Empirical Theories: Understanding Politics

&

Normative Political Ideologies: Evaluating Politics

Reading Assignment: Chapter One in American Government & Texas Government Textbooks

Before we start this first lecture it is useful to give definition of three key terms: politics, government, and power. Politics is defined: as "how gets what, where, when, & how" or the "authoritative allocation of values". Government is defined as: "an institution

composed of decision-maker's who decide who gets what, where, when & how" and who possess the power to enforce those rules. Power: The ability to get another actor to do what they would otherwise have been done. Power is manifested in a variety of different ways: force, coercion, accommodation, and persuasion. You can ask two very different types of questions and develop two very different types of theories about American politics. (1) Empirical Theories: Understanding Politics. What is the current reality of American government - regardless of whether you like that reality of not? The first type of question is about describing, explaining, and predicting how American politics and American Government actually operate. When we ask these type of questions we are engaged in developing empirical theory. Not all political scientists agree about how best to describe, explain, or predict American politics. As we shall see, there are, in fact, different empirical theories about our system. But all empirical theories share in common the fact that they are NOT evaluating policies or governmental action as good or bad; they are simply attempting to understand the reality of American politics. Over the course of the semester, you should try to determine which empirical theory (theories) of American politics are the most accurate and best describe reality. (2) Normative Political Ideologies: Evaluating

Politics. What SHOULD American politics & American government look like? How do we know whether a particular policy is good or bad or what American government should do? Once again, we will see that there are major disagreements about what makes for a good or bad policy or good or bad governmental action. In other words, different people hold different normative political ideologies (or normative political theories) about what American politics should look like. Over the course of the semester, you should begin to develop your own political ideology.

Empirical Theories: Understanding Politics

The central goal of human knowledge is to understand how & why various aspects of the world operate. This is true of all the natural sciences (e.g. biology, chemistry, astronomy, etc) and it is also true of the social sciences (e.g. psychology, sociology, history and, for our purposes in this course: political science). In each of these disciplines there is often disagreement about how & why that part of the world operates. These disagreements take the form of competing empirical theories. For example, different anthropologists pose different theories about how, where, and why mankind's ancestors managed to harness the use of fire. Psychologists debate about the extent to which human behavior is predetermined genetically or shaped as a result of experience.

Political Scientists have formulated different empirical theories about how best to describe, explain, and predict American politics. There are three basic groups of empirical theories about American politics: (1) Elite Theories; (2) Pluralist Theories; and (3) Democratic Theories. (Within each of these different groups of theories, there are different individual theories). These groups of theories diverge on a number of points. First, they disagree on who in society wields the most influence. Second, they disagree on how much power these societal groups have. Third, they have different views of the role of government and politicians in the political process. Fourth, they disagree on how these groups influence the political process. Finally, they have different views on the role of public opinion and the media in American politics. Elite Theories One core elite typically of the wealthiest people. Pluralist Theories Certain Interest Groups (e.g. Labor Unions & Corporation s). Not all people in society represented by interest groups & not all Democrati c Theories The People - a majority of people on a particular issue determine policy. Civil Rights/liber ties of numerical minorities a

Who has Power?

groups equally powerful. No one group dominates but these groups compete. Those groups with more money & contacts have more power. Governmen t is the battlegroun d on which the interest groups compete to influence policy.

One Elite has total How Much Control of Power? American Politics

View of Governme nt and Politicians ?

Governmen t is a tool of the elite. All politicians serve as pawns for the interests of the elite...Politi cal Differences are trivial and illusory. The Elite determines which

re protected as well. No one group constitutes a majority on all issues. Compromis e is necessary to get enough agreement to achieve a majority. Governmen t is the arena in which compromis es are struck and the means by which the will of the majority on a particular issue is realized. Politicians are elected

candidate will win in pseudoelections. Through ownership of all key assets including media & through "pawns" in the governmen t. Interest Groups use lobbying & campaign contribution s to attempt to influence politicians to their point of view.

to represent their constituent s. Attempts by different groups to persuade a majority of the people to support their point of view.

How Influence Policy?

View of Public Opinion and Media?

Public Popular Opinion is opinion can ultimate matter on point at some which issues (e.g. decisions Manipulate elections) are made. d by the so interest The role of Elites groups buy the media through the ads to is to media. attempt to provide manipulate accurate public information opinion on to public so certain that they issues. can make decisions.

Normative Political Ideologies: Evaluating Politics

When politicians or the general public engage in a political debate on a particular issue, they are really debating on two levels. On the surface, they are debating the specifics of the particular issue: should we appoint or elections judges in Texas? how much should the legislature raise the level of teacher pay? etc. But there is a second level of deeper debate that replicates philosophical debates on politics that go back centuries if not several millennia. On this deeper level, the debate is between political ideologies. A political ideology is a more or less consistent set of beliefs about what constitutes a "just" society and what role the government should play in this society. The political ideology thus serves as a basis for evaluating the legitimacy (or morality) of not only the governmental policy itself but the process the government used for making decisions. On the basis of an ideology one might even question whether the government should have been involved at all. Some people have developed highly sophisticated political ideologies. For other people, their ideology is often poorly articulated (e.g. it exists in the form of "gut reactions"). Nevertheless, some primitive version of what constitutes a "just society" is almost universal. In this chapter we will discuss some of the basic or classical political ideologies. This is useful to do at the outset of a course on government because understanding the underlying political ideologies helps you understand the political process. Once

you understand these ideological positions you will see that these positions are reflected in the US and Texas Constitutions, in the governmental institutions and processes the constitutions create, and in the policy that comes out of this process. Questions Ideologies Address: One way to differentiate these ideologies is with respect to their answers to some basic questions necessary to address in defining what a just society would look like and how to achieve it.
1. View

of Human Nature: Is man good or evil? rational or irrational? If you believe man is evil and/or irrational it will set certain limits on what type of society is possible. Such assumptions are absolutely fundamental. For example, if one assumes that people act irrationally then democracy and capitalism became difficult to achieve. Alternatively, if people are evil, then giving them too much freedom would be a dangerous and fool-hardy thing to do. Nature of Civic Duty or Individual Responsibility to Society: What is the nature of one's civic duty? (1) vote? (2) to serve in the military? (3) obey the law? (5) Pay your taxes? What is your responsibility toward your fellow man: (1) None? (2) Give to the poor? Some ideologies view society as a gathering of individuals and focus more on individual rights rather than civic duty. Other ideologies focus more on responsibilities than rights and speak more of the requirements of the civic

society. Society's Role in Shaping Individual Values/Thoughts? Many Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato believed that society had a responsibility to help shape a "virtuous" man without which the formation of a just society was impossible. The modern terminology for this might be "political correctness." Should society seek to generate certain attitudes towards sex, God, the personal relationships, other races or genders - or should it leave should it stay out of the business of shaping thought and personal values? Attitude Toward Government: To what extent should we look to government to assist us in solving our problems? What is the role of Government in creating the just society? In what respects, if any, is the government a potential threat to creating a just society? What type of economic system is best? Should we have more of a free marketcapitalistic system? A socialistic system? Is economic growth always a positive good or perhaps should we be more mindful of the ecological consequences of growth and seek "sustainable development" instead? Basis for the Social Contract and Preeminent Values: One of the primary differences between political ideologies is the basic value they seek to maximize. The

English philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke argued that there is an implicit social contract or agreement between a government and the people in that society. In exchange for their pledge of support, Governments are obliged (under contract if you will) to give the people in that society something in return. The notion of the social contract suggests that governments are legitimate to the extent that they meet their primary obligations to the people. Where Hobbes and Locke disagreed was over what this primary obligation was. Hobbes argued that order and protection from external threats and internal crime were the preeminent values. If this came at the expense of people's freedom; so be it. Locke, on the other hand, argued that the government's primary role was to provide freedom. If that came at the expense of order, so be it. Hobbes and Locke were, in effect, seeking to maximize different values (order and freedom). If Hobbes and Locke could be magically transported into a modern drug bust Hobbes would be pushing for a strip search (he would probably favor racial profiling). Locke, on the other hand, would be reading the man his rights. You should see from this example how basic questions e.g. on the basis for social contracts guide debates on specific policy questions.

Classical Ideologies

We will now examine four political ideologies and their positions on these six issues. You should keep a couple of points firmly in mind as we go through these positions. First, the classifications used below are the original or classical understanding of these terms and not necessarily the modern usage. For example, what a Classical Liberal believes is quite different that what a Modern Liberal believes. The descriptions in your text of liberals and conservatives concern these terms in their contemporary or modern usages and not in the classical fashion we are using here. That being the case, it is still important to understand how John Locke, one of the early Classical Liberal writers, viewed Classical Liberalism. To avoid confusion, however, you should always attach the modifiers of either "classical" or "modern" to the ideology in question. Secondly, most of you will discover that your own personal views seem to cut across the ideologies; you are Classically Conservative on some issues and Classically Liberal on others. That is normal. As you read the description of these ideologies you should begin to define your own ideology.

Classical Conservatism: Religion and religious values are highly important in this ideology. A just society is one that is based on the principles that derive from that particular religion. Think of fundamentalist religion on this point and keep in mind that a fundamental adherence to religious values can characterize any religion: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. The Taliban Government in Afghanistan was

one example of Classical Conservative Islamic Government. 16th Century Spain was an example of a Classical Conservative Catholic Government. While there are no modern democratic governments in which religious values dominate; religion and religious values can be very important in the formation of many democratic societies (The framers of the American Constitution were Christians or Deists). Tradition is highly important to Classical Conservatives. They are suspicious of new values that challenge cherished traditions. Order and safety are the preeminent values. According to this ideology, a government is legitimate (meeting its social contract) to the extent that provides for order, safety, and the maintenance of tradition, and religious values. Freedom and equality must be sacrificed, when necessary, to ensure these values. So, for example, an American classical conservative would have few reservations about restrictions on civil liberties for Arabs in the US w/o American citizenship following 11 September. An American classical conservative would have no problem with the use of military tribunals instead of the normal judicial citizens to try suspected terrorists from Sept. 11. To a Classical Conservative, it is more important to guard against future terrorist threats than it is to ensure civil liberties. Equality of all people before God's justice is consistent with this ideology but equality of roles on the workplace is not. In particular, Classical Conservatives Women have different roles than men; a

woman's place is at home. If women begin to assume male roles this disrupts the moral order of society. The Taliban were an extreme example of this but all Classical Conservatives believe that God created different roles & different responsibilities for men and women. Business activity is generally good provided it does not disrupt families (e.g. by inducing the wife to work) or interfere with religious faith (e.g. business on Sundays). This ideology would also tend to favor strict penalties for crimes to preserve order and a tendency to not impose to many obstacles to get a conviction in a court of law. A fair amount of government involvement in private life is necessary to regulate morality (but not to restrict religion). This is necessary because man is "sinful" (until redeemed by God) and hence men can not be given too much freedom. The Christian Coalition is an example of an American Classical Conservative Organization. Classical Liberalism: Classical liberals operate as the antithesis of Classical Conservatives in many respects. A classical liberal values freedom and privacy as the preeminent values. An American Classical Liberal would try suspected terrorists in the regular judicial system rather than the military tribunals and he would not engage in racial-profiling at the airports. This belief in freedom extends to all domains. Classical liberals, in stark contrast to Classical Conservatives, are staunch proponents of free speech. The notion of censorship is the worst possible outcome. A

pure classical liberal, for example, would not censor pornography. This belief in freedom extends to business and the economy. People should be free to spend their money however they want to spend (or invest) it. Classical Liberals are consequently pure believers in capitalism and the market economy. Economic growth is always good. The Economist Adam Smith argued that if every acted in their own interest, "an invisible hand" would guide these individual selfish decisions and produce a collective good. There should be as little interference from government as possible. Indeed, government should be made as weak as possible so that private citizens are free to make up their own decisions. Since little government is needed, taxes can be kept slashed. On reason the liberals fear strong governments is their fear that they would take away individual liberties. It is not that human nature is bad, but that it is self-interested; ultimately people are out for themselves. Rather than attempt to abolish something deeply engrained in human nature, it is better to organize your government and society in a fashion that no one individual or groups can get too powerful. The best way to do this is to fragment power (e.g. through checks and balances and the separation of powers) and to impose a list of explicit rights (Bill of Rights) that the government can not take away. In our chapter on the US Constitution will see that people like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison

were strong classical liberals and that the US Constitution reflected this philosophy much more than it did democratic theory. In fact, some of the framers, like Madison, were worried about unrestricted democracy (which they called "tyranny of the majority") so they included very undemocratic features in the constitution (e.g. elected Presidents through Electoral College rather the popular vote). This is even more the case with the Texas Constitution; which produced a weak government so that it can not threaten individual liberties. Texas Government, more than most states, is heavily influenced by Classical Liberalism. The modern Libertarian Party and the Cato Institute are good contemporary example of classical liberalism. Classical Socialism: A classical socialist values equality of results as the preeminent value and basis of the social contract. Contrast this with Classical Liberals who favor "de jure" (or legal) equality of opportunity. Classical Liberals do not favor racism. However, they do not want Government Intervention to stop it. Consequently, Classical Liberals would oppose Affirmative Action programs. Classical Socialists would favor Affirmative Action because "de facto" racism still exists even if "de jure" racism is outlawed. Classical Socialists want equality of results. Achieving this goal may come at the expense of freedom. For the Classical Socialist, human nature is good, it is the

societal structures that are bad. If these structures are removed, you can trust people to do the right thing. Capitalism is the primary obstacle to building a better society. The government should play a major role in mitigating the negative effects of capitalism and reducing the social needs of the poor. In the US, in contrast to Western Europe, real socialist parties have little power. Nevertheless, certain ideas influenced by Socialism have been introduced into American Politics and are now accepted by nearly everyone. The concept of Social Security has elements of socialism. Many American organizations have some classical socialist principles. While the communist systems produced some of the most severe environmental pollution the modern world has seen, nevertheless, many contemporary socialists are willing to examine the ecological costs to economic growth. One good example of a group that combines older socialist economic ideas with some environmental concerns is the Green Party. Classical Democratic Theory: Unlike the other ideologies, the legitimacy of a political system in Democratic Theory is not based on the policies which are produced but how these policies were decided. In a democracy, the will of people should determine policy. Provided certain basic rights to political participation for numerical minorities are not infringed, democratic theory wants to make

decisions by majority rule. An ideal democracy would be one in which: (1) there is a real substantive discussion on the issues with the various sides fairly represented, (2) as a result of this debate, people are sufficiently informed on the issues to make an intelligent choice, (3) a majority of adults representing all classes, ethnic and religious groups, participate in the process and help make that decision and (4) political power is a function of number of people in the public who support you - not how much money you have or who you know. Human nature is good and rational. Those who use this is their basic ideology favor issues like campaign financing reform. If that puts restrictions on individual freedoms to contribute, so be it, it will reduce the influence of money on politics. This is an interesting contrast with Classical Liberals who believe that this would infringe on individual liberties. See Common Cause. Classica l Conserv atism Sinful/irr ational Human (w/o Nature God's presence ) Individu Obey al's GodClassica l Liberali sm Classica l Socialis m Classica l Democr acy

