What does the federal gov’t do?
Insurance company with an army - provides people with social insurance and a military
Raises and spends money to provide social insurance and protection
Funded by a progressive tax system
Social insurance pools risk of all taxpayers to provide protection from social ills
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid
The government was not designed at the founding to fulfill this insurance company with an army function
What were the Articles of Confederation and what were their characteristics?
First governing document, ratified in 1781 and operational in 1776
Mainly to fight the Revolutionary War
Highly decentralized government
Confederation - states grant nat’l gov’t authority rather than the people directly
Major laws needed 9/13 states and changing the Constitution required unanimous agreement
All laws needed to be executed by the states
Why were the Articles of Confederation ineffective?
The transaction costs of legislating were extremely high
They couldn’t enforce gov’t directives, leading to collective action problems
Couldn’t levy taxes and raise revenues → not enough to finance war
Couldn’t regulate commerce between states → economic recession
Couldn’t make states contribute to the militia to defend them from GB
These problems created a need for the Constitution
How do political scientists think about strategy? (Game theory)
Prisoner’s dilemma is a way of conceptualizing collective action problems
Both actors have a dominant strategy to diverge from cooperation and do what is in their own best interest
Example: colonial defense; taxation
The best way to solve the prisoner’s dilemma is to provide outside incentives or punishments
How was trade between the colonies a prisoner’s dilemma?
Free trade is the most economically efficient overall
But each state can impose trade laws to give an advantage to its citizens
If this happens, a trade war will start and everyone will be worse off
What are some examples of prisoner’s dilemmas that the government solves?
Compulsory contributions to gov’t services (taxes)
Compulsory contributions to clean air (environmental regulations)
Compulsory contributions to national defense (military draft)
Punishment for disruptions to domestic peace
How did the Great Compromise/Constitution address flaws in the Articles of Confederation?
NJ and VA plans reflected 3 important conformity costs that had to be overcome
Big states worried small states would be too powerful
Slave states concerned that free states would have too much power
People who supported states’ rights concerned about too much conformity under federal law
VA Plan - big states, powerful federal gov’t
Bicameral legislature by population
Legislature can make any law
Executive elected by the lower house
NJ Plan - small states, weaker federal gov’t
Unicameral legislature by state
Legislature has limited powers
Plural executive
Solution to the contention
Split control of leg. Branch b/w population and states
House can originate revenue bills
Legislation through majority vote in each chamber
Independent executive with limited powers
Prescribes rules for collective action, helping representatives agree to things collectively that they would not individually
Gives the government enforcing power for its directives
Enumerates specific powers to the federal government and the states (federalism)
Consists of an amendment process that imposes high transaction costs but the costs aren’t so high it’s impossible
Is the separation of powers good or bad for lawmaking?
Bad - representatives in each branch are elected in different ways, meaning they disagree and serve different constituencies
This disagreement can create gridlock since it makes transaction costs very high
Good - Federalist 51
These different constituencies and lawmaking responsibilities prevent the concentration of authority in any one branch or group of people
Government needs to control itself because people are naturally predisposed to corruption
Are the different legislative branches effective checks on each other, and are there effective checks on them?
House and Senate differ in terms of constituencies, qualifications for office, terms of office, and power
House - more “popular” with two-year terms; each state gets 1 rep regardless of size
Senate - more removed and insulated with longer terms and Senators chosen by state legislatures
Approval of both chambers needed to pass legislation; a supermajority for a veto
Necessary and proper clause and commerce clause allow the legislature to extend its power beyond what is enumerated in the Constitution
Still, limited by Bill of Rights and other specifications (ie. can’t pass bills of attainder or spend money without legislating)
Importantly, power of judicial review, an important check on legislative power, not specified in the Constitution
Judiciary has a different constituency because they have lifetime appointments → theoretically very removed from the people
Congress is affected by status quo bias due to high transaction costs of legislating
What does the executive do and how is it related to checks and balances, separation of powers?
A unitary executive that carries out the laws
Veto pwr, fills offices
Has command authority as commander in chief
No agenda-setting power in Congress → different from today
Under original Constitution, states had a lot of latitude, but less so today
What is a coordination game and how can it be solved?
People disagree about what is best, but have a shared interest in cooperating
Solved with providing a cue to rally around a collective decision (ie. party leader)
Why is the Senate malapportioned?
