Poli 477 - Second Half of Course Summary
Lecture 14: The Judiciary
Controversies of the Judiciary
Philadelphia Convention
A contentious issue during the Philadelphia Convention regarding the judiciary system in the federal government.
Anti-Federalists:
Expressed concerns that judges would become imperial and removed from popular accountability, operating with unchecked power.
They feared a judiciary that could interpret laws according to its own will, potentially overriding both legislative intent and state sovereignty.
Critique:
“There is no power above [judges] to control their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature…; men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
These concerns highlighted a fundamental mistrust of centralized power and a desire for greater local control and popular representation in legal matters.
Federalists:
Argued that the court would act as a restraint on unruly majorities and popular demagogues, serving as an impartial arbiter of the law.
Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, famously described the judiciary as the “least dangerous branch,” possessing “neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgement.”
He contended that the judiciary would protect the Constitution from legislative encroachments and safeguard individual liberties against temporary popular passions.
Alexander Hamilton stated:
“Has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or the wealth of society, and can take no resolution whatever. It may be truly said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgement; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgements.”
This emphasized the judiciary's reliance on the executive for enforcement, limiting its practical power.
Basic Legal Concepts
Civil Law: Establishes a framework for overseeing relationships between private parties, individuals, associations, and firms. It covers disputes such as contracts, property, and torts (e.g., negligence, defamation). The goal is typically to compensate the injured party or resolve the dispute, not to punish.
Public Law: Concerns cases involving the government or constitutional rights of citizens. This broad category includes constitutional law, administrative law, and criminal law, dealing with relationships between individuals and the state.
Constitutional Law: A form of public law focused on judicial scrutiny of government or private actions regarding their constitutional adherence. It involves interpreting the U.S. Constitution and ensuring that laws and governmental actions comply with its principles.
Administrative Law: Governs the activities of administrative agencies of government, dealing with issues such as rulemaking, adjudication, and enforcement of regulatory agendas (e.g., environmental protection, labor relations).
Statutory Law: Laws passed by a legislature, such as Congress or state legislatures. These are written laws declared by statute and are codified into legal codes.
Common Law (Case Law): Law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive action. It relies heavily on stare decisis, the principle of adhering to precedent.
Stare Decisis: A legal principle meaning “to stand by things decided,” obligating courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case. This ensures predictability and stability in the legal system.
Federal Court System
Structure of the Court System
There are two parallel court systems: state and federal.
The federal court system consists of three tiers:
District Courts:
Venue for ordinary civil and criminal trials (federal).
Comprises 94 district courts nationwide handling over 200,000 civil cases and over 45,000 criminal cases annually.
Each state has at least one federal district court.
Appeal Courts:
Handle cases brought to them on appeal from district courts or federal administrative agencies.
Make up 11 separate courts of appeals across the U.S.; a 12th serves the District of Columbia.
The 13th is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, specializing in patents and financial claims against the government.
Supreme Court:
Operates as a generally appellate court through discretionary reviews, granting writs of certiorari to select cases.
There are no automatic rights of appeal to the Supreme Court except in specific instances, like inter-state lawsuits or cases involving foreign ambassadors.
Role of the Supreme Court
It serves as the highest court in the U.S. and the final judicial authority for justice seekers.
Empowered with judicial review, it enforces checks and balances among government branches, ensuring acknowledgment of limits on power.
It protects civil rights and liberties by invalidating unconstitutional laws or governmental actions.
It maintains limitations on democratic governance by preventing majority rule from undermining minority rights and constitutional principles.
Case Consideration Process
At least four justices must agree (the “Rule of Four”) on the hearing of a case for a writ of certiorari to be granted.
The court accepts briefs from both parties (petitioner and respondent) and amicus curiae (friends of the court) submissions, which are filed by interested parties not directly involved in the case.
Oral Arguments: Presenting parties argue before justices, typically for 30 minutes per side, who may ask probing questions regarding legal interpretations and precedents.
The justices then meet privately in conference to deliberate on the case, discussing their views and preliminary votes.
After voting, the chief justice assigns a majority opinion writer if he is among the majority. If not, the assignment goes to the most senior justice in the majority.
Justices can write dissenting opinions to explain why they disagree with the majority, or concurring opinions, which agree with the majority’s outcome but for different legal reasons.
History & Evolution of the Supreme Court
Original Jurisdiction
Clause 2 of Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution allows original jurisdiction for cases involving ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party.
The federal judiciary's power to assess a statute's or treaty's constitutionality (judicial review) is implied from constitutional clauses, most notably affirmed in Marbury v. Madison.
Landmark Cases in Supreme Court History
Marbury v. Madison (1803): Established the judiciary's right to interpret the Constitution and declare acts of Congress unconstitutional, solidifying the principle of judicial review.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Upheld the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, affirming the doctrine of implied powers and national supremacy over states in areas of federal competence.
Barron v. Baltimore (1833): Ruled that the Bill of Rights limits the federal government, not state governments, a principle later altered by the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation doctrine.
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): Ruled that African Americans, enslaved or free, were not citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court; also declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, exacerbating tensions leading to the Civil War.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): Established
Lecture 15: 2022 and 2023 Cases & Key Points
2022 Cases
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)
Context: Joseph Kennedy, a high school football coach, held Christian prayers with his players in midfield after games. Although players were not explicitly compelled, they reportedly felt pressure to participate.
Ruling: A 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court in favor of Kennedy.
Majority Opinion: The Court asserted that the coach had a constitutional right to engage in prayer on the field. It characterized his proselytizing on government property during a public-school function as "private," "personal," and "quiet" religious expression.
Dissenting Argument: The dissenting justices argued that while promoting one form of "religious expression," the Court inadvertently curtailed the liberty of individuals whose prayers take other forms (e.g., non-Christian faiths) and those who do not practice religion at all. They highlighted that Kitsap County, where the school was located, is home to a diverse array of religions, including Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, and Baha’ism, and concluded that a coach-led Christian prayer on the playing field was inherently exclusionary.
West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022)
Context: West Virginia challenged the EPA’s (Environmental Protection Agency) authority under the Clean Air Act. The Act broadly authorizes the EPA to select the “best system of emission reduction” for power plants as part of its mandate to regulate stationary sources of any substance that “causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution” and “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” West Virginia contended that the EPA’s regulation of carbon emissions from a factory was unconstitutional due to overreach of agency power.
Ruling: A 6-3 decision in favor of West Virginia.
Impact: This ruling significantly restricted the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants.
Majority Reasoning: The majority opinion demonstrated deference to Congress by, in essence, remanding the issue back to the legislative branch. The Court held that for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, Congress must provide clear and specific direction, rather than relying on a broad delegation of power.