Selfish/ra Good/rati Good/rati tional onal onal Pursue Sacrifice your own for Participat e in the

private interests. Ordained Set Up Civic Rulers. Own Duty? Promote Business religion. . Look out for #1 Yes, accordin NO! An infringe g to ment on Society God's precepts. your to Conserva privacy, shape personal individu tive liberty & version al freedom values? of "political of correctn speech & thought. ess" Econom ic System ? Qualified capitalis m but can't interfere with family or religion Laissez Faire Capitalis m

society esp. the political disadvan process taged in society

Yes, to promote social equality. Leftist version of "political correctn ess" Socialis m or Commun ism A few socialists (Greens) want to slow economi c develop ment to

Yes, on basic civic duties and responsi bilities no for private matters Qualified market economy but with checks (campaig n finance reform) on political influence of wealthy.

protect environ ment. Protect people from external or internal threats. Strong Governm ent necessar y to promote religious values (e.g. to stop pornogra phy)

Role of Gov't?

Mechanis m by Mechanis Governm which m to ent is will of realize potential people is social ly a realized. and threat to If economi freedom. organize c ..must be d to equality. keep promote Need weak will of Strong and majority, governm limited. should ent. be strong.

Religion, Preemin Freedom Order, ent & Safety, Value? privacy Tradition.

Equality Will of of results Majority

Modern Ideologies and Modern Political

Parties
Difference Between Classical Ideologies and Modern Ideologies/Modern Political Parties: So far we have been discussing ideologies (and terms like "liberal" and "conservative") as those terms were understood by John Locke and Thomas Jefferson (and, I might note, as those terms as STILL used in modern European democracies). Now I want to briefly discuss how the terms liberal and conservative are used in the modern discourse in the U.S. by typing them to modern political parties. As noted above, the modern Libertarian Party is very close to Classical Liberalism and the modern Green Party is reasonably close to Classical Socialism so we will not discuss these two parties or these two ideologies but will focus instead on the Democratic and Republican parties and modern ideologies (modern liberalism and modern conservativsm) associated with them. Classical Liberals v. Modern Liberals: Similarities: There are some similarities. On many "personal choice" issues e.g. abortion, sexual orientation, private use of drugs (marijuana) modern liberals are very close to classical liberals - they both favor personal freedom and personal choice. Both Classical and Modern Liberals would be opposed to censorship. Both would be very wary of the new Governmental powers of surveillance and detention initiated by the Bush Administration

in its War on Terrorism. Differences: There are some pronounced differences. The key difference concerns the role of the government in solving economic, environmental, and social problems. Classical Liberals would leave the solution of problems to the market. Modern Liberals believe that the Government has to play a key role in solving problems. For example, in the current economic crisis, a Classical Liberal would be inclined to let companies go bankrupt if they made bad decisions in the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Modern Liberals, on the other hand, want a massive Governmental bail-out like Franklin Roosevelt undertook in the Great Depression and Barak Obama wants to undertake now. Modern Liberals would want to tighten regulation of the financial industry believing that government regulatory agencies like the SEC were "asleep at the switch." The regulatory powers of such organizations should therefore be tightened in the future. Classical Liberals would want to deregulate - believing that the market would correct itself. One smaller difference between Modern and Classical Liberals concerns gun control. Modern Liberals favor gun control while Classical Liberals side with the NRA in opposing it. Classical Conservatives v. Modern Conservatives:

Similarities: There are many more similarities than there are differences. Both believe in the importance of religion and tradition. Both are much more concerned about the focus on "order" over "freedom" e.g. they both would favor extensive governmental surveillance of American citizens and residents to avoid another 9/11. Both oppose personal choice on "moral" issues e.g. both oppose abortion, homosexuality, "recreational" use of drugs. Both favor censorship of the media. Differences: Modern conservatives tend to believe in freedom of religion while Classical Conservatives tend to focus on the correctness of a particular religion. Modern Conservatives are more inclined to see women in positions of power while classical conservatives believe that a women's place is in the home. Democrats = Modern Liberals: Democrats tend to be Classically Liberal on social issues (proabortion, sexual orientation, recreational drug use, opposed to censorship and government surveillance) and Classical Socialist on economic issues. For example, modern liberals want a government sponsored national health insurance program. Republicans = Modern Conservatives: Republicans tend to be Classically Conservative on social issues (anti-abortion, anti-homosexual,

anti-drug use; in favor of censorship and government surveillance) and Classical Liberal on economic issues; i.e. in favor of deregulation and leaving the market to solve problems. There are always exceptions. It is interesting to note that in the current economic crisis - most Republicans have favored a Modern Liberal position on government bail-outs. Test Yourself: You may want to test your own modern ideology and see where you come out. There are a variety of tests out there. Here are three. http://typology.people-press.org/typology/ http://www.politicalcompass.org/test http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.ph p?t=15430

The Internet & Democracy

No Text Reading

In this course we utilize the internet in the study of Government and Politics. Beyond the issue of convenience in using the internet in courses, there is a larger question about the nature of the impact that the internet has had - or more importantly might have in the future - on politics at the local, state, national, and international levels. One can conceive of a variety of ways that the internet might affect politics. We will center our focus on the extent to which the internet might promote democracy in the US. We will divide this discussion into three sections. We will begin with a review of what democracy is. The second section will cover the debate over the impact on democracy in general and the extent to which the internet might make our current system of indirect democracy (where the will of the people is exercised indirectly through elected representatives who make the policy decisions) more or less democratic. In the third section, we will explore the extent to which we might move to a system of direct democracy where the people use the internet to vote directly on the issues - bypassing the elected representatives at least on some issues or perhaps more dramatically eliminates the need for them all together.

Review of Democratic Theory

In the lecture on ideologies, we discovered that one important political ideology is Classical Democratic Theory. Recall that a political ideology is a set of beliefs that tells you how a society should be organized to achieve justice. Unlike the other ideologies, the legitimacy of a political system in Classical Democratic Theory is not based on the policies which are produced but how these policies were decided. In a democracy, the will of people should determine policy. An ideal democracy would be one in which: (1) there is a real substantive discussion on the issues with the various sides fairly represented, (2) as a result of this debate, people are rational and sufficiently informed on the issues to make an intelligent choice, (3) a majority of adults with high representation from all segments of society, participates in the process and helps make that decision either directly or indirectly through their representatives; (4) the final policy which is produced represents what a majority of the people favor but at the same time it does not deprive the minority of their right to participate in the process or their basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In order for this to happen political power must be a function of number of people in the public who support an issue - not how much money you have or whom you know.

The Internet & Indirect Democracy

I. Possible Ways In Which the Internet Might Enhance Democracy:

(1) More Informed Electorate with Access to "Virtual Library" Having enrolled in this internet course in Government, you are beginning to get a sense of how vast research resources there are out there on the internet. I will illustrate the point by examining how to use the internet to research one particular topic - abortion. It is now possible in a fashion never the case before for the general public to get up to very detailed on the following: Objective background information on the issues Positions ofpro and con interest groupson the issues, Up-to-date information on pending and current legislation in the House and Senate Votes of political officials on the issues , Pending Supreme Court Cases. "First Government" web directory site for governmental and political issues Thus the possibility for an "informed electorate" with substantive understanding of the issues at hand is made much more achievable with the internet. Obviously, this is necessary for direct democracy. But even with indirect democracy, to properly evaluate the candidates we must be able to evaluate intelligently the policies they discuss. Access to the internet makes this possible. No longer must we simply trust what a candidate (or all candidates) tell us about a particular policy or problem - we can now look it up for ourselves. We do not have to rely on one media source either (with the potential for manipulation) we are more in

control. (2) Enhanced ease of access; Emails for Congressman in House and Senators But in an indirect democracy, it is important not only to be well informed on the issues but to communicate your views to your elected representatives. Of course, you can do so a variety of ways - in person, by phone, by fax, by traditional letter (i.e. "snail mail"). The internet adds the email option which has two major advantages: (1) speed and (2) fairly direct access. (3) Enhanced participation through voter registration and voting on-line: A current problem with our democracy is that many people do not register to vote or, if they do register, they often do not vote. Even in Presidential races when a larger percentage of eligible voters participate than in other elections, our voter turn-out is very low around fifty-percent. There are a variety of explanations for this - but one problem may simply be the inconvenience of voting and esp. voter registration. Perhaps on-line procedures for registration and on-line voting might increase voter participation. (3) Enhanced Speed of Political Mobilization for all Groups to Cope with Fast-Breaking Issues: The internet also serves as a multiplier of communication exchanges. This affords an enhanced ability for established interest groups to attract new members and mobilize rapidly for political action. In the past, the news of political events traveled slower than the political decisions

on those events. The groups with money and a physical presence in Austin were the only ones who mobilize in time to influence policy. That is no longer the case. Anyone with email can communicate directly with their interest group on an issue and then the interest group can coordinate a campaign for communicating directly with the policy-makers in the midst of making a decision. (4) Means for "third" parties to offset some of bias of system. In the chapters on election, we will learn that our system is biased to favor the two parties. We will learn that the two dominant parties (now the Democratic and Republican parties) utilize a variety of means to make it more difficult for third parties to have a realistic chance of holding power. Some of these ways that they use to thwart third parties are beyond the power of the internet to correct. However, third parties such as Greens can use the internet to get the message out to a larger group of people as to how biased the system is. Moreover, there are certain features of our current system that promote the two-party system that can be mitigated by the internet. For example, the privileged access to the traditional media (and the educational system) that the two dominate parties enjoy has been hard for third parties to overcome. This had an impact on fund raising, membership, and, of course, ultimately voting. If people did not know you exist, it is hard to get your message across. And the start-up costs to buy advertising on the conventional media are so high as to be prohibitive for all but wealthy individuals. It is no accident that the third party that did the best in the

Presidential vote (the Reform party in 1992) was bankrolled by the private funds of a multimillionaire, H. Ross Perot. But the internet may have radically changed all that. The relatively low economic costs associated with political organization using a website and the vast opportunity to communicate with masses of people have led to a mushrooming of new political groups and parties. Now with the advent of the internet, it will become increasingly difficult for the two dominate parties to pretend that they are the only alternatives. (5) More Opportunities for Joining Social Groups and Promoting the Civic Society: A very astute nineteenth century sociologist, Alex de Tocqueville, argued that one central strength of the American democracy lay in the web of private social groups to which Americans belonged. Tocqueville saw these groups as a healthy and perhaps necessary backdrop for democracy to take root. Tocqueville gave a number of reasons for his conclusion including the fact that involvement in these groups tended to promote civic responsibility, a willingness to compromise, and a strong belief in the value of participation to formulate policy. Tocqueville also indicated that these groups can energize formal political organizations such as political parties with new ideas. The internet is not only a virtual library or an communication mode for interest groups to mobilize, it is also the context for an almost infinite number of social groups that one might join. Through the internet the opportunity to join Social groups is thus increased exponentially.

This should promote the Civic Society that Tocqueville argued is the necessary social condition for democracy to function. II. Possible Ways In Which Internet Can Undermine Democracy: (1) Exclusion of Non-Internet Literate & Those Who Can't Afford Computer Access. We may be in the process of creating a new gap perhaps even more insidious than purely economic gaps; i.e. the gap between the internet literate/computer owning people and those on outside the web. Classical Democracy favors as broad a suffrage as possible. Factors that exclude some people or afford unequal political power are undemocratic. It is unrealistic to say that all people will have equal access because we will have computer terminals with internet access in public facilities such as libraries. Library hours can conflict with the normal working schedules of many blue collar workers; the homeless and extremely poor may be strongly discouraged from using such public facilities and, in any event, not everyone will be internet and computer literate. If information is power then the internet will define the new politically powerful elite - and the new politically disenfranchised class. (2) Reinforcing Tendency to Listen to Extremely Biased Political Accounts: Numerous studies have indicated that people tend to consult media sources that reinforce their preexisting political views. Other studies have indicated that there is, indeed, some bias (albeit it relatively minor) to ALL traditional media sources.

