10 hours and so forth. Then Al asks,
"If I had an Uzi pointed at your head, how long could you study?" Then he says, "Tell your friends and family
goodbye, eliminate any other distractions and pretend there's an Uzi pointed at your head." Jenkins has
chalked up a phenomenal success record. Unlike white liberals and the civil rights establishment, Al and I
have confidence in black abilities.
Walter E. Williams
June 5, 1997
Unit I: Introduction to Economic Concepts
Capital
Capital good
Capitalism
Command economy
Competition
Consumer good
Consumer sovereignty
Cost benefit analysis
Division of labor
Economic growth
Economic interdependence
Economic Product
Economic system
Economics
Economy
Entrepreneur
Factor market
Factors of production
Financial capital
Fixed income
Free enterprise
Free enterprise economy
Good
Gross Domestic Product
Human capital
Inflation
Labor
Land
Market
Market economy
Mixed economy
Modified private enterprise economy
Need
Opportunity cost
Paradox of value
Private property rights
Product market
Production
Production possibilities frontier
Productivity
Profit
Profit motive
Scarcity
Service
Social Security
Specialization
Standard of living
Trade-off
Traditional economy
Unit Terms
Utility
Value
Voluntary exchange
Want
Wealth
Major Ideas






What is Economics
What are Three Basic Economic Questions
What are the Four Factors of Production
What is the difference between a need and a want
What are the Seven major Goals of the US Economy
What were the major ideas and contributions of Adam Smith and Karl Marx to Economic theory?
Major Assignments
 Chapters 1 and 2- Economics Text
 Summer Assignment
o Current Events
o Comparison Essay
 Adam Smith and the Origin of Capitalism
 The Communist Manifesto- Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels
o Textbook Reading and Review
o Local Business Project
Local Business Project
(Poster or Powerpoint and Spoken Presentation)
40 points for Visual, 20 points for Spoken Presentation)
Presentations will be given in alphabetical order of the name of the business
NAME OF THE BUSINESS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Why did you research this business?
List the natural resources needed for this business
List the capital goods needed for this business
List the type of labor required for this business ( manager, cashier, cook, etc. . )
Who was the Entrepreneur (Either the Business Founder or local Franchise owner)
a. When did he/she start this business locally?
How does this business reduce costs?
With whom or with what does this business compete (may not be local)
a. What makes this business different from its local competition?
How does this business market itself (advertise)?
How has current, either nationally or regionally, economy effected this business?
How have local and state regulations helped or hindered the growth of this business?
Looking forward, what will happen to this business in the future?
A. Projects will have all Basic Questions answered in your Poster/Powerpoint and Presentation with as much specific
information as possible.
B. It is encouraged, but not required that you have photos, actual advertisements, pamphlets, job applications, and other
useful documents from the business you researched
Your Project will be graded on the following Criteria
1. Completeness- Are all the basic questions answered as fully as possible.
2. Professionalism- Is it neat, clean, spelled correctly
3. Creativity- Does your project clearly show that you spent considerable time working on this project.
If you wish to create a power point for this project, copy your files onto a flash drive for the purposes of presenting it
either the first or second day of class.
Tips for Success on this Project
1. Start Early
2. Be polite and introduce yourself to the Owner/Manager, explain what your assignment and what information
you require.
3. Try to fit the Owner/Manager’s schedule, if they are busy, they will be less likely to help you.
4. Don’t get discouraged, some businesses will not want to give you information, it might be their corporate
policy.
5. Thank the Owner/Manager when you are finished, they are doing you a favor
Bankruptcy
Better business bureau
Bond
break even point
Cash flow
Chamber of commerce
Change in demand
Change in quantity demanded
Change in quantity supplied
Change in supply
Charter stock
Collective bargaining
Complements
Conglomerate
Co-op
Cooperative
Corporation
Credit union
Demand
Demand curve
Demand elasticity
Demand schedule
Depreciation
Diminishing marginal utility
Diminishing returns
Dividend
Double taxation
e-commerce
Elastic
Unit II America’s Market Economy
Elasticity
Fixed cost
Horizontal merger
Income effect
Income statement
Inelastic
Interest
Inventory
Labor union
Law of Supply
Law of Variable proportions
Limited life
Limited partnership
Long run
marginal analysis
Marginal cost
Marginal product
marginal revenue
Marginal utility
Market supply curve
Merger
Microeconomics
Multinational
Net income
Nonprofit organization
Overhead
Partnership
Principal
Production function
Professional association
profit maximizing quantity of
output
Proprietorship
Public utility
Quantity supplied
Raw materials
Shareholder
Short run
Sole proprietorship
Stages of production
Stockholder
Subsidy
Substitutes
Substitution effect
Supply
Supply curve
Supply elasticity
Supply schedule
Theory of production
Total cost
Total product
total revenue
Unit elastic
Unlimited liability
Variable cost
Vertical merger
Major Concepts
What are the three basic types of businesses and what are their advantages and disadvantages
What is demand?
