Government 2 (Hard)

Front 1

Sovereignty

Back 1

the legitimate authority to wield this coercive power to authoritatively allocate values (who decides what’s goin’ down)

Front 2

First fallacy of democracy

Back 2

Democracy promises the "best" policy decisions. It does not. Democracies in general, and certainly the democracy in America, make no promises to produce the most effective, efficient, or fair policy decisions. The whole point of the democratic promise is to broker compromises among competing points of view and arrive at decisions the majority supports and the minority can tolerate.

Front 3

False consensus

Back 3

the tendency of people to believe their views are “normal” or “common sense” and therefore shared by most people. The false consensus rests on an unrealistic and uninformed view of politics. A problem of this is that if a large number of people believe their views represent the majority position and the government fails to adopt that position, people are likely to believe that the political system is not working.

Front 4

Shay’s Rebellion

Back 4

It was one of two events (the other being a meeting at Annapolis, Maryland, which convened to discuss problems of interstate trade and the possibility of adopting a uniform system of commercial regulations) that allowed the federalists to push for stronger national government. It was an armed revolt by farmers in western Massachusetts who were resisting state efforts to seize their property for failure to pay taxes and debts. Shays’ Rebellion- named for its leader, Daniel Shays-was put down ,but some Americans regarded it as a threat to the very existence of the United States.

Front 5

Connecticut Compromise

Back 5

(otherwise known as the Great Compromise) proposed a two-house legislature, with a House of Representatives apportioned on the basis of population and a Senate representing the states on an equal basis. This was in response to the Madison’s Virginia plan (where representation was to be based on the financial contributions or population of the state) and the New Jersey Plan (which argues that it should representation should be equal)

Front 6

The Madisonian Dilemma

Back 6

“How can self-interested individuals administering strong governmental powers be prevented from using those powers to destroy the freedoms that government is supposed to protect.
o Popular sovereignty was achieved through a representative form of government (but with limits)
o Majority rule but with an emphasis on the rights of the minority
o Political freedom and political equality were tied to the notion of individual property rights and the right of like-minded people to pursue their own interests as they saw fit.

Front 7

Incorporation doctrine (Pg 117)

Back 7

the notion that the Bill of Rights applies to state governments as well as federal through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Some argued that the Fourteenth Amendment, in effect, applied the entire Bill of Rights to state governments. Others disagreed, arguing that the due process clause applied to the Bill of Rights more selectively to the state, and their applications and limitations should be worked out on a case-by-case basis. The Supreme Court followed the latter course and only slowly began using the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause to apply the Bill of Rights to the states.

Front 8

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Back 8

decided that public schools count not officially sanction prayer. The heart of the case involved a prayer written by New York State officials that was read aloud by teachers and students in public schools. In a blunt majority opinion, the Court declared that the “constitution prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people too recite as part of a religious program carried on by the government.”

Front 9

Kitzmiller v Dover School District (2005)

Back 9

A federal court struck down a requirement enacted by a Pennsylvania school district that mandated intelligent design be taught as an alternative to evolution. A group of parents objected to this requirement, arguing that intelligent design- the notion that life was created by an intelligent force rather than by natural selection- was cover for a religion-based creationist belief system that had no place in a public school science curriculum. U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the requirement was an unconstitutional violation of the establishment clause.

Front 10

Imminent lawless action test

Back 10

As decided in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the speech is protected if it contains no incitement to commit an “imminent or specific” crime. This test replaced the old clear and present danger test and protects a broader range of speech.

Front 11

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Back 11

the Court overturned the previous decision (Bowers v Hardwick [1986]) that upheld a Georgia law making it a crime to engage in homosexual sex. In both Bowers and Lawrence, police officers had entered the homes of gay men and caught them having sex. In the former case, the Court ruled that state bands against homosexual acts had deep cultural roots, and the government had the right to enforce these bans in the name of social order. In Lawrence, the Court rejected that reasoning and came down firmly on the side of individual liberty, justifying its shift on the grounds that the government has no legitimate reason to intrude into the personal and private life of individuals.
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe suggests that Lawrence “may well be remembered as the Brown v. Board of gay and lesbian America.”

Front 12

Federalist #51: “opposite and rival interests”

Back 12

“This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other—that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State.”
• If angels governed men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.
• Must first enable government to control the governed; then oblige it to control itself.
• Control through opposite and rival interests: divide the offices so that each is a check on the other.

Front 13

Collective action problem

Back 13

presents something of a catch-22: producing a public good requires organized collective group action; each individual contribution is such a small part of the total cost that nonparticipation won’t be noticed; since everyone receives the benefits, it’s rational to free ride and save the costs; but if everyone makes the rational choice, there won’t be enough people engaging in the collective action to produce the benefits of the public good.