CBS, the New York Times, and the Washington Post have a slight left of center (i.e. Democratic) bias. Fox News Network, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, and many Texas newspapers have a slight right of center (i.e. Republican) bias. Certainly Dan Rather of CBS is likely to report the news a little differently than Oreilles of Fox. Nevertheless, Rather and Oreilles; the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have one thing in common - if they get so distorted or biased in their reporting that what they are reporting is demonstrably false (and not simply a matter of interpretation or political spin) this will be readily pointed out by their competitors and they are likely to suffer the consequences (in terms of reduced readership or lower Nielson viewing ratings). This keeps all the traditional media - television and newspapers in particular if not perfectly neutral at least somewhat closer to objective reporting. So if we only watch the tv commentator with whom we agree, while we will get a biased view, it is not likely to be too far off the mark. But this counter to bias is not nearly so pronounced for the internet websites. Indeed, it may not exist at all for many of these websites. Consequently, there is a plethora of extreme websites which are patently false (e.g. websites which deny the holocaust). If a person gets all his information from these sites alone, he can be severely misinformed. This leads us to the next point. (2) Cacophony of Noise, Deception, & Evil on the Web. The fact that the web is uncensored is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it permits

minority views to be heard in a fashion never possible before. On the other hand, there are so many voices out there that the "signal/noise" ratio is distorted. How can people separate the wheat from the chaff when there is so much trivial material out there? Even more dangerous, is the fact that uncensored material means that much of the material out there is false and even deliberate deception. Often, these pretenders cover their identities and link onto legitimate sites. The fact of the link creates a false sense of veracity. Finally, violence and hatred can be fanned by the web as well. It is not just the more positive elements of our society that use the internet to recruit new members and to mobilize, hate groups can do so as well. (3) Anomie, Virtual Contact May Substitute for Real Human Contact & Incentives to Compromise: The isolation of the internet and the time consumed in virtual rather than real contact may lead to the opposite of Tocqueville groups and social, volunteer organizations. Chat rooms may not offer the same lessons of civic responsibility and acquired social skills of real, old-fashioned, personto-person clubs and organizations. Finally, there may be less of an imperative to compromise is this impersonal, virtual world then there is in the real world. Republican Senator Orin Hatch and Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy may be lightyears apart politically; but their long-term, personal contact on the floor of the Senate has induced a measure of civility and compromise in both of these individuals (indeed, they sometimes co-sponsor

legislation) that seems much less likely had they spared exclusively via email.

The Internet & Direct Democracy

One issue we did not examine in the section on Classical Democratic Theory - but need to raise here - is the distinction between direct and indirect democracy. A Direct Democracy is one in which citizens make the decisions themselves, i.e. directly, without working through the "middle-man" of the elected officials. Democracy in Ancient Athens operated in this fashion (albeit slaves, women, and property-less Athenians were excluded). On the other end of the spectrum is Indirect Democracy in which the people operate through the elected officials. In Indirect Democracy, people exercise their choices by: (1) voting for officials whose views are closer to their own (2) attempting to convince those elected officials to pass policy you favor. Historically, a wide variety of practical constraints have made direct democracy highly impractical when dealing with any large group of people. It was difficult for all the people to get the information they needed to make an intelligent decision and to communicate these choices in a timely fashion. Also, it was difficult to aggregate all of the millions of input. But certain features of the internet MAY have changed this. - as we will see in the discussion of Direct v. Representative/Indirect Democracy. Whether the internet has indeed made direct democracy possible is one question. Whether or not direct democracy is desirable is another. You may argue

either in favor or against direct democracy

The Internet and Political Freedom in Authoritarian Countries

Given that the internet can be such an aid to democracy (e.g. providing an access to information to counter government propaganda), then some argue that the internet might be a vehicle to help dissidents in a non-Democratic country transform their country into a more democratic country. Certainly authoritarian governments fear this possibility and hence seek to limit what information can be gleaned from the internet in their country. It is very difficult for authoritarian governments to limit access to the internet - but one way to control access to information is by coercing American and Western companies who offer search engines (Google, yahoo, Netscape, Microsoft) to alter their search engines in the language of that country to make it more difficult for the dissidents in that country to find information critical of that government. This is exactly what the Government of the People's Republic of China did - especially with yahoo and to a lesser extent with Google and Microsoft. If dissidents in China tried to search in Chinese for sites on Tiananmen Squarethey would not get information on the 1989 massacre of Chinese students but scenic photos of the square. Why would these companies comply with this despicable policy? The reason is the massive profits - million of dollars - that the companies stand to make by expanding into the Chinese market. The Chinese Government essentially coerced the

companies to play by their rules if they are allowed to compete for the lucrative Chinese internet market. Money dominates morality in other words. Another, even more ominous, action is to get the help of the companies that provide browsers and search engines and emails to aid in identifying individuals who might be seeking such information. Recently, yahoo collaborated with the government of the People's Republic of China leading to the arrest of several Chinese dissidents. There are at least two questions one might ask about this practice: one normative and one empirical (you will get the chance to answer one of these questions in the exercise below). The normative question concerns what would you do if you were an executive for yahoo and faced with the decision on whether or not to comply with the PRC in monitoring these dissidents. The yahoo executive might argue that while the arrest of the dissidents is not good, the fact that a Western company offers the service will mean that the Chinese do not develop their own company which would even be more repressive. Also, yahoo stands to loose millions of dollars in profit by not collaborating and if companies fail to consider the "bottom line" they will go out of business. The empirical question concerns the extent to which the internet will be a force for democratic development in non-democratic countries.. One could argue that governmental control policies such as those employed by the People's Republic of China will ultimately fail because they are so easy to

circumvent. For example, the Chinese dissidents who speak English could get around the search engine blocks by simply searching in English (that is not blocked) rather than Chinese. And as many internet savvy kids know who seek to circumvent parental blocks know, they are multiple ways for the technologically sophisticated to circumvent blocks. In short, the introduction of internet to an undemocratic country - even with limited access would still be a force for democratic development in that country. In contrast, one could argue that the internet and email might also be used by undemocratic forces or for purposes that might distract from or even undermine the type of political culture one needs to develop a democracy (e.g. it might introduce citizens to sites that promote ethnic hatred or false information or they might spend most of their time with pornography rather than political issues).

US and Texas Constitutions

Reading Assignments: Chapters on Constitution in American & Texas Politics Textbooks Role and Types of Constitutions
This lecture examines the role of the US & Texas

Constitutions in our political system. Constitutions are legal documents which ostensibly specify the procedures for making political decisions and define the rights of their citizens. I use the word ostensibly because in non-democratic states the Constitutions may exercise little or no real impact on the actual practices of that state but merely serve for external propaganda purposes. Article 35 of the Constitution for the People's Republic of China declares that the Chinese People are guaranteed freedom of speech and assembly. (Unfortunately, protestors in Tiananmen Square in 1989 found out differently). In democratic states, however, Constitutions do (or at least potentially can) have real legal impact in circumscribing political procedures for policy-making and protecting citizen rights. Some democracies such as the United Kingdom do not have a written constitution but rely instead on a collection of documents (such as the Magna Charta) and previous precedents (collectively called the "common law") in defining political procedures and citizen rights. Among democratic states with written constitutions there are essentially two variants: (1) Case-Law Constitutions which state basic legal principles, procedures, and rights but do not go into great detail on what these mean or how they are to be exercised (2) Napoleonic Constitutions (named after the French Napoleonic Codes) which specify procedures, rights, and sometimes even policies in great detail. The US Constitution is an example of a case-law Constitution while the Texas Constitution is an example of a Napoleonic Constitution. Contrast the length of these two

documents and you will see one difference between the two types of Constitutions. The US Constitution is approx. 7,500 words long and, over the course of more than two hundred years of its existence, it has only been amended 27 times. The Texas Constitution, on the other hand, is almost 81,000 words long and in 125 years it has been amended 432 times. There are pros and cons to both approaches. The advantage of aNapoleonic Constitution is that it leaves less to interpretation because it spells everything out in detail. Consequently controversial debates over the interpretation of the Texas Constitution are much rarer than the debates over the meaning of the US Constitution. The flipside is that Napoleonic Constitutions become easily antiquated and rigid; they can not adjust to accommodate new times and situations not anticipated at the time of the writing. On the other hand, Case-Law Constitutions such as the US Constitution have the advantage of flexibility. American government textbooks often refer to the US Constitution as a "living constitution" by which they mean that the US Constitution has evolved to fit new eras and contexts. The US Constitution is, in fact, the oldest extant Constitution in the world.. However, the very brevity of the US constitution requires more interpretation to fill in the blanks as to the precise meaning. The institution that must interpret what the Constitution means and how to apply it in a particular context is the US Supreme Court. To get a sense of why this is necessary, read the First Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution. From this brief paragraph the US Supreme Court must determine what the Constitution has to say about topics as diverse as whether or not prayer should be permitted in public schools, if burning the flag is protected as a form of symbolic free speech, whether the Boy Scouts can exclude homosexuals, or towns can ban nude dancing (to name only a few examples). In such instances, the US Constitution means what the US Supreme Court says it means on a particular topic. Thus, there can be bitter debates about topics such as whether the Constitution does permit a right to choose an abortion. When the US Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, it is exercising its power of judicial review. This principle was implied in the Constitution but it was legitimated by a precedent undertaken by the first Supreme Court in the case of Marbury v. Madison. In a Case-Law constitutions such as the US Constitution, one of the major debates concerns how much to rely on "strict constructionism" ostensibly according to the understanding/meaning of the people who wrote the constitution (and its amendments) versus relying on an understanding based on evolving values and meanings to interpret the Constitution. Strict Constructionism has certain advantages - it leads to more consistency and very importantly, it keeps the values of individual Supreme Court Justices from distorting the original understanding. These are important assets. However, strict constructionism is not a panacea nor as easily utilized as some of its proponents would have you believe. In the first place, to say one should use the meaning that the

"framers" used is to suggest that all the people who drafted the Constitution and its amendments had identical interpretations of the Constitution and the amendments they drafted. In fact, they did not. We know, for example, that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson had different understandings of what was prohibited by the "establishment" clause of the 1st Amendment (which concerns church-state relations) than majority of the other framers did. Do we take the understanding of Madison and Jefferson or do we take the understanding of the majority? It was a matter of interpretation then and it is a matter of interpretation now. Secondly, values can change radically. For example, most of the framers of the Constitution considered slavery to be legal and ethical; indeed, African-Americans were considered "three-fifths of a person." One might ask much should we rely on the values of those so radically different from our own. Finally, technology changes as well and this can affect interpretations. How well can going back to original understandings of the threats against privacy in the 18th Century (fear of British soldiers invading their or British colonial authorities detaining them) guide us in the 21st century. For example, how useful is strict constructionism when we have to consider issues such as the circumstances under which the government should be able to monitor email messages without a warrant? In brief, as is often the case, the debate between these two positions is more complex and nuanced than both sides in the debate would suggest.

Judicial Activism v. Judicial Restraint

Because the US Supreme Court has so much potential power - there is a major debate in Constitutional circles as to whether or not the Supreme Court Justices should operate on the basis of "judicial activism" - i.e. use this power often and in a broad range of circumstances or "judicial restraint" use the power on a much rarer, more limited basis.
Judicial Restraint (often Republicans) 1. "Literal" reading - only the words that appear in constitution. 2. Original Understanding of framers or understanding at time that article or amendment was written. 3. State's Rights. Rarely Even Consider/Review State Supreme Court Decisions (Burden of Proof on Party who challenges State Supreme Court e.g. Death Row inmate) 4. Do not make policy...defer to legislative branch to make policy Judicial Activism (often Democrats) 1. Implied meaning is permitted e.g. word "privacy" does not appear in Constitution. Judicial Activism says there is implied right of privacy. Judicial Restraint says no Constitutional right of privacy. 2. Evolving meaning with changes in societal norms. 3. Individual Rights Protected by Federal Government. Much more willing to take cases from State Supreme Courts in order to protect individual rights. (Slightly more burden of proof on State Supreme Court). 4. Make policy if necessary to protect individual rights as defined in the Constitution (e.g. Brown v. Board of Ed).

Hypocrisy of both Democrats and Republicans when it comes to Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint seen in the US Supreme Court Decision of Bush v. Gore. In fact, both sides adopt the position that suited their purpose. Democrats adopted the position of Judicial Restraint and Republican adopted the position of Judicial Activism. 1. Defer to Florida State Supreme Court? No Republicans; Yes - Democrats.

2. Strict interpretation of 14th Amendment Democrats; Loose-evolving interpretation Republicans.

Means of Altering the Constitution

The US or Texas Constitution can be altered four different ways.
1. Draft New Constitution in Constitutional Convention: The most fundamental way to alter a
constitution is to call a Constitutional Convention to jettison the old constitution and to re-write a new one. Actually, the US is on its second constitution (if you include the Articles of Confederation as the first Constitution). Texas is on its sixth constitution (depending on how you count). There was a movement to organize a Constitutional Convention in Texas to draft a new constitution in the 1970s - but it failed.

2. Formal Amendments: The

most obvious way to alter the constitution is by formally amending it. This is intentionally difficult to achieve and always requires an extraordinary majority (more than a simple majority) to achieve. In the case of the US Constitution, for a Constitutional amendment to be approved it would first have to be passed by 2/3 of both houses of US Congress. If that was not difficult enough, it would then have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. It is this last hurdle in particular that makes it difficult to ratify new amendments to the US Constitution. The Equal Rights Amendments for Women failed by one state and, consequently, was not amended to the Constitution. It is quite probable that an amendment to abolish the Electoral College would also go down to defeat because it is not likely to get 3/4 states to vote to ratify as this would require support from the smaller states who benefit from the Electoral College. In the case of

the Texas Constitution, the process is slightly different. Like the US process, the first step is for an amendment to be approved by 2/3 of both houses of the Texas Legislature. Actually, a 2/3 vote is much easier to achieve in Austin than in Washington because the leaders of the Texas Legislature (the Lieutenant Governor in the Senate and the Speaker of the House) are significantly more powerful than their Federal peers and hence more likely to secure passage of amendments they favor. The second step is different in Texas. Instead of being submitted for ratification to a lower administrative unit (e.g. states at the Federal level), it is placed on the ballot for voters to approve. A simple majority of voters is sufficient to approve the amendment in Texas. However, because Texas has a Napoleonic Constitution, these amendments are often very lengthy and complex, perhaps arcane. Typically, the full text of the amendment is not printed on the ballot and, as a result, the voters may not have a clear idea of what they are really voting on. Also, in the amendment is placed on the ballot in an "off-year" election, voter turnout can be very low.