All states receive the same amount of representation regardless of the size of their populations
US Senate close to most malapportioned chamber in the world
Means Senators representing a minority of the population can vote down laws
Also means electoral college is malapportioned
What is federalism and how does it work in the US?
Different elected bodies share different responsibilities and powers with overlapping jurisdiction
States have their own constitutional authority and are semi-sovereign; all powers not delegated to the federal gov’t are delegated to the states
Fed gov’t: nat’l defense, universal pension/elderly healthcare, sends $ to states, unbalanced budget ok
State gov’t: administer welfare programs, work w/local gov’t to run K-12 schools and higher edu, prison system, run elections, constrained by balanced budget
Both: tax, borrow money, charter banks, regulate property
Each state typically has a mini-federal gov’t that can charter local gov’ts
Increasingly think of local elections in terms of national issues, even though jurisdictions are separate → nationalization of politics
Decreased accountability - feeling that one has to stay with elected officials of one’s party, even if that party isn’t addressing the problems
Cause: Fed gov’t gets more media attention that local gov’t
Cause: Local and federal politics more aligned with the decline of the Southern Democrats
What are grants and mandates?
Grant - the federal gov’t gives money to the states, usually for a particular use
Medicaid, SNAP
Mandate - the federal gov’t tells a state to do something but doesn’t give them any money to do it
Americans with Disabilities Act, federal education standards
What are the benefits of federalism?
Pooled risk - states share the risks of having people who need welfare; all states have to provide welfare evenly
Laboratories of democracy - states can test out policy that federal gov’t can’t
Room for local preferences - states can tailor policy to what their populations want
What are the drawbacks of federalism?
Supreme Court can strike down local preferences
Hampered accountability - voters can’t easily discern whether federal or state actors are responsible for policy failures, so elections aren’t as effective at holding them accountable
Cutthroat competition/race to the bottom - states will try to outdo other states to attract business or resources at the expense of their populations
What are the contents and themes of the Bill of Rights?
Protections for civil liberties at odds with democracy
Supreme Court decides on the meaning of the amendments
Broadly: freedom of expression, criminal protections
First amendment - Congress can’t make laws that endorse or prohibit religion, limit freedom of speech, limit freedom of the press, limit freedom of assembly
No speech to organize criminal activity
No speech/press to baselessly undermine someone’s reputation - slander and libel
Second amendment - guns
Third amendment - qaurtering of soldiers
Fourth amendment - security against unreasonable searches and seizures (without probable cause)
Fifth amendment - Due process; no witness against self; no taking of private property w/o compensation
Sixth amendment - right to a speedy public trial
Seventh amendment - Jury trial
Eight amendment - cruel and unusual punishment/excessive bail
Ninth amendment - rights can be added thru amendment and judicial interpretation
Ie. Right to privacy
Tenth amendment - remaining powers to the states
What is incorporation and why is it important?
Basis for modern civil rights
SC held states had to enforce certain amendments through the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment
Most amendments are incorporated
What is the difference between civil rights and civil liberties?
Powers conferred to citizens by the state → civil rights; pro-majoritarian
Constraints on the state vis-à-vis citizens → civil liberties; anti-majoritarian
Is the Bill of Rights necessary to protect civil liberties?
Yes; necessary and proper clause, commerce clause
No; Constitution already prevents certain civil rights violations like bills of attainder and suspending habeas corpus
How do districts and gerrymandering work?
Unlike in most countries, US legislators represent districts, with different districts for each chamber
In Senate, no gerrymandering, but House can have gerrymandering in reapportionment process
Spread voters for their party across districts to win more seats - cracking
Concentrate voters in existing districts so incumbents win - packing
What are the effects of gerrymandering?
Doesn’t affect partisan polarization since gerrymanderers use a mixture of packing and cracking
Limited to equal population districts (Baker v Carr) and cannot be done by race
Even if not gerrymandering, probably will have a few extreme majority D districts and a lot of slight majority R districts since D tend to live in cities and R tend to be more rural
What is the median voter theorem?
Assumption: people prefer candidate whose position is closest to their policy preference → spatial voting
Strategic moderation: candidates moderate their positions to be in close proximity to as many voters as possible
Median voter theorem states that because of these tendencies, majority rule system will select the outcome most preferred by the median voter
Evidence that candidates further from their electorates typically lose
At the same time, candidates will never completely converge on the median voter
Is the incumbency advantage inherently undemocratic?