Front 14

59%

Back 14

over 59% of registered lobbyists were from business and trade associations, while unions accounted for less than 2 percent, and nonprofit citizens’ groups accounted for less than 10%.

Front 15

Citizens for a sound economy

Back 15

Many of these new generation think tanks have been accused of providing scholarly cover to blatantly self-interested agendas. The think tank, Citizens for a Sound Economy, focuses on taxes and regulation.

Front 16

McCain-Feingold Law, otherwise known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)

Back 16

John McCain and Russell Feingold supported this law. The law raises limits on hard money contributions during each election cycle to $2,000 for individuals and $5,000 from PACs. The main target of the reform is soft money, which the BCRA bans outright. It also restricts “issue ads” run immediately before an election. Issue ads are political commercials run by interest groups that support or oppose some issue (such as abortion, gun rights, or protecting the environment). Numerous interest groups on both the left and the right strongly opposed this provision.

Front 17

Kaplan, Freedman, and Icoboni

Back 17

These guys did a study which showed that there is almost certainly a biological basis for how political information is processed. What seems to drive how we process political information is not the reasoning part of our brains, but the emotional part of our brains. One study used brain scans of 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats to study brain activity when people are exposed to information that supports or opposes their partisan viewpoints (pictures of candidates from the 2004 presidential election). The study found that people tend to react emotionally to the candidates they support; in effect we feel “warm fuzzies” when we see “our guy.” When people are exposed to pictures of the opposing candidate, however, they experience negative emotions that seem to suppress the more rational parts of the brain. In effect, while people accept the candidate they support based on passion and emotion, they pick the “other guy” over looking for fault.

Front 18

“Daily Show Effect”

Back 18

The Daily Show effect is where those that draw much of their political information from The Daily Show were a pretty informed group, but the show’s political humor tended to cause more negative attitudes toward candidates and generally increase cynicism about politics.
• The Daily show effect raises concerns about the quality and quantity of civic debate and political participation that will follow the increasing shift from hard to soft sources of information about politics.

Front 19

Agenda-setting

Back 19

the media’s agenda-setting role means it helps the government and the public to focus and prioritize issues and problems. Agenda-setting is the process of selecting the issues or problems that government will pay attention to. Other studies have shown that this view of agenda setting underestimates the media. While news reports are unlikely to make us change our fundamental political beliefs, it turns out that the media do play a more complex- and in some ways more influential role than previously noted. The media’s agenda-setting role goes beyond simply identifying and ordering the list of topics that make up the public agenda. The media also frames these issues for the public. Framing means emphasizing certain aspects of a story to make them more important. Framing helps shape how we think about issues and topics. By framing stories, the mass media gives a particular perspective on issues and topics. By choosing which aspects of a story to emphasize, the media also influence the criteria people use to

Front 20

Partisan bias in media?

Back 20

When most people think of media bias they are usually referring to political bias, or the tendency to favor a political part of ideological point of view. Political bias has a long history in American media. Prior to the advent of electronic media, most print media were openly partisan. For the first hundred years of the republic, newspapers will little more than propaganda. The partisan press gradually yielded to the vision of objective journalism, which seeks to report facts rather than promote a partisan point of view and seeks balance by reporting both sides of any given story (the New York Times’ Albert Ochs was an early promoter of objective journalism). This approach gradually became the standard for the mainstream print press and was adopted by the news organizations of the electronic media. But alas, people themselves are not objective. Most theories state that people will not be neutral consumers of news regardless of the news’ objectivity. Most people agree that the press has a distinct par

Front 21

Politics

Back 21

Politics is “who gets what, when and how” and “the authoritative allocation of values.” Domestic Politics is the public resolution or management of conflict, within a basic consensus. International politics is harder to define.
• Basic consensus- basic community of understanding
• Conflict- people disagree. That is not political. Managing the conflict is political.
• Private resolutions of private conflicts are not political (Vicky decides to marry Herbert instead of George)
• Resolution of conflicts such as Vicky deciding to vote for Herbert instead of George is political.

Front 22

The Keeting Five

Back 22

The federal home loan bank board was supposed to look over savings and loans and the staff decided that Keating was 1.6 billion dollars in debt- Keating had made lots of promises to politicians and got 5 senators to go to the head of the FHLBB and persuade him that he shouldn’t harass Keating. (Keating gave them millions of dollars in campaign money). The head of the FHLBB said to the staff to back off, so they did. In 1987, Lincoln savings and loan failed and by then it was 2.6 billion dollars in debt. By Keating exercising his private interest through influence of the federal government and back down to the home loan bank board cost tax payers an extra billion dollars. Significance: The Keating Five illustrates the impact of private interests on public affairs (which is bad)

Front 23

Political ideology

Back 23

An ideology is a system of beliefs and values but Political Ideology centers around what is a legitimate form of government and what is right and wrong for government to do.