3. Changing U.S. Supreme Court Interpretations: We

noted above that because of the brevity of the US Constitution, the US Supreme Court must often interpret what it means in particular instances. There is a strong bias in the court to follow established precedent and not alter its course from the established case law (including its own decisions). This principle is called stare decisis "let the decision stand." Nevertheless, the Supreme Court does change its mind on some interpretations. For example, in deciding whether or not the 14th Amendment to the Constitution allowed states had the power to segregate schools by race the US Supreme Court originally ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that states had the right to do so. A half century later, the Supreme Court will rule in Brown v. Board of Education that the 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination by race. Since 1973 when the Supreme Court defined a constitutional right to choose abortion in Roe v. Wade, the pro=-life movement has sought to alter the membership of the Supreme Court to get this

interpretation reversed. 4. Precedent: There is a third means by which the meaning of the constitution can be altered: precedent and accepted political practice. This third means of constitutional evolution operates in a fashion analogous to the manner that "common law" marriage works. In a common law marriage, after fixed period of cohabitation, the relationship between the two partners assumes a legal legitimacy; in the eyes of the law they are treated as a married couple even without a formal wedding. The President or Congress can establish precedents which become, over time, accepted as legal and binding as if they were part of the Constitution or an amendment or a Supreme Court decision. It is historical precedents that explains a most
curious turn of events - the fact that Article I, Section8 has become moot without a Constitutional Amendment or Supreme Court decision to that effect. Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution grants to Congress the sole power to "declare war." At the time of the convention to ratify the constitution, the majority (though not unanimous) opinion of the framers held that, with three exceptions, the President had to obtain an explicit authorization from Congress (not necessarily a formal declaration of war) for the use of military force. According to this original understanding of the constitution, a President could make a unilateral decision to use force only when there was (1) a direct attack on the United States, (2) an internal insurrection or (3) an Indian raid, However, this very restrictive set of circumstances for Presidential prerogatives to authorize the use of military force rapidly expanded as one President after another took unilateral actions which slowly but steadily eroded Congressional war powers. Presidents claimed legitimacy for such actions by citing the actions of the predecessors. And, in fact, most Presidents expanded the scope of power claimed by their predecessors. Additionally, technological changessuch as the advent of ballistic missiles have given more authority over war-powers to the President. Facing the possibility of an missile attack that could occur in as little as 10-30 minutes time, Congress had to cede additional war powers authority to the President. Finally, in the cold war, much of the use of force occurred at the covert or secret operations (such as CIA activities). The President authorizes them and Congress often does not know about many of these operations in advance. As a result of all of these factors, today without any

relevant amendments and no directly relevant Supreme Court decisions,the roles of Congress and the President are almost totally reversed on the "war-powers." Presidents now fairly frequently undertake military force - e.g. launching cruise missiles or authorizing covert operationswithout even informing Congress before hand; let alone seeking Congressional authorization.

Constitutions as Political Documents

One central point to keep in mind is that all Constitutions (including the US & Texas Constitutions) are political documents. By that I mean that they drafted in a particular political context, by politicians, with their own political ideologies and political agendas, and most importantly, Constitutions have real political consequences in terns of "who gets what, where, when, and how." While Madison, & Jefferson and other "founding fathers" did exhibit a higher level of intellectual discourse than much contemporary political debate (see e.g. the Federalist papers) and while they attempted to promote higher principles and not just serve immediate partisan goals in drafting the Constitution; it is a mistake to assume that the drafting of the Constitution was not a political enterprise. Political Context & Political Agendas: Both the US & Texas Constitutions were shaped in a particular political context and some of the political battles of that day shaped the writing of that Constitution. In the case of the US Constitution, the context was the disastrous, anarchic experience of our first attempt at government - the Articles of Confederation. There were a number of consequences of that abortive political experiment; but one of the most serious was fact that the lack of a strong central government that could set some general economic policy across state lines made it more difficult for the creditors to collect on the multiple debts accrued during the revolution. The struggle between debtors and creditors was so severe, in fact, that it developed into armed revolt in some contexts (manifested especially in the tension between small farmers often heavily in debt and banking interests). All of the people who attended the Constitutional Convention represented either large landholders (e.g. Jefferson, Madison) or banking interests (e.g. Hamilton). (Note that all were also white men). Perhaps it is no coincidence then, that, one of the key powers given to the central government (specifically the Congress) was the sole power to coin and print money and to regulate inter-state commerce (in short, set a national economic policy). While this change did make good economic sense, it nevertheless had a real political consequence that greatly benefited the creditors at the expense of the debtors. This illustrates the Iron Law of Politics = Rules are Never Neutral. One of the cardinal laws of politics is that while some rules or laws may be "fair" and "good" - no rules are neutral. By that I mean, laws or rules or constitutional principles always work to benefit some groups more than others. For example, the Electoral College system defined in the US Constitution effectively weights the votes of people in the states with smaller populations (North Dakota, Kansas, Wyoming) more heavily than the votes of citizens in the larger, more populous states (California, New York, Texas, & Florida). By the same token, if you abolished the Electoral College and selected the President by national popular vote alone - while all individual votes would have the same weight -

the interests of the smaller states would have less political clout. (We will explore this issue in depth in a subsequent lecture). For our purposes here the point to see is that no rule can ever be neutral. Political Context of 1876 Texas Constitution: A Reaction to Gov. Ed Davis: The power of the political context and the pull of political agendas is even more pronounced in the case of the Texas Constitution. Texas went through five constitutions before we finally settled on our current constitution drafted in 1876. To understand the Texas Constitutions, one key fact to understand is the impact the debate over slavery - and later, the freed slaves - had on Texas Politics. The Texas Revolution began for a number of reasons; some noble - and some ignoble. One of the ignoble causes of the Texas revolution is that the Mexican Constitution of 1827 banned slavery and a number of Anglo immigrants to Texas wanted to hold slaves - and, indeed, many did so illegally calling them "indentured servants.". (Jim Bowie and his brother, for example, made a fortunate in a quasi-legal slave trade).. Consequently, when the 1836 Texas Constitution for the Republic was drafted it not only legalized slavery, it made it illegal to free your slaves without the approval of the Texas Legislature! Not all white Texas took this position; Sam Houston and many of the German immigrants in the hill country were anti-slavery; but there were in a minority. It took the Civil War and the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to end slavery - but a bitter political dispute over what to do with the freed slaves was at the central issue during the drafting of our last constitution. The previous governor, Gov. Davis, was a very powerful, activist "Reconstructionist Republican" who used the powers of his office as Governor to force through a reluctant State legislature a number of laws that enfranchised the freed slaves and granted them greater access to education, land, etc. When Gov. Davis was finally voted out of office, the first thing his opponents did was to draft a new Constitution that greatly weakened the power of the Governor - and indeed the State Government as a whole - so that this type of "abuse" could be avoided in the future. If you will, that was Gov. Davis's positive side. But he had a negative side as well. By all accounts he was very corrupt. He also tended to favor granting more power to the railroads and banks - both at the expense of small farmers and ranchers. As a result, Gov. Davis drew the ire of the newly formed - and increasingly powerful Grange Association; a political association of farmers and ranchers. The Grangers (along with Southern White Democrats) would dominate the Constitutional convention and draft a new Texas Constitution that would severely restrict the powers of the Texas Governor (indeed it would create a "plural executive" where the Governor's power was split among multiple executive offices. The new Constitution would also limit the legislature - so that it only met every other year for 140 days.

Classical Liberalism and the US Constitution

In an earlier lecture, we noted that the framers of the US Constitution were Classical Liberals first and adherents of Democratic Theory, only secondly.

The preeminent concern of Classical Liberals is to protect their individual freedom against a governmental action that might become too powerful and take actions that threaten individual liberties. There are at least four manifestations of Classical Liberal principles that can be found in the US Constitution.

Separation of Powers + Checks & Balances: Classical Liberals believe that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely;" consequently you have to be careful to ensure that no one branch of government or an individual filling an office in that branch could accrue too much power. The framers used two related means to ensure that the system they created were not threaten their liberties. They provided for: (1) checks and balances among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches or sources of power that one branch could use to check the other branches from becoming too powerful and (2) a separation of the powers (or responsibilities) among the branches in such a fashion that no one branch had control of too many aspects of governmental policy. One important additional consequence most be noted about the Constitutional system of checks and balances and separation of powers. This system made it extremely difficult to pass new legislation. Not only can the President veto legislation or the Supreme Court declare it unconstitutional, but as a result of creating two houses in the legislature, Congress is itself divided. As a result, roughly 90% of all proposed legislation never gets out

of Congress. This system works precisely as the Classical-Liberals intended in protecting established liberties. This is a very important positive attribute of our system. However, the system does not make it easy to extend these same liberties to new groups not initially covered. Think for example of how long it took to pass Civil Rights Legislation in the fifties and sixties because of the filibusters of a minority of Southern Senators. Moreover, it is extremely difficult to pass new legislation even when it is favored by a majority of the people (e.g. majority of Americans favor tougher gun control laws). It is easier for a minority to thwart the majority's will in this system of fragmented power. Thus, our constitutional system is stacked in favor of those parties who prefer the status quo (e.g. the parties who derive economic benefit in the current system) and thwarts those who parties hurt by the current system who seek legislative change to alter the status quo. Considering all the various options one can legitimately argue that this system is still the best course of action. One thing is clear, however, once again, one can see once again that the constitutions, laws, and rules in general may or may not be good - but they are never neutral. Division of Powers between Central/Federal Government & State and Local Governments: Classical Liberals tend to be strong proponents of decentralizing decisions and devolving a great deal of power back to the states and local governments or; best of all away from all governmental power at any level, to the people

themselves. While they recognized that the Central Government had to have real power on some issues (to avoid the economic chaos of the Articles of Confederation) there were quite wary of giving too much power to the Central Government. The Federal government has gained significant power over the years, but the original system was one that gave significant power to the states. We will explore this issue more in the next chapter on Federalism. Individual Rights: The fist ten amendments to the Constitution - the "Bill of Rights" illustrate the central attention that Classical Liberals gave to protecting individual rights. Note that these rights are included and indeed even amplified - in the Texas Constitution which has written guarantees in the Constitution protecting the rights of women. Institutional Checks on "Tyranny of the Majority" & Uneducated Masses: While many Classical Liberal principles (such as freedom of speech, etc) are consistent with Classical Democratic Principles - they do not share identical views. One point of difference is over the extent to which they trust majority opinion and popular will to make the right decisions. Many of the framers were a little concerned to make the system too democratic and place too much power on the will of the people. Consequently, they created a couple of checks - one was that originally Senators would not be directly elected by would be chosen instead by the State Legislatures. The other check was, of course, the creation of the Electoral College for selecting the President.

US Constitution and the Clinton

Impeachment
We can illustrate many of the principles discussed here by examining the operation of the Constitution during the Clinton Impeachment Process. The US constitution provides for only one way to remove a President from office before their term expires: the impeachment and trial process. The constitution covers the formal process of removing a President in three short passages. Article I, Section 2 indicates that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole power of impeachment." Impeachment is roughly equivalent to indicting the President. A vote of impeachment, however, does not mean that a President will necessarily be removed from office. And indeed, the final outcome for Clinton's case bears this out. At the end of highly partisan impeachment hearings, the House of Representatives voted, to impeach President Clinton. In doing so, they claimed under Article II, Section 4, that the President was guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors" which, along with treason and bribery, are the only constitutional grounds to impeach a President. Article I, Section 3 tells us that "the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachment's" that is, to acquit or convict the President on the basis of the charges made against him by the House in its Articles of Impeachment. Article I, Section 2 also describes the decisionmaking rule for conviction, "...no person will be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present." The vote in the Senate was also highly partisan. Clinton was charged with both perjury and obstruction of justice. The Senators

voted 55-45 that President Clinton was not guilty of Perjury with all 45 Democrats and 10 Republicans voting for acquittal. On the obstruction of justice charge, all 45 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted not guilty while 50 Republicans voted guilty. When his opponents failed to muster the necessary twothirds vote for conviction, and President Clinton was acquitted of both charges. This episode illustrates five important principles about the US Constitution and the manner in which it operates in American politics. First, the Constitution is still relevant. The US Constitution is the oldest extant constitution and it still effects the current political situation. Clinton's impeachment illustrates this. The constitution makes it clear that the impeachment/conviction process described above is the only way to remove a sitting President from office. This is not the case with many parliamentary democracies in Europe where the chief executive officer and his/her entire cabinet can be removed by a majority vote of "no confidence" in the legislature; a vote which often follows a disagreement over a policy debate. As a result, it is no uncommon at all for a European Prime Minister to be removed from office before his term expires. Contrast this with the US case where not a single US President has ever been removed from office by this process. Because the Constitution makes it clear that the impeachment process is the only legitimate means to remove a sitting President, once the Senate voted to acquit Clinton, the defeat of Clinton's opponents was complete. As much as the Clinton opponents hated the outcome, when their impeachment gambit failed, the movement to unseat Clinton died with it.

Second, the Constitution evolves. To cite an example from the Clinton trial in the Senate, there is nothing in the Constitution which states that members of the House of Representatives should play the role of prosecutors in the Senate trial of the President; but that is precisely what happened in this instance. The "prosecution" team lead by Rep. Hide acted as if they had an explicit Constitutional authorization to do so. They did not. But that point is irrelevant. Now a procedural precedent has been established that will effect any subsequent impeachment hearings. Third, the impeachment process is one "check" in the US Constitutional system of checks and balances. The power to impeach and convict the President is the ultimate check that the legislative branch can exercise over the Executive branch. The Constitution also called for the Chief Justice preside a sort of mediator and guarantor of the Constitution during the Senate trial. Note as well that the constitution did not allow the President to be convicted on the basis of a majority vote in the Senate trial, it required a twothirds majority. To make the decision on the basis of a simple majority would have made the impeachment/conviction option too potent and tipped the balance too far in Congress's favor. Finally, political actors often appeal to Constitutional principles to disguise their own political agendas while accusing their opponents of "partisanship." You can take it as an axiom of politics that all political parties will accuse their rival parties of being motivated by "partisan politics" while they are, themselves, are operating on a higher moral plane untainted by such base

concerns. The supports and defenders of Clinton claimed to be divided over two constitutional issues: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to convict him of perjury and obstruction of justice and (2) most importantly, even if he was guilty,if these offenses rose (or perhaps we should say sank) to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors." There are indeed legitimate debates on both these points over which reasonable men can (and did) disagree. No doubt, some individual decisions were motivated by these "higher order" considerations. But to see the debate as only turning on these issues is to miss another political struggle between those who favored or opposed Clinton's policies or how strongly they reacted to his rather slipshod personal ethics. It is a rather strange coincidence - actually no coincidence at all - that most Republicans held to one opinion on these constitutional points and all Democrats held to another. The explanation is simple. Both sides were acting in a partisan fashion. This is a good illustration as to why one should be skeptical of the self-righteous claims of both sides they are acting according to Constitutional principle while their opponents are craven political opportunists.