Implications: While Congress always possesses the power to override agency policies with new legislation, the Court’s ruling implies that existing broad language instructing the EPA to devise the “best system” might not be sufficiently specific for future regulatory action. This creates a high legislative hurdle, especially given the difficulty of achieving a filibuster-proof supermajority in Congress willing to pass highly specific environmental legislation.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)
Ruling: A 6-3 decision that explicitly stated, "We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled." The Court declared that the Constitution makes no direct reference to abortion, and therefore, no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, on which previous abortion rights rulings had chiefly relied.
2023 Cases
Moore v. Harper (North Carolina) (2023)
Ruling: A 6-3 decision by SCOTUS that rejected a controversial legal theory known as the "Independent State Legislature Theory."
Impact: The justices ruled that state legislatures do not possess largely unchecked power to set the rules for federal elections and draw partisan congressional maps. The decision affirmed that state courts have the authority to review state laws concerning federal elections for compliance with state constitutions, rejecting the idea that state legislatures have almost unlimited power in this domain. (The Constitution’s Elections Clause, Article I, Section 4, which states that "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations…").
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (2023)
Ruling: A 6-2 decision by SCOTUS’s conservative majority (Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself from the Harvard case, having served on its Board of Overseers) that struck down the admissions policies at both schools.
Majority Opinion: The Court found that these policies, which considered race as a factor in admissions, violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority stated that such programs "lack sufficient focused and measurable objective warranting the use of race."
Significance: This ruling matters significantly because colleges and universities, particularly highly selective institutions, have argued for decades (and previous Supreme Court rulings over 45 years had allowed) that race could be one factor among many in admissions to achieve diversity. The decision is expected to lead to a significant drop in minority admissions at many institutions.
Trump v. United States (2023)
Ruling: The Court held that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts that involved the exercise of their "core constitutional powers" and to "presumptive immunity" for all other official acts.
Significance: This ruling is consequential because the distinction between "official" and "unofficial" acts remains largely undefined, leaving lower courts to decide on a case-by-case basis when and if immunity applies. This creates uncertainty and potentially protracted legal battles, as the current President (Trump) has argued for absolute immunity for any and all actions taken while in office, contrasting with the Court's position that his subordinates do not have any immunity whatsoever.
Key Points on the Judiciary
Exceptional Power: The power and authority of the American Supreme Court and the broader federal court system far exceed that enjoyed by the judiciary in most other constitutional democracies.
Evolution of Principles: Neither judicial review (the power to declare laws unconstitutional) nor the supremacy of federal over state law is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Both these critical principles were established through groundbreaking decisions of the Supreme Court, to which the legislative and executive branches, as well as the states, eventually acquiesced. Chief Justice John Marshall’s leadership was crucial in the early 19th century for cementing both.
Fourteenth Amendment's Impact:
In the late nineteenth century, the Supreme Court utilized the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process of law to protect the sanctity of private property, often siding with businesses against government regulation.
In the second half of the twentieth century, the Court relied on the principle of due process to actively combat racial injustice and expand the notion of "rights," applying Bill of Rights protections to the states.
Commerce Clause Expansion: During the New Deal era, the Supreme Court adopted a very broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which permitted significantly greater latitude for the federal government to intervene in policy realms previously considered reserved for the states, drastically expanding federal regulatory power.
Programmatic Rights and Interdependence: The rulings of the Warren and Burger Courts (mid-to-late 20th century) moved beyond simply securing rights by restraining government. They began declaring "programmatic rights," which could often only be provided by positive government action (e.g., in areas like welfare or education). This made the Court increasingly dependent on other governmental agents—lower courts, Congress, and the executive—to implement its decisions.
Programmatic (Civil) Rights: These are rights 'discovered' in the words, purpose, and spirit of federal statutes. They generally encompass rights to government benefits, services, and protection, and usually arise as a joint product of legislative, administrative, and judicial action.
Inter-branch Activism: During the 1970s and early 1980s, the courts, Congress, and administrative agencies often reinforced each other’s activist tendencies, leading to an expansion of government roles and regulations.
Politically Controversial Courts: The increasingly contentious nature of the confirmation process for Supreme Court and federal appeals court justices clearly illustrates the increasing involvement of the courts in politically controversial policy arenas, where judicial appointments are seen as crucial for shaping policy outcomes.
Judiciary's Role in Restraint: The judiciary plays an especially important role in the U.S. system by restraining potential threats to liberty posed by mass democracy, acting as a check on majority rule and popular passions.
Judicial Substitution for Deliberation: A critical line of decisions, from redistricting cases in the 1960s to abortion rights in the 1970s and Bush v. Gore in 2000, demonstrates the increasing tendency for judicial authority to substitute for public and legislative deliberation in resolving profound and controversial issues.
Specific 2006 Cases
Gonzales v. Oregon (2006)
Context: This case involved the dispute over the Attorney General John Ashcroft's rule, which aimed to prevent doctors from using federally controlled substances to assist in suicides, thereby challenging Oregon's Death with Dignity Act.
Court Opinion: The Supreme Court ruled that the Attorney General’s rule was not entitled the usual deference given to executive interpretations of governing statutes because Congress had not, in fact, granted Ashcroft the authority he claimed. The Court determined that the Controlled Substances Act was designed to proscribe substance abuse and drug dealing, not to regulate actions taken by medical doctors in accordance with a state statute.
Basis: The opinion rested on principles of administrative law rather than the Constitution but was clearly influenced by the majority’s view that the regulation of medical practice generally belonged to the states, reflecting a federalist sentiment.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)
Context: This case challenged the legality of the military commissions established by the Bush administration at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp for trying terrorism suspects.
Court Opinion: The Supreme Court struck down the military tribunals. The majority opinion found fault not only with the structure and procedures of the tribunals but also with President Bush’s broader claim that the president possesses inherent power to unilaterally execute the War on Terror as he deems fit.
Significance: The Hamdan decision suggested that the Court had become less deferential to the president regarding his expansive role as commander-in-chief and war leader, particularly concerning the due process rights of detainees.
Lecture 16 + Lecture 17: Civil Rights & Civil Liberties
Distinction Between Civil Liberties and Civil Rights
Civil Liberties: These are protections of citizens from improper governmental action. Generally speaking, they are restraints on what the government can't do (e.g., the right of Americans to be free from arbitrary government interference). These are largely enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
Examples from the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…" (Amendment I); "The right… to bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (Amendment II); "No soldier shall be quartered…" (Amendment III); "No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…" (Amendment IV); "No person shall be held to answer… unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…" (Amendment V); "Excessive bail shall not be required… nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" (Amendment VIII).
Two Forms of Civil Liberties:
Substantive Liberties: These place limits on what the government shall and shall not have the power to do. Examples include prohibiting the establishment of a religion, quartering troops in private homes without consent, or seizing private property without just compensation.