Front 24

Classical Conservatism

Back 24

The ideology of the aristocracy and church on why they should stay in power They had a metaphor for society, “Society was like a body, every part has a function. The church is the head, the aristocracy the hands…. Like cells that divide and multiply, they thought that people, who wanted to rise in the world, were like a cancer of the body.” Some people are just born inferior. God orders society to be the way it is- it’s not just something that happened or was created by humans for humans, god wants it to be the way it is. To try to change the structure of society is to go against god.
No individualism- you’re a member of a family or class or profession.
Beliefs: 1) change is bad, because God made it this way 2) Competition is bad, we should cooperate like cells in a body 3) people on the top of society are superior, people below are inferior and they should not try and change that 4) there should be no difference between religion and government 5) Religion and government should be intertwined 6

Front 25

Classical Conservatism's Beliefs and Values (separated)

Back 25

Beliefs
 People are born to stay where they are. Some people are superior, some inferior. If you were born a carpenter and you have ideas to move up, you’re diluted.
 God orders society to be the way it is- it’s not just something that happened or was created by humans for humans, god wants it to be the way it is. To try to change the structure of society is to go against god.
 No individualism- you’re a member of a family or class or profession.
Values
 Change is bad
 Competition is bad- humans should cooperate like organs in a body
 People who are on the top of society are superior human beings, people below are inferior. They shouldn’t try to change it.
 There should be no separation of church and state- religion and government should be intertwined
 Legitimate government is the church
 Government is responsible for the welfare of its citizens.
They don’t really have any impact on American poltics.

Front 26

Classical Conservatism's Beliefs and Values (separated)

Back 26

Beliefs
 People are born to stay where they are. Some people are superior, some inferior. If you were born a carpenter and you have ideas to move up, you’re diluted.
 God orders society to be the way it is- it’s not just something that happened or was created by humans for humans, god wants it to be the way it is. To try to change the structure of society is to go against god.
 No individualism- you’re a member of a family or class or profession.
Values
 Change is bad
 Competition is bad- humans should cooperate like organs in a body
 People who are on the top of society are superior human beings, people below are inferior. They shouldn’t try to change it.
 There should be no separation of church and state- religion and government should be intertwined
 Legitimate government is the church
 Government is responsible for the welfare of its citizens.
They don’t really have any impact on American poltics.

Front 27

Classical Conservatism's Beliefs and Values (separated)

Back 27

Beliefs
 People are born to stay where they are. Some people are superior, some inferior. If you were born a carpenter and you have ideas to move up, you’re diluted.
 God orders society to be the way it is- it’s not just something that happened or was created by humans for humans, god wants it to be the way it is. To try to change the structure of society is to go against god.
 No individualism- you’re a member of a family or class or profession.
Values
 Change is bad
 Competition is bad- humans should cooperate like organs in a body
 People who are on the top of society are superior human beings, people below are inferior. They shouldn’t try to change it.
 There should be no separation of church and state- religion and government should be intertwined
 Legitimate government is the church
 Government is responsible for the welfare of its citizens.
They don’t really have any impact on American poltics.

Front 28

Classical liberalism

Back 28

The ideology of the rising middle class in Western Europe
Beliefs:
o Society is like a marketplace (buying and selling, individuals competing) and constantly goes up and down like demand and supply.
o Full of individuals- the individuals are constantly competing: competition is part of society.
o People are equal, they are born equal and all should have an equal chance.
o Metaphor: “Everybody should have an equal start in the race of life but we do not adjust the outcome of the race.”
o Market forces permeate everything. Everything is competition.
o Humans are individuals and competitive.
Values
o Because our focus is on the individual and we want them to compete fairly, our number one value is personal liberty. We are particularly focused on economic liberty, but we also want personal, … etc.
o Individual social advancement is good. The flip side of individual social advancement is individual social failure. Classical liberal stance, “that’s what they deserve. The drunk in the gutter is

Front 29

Classical Socialism (counter ideology to classical liberalism)

Back 29

Society is like a factory. During the transition during the industrial resolution, people began to rebel against Classical Liberalism.
Beliefs:
1) Human beings are always equal and should always be equal.
2) Market forces don’t work out for the best. They just create poverty and chaos.
Unregulated capitalism doesn’t work out for the best
3) Religion is an illusion and is an illusion used by people on top to keep the people on bottom from complaining too much.
4) Individualism is an illusion.
Classical socialism wanted everyone to vote.
Values:
• Classical socialists said society is like a factory- the benefits should be more spread around, for everyone.
• Society should advance human welfare so that everyone is equal and has equal access or resources (healthcare, education, money)
• Individualism is bad
• They like cooperation, not competition.
• Classical socialism differ among themselves as to what the view on religion should be.
o But all agree that it should be separate