Differences in Content Between Current Texas Constitution and Current US Constitution.

Bill of Rights Differences: The Texas Constitution has a Bill of Rights from its inception while the US Bill of Rights are the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution. The Texas Bill of Rights follows the language of the US Bill of Rights closely, there are some differences. Following is some text taken from the Texas Bill of Rightssee if you can note some of the differences with the US Bill of Rights.

Equal Rights for Women: Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged

because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. In addition, from Spanish Law and the 1824 Constitution, Texas drew the principle of Community Property which gave women greater control of property in the event of death of their husband. Later, this principle would be extended to divorce where women would get 50% of community property in event of a divorce.

Homestead Exception & Protection Against Creditors: Texas has some of the
strongest protections in its constitutions for debtors of any state. One important realization of this is the homestead exemption that protects a homestead against seizure for debts. The 1875 Texas Constitution has two sources for this right. First, the idea can be found in the original Spanish and Mexican constitutions which protected a homestead. Second, the politics of the Grangers and many of the settlers in Texas were pro-farmer/rancher and antibanker. Since many of them lived in fear of foreclosure, they wrote into the Constitution strong protections against this.

Stronger Restrictions on Eminent Domain: No person's property shall be taken,

damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person; and, when taken, except for the use of the State, such compensation shall be first made, or secured by a deposit of money; and no irrevocable or uncontrollable grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be made; but all privileges and franchises granted by the Legislature, or created under its authority shall be subject to the control thereof.? This seems to be stronger than federal restrictions at least as interpreted by US Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London, 2005.

Freedom to Worship a Supreme Being of Your Choice - But Prohibitions on Atheists

in Public Office: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. What this means, in effect, is that the Texas Constitution would allow theists (people who believe in a God or Gods) to serve in public office - but it would not allow atheists or agnostics to serve. A Governor could be a Buddhist but he or she could not be an Atheist. There is no such requirement in the US Constitution; atheists and agnostics are not barred from public service at the Federal level.

Freedom of Speech More Limited than US Version: Every person shall be at

liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the press. But in Texas, legislature could limit symbolic speech such as flag burning which the US Supreme Court will later uphold under Texas v. Johnson.

 No Unreasonable Bail Unless; The state of Texas like the Federal Government
prohibits "unreasonable bail." However, the Texas Constitution includes a number of exceptions where very high (or no bail) might be imposed: (a) Any person (1) accused of a felony less than capital in this State, who has been theretofore twice convicted of a felony, the second conviction being subsequent to the first, both in point of time of commission of the offense and conviction therefore, (2) accused of a felony less than capital in this State, committed while on bail for a prior felony for which he has been indicted, (3) accused of a felony less than capital in this State involving the use of a deadly weapon after being convicted of a prior felony, or (4) accused of a violent or sexual offense committed while under the supervision of a criminal justice agency of the State or a political subdivision of the State for a prior felony, after a hearing, and upon evidence substantially showing the guilt of the accused of the offense in (1) or (3) above, of the offense committed while on bail in (2) above, or of the offense in (4) above committed while under the supervision of a criminal justice agency of the State or a political subdivision of the State for a prior felony, may be denied bail pending trial, by a district judge in this State, if said order denying bail pending trial is issued within seven calendar days subsequent to the time of incarceration of the accused; provided, however, that if the accused is not accorded a trial upon the accusation under (1) or (3) above, the accusation and indictment used under (2) above, or the accusation or indictment used under (4) above within sixty (60) days from the time of his incarceration upon the accusation, the order denying bail shall be automatically set aside, unless a continuance is obtained upon the motion or request of the accused; provided, further, that the right of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals of this State is expressly accorded the accused for a review of any judgment or order made hereunder, and said appeal shall be given preference by the Court of Criminal Appeals.(b) In this section: (1) "Violent offense" means: (A) murder; (B) aggravated assault, if the accused used or exhibited a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault; (C) aggravated kidnapping; or (D) aggravated robbery. (2) "Sexual offense" means: (A) aggravated sexual assault; (B) sexual assault; or (C) indecency with a child. (Added Nov. 6, 1956; amended Nov. 8, 1977; Subsec. (a) amended and (b) added Nov. 2, 1993.).

Texans Love Their Guns The Texas Constitution allows for fewer restrictions on
guns. "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime".

Victim's Rights: A crime victim has the following rights:(1) the right to be treated with
fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process; and(2) the right to be reasonably protected from the accused throughout the criminal justice process.(b) On the request of a crime victim, the crime victim has the following rights:(1) the right to notification of court proceedings;(2) the right to be present at all public court proceedings related to the offense, unless the victim is to testify and the court determines

that the victim's testimony would be materially affected if the victim hears other testimony at the trial;(3) the right to confer with a representative of the prosecutor's office;(4) the right to restitution; and(5) the right to information about the conviction, sentence, imprisonment, and release of the accused.(c) The legislature may enact laws to define the term "victim" and to enforce these and other rights of crime victims.(d) The state, through its prosecuting attorney, has the right to enforce the rights of crime victims.(e) The legislature may enact laws to provide that a judge, attorney for the state, peace officer, or law enforcement agency is not liable for a failure or inability to provide a right enumerated in this section. The failure or inability of any person to provide a right or service enumerated in this section may not be used by a defendant in a criminal case as a ground for appeal or post-conviction writ of habeas corpus. A victim or guardian or legal representative of a victim has standing to enforce the rights enumerated in this section but does not have standing to participate as a party in a criminal proceeding or to contest the disposition of any charge. (Added Nov. 7, 1989.) The compensation to victims of crime fund created by general law and the compensation to victims of crime auxiliary fund created by general law are each a separate dedicated account in the general revenue fund.(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c) of this section and subject to legislative appropriation, money deposited to the credit of the compensation to victims of crime fund or the compensation to victims of crime auxiliary fund from any source may be expended as provided by law only for delivering or funding victim-related compensation, services, or assistance.(c) The legislature may provide by law that money in the compensation to victims of crime fund or in the compensation to victims of crime auxiliary fund may be expended for the purpose of assisting victims of episodes of mass violence if other money appropriated for emergency assistance is depleted. (Added Nov. 4, 1997.). Weak, Plural Executive and Weak Legislature: Perhaps the principal difference between the Texas Constitution and the US Constitution is the differences in power authority and power that they give to the various branches of government. For reasons discussed above, the Texas Constitution of 1875, opts for a very weak government. It will create a plural executive, a legislature that scarcely meets, and a divided, elected judiciary.? Much more on these points in later lectures when we cover these branches of government.

Federalism
Reading Assignment:

Chapter in American Government Text on Federalism Federal, Confederal, and Unitary Systems: In 1845, when Texas became part of the United States, it was joining a federal political system (albeit one soon to fracture on precisely this issue). As we saw in a previous chapter, this means that governmental authority was divided by the U.S. Constitution between the state of Texas and other states, and the United States. Two things characterize a federal system of government: (1) the dominant power (or sovereignty) lies with the central government (sometimes called the Federal Government) especially on foreign policy, monetary policy, and civil rights and (2) that point notwithstanding, the state governments have real power to make policy on most domestic issues. There is an inherent tension between these two points, as we shall see. A federal system of government is not the only possibility. A country might choose either a unitary or a Confederal system of government instead. In a unitary system, virtually all power resides with the central government. The French Government is a good example here. On the opposite end, a country may adopt a Confederal system in which the central government does not exercise dominance but the real power resides with the states. The thirteen states experimented with this in the Articles of Confederation as did the Confederate States in the American Civil War. The best way to think of Federalism is as being on a continuum between the two extremes of dominant central government with weak state governments on one end and a Confederal system with strong state governments on the other extreme. The key point made in this conceptualization is that the precise form that

Federalism assumes and where the country falls on this continuum can vary over time; sometimes closer to the strong central government pole and sometimes closer to the strong state government pole. And, indeed, this is precisely what has happened in US history. Selectively Quoting the Constitution: The ratification of the US Constitution was a victory for Federalism because certain features of the US Constitution gave clear legal precedence to the Central Government. Perhaps the key provision allocating power to the central government is Article VI, where the supremacy clause makes national law supreme over state law. There were other parts of the Constitution which supported Federal power such as Article IV, Section 2 and especially Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress (national government) a list of enumerated powers. However, the major opposition party of the day, the AntiFederalists, insisted on certain amendments to the original constitution that tended to give more power to the states. Amendments X and XI Amendment particular was added to check the powers of a central government. Conversely, Amendment XIV will later give more power to the Central Government vs. states to protect individual rights from state encroachment. One can see that there are elements of the amended constitution which support both positions and it is interesting to note that proponents on each side of the Federalism debate tend to quote the Amended Constitution selectively to support their particular position (somewhat as ministers sometimes do in selectively quoting certain Biblical passages while ignoring others in a theological dispute). Advocates of State's Rights always quote the Tenth and Eleven

Amendments - and ignore Article VI and the XIV Amendment. Advocates of a Strong Central Government will quote these two but seem to be almost embarrassed by Amendments X and XI. It is probably accurate to say that the states rights position was closer to the understanding of the framers. Whether that is the best system or not, is another question. Troublesome Article IV Provisions: Do States Have to Accept Legal Definitions of Other States? Section one of Article IV of the US Constitution requires that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." For example, all states must accept the legal status of a marriage performed in another state. Consequently you do not have to get remarried when you move to another state. But this issue has been complicated lately by the issue of "same sex" civil unions - which are not the same as a marriage but still give a real legal status to homosexual unions that affects issues such as dependent benefits for insurance and tax status. The state of Vermont passed a law granting the legal status of Civil Unions to same-sex unions. Many states have refused to accept this legal status should same-sex partners with "civil union" status in Vermont move to another state. And indeed, the US Congress responded by passing the "Defense of Marriage Act" which allowed states to ignore this status - should a same-sex couple move out of Vermont to a state that did not allow same-sex civil unions. You can argue this issue either way. One might argue that the Defense of Marriage Act is an unconstitutional violation of Article IV or conversely, one might argue that DOMA is constitutional because there are limits on the laws from other states that a

different state has to accept. Of course, if one adopts the latter opinion than one must define what states do and do not have to accept from other state laws. Federalism Means What Different Supreme Courts Say it Means: Because the US Constitution, as amended, had provisions that could be interpreted in either direction and because of the very brevity of the language of the Constitution, it has remained for the US Supreme Court to define the precise boundaries of the Federal and State powers. In short, Federalism has come to mean what the Supreme Court - or more precisely particular Courts at particular points in time - says it means. The first supreme court to play a role in delineating central and state powers was the Marshall Court of the early nineteenth century. John Marshall was the very same justice we saw in Marbury v. Madison establishing the judicial review power of the supreme court. Marshall also ruled in two cases before the court that strengthened the power of the central government over the states. One of these cases concerned Article I, section 8 with the "necessary and proper" clause which gives the US Congress (hence the Federal Government) certain implied powers. This case was McCullough v. Maryland. In this instance, Congress created a national bank with one branch n Baltimore. Maryland, viewing this in competition with its own banks, attempted to tax to the National Bank out of business. An official of the National Bank in Baltimore, James McCullough, refused to pay. Maryland took its to state supreme court and won. But the case was appealed to the US Supreme Court and here Marshall (writing for the majority) argued that Congress does have certain implied powers not explicitly stated in the Constitution and these powers expand Federal Power.