Procedural Liberties: These deal with how the government is supposed to act. The best-known procedural rule is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Civil Rights: These are obligations imposed on government to guarantee equal citizenship and protect citizens from discrimination by other private citizens and governmental agencies. Civil rights became a significant part of the Constitution in 1868 with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, which defines citizenship and provides for each citizen "the equal protection of the laws." Examples include protection against discrimination based on gender or race in the workplace, disability rights, and LGBTQ+ rights.
Simplification:
Civil liberties issues generally arise under the "due process of law" clauses.
Civil rights issues generally arise under the "equal protection of the laws" clause.
Evolution of Civil Liberties
Barron v. Baltimore (1833): This landmark case established the idea of "dual citizenship," holding that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government and did not restrict state governments.
Fourteenth Amendment (1868): Adopted after the Civil War, this amendment includes the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, which seemed to nationalize civil liberties by stating, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Brown v. Board of Education (1954): While primarily a civil rights case addressing school segregation, this decision signaled a pivotal shift. The Court began to assume an active role, moving beyond merely reviewing Congress to closely scrutinizing state laws and state court decisions. This active role was crucial for applying a single national Fourteenth Amendment standard to the rights and liberties of all citizens.
Selective Incorporation: Following Brown, the Supreme Court gradually incorporated the provisions of the Bill of Rights, applying them to the states one by one through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This process is known as selective incorporation.
Evolution of Civil Rights
Fourteenth Amendment: As noted, the clause "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" was a simple yet powerful statement, whose full meaning was left open to interpretation.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): This infamous case established the "separate but equal" doctrine, which legally sanctioned racial segregation as long as the separate facilities provided to each race were ostensibly equal in quality. This ruling legitimized Jim Crow laws for over half a century.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954): This unanimous Supreme Court decision signaled the end of the "separate but equal" rule in public education. It fundamentally altered the constitutional framework in two key respects:
After Brown, states would no longer have the power to use race as a criterion of discrimination in law.
The national government gained a solid constitutional basis for extending its power to intervene with strict regulatory policies against discriminatory actions by state or local governments, school boards, employers, and many entities in the private sector.
Evolution of Civil Liberties Post Brown
Rights of the Accused (1960s): By 1969, a series of Court rulings had significantly expanded the rights of accused criminals:
The right to counsel in a criminal trial (Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963).
The exclusion of illegally seized evidence from court (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961).
Protection against double jeopardy (Benton v. Maryland, 1969).
The establishment of "Miranda rules," requiring police to inform arrested persons of their constitutional rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966).
Expansion of Privacy Rights (1960s-1970s): The Court also expanded the concept of a "right to privacy," which is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but was inferred from various amendments.
Legal questions surrounding privacy have since come to the forefront in cases concerning birth control (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965), abortion (Roe v. Wade, 1973), homosexuality (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003), and assisted suicide.
Broadening of Civil Rights: The definition of civil rights was expanded beyond African Americans to include other victims of discrimination (e.g., women, people with disabilities, LGBTQ+ individuals).
Shift to Programmatic Rights (Affirmative Action): The definition of civil rights increasingly became "positive," moving beyond merely eliminating discrimination toward creating new opportunities. Affirmative action became an official term, representing policies designed to address past and present effects of discrimination by providing preferential treatment to historically disadvantaged groups. Judicial decisions, congressional statutes, and actions of administrative agencies have all advanced this goal, in some areas involving compensation for the consequences of past discriminatory actions.
Ongoing Tension: While civil liberties and civil rights are distinct phenomena, requiring different legal and constitutional treatment, their evolution and extension are continuous, marked by constant debate and occasional undermining.
Lecture 18: Interest Groups
Introduction to Interest Groups
Definition: An interest group is an organized group of individuals or organizations that makes policy-related appeals to government. Individuals form groups and engage in collective action to increase the chance that their views will be heard and their interests treated favorably by the government. In essence, interest groups are organized primarily to influence government decisions, contrasting with political parties whose main goal is to win elections and control government.
Functions of Interest Groups
Education: They educate their members (and sometimes the public) about issues that affect them and the group's agenda.
Lobbying: They actively lobby members of Congress, the President, and the executive branch agencies to influence policy decisions and regulatory implementation.
Legal Action: They engage in legal litigation to achieve their goals, either by directly bringing lawsuits or financing suits brought by individuals.
Representation: They generally represent their members’ interests in the political arena, articulating specific demands and concerns.
Promoting Democracy: Interest groups can promote democracy by encouraging members to participate in politics and elections, and by educating legislators on complex issues.
Potential Drawbacks: They can also represent the potential evils of what James Madison called "factions." Larger interest groups with more members and financial resources tend to possess more influence, potentially skewing government decisions in favor of well-funded or highly organized interests at the expense of others.
General Types of Interest Groups
Economic Lobbies: Represent businesses, industries, and specific economic sectors (e.g., National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, oil and gas lobbies).
Labor Lobbies: Advocate for the rights and interests of workers and labor unions (e.g., AFL-CIO, Teamsters).
Professional Lobbies: Represent specific professions to advance their interests and standards (e.g., American Medical Association (AMA), American Bar Association (ABA)).
Public Interest Lobbies: Advocate for causes that benefit the general public or specific segments, often without direct economic benefit to their members (e.g., environmental groups like the Sierra Club, consumer advocacy groups like Public Citizen, civil rights organizations).
Requirements: Regardless of their type or specific interest, all effective interest groups require money, strong leadership, and a motivated membership base to function effectively.
How Do Interest Groups Influence Policy?
Direct Lobbying:
Members of Congress: Lobbyists directly communicate with legislators and their staff, providing information, building relationships, and advocating for specific legislation or amendments.
The President: Interest groups try to influence presidential policy through direct appeals, participation in advisory committees, and providing input on nominations.
The Executive Branch: Lobbying extends to bureaucratic agencies that develop and implement regulations, seeking to influence administrative rules and enforcement. This often involves cultivating long-term access and relationships with key decision-makers.
Regulation: Lobbying is a regulated activity, with laws requiring lobbyists to register and disclose their activities, although effectiveness of regulation varies.
Using the Courts:
Direct Suits: Interest groups can bring lawsuits directly on behalf of their organization or members to challenge laws or governmental actions.
Financing Individual Suits: They often secretly finance lawsuits brought by individuals (who may lack the necessary funds), allowing the organization to remain hidden while its agenda is advanced through the individual's name on the lawsuit.
Amicus Curiae Briefs: They file "friends of the court" (amicus curiae) briefs in cases where they are not direct parties but have a strong interest in the outcome. These briefs provide additional legal arguments, data, or perspectives to influence judicial decisions.
Mobilizing Public Opinion:
Advertising and Op-Eds: Interest groups run public advertising campaigns (print, TV, digital) and publish opinion-editorials (op-eds) in newspapers to shape public perception and build support for their issues.