Incumbents do possess resources like media, a brand name, and experience which might give them an advantage
But challengers have the advantage of a clean record and outsider status
Incumbents might win simply because they’re good at catering to their constituencies (Mayhew)
Candidates might choose to retire because they know they’re going to lose
How does a bill become a law?
A member of Congress introduces it
It is assigned to a committee
Specialize in a certain legislative area and responsible for conducting research, holding hearings on the bill, and making changes to a bill
Can bypass this step with a discharge petition
Most bills die in committee
Chamber consideration
House Rules Committee sets rules for debate and amendment voted on by a majority
Senate operates on unanimous consent to rules for debate and amendment
To end the filibuster, the Senate requires 60 votes, so effectively 60 Senators have to agree to legislation in order for it to pass
Other chamber consideration
Can completely change the bill from the other chamber
Formal way to get chambers to agree is conference committee; otherwise, informal ping pong
President
Can sign, veto, or ignore the bill
What are some examples of legislative gatekeepers?
Party leaders - if they aren’t pushing something, it usually doesn’t receive action
Committee chairs
Majority of the House
41 Senators (to block a filibuster)
The president can veto a bill
Overall, easier to kill than pass a bill
What kinds of bills succeed?
A legislator’s vote is a choice between the status quo and a proposal
The trick is moving the status quo in your direction so you can eventually get what you want
Both chambers are subject to a pull in the direction of the median voter of the population because leaders and committee chairs are appointed by majority rule
Desire to be involved in bill writing is a big motivator in Congress because then Congresspeople can claim credit for their constituents
Median voter in Congress is typically the deciding vote; currently Joe Manchin
What about parties, committees, and staff support?
Party leaders elected by members of the party at the beginning of each session
Assign bills to committees and set schedules for debate
Most important - Senate majority leader and speaker of the house
Therefore, they are gatekeepers in their own right
Despite expansion of Congressional staff with expansion of the federal gov’t, Congress has become increasingly frugal
Why might it be hard for legislators to get things done?
Their party might not fully control gov’t
They have limited resources (time, information)
Many veto players
How can voters tell a legislator is doing a good job?
They feel that their legislator is “one of them” and acts in their best interest
The legislator brings home particularistic benefits (pork)
Why are primaries important in electing the president?
Each party nominates candidates through an “invisible primary” in which the public figures out who is prominent enough to be nominated
Caucus or primary - state determines which
Primaries usually closed to voters registered with a certain party
Early states often provide signals of who is doing well and it’s pretty clear who the nominee is once you get to later states
Early endorsements, media attention, and spending or receiving money all indicate viability in primaries, although voters are typically indecisive
How is the general election important in electing the president?
Whichever candidate wins the majority of the 538 electors wins the presidency
Most states allocate electors in a winner takes all system
Consequence: minority party voters have less influence
Consequence: discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral college outcome
What does the president do?
Head of state/commander in chief
War powers: can initiate conflict as commander in chief even though only Congress can declare war
Conduct foreign policy with advice and consent of Senate
Public face of the party
Get most of the media coverage for the party, allowing them to use the bully pulpit - appeal directly to the public on issues in Congress to put pressure on legislators
Can give a lot of minor addresses to interact with the public, giving them advantage over legislators
Psuedo-legislator
State of the union address
Large gap between actual presidential power and the policy demands placed on the president, since media largely focuses on the president
Access to cabinet as well as unelected bureaucrats
What are some of the most powerful actions the president can take?
Executive orders carry the weight of law even though not enacted by Congress
Limited by the laws that have been passed and the Constitution
Can be overturned by Congress
Use increased over time to address gap between presidential authority and presidential expectations
Executive privilege - president can deny Congress info because it must be kept confidential
Power to pardon
Issue signing statements with legislation specifying how they will carry out a law; they can be very different from what Congress intended
Ability to veto
Used as a bargaining chip to get legislation to pass - threaten to veto if legislators don’t make certain changes
More common in divided gov’t
Can propose legislation
Usually gets consideration but limited by gatekeepers of the legislative process
What does the bureaucracy look like?
Created by Congress to achieve policy goals, with most reporting to president
Agents of Congress
Implement laws and policy goals
Settle disputes
Create public goods
Make and enforce rules
Consists of 15 executive departments, but the cabinet secretaries aren’t necessarily the heads of these departments
Does the bureaucracy do what it’s designed to do?
