unit 3-4 gov

political culture

Have you ever stopped to think about what makes you an American?  Is it just a legal status or is there something that differentiates us from other cultures, even other democracies?  Interestingly enough, although historically America is very much a land of immigrants, most citizens share a common set of values or beliefs about what it means to be an American.  This common set of basic values and beliefs about our country is called our political culture. 

In America, our political culture tends to revolve around our concepts of democracy and how that translates into our political and economic life.    For example, Americans tend to believe in equal opportunity, but not necessarily in equal outcome, yet in many of the democracies in Europe, people would be more likely to say that it is the governments job to guarantee each citizen a basic standard of living.  Our political culture owes a great deal to the Founders and the ideology that they expounded upon in our founding documents, but it also is a unique product of our shared history in the formation of this nation.  In The Turner Thesis, Frederick Jackson Turner claimed that the role of the western frontier in the development of a uniquely American form of democracy and political culture was of supreme importance.  While some have pronounced his theory as being too simplistic, it is without question that part of what has made American democracy what it is today, is the unique environment in which it was created. 

                               

So what are the basic beliefs or values of our political culture?  While it is important to understand that these beliefs may change in importance over time and due to the current political situation, the following basic concepts about democracy are considered the cornerstones of our shared political culture:

• individualism and individual freedoms - The importance of the individual and protection of their civil liberties, as well as the idea of personal responsibility versus government dependency.

• popular sovereignty and limited government - The government rules by the consent of the governed, and the will of the people and the law can limit the government's powers.  In addition, while majority rule is the basis of our democracy, minority rights must be respected. 

• equality - Every individual is equal before the law, adults citizens should have an equal right to vote and all Americans should have an equal chance of being successful.  

• protection of private property - Americans ownership of private property is protected by the law.

• civic duty - Americans should support and participate in the affairs of their local communities.  

As you're reading this you may be thinking, "How can people who share these values fight a civil war, or deny blacks equal opportunities?"  The easy answer is that sometimes even though people share a basic concept about democracy, they don't always agree on what that concept should look like in practice.  During the Civil War, most southerners believed in equal opportunity, as long as it applied to the equal opportunity for slaveholders to keep slaves, and even today there are different views about Affirmative Action programs and how equal opportunity should be interpreted.  Still, as Americans we should take heart in the fact that as our interpretation of these concepts have changed over time, they have become increasingly more democratic, rather than less.  The fact that we have expanded voting rights, and other civil rights protections, does not mean that we will not continue to have political conflicts over how government should function, but our shared values and our shared political culture contribute to the stability of American democracy.  

political socialization

Once you have accepted that there is a shared set of beliefs and values that make up American political culture, you need to ask how these values are passed from one generation to the next and by whom?  The process by which political values, political culture and political identity are acquired is called political socialization.  Political socialization is a continuing process that begins in early childhood and extends throughout your life.  It is through this process that you become aware of political culture, gain knowledge about our system of government, and form values which will help to form your personal political ideology.  Although the process of political socialization is unique to each individual, in general there are several factors that are considered reliable sources of political socialization :

• Family - the most important source of political socialization and the number one predictor of party identification.  If both parents share a strong attachment to the same political party, their children are highly likely to share their ideology.  

• Education - schools are the instrument through which knowledge about democracy and many of our shared values about our political culture are gained.  While schools encourage political participation in all students, college graduates participate at higher rates than less educated Americans.  

• Group Affiliation - social groups, (including interest groups, unions, professional groups, etc.) contribute to an individual's political attitudes on a variety of issues that impact the group. 

• Demographic Factors - race or ethnicity, religion, gender, age, level of education, occupation, region you live in, and income can all impact your attitude about political issues.  

• Globalization and the Media - the increase of information available from multiple sources, including television, radio and the internet and the broader scope of that information because of globalization has allowed American culture to influence and be influenced by the values of other countries.  

• Events - major events and opinion leaders can have an influence on political attitudes.  For example, consider the leadership of Martin Luther King, or the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 and their impact on the political culture of America.  These impacts can be positive or negative, such as the distrust of government that came from Watergate and the Vietnam War.  

political ideology

Now that we've examined our shared political culture and how we acquired it, we need to explore your political ideology.  Political ideology is a set of beliefs about politics, public policy and the role of government.  Much like our political culture, your ideology about government probably came from some of the same sources, and you acquired it through a process of political socialization. However, if our political culture reflects big principles and values and our view of how our government should function, then our ideology is our view of what government should do.  Obviously, this leads to disagreements in our politics, since people don't always agree on what policies should be pursued and even how they should be pursued.  For example, most people believe that America needs to protect our borders and to be safe from foreign attacks, but suggestions about how we achieve that can be deeply divisive.  Even with these disagreements, Americans, unlike many other modern democracies, tend to divide themselves into only a few main groups.  Most Americans fall into one of these three main ideologies:

• Conservative - Conservatives tend to believe in a free market with little government regulation of business, a strong military, traditional values like school prayer and individual responsibility.  However, Social Conservatives do believe the government should take action in certain areas like abortion and gay marriage.  Conservatives tend to oppose expensive federal programs such as welfare, a national health care system and affirmative action, as well as abortion rights and marriage equality.  Conservatives often call for limited government.  