Front 30

Modern Conservatism

Back 30

someone who is anti-government with regards to regulation of the economy. They tend to be in favor of lower taxes because they want the government to do less. But they are pro-government at the level of personal life. They want the government to regulate your sex life and religious lives more. Pro drug laws
Are not for: Environment, welfare, education, and Social Security

Front 31

Modern liberalism

Back 31

Believe in regulating religious life (and personal life) less, but they want government to regulate economic life more.
In favor of: Environment regulation, welfare, education more, Social security
Not in favor of stricter drug laws
In favor of government regulation of economic AND social levels? Don’t exist.
They cater to popular prejudices against government without actually stating all of their beliefs.

Front 32

Ideological opinions

Back 32

general opinions about government. We like government; we think it’s great…

Front 33

Operational opinions

Back 33

specific policy opinions. Do you think the government should do more to help the environment, Social Security…
About 2/3 are ideologically anti-government
While 2/3 are operationally pro-government

Front 34

“Rally ‘round the flag” effect

Back 34

When the population believes that we are being attacked, the levels of support for the government sky-rocket. We LOVE the government. It just takes a few months until we sink back into our government-hating beliefs.

Front 35

Legitimacy-Democracy

Back 35

legitimacy- the belief or the feeling that people have that the government is based on morality and that therefore they have an obligation to obey
• When the feeling of legitimacy goes away, the government goes away. the only kind of legitimate government, a society in which people freely participate in making the laws
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau- 1750- “The Social Contract”
o “The mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law we prescribe to ourselves is liberty.”
o People in society making laws for that society= moral society
 Only a society in which we the people make laws for ourselves can be legitimate
 (used the word “republic” instead of democracy)

Front 36

Personal liberty

Back 36

1. The ability of all the citizens, as individuals, to make decisions without being coerced by the government
2. The citizens must be equal in a citizenship-sense. Equal means, in this concept, voting.
3. Everyone (each sane adult) gets one vote.
4. Participation is the free choice of people. You cannot prevent any candidate from running, meaning the government cannot prevent anyone from running.
Every candidate, every part, every idea
5. Freedom of press, freedom of internet, freedom of all that jazz
6. Regularly scheduled elections
7. Need a decision rule (i.e. majority rule)
U.S. amends constitution by 2/3 congress, then ratified by ¾ of states. To make things harder, bitches.
The majority cannot deny the minority its basic democratic rights.
8. No country is perfectly democratic, it’s an ideology

Front 37

Choice among alternatives

Back 37

the free choice of people- alternatives must be able to present themselves: you cannot prevent any candidate from running. No limits on parties, no censored ideas
o Cannot deny people free choice

Front 38

Equality

Back 38

There are many kinds of equality. The political equality at the core of the democratic creed simply means that individual preferences are given equal weight. Popular sovereignty means all citizens, at least in theory, have the same opportunities to influence the process of deciding who gets what.

Human equality, the natural right towards life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and democracy. Legal equality- One vote for everyone, everyone gets a lawyer, everyone gets a jury of their peers and etc… Equality for the law (one vote and one vote each)

Front 39

Freedom of speech

Back 39

all ideas must be allowed; includes freedom of the press, internet, texting, all that jazz.

Front 40

22nd amendment

Back 40

the President can only serve two terms. Technically this is undemocratic because it violates the rules of democratic theory because it puts laws on living people. The Republicans passed it.

Front 41

“Selling out on principles”

Back 41

a big majority of Americans don’t understand that democracy depends on human beings compromising. Because they’re dumb. A large number of people don’t understand that people need to compromise in order to get things done. This is why politicians lie. They say “we don’t compromise! Blah blah blah!” and then they compromise when they go inside. Then they come out and lie to us and say we didn’t compromise! Essentially, Americans demand to be lied to. It’s our fault, not theirs.

Front 42

Consent

Back 42

equals participation. This idea was important to the Puritans.
• Puritans very democratic view of religion (i.e. consent to God, consent to join Puritan community)
• Very authoritative (lots of rules) but did not force anyone to join
• Later turned into consenting to who should govern the community

Front 43

Republicanism

Back 43

Has nothing to do with Republicans, it’s just a confusion of nomenclature. Republicanism in the 18th century- this was based on a series of writings in England and it was very influential on the American Revolution.
The republicans believe that there were two overriding concepts in society: 1) virtue and 2) corruption. The concepts of virtue and corruption lie in legitimacy and the question of the public interest. How do we get people to think about what’s different of the whole of society? In a society- whether democratic or not-fights with one another for their own private gain is a corrupt society. The small order republicans believed they should tell people that they should argue for the public, not the private interest. If I was the President and I was trying to convince you to endorse my taxes and I said “don’t you want me to reduce your taxes?” They would be angry because that’s a corrupt idea. If I said my tax policy would spark economic spending, to help boost the economy, would be virt