Supposed to enforce the laws, elaborate on the law based on what they think it means, and carry out the rulings of the courts
Many agencies required to have public hearings explaining when they make a new regulation, allowing Congressional oversight
But some like the Federal Reserve completely isolated from public policy for conflict of interest reasons
Who is the bureaucracy accountable to?
There is always a gap between what Congress (principal) wants and what the bureaucracy (agent) does → agency loss
The principal was unclear
Agents have their own interests
Example: ATF gun tracking program just ended up putting more guns on the streets for ppl to commit gun crimes
Fire alarm monitoring
Whistleblower job protection laws
Inspector general investigations
Government Accountability Office
Public hearings to allow for complaints
Subject to interest group monitoring
What are the conflicting incentives surrounding media?
People increasingly get news online or on TV rather than in newspapers
Owners want to make money, which doesn’t necessarily yield journalism that is the best for democracy
Journalists are motivated by norms of integrity and professionalism → in conflict with politicians who want to be portrayed in the best light
Owners who want to cut costs are constantly in a battle with politicians who want to reach the public
Viewers probably motivated by entertainment
Biased towards drama or “big” story; avoid things like tax policy
What is meant by the phrase “fourth branch”?
Free, open, and unregulated media fosters free exchange of ideas, variety of opinions, and serves as a skeptical watchdog for gov’t
Provides people with information needed to hold politicians accountable
Helps members of gov’t learn about what other members are doing
Does the media actually play a good role in democracy?
Campaign coverage provides info about candidates
Typically covers who is ahead/behind rather than policy perspectives
Day to day politics
Uncovering malfeasance
Politicians can engage in various strategies not to be muckraked, including:
Providing exclusive scoops to journalists
Issuing press releases and having press conferences
Does the media enable informed democratic citizenship?
Soft news increasingly popular as TV market grew - story-oriented, “human interest,” sensationalized; present news as entertainment
Decrease the cost of political information for the average citizen who might not otherwise watch the news
People are smart enough to ignore irrelevant information in soft news
Viewers of soft news tend to be more informed, since hard news doesn’t really focus on policy much
Is the media biased?
Misreporting is not the norm for major news outlets
But lack of objectivity may manifest itself when outlets are deciding what stories to cover
What the audience wants may shape the news media we actually get
What does the American judicial system look like?
States implement social change-related policies first and then the Supreme Court rules on them
Most cases heard in state trial courts, with federal and appellate courts receiving fewer
Arbitrate violations of civil codes or criminal codes through trial or settlement
Criminal law - plaintiff is the state or federal (if across state lines) gov’t
Civil law - deals with rights and obligations of citizens to each other
Can be escalated to state appellate courts or courts of appeals
Can then be escalated to state supreme court
Appellate courts and state supreme courts can escalate cases to the Supreme Court
Supreme Court offers both judicial review and statutory interpretation, often a larger function
Can courts effectively provide a veto/check?
Judicial review is not in the Constitution, but with increased use following Marbury v Madison (1803) and became a fundamental purpose of the court
But Supreme Court nominated by the president/confirmed by the Senate, so may have similar views to these two bodies
How does the Supreme Court interpret cases and decide what cases to hear?
Three theories of Constitutional interpretation, used to determine Constitutionality of laws in addition to existing precedent
Plain meaning of the text theory - determine the Constitutionality of a law in terms of what the Constitution literally says
Original intent theory - determine the Constitutionality of a law by inferring the original intent of those who wrote and ratified the constitution
Argument for is that it prevents the SC from legislating from the bench too much
Living Constitution theory - determine the Constitutionality of a law in the context of American history as a whole, based on American experience at founding through today
Influences all other courts through selective review and setting precedent
Stare decisis - obeying previous decisions of the court about what the law means
Justices work together to grant writs of certiorari to lower courts
Typically granted when there is legal uncertainty on an issue or when the lower court is wrong
What is the relationship between ideology and the judiciary?
Opinions often have different divisions with varying patterns of dissent because:
Legal realism - justices care about policy, so they care about the outcomes of cases; judicial decisions are not apolitical
Appeal to Constitution, jurisprudence, and precent because they want to convince US policymakers that they’re right under the law
Still, justices tend to fall into voting blocs with consistent coalitions
The median voter theorem also applies to the Supreme Court - probably Kavanaugh
Increase in polarized and decrease in unanimous decisions
Is public opinion rational?