 

• Liberal - Liberals tend to believe that government should regulate the economy and business, and often call for increased spending for social programs for the poor, (welfare), minorities, (Affirmative Action), and women (equal pay act),  They also generally support some form of a national health care system, abortion rights and marriage equality.  They oppose increasing military spending and school prayer, which they see as a violation of the separation of church and state.  

 

• Moderate -  Moderates may be the least philosophical of the three groups, in that they see themselves less as ideologues and more as pragmatists.  Moderates (or independents), generally have a less consistent ideology.  For example, many moderates are fiscally conservative and support a strong military but are more socially liberal, supporting abortion rights, marriage equality and social programs to aid the poor. 

 Often when talking about ideology you will see the different beliefs placed on a political spectrum much like this one: 

                  

Generally, those on either end of the spectrum are the most likely to go to extremes to achieve their ends and the majority of Americans fall somewhere just to the left or just to the right of center.  Studies have shown that the more ideological you are, the more likely you are to engage in political activity such as going to rallies, joining political groups and participating in elections. Unsurprisingly, elected officials tend to be more ideological then the public at large. 

Although there is no absolute connection between one's background and one's political beliefs, studies have shown that certain demographic factors do seem to have a fairly strong correlation with political ideology.  Minorities tend to be more politically liberal, as do women, Jews, Catholics, and people who live on the east coast or in large urban areas.   Likewise, males, southerners, evangelicals and people who live in rural areas tend to be more politically conservative.  Wealthier Americans tend to be more liberal socially and more conservative about fiscal issues while poorer people are often more conservative socially and liberal on fiscal policies.  The west is more divided with both conservatives and liberals, as well as moderates.  It is important to note several important facts about ideology - it can change over time, and generally Americans have shown a willingness to vote outside of their political beliefs.  Your political ideology may lead you to identify with a particular party, which is your party identity, but few are consistently ideological on every issue.  In fact studies have shown that only about 20% of Americans vote along strictly ideological lines. Also,it is important to mention again, that these factors can be predictive of ideology but are not absolute.  Recently, more and more Americans are choosing to call themselves independent rather than align themselves with any one party or ideology.   

So why is political ideology important?  Because your political ideology influences the public policies you support, which in turn influences the support you give to those in government who you feel will best carry out those policies.  In other words, it influences who you vote for which influences what gets done.  When one party or one ideology gets power in the government it can have far reaching effects on the formation of, and implementation of public policy.  Conversely, public policy is often a reflection of who is in power, and since who is in power is a reflection of who participated by voting and other political activities, the American people, through elections, can impact public policy. The policies of our government at any given time are a reflection of the attitudes and beliefs of those citizens who chose to participate in the political process.  As President Obama famously said, "elections have consequences,"

economic ideologies

When examining attitudes about economic policy, we need to start, once again, with our shared values in relation to economics.  For instance, most Americans believe in equal opportunity, but few believe in equal results.  In other words, they feel strongly that all people should have an equal chance of success, but they balk at the idea of government guaranteeing its citizens equal success.  This is in part due to that belief in individualism and personal responsibility that we talked about in Lesson 1.  Americans tend to believe in a certain amount of self-sufficiency, even liberals, who are more open to the government attempting to create a 'more equal playing field,' will say that the purpose of such programs is to create citizens who can stand on their own without government assistance.  However, some of these shared values about economics have changed over time.  For example, since the economic problems of the 30's, Americans have generally accepted that some government regulation in the marketplace is necessary in order to protect the economy.  But to quote Shakespeare, "there's the rub".  While most Americans believe that some government involvement in the economy is necessary they don't agree on how much or, for that matter, how it should work!  

In order to explore how ideology impacts one's view of economic policy, we first need to define a few terms.  When looking at economic policy we are generally talking about monetary policy, which is controlled by the Federal Reserve Board and regulates the money supply and interest rates to control inflation and keep the economy healthy and stable, and fiscal policy, which is controlled by the President and Congress and includes the budget, taxes, and government spending.  Generally, philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives about monetary policy have divided between Keynesian and supply-side economic theories.

Of course this matters because of the impact it can have on your personal finances and on the economy of the country at large.  But the monetary policy pursued by the Fed may not have as immediate and obvious an impact on you personally as fiscal policy can.  Fiscal policy is basically the way the government uses taxation and government spending to support or improve the overall health of the American economy.  The government raises revenue through taxation and then uses this revenue to fund the policies or programs that have been favored by the party in power.  This tug of war over resources is really what governing is all about and who gets to decide what policies get funded is what politics and elections are all about.  Political scientist, Harold Lasswell, summed it up by defining politics as "Who gets what, when and how."   However, another important part of this is who pays for it all.            

