Modulei 10: State Government module 10 banner Module Objectives Upon completion of this module, the learner will be able to: Explain how the balance of power between national and state governments shifted with the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. Identify the formal powers and responsibilities of modern-day governors. List the basic functions performed by state legislatures. Describe how state legislatures vary in size, diversity, party composition, and professionalism. State Power & Delegation When the framers met at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, they had many competing tensions to resolve. For instance, they had to consider how citizens would be represented in the national government, given population differences between the states. In addition, they had to iron out differences of opinion about where to concentrate political power. Would the legislative branch have more authority than the executive branch, and would state governments retain as many rights as they had enjoyed under the Articles of Confederation? Here we look at the manner in which power was divided between the national and state governments, first under the Articles of Confederation and then under the U.S. Constitution. As you read, observe the shifting power dynamic between the national government and subnational governments at the state and local level. State Power at the Founding Before the ratification of the Constitution, the state governments’ power far exceeded that held by the national government. This distribution of authority was the result of a conscious decision and was reflected in the structure and framework of the Articles of Confederation. The national government was limited, lacking both a president to oversee domestic and foreign policy and a system of federal courts to settle disputes between the states. Restricting power at the national level gave the states a great deal of authority over and independence from the federal government. Each state legislature appointed its own Congressional representatives, subject to recall by the states, and each state was given the authority to collect taxes from its citizens. But limiting national government power was not the delegates’ only priority. They also wanted to prevent any given state from exceeding the authority and independence of the others. The delegates ultimately worked to create a level playing field between the individual states that formed the confederation. For instance, the Articles of Confederation could not be amended without the approval of each state, and each state received one vote in Congress, regardless of population. It wasn’t long after the Articles of Confederation were established that cracks began to appear in their foundation. Congress struggled to conduct business and to ensure the financial credibility of the new country’s government. One difficulty was its inability to compel the individual states to cover their portion of Revolutionary War debt. Attempts to recoup these funds through the imposition of tariffs were vetoed by states with a vested financial interest in their failure. Given the inherent weaknesses in the system set up by the Articles, in 1787 the delegates came together once again to consider amendments to the Articles, but they ended up instead considering a new design for the government. To produce more long-term stability, they needed to establish a more effective division of power between the federal and state governments. Ultimately, the framers settled on a system in which power would be shared: The national government had its core duties, the state governments had their duties, and other duties were shared equally between them. Today this structure of power sharing is referred to as federalism. An image of an original handwritten version of the Articles of Confederation. Picture 10.1. The Articles of Confederation, written in 1777 and adopted in 1781, established the first government of the United States. The Articles were replaced by the Constitution in 1787. The Constitution allocated more power to the federal government by effectively adding two new branches: a president to head the executive branch and the Supreme Court to head the judicial branch. The specific delegated or expressed powers granted to Congress and to the president were clearly spelled out in the body of the Constitution under Article I, Section 8, and Article II, Sections 2 and 3. In addition to these expressed powers, the national government was given implied powers that, while not clearly stated, are inferred. These powers stem from the elastic clause in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, which provides Congress the authority “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the Foregoing powers.” This statement has been used to support the federal government’s playing a role in controversial policy matters, such as the provision of healthcare, the expansion of power to levy and collect taxes, and regulation of interstate commerce. Finally, Article VI declared that the U.S. Constitution and any laws or treaties made in connection with that document were to supersede constitutions and laws made at the state level. This clause, better known as the supremacy clause, makes clear that any conflict in law between the central (or federal) government and the regional (or state) governments is typically resolved in favor of the central government. Although the U.S. Constitution clearly allocated more power to the federal government than had been the case under the Articles of Confederation, the framers still respected the important role of the states in the new government. The states were given a host of powers independent of those enjoyed by the national government. As one example, they now had the power to establish local governments and to account for the structure, function, and responsibilities of these governments within their state constitutions. This gave states sovereignty, or supreme and independent authority, over county, municipal, school and other special districts. States were also given the power to ratify amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Throughout U.S. history, all amendments to the Constitution except one have been proposed by Congress and then ratified by either three-fourths of the state legislatures or three-fourths of the state conventions called for ratification purposes. This process ensures that the states have a voice in any changes to the Constitution. The Twenty-First Amendment (repealing the Eighteenth Amendment’s prohibition on alcohol) was the only amendment ratified using the state ratifying convention method. Although this path has never been taken, the U.S. Constitution even allows for state legislatures to take a direct and very active role in the amendment proposal process. If at least two-thirds of the state legislatures apply for a national convention, constitutional amendments can be proposed at the convention. Despite the Constitution’s broad grants of state authority, one of the central goals of the Anti-Federalists, a group opposed to several components of the Constitution, was to preserve state government authority, protect the small states, and keep government power concentrated in the hands of the people. For this reason, the Tenth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to create a class of powers, known as reserved powers, exclusive to state governments. The amendment specifically reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In essence, if the Constitution does not decree that an activity should be performed by the national government and does not restrict the state government from engaging in it, then the state is seen as having the power to perform the function. In other words, the power is reserved to the states. Besides reserved powers, the states also retained concurrent powers, or responsibilities shared with the national government. As part of this package of powers, the state and federal governments each have the right to collect income tax from their citizens and corporate tax from businesses. They also share responsibility for building and maintaining the network of interstates and highways and for making and enforcing laws. For instance, many state governments have laws regulating motorcycle and bicycle helmet use, banning texting and driving, and prohibiting driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. table showing federal powers, concurrent powers, and state powers Figure 10.1. Examples of federal, concurrent, and state powers. On the left is an image of a sign that reads “No texting while driving”. On the right is an image of a person in the driver’s seat of a vehicle. The person is holding a phone in their hand and looking at it. Picture 10.2. State (and sometimes local) governments regulate items having to do with highway safety, such as laws against cellphone use while driving. (credit right: modification of work by “Lord Jim”/Flickr) The Evolution of State Power Throughout U.S. history, the national and state governments have battled for dominance over the implementation of public policy and the funding of important political programs. Upon taking office in 1933 during the Great Depression (1929–1939), President Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated a series of legislative proposals to boost the economy and put people back to work. The enacted programs allowed the federal government to play a broader role in revitalizing the economy while greatly expanding its power. However, this result was not without its critics. Initially, the Supreme Court overturned several key legislative proposals passed under Roosevelt, reasoning that they represented an overreach of presidential authority and were unconstitutional, such as Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. Eventually, however, the Supreme Court shifted direction to reflect public opinion, which was decisively behind the president and the need for government intervention in a time of economic turmoil. Just three decades later, during the 1964 presidential election campaign, incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a “War on Poverty,” instituting a package of Great Society programs designed to improve circumstances for lower-income Americans across the nation. The new programs included Medicare and Medicaid, which are health insurance programs for seniors and low-income citizens respectively, and the food stamp program, which provides food assistance to low-income families. These initiatives greatly expanded the role of the federal government in providing a social safety net. State and local governments became partners in their implementation and also came to rely on the financial support they received from the federal government in the form of program grants. As the federal government’s role in policy creation expanded, so did its level of spending. Spending by the federal government began to surpass that of state and local governments shortly after 1940. It spiked temporarily during the Great Depression and again during World War II, resuming a slow climb with the implementation of Johnson’s Great Society programs noted above. A graph titled “Federal Spending vs. State and Local Spending”. The x-axis of the graph is labeled “Year” and reads from left to right “1930”, “1940”, “1950”, “1960”, “1970”, “1980”, “1990”, “2000”, “2010”, and “2020”. The y-axis is labeled “Expenditure as percent of GDP” and reads from bottom to top “5%”, “10%”, “15%”, “20%”, “25%”, “30%”, “35%”, “40%”, and “45%”. A line labeled “Federal” starts around 4% in 1930, rises to around 10% in 1940, rises sharply to around 40% around 1945, drops sharply to around 15% in 1960, increases to around 20% in 1970, increases to around 23% in 1980, decreases to around 19% in 200, increases to around 25% in 2010, and ends at 32.5% in 2020. A line labeled “State” starts around 10% in 1930, rises to around 11% then drops back to around 10% in 1940, drops to around 5% then rises to around 8% in 1950, rises to around 10% in 1960, rises to around 13% in 1970, rises to around 14% then drops back around 13% in 1980, maintains around 13% in 1990, rises to around 14% in 2000, rises to around 16% in 2010, and ends at 14.3% in 2020. At the bottom of the graph a source is cited: “U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. NIPA table 1.1.5: “Gross Domestic Product.” April 29, 2021. NIPA Table 3.2: “Federal Government Current