Front 44

Clockwork universe

Back 44

Image of the universe that education people of the time had. Using opposing forces of springs and gears towards one goal.
• Helps us understand why the constitute is structured the way it is
• Ambition counteracting ambition
The 18th century believed that the world was like a giant computer in the Darwinian sense. They thought of it as a giant clock, with springs and everything. Newton came up with laws of gravity and motion. Newton had this idea of gravity and motion and they are often in tension. The Earth goes around the sun and the motion, that tension, keeps it in orbit. Forces are opposing each other, but the end result of those forces opposing each other, creates harmony. That force pushes on gears on this giant clock, which forces the springs to move and the gears, who don’t want to move, to tell time. The end result is a useful tool. Madison thought of this lust after power that humans have as a force that would be counterbalanced with the gears of a clock. Human ambition would drive the c

Front 45

Articles of Confederation

Back 45

The AOC had no taxing power. It had to ask the states for money. There was no power to regulate the Congress between the states. Finally, there was no judiciary. If you had a dispute with someone in another state, there was no way to settle it. This government was completely ineffective. There was no regulation of commerce, or national fiscal policy. There was no foreign policy or policy between the states. There were two classes of people that said “hell no” to this shit.
The Nationalists, these people thought that this was potentially a very powerful and rich country, but not as long as we were so individualized.
The other group was business people. When the value of currency was going up and down, there was never a way of knowing which one to use.
The Nationalists and the business people thought this government was fucked up. In Virginia, they met to fix the old government. It was the same people but now they had 40 years of experience. They decided it had to have a strong foreign policy. It h

Front 46

Reconcile the irreconcilable

Back 46

The people who wrote the Constitution tried to “reconcile the irreconcilable.” They tried to make things that contradicted work. Democrats didn’t trust people. They wanted a strong government but didn’t trust people to run it.

Front 47

Ambition to counteract ambition

Back 47

If men were angels, no government would be necessary… Ambition must be made to counteract ambition“. How’re we gonna make a government that has power but has the power to counteract itself? We’ll divide it among itself and make it so they are independent but have to cooperate to get things done. They crafted a government that would stop each other and they hoped that the part that would be stopped would be the bad behavior.

Front 48

Separation of powers* [WE DON’T HAVE THIS]

Back 48

The idea that each branch of government is authorized to carry out a separate part of the political process. We do not have a separation of power in government; what we have in American government is a series of separate institutions sharing power. By making them share power, people who wrote the Constitution hoped that they would make each other serve the best interest as opposed to their own personal interests.

Front 49

10th Amendment

Back 49

says that “the powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.”

Front 50

Contract clause

Back 50

says that no state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. The contract clause is a certain protection of property in the Constitution. They weren’t socialists. They weren’t gonna try and level everyone’s property and make everyone equal. They were afraid of the poor taking the rich’s property. It’s a clause in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, preventing states from saying that property contracts don’t exist.

Front 51

First Amendment

Back 51

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or freedom of the press (Federal government).

Front 52

Tyranny of the majority

Back 52

The “tyranny of the majority” means that the majority of the population on a number of issues wants to take away the rights of the minority. Not only do the people have to be protected from the government, but some people also have to be protected from the majority.

Front 53

Tyranny of the majority

Back 53

The “tyranny of the majority” means that the majority of the population on a number of issues wants to take away the rights of the minority. Not only do the people have to be protected from the government, but some people also have to be protected from the majority.

Front 54

Clear and present danger

Back 54

Supreme Court decided that the government may be able to suppress expression if it possesses a clear and present danger to the public order (obvious and immediate damage). So the government can stop an agitator, if he’s likely to cause riots. Now the rule is not “clear and present danger”, it is “imminent and lawless action”

Front 55

Marketplace of ideas

Back 55

Oliver Wendell Holmes- We should allow all ideas to fight and compete (except those that present a clear and present danger)- it is the competition of ideas that we are striving for (classical liberal idea). This all yielded the idea of a marketplace of ideas.

Front 56

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

Back 56

NYT ran an ad that said some bad things about a southern sheriff. They said okay, we were wrong, we admit some of the stuff we said was wrong, but they said that they had a right to say it. The Supreme Court endorsed that view. If you’re talking about a public figure (southern sheriff) you can say anything you want- the point is to get the ideas out. “Erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate.”
Review Lecture: a Supreme Court decision in 1964 which upheld the marketplace of ideas.
In a Democracy people must have access to a variety of ideas to uphold democratic legitimacy

Front 57

Skokie v. National Socialist Party (1978)

Back 57

the American Nazi part decided to parade through Skokie deliberately to insult the Jewish population. FUCKING NAZIS! The city council of Skokie forbade the march and the Nazi party sued because they’re fuckin’ Nazis. The Supreme Court upheld the right of the Nazi party to march because they’re fuckin’ Nazis too. You cannot prevent even Nazis or KKK from expressing their political opinions no matter how small the group and no matter how much you detest your message. I would have killed them all probably.
Most of the uses of the word fuck in this paragraph were not libelous
The government can limit where/when you march, but it has to apply those rules to everyone, not just the fucking Nazis.