The constitutional interpretation that the Federal Congress has certain broad implied powers has expanded Federal Power in general. Perhaps an even more important instance of the definition of Federalism was Gibbons v. Ogden. In this case, Fulton/Livingston, inventors of steam ferryboat, received an authorization from NY state legislature for a monopoly to operate a ferryboat inside New York and between NY and NJ. They contracted a man named Ogden to operate and manage the endeavor. Another individual named Gibbons decides to compete and Gibbons obtained a Federal license to operate in the same area. Ogden sued Gibbons for operating without a state license. Initially, NY courts granted Ogden an injunction but Gibbons appealed to Supreme Court to rule on three issues: (1) what is meant by commerce; (2) did it include intrastate as well as interstate? (3) is this a concurrent power or an exclusive national power? Marshall rules in favor of Gibbons on all three questions, and with him, in favor of an expansive interpretation of the commerce clause. This expansive understanding of the commerce clause constitutes the single biggest "in" for the Federal Government in its dealings with the states. The Supreme Court took a much narrower interpretation of Federal power under the commerce clause for over a century from the end of the Marshall Court until the1930s. This narrower interpretation dramatically limited Federal power and increased State power. The pendulum swung the other way for sixty years from the 1930s to the 1990s but with the Rehnquist Court a five-four majority emerged for more a narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Apart from the Commerce Clause, another major constitutional

debates on the issue of Federalism concern the interpretation of Amendment XIV. The XIV Amendment was passed to extend the protections against Federal encroachment on individual liberties to protections against State Government infringement of these liberties. Most especially, it was passed to protect the civil rights/liberties of the newly freed African-American citizens against the actions of state governments. As a result of the XIV Amendment, a number of guarantees against Federal Government infringement of in individual liberty by the Federal Government have been "incorporated" to apply to state government as well. The Rehnquist Court has cut back on circumstances under which groups could claim Fourteenth Amendment protections to override State Policy. Instead, the Rehnquist Court has reemphasized the Xth and the XIth amendments as more controlling. For example, in US v. Morrison, the Court struck down a Federal law giving women the right to sue for rape in Federal Courts arguing that neither the interstate commerce clause or the XIVth amendment permitted such a remedy. On the other hand, when it comes to foreign policy, the court tends to look to Article VI and the Supremacy clause. And the Court did overturn a State law which sold information from driver's licenses on XIV amendment grounds. More recently, the Supreme Court struck down a California Law that allowed doctors to prescribe "medicinal marijuana" for patients with terminal illnesses. Marijuana is regulated under the Controlled Substances Act. The question is whether Congress had the authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause to pass the Controlled Substance Act or whether the California had the right to decide this issue under the Tenth Amendment. It is clear that the Federal Government may regulate inter-state

sale of drugs but California argued that the Tenth Amendment gave States to decide on the use of drugs so long as it was only in their state borders. Gonzalez v. Raich the Court ruled with the Federal Government that the US Congress had the authority under the inter-state commerce clause to ban medicinal marijuana legalized by individual states. In conclusion, the definition of Federalism at any given point in American History depends on how a particular Supreme Court interprets these various specific parts of the Constitution: (1) Article I, Section 8, Article VI, and Amendments X, XI, and XIV. Sometimes the Supreme Court's ruling on Federalism also turns on how it interprets Federal Laws as they apply to state actions. One case, Gonzalez v. Oregon, dealt with Physician-Assisted Suicide. (Alberto Gonzalez as US Attorney General represented the US Federal Government's position that it had the power to decide this issue). The State of Oregon made it legal for Doctors to prescribe drugs that a patient diagnosed with a terminal illness could take to commit suicide. The Bush Administration opposed this and the Attorney General (first under Attorney General Ashcroft later under Attorney General Gonzalez) worked to undermine the Oregon law by eliminating the right of Doctors who prescribed these drugs to prescribe any drugs. The Bush administration argued that it could do so under the Controlled Substance Act. In Gonzalez v. Oregon, the Supreme Court ruled that the Attorney General did not have the authority in the Controlled Substance Act to stop Oregon Doctors from prescribing drugs so that terminally ill patients could commit suicide. So while Gonzalez v. Raich said that Congress did have the authority to regulate the prescription of drugs, in this

case, the Court ruled that, as written, the Controlled Substance Act did not prohibit the medications used for physician-assisted suicide and therefore the Attorney General did not have the authority to away their licenses under the act as written. It is highly probable that a Republican Congress will draft legislation to amend the Controlled Substances Act to ban prescription of medications for physician-assisted suicide. If the Federal Law is so amended then since the Court has already ruled in Gonzalez v. Raich that Congress can regulate drugs then the Oregon law will be tried again and this time the state of Oregon would lose. Evolution of American Federal Policy: Impact of 'Exogenous' Events American Policy Prior to Civil War: American Federal Policy has evolved not just because of changes in the Supreme Court but from changes in the economy, civil rights, crime, education, the environment, and public attitudes with respect to all of these. When Texas became a state in 1845, federalism was called dual federalism or small government federalism. The federalism was characterized by a small national government, which provided internal improvements to stimulate economic development. Most national government authority was under the commerce clause. Almost all other areas of domestic governing were left to the states. States maintained public order through the basic use of police powers. Crimes are mostly defined in state penal codes adopted by each state legislature. Public school education is another major area, which state legislatures determine. Civil War Shifts Power Back to Federal Government: The Civil War was a major crisis for our federal system,

and shifted power toward the national government. The Civil War amendments to the U.S. constitution strengthened the national government by eliminating slavery as a choice of states, (13th amendment), provided national protection for all citizens of states, (in theory, 14th amendments), and not allowed race, color, or creed, to be used as a qualification for voting, (15th amendment). Almost half of the amendments to the U.S. constitution since the Civil War has dealt with taking voting requirement powers from state government. After the Civil War, the United States began to industrialize and urbanize, particularly in the Northeastern region, and with these changes federalism evolved from dual or small government federalism, to cooperative or big government federalism. Under cooperative federalism, the national government began to acquire more influence in the state's area of authority. An early example of the national government helping states in areas of their authority was the Land Grant College and University program in 1862 and 1890. The national government gave land for states to establish higher educational institutions. The states had to establish R.O.T.C. and Agriculture curriculum in order to receive the land. In the State of Texas, Prairie View A&M, and Texas A&M were created as Land Grant Universities. Great Depression of 1930s Shifts Power to Central Government.: The most important exogenous factor that produces a dramatic shift toward more central control is the advent of a crisis - either domestic economic crises or international crisis. That can be seen very recently in the shift in control of airport security from the private sector (the airlines) and State Government back to the Federal Government

following September 11. A good early example of this can be seen in the major shift to cooperative federalism came in the 1930's during the Great Depression. The national government, under the Social Security Act of 1935, created programs of Public Assistance (welfare), unemployment insurance, and other programs, which were in the state's areas of authority. The states either lacked the resources or the will or both to create these programs themselves. The national government funded the programs through grants-in-aid. There were four basic types of grants-in-aid. Specific programs with ear marked funds were called categorical grants. These were the type of grants used in the 1930's. These monies had a great deal of bureaucratic regulation with them, and gradually, other types of grants developed with less regulation. A second type of grant created to fund individual projects for state or local government was called project grants. Block grants were developed for broad areas of concern like crime. These grants provided state and local governments with more discretion as to what programs to spend the money on. Nixon and Reagan Shifts Power Back to States: The pendulum began to swing the other way (i.e. back toward more state's power) with the election of Republican President Richard Nixon. That policy was accelerated later by Republican President Ronald Reagan. In 1980, federal grants-in-aid to the states reached 91.5 billion dollars, and most conservative political leaders in the United States felt that the national government had become too powerful, and threatened the authority of state governments, and our federal system. Ronald Reagan, elected President in 1980, decided to support

what he called "New Federalism" Reagan wanted to return authority back to state government, and move our federalism system back toward small government federalism. President Reagan proposed that states would assume total responsibility for many programs funded by the national government. The national government would reduce funding on these programs each year, to give the states the opportunity to develop their own priorities and funding. These federal programs usually provided services for the poor, which lead to the criticism that these budget cuts were on citizens, who could least afford them. As the national government began to cut funding on these programs, state governments, rather than raising taxes, cut funding. The buck stopped with local government. They either had to cut services to the poor or raise taxes. The major source of tax revenue for local government is the property tax. Thus, the raising of property taxes by local government all across the United States, brought about the property tax revolt of the 1980's. Many cities, school district, special districts were effected as voters refused to pay higher property taxes, and approve bond issues. The New Federalism of Ronald Reagan was continued by the George Bush administration. although there were not major cuts in grants-in-aid. In 1996, President Clinton signed the 1996 Welfare Reform Bill. This law altered the federal relationship with the states by putting welfare money to the states in block grants. This means that any increase in spending on welfare will have to come from state government rather than the national government. Normative Arguments for Federal Government or State Government Power: Apart from the historical analysis of what did happen with respect to the US

understanding of Federalism, one can make a number of normative arguments for/against giving more discretion to states. These arguments are listed below for your consideration: Benefits of Decentralization (Devolution) of Significant Power to State Government:
1. Local

needs across states differ; allowing more devolution allows states to tailor programs to meet local needs/ 2. This systems allows experimentation. California had air emission controls before US and it demonstrated that these work. Wisconsin experimented early with welfare reform. 3. The use of real power in the states affords an additional vertical checks to add to horizontal checks and balances. This is good from a Classical Liberal point of view. 4. Citizens have choice in public services - can "vote with their feet" by moving themselves or their business if they do not like a particular state's policies. 5. Provides alternative levels to influence - an interest group frustrated at one level can shift to other level. 6. Provides for a division of labor which can make the implementation of some policies more efficient. 7. It serves as a training Ground for national leaders. Problems with Devolution:
1. It

makes it difficult to assign responsibility e.g. Love Canal problem. State authorities blamed on federal authorities and vice-versa. No one assumes responsibility and nothing gets done. 2. It generates confusion (redundancy or worse, contradiction) in laws. This is bad for the economy

and the quality of individual life. 3. Fosters unhealthy and inefficient economic competition between states (e.g. on tax havens for businesses). 4. It makes it impossible to cope with problems that cut across state lines (e.g. environmental pollution) and it may even exacerbate such problems.

Political Participation
General Introduction & Participating Locally
Reading Assignments: No Assignment from Am. Government Read: Texas Politics Chapter on Local Government

Introduction to Political Participation

Definition: The best definition of a democracy (one used by Abraham Lincoln) is that it is a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Implicit in this definition is the idea that most of the citizens of that democracy must participate actively in the system so that the policy decisions of that government reflect what a majority of people in that system want. But participation is not limited to democratic systems; at

least some of the citizens from other systems can participate in the political process. For example, according to pluralist theory, the well-organized interest groups participate by hiring lobbyists, giving multimillion dollar campaign contributions to influence policy, and conducting an expensive television ad campaign to influence the general public while non-organized societal groups or interest groups with less money participate less effectively or not all. Political Participation is simply the effort to use one political mean or combination of political means to attempt to influence the political policy of a particular government. Forms of Participation: It is clear that participation is much broader than simply voting for people who share your policy beliefs. The list of all the types of forms of political participation would be almost endless but for illustrative purposes we can say that it includes a diverse range of activities at all levels of government such as writing your Congressperson, protesting in front of city hall, giving campaign contributions, writing political editorials or letters to the editor for newspaper, joining an interest group that lobbies for particular policies, speaking at a school board meeting etc. Some of these forms of political participation may be more important or more effective than others. Some may be immoral and/or illegal. Some may be open to some people but not others. But all represent forms of political participation. Evaluating Efficacy and/or the Morality of Forms of Participation. A decision on whether or not to make use of a particular form of participation is often a two-part process. First, one should make a determination of whether or not this particular form of participation will work in this particular context. This is called evaluating

the "efficacy" of that course of action. You are not concerned at this point with the morality or the legality of that course of action - only whether it will produce some desired political change. Assuming that you determine that a form of political participation has at least a reasonable chance to produce some desired political change, a second question concerns the morality of that course of action, according to your own set of values. Part of the determination of the morality of some actions might be based on their legality; but legality and morality do not necessarily have to be treated as synonymous. For example, prior to the Civil War it was illegal to aid runaway slaves in their efforts to move to freedom - yet all those individuals who participated in the "Underground Railroad" believed that the moral law to fight slavery was higher than the legal code of the time. Dimensions of Participation: Forms of participation may be divided along a number of dimensions. One key initial distinction is betweenlegal and illegal forms of political participation. Secondly, forms of political participation may differentiated on the basis of their immediate target audience: governmental officials or the larger public (or segment of the larger public) who might influence these public officials. Third, forms of participation may be differentiated on the basis branch of government(executive, legislative, or judicial) or what level of government (federal, state, local) is central to making decisions on this issue. (3) Finally, forms of political participation may be differentiated on the basis of when they occur; i.e. during the selection phase or the policy-making phase. By this I mean whether the action occurs during the selection of governmental officials (e.g. elections, appointments) or during the policy-making phases such as legislation or

administrative hearings or court cases. It is useful to keep these various dimensions in mind when evaluating the efficacy and/or the morality of different forms of participation. What works in one context may not work in another or what you deem to be moral in some contexts may be immoral in others.
"Taking it to the Streets" Legal Protests, Civil Disobedience, and Political Violence: Political Participation is much more than voting or giving money or political campaigns, you "take to the streets" to participate and attempt to change policy. There are three distinct forms of "taking it to the streets" legal protests, civil disobedience, and political violence. They are sometimes confused or even intentionally lumped together by the opponents of these actions; then are in fact, three totally different activities; (1) legal protests, (2) political violence, and (3) civil disobedience. You can conceive of them as being on a spectrum with legal protests and political violence at the extreme poles and civil disobedience operating between the two. 1. Legal Protest: Any action designed to draw media attention to a protest a public issue in a manner that does not violate ANY laws - is a legal protest. There are a number of legal protests against the current war in Iraq. Legal strikes and marches that rules established by authorities are some examples.

2. Political Violence: Political Violence can be defined as an illegal activity designed to affect the political policies of the governmental authorities through the destruction or threatened destruction of property and/or people. Political violence can take a variety of forms.

Political Riots: are spontaneous, anarchic eruptions of lawless behavior that may be directed against property and/or people in response to an unwelcome political development. The riots in Los Angeles in response to the criminal acquittal of the police officers accused of beating Rodney King illustrate this and involved vandalism, looting, and physical assaults. One thing that characterizes a true political riot is that is not planned or coordinated and no group controls the direction of the political violence;

it is anarchic. Sometimes riots are effective tools of political participation. One might argue that as a result of the riot in LA, there was political pressure on the US Government to assist Mr. King in his civil suit against the police officers and perhaps (though this could not be proven) political pressure on the jurists in this civil trial; a trial Mr. King won.

Political Violence Against Property: includes any planned, political activity designed to destroy property or illegally impose a negative economic impact on the target. Such actions do not involve violence directed against people. One of the first examples in American history was the Boston Tea Party which destroyed large stocks of British tea. On recent example occurred when various anarchists groups in Seattle vandalized Starbucks coffee shops to protest a meeting of the World Trade Organization and "economic globalization." Another example is ALF, the Animal Liberation Front, who use tactics such as vandalizing McDonald's or throw paint on fur coats to dramatize their belief that the killing of animals is immoral. Another example is the actions of ELF (Environmental Liberation Front) which using a tactic they call "money-wrenching" a euphemism for sabotage acts like fires at new housing developments and sky resorts to protest the putative environmental destruction wrought by these economic enterprises. Note that in all of these examples, acts of Political Violence Against Property can be distinguished from political riots because of the planned nature of its occurrence (particular targets are often selected in advance). Various members and ALF and ELF have recently been caught and convicted.