Receipts and Expenditures.” April 29, 2021. NIPA Table 3.3: “State and Local Government Current Receipts and Expenditures.” April 29, 2021. Figure 10.2. After spiking during World War II, spending by the federal government has consistently exceeded that of state and local governments. Since 2000, the gap between federal and state spending has widened considerably. An upswing is evident with the Great Recession (2008–10) and federal spending escalated as COVID-19 became the dominant policy issue in 2020. Growing financial resources gave the federal government increased power over subnational governments. This increased power was because it could use categorical grants to dictate the terms and conditions state governments had to meet to qualify for financial assistance in a specific policy area. Over time, the federal government even began to require state and local governments to comply with legislative and executive authorizations when funding was not attached. These requests from the federal government are referred to as unfunded mandates and are a source of dissatisfaction to political actors at the state and local level. To provide more transparency to state and local governments and reduce the federal government’s use of mandates, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was passed in 1995. This act requires the Congressional Budget Office to provide information about the cost of any proposed government mandate that exceeds a specified threshold before the bill can be considered in Congress. Despite the national government’s power to pass and fund policy that affects lower-level governments, states still have gained considerable headway since the late twentieth century. For instance, with the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in 1996, known as the welfare reform bill, states were given great discretion over the provision of welfare. The federal government reduced its level of monetary support for the program and, in exchange, the states gained more authority over its implementation. States were able to set more restrictive work requirements, to place caps on the number of family members who could receive aid, and to limit the length of time someone could qualify for government assistance. Since then, states have been granted the flexibility to set policy across a number of controversial policy areas. For instance, a wide array of states require parental consent for abortions performed on minors, set waiting periods before an abortion can be performed, or require patients to undergo an ultrasound before the procedure. As another example, currently, almost half the states allow for the use of medical marijuana and sixteen more states have fully legalized it, despite the fact that this practice stands in contradiction to federal law that prohibits the use and distribution of marijuana. Today, it is not uncommon to see a patchwork of legal decisions granting states more discretion in some policy areas, such as marijuana use, while providing the federal government more authority in others, such as same-sex marriage. Decisions about which level controls policy can reflect the attitudes of government officials and the public, political ideology and the strategic advantage of setting policy on a state-by-state basis, and the necessity of setting uniform policy in the face of an economic downturn or unanticipated national security threat. What has not changed over time is the central role of the U.S. Supreme Court’s views in determining how power should be distributed in a federalist system. Governors & State Legislatures Public opinion regarding Congress has reached a dismal low, with more than 80 percent of those surveyed in 2014 saying they do not feel most members of Congress deserve to be reelected. This attitude stems from partisan rivalry, media coverage that has capitalized on the conflict, fiscal shutdowns, and the general perception that Congress is no longer engaged in lawmaking. The picture looks quite different at the subnational level, at least where lawmaking is concerned. State representatives and senators have been actively engaged in the lawmaking function, grabbing national attention at times for their controversial and highly partisan policies. Governors have been active in promoting their own policy agendas, either in cooperation with the state legislature or in opposition to it. Among the early 2016 Republican presidential contenders, nine were current or former state governors. In the Democratic field in 2020, four current or former state governors pursued the nomination.30 Increasingly, governors are using their office and the policies they have signed into law as a platform to gain national attention and to give voters a sense of their priorities should they ascend to the highest office in the country, the presidency. Governors in Charge Anyone elected to the office of governor assumes tremendous responsibility overnight. He or she becomes the spokesperson for the entire state and their political party, accepts blame or praise for handling decision-making in times of crisis, oversees the implementation of public policy, and helps shepherd legislation through the lawmaking process. These tasks require a great deal of skill and demand that governors exhibit different strengths and personality traits. Governors must learn to work well with other lawmakers, bureaucrats, cabinet officials, and with the citizens who elected them to office in the first place. The ongoing water crisis in Flint, Michigan, provides a good case in point. The COVID-19 pandemic put every governor in the hot seat as they considered decisions on masks, social distancing, and how to allocate federal funds. A photo shows Gretchen Whitmer standing outside of an urban building being briefed by a person in military uniform. Two other people in military uniforms and a plainclothed person are at the briefing. Picture 10.3. Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer is briefed by the military on the potential to convert the TCF Center, a convention venue in downtown Detroit, into a medical site to care for persons with COVID-19. Governors have tremendous power over the legislative branch because they serve year-round and hold office alone. They also command wide press coverage by virtue of being the leading elected official in their state. Finally, while there are variations in degree across the states, most governors have more power relative to their state legislatures than does the U.S. president relative to the U.S. Congress. State executive power flows from factors such as the propensity of state legislatures to meet for only part of the year and their resulting reliance for information on the governor and his/her administration, stronger formal tools (e.g., line-item vetoes), budget-cutting discretion, and the fact that state legislators typically hold down another job besides that of legislator. Three of the governor’s chief functions are to influence the legislative process through an executive budget proposal, a policy agenda, and vetoes. Just as the president gives a State of the Union address once a year, so too do governors give an annual State of the State address before the state legislature. In this speech, they discuss economic and political achievements, cite data that supports their accomplishments, and overview the major items on their legislative agenda. This speech signals to members of the state legislature what priorities are high on the governor’s list. Those who share the governor’s party affiliation will work with the governor to see these goals achieved. Given that governors need the cooperation of state legislators to get their bills introduced and steered through the lawmaking process, they make developing good relationships with lawmakers a priority. This can entail helping lawmakers address the concerns of their constituents, inviting legislators to social events and meals, and scheduling weekly meetings with legislative leaders and committee chairs to discuss policy. An image of Nikki Haley standing behind a podium. Picture 10.4. Then-governor Nikki Haley delivers her 2015 State of the State address from the State House in Columbia, South Carolina, on January 21, 2015. In addition to providing a basic list of policy priorities, governors also initiate a budget proposal in most states. Here they indicate funding priorities and spell out the amounts that will be appropriated to various state agencies under their discretion. When the economy is strong, governors may find themselves in the enviable position of having a surplus of tax revenue. That allows them some flexibility to decide whether they want to reduce taxes, direct funds toward a new initiative or program, allocate more funds to current programs, restore funds that were cut during times of fiscal distress, or save surplus revenue in a rainy-day account. Moreover, when cuts must be made, especially when the legislature is not in session, it is typically the governor or their finance director who makes the call on what gets cut. Having introduced their priorities, the governor will work on the sidelines to steer favored bills through the legislative process. This may entail holding meetings with committee chairs or other influential lawmakers concerning their legislative priorities, working with the media to try to get favorable coverage of legislative priorities, targeting advocacy organizations to maintain pressure on resistant lawmakers, or testifying in legislative hearings about the possible impacts of the legislation. Once legislation has made its way through the lawmaking process, it comes to the governor’s desk for signature. If a governor signs the bill, it becomes law, and if the governor does not like the terms of the legislation they can veto, or reject, the entire bill. The bill can then become law only if a supermajority of legislators overrides the veto by voting in favor of the bill. Since it is difficult for two-thirds or more of state legislators to come together to override a veto (it requires many members of the governor’s own party to vote against the governor), the simple act of threatening to veto can be enough to get legislators to make concessions to the governor before the governor will pass the legislation. The ability to veto legislation is just one of the formal powers governors have at their disposal. Formal powers are powers the governor may exercise that are specifically outlined in state constitutions or state law. Unlike U.S. presidents, many governors also have additional veto powers at their disposal, which enhances their ability to check the actions of the legislative branch. For instance, most states provide governors the power of the line-item veto. The line-item veto gives governors the ability to strike out a line or individual portions of a bill while letting the remainder pass into law. In addition, approximately 30 percent of governors have the power of an amendatory veto, which allows them to send a bill back to the legislature and request a specific amendment to it. Finally, a small number of governors, including the governor of Texas, also have the power of a reduction veto, which allows them to reduce the budget proposed in a piece of legislation. Besides the formal power to prepare the budget and veto legislation, legislators also have the power to call special sessions of the legislature for a wide array of reasons. For instance, sessions may be called to address budgetary issues during an economic downturn, to put together a redistricting plan, or to focus intensively on a particular issue the governor wants rectified immediately. In some states, only the governor has the power to call a special session, while in other states this power is shared between the legislative and the executive branches. Although governors have a great deal of power in the legislative arena, this is not their only area of influence. First, as leaders in their political party, governors often work to raise money for other political figures who are up for reelection. A governor who has high public approval ratings may also make campaign appearances on behalf of candidates in tough reelection fights across the state. Governors can draw in supporters, contributions, and media attention that can be beneficial to other political aspirants, and the party will expect them to do their part to ensure the greatest possible number of victories for their candidates. Second, as the spokesperson