Protests and Rallies: They organize boycotts, sit-ins, mass rallies, and marches to visibly demonstrate public support or opposition to a policy, drawing media attention and pressuring policymakers.
Grassroots Advocacy: They encourage members and the public to engage in "grassroots" write-in campaigns, calls, or emails to members of Congress. This method has become more prevalent due to increased regulations on direct lobbying.
Using Electoral Politics:
Political Action Committees (PACs): Interest groups form PACs to raise and disburse campaign money to candidates who support their cause, legally allowing them to contribute substantial funds.
Campaign Activism: They engage in voter registration drives, get-out-the-vote efforts, and volunteer activities to support favored candidates.
Financial Support: Beyond direct PAC contributions, interest groups provide financial support to campaigns through various avenues, including "dark money" groups that do not disclose donors.
Register and Mobilize Voters: Directly work to register new voters and mobilize their existing members to turn out on Election Day.
Presidential Elections Process
Party Primaries and Caucuses:
Nomination Campaign: Candidate campaigns for party nominations typically run from around April/May of the year before the election year to April/May of the election year itself.
State-Level Contests: Each state holds a party primary vote or a Democratic/Republican caucus to determine delegates for their respective party’s preferred candidate.
Iowa Caucus: Iowa is traditionally the state with the first primary vote (e.g., January 15, 2024), while the final ones usually occur in July or August.
Front-loading: Many states attempt to increase their influence in the nomination process by holding earlier primaries.
Early Resolutions: In recent years, the nominee races have often been decided well before the primary season officially ends in June/July due to early front-runner momentum.
Delegate Allocation: State primaries elect delegates to the national party convention. Most states employ a "winner-take-all" system for delegate allocation, especially for Republicans, while caucus states or some Democratic primaries might use proportional division.
Bound Delegates: Delegates are mostly 'bound' to vote for a particular candidate at the national party convention based on their state's primary or caucus results.
Super-delegates: Both parties also have "super-delegates" (or unpledged delegates for Democrats; unbound delegates for Republicans) who are typically party leaders and elected officials and can vote for any candidate they choose at the convention (e.g., GOP has around 120, Democrats about 800).
Party Conventions:
Modern Role: Today, national party conventions are largely ceremonial events, serving mostly as a coronation of one candidate as the party nominee, with the outcome predetermined by the primaries.
Historical Role: Historically, voting for candidates at conventions was often hotly contested, with multiple ballots to decide the nominee.
Party Unity and Messaging: Parties use national conventions to attract independent voters, showcase party unity, present their platform, and impart energy to the nominee’s presidential campaign ahead of the general election.
General Election Campaign: The actual campaign of the party nominees for the presidency typically begins in late September and culminates on the Tuesday after the first Monday of November.
Lecture 19: Presidential Campaign & Electoral System
The Electoral College Vote
Determinative Vote: The Electoral College vote is the determinant factor in electing the U.S. President and Vice President.
Elector Selection: How electors are chosen varies from state to state, but typically it's a popular vote within each state that determines which slate of electors (pledged to a particular candidate) will cast the state's electoral votes.
Allocation of Electoral Votes: Each state is allocated a number of electoral college votes equal to its total number of senators (2) and its number of congressional districts (which varies widely based on population). This means no state can have less than 3 electoral college votes. Washington, D.C., also receives 3 electoral votes under the 23rd Amendment.
Winner-Takes-All System: The Electoral College vote operates predominantly on a "winner-takes-all" basis in almost every state. The candidate who wins the popular vote in a state receives all of that state's electoral votes.
Exceptions: Maine (with 4 electoral votes) and Nebraska (with 5 electoral votes) are exceptions, using a district method. They award two electoral votes to the statewide popular vote winner and one electoral vote to the winner of each of their congressional districts individually.
Official Election Date: The "official" election of the President does not occur on popular Election Day. Instead, Electoral College delegates cast their votes on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December (e.g., December 16, 2024).
Congressional Count: The Twelfth Amendment mandates that Congress assemble in a joint session to officially count the electoral votes and declare the winners of the election (typically around January 6). The 20th Amendment specifies that it is the 'incoming' House of Representatives that participates in this process if no candidate achieves a majority of electoral votes (a rare occurrence).
Criticisms of the Electoral College
Irrelevancy of National Popular Vote: The most common criticism is that the system can result in a president who wins the Electoral College but loses the national popular vote (e.g., 2000, 2016 elections).
Exclusive Focus on Swing States: Candidates disproportionately focus their campaigning, funding, and efforts on a small number of electorally competitive "swing states," neglecting states considered reliably Republican or Democratic.
Discourages Turnout and Participation: In non-swing states, voters may feel their vote doesn't matter as much, potentially discouraging turnout and overall participation in national elections.
Obscures Disenfranchisement: The focus on state-level wins can obscure issues of voter disenfranchisement or suppression within states, as the overall state popular vote is what matters for electoral votes.
Favors Less Populous States: The allocation of 2 electoral votes for each senator (regardless of population) gives smaller states a disproportionately larger influence per capita compared to highly populous states.
Disadvantage for Third Parties: The winner-takes-all system makes it extremely difficult for third-party candidates to win any electoral votes, effectively reinforcing the two-party system.
Complexity and Lack of Understanding: The system is not straightforward to understand for many citizens, leading to confusion and potential distrust.
Enables Minority Rule: Critics contend that it can allow a candidate to win the presidency without commanding a majority of the national electorate, leading to what some consider minority rule.
Support for the Electoral College
Prevents an Urban-Centric Victory: Proponents argue that it prevents a few densely populated urban centers from dominating the election, ensuring that rural and less populated areas also have a voice.
Maintains Federal Character: It maintains the federal character of the nation by ensuring that candidates build broad coalitions across states, rather than just focusing on national population centers.
Enhances Status of Minority Groups (?): Some argue it can enhance the status of ethnic and racial minority groups, whose votes can be crucial in swing states, giving them leverage they might not have in a purely popular vote system.
Encourages Stability: By reinforcing the two-party system, it encourages political stability and discourages the proliferation of numerous small parties that could lead to unstable coalition governments.
Flexibility in Candidate Death: It provides a mechanism for electors to potentially change their vote if a presidential candidate dies before the Electoral College convenes.
Isolation of Election Problems: If there are significant election issues or controversies in one state, the Electoral College system helps to localize those problems, preventing them from contaminating the legitimacy of the national election outcome.
Neutralizes Turnout Disparities: Some argue it neutralizes the impact of turnout disparities between states, as the electoral votes are fixed per state regardless of precise turnout levels.
Maintains Separation of Powers: It reinforces the idea of states as separate political entities within the federal system, a core principle of the separation of powers.