 Conservatives typically believe that the less the government intervenes in the economy the better it will do, and they prefer supply-side economics.  Supply-side economics is the belief that economic growth is best when the government encourages investment in the economy by private businesses, through lower taxes and less regulations that impact businesses.  They also tend to believe that wealth will 'trickle down' from the wealthy because they will use their extra profits to expand their businesses, thus creating more jobs and higher wages for the workers who will in turn buy more products which increases demand and helps the business sector to grow. During the Reagan administration, this theory, called Reaganomics by the media, allowed for years of national growth but  tripled the debt, in part because it was combined with tax cuts and increased military spending. 

Liberals on the other hand prefer a brand of Keynesian economics, a theory that grew out of the world wide Depression in the 1930's, that says when demand falls and recession occurs the government should increase spending and use fiscal policy to increase hiring and invest in public works programs that will help to spur growth in the economy.  By putting money back into the hands of the populace and giving them the ability to continue to buy products, it should increase demand and lower unemployment.  Examples of this policy were seen during the last recession, when the government bailed out the auto industry, supported the financial and banking sectors and increased government spending on public works programs, including the building of schools and highways.  Like the Reaganomics of the 80's, this program was successful in stabilizing the economy and lowering unemployment, but it also raised the debt.  

Support for these policies depends upon which party holds the White House, as it is the President who appoints the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who serves a 4 year term, as well as any open seats on the Board of Governors which may serve up to 14 years.   His nominees for Chair and Vice-Chair are chosen from among the sitting Governors, and require approval by the Senate.   Interestingly enough, when the economy is functioning normally, you might see little difference in the Fed's policies, regardless of whether the Chair was appointed by a Democrat or a Republican.  But when the economy takes a downturn, who sits on the Board and who Chairs the Fed can make a big difference in the choice of the philosophy which will guide their actions.  

 

who does what

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES

The electorate chooses the President. 

The President chooses the Fed Chairman and open Board seats.

The Senate approves the Presidents appointees to the Board and the Fed Chair.

The Fed Chair and the Board choose the monetary policy that is used by the Fed.

 

different ideologies

ust like everything else in our political system, your ideology can have impacts on your views about who should get what and when and how they should get it.  Again, let's look at this using the ideologies we defined in lesson 2 - conservatives, liberals and moderates. 

Conservatives tend to want less intervention in the marketplace by the government, which translates as less regulations on businesses and low taxes on corporations.  They also support lower government spending overall and often support the passage of a balanced budget amendment. Conservatives are less supportive of spending on social welfare programs if it means increasing the national debt, and regulations such as environmental protections if they have a negative impact on business.   

Liberals want government intervention in the marketplace when necessary with a focus on protections for the worker rather than for big business, and as a tool to guide the economy.  They tend to support regulations on banking and the financial industry and are more supportive of environmental regulations, even if they impact the business sector.  They support expanded spending on programs that make up our social safety net such as welfare, medicaid and medicare and are willing to use deficit spending(  spending that is higher than revenue), or raise taxes in order to produce the revenue needed to accomplish this.    

As mentioned earlier, Moderates are often more pragmatic and less dogmatic about some of these issues, but generally they tend to be more fiscally conservative, although they are more supportive of government spending for social programs than conservatives, as well as being more willing to raise taxes to fund these programs.  But, they tend to approach these issues with a more conservative view of the economy which means their support for these programs depends on the current economic situation. 

One group that must be mentioned here are Libertarians, who believe in little or no government intervention in either the economy or the social issues of the day.  Libertarian's believe that the government should not interfere in your personal, family or business decisions.  They believe in low or no taxes, charitable welfare instead of government welfare, and getting rid of most government regulations that impact business.  

So why all this fuss about ideology?   Because your choice of candidates and your party identification are a reflection of this ideology.  Typically, you'll choose to identify with the candidate or party that most closely represents what you believe about, 'who should get what and when and how they should get it.'   In Units 4 and 5 we'll look more closely at this process and at how those choices are made.  

ideology and budget

In order to understand why economic ideology is important, you need to understand a few basic facts about the budget.  Economic policy is usually considered the purview of the President and the Congress.  They are the ones who will be held responsible for the "health" of the American economy and if it improves under their stewardship then it can become a positive factor in national elections.  In like manner, if the economy falters then it can have serious repercussions for their chances of being reelected.  However, sometimes economic policy has to deal with actual events that can have negative impacts on the economy, and the policy must be adjusted to meet these actualities.  After 9/11, the Dow dropped 600 points and the recession that the country was beginning to experience  deepened.  In addition, because of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the War on Terror, the U.S. instituted one of the largest spending programs in our history.  Regardless of the ideologies of President Bush and the Congress, economic decisions had to be made to deal with the financial crisis created by one single event.  Even when the economy is not subjected to unusual pressures it still is always a tug of war when deciding which priorities will be funded by the budget.  