for their state, governors make every effort to sell the state’s virtues and unique characteristics, whether to the media, to other citizens across the United States, to potential business owners, or to legislative leaders in Washington, DC. Governors want to project a positive image of their state that will encourage tourism, relocation, and economic investment within its boundaries. Collectively, governors make a mark through the National Governors Association, which is a powerful lobbying force in the nation’s capital. For example, Texas governor Greg Abbott made headlines in 2015 for writing to the CEO of General Electric (GE), urging the company to relocate its corporate headquarters from Connecticut, which had just raised its corporate tax rate, to Texas. As his state’s spokesperson, Abbott promoted Texas’s friendly corporate tax structure and investment in transportation and education funding in hopes of enticing GE to relocate there and bring economic opportunities with it. The company has since decided to relocate to Boston, after receiving incentives, worth up to $145 million, from Massachusetts officials. Another example involved Texas governor Rick Perry touring California in 2014 in order to bring prospective businesses from the Golden State to Texas. In what was arguably the biggest round of lobbying by state and local governments toward a big business, Amazon recently conducted a search for a second corporate headquarters. After months of consideration, hundreds of op-eds extolling the virtues of locating in particular communities, Amazon picked two sites—Arlington, Virginia and Long Island City, New York—where it plans to spend over $2 billion at each site. In March 2015, the governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, and the mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, both sent letters to corporate heads in Indiana after controversy erupted around the passage of that state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This bill is designed to restrict government intrusion into people’s religious beliefs unless there is a compelling state interest. It also provides individuals and businesses with the ability to sue if they feel their religious rights have been violated. However, opponents feared the law would be used as a means to discriminate against members of the LGBTQ community, based on business owners’ religious objections to providing services for same-sex couples. In the media firestorm that followed the Indiana law’s passage, several prominent companies announced they would consider taking their business elsewhere or cancelling event contracts in the state if the bill were not amended. This led opportunistic leaders in the surrounding area to make appeals to these companies in the hope of luring them out of Indiana. Ultimately, the bill was clarified, likely due in part to corporate pressure on the state to do so. The clarification made it clear that the law could not be used to refuse employment, housing, or service based on an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Controversial legislation like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is only one of the many environmental factors that can make or break a governor’s reputation and popularity. Other challenges and crises that may face governors include severe weather, terrorist attacks, immigration challenges, and budget shortfalls. New Jersey governor Chris Christie gained national attention in 2012 over his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, which caused an estimated $65 billion worth of damage and cost the lives of over 150 individuals along the East Coast of the United States. Christie was famously photographed with President Obama during their joint tour of the damaged areas, and the governor subsequently praised the president for his response. Some later criticized Christie for his remarks because of the close proximity between the president’s visit and Election Day, along with the fact that the Republican governor and Democratic president were from opposite sides of the political aisle. Critics felt the governor had betrayed his party and that the publicity helped the president win reelection. Others praised the governor for cooperating with the president and reaching across the partisan divide to secure federal support for his state in a time of crisis. Image A is of Chris Christie and Barack Obama standing on a sidewalk with another person. Image B is of Chris Christie and Barack Obama in a room full of people. Picture 10.5. New Jersey governor Chris Christie (right) hosted President Obama (center) during the president’s visit to the state in October 2012 following the destruction brought by Hurricane Sandy (a). After viewing the damage along the coastline of Brigantine, New Jersey, Christie and Obama visited residents at the Brigantine Beach Community Center (b). If severe winter weather is forecasted or in the event of civil unrest, governors also have the power to call upon the National Guard to assist residents and first responders or aid in storm recovery. When governors declare a state of emergency, National Guard troops can be activated to go into local areas and assist with emergency efforts in whatever capacity they are needed. In 2015, many governors in the New England region called press conferences, worked with snow-removal crews and local government officials, set up emergency shelters, and activated travel bans or curfews in the face of crippling snowstorms. When winter storms fail to bring predicted levels of snow, however, politicians can be left to field criticism that they instigated unnecessary panic. However, it is a potential catch-22 because if storms end up worse than expected, elected leaders get hammered. For example, a lengthy freeze in south Texas, where even one winter day below freezing is highly unusual, led to a tragic disaster when electrical capacity failed, water pipes froze, and supplies of drinking water were deemed unsafe. A total of 111 people died during the episode and the Texas power grid was within minutes of a total collapse; government officials mandated blackouts, even as people experienced below freezing temperatures.55 Governors feel the weight of their decisions as they try to balance the political risks of overreacting and the human costs of letting the state be caught unprepared for these and other major natural disasters. As the chief spokesperson, they take all the blame or all the credit for their actions. With that said, it is important to note that presidents can enlist the National Guard for federal service as well. President Biden tours an emergency operations center in Houston and meets with Greg Abbott. Picture 10.6. During the record-breaking freeze of 2021, President Biden met in Houston with Texas governor Greg Abbott and other state and local leaders. Governors also have the power to spare or enhance the lives of individuals convicted of crimes in their state. Although they may choose to exercise this formal power only during the closing days of their term, if at all, most governors have the authority to grant pardons just as U.S. presidents do. A pardon absolves someone of blame for a crime and can secure their release from prison. Governors can also commute sentences, reducing the time an individual must serve, if there are doubts about the person’s guilt, concerns about mental health, or reason to feel the punishment was inappropriately harsh. In the past ten years, the governors of New Jersey and Illinois have commuted the sentences of all inmates on death row before repealing the death penalty in their states. Despite the tremendous formal powers that go with the job, being governor is still personally and professionally challenging. The demands of the job are likely to restrict time with family and require forgoing privacy. In addition, governors will often face circumstances beyond their control. For instance, the state legislature may include a majority of members who do not share the governor’s party affiliation. This can make working together more challenging and lead to less cooperation during the legislative session. Another challenge for governors is the plural executive, which refers to the fact that many state officials, such as the lieutenant governor, attorney general, and secretary of state are elected independently from the governor; hence, the governor has no direct control over them the way a president might have sway over U.S. executive officials. Governors can also face spending restrictions due to the economic climate in their state. They may have to make unpopular decisions that weaken their support among voters. The federal government can mandate that states perform some function without giving them any funds to do so. Finally, as we saw above, governors can be swept up in crises or natural disasters they did not anticipate and could not have foreseen. This can drain their energy and hamper their ability to generate good public policy. The Functions of State Legislatures State legislatures serve three primary functions. They perform a lawmaking function by researching, writing, and passing legislation. Members represent their districts and work to meet requests for help from citizens within it. Finally, legislatures perform an oversight function for the executive branch. All state representatives and senators serve on committees that examine, research, investigate, and vote on legislation that relates to the committee’s purpose, such as agriculture, transportation, or education. The number of bills introduced in any given session varies. Some state legislatures have more restrictive rules concerning the number of bills any one member can sponsor. Legislators get ideas for bills from lobbyists of various types of interest groups, ranging from corporate groups to labor unions to advocacy organizations. Ideas for bills also come from laws passed in other state legislatures, from policy that diffuses from the federal government, from constituents or citizens in the officeholder’s district who approach them with problems they would like to see addressed with new laws, and from their own personal policy agenda, which they brought to office with them. Finally, as we explored previously, legislators also work with the governor’s agenda in the course of each legislative session, and they must pass a budget for their state either every year or every two years. Most bills die in committee and never receive a second or third reading on the floor of the legislature. Lawmaking requires frequent consensus, not just among the legislators in a given house but also between the two chambers. In order for a bill to become law, it must pass through both the state house and the state senate in identical form before going to the governor’s desk for final signature. Besides generating public policy, state legislatures try to represent the interests of their constituents. Edmund Burke was a political philosopher who theorized that representatives are either delegates or trustees. A delegate legislator represents the will of those who elected the legislator to office and acts in their expressed interest, even when it goes against personal belief about what is ultimately in the constituency’s best interest. On the other hand, trustees believe they were elected to exercise their own judgment and know best because they have the time and expertise to study and understand an issue. Thus, a trustee will be willing to vote against the desire of the constituency so long as the trustee believes it is in the people’s best interest. A trustee will also be more likely to vote by conscience on issues that are personal to the trustee, such as on same-sex marriage or abortion rights. Regardless of whether representatives adopt a delegate or a trustee mentality, they will all see it as their duty to address the concerns and needs of the people they represent. Typically, this will entail helping members in the district who need assistance or have problems with the government they want addressed. For instance, a constituent may write an elected official asking for help dealing with the bureaucracy such as in a decision made by tax commission, requesting a letter of recommendation for acceptance into a military academy, or proposing a piece of legislation the member can help turn into a law. Legislators also try to bring particularized benefits back to their district. These benefits might include money that