State & Locality Elections
Timing: These elections are often held concurrently with presidential elections (11 states) or federal midterm elections (36 states), but a few states (5) hold them in off-years. This total of 52 includes Washington, D.C., and American Samoa.
American Public Participation in Elections
Voter Turnout: Historically, many eligible Americans do not vote. However, the 2020 and 2024 elections have seen some of the highest turnout rates in the past century.
Why the Decline in Participation (Historically)?
Main Decline Period: The most significant decline in voter participation occurred between the 1880s and 1910s.
Voter Registration: This decline largely coincides with the widespread adoption of voter registration requirements by states. These new requirements often added significant burdens:
In-person Registration: Citizens had to show up in person to register before an election or to vote.
Early Registration Deadlines: Many states required registration well in advance of the next election.
Re-registration: In many places, voters had to re-register periodically or when they moved.
Disproportionate Impact: These burdens primarily affected low-education and low-income groups, for whom pre-registration demanded a greater degree of political engagement than merely voting. Challenges included taking time off work (and potentially losing pay), affording transport to registration sites, and navigating complex bureaucratic processes.
Easing Regulations: Over the past several decades, some registration regulations have eased (e.g., Motor Voter Act, online registration).
Weakening of Political Parties: Without the strong, often machine-like party organizations of earlier eras, parties became less able to mobilize and bring out low-education and low-income eligible voters.
Skewed Voting Population: Some analysts argue that the decline and changes in registration laws have resulted in a skewing of the actual voting population toward the middle and upper classes, who face fewer barriers to registration and voting.
Manipulation of Voting
Gerrymandering: The practice of drawing electoral district boundaries to give one political party an unfair advantage over another, or to dilute the voting power of a particular demographic.
"Cracking" Example: This involves spreading voters of a particular type among many districts to deny them a sufficiently large voting bloc in any single district. For instance, the urban and often liberal Democratic concentration of Columbus, Ohio (in Franklin County), might be split into thirds, with each segment attached to—and outnumbered by—largely conservative suburbs that primarily vote Republican. This dilutes the liberal vote across multiple districts.
"Packing" Example: This involves concentrating as many voters of a particular type into one district as possible. This creates a safe seat for one party, but intentionally dilutes that party's voting power in surrounding districts, making them easier for the opposing party to win. For example, all minority voters might be "packed" into a single district, ensuring they win that one seat, but making adjacent districts overwhelmingly white and conservative, guaranteeing those seats to the opposition.
Voting Regulations: Measures that make it more difficult to vote.
Strict Voter ID Laws: Requiring specific forms of government-issued identification, such as a passport or driver's license. Many people, particularly in low-income, elderly, or minority communities, may not drive or possess such IDs. This can include requirements for specific types of photos or exact matches to databases.
Impact: Such regulations disproportionately restrict the ability of minority groups, low-income individuals, and young people (who often tend to vote Democratic) from casting their ballots.
Lecture 20: Public Opinion
Defining Public Opinion and Related Concepts
Public Opinion: This term denotes the values and attitudes that people hold about issues, events, and personalities. It is a collective expression of beliefs, norms, and preferences.
Values (or Beliefs): These constitute a person’s basic orientation to politics. Values represent deep-rooted goals, aspirations, and ideals that fundamentally shape an individual’s perceptions and judgments of political issues and events. Core American political values often include liberty, equality, and democracy.
Political Ideology: This is a complex and interrelated set of beliefs and values that, taken as a whole, form a general philosophy or systematic way of thinking about government and political life. It provides a framework for understanding the world and making political judgments (e.g., liberalism, conservatism, socialism).
Political Socialization: How We Form Our Opinions
The Family: The family is typically the primary agent of political socialization. Many individuals tend to vote similarly to their families; family heavily shapes an individual’s core values, beliefs, and consequently, their political affiliation. Over time, the direct influence of family may diminish as individuals age and encounter other influences.
Social Groups:
Involuntary Groups: These are groups one is born into or cannot easily change, such as gender, racial or ethnic groups, and sexual orientations. Shared experiences within these groups often lead to common political outlooks.
Voluntary Groups: These are groups individuals choose to join, such as political parties, labor unions, religious organizations, and educational and occupational groups. These associations provide shared perspectives and reinforce existing beliefs or cultivate new ones.
Peer/Friends/Personal Social Networks: Interactions with friends and within personal social networks also influence opinions. Some argue that this often involves self-selection, where individuals gravitate towards social circles that generally reflect their existing social and political views.
Differences in Education:
Type or Content: The specific curriculum and subject matter taught can influence political views (e.g., civics education).
Level of Education: A frequent (though debated) claim is that a higher level of education tends to correlate with more liberal political views, often attributed to exposure to diverse ideas and critical thinking skills.
Political Conditions: Current events, economic status, historical moments, and the broader political situation significantly influence the formation and shift of public opinion (e.g., economic recessions often lead to dissatisfaction with incumbent parties).
Shaping Public Opinion
The Media: The media acts as a crucial medium through which government, political actors, and other institutions reach the general population. Its role in shaping opinion is extensive:
Content and Character: What the media chooses to present and how it presents news and public-affairs programming can have profound political consequences.
Impact on Officials: Media disclosures can significantly enhance or fatally damage the careers of public officials (though this impact might be diminishing in an age of partisan media).
Policy Support/Opposition: Media coverage can rally support for, or intensify opposition to, national policies.
Perceptions of Events: The media has the power to shape and modify, if not fully form, public perceptions of events, issues, actors, and institutions.
Agenda Setting: The media helps determine which political issues become prominent and part of public debate, bringing certain topics to the forefront of national consciousness.
Priming: Media coverage affects how the public evaluates political leaders or candidates for office by emphasizing certain attributes or issues, which then become criteria for judgment.
Framing: The media possesses the power to influence how political events and results are interpreted by the American people, by highlighting specific aspects of a story and influencing its meaning.
Social Media: The rise of social media has fragmented the media landscape, allowing for rapid dissemination (and fragmentation) of information, filter bubbles, and direct access for political figures, further complicating public opinion formation.
Private Groups: Organizations that are not directly affiliated with the government but influence public opinion through advocacy, lobbying, and public education campaigns.
Interest Groups: As discussed in Lecture 18, these groups actively work to shape public opinion to build support for their specific policy goals.
Government: Government officials and agencies (e.g., through presidential addresses, public campaigns, press conferences) actively communicate to influence public opinion and build support for their policies.
Education:
Educational Content: What is taught in schools (curriculum) significantly influences the values and knowledge base of future citizens.
Curriculum Determination: The determination of curriculum, particularly at K-12 levels, involves diverse actors, including state-funded public schools and private schools. Debates over what is and is not taught (e.g., history, civics, science) are highly politicized.
Involved Parties: This process involves government entities (state boards of education), private groups, and interest groups (e.g., textbook publishers, parent advocacy organizations, religious groups) all vying to influence educational content.