The main way for the government to bring money in is through taxes, such as individual income taxes, corporate taxes, excise taxes, custom duties or estate taxes, to name a few. They also can sell government securities and collect certain fees.  This is the governments revenue.  On the other side we have government spending, or the money going out.  At first glance, this looks relatively easy - each year you have X amount to spend and divide it up between the programs the party in power favors.  Unfortunately, the budget has to be divided up into discretionary and non discretionary (mandatory) spending.  Non discretionary spending is spending that is required by law or has already been mandated by the government, such as entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, interest on the national debt, and veterans' pensions.  Lawmakers have some choices when making decisions about discretionary spending but unfortunately this is becoming more and more complicated as the demands of non discretionary spending increase.  To illustrate that let's look at the 2015 budget using data from the Congressional Budget Office. 

The non discretionary spending on the chart above includes Social Security, Healthcare (Medicaid and Medicare), the interest on the debt, and other mandatory spending( such as Veterans pensions), which adds up to  68% of the  budget.  Defense spending, while not mandatory is typically, and after much debate, somewhere between 16 to 20% of the budget.  (It has never dropped below 16% since the late 90's and has reached as high as 21% in 2007.) In addition, as America's population ages, the costs for programs like Social Security and Medicare continue to rise. This leaves, after allowing for national defense, a mere 16% of funds for all of the other programs that politicians believe are important.  As you might imagine, the battles for how this money will be spent are hard fought and of utmost importance to politicians fighting for programs to benefit the country at large, and their constituents back home.  The constituents back home (you) are the people who will reelect them so your ideology about economics and the way it impacts your vote, impacts the politicians who are dependent on your vote to stay in office.  In this way, the economic ideology of the electorate impacts who gets elected which impacts the economic policy of the country at large.  When the party in power passes a budget that uses deficit spending, then they are adding to the national debt which of course, raises the debt payment which is part of the mandatory spending in the budget.   We'll investigate the role of the budget in policy making in greater detail in Unit 5.  

 

social ideologies

When dealing with social policy the government finds itself once again trying to balance the rights and liberties of its citizens with the need to regulate public behavior in order to create a better society.  This can usually be seen in arguments about the right to privacy, and in issues regarding public safety.  

This task is made even more difficult by the fact that although most Americans believe the government is too involved in social issues, it is only by a very narrow margin.  In other words, public opinion about what the level of government involvement should be on these issues can be extremely controversial and divisive.  In fact, disagreement about these issues can be so explosive that many political scientists refer to this divide over social issues involving privacy as a culture war.  Instead of a divide over wealth, social class or power, this divide involves moral values and the governments role in establishing and regulating them.  The two sides in this war are those who are orthodox in their beliefs about culture and those who are progressive.  Those who are orthodox believe morality is more important than personal freedom and that societal rules or laws should be based on the 'laws of nature and nature's God.'  While those who are progressive in their beliefs hold that personal freedom and the flexibility to reevaluate traditional rules when solving problems is most important. Because these differences are based on basic values about what is and isn't moral behavior, which are often a part of personal religious beliefs, compromise on these issues is difficult at best, and often impossible to negotiate.  There are different opinions about how important this culture war really is among the American electorate - especially keeping in mind that most voters are not ideologically pure and consistent when it comes to public opinion - but it does seem that more and more importance is being given to social issues when voters are choosing their party or their candidate. 

privacy and ideologies (+abortion and gay marriage stats)

Privacy issues have been a cause for controversy throughout our history, but especially in the last 75 years as cases involving birth control, abortion, marriage rights and even health care have become increasingly more common.  Many of our landmark Supreme Court cases have dealt with these issues, such as Griswold v. Connecticut(1966) where the Court ruled that a ban on the use of contraceptives violated marital privacy, to the more recent Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which said the fundamental right to marry was constitutionally protected for same-sex couples.  

Probably one of the most famous cases Roe v. Wade( 1973 )about a woman's right to an abortion, continues to cause controversy.  However this issue, like so many others, has seen changes over time in the area of public opinion. In a recent Pew Research Center poll taken in 2017, they found that 58% of adults believe that abortion should be legal most or all the time, (33% felt it should be legal in most cases and 25% felt it should be legal in all cases)while only 24% were opposed to abortion in most cases and 16% in all cases.  However, among Republicans 65% say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. But when you look at ideology it becomes obvious that there are cleavages of opinion within the party along ideological lines.  Among those calling themselves conservatives, 71% said it should be illegal vs 27% who said it should be legal.  54% of those who called themselves moderate or liberal Republicans said that it should be legal.  Like the Republicans, Democrats also experience some differences among those who call themselves liberal (91% support legality) versus those who call themselves moderate to conservative (61%). While your view about abortion may have an influence on your party identity, this data also shows a correlation between ideology and your view about this issue regardless of party. 