can be spent on infrastructure improvements or grants for research. Finally, members will accept requests from local government officials or other constituents to attend parades, ribbon-cutting ceremonies, or other celebratory events within their district. They will also work with teachers and faculty to visit classes or meet with students on field trips to the state capitol. An image of Mitch Landrieu standing in the middle of a group of people who are playing various instruments. A streetcar is in the background. Picture 10.7. To celebrate the opening of the new Loyola Avenue streetcar line, the mayor of New Orleans, Mitch Landrieu, marched with the St. Augustine “Marching 100” on January 28, 2013. The last primary function of state legislators is to oversee the bureaucracy’s implementation of public policy, ensuring it occurs in the manner the legislature intended. State legislatures may request that agency heads provide testimony about spending in hearings, or they may investigate particular bureaucratic agencies to ensure that funds are being disbursed as desired. Since legislators have many other responsibilities and some meet for only a few months each year, they may wait to investigate until a constituent or lobbyist brings a problem to their attention. The Composition of State Legislatures In most states, the legislative function is divided between two bodies: a state house and a state senate. The only exception is Nebraska, which has a unicameral state senate of forty-nine members. State legislatures vary a great deal in terms of the number of legislators in the house and senate, the range of diversity across the membership, the partisan composition of the chamber relative to the governor’s affiliation, and the degree of legislative professionalism. This variation can lead to differences in the type of policies passed and the amount of power legislatures wield relative to that of the governor. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, at forty members, Alaska’s is the smallest state (or lower) house, while New Hampshire’s is the largest at four hundred. State senates range in size from twenty members in Alaska to sixty-seven members in Minnesota. The size of the institution can have consequences for the number of citizens each member represents; larger bodies have a smaller legislator-to-constituent ratio (assuming even populations). Larger institutions can also complicate legislative business because reaching consensus is more difficult with more participants. The term length in the state house is frequently two years, while in the state senate it is more commonly four years. These differences have consequences, too, because representatives in the state house, with the next election always right around the corner, will need to focus on their reelection campaigns more frequently than senators. On the other hand, state senators may have more time to focus on public policy and become policy generalists because they each must serve on multiple committees due to their smaller numbers. In 2021, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, women made up 30.6 percent of the nation’s state legislators. However, the number varies a great deal across states. For instance, in Arizona and Vermont, women account for around 40 percent of the state legislative membership. However, they make up less than 16 percent of the legislatures in Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming. A map of the United States titled “Percentage of Women in State Legislature, but State, 2021”. These states are 10-19%: WY, LA, MS, AL, TN, SC, WV. These states are 20-29%: UT, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, IA, MO, AR, IN, KY, PA, NC. These states are 30-39%: AK, HI, CA, ID, MT, MN, WI, IL, MI, OH, GA, FL, VA, DE, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, NH. These states are 40-49%: WA, OR, CO, NM, AZ, ME, VT, RI, MD. These states are 50-59%: DC. These states are 60-69%: NV. Figure 10.3. In 2021, only 31 percent of state legislators across the United States were women. However, the percentage of women in state legislature varies greatly from state to state. Data on minority representatives is more difficult to obtain, but 2019 estimates from Emory University professor Beth Reingold paired with census estimates from 2019 show that African Americans and Latinos are both underrepresented in state government relative to their percentage of the population. In 2009, African Americans made up 9.3 percent of state legislators, compared to the 13.4 percent of the population they constitute nationwide. On the other hand, Latino representatives made up 4.4 percent of state legislators, despite accounting for 18.5 percent of the total population in the United States. The proportion of Latinos in the legislature is highest in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas, while the proportion of African Americans is highest in Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi. Scholars in political science have spent a great deal of time researching the impact of women and minorities on the legislative process and on voter participation and trust. Some research demonstrates that female and minority representatives are more likely to advocate for policies that are of interest to or will benefit minorities, women, and children. Other research suggests that the presence of African American and Latino representatives increases voter turnout by these groups. Thus, increased diversity in state legislatures can have consequences for voter engagement and for the type of legislation pursued and passed within these bodies. As of early February 2021, thirty states had Republican majorities in the state house and senate, while in eighteen states Democratic majorities were the norm. In only one state, Minnesota, party control was split so that the Democratic Party maintained control of one house while the Republican Party maintained control of the other. The figure below illustrates the partisan composition across the United States. Note that states in New England and the West Coast are more likely to be unified behind the Democratic Party, while Republicans control legislatures throughout the South and in large parts of the Midwest. This alignment largely reflects differing political ideologies, with the more liberal, urban areas of the country leaning Democratic while the more conservative, rural areas are Republican. A map shows legislative control of state house and senate by state as of 2021. These states are marked “Republican”: AK, ID, MT, WY, UT, AZ, ND, SD, KS, OK, TX, IA, MO, AR, LA, WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, KY, WV, TN, NC, MS, AL, GA, FL, SC NH. These states are marked “Democrat”: WA, OR, CA, NV, CO, NM, IL, ME, VT, NY, MA, RI, CT, NJ, DE, MD, DC, VA. Minnesota is marked “split”. Nebraska is marked “Nonpartisan and Unicameral”. Figure 10.4. This map illustrates which party is in control of the house and senate within each state. When one party controls the senate and another party controls the house, the partisan composition is split. Like diversity, party composition has consequences for policymaking. Governors who are not from the same party as the one controlling the legislature can find it more difficult to achieve their agenda. This governing circumstance is popularly referred to as divided government. In a time of divided government, a governor may have to work harder to build relationships and to broker consensus. In addition, when state party control is divided between the legislative and executive branches, the governor may find that legislators are more likely to muster the numbers to overturn at least some of their vetoes. In contrast, when the governor’s own party controls the legislature—a situation known as unified government—conventional wisdom suggests that they will have a smoother and more productive relationship with the legislature. Party composition also matters for the overall legislative agenda. The party in power will elect party members to the top leadership posts in the state house and senate, and it will determine who sits on each of the committees. Committees are chaired by members of the majority party, and the composition of these committees is skewed toward members affiliated with the party in power. This gives the majority party an advantage in meeting its policy objectives and relegates the minority party to the position of obstructionists. In addition, while Republicans and Democrats are both concerned about education, health care, transportation, and other major policy areas, the two parties have different philosophies about what is in the best interest of their citizens and where funds should be allocated to meet those needs. The result is vastly different approaches to handling pressing public policy problems across the states. As a whole, state legislatures have become progressively more professional. Political scientist Peverill Squire, at several points throughout his career, has measured the degree of state legislative professionalism with a ranking across the fifty states. Legislative professionalism is assessed according to three key factors: state legislators’ salary, the length of time they are in session, and the number of staff at their disposal. Members of professional or full-time legislatures tend to consider legislative service their full-time occupation, and they are paid enough not to require a second occupation. They also have larger staffs to assist with their work, and they tend to be in session for much of the year. On the other end of the spectrum are citizen, or part-time, legislatures. Representatives and senators in these legislatures do not enjoy the same perks as their counterparts in professional legislatures. Generally, salary is much lower and so is staff assistance. Members typically need to seek outside employment to supplement their income from legislative work, and the legislature will meet for only a brief period of time during the year. Between these two extremes are hybrid legislatures. Their members are compensated at a higher rate than in citizen legislatures, but they are still likely to need outside employment to make an income equal to what they were making prior to taking office. These representatives and senators will have some staff assistance but not as much as in a professional legislature. Finally, members in hybrid legislatures will not consider their service to constitute a full-time occupation, but they will spend more than part of their time conducting legislative business. As Figure 10.4 shows, California, New York, and Pennsylvania are home to some of the most professional legislatures in the country. On the other hand, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Wyoming, and South Dakota are among the states that rank lowest on legislative professionalism. A map of the United States titled “Level of Professionalism Within State Legislatures, 2008”. California, Pennsylvania, and New York are marked “Full-time, high salary, large staff”. Alaska, Florida, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Massachusetts, are marked “Full-time, moderately high salary, moderately large staff”. Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginal, DC, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Hawaii are marked “Hybrid”. Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Kansas, Mississippi, Georgia, West Virginia, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Maine are marked “Part-time, moderately low salary, moderately small staff”. Montana, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, and New Hampshire are marked “Part-time, low salary, low staff”. Figure 10.5. This map illustrates the degree of professionalism within state legislatures. States in purple and green tend to meet full-time and have larger staff and salaries, while the opposite conditions exist in states colored in orange and red. States in blue fall somewhere in the middle of these conditions. Like the other indicators discussed above, legislative professionalism also affects the business of state legislatures. In professional legislatures, elections tend to be more competitive, and the cost of running for a seat is higher because the benefits of being elected are greater. This makes these seats more attractive, and candidates will tend not to run unless they perceive themselves as well qualified. Since the benefits are more generous, elected officials will tend to stay in office longer and develop more policy expertise as a result. This experience can give professional legislatures an edge when dealing with the governor, because they are likely to be in session for about the same amount of time per year as the governor and have the necessary staff to assist them with researching and writing public policy. Practice Question 10.1 ________ are officeholders who represent the will of those who elected them and act in constituents’ expressed interest. The Dual Court System Before the writing of the U.S. Constitution and the establishment of the permanent national judiciary under Article III, the states had courts. Each of the thirteen colonies had also had its own courts, based on the British common law model. The judiciary today continues as a dual court system, with courts at both the national and state levels. Both levels have three basic tiers consisting of trial courts, appellate courts, and finally courts of last resort, typically called supreme courts, at the top. A chart that demonstrates the structure of the dual court system. At the top of the chart is a box labeled “U.S. Supreme Court”. There are boxes below it on either side, arranged in the shape of a triangle. On the left hand side of the triangle are two boxes. From bottom to top, the boxes are labeled “U.S. District Courts” and “U.S. Federal Courts.” An arrow points from the top of the box labeled “U.S. District Courts” to the box labeled “U.S. Federal Courts”. An arrow points from the top of the box labeled “U.S. Federal Courts” to the box labeled “U.S. Supreme Court”. On the right hand side of the triangle are three boxes. From bottom to top, the boxes are labeled “State Trial Courts”, “Intermediate Appellate Courts”, and “State Supreme Courts”. An arrow points from the top of the box labeled “State Trial Courts” to the bottom of the box labeled “Intermediate Appellate Courts”. An arrow points from the top of the box labeled “Intermediate Appellate Courts” to the bottom of the box labeled “State Supreme Courts”. An arrow points from the top of the box labeled “State Supreme Courts” to the bottom of the box labeled “U.S. Supreme Court”. Figure 10.6. The U.S. judiciary features a dual court system comprising a federal court system and the courts in each of the fifty states. On both the federal and state sides, the U.S. Supreme Court is at the top and is the final court of appeal. To add to the complexity, the state and federal court systems sometimes intersect and overlap each other, and no two states are exactly alike when it comes to the organization of their courts. Since a state’s court system is created by the state itself, each one differs in structure, the number of courts, and even name and jurisdiction. Thus, the organization of state courts closely resembles but does not perfectly mirror the more clear-cut system found at the federal level. Still, we can summarize the overall three-tiered structure of the dual court model and consider the relationship that the national and state sides share with the U.S. Supreme Court, as illustrated in the figure above. Cases heard by the U.S. Supreme Court come from two primary pathways: (1) the circuit courts, or U.S. courts of appeals (after the cases have originated in the federal district courts), and (2) state supreme courts (when there is a substantive federal question in the case). In a later section of the chapter, we discuss the lower courts and the movement of cases through the dual court system to the U.S. Supreme Court. But first, to better understand how the dual court system operates, we consider the types of cases state and local courts handle and the types for which the federal system is better designed. Courts and Federalism Courts hear two different types of disputes: criminal and civil. Under criminal law, governments establish rules and punishments; laws define conduct that is prohibited because it can harm others and impose punishment for committing such an act. Crimes are usually labeled felonies or misdemeanors based on their nature and seriousness; felonies are the more serious crimes. When someone commits a criminal act, the government (state or national, depending on which law has been broken) charges that person with a crime, and the case brought to court contains the name of the charging government, as in Miranda v. Arizona discussed below. On the other hand, civil law cases involve two or more private (non-government) parties, at least one of whom alleges harm or injury committed by the other. In both criminal and civil matters, the courts decide the remedy and resolution of the case, and in all cases, the U.S. Supreme Court is the final court of appeal. Although the Supreme Court tends to draw the most public attention, it typically hears fewer than one hundred cases every year. In fact, the entire federal side—both trial and appellate—handles proportionately very few cases, with about 90 percent of all cases in the U.S. court system being heard at the state level. The several hundred thousand cases handled every year on the federal side pale in comparison to the several million handled by the states. State courts really are the core of the U.S. judicial system, and they are responsible for a huge area of law. Most crimes and criminal activity, such as robbery, rape, and murder, are violations of state laws, and cases are thus heard by state courts. State courts also handle civil matters; personal injury, malpractice, divorce, family, juvenile, probate, and contract disputes and real estate cases, to name just a few, are usually state-level cases. The federal courts, on the other hand, will hear any case that involves a foreign government, patent or copyright infringement, Native American rights, maritime law, bankruptcy, or a controversy between two or more states. Cases arising from activities across state lines (interstate commerce) are also subject to federal court jurisdiction, as are cases in which the United States is a party. A dispute between two parties not from the same state or nation and in which damages of at least $75,000 are claimed is handled at the federal level. Such a case is known as a diversity of citizenship case. However, some cases cut across the dual court system and may end up being heard in both state and federal courts. Any case has the potential to make it to the federal courts if it invokes the U.S. Constitution or federal law. It could be a criminal violation of federal law, such as assault with a gun, the illegal sale of drugs, or bank robbery. Or it could be a civil violation of federal law, such as employment discrimination or securities fraud. Also, any perceived violation of a liberty protected by the Bill of Rights, such as freedom of speech or the protection against cruel and unusual punishment, can be argued before the federal courts. A summary of the basic jurisdictions of the state and federal sides is provided in the table below. Table 10.1. Jurisdiction of the Courts: State vs. Federal State Courts Federal Courts Hear most day-to-day cases, covering 90 percent of all cases Hear cases that involve a “federal question,” involving the Constitution, federal laws or treaties, or a “federal party” in which the U.S. government is a party to the case Hear both civil and criminal matters Hear both civil and criminal matters, although many criminal cases involving federal law are tried in state courts Help the states retain their own sovereignty in judicial matters over their state laws, distinct from the national government Hear cases that involve “interstate” matters, “diversity of citizenship” involving parties of two different states, or between a U.S. citizen and a citizen of another nation (and with a damage claim of at least $75,000) While we may certainly distinguish between the two sides of a jurisdiction, looking on a case-by-case basis will sometimes complicate the seemingly clear-cut division between the state and federal sides. It is always possible that issues of federal law may start in the state courts before they make their way over to the federal side. And any case that starts out at the state and/or local level on state matters can make it into the federal system on appeal—but only on points that involve a federal law or question, and usually after all avenues of appeal in the state courts have been exhausted. Consider the case Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda, arrested for kidnapping and rape, which are violations of state law, was easily convicted and sentenced to prison after a key piece of evidence—his own signed confession—was presented at trial in the Arizona court. On appeal first to the Arizona Supreme Court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court to exclude the confession on the grounds that its admission was a violation of his constitutional rights, Miranda won the case. By a slim 5–4 margin, the justices ruled that the confession had to be excluded from evidence because in obtaining it, the police had violated Miranda’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. In the opinion of the Court, because of the coercive nature of police interrogation, no confession can be admissible unless a suspect is made aware of his rights and then in turn waives those rights. For this reason, Miranda’s original conviction was overturned. Yet the Supreme Court considered only the violation of Miranda’s constitutional rights, but not whether he was guilty of the crimes with which he was charged. So there were still crimes committed for which Miranda had to face charges. He was therefore retried in state court in 1967, the second time without the confession as evidence, found guilty again based on witness testimony and other evidence, and sent to prison. Miranda’s story is a good example of the tandem operation of the state and federal court systems. His guilt or innocence of the crimes was a matter for the state courts, whereas the constitutional questions raised by his trial were a matter for the federal courts. Although he won his case before the Supreme Court, which established a significant precedent that criminal suspects must be read their so-called Miranda rights before police questioning, the victory did not do much for Miranda himself. After serving prison time, he was stabbed to death in a bar fight in 1976 while out on parole, and due to a lack of evidence, no one was ever convicted in his death. The Implications of a Dual Court System From an individual’s perspective, the dual court system has both benefits and drawbacks. On the plus side, each person has more than just one court system ready to protect that individual's rights. The dual court system provides alternate venues in which to appeal for assistance, as Ernesto Miranda’s case illustrates. The U.S. Supreme Court found for Miranda an extension of his Fifth Amendment protections—a constitutional right to remain silent when faced with police questioning. It was a right he could not get solely from the state courts in Arizona, but one those courts had to honor nonetheless. The fact that a minority voice like Miranda’s can be heard in court, and that grievances can be resolved in a minority voice's favor if warranted, says much about the role of the judiciary in a democratic republic. In Miranda’s case, a resolution came from the federal courts, but it can also come from the state side. In fact, the many differences among the state courts themselves may enhance an individual’s potential to be heard. State courts vary in the degree to which they take on certain types of cases or issues, give access to particular groups, or promote certain interests. If a particular issue or topic is not taken up in one place, it may be handled in another, giving rise to many different opportunities for an interest to be heard somewhere across the nation. In their research, Paul Brace and Melinda Hall found that state courts are important instruments of democracy because they provide different alternatives and varying arenas for political access. They wrote, “Regarding courts, one size does not fit all, and the republic has survived in part because federalism allows these critical variations.” But the existence of the dual court system and variations across the states and nation also mean that there are different courts in which a person could face charges for a crime or for a violation of another person’s rights. Except for the fact that the U.S. Constitution binds judges and justices in all the courts, it is state law that governs the authority of state courts, so judicial rulings about what is legal or illegal may differ from state to state. These differences are particularly pronounced when the laws across the states and the nation are not the same, as we see with marijuana laws today. Where you are physically located can affect not only what is allowable and what is not, but also how cases are judged. For decades, political scientists have confirmed that political culture affects the operation of government institutions, and when we add to that the differing political interests and cultures at work within each state, we end up with court systems that vary greatly in their judicial and decision-making processes. Each state court system operates with its own individual set of biases. People with varying interests, ideologies, behaviors, and attitudes run the disparate legal systems, so the results they produce are not always the same. Moreover, the selection method for judges at the state and local level varies. In some states, judges are elected rather than appointed, which can affect their rulings. Just as the laws vary across the states, so do judicial rulings and interpretations, and the judges who make them. That means there may not be uniform application of the law—even of the same law—nationwide. We are somewhat bound by geography and do not always have the luxury of picking and choosing the venue for our particular case. So, while having such a decentralized and varied set of judicial operations affects the kinds of cases that make it to the courts and gives citizens alternate locations to get their case heard, it may also lead to disparities in the way they are treated once they get there. Practice Question 10.2 A state case is more likely to be heard by the federal courts when ________