Rationality = using instrumental (considering outcome) and optimal (considering your best preference) basis for making choices
Individual opinions are unstable, inaccurate, and contradictory
Non-attitudes: Zaller and Converse
Peoples’ views are just a sample of the considerations they have encountered recently, and therefore surveys are inaccurate
People experience demand effects on surveys/are motivated to provide the answer that the survey deliverer will like
But aggregate opinion is rationalizeable and relatively stable
Condorcet jury theorem - if the chance that an individual has rational opinions is greater than 50%, then the chance that the whole population arrives at a rational viewpoint increases with more people
Presidential approval rates; same sex marriage; abortion
Are peoples’ values organized by political ideology?
Ideology - system of beliefs centered around issues in politics
Liberal - gov’t should play role in redressing injustices and inequalities while addressing social problems
Conservative - gov’t should play a minimal role in society and not force people to participate in social advancement; uphold tradition; law enforcement
Converse: belief systems and constraint
Political elites tend to have views that are systematic, but this relationship is weaker for the general public (less constrained)
The general public is not thinking about issues as systematically as elected officials
Being non-ideological is not the same as being non-rational
Can people hear and accept conflicting information (motivated reasoning)?
People have a tendency to find arguments in favor of the conclusions they want to believe stronger
Reason to believe people don’t reason correctly
Don’t want to believe facts that conflict with arguments they believe → example: partisan divergence in how serious coronavirus was
How do we know what the public thinks?
Public opinion polling: take a small sample of the public and ask what they think
Random sampling almost guarantees an accurate result with a high enough sample size
Caveat - there is almost always a nonresponse bias in polls, so there usually isn’t complete accuracy
Mitigated by measuring bias and accounting for it
Measurement error - the problem is who gets asked
Response error - the problem is how the question is asked
Latent opinion - people care about things meaningfully but don’t always have a particular idea or policy they prefer
What are the basics of the US election system?
The delegation of authority to agents raises the possibility of agency loss, and elections partially solve this problem
The states run elections and parties determine the methods/timing of primaries
Both the state and federal gov’ts control campaign finance
Voting is optional in the US, so the electorate that is voting is different every election
In each election, usually a nominating phase (partisan) and a general election
Nomination phase typically consists of within-party plurality vote for the nominee
What are the pathologies of first-past-the-post elections?
The candidate who wins any pairwise competition (Condorcet winner) might not win and in fact can easily lose
Candidates winning doesn’t necessarily indicate a lot of popular support
Duverger’s law: plurality or majoritarian elections tend to cultivate two-party systems
Parties that come in third often don’t have a shot at winning or any meaningful payoff
Although third parties can influence existing coalitions: Free Soil
Strategic moderation is a product of the two-party system
Candidates moderate their positions in order to win a majority of the vote (median voter theorem)
How do voters make decisions?
Use cues and heuristics as cognitive shortcuts to avoid the transaction costs of becoming informed
Retrospective voting - assess past performance of incumbents or majority party
But difficult to assign credit for lg bodies like the House
Example: economic voting (voting for a candidate that presided over a good economy)
Also may take the form of assessing their personal experience and media coverage during the incumbent’s tenure
Partisan voting - vote based on party affiliation
Most important shortcut voters use to make predictions
Using party heuristics is the hardest for people in the middle and they have the least incentive to be informed, but they have to make the most important decision - swing voter’s curse
Why do election predictions work?
Use economy, public opinion, length of party control, and historical patterns to predict elections
Peoples’ decisions converge with the prediction closer to the election as they decide who to vote for
What are the ways that interest groups influence politics?
Lobbying - aimed to directly influence decisions made by public officials
Interest group - an organization with common interests that engages in politics of behalf of its members
Offer elected officials information about their constituencies
Engage in social lobbying
Grassroots lobbying conducted by constituents
Issue advocacy to influence public opinion of constituents
Litigation in the courts
Campaign finance to decrease funding burden
FECA limits individual donations to campaigns, but not how much a campaign can spend
2020 election was the most expensive ever
How much does lobbying influence politics?
Lobbyists gain revenue/success from connections to politicians still in office
Lobbyists who spend more money in politics tend to have lower taxes (correlation not causation)
Social lobbying is generally more influential than lobbying in an official setting (Grose et. al randomized experiment)
There are complaints about how much lobbying influences politics
Lobbyists can make representative accountable to them instead of their constituents
Direct attention away from national interest and those of ordinary citizens
Lobbying might be good for democracy
Interest groups on both sides of the issue cancel each other out → pluralism
Interest groups have incentives to develop best and strongest arguments
But interest group membership has an upper clas bias → exacerbated with increase in income inequality
How can we understand campaign finance?