Another current social issue that has experienced change over time is support for same-sex marriage.  In 2001 Americans opposed same-sex marriage by 57% to 35%.  Now a majority of Americans support this issue with polling showing that 62% support it and 32% oppose it.  Again ideology matters, as 85% of liberals, 70% of moderates and 41% of conservatives support same-sex marriage regardless of party identity. 

ideologies and public safety

When the founders created the framework for the U.S. government, they gave the federal government constitutional powers to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," while at the same time, protecting the civil liberties of its citizens. This leads us to the last part of this unit on ideology and public policy, which is the issue of public safety. When attempting to balance the needs and rights of the individual and the need to establish public safety, the actions of the government can often arouse strong emotions in the electorate.  

Consider gun laws, another controversial issue that involves a right that many would consider part of our political culture, which was addressed in the 2nd Amendment. A recent study released by the Pew Research Center found that 57% of Americans believe that gun laws should be stricter (Pew Research Center, 2018). However, a majority of Americans (64%) believe most people should be allowed to own a gun if they wish (Pew Research Center, 2017). The same thinking does not apply to those who are mentally ill or on the no-fly list, because 82% of Americans oppose the right of these individuals to buy a gun (Pew Research Center, 2017). Seventy-seven percent of gun owners and 79% of non-gun owners support creating a national data base to track gun sales and a majority also support banning assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines (Pew Research Center, 2017). When these policies are viewed by political party stances, major disagreements appear in areas such as creating a federal data base and banning certain types of weapons and high-capacity magazines. A majority of Republicans who own guns, support requiring background checks at gun shows and preventing the mentally ill and people on the no-fly list from purchasing guns, but balk at the idea of banning assault-style weapons and limiting the size of magazines.  A majority of non-gun owning Republicans support all of the above policies. Democrats, on the other hand, support of all of the aforementioned policies, whether they personally own a gun or not. Based on these statistics and differences in party views, it is evident that political ideology and gun ownership are important factors in public attitudes toward gun policies in the U.S.  

Another current issue, related to the discussion of public safety in the U.S., is immigration.

While some individuals assert that immigration creates higher crime rates and higher spending on social welfare programs, survey research shows that Americans are not as divided as one might think on this issue.   When asked to choose between better border security and stronger law enforcement, or a path to citizenship based on meeting established requirements, the majority of the public in the U.S. reported that both options should be given equal priority. Only when forced to choose one over the other did ideological or partisan differences occur in their responses. In a recent survey, 41% of individuals in the U.S. who identify as Republicans or lean Republican chose better border security and law enforcement as the priority for dealing with illegal immigration; however, about 45% of Republicans or those that lean Republican believe that equal priority should be given to law enforcement and a path to citizenship when looking at immigration policy (Pew Research Center, 2016). Forty three percent of Democrats or those who lean Democrat chose a path to citizenship as the priority immigration policy while 475 of Democrats or those that lean Democrat choose believe that both law enforcement and a path to citizenship should be given equal priority. (Pew Research Center, 2016).

When examining support for the legalization of marijuana, those who identify themselves as conservatives remain opposed to the aforementioned views on immigration. A majority of moderates, independents, and liberal are supportive of the path to legalization for immigrants. As public opinion about policies such as gun control and immigration evolve, changes at the local, state and national level will likely follow. Establishing an individual ideology matters and voting for candidates with ideologies aligned to yours can impact the public policies in your local community as well as the state and national level.

public opinion

Public opinion is the way the public feels about certain issues. This term is a tricky one, since it is hard to take into consideration how every person feels about every subject. Also, people’s views on certain issues can change across time. Even though people disagree on specific issues, all Americans agree with general ideas such as liberty, freedom, or opportunity.        

There are several factors that affect the way the general public feels about certain issues and ideas. People who are educated are likely to have different opinions from those who did not receive a thorough education. Wealth also changes the way people feel about politics. Historical and current events can dramatically and instantly influence public opinion as well. For example, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 brought the topic of terrorism to the forefront. Soon after this tragic event, the majority of Americans experienced patriotic feelings and many agreed that something must be done to stop terrorism around the world.

polling and complexity

You might have found that you are a conservative on some issues but a liberal in others; this is actually quite common. Rarely do the majority of Americans agree on a single issue, and this is what makes the term public opinion so tricky. It is really hard to measure exactly how people really feel about issues, and exactly how many people feel this way.

One of the ways that public opinion is measured is through polls. Polls record personal opinions at a specific point in time. There are a couple different types of polls that are typically used.

Sample polling is a type of poll that asks a small group of people their opinion on an issue with the intention that this sample will be representative of society at large. For example, if Hispanics make up 40 percent of the population, a sample poll of ten citizens would include four Hispanics. Sample polls are somewhat more effective than other types of polls, but the more people they ask, the better their chance of lowering their sample errors.

Tracking polls track the way people feel about certain issues as stories are reported in the media. 