What is the difference between a change in demand and a change in quantity demanded?
How is the elasticity of a good or service determined?
What is supply?
What are the three stages of production in relation to supply?
Major Assignments
Supply and Demand Determinants Essay
Self-Business Project
Supply and Demand Exam
401K plan
Assets
Balance sheet
Bank holiday
Barter economy
Bear market
Bill consolidation loans
Bull market
Call
Capital market
Central bank
Certificate of deposit
Coins
Collusion
Commercial bank
Commodity money
coupon
Credit union
Creditor
Currency
current yield
Deficiency payment
Demand deposit account
Deregulation
Discount rate
Dow Jones Industrial Average
Economic model
Economies of scale
Efficient market
Equilibrium price
Equities
Federal Reserve system
Fiat money
Finance company
Financial asset
Financial intermediary
Financial system
Fractional reserve
Futures contract
Futures market
Geographic monopoly
Gold certificate
Gold standard
Government monopoly
Imperfect competition
Inconvertible fiat money
standard
Unit III Markets, Prices, and Business Competition
Individual Retirement Account (IRA)
Price
Laissez-faire
Price ceiling
Legal reserves
Price floor
Legal tender
Price-fixing
Liabilities
Primary market
Liquidity
Product differentiation
Loose money policy
Put option
Margin requirement
Ration coupon
Market equilibrium
Rationing
Market structure
Real estate investment trust
maturity
Rebate
Measure of value
Reserve requirement
Medium of exchange
Risk
Member bank
Roth IRA
Member bank reserve
Run on the bank
Minimum wage
Saving
Monetary policy
Savings
Monetary standard
Savings account
Monetary unit
Savings and loan association
Money
(S&L)
Money market
Savings bank
Monopolistic competition
savings bond
Monopoly
Secondary market
municipal bond
Securities exchange
Mutual fund
Share draft accounts
Mutual savings bank
Shortage
National bank
Silver certificate
National bank note
Specie
National currency
Spot market
Natural monopoly
Standard and Poors
Net asset value
State bank
Net worth
Stockbroker
Non price competition
Store of value
Non-bank financial institution
Surplus
Nonrecourse loan
Target price
NOW accounts
tax-exempt
Oligopoly
Technological monopoly
Open market operations
Thrift institutions
Option
Tight money policy
Option
Treasury bill
Options market
Treasury coin note
Over the counter market
Treasury note
par value
United States note
Pension
Pension fund
Perfect competition
Portfolio diversification
Premium
Major Concepts
How do price floors and price ceilings restrict overall supply and demand for goods and services?
What are the five characteristics of a perfect competition?
What are the different types of monopolies?
What is the structure of the Federal Reserve?
What are the three major tools of monetary policy?
Major Assignments
Self Project with Presentations
Markets and Financial Institutions Test
Unit IV: Government in the American Economy
Accelerator
Aggregate demand
Aggregate supply
Automation
Base year
Business cycles
Business fluctuation
Capital to labor ratio
Consumer price index
Creeping inflation
Current GDP
Cyclical unemployment
Deflation
Depression
Depression scrip
Disposable income
Earned income tax credit
Econometric model
Enterprise zone
Expansion
Family
Fiscal policy
Food stamps
Frictional unemployment
Galloping inflation
GDP in constant dollars
Gross Domestic Product
Gross National Product
Growth triangle
Household
Hyperinflation
Implicit GDP price deflator
Index of leading indicators
Inflation
Intermediate products
Keynesian economics
Labor productivity
Laffer curve
Lorenz curve
How is GDP measured
What are the various stages of the business cycle?
What are the various types of unemployment?
Major Assignments
Econ Midterm
Macroeconomic equilibrium
Market basket
Monetarism
Multiplier
National income
National income accounting
Negative income tax
Net exports of goods and services
Net national product
Nonmarket transactions
Output-expenditure model
Peak
Personal income
Personal income
Poverty guidelines
Price index
Price level
Producer price index
Real GDP
Recession
Renewable resources
Seasonal unemployment
Second hand sales
Standard of living
Structural unemployment
Tax base
Technological unemployment
Trend line
Trough
Underground economy
Unemployed
Unemployment rate
Unrelated individual
Wage-price controls
Welfare
Workfare
Absolute advantage
ASEAN
Black market
Capital flight
Capitalism
Collectivization
Communism
Comparative advantage
Default
Developing country
Dumping
EU
Exports
External debt
Fixed exchange rate
Flexible exchange rate
Foreign exchange
Free traders
Major Assignments
Economics Midterm
Stock Project
Unit V International Economics
IMF
Imports
Infant industries
Life expectancy
NAFTA
Privatization
Protectionists
Protective tariff
Quota
Revenue tariff
Socialism
Tariff
Trade deficit
Trade surplus
Trade-weighted value of the dollar
World Bank
World Trade Organization
Zero population