Buckley v Valeo (1976): expenditure limits by campaigns struck down but contribution limits for individuals and PACs upheld
PAC: organization that raises or spends money in politics on behalf of a corporation
Established that gov’t has a valid interest in preventing the appearance of corruption
Limiting campaign expenditures limits candidates’ right to free speech
Corporations can’t contribute directly to political campaigns, neither can foreign nationals or gov’t contractors
Independent expenditures - express advocacy for or against a candidate independently
As long as they are not coordinating with the campaign itself
Citizens United v FEC (2010)
Only quid pro quo corruption is a concern in campaign finance laws
Independent expenditures don’t give rise to corruption
SpeechNow.org v FEC (2010) - contributions to groups that make independent expenditures cannot be limited
Before citizens united, Super PACs were the only way that corporations could donate to campaigns without reporting expenditures → still had to stay within the contribution limits
How effective is campaign finance?
Money in politics is not everything
Trump raised less money than all of the other Republican candidates but still won the nomination
Candidates raise lots of money when they expect a competitive race, so the candidate that raises less money doesn’t always lose
Money does make it easier to get attention, giving self-financing candidates an advantage
Candidates who don’t fit the usual barriers to entry can circumvent party barriers to entry
If there can only be two parties, how do party systems change?
Political parties solve collective action problems by giving anyone a vehicle to become active in politics
Goals of parties to gain control of the gov’t but also implement their preferred policies may force concessions
Third party influence can bring new issues/platforms to the attention of major parties
Changing geographic alliances can change party coalitions
What are the features of past party systems?
Political parties began as a way to manage voting in the first Congress
Modern Democratic and Republican parties have roots with Jefferson and Hamilton, respectively but they have changed a lot since their founding
First party system - federalist vs. democratic republicans
Key features were tensions over power in the federal government and the creation of national political parties
Second party system - Democrats vs. Nat’l Republicans
Key features were the development of patronage politics, the beginning of party conventions, and the beginning of national political campaigns
Centralized campaign organization, bargained over platform and candidates
Third and fourth party systems - the rise and fall of political party machines
Key developments were civil service, Australian ballot, and primary elections
Fifth party system - Democrats vs. Republicans
New Deal policies like Social Security, public works, subsidies and housing support divided Democrats and Republicans along lines reminiscent of the present
Democrats want to fix social problems and Republicans think that the gov’t is imposing burdens on its citizens
Southern Democrats split off during the 1950s
What are the features of the current party system?
Arguably we have a new sixth party system today
Characterized by TV ads and the primary system of presidential nominations
Key issues are taxes, racial equity, healthcare, civil rights
Closely contested elections, more than any other party system
Increase in the number of independents, but they lean towards one party or another
What is polarization?
Ideological polarization - people are moving away from the middle in their political beliefs and extreme views are becoming more common
Partisan polarization - parties are becoming more homogeneous and there is a smaller diversity of views within each party
Affective polarization - people have increasingly negative feelings towards people who are different from them and increasingly positive views towards people similar to them
How have officeholders changed over time (in terms of polarization)?
The diversity of views within each party has decreased, with Democrats becoming more liberal and Republicans becoming more conservative
Republicans: low taxes, regulation and welfare; anti-abortion; religion in public life; gun ownership
Democrats: high taxes, environmental protection, legal abortions, welfare, secular public life, gov’t should correct racial inequalities
Primaries less diverse than they were in the 1970s
Nominate scores based on roll call votes used to determine polarization over time
People are rarely in the “wrong party”
When someone switches parties, they change their views to be consistent with the party
Both partisan and ideological polarization
How has the public changed over time (in terms of polarization)?
Most Americans are in the middle as they have been for a long time, so not as much ideological polarization
However, Americans generally tend to be better at sorting themselves into the parties consistent with their ideological predispositions
How is it possible that Republicans and Democrats in the public are farther apart i people in the public are not more extreme than they used to be?
It’s clearer what the parties stand for than it has been in the past, so partisan sorting is easier for citizens
As independents switched into parties that matched their ideologies, primaries elected more homogenous candidates, leading to partisan polarization in Congress
Still, voters are less ideologically constrained than politicians and will tend to be more of a mixture of liberal and conservative
What are the effects of polarization?