How Does Public Opinion Influence Government Policy?
The Framers' View: The Founding Fathers, exemplified by the phrase "designed institutions that, although…" (missing content), generally believed that the general public could not always be trusted to make sound governing decisions. They designed a republic with representative institutions (e.g., Electoral College, Senate indirectly elected, independent judiciary) to filter and temper direct popular will, preventing direct democracy's potential excesses.
Lack of Consistency: There is often a noticeable lack of direct consistency between public opinions on specific issues and actual government policy.
Intensity of Preference: A nominal majority on a particular issue may not be as intensely committed to its preference as the adherents of a minority viewpoint. Highly motivated and organized minorities can often exert greater influence than a large but less engaged majority.
Character and Structure of American Government: The complex, fragmented nature of the American system of government (federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances) means that public opinion is filtered through numerous institutional layers, making direct translation into policy challenging. This design was intended to prevent hasty decisions and protect minority rights, but it also creates friction points for public will.
Lecture 21: "A Republic… If you can keep it" & Antiliberalism
Benjamin Franklin's quote: "A Republic… If you can keep it"
Key Points about the US Constitution
Interplay of Liberalism and Democracy: The U.S. Constitution was profoundly shaped by the interplay of philosophical liberalism and practical democracy.
Liberalism: As conceptualized by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, refers to a political philosophy emphasizing individual rights, limited government, and the rule of law. It posits that all individuals are vested with inherent rights that government cannot infringe upon.
Democracy: Emphasizes popular sovereignty, majority rule, and broad participation in governance.
New Form of Government: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, read together, gave rise to a new form of government. This government was dedicated to the protection of the rights of all individuals against both the government and the community, a radical concept for its time.
Historical Contradictions: This foundational ideal was initially compromised by its establishment by slaveholders and their white supporters, and by deeply religious individuals (and later religious movements) whose interpretations of rights were often selective. Hence, there exists a subcultural strand of democracy that is inherently antiliberal.
Persistent Tension: There is a persistent tension between liberalism (individual rights, limited government) and democracy (majority rule, popular will). This includes the ongoing tension between liberalism and antiliberalism.
Antiliberalism Defined
Rejection of Key Ideas: Antiliberalism fundamentally rejects some of the core ideas set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Most notably, it often opposes principles like the First Amendment's guarantees:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Belief in Hierarchy: In short, antiliberalists accept and believe that there is an inherent hierarchy among humans, where some groups are inherently superior while others are inferior.
Race: This has historically manifested in beliefs that people of color are not equal to white people, and are inferior, thus should be subject to or at least subservient to white humans.
Gender: Many religious traditions are patriarchal in nature. In strict interpretations of some Christian beliefs, women are seen as subject to the control of their husbands or fathers, based on interpretations of the Bible.
Christian Nation: In modern contexts, antiliberalists often believe that America fundamentally is, and should be, a Christian nation with laws that strictly reflect Christian teachings. They argue this was the Founders' original intention, citing the religious motivations of many early settlers. This form of antiliberalism often rejects the acceptance and equal standing of other religions.
Two Main Strains of Antiliberalism
These two main strains often overlap and intertwine, particularly in the modern age:
The Racial Strain: This has been a persistent force since the founding of the country, exemplified by the rejection by slave-holding states to even countenance… (e.g., the idea of racial equality).
The Religious Strain: This strain advocates for a government guided by specific religious doctrines, often Christian, which can conflict with liberal principles of religious freedom and separation of church and state.
Historical Manifestations (1830s - Civil War)
Dreadful Compromise: (The term "Dreadful Compromise" likely refers to political compromises made in U.S. history that perpetuated slavery, such as the Three-Fifths Compromise or the Fugitive Slave Act, which demonstrated the early intertwining of racial antiliberalism into the nation's fabric).
1830 through to 1861:
North's Stance: The North increasingly argued that slavery was morally and ethically wrong, although many still believed it would eventually end on its own.
South's Concerns: The South, however, became increasingly concerned about the erosion of its political grip on Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary, which was threatened by the growing anti-slavery movement. Their focus increasingly shifted to state's rights as a means to protect the institution of slavery and white dominance.
Lincoln vs. Douglas Debates: In his debates with Abraham Lincoln, Stephen Douglas argued for "popular sovereignty," advocating that each state or territory should be allowed to vote on whether it would or would not permit slavery without interference from the Federal Government. This was contrasted by Lincoln's view that slavery was a moral wrong that should not be allowed to expand.
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): The Taney Court, in essence, upheld the practice of slavery. The ruling declared that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, were not citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. It also famously declared that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in federal territories, effectively making the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and reinforcing the idea of "once a slave, always a slave," deepening national divisions.
The Civil War (The Clearest Case of Antiliberalism)
Secession for Slavery: The Civil War was the clearest historical manifestation of the antiliberal approach. The Southern states (the Confederacy) seceded from the Union primarily to preserve slavery, which was central to their economic means and social structure.
White Supremacy: In other words, the Southern states seceded to preserve white dominance and white supremacy.
Jefferson Davis (Confederate President): Famously declared, "We are not engaged in a quixotic fight for the rights of men. Our struggle is for inherited rights… we are conservative," explicitly contrasting the Confederacy's goals with universal human rights and framing their fight as preserving an entrenched, hierarchical social order.
Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (Contrast to Antiliberalism)
Founding Principles: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
New Birth of Freedom: "[…] this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." This vision directly contrasted with what the Confederacy represented, emphasizing equality, liberty, and self-governance for all, rather than a system based on hierarchy and slavery.
Reconstruction Amendments and Their Subversion
13th Amendment: Formally abolished slavery and involuntary servitude in the United States, except as punishment for a crime.
14th Amendment: Grant (ed) citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including former slaves, and guaranteed all citizens equal civil and legal rights, including "due process of law" and "equal protection of the laws."
15th Amendment: Prohibited federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Subversion Post-Reconstruction: In spite of these transformative amendments, with the end of Reconstruction in 1877, the South systematically moved to suppress the rights of African Americans, particularly through:
Jim Crow Laws: A comprehensive system of state and local statutes that enforced racial segregation and disenfranchisement across the Southern and some border states, legalizing racial discrimination in virtually every aspect of public life.
Tyranny of Democracy at the State Level: This period can be seen as an instance of the tyranny of the majority (white citizens) at the state level, where democratic processes (involving only white voters) were used to systematically deny rights to a minority (African Americans).
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): The Supreme Court invoked the doctrine of "separate but equal," ruling that racial segregation was constitutional as long as the separate facilities provided for each race were ostensibly of equal quality. This legal doctrine provided the federal imprimatur for Jim Crow laws for over 50 years.