Political Violence Against People: are illegal, planned, political activities that intentionally kill, maim, or physically harm targeted political victims to alter political policies of the larger community in one's own society. (Note: we are not speaking of actions of war or even terrorism by non-Americans). The bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVea is one example of the use of political violence to protest the BATF & FBI actions in the sieges at Waco and Ruby Ridge and, presumably, deter such actions in the future. The bombings at abortion clinics and assassinations of Doctors who perform abortions represents another example. Attempts at Presidential assassinations, at least those undertaken by people with a particular political agenda (not, for example, to impress Jody Foster) constitute another type. Nelson Mandella and the ANC (Africa National Congress) first tried peaceful civil disobedience only to met with brutal violence by police. The ANC then concluded that peaceful protest and civil disobedience would not work and that only political violence would. Many analysts would attribute the shift to violence as one factor in the success of the ANC in overthrowing the South African Apartheid Government. Revolution: The most extreme form of political violence is a revolution. A revolution differs from more isolated actions of violence against people in the scope of its political objectives. Revolution is not issue specific; it does not just seek to alter one policy (e.g. abortion); it seeks to overturn the entire political system by force. The United States was, of course, born as a product of this most extreme form

of political violence. Indeed, one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson said that occasional revolutions were necessary to preserve democracy. 3. Civil Disobedience: The first step in defining civil disobedience is to distinguish it from legal protests and illegal political violence. Civil disobedience, by definition, involves an illegal action of some sort. A protest can be totally legal - and if it is - it does not exemplify civil disobedience. A peaceful march or a strike can be illegal or legal forms of protest depending on whether or not they violate any laws or ordinances. For example, the NY Courts decided that it was legal for the KKK to march but illegal for them to march with their masks on. Or the distinction might turn on where the march or protest occurs - in a legally permitted area or in a proscribed area. Any form of protest that involves trespassing (such a blocking the entrances or exists of certain establishments or roads) is illegal and a form of civil disobedience. To illustrate the broad range of possible applications of civil disobedience, not that PETA also uses public nudity (illegal in most localities) as an attention-getting device to publicize their anti-fur campaign.Act-Up, an AIDS activist group, uses a combination of civil disobedience and political violence against property to make their points. By contrast with political violence, civil disobedience never involves violence against people and it rarely involves violence against property. Indeed, it is typically the case that the vast number of protestors use either legal protest or civil disobedience to make their points and it is only a small, radical minority who endorse or engage in political violence. Notwithstanding this fact, those in opposition to particular

movements try to depict all or most protestors as endorsing political violence. This smear tactic was used against the US Civil Rights Movement and the anti-Viet Nam War protests of the 1960s and it is used today against the anti-abortion, pro-environmental, or Animal Rights Movements of the current era. You should resist the false claim that most environmentalists endorse the actions of ELF or most pro-life/anti-abortion groups endorse the murder of physicians who perform abortions. The vast majority of the membership of both groups are peaceful. Those who engage in civil disobedience may resist arrest - passively - e.g. going limp or chaining themselves to a tree - but they can not resist actively and still remain civil disobedience. David Thoreau, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Vaclav Havelare of most widely known practitioners of civil disobedience. Gene Sharp is a current theorist of the practice of non-violent means of participation including civil disobedience. But while the tactics worked for Gandhi, King, and - they did not work for Thoreau who went to jail in an unsuccessful effort to stop the Mexican-American war, or for the Jews who sought to protest the Nazi Anti-Semite Laws in Germany, or for Nelson Mandella and the ANC in South Africa. Mendella, for example, tried civil dissidence for a number of years and the ANC only turned to political violence when all efforts all civil disobedience (legal protest was never an option) were violently suppressed and Mandella was jailed. One might argue that in the case South Africa it was political violence (coupled perhaps economic sanctions) that ended apartheid - not civil disobedience. Legal Political Participation

We will spend less time with legal political participation because this subject will be covered in subsequent chapters of this section. What we will do is make some general observations about legal political participation in terms of (1) the target audience, (2) the branch or level of government where the action occurs, and (3) the extent to which the action occurs during the selection or policy-making phase. I. Target Audience: Ultimately, all policy must be changed through governmental action undertaken by governmental officials. Changes in school policies must be made by the Local School Board. New Legislation must be enacted by the Legislatures. New Court Interpretations defined by the Courts and new Executive Politics mandated by the President, Governor, and the various administrative bureaucracies. But to say that, is not to say that the best strategy is always to make the immediate target audience the governmental officials. Sometimes it is best to mobilize public opinion first and to use this public opinion to influence the public officials. We will first look at some illustrative forms of activity that make the direct target the governmental officials and then discuss those activities that target the public first. A. Immediate Target Audience: Governmental Officials:

Lobbying Governmental Officials. One major from of legal political activity is to directly lobby Government Officials on one or more policy issues. Lobbying is any legal activity undertaken by an individual or a group which seeks to persuade an elected or appointed official to adopt a particular policy position. (Note in this definition, lobbying is not

necessarily a pejorative term. Did you every notice how it is always the other side's nefarious "special interest groups" which hires those shady lobbyists while your side is simply exercising its 1st Amendment rights). Lobbying can be something as simple as sending an email or letter to your Congressperson (something we will do later in the course) or it can involve direct contact with that Government Official. It can be an individual or a group activity although, all others things being equal, you are more likely to have an influence if you lobby with others (e.g. in petitions). Often, individuals get involved in lobbying when they are encouraged to do so by particular interest groups who inform their members about impending policy decisions and who to contact about these decisions. And they may be the most effective of all when these groups hire professional lobbyists - based in Austin or Washington, DC who can attend all the hearings and meet frequently and individually with all the key players.

Campaign Contributions to Elected Officials: A close concomitant of lobbying; indeed something that almost always accompanies effective lobbying, is to give a legal campaign contribution to an elected official. Conversely, you as an individual might make a contribution to an interest group that favors the sort of political changes you want to make and the interest group can then use your money in the form of a campaign contribution to an elected official. We will say much more about this in a later lecture. But suffice it to say here that there is a strong (though not a perfect) correlation between which interest group in a political battle makes the most campaign

contributions and which one wins the political battle.

B. Immediate Target Audience: General Public or Selected Segments of Public: Here the goal is to mobilize those who agree with you and to attract new segments of the general population - esp. powerful influential segments - to support your point of view. One problem is that what will mobilize your supporters might not necessarily attract many new members (indeed it might antagonize many) - so you have to decide how to strike the balance. There are a wide variety of legal activities one can undertake to accomplish these ends including the following illustrative examples such as use of the media advertising (television, radio, or newspaper ads or internet website); paying for research studies or public opinion surveys from sympathetic institutions to support your position; joining an interest group; encouraging "public opinion leaders" (entertainment or sports figures, religious leaders, media columnists or tv anchors) to tout your point of view, planning some "consciousness-raising" event that will attract the media and draw public attention to the issue. Which of these will be the most effective form of political participation will depend on the issue and the political context. II. Branch of Government: As we shall see in the third section of this course it pays to know what branch of the government (Executive, Legislative, or Judicial) calls the shots on a particular issue. For example, because the immense difficulty in passing Constitutional Amendments, if you are pro-life or pro-school prayer; it makes little sense to focus a great deal of activity on Pro-Life Constitutional Amendments or Amendments Authorizing school prayer - the goal is to influence the Supreme Court. If you are interested in the tax cut, however, you would be wasting time to focus on the Supreme Court or even the President and Executive Branch the focus should be on the Congress which has the sole power to pass the tax legislation. The form of political participation will vary with the branch of Government Targeted. Most of the forms of participation mentioned so far (e.g. campaign contributions) are designed for influencing elected officials. On the Federal Level, this means the members of Congress and the President. In Texas State politics, this includes much of the Judiciary as well. To some extent, members of the bureaucracy can be influenced in the same manner - albeit indirectly because they look to the President and Congress for policy guidance and budget funds. However, to influence the Federal Judiciary and also to help influence the bureaucracy one key form of political participation is give money to interests groups who use that for litigation and amicus curiae briefs. Interest Groups can file legal suits to attempt to influence policy. This is one key way that environmental groups and commercial groups who attempt to influence the administrative decisions of bureaucracies who regulate environmental issues. Alternatively, if the interest group is not a direct party to a legal suit it can hire legal assistance for the party it favors and file an amicus curiae brief ("friend of the court") brief for that party to use as legal ammunition. You participate by giving money or offering legal assistance. Federal and State Bureaucracies and Local Governments (e.g. School Boards, City Councils) also often hold public hearings. Testifying at these hearings is a very effective form of participation for certain issues. IV. Participation During the Selection Phase or the Policy-Making Phase :

Finally, you can influence policy during the phase when the policy-makers are selected or during the policy-making phase. The form of participation varies with the phase. Obviously, voting, working in a campaign, giving campaign contributions, or running for office yourself are forms of participation in the selection of elected officials. But one can attempt to influence the selection of nominated officials as well. For example, both pro-life and pro-choice groups lobbied hard for or against the recent nomination of John Ashcroft for Attorney General. Actually, this will mostly a symbolic test battle for the far more important selection later of Supreme Court Justices. Conversely, current lobby efforts now underway to alter (or support) George Bush's 1.6 trillion tax cut over 10 years illustrate participation during the policy-making phase.

Participating at the Local Level

One key level on which one can participate is the local level. In the remainder of this lecture, we will explain politics at the local level so that you can consider some form of participation at this level. The U.S. constitution makes no mention of local government. The states are solely responsible for the creation of local government. While the trend at the national level since 1980 has been to reduce the size of government, local government has experienced a rapid growth. People seem to want more government to educate children, build and maintain roads, keep public order, dispose of waste, and provide such basics as clean air and water. The growth of local government in Texas has been very impressive. From 1972 to 1992, local governments have increased from around 3,600 to 4,919. There are four basic types of local governments in Texas, which will be examined in some detail. These types are: Cities or municipalities, Counties, Special districts, and School Districts. Cities and Municipalities: Since over 80% of Texans, live in cities, this type of local government will be examined first. The Texas constitution creates two categories of cities; General law, which is generally a population less than 5,000, and Home Rule, which is generally over 5,000 population. General law cities are limited in authority by the constitution in the areas of structure of government, annexation powers, and property tax authority. Home Rule cities can write their own constitutions, called city charters. General law cities only have powers specifically granted in the state constitution. Home rule cities can have any power in their charter not prohibited by the state constitution. There are four types of government structure that cities can choose. In the (1) Council-Manager structure, the city council elected by districts carries out the legislative function of government. The council hires a professional city manager to supervise the day to day operations of the city, which is the executive function. There is a mayor in this structure, but the mayor is a city council member, and usually has only ceremonial powers. In the Mayor-Council structure, you find two varieties, which are the (2) strong mayor, and the (3) weak mayor. In both of these varieties, the executive authority of government is vested in the hands of the mayor. In the weak mayor variety, the mayor shares executive authority with other elected city officials or has power checked by the elected city council. The city council has the legislative function of government like the council-manager type.

The final structure is the (4) Commission type, which was created in Galveston, Texas, after the destruction of the Great Hurricane of 1900. This structure combines both executive and legislative authority in the same officials. There are usually 5, 7 or 9 elected city commissioners, who are in charge of a part of city government, like Public Works, or Police and Fire. Together the commissioners set policy, like a city council. Individually, each commissioner is in charge of the day to day operation of their department, like a city manager or mayor. In this structure, one of the commissioners is named mayor, but the position is ceremonial. Regardless of what kind of structure a city chooses, it must deal with the problems of change and population growth through annexation policy, and the generation of revenue through the property tax and other means to have the funds to provide the services, which citizens want. You will want to keep up with San Antonio's City Council. Texas cities have been able to avoid some problems of urban decay that effect the Northeastern U.S., because of liberal annexation laws. The Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 provides Texas cities with a buffer zone known as the extraterritorial jurisdiction (E.T.J.) This zone is outside of the city limits, and can extend one-half to five miles, depending on the city size. Areas in the zone are "reserved" for future annexation. This allows a city to better manage it's growth and development. Home rule cities can annex areas without their permission, while general law cities must obtain permission of a majority of citizens in an area to be annexed. This obviously makes it more difficult for general law cities to grow through annexation. In generating revenues, the home rule city has the authority to have higher property taxes than a general law city. The greater annexation power of the home rule city allows it to annex areas in the E.T.J. and bring the tax base of these areas into the city. Texas cities can develop revenue from a one cent rebate on the state sales tax. City sales tax revenue is a factor in annexation policy. Cities often annex along major highways to bring retail businesses into the city. This type of annexation is called "spoke" or "strip" annexation. A mall is a real revenue generator for the city. The property value of the business provides property tax revenue, and the city gets a one cent rebate on the sales tax revenue collected by the retail businesses. Counties exist in most all of the states of the United States, although they go by different names in Alaska and Louisiana. Texas has more counties than any other state. Texas counties number 254, while the next largest number is only 167, in Georgia. The county is the unit of local government given primary responsibility to enforce state law at the local level. This includes three major areas of authority: (1) to collect taxes for the state, (2) to enforce state law at the local level, and (3) to administer justice for the state. The major tax collected by the county for the state is the automobile license fee. The Sheriff is responsible for law enforcement in the county and the county jail. This authority is supplemented by the various city police departments in the county. The court system to administer justice is created along county boundaries. The structure of government for all counties in Texas is set by law and is the same for all. The basic governing body is the Commissioners Court, which is composed of a County Judge, who presides over the court, and four County Commissioners, who represent equal populations in their fourth of the county. The County Judge represents executive authority in the county, and is generally responsible for the carrying out of state law in the county. The Commissioner Court

is the legislative body setting policy, although each County Commissioner has some executive authority in their portion of the county. In addition to these officials, each county has a number of elected executive figures, who have specific areas of authority. These figures are called plural executives, and this same structure is used at the state level. The most significant of these plural executives are the Sheriff, who is in charge of law enforcement and the county jail; the Tax-Assessor Collector, who assesses property, and collects taxes; and the County Clerk, who keeps county records, and is involved in the election process. The only change in this basic structure is made for the largest urban counties over 225,000 population, which can add appointed positions, such as election administrator, medical examiner, and others. Recently inBexar County (San Antonio), the Commissioner Court voted to abolish the election administrator position, because of problems in collecting and counting the votes in the last two general elections. Special districts are the most numerous and fastest growing type of local government. Special districts are local governments created by the state legislature to provide usually a single service to citizens, which they cannot receive from any other local government. A special district can provide utilities, water, hospital care, public transportation, or almost any service you can think of. This course in Texas government is brought to you, by the Alamo Community College District, a special district !! Education is a significant service that is usually provided by special districts. Because of the large number of school districts, special districts can be divided between school and non-school special districts. School Districts: The state of Texas provides for public education (K-12) through 1,043 Independent School Districts (I.S.D.) - such as the Northside ISD These special district local governments, like counties are all structured the same. Residents of the school district elect a seven member Board of Trustees, which govern the school district, according to guidelines passed by the State Board of Education. The Board of Trustees hire a superintendent to oversee the day to day operation of the schools. This arrangement is much like the city manager in a Council-Manager city government. The superintendent is an educational administration expert with certification from the state of Texas.