Costly disruption of federal activities; ie. gov’t shutdown
Increased receptiveness to theories about the other party, increasing affective polarization
Worse conduct by officeholders
Harder for Congressional chambers to pass legislation
More power to the president/decrease in separation of powers
What are the big moments in the history of Black civil rights in the United States?
Civil rights: active protections by government
The balanced entry of slave and free states and the MO Compromise of 1820
State-based representation in the Senate meant that the issue of slavery was off the policy table
The victory of the Free Soil party by claiming that slave labor was competing with unpaid white labor
Showed an anti-slavery platform could be electorally successful
Dred Scott v Sanford - federal gov’t couldn’t regulate slavery in the territories
Galvanized northern abolitionists and free soilers into the republican party
Election of 1860 - major Republican wins showed that slavery would no longer be tolerated and resulted in the civil war
The end of Reconstruction
The protection of the 14th and 15th amendments were no longer federally enforced, resulting in apartheid and vigilante violence
Jim Crow laws and Plessy v Ferguson
Segregation and disenfranchisement of Blacks under seperate but equal doctrine
Poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clause, understanding clause
Migration of Black Americans incentivized by poor conditions in the South
Resulted in increased importance of Black Americans as a voting bloc and the civil rights issue became part of the democratic platform
Truman’s integration of the armed services and Fair Employment proposal
Alienated Southern Democrats and they departed from the party
Successes in the courts in Brown v Board of Education
Civil disobediance and issue advocacy by the SCLC and others moved public opinion in favor of civil rights and emphasized police abuses
Bloody Sunday
Bus boycott
Lunch counter sit-ins
Voting Rights Act of 1965 first meaningful enforcement of Black voting rights
What are the contemporary politics of race like?
Defending people from discrimination is not equality and we have a long way to go
Aggressive policing and criminal justice are top issues in current advocacy for Black civil rights
Treyvon Martin and George Floyd
George Floyd protests were the largest mass protest movement in American history and notable for the proportion of non-Black participants and people across the political spectrum who participated or endorsed it
Conservatives focused on issues with looting
Increased awareness of discrimination and support for quick fixes like banning police chokeholds
What are the lessons of the civil rights movement in terms of effecting change in American politics?
It’s hard to achieve change due to status quo bias even with morally outrageous policies
Creating new coalitions and vote incentives are key to achieving change
Necessary to adjust advocacy to demographic, economic, or technological wave
Still, change is achievable through:
Constitutional amendments
State and local attempts at similar policy
Getting the bureaucracy on board
Appealing to the courts
Changing party coalitions
Changing elite opinion or public opinion
When demand for action is great enough, the difficulties of status quo bias can be overcome
Why is inequality such a significant issue in American politics?
It involves redistribution efforts like Social Security, which consistently divide the parties and drive polarization
Different values - left tends to value fairness and equality while right prioritizes stability and property rights
Liberals support addressing inequality because:
Gov’t redistribution is good for economic growth
The government can promote meritocracy
So greater equality is better for almost everyone
Conservatives are against addressing inequality because:
Redistribution hurts economic growth
Low taxes and small gov’t can increase growth by letting the market work
So markets are good for almost everyone
What is the state of inequality in the US?
People understimate wealth inequality and would like it to be less
Conservatives argue that Americans are still among the richest people in the world, decreasing poverty is generally associated with richer countries, and income is equal enough
Most of the wealth growth over the past few decades has accrued to the top 1%
Multiple possible sources: international trade, technological changes, failure of gov’t policy
Income mobility is middling in the US
Richer people tend to be more Republican and less wealthy people tend to be more Democratic, but only up to incomes of about 50,000
Why doesn’t democracy address rising inequality?
US is less redistributive in spending but more redistributive in terms of tax policy
Public opinion just doesn’t want to see inequality addressed
Tyranny of the majority of the poor expressed in Federalist 10 and current opinion polls indicate that the ideals of self-determination are deeply rooted in American history
Politicians cater to wealthy constituents - Hacker and Peirson
Majority of people say the rich pay less tax than they should
Low support for tax cuts if there are other options
Politicians can manage to pass policies that are directly at odds with majority views
Status quo bias makes it too hard
There’s not enough of a consensus among and between parties that addressing inequality is a serious concern