Ecology of Invasive Species: Citizen Science Tools for Monitoring

Aristotle on Citizens and Constitutions

Citizens in the legal system

Ways citizens can participate

Être citoyen dans la République Française

citizens responsibilities quickcards

citizens rights and responsibilities quickcards

State Test Review--5 basic principles, feds vs. antifeds, monetary & fiscal policy, rights/responsibility of citizens

Republic Act No. 9994: Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2010

Party and Electoral Systems and Citizen Organizations

American Political Ideology - Citizens Beliefs & Polling 2018-2019

Events/Ideas that Changed the World Notes Day 1 What is a dictatorship? Origins: Dictatura, ancient Roman term, wasn’t originally negative, it was just a title, Caesar went by it. What it meant was that the republican senate in rome determined there was a threat to the social order, they would elect a dictator. We need to give someone total power for six months to protect the country from whatever threat. They would choose two guys, and then choose a dictator from them. That dictator would establish order, then step down. The dictator was given extralegal powers, they couldn’t change laws, but they didn’t have to, because they could do whatever they wanted for six months. It did work for awhile, but what happens if someone decides not to leave? Caesar was elected dictator, but never left, until he was murdered. After that, they started to rethink the whole system. Tyrant and Despot also used to be neutral terms. They were just court titles. It was a term for someone that had power in a local area, but gained that power in an unusual way, usually through buying it. Later, they become synonymous with illegitimate rule. Day 2 Notes Dictatorship wasn’t originally considered a negative term. You were called a Despot, which was also a neutral term. Hobbes was a believer in dictatorship, using the countries around them as evidence that they needed a monarch; they couldn’t do whatever they wanted, although they basically could, because removing them was near impossible. The logic with electing a dictator temporarily was that they assumed the public would turn against them once it was time to leave, and they would fold under public pressure. Once Caesar came in, he pretended the emergency was still going on, and he swayed the public vote in favour of him. In the 18th/19th century, tyranny and despotism started to be synonymous with power being exercised illegitimately. French Revolution, revolutionary dictatorship to achieve the social equality you need. We will force you to be free. Napoleon makes himself dictator of France, temporarily, and then makes himself emperor of France. Switch definition of what public support means, such as making nonaggress the enemy. Karl Marx wanted to overthrow the capitalist system by overthrowing the dictatorship. Vladimir Lenin took power of Russia in 1917 through a violent revolution against a long standing monarchy. They openly refer to themselves as dictators at first, saying that they need to eliminate enemies, or it will allow the enemies to come back. Post WW1: positive use of dictatorship declines, even in the Soviet Union. Mussolini seized power in 1922, establishing a Fascist state. Dictatorship starts to become a negative term. Mussolini used the term Totalitarianism, he adopted the term as positive. He wanted to neutralize the masses to preserve power and social order. Day 3 Notes Cult of Personality Non necessary element of dictatorships. Legitimize the leader. Legitimize an ideology by identifying it with said leader. Establish the leader as both above normal human concerns and as the fatherly protector of the people. Manipulation of mass media. They establish the leader as above normal human concerns, but also the fatherly protector of the people. Triumph of the Will, 1935 documentary, an account of the Nazi party. It’s an example of propaganda from the nazi party. Day 4 Notes Italy was divided into various city states, kingdoms, and other empires, for centuries. Italy was mostly unified as one country by 1861. The pope was basically the head of the country at this point. They especially welded power over Rome. The vast majority of Italians then and now are Catholics. They didn’t believe the people were ready to govern themselves, or vote, they believed in a monarchy, just not a dictatorship. The Ethiopian Army destroyed the Italians in their war, which destroyed the narrative that the black people needed help to be governed, given that they destroyed the Italians. A narrative develops that the liberals were at fault for Italy losing, creating a desire for a new leader. Enter Mussolini, he was a militant socialist advocating violence (propaganda of the deed). Was arrested many times, he was influenced by Nietzsche, Filppo Marinetti. He believed violence was useful and necessary, that it purified people. Ironically, he referred to the military a lot, yet was arrested for avoiding being drafted. He said he would only fight for the working class, not the country. WW1 breaks out, he did serve there. He started a newspaper during this time, and Italy entered the war in 1915, turning on allies Germany, and joining France, Britain, and Russia. Originally, he didn’t support Italy entering the war, but eventually decided he agreed with it. He was a socialist, and socialists didn’t support capitalist centered wars, Mussolini disagreed and expected that they would finally get all the territory Italy deserves back. He’s kicked out of the socialist party for these beliefs. In his newspaper, he starts promoting pro-intervention views. He denounces socialism entirely, and says he was kicked out for promoting violence. Day 5 Notes Fascism in a couple words is fighting in action, that’s what it’s about. It’s difficult to turn into a government. The Fascists originally didn't get as many votes as the National Fascist Party in Italy. Speech in October, march on Rome, if Fascists were not given power, they would take it by force. Day 6 Notes Mussolini's goal was to reestablish the Roman Empire, and wants to go back to a Roman Empire. It’s about obliterating earlier society, replacing corrupt liberal democracy. Mussolini's party murdered a political opponent, named Giacomo Matteotti, who was a socialist and a vocal opposition. He went missing in June, found dead in August. Vatican City, which is the smallest country in the world, smaller than the university. Italy and Mussolini recognized the Pope as a sovereign of an independent nation, which is now Vatican City, it will now be a separate country from Italy, the Pope will control it. Italy will live there, if the Pope agrees to stay out of Italian politics, and be neutral on international affairs unless asked, and all bishops in Italy have to pledge loyalty to the Fascist movement. Italy also paid this new country a big sum of money, they also agreed to teach Catholicism in schools, along with Fascists. This was viewed at the time as a win for Mussolini. Most Catholics saw it as a decent win for the church as well. Mussolini gained popularity as a result. Mussolini is even painted alongside Jesus in some churches in Italy. The Pacificiation of Libya, has since been labelled a genocide. It was meant to crush local resistance to Italian ruling. They used mustard gas on civilians and rebels. Innocent LIbyan citizens died during this. They eventually arrested the resistance leader. By the end of it, the Italians labelled Libya as pacified. Italy still deals with this in today's politics, with the fallout of committing this act to Libya. It seems like there might have been a racial motivation for it. The racial motivation was viewed as Mussolini simply seeing Italians as better than everyone else, Libyans were inferior to Italians, and in their deserved territory. One of the major problems with dictatorships is that you can never get the truth, nobody is going to tell you if there is a problem, out of fear for their lives. He didn’t know how popular Fascism was, and there wasn’t a reliable way to find out. He tries to do things to earn the popular vote, like war, like conquering things. Ethiopia was very symbolic, they had lost to Ethiopia in a previous war, that embarrassed them. So, he decides to get some getback. Mussolini has to be careful, their army can’t take Britain or France, so he has to take Ethiopia without provoking the Europeans, so he bluffs. He lies and says that his troops were attacked by Ethiopian troops, unprovoked. He threatened force to measure the reactions of the other count Day 7 Notes Mussolini was concerned about the lack of enthusiasm about fascism in Italy, He even created an encyclopedia of Fascism. Now that Mussolini has indicated they have relatively similar views with Germany, they form an alliance, there is economic dependence on each other, this is not a popular move, as Italians don’t like Germany. In 1939, they signed the Pact of Steel, this is a military agreement, they agree to attack anyone that attacks them. They continued to invade other countries, for no real reason, it was cheered, but now we were seeing the natural end of Fascism. How can you stick with an ideology that is centered around violence, if you’ve won, what do you do then? Mussolini introduced racially motivated laws called the Defense of the Race in 1938, which was very similar to the laws introduced by the Nazis. It frustrated Italians that he was just doing what Hitler was doing, it’s possible he was trying to center out specific people to explain why things aren’t perfect yet, to distract from his incompetent leadership. In 1940, Italy declared war on Britain and France. Mussolini didn't join the war early on. Poland is getting destroyed by Germany, but on the Western front, it’s quiet for a while. Mussolini changes that, by swooping in to take advantage of Hitlers chaos, who quickly destroys most of Western Europe. Hitler now owns France, Mussolini thinks things look good for Hitler. So, he declares war. His justification was that the Italians were trapped, they needed living space. Sounds very similar to Hitler there. It works, at first. Mussolini tries to expand his African empire. The Italian army was not ready for this, even his war commanders who supported him told him they would lose the war. Mussolini ignored them, insisting Fascism would always win. They start to lose the war, they don’t have the military capable of doing this. It embarrassed Mussolini greatly. His only idea is to continue to expand, but that doesn’t work either. By 1943, the Italians collapsed, and Germany had to come save them. The problem