Political Parties and Interest Groups

Reading Assignments: Chapters on Interest Groups and Political Parties in both

American and Texas Politics Texts

Efficacy of Group Participation: In the last chapter we saw that political participation involves any activity undertaken in an attempt to influence political decisions. While we can attempt to influence politics by individual actions, you are far more likely to be successful if you take those actions in concert with others. Group participation tends to be more efficacious than individual participation. Two Types of Political Groups: There are two types of political groups which people can join to attempt to influence the political process: (1) political parties and (2) interest groups.

1. Political Parties are organizations of people with like interest who mobilize to effect policy
change by: (1) selecting candidates to run for a variety of political office and mobilizing support for their victory and (2) through these candidates in office (in Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches), serving as a coordinating point for their efforts to make policy the members of that party favor (e.g. in Congress). 2. Interest Groups There is another type of group organization which mobilizes to effect policy, interest groups. IGs differ in that: (1) they tend to have a narrower range of interest which are their top priority (getting candidates elected from supportive parties is a secondary interest) and (2) they do not operate directly in the political system but must operate by finding sympathetic Political Officials of one party or the other who support them.

Types of Interest Groups

Variants of Interest Groups: There are different types of interest groups.

Broad Ideological Interest Groups: Some interest represent people who share common values
about a broad range of issues - such as the Christian Coalition representing Modern Conservative Views or Americans for Democratic Action representing Modern Liberal views. Broad Ideological Groups which Target a Particular Governmental Institution (e.g. Supreme Court) Some interest groups also deal with a broad range of issues but put their focus on either legislative OR judicial activity that impinge those interest. While the American Civil Liberties Union includes discussion of legislative issues its primary focus is on court cases affecting civil liberties/civil rights. It has a Classical Liberal viewpoint with respect to these issues. It is opposed on the right by the American Center for Law and Justice which takes a Classical Conservative perspective. Identified with Particular Countries and Ethnic Groups: Some are associated with promoting the interests of particular countries such as the AIPAC - the American-Israeli Political Action Committee, or LULAC, the League of Latin American Citizens or NAACP. Identified with Particular Genders, Sexual Orientation See for example, NGLTF, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force or NOW, the NOW Organization for women. Economic Interest Groups: Can represent a coalition of like-minded corporations such as the American Petroleum Industry or the AFL-CIO. Single-Interest Groups: Handgun Control and the NRA represented two interest groups with radically different perspectives on gun control/gun rights.

 Political Process Interest Groups: These groups lobby to promote different changes in our political
process such as Common Cause.

US Has Two, Weak Parties

If one compares the American Political Party system to that of other Democracies around the world, especially in Western Europe two striking differences stand out. In US = Two Parties w/ Real Chance to Be In US Government V. Multiple Parties in Foreign Gov'ts: The US has only two viable parties, while many (though not all) of the other Democracies have multiple viable parties. There are avariety of other parties including the Reform party, the Libertarian party, and the Green Party, to name a few- but these other parties have very little chance to capture national seats in the US Congress and their have chances of winning the US Presidential election are virtually nil. If you contrast this with third parties in Western European countries the situation is radically different. While the smaller parties in other countries are not likely to win the general election, because of the nature of parliamentary politics (which we discuss below) - they can still win seats in the legislature and even play a role in the Government. In Germany, for example, the German Green Party holds about 7.3% of the seats in the lower house of the German Parliament (Bundestag) and, even more astounding, the German Green Party also controls the Environmental and Foreign Policy Ministries (equivalent to controlling the EPA/Interior Combined + the State Department because they formed an alliance with the dominant governing party the Social Democrats. The American Green Party holds ZERO seats in the US Congress and ZERO Departmental posts. The same could be said of the other two large third parties in the US the Libertarian Party and the Reform Party - there is no one in Congress from either of these parties. Relative to European Parties, America's Two Big Parties are Weak. American political parties are weak in the following senses:

1. There is weak voter identification with party's in the US. Party loyalty is much weaker than
in Europe. Moreover, in the US Congress, one occasionally finds Congressmen who shift party identification themselves. That would never happen in Europe. 2. American political parties have a weaker sense of ideological coherence & consistency. By that I mean that they attempt to accommodate a much broader range of views and the necessity to find common ground waters down the ideological coherence of the party. Moreover, American Political Parties are more likely to switch their views than European parties. For example, the American Democratic and Republican parties totally switched their positions on the importance (or relative non-importance) of paying down the national debt rapidly as a high priority item. In the Kennedy and Johnson administrations - Democrats were arguing that it was not that important to pay down the national debt and Republicans were calling for paying in down at a faster rate. However, in the last Presidential Election, Al Gore argued for paying down the national debt at a much faster rate while George W. Bush put a much higher priority on a tax cut. 3. The American Political Party Organizations are fragmented into only loosely-allied party groups with their own fiefdoms: One of the fundamental divisions is between the national and state (and often county) party HQs which often have competing agendas. Secondly, during Election years there is often competition between the individual

campaign HQs v. the national and state Party HQs. 4. In American Political Parties, the leadership of those parties does not select who their party's candidates. As a result, candidates can get elected who are not favored by the party leadership. This happened in the Democratic Party in the early 70's when George McGovern won the nomination - and was subsequently trounced by Richard Nixon in one of the largest landslides in American Presidential History. In the last election, the Republican Party Leadership had strong reservations about John McCain's candidacy. While McCain ultimately did not win, he won enough states to give the Republican leadership a scare... That would never happen in European Democracies. 5. Finally, there is little party discipline; the Democratic and Republican Party Leadership in Congress has much less leverage over the members of their respective parties in Congress than their counterparts do in Europe.

Explaining Lack of Viable Third Parties + Existence of "Weak" Parties in US

A variety of different explanations have been offered to explain the lack of viable third parties in the US and the fact that the two viable parties we do have are weak. These explanations are not mutually-exclusive; all of them could play in. However, it is probable that the last two reasons are the most important.
Sociological/Cultural Explanation of Two Parties: We might have only two viable parties because, relative to European societies, American Public Opinion is More Centrist/Less Polarized than Public Opinion in Other Democracies. Perhaps this may be due to the fact that we do not have a pronounced Class System and/or history of Feudalism and class revolutions. But since American public opinion tends to concentrate heavily in the middle - rather than spread out across the political spectrum as European democracies are more inclined to do - this fight for the middle of the spectrum itself reduces the probability that more than two parties can be viable. Historical Accident & Inertia as Explanation of Two Parties: While the framers of our political system did not want or anticipate the emergence of political parties in the US; almost immediately two political factions emerged (Federalists and Anti-Federalists) in the debate of the ratification of the Constitution. These two factions coalesced into our first two political parties. Once in place, the system (esp. Congress) began to adjust its organizational norms to accommodate these two parties - and from then on - simple political inertia kept the two party bias in place. Political Bias As Explanation of Two Parties: Rules are never neutral. Politicians write the rules to serve their own interests. And if individual politicians do so, so do political parties. The Democratic and Republican parties set a number of rules at their state and national legislatures that intentionally stack the deck against the emergence of third parties. They are reinforced in this effort by the media and the US educational system.

1. The state legislatures (controlled by Democrats and Republicans) set rules for getting

candidates on their ballots in the general elections. Of course the candidates for the Democratic and Republican parties are automatically on the ballot - not so the third party candidates - who must "qualify" to get on the ballot. These rule may include a number of signatures or amount of money which must be amassed by a particular date to qualify. The higher the Democratic and Republican state legislatures set the bar, the more difficult it is for third party candidates to get on the ballot. 2. State legislatures (controlled by Democrats and Republicans) control redistricting of Congressional districts following a census. Every ten years, the Congressional Districts to the US House of Representatives must be redrawn. The two parties will vie with one another to draw the districts in such a fashion that will benefit their respective parties but they share one thing in common: they don't want any districts favorable to third party candidates. So it is difficult for third party candidates to win Congressional office. Without a Congressional office and the national recognition and media attention that goes with it, it is difficult to garner the necessary name recognition to run later as President. 3. There is a vicious cycle on campaign contributions that works against third parties. Public funding for the two major parties is automatic for the Presidential races (if they wish to accept the restrictions) third parties must "earn" it. The body that decides when third parties get money - and how much is called the FEC - like the state legislatures, is made up exclusively of Democrats and Republicans. Perhaps even more importantly, it is difficult for third parties to gather private contributions from interest groups because there is little general perception if probability of success. Consequently, fund-raising for third parties thus turns into a negative self-fulfilling prophesy. Why give money if they have no chance of winning? And without the campaign contributions, they don't have a realistic chance to win. 4. The media and Educational System tends to reinforce the misperception that there are only two parties.. There is a media familiarity with, and media connections to, Democrat and Republican parties; third parties tend not to have these connections. The Democrat and Republican candidates are automatically invited to nationally televised Presidential debates. Sometimes one additional party candidate is invited, but usually only if both of the major parties agree, and only then when the candidate - on their own - has attained a fair degree of national prominence (usually this requires that they are wealthy like Perot). Structural-Institutional Explanations of Why we have Two, Weak Parties:

1. The US Constitution - specifically the winner-take-all feature of the electoral college militates against third
parties unless they are concentrated with a majority in populous states. While Perot won 19% of the national popular vote; the national popular vote has no direct effect on who becomes President. What determines who becomes President (as we found out in the last election) is the Electoral College. Perot got ZERO electoral votes because he did not win a single state's popular vote. 2. Single Most Important Factor: The Fact that we have a Presidential system of Government with Single Member (Congressional) Districts (SMDs); we do not have Parliamentary/Proportional Representation System: The way that we have structured the relationship of our legislative and executive branches of government and the way we elect people to the legislature both work against third parties. We have a Presidential system with single member districtsrather than a Parliamentary Systemwith

proportional representation. In a Presidential system there is a strong separation of powers. There are separate votes for the President and the Congress while in a Parliamentary system there is little or no separation of powers, the party (or coalition of parties) that wins the majority of seats in the Legislature gets to send the leader of the majority party to be the Prime Minister (Chief Executive). We will discuss the implications of this distinction in more detail in subsequent chapters,the salient point now is that in it is far more likely that in a Parliamentary system that at least some representatives of third parties will get a seat in the legislature. This is especially true for those parliamentary systems based on pure proportional representation rather than single-member districts such as we are. In our system, one person represents a particular state or district. So you do not have a national vote for the legislature you have a series of district or state-wide votes. Since only one person can win in a SMD race, and the party that nominates that candidate wins, there is a tendency for parties to coalesce into two large parties. In contrast, in a proportional representation system, the vote is national and not by region. Moreover, in a pure proportional representation system one does not vote for individuals - but for a political party. When the seats are allocated proportionately, the percentage of seats that a particular political party gets in the legislature should parallel as close as possible the percentage of votes that party received. So if the "Beer Drinkers Party" (a real party in Germany!) were to win 10% of the national vote - they would get 10% of the seats in the legislature. Hypothetically, if there were 100 seats, the Beer-Drinkers would have ten Beer-Drinker party members in that legislature. Had the Beer Drinkers won 51% (or more) of the national vote they would not only have 51 seats in the 100 seat Parliament AND the leader of the Beer Drinkers Party would become the Chief Executive (our President). Consequently, in most parliamentary system the leader of all but the very smallest minority parties would serve in their legislature. Imagine that we had had a Parliamentary/Proportional representation system when H. Ross Perot ran in 1992. Ross Perot got 19% of the vote of the general Presidential election but neither Perot nor any member of his party went to the US Congress. In our hypothetical example, Perot would get 19 seats out of the 100 possible seats in a Parliamentary system. If we had a parliamentary/proportional representation system in the US instead, H. Ross Perot and approx. of 109 of his followers would have held (19%) or approximately 110 of the current 535 seats in Congress. That is a non-trivial position of power to influence policy and continue to draw national attention to the positions of the Perot's Reform Party - and thus enhance their chances to capture a majority of the seats in the next election. Instead, Perot spent countless millions of dollars, won the support of 19% of the American electorate, and had virtually nothing to show for it - not a single member of the Reform party went to Congress. With no tangible political reward to show for their efforts, is not a surprise then that support for the Reform party has dropped precipitously from that 19% high in 1992 to around 1-2% in the last election. 3. The use of Primaries During Nomination Phase Weakens Parties. We will explain primaries in detail in next lecture, for now, it is sufficient to understand that primaries are the way that most Political Candidates (Presidential, Congressional, Governors, etc) are selected in the US. The use of primaries to select candidates - weakens the power of our political parties. This is the case because in a primary system, the national party leadership does not control who gets to run - they local people voting in that primary do. So long as you win locally, you win the party's nomination. In our system, you can even vote against

your national party leadership and get reelected so long as you keep the local people happy. This makes control by the national party weak. Contrast this with parliamentary systems where the national leadership gets to decide who will run. In most parliamentary systems, the leadership of the national parties creates what is called a party list. Imagine a congress/parliament with 100 seats. If that was the case, the national parties would create a list would be numbered 1-100. If a member of the party in the Parliament last time did not vote with the Party - he/she would be demoted to very low numbers on the party list - essentially obviating any chance they have of getting into Parliament. This tends to produce strong party discipline. Thus the power of political parties in our modern system is weakened by the primaries.