Entrance/Exit polls ask people for whom they voted for as they enter or exit the voting stations. Entrance/Exit polls are successful in predicting the outcome of the election before the actual results are announced.

public policy, linkage, media

Everything the government does for the people is known as public policy. Public policy includes laws, government programs, infrastructure, executive orders, and many other things. Measuring public opinion is a crucial step in creating public policy, as it provides the government with information about what the people want. Linkage institutions help create public policy by connecting the people to the government and engaging them. The media, political parties, and interest groups are all linkage institutions that try to influence public opinion and public policy, and therefore, have a significant impact on the government.

We will begin our study of linkage institutions with the media. The word media is a plural for the word medium, which means any form that transmits information. This is a very broad concept, and it includes magazines, newspapers, television, books, movies, music, the internet, and modern social media outlets.

public media and horse race journalism

The mass media helps set the public agenda, or the issues that are likely to be addressed by the government. The media acts as a watchdog and exposes the public to government abuses, misconduct, or important issues. The media is like a spotlight that can shine light on important issues in order to bring them to the attention of politicians and people alike. News is likely the most influential aspect of mass media. The role of the news has evolved over time. In the past, news was accessible primarily through newspapers, but the internet has caused a decline in printed newspapers. As news outlet have tried to adapt, data shows that it is difficult to profit from online business models, and the online sources often go out of business.

A major criticism against major news outlets is that they are businesses and must operate in ways that allow them to make a profit. This leads to advertisements, biased information, or a focus in stories that will create public interest, even if they are not important. It should be noted that the public influences the media as much as the media influences the public. Stories about cute animals, sports, or celebrity drama are popular but don’t hold much substance; however, because these stories are popular, the news may include these topics instead of analyzing important and complex issues.

In your Government Journal, answer the following question in at least three sentences. As a small child, what did you think of the news? Did you find it interesting or boring? Why?

 

The news is not engaging for all or even most modern consumers. Cable news networks offer 24-hour news coverage; this can lead to bad reporting, as there isn’t always news to report. Because the internet has led to an increase in news availability, some argue that people can now chose the news they want to hear, as well as particular news sources, which may lead to polarization. For example, conservatives may listen and read only conservative news, while liberals may listen or read liberal news. For the most part, Fox News Network is considered a conservative news outlet, while MSNBC is considered a liberal news network; niche news sources that target and serve specific racial or ethnic groups, for example, have also started to become popular. Despite the diverse media available to consumers today, diversity and contradicting viewpoints from different news stations lead to viewers being uncertain about the credibility of the news being provided. 

The growth in popularity of social media platforms have also affected political campaigns. Candidates must now have an online presence to reach out to more voters. Having a social media team has become a crucial part of running an effective campaign. 

Another style of news reporting is known as horse race journalism; this refers to instances in which news sources report on political races much like they would sports scores or horse races. Horse race journalism focuses on who is wining an election and without explicitly making commentary about it, making it more reliable and unbiased. A problem with this type of reporting is that it focuses more on the candidates and their personalities and popularity than their stance on specific issues. This in turn has an impact on who gets elected to public office and what policy is implemented. 

political parties

There are two major political parties in the United States, Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are typically liberal, focus on civil rights issues, and want the government to fix social problems with public policy. Democrats are usually in the majority in urban centers in the United States. Republicans are typically conservative—they want to lower taxes and increase the efficiency of the government by lowering its size and waste. Republicans often account for the majority of rural populations in the United States.

                 

Above are the logos of Democratic Party and Republican Party.

Political parties do several things to link people to the government. They have a wide range of functions, including recruiting candidates to run for office. Recruits will run for and, ideally, hold political office. Political parties often unify around particular and foundational issues, which create the political platform. A platform allows parties to sync different candidates together, and it tries to educate voters by offering cues. Cues make voting a more streamlined process, as it is extremely difficult to stay informed on all the candidates running for all offices. It is easy to know who is running for president, but can you name a candidate for land commissioner of your state? By labeling a candidate as Democrat or Republican, voters can assume that the candidate holds beliefs that align with their party’s platform; this also makes it easier for candidates to earn votes. Political Parties help candidates win by supporting them through campaign contributions. For example, money raised by Democrats in Iowa can go to support struggling Democrats in Texas. This leads to stronger ties between candidates and members of the party.

Parties organized in a way that makes creating policy more effective. Members of Congress work closely with the president of the same party to get laws passed, upheld, and enforced. Even though parties are highly organized at the federal level, this doesn’t mean that they are centralized. There are major differences and even some conflicts between the same party at the local and state levels. It is difficult for the national party to dictate commands to the lower levels of the party because they are usually independent by state and even locally by city or county.

Parties change and adapt to remain relevant, remember their main goal is to win elections and hold office. As the needs of the people change, parties too must change or face losing the support of the public. A major change in political campaigns through American history is the growth of candidate-centered campaigns. Although political parties are important, there has been a shift to also recognize the importance of strong candidates. This means that their character, politics, and goals are a more of a determining factor of how people will vote and of what the people want, rather than voting just for someone who is a member of a particular party.