Further Historical Events Leading to Antiliberal Resurgence
Ben Tillman: A prominent South Carolina governor and later U.S. Senator until 1918. He was a populist leader and commander of the "Red Shirts," a paramilitary white supremacist group. Tillman openly admitted that he and his groups gained power through force and fraud against Black citizens and political liberals. He famously declared, "White men would always resist attacks on their power." His brother openly argued that if Southern men were truly free, they would have "negro slavery" instead of "negro suffrage," illustrating the deep-seated antiliberal, racist ideology.
President Wilson (1913-1921): Segregated his Administration, rolling back progress made during the Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction eras for Black civil servants.
1930s Support for Fascism and Nazism: During the 1930s, there was a measurable amount of support across America for fascism and Nazism after the rise of Hitler. This included various groups, some of which sought to arm themselves to overthrow the Federal government. While many were not highly competent and were often monitored by the FBI and civil rights groups, their existence highlights a persistent anti-democratic undercurrent.
Persistence of Jim Crow: Jim Crow laws remained firmly entrenched in the South through this period.
After WWII - McCarthyism (1950s): Senator Joseph McCarthy led an aggressive campaign against alleged communists and socialist sympathizers, which was seen by some as an attack on the federal government and the liberal system itself. He was ultimately exposed as a fraud, but his activities reveal a strain of anti-democratic fervor.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954): This watershed decision, ending segregation in public schools, was a major blow to racial antiliberalism.
Southern Manifesto (1956): In response to Brown, 101 Southern members of Congress signed a "Manifesto," calling on states to refuse to obey desegregation orders. They argued that only states, not the Court or the Federal Government, could decide such matters, attempting to reassert states' rights in defense of racial hierarchy.
Resurgence of White Terror Groups: The Ku Klux Klan re-emerged and merged with White Citizens Councils, terrorizing the Black population through threats and violence to maintain segregation and suppress civil rights.
The 1960s and Beyond
Decade of Turmoil: The 1960s were marked by significant social and political upheaval:
Anti-Vietnam War Protests: Starting in 1967-68, widespread anti-war and anti-draft protests challenged governmental authority.
Urban Riots: Events like the Watts Riots (1965), where hundreds of buildings burned over six days, and occasional large-scale riots elsewhere through the end of the 1960s, highlighted deep-seated racial and social unrest.
1971 – Roe v. Wade (1973): This Supreme Court decision, legalizing abortion nationwide, provoked significant concern among church leaders (both Protestant and Roman Catholic) about the state of American values post-1960s. The decision, alongside the burgeoning women's movement, was seen by some as liberating women and challenging traditional gender roles.
Rise of the Moral Majority (1979): Jerry Falwell, a prominent religious leader and televangelist, founded the Moral Majority. Its primary aim was to advance conservative social values, notably opposing abortion, pornography, the Equal Rights Amendment, and gay rights. The Moral Majority played a significant role in helping Ronald Reagan win election and reelection.
Decline and Legacy: It floundered by the end of the 1980s due to internal problems (after Falwell resigned as head) and various scandals involving televangelists. However, the Moral Majority's lasting impact was to establish the "religious right" as an influential political force in American politics, inextricably linking it with the Republican Party (GOP).
The Religious Right and Christian Nationalism
Dominionism (Christian Nationalism): This ideology, present since the 1880s, posits that Christ has rightful dominion over all things and all matters of life. It advocates for "one faith, one law, and one standard of justice"—all based strictly on interpretation of the Bible. Key thinkers in this movement often oppose democracy as a form of "heresy," believing that ultimate authority rests solely in God's law, not popular will.
1990s to 2000s: Growing Polarization and Antiliberal Integration into the GOP
Growth of Religious Right: The growth and influence of the religious (Christian) right expanded significantly through this period. They became increasingly open and vocal but also grew pessimistic that their views were being marginalized by a perceived liberal establishment (e.g., on issues of abortion and LGBTQ+ rights).
Trump - An Outcome, Not a Cause: Donald Trump's rise was arguably an outcome of almost 25 years of growing political polarization that began in the late 1980s.
Newt Gingrich's Role: Newt Gingrich, as Speaker of the House in the mid-1990s, urged the GOP to increasingly attack Democratic opponents, using harsher and more vitriolic language, contributing to a more combative political environment.
Integration of Antiliberalism: From the mid-1990s onwards (e.g., with Gingrich and his successors), the Christian right and the antiliberal South (and other similar movements elsewhere) were no longer marginalized or merely controlled by the GOP leadership. Instead, they were increasingly brought into the GOP's political tent, becoming a crucial voting bloc. By the early 2000s, the GOP had effectively become an "ingathering of antiliberalism" in America, leading antiliberals to constitute a significant portion of the party, making it harder for Republican leaders to ignore or suppress their views.
Obama’s Election as a Turning Point: Barack Obama’s election victory in 2008 was a significant turning point, especially for the antiliberal strain. This led to the "Not my president" sentiment and challenges to his eligibility, including persistent demands for his birth certificate, fueling conspiracy theories.
Emergence of the Tea Party (2010): The Tea Party movement emerged, primarily driven by concerns that the administrative state was infringing upon the rights of individuals. They vehemently opposed policies like the Affordable Care Act, which was wildly hyped with claims of "death panels" and government overreach. A key aim of the Tea Party was to diminish and/or dismantle the administrative state. Jim Jordan, a prominent leader of the Tea Party in the House, was even famously called a "legislative terrorist" by Speaker John Boehner. This movement often led to GOP majorities in Congress that made passing effective legislation exceptionally difficult.
The 2010s: Clash of Worldviews
Antiliberalism vs. Liberal Order: By the 2010s, the antiliberal strain of anti-federalism reached a point where its version of America was fundamentally at odds with the federalist, liberal idea and practice of America. The liberal order, established by the Founders and continuously elaborated, made it difficult for those with antiliberal views and beliefs to establish their preferred vision of American society and culture.
Disaffection and Perceived Oppression: In short, many (primarily white) people grew increasingly disaffected with the current form of government and the contemporary state of society and culture. Many felt that demands from minority groups for both rights and respect had gone "too far" and that they were being oppressed by liberalism itself. This sentiment is observable in conservative attacks against "wokeness" today.
Desire for System Overthrow: For some, this disaffection led to the conclusion that the only solution would be to fundamentally overthrow the existing system and the Constitution that undergirds it.
Trump (Continued) --- The Avatar of Antiliberalism
Spokesman for White Christian Supremacy: To summarize, Donald Trump successfully managed to position himself as the leading spokesman and defender of white Christian supremacy (or at least white, traditional American nationalism) in America.
Imperfect Avatar: Trump was, in many ways, an imperfect avatar for this movement. He was not a traditional, devout Christian (with a history of womanizing and other behaviors often condemned by the religious right), and he was clearly self-interested.