Front 58

Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act

Back 58

Forbids protest at any funeral at a cemetery owned by the government (like Arlington National cemetery). This was aimed at a group of people that were advertising outside of a cemetery of people that died in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Review Lecture: a law passed in 2006 that forbids protesting outside or within 300 feet of federal cemeteries. Hard cases keep arising with the law around freedom of expression. You have to have freedom of expression, in order to have a working democracy.

Front 59

Freedom House

Back 59

an organization that was founded in the 1940’s by a prominent democratic, Eleanor Roosevelt, and a prominent Republican, Wendell Wilkey. The organization rates countries on how democratic (how free) they are, based on dimensions (how much freedom of expression, other points)
7 point scale- 1 a most free, 7 not free at all
According to the scoring by Freedom House, we score high in Democracy. By their measurements, we have a lot of freedom of expression and therefore democratic legitimacy.

Front 60

Dialogue of Democracy

Back 60

The purpose of the media according to democratic theory is to provide information that connects citizens with government and with other institutions
• Most of the media are private institutions trying to make a profit, which can often interfere with their serving democracy
The ideal is to further the dialogue of democracy
Review Lecture: The media facilitates our argument, our discussion of public policy. The significance is that democratic theory requires a wide variety of accurate information. So the media’s facilitation of this discussion is a necessity of democratic theory.

Front 61

Harlot’s prerogative

Back 61

Power without responsibility. The significance being: it’s what the media has. They have the power to affect government but not be held accountable.
The media falls short of our ideal expectations. The harlot’s prerogative is claiming power without responsibility.
The press ridicules, exposes, investigates, they can do anything and yet, they’re protected. They’re free to do nearly anything they want and are sometimes irresponsible. They tend to be superficial. They tend to concentrate on unimportant things and one of the major problems of superficiality.

Front 62

Sound bites

Back 62

they all use sound bites and misrepresent people by putting their quotes in different contexts
 the average length of a quotation from a presidential speech was 8 seconds. That’s how long they have to make a point. All Obama had to say was “my fellow Americans”
 this is why it isn’t functioning the way it should- instead of having a conversation we just throw sound bites around
So for example, when candidates are shown making a speech, the television was originally showed for about 40 seconds, and then it shifted to 8 seconds. The purpose of the speech writers is to make a memorable, short and poignant speech to easily be converted to an 8 second clip that people can remember.
They all us sound bites and misrepresent people by putting their quotes in different contexts.
That’s why it’s not working how it should. Instead of having a conversation, we just throw sound bites at one another.

Front 63

Horse-race coverage

Back 63

The media tend to cover all politics as though they were sporting events.
Most reporters (especially on television) treat elections like horse races, not “let’s consider: how electing so and so would help/hurt our country”- because we like a show.
71% end up being horse race journalism, 40% are actually about the issues (yes more than 100% but it’s American politics. Of course it doesn’t make sense)

Front 64

Pack journalism

Back 64

they tend to go to the same bias, parties, sleep with each other, so they all report the same stuff and are a kind of “mob mentality” in journalism. Kind of like bandwagon journalism.
2003- “Iraq has WMD’s”- it wasn’t true, but that was the consensus.
Review Lecture: tendency journalists to socialize together and come to the same consensus (superficiality, tendency to cover the top things without getting into the gritty dirty, meaty details).

Front 65

Rathergate

Back 65

any big government story has a “gate” at the end. September 8, 2004- Bush and Kerry are running against each other. Dan Rather was head news anchor of 60 minutes Wednesday. While Bush has been stationed at Camp Mabry, Bush had received preferential treatment. This included a lack of necessity of even showing up. Rather got a document from a colonel Killian who was a commander at Mabry. The documents supposedly came from the 2nd in command to Killian. These documents said that Bush had shirked his guard duties while Kerry was off winning the war. Once this was aired, the bloggers started ripping these documents apart. They had superscripts, which you cannot do on a typewriter.
• Blogosphere said the docs weren't printed in '72-73 because they had type writers, not word processors. Dumbass trying to fake shit up. Those are some pretty smart nerds figuring that out.
• CBS made everything worse by sticking to the story, eventually CBS retracted the story, rather apologized, they fired a whole bunch o

Front 66

A liberal bias?