A difficult problem for political parties is that they are private institutions; it is hard for party outsiders to secure nominations to run for office even if they are qualified to hold that office. Political parties pick candidates by having a Caucus, a time when members of the party meet in private to nominate and pick candidates. This can lead to the political parties losing support from the people because it may seem like an undemocratic process. On the other hand, it may seem unfair to loyal party members to be shunned aside for a newer party member. As you can tell the election process is extremely complicated. We will discuss elections in more detail in the following lesson.

third party

Even though the Republicans and Democrats are the two major parties, they are not the only choices. There are also minor parties, also known as third parties. Because Democrats and Republicans usually win major elections, it is often said that, in the United States, voters favor a two-party system; hence the name third parties. Some examples of third parties are the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. It is difficult for third parties to win for several reasons. First, since elections are usually run on a winner-take-all basis, third parties do not get to control a percentage of the government even if they had a considerable amount of support. For example, if in an election the Green Party gets 10% of the popular vote, the Democrats get 30% and the Republican party gets 60%, the Republican party gets to control 100% of the government even though they did not receive 100% of the popular vote. If the parties split the control of the government based on the percentage of population this would be more inclusive of third parties, this is known as a proportional system.

Despite the fact that third parties don’t usually win major elections, they still have an impact on elections. Because they are seen has having “nothing to lose,” third parties are more likely to introduce and talk about controversial topics. By bringing up these controversial topics, they add to the national debate, and some of their ideas could eventually be included in the platforms of the two major parties. When the two major parties adopt third party ideas this hurts third parties because they lose ideas that made them unique. Third parties also tend to attract new voters who would are less likely to participate in the two major parties. Bringing more people into the electorate and the political process can be viewed as a positive effect.

Lastly, third parties can take away votes from the major parties and can make an impact on major elections. For example, in the election of 1912, the Progressive Bull Moose Party, which was led by former President Teddy Roosevelt, took votes away from the Republican Party’s incumbent President William Howard Taft. This loss in votes caused the Republicans to lose in a time period when they had dominated national politics. Instead, Democrat Woodrow Wilson took the White House, and became the first Democratic President the United States had seen in decades. In the election of 2000, Ralph Nader is said to have taken votes from the Democratic candidate Al Gore, who lost by a very small margin to the Republican George W. Bush. If third parties had not existed, one could argue that these election outcomes, and even the events in world history, could be different today.

                  

Teddy Roosevelt and Ralph Nader were popular third party candidates who had a major effect on politics.

interest groups

Interest Groups are the final part of linkage institutions. Interest groups are similar to political parties, as both groups focus on helping people participate in government and influencing public policy. The main difference is that interest groups do not run for office while political parties do. Interest groups usually focus on a singular issue such as guns, civil liberties, the rights of Hispanics, or the just treatment of animals, while political parties focus on many issues.

Interest groups and political parties usually work together. Interest groups support candidates and political parties by endorsing them to run for office, donating money, and endorsing get out the vote campaigns. Interest groups also lobby members of Congress in order to get laws passed in their favor. Lobbying happens when members of a group wait outside in the lobby of Congress and talk to the congressmen as they exit their chambers in order to persuade them of their point of view. Interest groups also advertise in the media to promote their causes and raise awareness for issues. Some interest groups are very knowledgeable about their selected topics and can testify officially to the members of Congress to try to help a cause. For example, the American Red Cross has substantial data about medical procedures and can offer their expertise to the government when needed and as a means of persuasion.

A major criticism of interest groups is that they may become too powerful in their influence over politics. Some interest groups are so well funded that they crush opposition and discourage counter groups from forming. James Madison, one of our founding fathers, was afraid that “factions,” as he called these groups, would be divisive. However, some interest groups have been beneficial to society. For instance, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, known as NAACP, helped fund lawyers which fought against segregation in the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education. Without this interest group, desegregation may have been a much slower process.

public policy and iron triangle

Public policy is everything the government does for the people. Policy creation and implementation is very complicated since several groups compete to get what they want out of policy. A good summary of this complex procedure is the relationship of iron triangles. Iron triangles showcase the relationship between interest groups, congress, and the executive departmental agencies. This relationship is similar to the way the three branches of government check and balance each other. In this case, each member of the triangle supports and compliments the other in order to achieve policy that is acceptable to all sides. Below is an image that will help clarify this process.