is that Germany is now fighting wars on several fronts, and that proves too much. Hitler is now really angry with Mussolini that he had to come save him. The Allies were counting on Southern Italy not being as supportive of Mussolini, so they invaded there, and the Southern Italians didn’t fight the Allies, simply because they didn’t like Mussolini. That year, Mussolini was voted out by his own Fascist Grand Council as leader. They voted him out on the basis that he was no longer promoting true Fascism, most of the council were his relatives, they still voted him out. Mainland Italy is invaded, and they surrender. This leads to a civil war. Germany is still fighting the Allies in Italy, plus Northern Italy still believes in Fascism, while Southern Italy no longer does. Hitler, while angry with Mussolini, still believes he could be useful, so he decides to liberate him from a castletop prison. THey break in with a helicopter and hand gliders, they kill all the guards, and they get Mussolini. Hitler installed Mussolini as a puppet leader of the Italian Social Republic. Hitler sees him as a useful figurehead so they can claim that Italy is still independent. The Italian Social Republic is not a well run country, and is nothing but revenge plots, Mussolini gets his son in law who voted him out, and executes him in front of his daughter. That’s what Mussolini does for the last years of his life, is take revenge. Day 8 Notes Mussolini was captured in 1945, he and numerous other Fascists were executed right after being captured. Adolf Hitler The Habsburg family led Germany for many years, they controlled various German states. Around when Hitler was born, some of the other German states were controlled by other people, eventually they were unified, the differences were religious in nature. Germany is eventually unified, Austria is left out of the proceedings. In 1867, the conflict was settled, the Hungarians took over the nation, although the other nation states were not happy about this. Hitler was born into a dysfunctional family, his parents died at a young age. Hitler had two siblings, but five siblings died as infants. He was born sick, but he survived. His mother did not work. Even Hitlers name is confusing, his father was born out of wedlock, and the gossip is that Hitler might've actually been jewish. We don’t know who his grandfather was. His step siblings ditched the abuse after their parents died, so he has to raise his sister. He did not get into the Academy of Graphic Arts. He then just works odd jobs in Vienna, sells some paintings, he’s living off the little bit that his father left him, he is often homeless. Vienna is home to many different ideologies. He’s attracted to Pan Germanism, Volkisch nationalism, and antisemitism. Pan Germanism is that the Germans needed all the German states to give them living space so that they could thrive. He sees the Hasbergs as a problem. He hated Catholicism. He blamed them for Austria being left out, and he begins to identify with Germany a lot more than Austria, despite not yet being a German citizen. Day 9 Notes Hitler existed in the military in 1914, he initially refused to serve, but eventually changed his mind. He was blinded by gas in 1918. As he was recovering from this, Germany surrendered. He did have to get special permission, as he was not a citizen. Losing this war, much like with Italy, was a shock to German nationalism. He never drank, and stopped eating meat. He fights a lot, and wins awards for bravery. He really starts to internalize social Darwinism. They believed that the European countries that were winning wars was because nature had determined they were the strongest. The destiny of Germany was to win, but they didn't, they lost. The media was telling the citizens that they had been winning, so it was a shock that they lost. The king, a monarch, abdicates, so monarchy is now gone too. A myth that Germany was stabbed in the back by internal traitors starts, communists, jews, socialists, that’s why Germany lost the war. Hitler becomes a regular in what’s known as beer hall politics. Nobody knows what to do with a lot of the vets that survived the war. So, one thing they do is hire them as military intelligence, as with Hitler. They decide they need to stop political violence. Hitler gets hired to spy on a party, called the German Worker’s Party, but it’s actually a far right party, they call themselves that so they can appeal to the working class. Their goal is to get rid of the Jews so that they can fix capitalism. Hitler joins it, to spy on it. While doing it though, he looks around, and likes some of their ideas, but it’s not extreme enough, they need more. So, Hitler starts speaking on the events, and stops spying on them. Within a couple of years, he is the leader of the group, and they rebrand themselves as the Nazi party. The Nazis are far more willing to commit violence, and are more far right than other groups of that time. He believes it’s about saving not just Germany, but the world. Ernst Rohm led the Storm Troopers. His job was to beat up political rivals, and Hitler eventually got his eye. This political violence works, it scares people into voting for the Nazis. Hitler is also able to say that he is separated from the violence because someone else runs the violent part of things. Hitler is able to stop the violence, he is able to stop Rohm. Day 10 Notes The people in charge of Hitlers trial were Nazi sympathizers, and gave Hitler and Nazis light sentences, while also allowing him to speak at his trial, which gave him ample time to gain fame, it made national news. Hitler is convicted anyway, for five years, but only serves nine months, in a min security prison, and is allowed visitors, where he converts most of the prison to his worldview, and also writes Mein Kempf. Hitler now learns that he can’t use force to win the government, he needs to win them over. Paul von Hindenburg uses the emergency act to be a dictator temporarily after the depression, but uses it several times. He does not believe in democracy. His plan is to stop the left from forming a party and organizing. There are about five elections in 1931, because the left keeps getting elected, but the emergency act is being used to overrule it, though it annoys the German population. However, it was being used as an example of the fact that democracy doesn’t work. The Nazis continued to grow, there were several elections in 1932, where the Nazis got 37 % of the popular vote, the largest single party. This is one of the worst points of depression. After less than a year, Hitler became dictator. Franz von Papen convinced Hindenburg to appoint Hitle chancellor in 1933. Their popularity starts to decline, the only way to get around that is for Hindenburg to hire Hitler, they count on him being a peasant that will be too stupid to do much. Papen will be co chancellor, to watch things, we’ll be able to control him. A fire happened in 1933, historians still don’t know who started it, but it was blamed on a communist conspiracy at the time. The Nazis use this to get more power, they pass the Enabling Act, which gives Hitler a dictatorship. A couple of months later, all non Nazi political parties were removed. In 1934, Hindenburg died, he didn't replace him, he just merged his position with his own, so he gained more power. A significant amount of violence and intimidation happens in his early years. The Night of the Long Knives happens during this time, that is when Hitler killed rivals of the Nazi party, sending out goons later known as the SS, and brutally hundreds of people he believes are challenging him for power. He killed Rohm for being gay, though he had known this since he had met him. In 1939, they opened their first concentration camp. From the first party, it’s usually enemies of the Nazis, communists, the left, starts to include more Jews as it goes. This is justified by saying these people are threats to the government. Day 11 Notes You had to get a racial card, if you had more than 3 jewish relatives, you would not be considered a german citizen. If it was less than that, you would temporarily be a German citizen. This would get restricted even more as time goes on. These regulations consider who you can marry, who can drive cars, everything is regulated. Property is taken away from Jews. If you were gay, or religious, you would be regulated. They also sterilized thousands of people as well. THey gas brought 500 000 people in three years. Hundreds of jews were shot in public merely for being Jews, then the Germans blamed them for property damage, justification for restricting the jews even more. He took Germany out of the League of Nations. That’s what Nazis do, they create conditions that then they can point to and say see, you need us, we need war, it’s being forced upon us. Hitler invades Czechia, but claims he only wants the part that has mostly german speaking people, people on the Allies side don’t believe him, others say that they don’t want to fight a war. So they hammer out an agreement to give him this land, guess who they get to negotiate? Mussolini. Hitler then immediately betrays everybody, takes the land he was given, but then also invades the rest of Czechia. So Hitler is told, if he does anything else, they will go to war. Hitler then invades Poland, Britain and France soon declare war, and WW2 begins. The West is pretty quiet at this time, a different story in the East. We’re at war, even with the total destruction of Poland, the Allies do nothing, they seem to be holding out hope that maybe things can be resolved. The Germans through the 40s took Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, France, Belgium. France was one of the strongest empires in the world at the time, and they fell in six weeks, now the Nazis have a monopoly. The Allies are losing by a lot at this point. Nobody seems to be able to stand up to Germany, Hitler is the most powerful man in the world. Some of this was revenge for WW1. Hitler has more power than anybody on earth pretty much, and portrays himself as a Messiah, but he’s not actually very good at this, it’s mostly the military taking advantage. Hitler starts to believe his own hype, and believes that he’s infallible. He starts to execute military leaders that contradict him, creating a bunch of yes-men. Hitler even allowed the Allies to escape at one point when they had him on the run because of a decision made by Hitler. This is causing the empire to crack. Hitler decided in 1941 to invade the Soviet Union. His racial version of the world centers around this, and he’s convinced that they have enough to stop the Russians. They bet it all on one giant hit on the SU, really fast, it’ll take them all out, and then they will own Russia. This was briefly successful at first, but then it’s not. The top reason is that Russia is really big, and it’s cold, the Soviets don’t just collapse, 27 million Soviets die in this war. However, they don’t fold, they retreat, burn everything so the Nazis can’t get supplies, but unlike Hitler, Stalin goes the other direction, he listens to military leaders. Htiler is doubling down on making his own decisions. To the point all the decisions are made by Hitler, which leads to inaction in several areas, they stretch out the Germans supplies and people, and then winter hits. The Germans weren’t prepared for the cold, and they slowed down significantly. The Soviets then join the Allies. So the Soviets get supplies from the Allies, and it helps them as the Germans are now isolated in Russia. America then entered the war in 1941. Japan attacks the States, and so the States have to enter the war, they are a powerhouse. They help the Allies, but the States also give supplies to the Russians against the Nazis. All of a sudden, the advantage in the war has moved to the allies. Day 12 Notes In just two days in 1941, the Nazis shot 33 thousand Jews, in another two day span, 28 thousand, in a couple weeks, 70 thousand. However, the Nazis realize that they are using too much resources, and it comes to light that some of the soldiers are showing signs of guilt, and that needs to be minimized, so they need to come up with a better way. Hitler had permission to come up with a plan, so they went back to what they had been doing to disabled: gas them. They determine they will build extermination camps, the whole point being to kill as many people as possible. They did this by putting gas in showers. It’s