The "Fighter" Narrative: However, he was seen by his supporters as a "fighter" (a "David") who would take on the liberal system ("Goliath") and deliver the better system and society wanted by antiliberals, whether their views were primarily based on religious or racial sentiments.
First Term Limitations: Trump was not particularly successful in his first term in fundamentally altering the deep state or liberal order, beyond appointing three conservative Supreme Court Justices (which ultimately led to the repudiation of Roe v. Wade). He faced significant obstacles:
Lack of System Understanding: He did not fully understand the intricacies of the system or how to effectively use the levers of power available to him within established norms.
Minimal Interest in Governing: He displayed a minimal interest in the day-to-day details of governing or policy implementation.
Administrative Obstacles: He encountered resistance from career civil servants and established administrative processes.
Internal Restraints: People around him, including some in his own administration, often curbed his more radical impulses.
Learnings from First Term: Trump did learn a few key things from his first term:
Pardons: How to effectively use pardons to his advantage and reward loyalty.
Regulatory System: The degree to which the regulatory system and established bureaucracy blocked him from achieving his desires.
2025 Preparedness: Hypothetically, in a 2025 scenario (referring to Project 2025), Trump is envisioned as surrounding himself with loyalists and acolytes, enabling a more coherent and directed plan for implementing his agenda, often referred to as "Project 2025" (a broad plan by conservative organizations to prepare for a potentially second Trump administration).
Lecture 22: The Authoritarian’s Playbook
The Authoritarian’s Playbook
This lecture outlines common tactics used by authoritarian leaders and regimes, with explicit references to actions attributed to a potential Trump administration (as inferred from the "Project 2025" context):
Aggrandizing the Power of the Executive: Systematically expanding the power of the president or prime minister, often at the expense of legislative or judicial checks.
Politicizing Independent Institutions: Subverting or gaining control over formerly neutral institutions of government and civil society (e.g., judiciary, civil service, media, educational bodies).
Spreading Disinformation: Deliberately disseminating false, misleading, or biased information to manipulate public opinion, discredit opponents, and sow confusion.
Quashing Dissent: Suppressing opposition, criticism, and independent voices through various means, including legal, economic, or coercive measures.
Targeting Marginalized Communities: Singling out specific ethnic, religious, racial, or social groups for discrimination, intimidation, or punitive actions.
Corrupting Elections: Undermining the integrity of electoral processes through methods such as rigged votes, challenging legitimate results, or demands to inspect voting machines.
Stoking Violence: Inciting or condoning political violence to intimidate opposition or consolidate power.
Federal Law Enforcement Overreach: Abusing the power of federal law enforcement agencies for political purposes.
Military on the Streets: Deploying military forces for domestic law enforcement, blurring the lines between military and civilian authority.
Rewarding Family, Friends, and Loyal Followers: Implementing patronage systems that disproportionately benefit personal connections and loyal supporters, often disregarding merit or established procedure.
Aggrandizing the Power of the Executive (Specific Actions)
Manufacturing National Emergencies: Trump has declared national emergencies on what some critics consider false pretenses. This tactic allows the executive to argue that a manufactured "threat" requires the exercise of unusual and expanded presidential powers, bypassing normal legislative or regulatory processes.
Examples of Use of Manufactured Emergencies:
Trade: To sidestep Congress and impose tariffs (e.g., on steel and aluminum).
Regulation: To deregulate industries, such as the energy sector, without congressional approval.
Immigration: To intensify immigration enforcement and build border barriers.
Domestic Order: To send the National Guard into Washington D.C. for political events or protests.
International Incidents (Hypothetical): The claim that a Venezuelan gang invaded the U.S. being used to justify the killing of foreign civilians in international waters, in defiance of both U.S. and international law (presented as a hypothetical or projected future action).
Bypassing or Neutering the Legislature: The core aim is to diminish the constitutional role and authority of Congress.
Power of the Purse (Article I): The Constitution clearly states in Article I that Congress alone has the power of the purse. Actions that undermine this system include:
Withholding Authorized Funding: Withholding funding authorized by Congress for various programs, such as libraries, preschools, scientific research, and disaster response. This violates the Impoundment Control Act, which establishes a legal process for the president to request Congress to cancel previously approved funding.
Gutting Agencies: Gutting or dismantling congressionally authorized agencies (e.g., Department of Education, US AID) by reducing their budgets, staffing, or mandates without direct legislative action.
Imposing Taxes Without Congress: Imposing new taxes (e.g., his tariffs) without explicit congressional approval, which traditionally is a power reserved for the legislature.
Using Private Donations: During government shutdowns or other funding impasses, using donations from billionaires to pay federal personnel (e.g., troops) or finance governmental projects (e.g., the construction of a ballroom at the White House for political use), bypassing congressional appropriations.
Governing Through Executive Orders: Extensive use of Executive Orders to enact policy without congressional involvement. As of November 27, 2025 (a hypothetical future date), a president could have signed a significant number of Executive Orders (e.g., 217), demonstrating a preference for unilateral executive action over legislative process.
Politicizing Independent Institutions (Specific Actions)
Law Firms:
Threats and Coercion: Threatened to block law firms from any work related to the federal government if they did not align with the administration's agenda.
Pro Bono Work: Firms that capitulated often gave the administration pro bono (free) legal work, sometimes amounting to as much as 100 million worth of time, effectively converting private legal resources into political tools.
Resistance: Firms that resisted and challenged these demands in court largely won their cases, indicating the pressure was often legally dubious.
Education/Universities:
Withholding Grant Funds: Withheld federal grant funds from universities that were deemed uncooperative or promoting ideologies contrary to the administration's views.
Antisemitism Investigations: Launched investigations into antisemitism on campuses, which, while sometimes legitimate, could also be used to target institutions or academic departments.
Settlement Deals: Reached deals with major universities (e.g., Columbia), where institutions paid significant fines (e.g., 200 million) and acquiesced to a range of changes regarding their operations and curriculum.
Control of the Media:
Limiting Access: Limited access for journalists at the White House and Pentagon, restricting the flow of information.
Legal Challenges: Sued media outlets for libel, often based on puerile (trivial or unsubstantiated) claims. The goal was less about winning the suits and more about imposing costs (time and money) and making media outlets more cautious in their reporting.
Attacking Reporters: Publicly attacked and denigrated reporters and news organizations, often labeling them "fake news" or "enemies of the people," to erode public trust in independent journalism.
Cultural Institutions:
Taking Control: Actions such as attempting to take control of the Smithsonian Institution and the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, traditionally independent cultural bodies.
Building Monuments: Promoting the construction of monuments (e.g., an "East Wing ballroom," "Arc de Trump") that reflect a particular ideological vision.
Changing Culture: The overarching goal of controlling education, universities, and cultural institutions is to change the prevailing culture. This aims to shift it away from what is perceived as "too liberal" by antiliberals, towards one that aligns more with their ideal of a white