For instance, interest groups send electoral support to members of congress by having their members vote for them. In return members of congress write laws that are favorable to that interest group and its members. Members of Congress fund specific agencies, which implement this law through the congressional committees. Members of congress can also provide specific instructions to that agency on how to implement that law. The bureaucracy of the executive branch department will implement the policy created by congress and will be able to influence how the policy is actually implemented. Interest groups will provide the bureaucracy support through the members of congress, and in turn the bureaucracy can implement policy in such a way that will benefit the interest group. This process can get even more complicated when other interest groups, members of congress, and executive bureaucracies are involved in the same issue, making the iron triangle an iron trapezoid.

electoral college / voting

The Electoral College is the institution that elects the president and vice president every four years. While millions of Americans go to the polls to cast their vote, citizens of the United States do not directly elect the president. Instead, citizens technically elect representatives, called “electors,” who pledge to vote for a particular presidential candidate.

Electors are apportioned to each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress each state has. Remember the map you analyzed two pages ago? The numbers on each state represent the number of electors each state has. Currently, there are 538 electors. There are 435 corresponding to the House of Representatives, 100 corresponding to the Senate, and three additional electors from the District of Columbia.

A candidate must receive 270 electoral votes in order to be elected president. However, when neither presidential candidate wins 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives must decide the winner. Each state casts one vote. The candidate who receives 26 or more votes is elected. When the vote must go the House, all states are weighted the same, unlike the electoral process. However, if the state’s representatives cannot agree on a candidate, the state loses its vote.

In your Government Journal, draw your own map of the United States. How would you distribute electors to each state?

In every state except Maine and Nebraska, electoral votes are awarded on a “winner-take-all” basis. This means that if a candidate wins the largest percentage of the popular vote in a state, that person receives all the state’s electoral votes. This causes candidates to really focus on the large states since those states tend to have more electors. With the winner-take-all system, candidates can receive millions of votes in a state, yet lose the state's electoral votes. For example, in 2012 more than 3 million Texans voted for Barack Obama, but Barack Obama did not receive any of Texas’s electoral votes. Also, Mitt Romney received over 4 million votes from California but lost all of California’s electoral votes.

Within this system, it is possible for a candidate to lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote. This happens when the margin is slim in multiple states. This has only happened five times in United States history: John Q. Adams in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, George W. Bush in 2000, and Donald Trump in 2016. Yet nothing can change the election results since the popular vote does not affect the outcome.

There have been many discussions about reforming the Electoral College. However, this institution dates back to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. While it is uncommon for a candidate to lose the popular vote, but still win the presidency, it does cause controversy. Additionally, people who live in a state that always votes for the same political party feel that their votes do not matter. For example, California traditionally has sided with the Democrat Party in the Electoral College. Therefore, people in California who tend to vote for Republican candidates feel like their vote is not important.

decisions voting and elections

Decisions made by U.S. government officials have made a huge impact on the public policy that impacts voting and elections. For example, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 in an effort to ban the use of soft money on campaigns and also reduce the viciousness of attack ads. This law added the “Stand by Your Ad” provision in which a candidate had to officially endorse the ads produced by his campaign. This is why many political ads now end with the message “I’m (candidates name) and I approve this message”. If you see an attack ad that doesn’t have this message at the end, you now know this ad was not approved by the official campaign. Typically ads that are not produced by the official campaign are created by Political Action Committees or PACs. PACs are organizations that raise private funds to unofficially support a campaign or a candidate.

Decisions made by the Supreme Court have also affected voting. In the case Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the court ruled that campaign spending is a form of speech and can therefore be protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution. Therefore, limiting the amount of money a person can give could limit their freedom of speech. This case led to an increase in political donations and contributed to the skyrocketing cost of running a successful campaign. In the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, the court expanded the Buckley ruling to include corporation’s spending as protected speech as well under the first amendment. This case expanded the power of corporations to influence campaign spending. We are still measuring the impacts of these cases today.

civic responsibility

Voting is not only a right, it is a civic responsibility. Civic responsibilities refers to duties that all citizens are expected to do for their country. Personal responsibilities are duties that you are expected to do for your own good.

The US Constitution is a social contract and all Americans are expected to serve as responsible citizens in exchange for their rights. Benefits include living in a land where justice is honored and domestic tranquility is valued. In order for the contract to be fulfilled, for us to receive the benefits, we must do our part by engaging in our civic responsibilities.

Civic responsibilities include voting, paying taxes, becoming educated, staying well informed, dedicating time to public service, and caring for our communities. In contrast, personal responsibilities would be things like feeding your pets, cleaning your house, or paying your bills.

Paying our taxes is extremely important, as taxes are the main source of revenue for the government. Taxes enable our government to fund public programs and enforce public policies. Taxes, for example, fund our public school systems, which allow the country to grow and prosper. Without taxes, we would not have a government.

Public service is another part of our civic responsibility. There are many ways to serve the public, ranging from picking up trash on the streets to serving as a policeman, fireman, teacher, or in the military. Some citizens have paid the ultimate price and have sacrificed themselves in uniform for our country. Public service originated from community, health, and safety needs. Firefighting, for instance, used to be a primarily volunteer service to which many people participated in order to keep their own homes and the homes of others safe from forest fires. When we work together, we are able to do much more than when we work alone; this is the spirit of the U.S. Constitution.