Back 66

Are the mainstream media biased in a liberal or conservative direction?
 no.
 They generally come to the conclusion that the biased in the media is neither republican/democrat, conservative/liberal. They decide it’s generally anti-political and anti-government.
 Newspapers reflect the biases of the immediate community (conservative people? Conservative paper!)

Front 67

Rules of participation

Back 67

The more tightly organized are the institutions of participation, the more nearly the participation rates of the lower classes will approach those of the middle classes.

Front 68

U.S. vs. foreign party organization

Back 68

We have weak parties and low voter turnout then other countries.

Front 69

Weak Parties

Back 69

Party Organization: we have really weakly organized parties
• Our leaders don’t have control over followers
• Party voting cohesion: the extent to which the members of the same party vote together in a legislature
• The percentage of the votes in congress in which a majority of democrats votes against a majority of republicans
Why do we have such weak parties?
• Because candidates are nominated in direct primaries
o Primary: an election held within a party to nominate candidates for the general election or choose delegates to a presidential nominating convention

Front 70

Party identification

Back 70

Psychological membership with a party whereas most other countries have formal membership.

Front 71

Comparative national turnout

Back 71

low comparative national turnout stemming from the weak parties and the lack of party cohesion.

Front 72

Class bias in voter turnout

Back 72

because we have weak parties, our poor and uneducated citizens tend not to vote. More education/more income- more votes, less income/less education- less votes.

Front 73

Single-member district system

Back 73

A way of electing a person towards national legislature from a certain area
Significance: this creates two party systems. There are only two coalitions in the end, one wins, one loses, but there are only two.

Front 74

Proportional representation

Back 74

In most other democracies they use a parliamentary system. The voters vote mainly for parties- the party gets the proportion of the seats in the legislature that is (more/less) that they are voted. (15% votes=~15% seats). This is called proportional representation, where you’re not divided into districts. Each party gets a certain portion of the popular vote based on voting.

Front 75

Class bias in turnout

Back 75

because we have weak parties, our poor and uneducated citizens tend not to vote. More education/more income- more votes, less income/less education- less votes.

Front 76

Party voting cohesion

Back 76

the extent to which members of a party vote together in a legislature. Our parties have extremely low party cohesion. The percentage of the votes in congress in which a majority of democrats votes against a majority of republicans

Front 77

Primary

Back 77

an election held within a party to nominate candidates for the general election or choose delegates to a presidential nominating convention.

Front 78

Jim Nicholson

Back 78

If you’re talking about the influence of private interest in public policy: people give money for special interest in THEIR issues. The head of the Republican Party a few years back, Jim Nicholson, wrote a letter to Bristoll Myers Pharmaceutical Corporation. Mr. Nicholson asked for a contribution of $250,000. Mr. Nicholson discussed the proposal of what he called “a pharmaceutical corporation between the republican party… The coalition would be the perfect vehicle for the Republican Party to reach out to the healthcare community and discuss their legislative needs. We must keep the lines of communication open if we want to continue passing legislation that will benefit your industry.”
In other words: give us 250 k and we’ll give you all the laws you want

Front 79

Rules of formation of interest groups

Back 79

Who gets organized? Not all are organized. Interest groups that offer individual goods mobilize more of their potential members. The bigger the group, the less likely people are likely to join. The smaller the group, the more likely people are to join.

Front 80

Individual goods

Back 80

An individual good can be consumed by one person to the exclusion of others (our laptops, our shoes, our car, my whooper from lunch).

Front 81

Collective goods

Back 81

Collective goods are things that must be shared when consumed (national defense and quality of air). Some economists would argue that the quality of air is not a collective good because the air is better and worse in different places.

Front 82

Access

Back 82

an “in”, a personal contact, a personal relationship which allows people to get into government and talk person to person. Book Def: “The ability to get into and use public facilities. In the political sense, the ability to meet with and present one’s ideas to political leaders.”

Front 83

PhRMA

Back 83

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. This is the trade association of the legal drug company. It’s the largest lobby in Washington. Has 120 full time staff members and employs HUNDREDS of lobbyists on a part-time basis. In 2001, its budget was 60 million dollars a year. In 2009, it employed Eddie Barber (former chairman of the Republican Party), Linda Dasher (Tom Dasher’s wife), Scott Hash (son of Orrin Hash, a senator from Utah), Anthony Padesta (was on the former council of Senator Ted Kennedy and is also the brother of Clinton’s former chief of staff). In 2005, Bill Tauzin, who was a House Representative from Louisiana and was chair of the energy and commerce committee, retired from congress and became the head of PhRMA. In 2006, when democrats had majority, PhRMA hired former Clinton staffers and hired George Crawford, former chief of state of new speaker of the house.
This showcases private interest on public policy.
Lobbyists aren’t 100% cynical; they’re just a hell o

Front 84

Graduate School of Political Management

Back 84

associated with Georgetown University and is deaned by a bona fide scholar, Christopher Artisan. This place has courses on how to do polling, how to be a lobbyist, how to run a successful campaign. Under management, you can take a course called lobbying. Some of the weeks are devoted towards how to work the committee system, how to put influence over what Congress spends, and how to get someone to best present himself and present himself to Congress when placed as a witness.

Front 85

Iron Triangles

Back 85

the Iron Triangle refers to the relationship between the interest groups, the committees in Congress and the Executive Agencies that actually administer the laws. First the lobbyists give money to members of committees, and then they lobby them. The committees then pass public policy. To a large extent, public policy deals with public policy. Then it’s passed to the Executive Agencies, which then administer and implement the policy, which often consists of money going to interest groups.
Book Def: “A term used to refer to interdependent relationship among the bureaucracy, interest groups, and congressional committees.”
Review Lecture: Relationship between interest groups (give money), Congress (appropriate money), executive (send money back). Significance: Private interests affect Democracy.

Front 86

Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002

Back 86

law subsidizing American farmers from 2003-2008 to a total of 248 billion dollars. This act increased subsidies by 18%. Passed the request of lobbies and representatives from farming places like Iowa… corn
Subsidized American Cotton farmers 2 billion a year
Spent more subsidizing cotton growers than the cotton industry earned selling cotton
We taxpayers gave the cotton growers more money than they earned.

Front 87

MADD

Back 87

Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It is an Interest group that is not a wealthy special interest. MADD was founded 1980 by a woman whose daughter was killed by a drunk woman; instead of drowning in grief turned herself towards positive action. Went around and got tougher anti-drunk driving laws. Everyone is much tougher on drunk-driving and a large part of that change had been brought about by MADD. Here we have a public interest group, of people who are determined to make a change, and have made a HUGE impact for the better on the US. Significance: you may not be rich, but you can affect public policy by getting organized. The key to making an impact in this country is getting a group together and making a change.

Front 88

Reagan coalition

Back 88

economic conservatives (people who want lower taxes especially on the rich and want less economic regulation, pro management)plus social conservatives (anti- abortion, pro-gun, keep the symbol that the US is a Christian country). Until 1980, social conservatives were kind of out on their own just because they didn’t really identify with the economic conservatives (the majority of the Republican party). Reagan brought social conservatives into the Republican party.
In 1980, in August, there was a convention of Evangelical Christians and the org invited all three major candidates: Reagan, Carter, and third-party (John Anderson). They invited all three. Anderson and Carter declined, but Regan came. The income tax code says that if you want the tax break that churches get, you can’t endorse candidates. “I know that you cannot endorse me, I want you to know that I endorse you.” Reagan put together this org. Reagan was elected. Then Bush was elected. Then Bush 2.0 was elected.

Front 89

Democratic Coalition

Back 89

goes way before 1980- economic (people who want higher taxes on the rich to raise more money for government, increased economic regulation, pro organized labor) plus social liberals (pro-choice, pro-gay rights, want to keep religion out of public life as much as possible, they generally support more regulation of guns). Clinton won because of this coalition.

Front 90

Retrospective voting

Back 90

“Is it good times or bad times?”- if it’s good reelect the same party, if not elect the out party candidate. A lot of people vote this way but when times are really bad a large percentage vote this way.

Front 91

A good democratic election

Back 91

Was the election clean?
Were the results obtained fraudulently?
Does some satisfying percentage of population participate?
How high we getting?
Did the candidates debate the issues?
Did they say “my opponent is incorrect because…” or “My candidate touches children”
Right vs. wrong way
If the politicians debate the issues, did the media report the debate fairly and accurately?
Did the sound bites accurately portray what the candidate was discussing?
Did the people listen to the debate?
Did they watch American Idol or the debate?
Absence of demagoguery
Civility of debate
Civil vs. uncivil debate
“My opponent thinks [this], I think that’s wrong because of this” vs. “My ugly opponent…”
The ideal democratic election- we want the results to make a difference in what the government actually does

Front 92

Advertising Standards Authority

Back 92

it’s an institution in Great Britain (who also allows freedom of expression) that screens media advertising for factual accuracy.
Save Darfur took out ads in the TV and newspapers, accusing the government of Sudan, having killed 400,000 people. The ad advocated that Western governments intervened. The government of Sudan protested that they did not kill 400,000 people. The ASA investigated. The government of Sudan was right and the actual number was 158,000. The ASA said that it “violated codes of objectivity and truthfulness.” So the ASA made Save Darfur change its advertising.
We don’t have something similar to the ASA in America and nobody can stop false advertising.