estimated roughly 1.1 million people that were deported into Germany were killed. The Germans couldn’t function, they were terribly disorganized. D Day, the Allies decided to attack the Nazis where they were at their strongest. They believed that they had reallocated so many resources to the Eastern front, that the area was weak enough in the West that the Allies could break through, while it was difficult, they were correct. Hitler refused to believe that the Allies could break through the West, so even though he was warned, he ignored the warnings. From this point, everyone knows the Nazis will lose eventually. In 1944, there was an assanation attempt on Hitler. A group of military elites and citizens were banded together to try and kill Hitler, a pretty diverse group of people that had different motivations for why they wanted Hitler dead. Some for moral reasons, for most of them, were afraid of what Hitler was going to do to the country, thinking he was a madman. If they got rid of them, they could surrender and get peace. Some had been active members in getting rid of Jews, they agreed with his mindset, but believe he specifically is a madman. Their plan involves a meeting that is approaching for military leaders, one of them was going to bring two bombs, and place them next to Hitler, who would blow up. They would then claim someone inside of the Nazi government had killed him, they would arrest everybody, and establish a new government. One of the bombs doesn’t work, he can only arm one. He places it next to Hitler, someone by chance moves it a little bit, and when it explodes, it explodes a table. Anyone involved, and their families, are executed. Several thousand are killed in the next few days, as he believes the hype that he’s a god even more. Hitler then orders the Battle of the Bulge, against advice, and it fails. He believed he could hit the Allies once, and they would get defeated, which of course doesn’t happen. The Western front has collapsed. The Red Army has pushed the Nazis back to Poland. They keep getting to the areas quicker and quicker, for the first time, the Russians find the concentration camps, and share the information with the world, they didn’t know this. Some believe the Russians even made it up. Hitler keeps demanding more deaths, starves thousands in the Netherlands, orders half a million deaths in Hungary, and he starts realizing that the walls are closing in on him. He’s about to lose. The Allies had debated whether they should invade Berlin, in 45, they decided that they needed to kill him, otherwise the war would never end, so they decided to go all out on Berlin, which they did. They destroy Berlin. Hitler lived the rest of his days in an underground bunker, Hitler had said that if he died, he would take the Germans with him. So, Hitler stayed in Berlin. Day 13 Notes Germany is slowly encircled, Hitler is all powerful, but he has no counter strategy. Berlin is under attack, and Hitler refuses all concessions. he then commits suicide, with a will and a last dictate left behind him. Germany surrenders a week after he dies. He appointed a heir to his dictatorship, and Hitler also married his girlfriend a few hours before they both commited suicide. The war still is going on, because Japan does not surrender. Hitler did try to make a deal to get away from the Allies, they of course refused. Joseph Stalin Under the Tsarist government, the Russian Empire was one of the major powers of Europe for centuries. The majority of the country were serfs. The dictator of the nation was called a Tsar, this idea was taken from what Caesar was called. Serfs were not technically considered slaves, though they had a similar role to one. They had no personhood, and were legally considered property. They were technically considered people, they had some rights, but very few. They were peasants, tied to the land forever. They owed their allegiance to the local princes, usually a rich family in the area that reported to the tsar. Almost none of the population went to high school, especially peasants. Stalin was a peasant, but he did go to hs for about a year. Most of the population was completely illiterate. Things started to change in the 19th century, new ideas started to come into Europe, and Alexander the second freed the serfs, technically, with a lot of qualifications. Stalin was raised poor, but in the school he was able to attend, he thrived. He rather suddenly converted to socialism in 1896. He became a professional revolutionary, one that got arrested frequently. Once he converts to socialism, he is kicked out of the seminary he was a part of, and eventually joins a Socialist Party. Day 14 Notes Stalin was arrested for trying to organize a strike in a factory in Georgia. Marxism is a pretty complicated set of ideas. Marxists believe history has a beginning, middle, and end, these stages are defined by the economic stages of the time. Marxists believe these are the laws of history, these ideas are widely criticized, especially for the idea history is predictable, it’s scientific. History will evolve until we reach the final class conflict, the ones that own the means of production, and then everyone else. Marxist believe work is essential to who we are as people, class consciousness is when people are tricked into believing that they have to work and not knowing that work should define who they are. Religion dulls the senses and makes you easier to control. The Su was a little bit different from the Nazis in that they claimed that they accidentally persecuted the Jews, not for their race specifically. Whereas the Jews were specifically targeted and that was made obvious by the Nazis. First, a Social Democratic Workers Party was started, in 1898. Russia needed to develop to be ready for revolution. Then, three years later, the Socialist Revolutionary Party was started, they needed land reform. It was labelled at the time as a party split, as the Social Democratic party was split on how to handle the situation. Russia lost the Russo-Japan war just four years later, Russia lost. This is a disaster, for obvious reasons, but it was also an embarrassment. There’s also racism involved, how could Russia lose to a non-European country? It signaled to many that Russia was collapsing. Workers started going on strike, over 100,000 workers, a couple of years later, which grinds the country's production to a halt. Then a bread march led to a czar's house, demanding food, the Russian soldiers came out, killing hundreds and wounding thousands. The czar started to break, allowing a very restricted vote, which temporarily kept people at bay. However, he reverted those policies a couple of years later. The socialist parties, all of them, pulled out of working with the czar entirely. This emboldened radicals, including Stalin. In 1912, Stalin was part of the two parties officially splitting. He was arrested for sedition in 1913, and this time, the authorities sentenced him to exile in the Arctic, this is his first real punishment. He’s stuck there when WW1 breaks out a year later. His party publicly advocates for Russia to lose the war, because that party believes it’s the inevitable result of capitalism, so if you destroy them, it would lead to communism being enforced. So, the party sabotages their own country. Russia, for more than one reason, handles the war really poorly. The Tsar says that they are getting involved to protect the Slavs peoples, which was a race. They lost the Battle of Tannenberg to the Germans badly. In 1917, the Tsar was overthrown, the family had run Russia for three centuries, but Russia is getting dominated by Germany. In his place, a provisional government takes over, there is no vote. So, a coalition of the two parties and several others are all formed to form a government in Russia. At the same time, in the major cities, groups called Soviets, or a Workers Council, are rising, and organizing the cities. They become strong locations of authority that counters the provisional government. Day 15 Notes The new party promised peace immediately, and delivered, this made them popular. They promised war would end. They threw the only real election in Russian history at this time. They lost the election really badly. They believe the election was tainted somehow. After this party signs a peace treaty with Germany, it pulls them out of the war, but they seize a significant amount of land. Giving up the land was not popular. Russia then breaks into a civil war, with three sides, the communist, the red side, very well organized. The whites, they are a loose grouping of anti communists. The greens were really effective, they were the socialist revolutionaries, the reds are afraid of the greens, they are powerful, but the whites kill them because they don’t like communists, then the reads finished them off. Russia becomes a Communist state, with Stalin being a background member of the party. They hold farce elections at this point, where there are several communist from the same party to choose from, but you pick the same party no matter what. Stalin was named General Secretary by Lenin in 1922. He parlays this position to gain further power. The leadership of the party notices that Stalin is growing more power. Vlad Lenin releases a document on his death called the Testament where he warns his party of the threat Stalin presents. He asked the party to think of a way to get rid of Stalin. His testament is debated, but Stalin stays in power. Against the wishes of Lenin and his widow, they embalm his body to hold it for display to the party. Stalin survives the vote, and decides he can outmanuever everybody. He does this by continuing a cycle of forming alliances, breaking them with another alliance, breaking that one, and so on. Stalin is part of a trio that is leading the Socialist party. They align themselves against Trotsky's ideas of permanent revolution to save the world. He was outed by the trio. The trio's idea is to let the Western powers weaken themselves, it’s inevitable with a capitalist system, in the meantime, make sure socialism is strong here in Russia first. By outing Trotsky, Stalin gains even more power and influence. Stalin then betrays his two partners of the trio right after. Stalin changes his mind on whether some members of his party, including his partners, aren’t really spies, or not dedicated enough, to what is now known as Marxism-Lenism. He fosters distrust in those members of the party. Despite it being counterintuitive, Stalin makes friends with the capitalists of the party, and uses that alliance to vote out the two members of the trio, even having them killed and/or expelled from the country. He’s now the only one left from the last era, and the undisputed leader. Day 16 Notes Stalin plans now to abolish private property. Everything is owned by the state. This is being done to provide food to other cities, and the SU starts building industrial cities. Stalin is building, or rearming Russia. They had gone through a lot, and he was getting fresh war material. They are planning on going to war with the capitalist countries eventually. They call it the five year plan. Stalin blames most of the problems on peasants who had been successful during this dark time for Russia. A key part of this period was to remove the peasants as a problem, by murdering them all. So, there are mass killings of anybody that identifies with that system. Stalin, by 1929, was a full dictator, he got rid of all challengers. It’s widely debated on whether this actually worked, within a decade, they had collectivised almost everything. Production, however, went down. This caused a massive famine that spread across the whole US, leading to millions of deaths. It’s debated over whether Stalin targeted specific people groups with the famine. Stalin's wife kills herself because of her husband being responsible for this. Stalin blames the failures of the system on the industrial production people in charge, killing them. Stalin also imprisoned millions of people in labour camps. One of the consequences of purging the people is that Stalin can make the people more dependent on him, so he appoints puppet leaders. They introduced a new Constitution in 1936, however, it made little change. All of the culture was still very traditional, criminalizing abortion, limiting divorce rights. This was called the Depression. Stalin knew SU was not ready for a WW in the 30’s. He attempted to ally with the Western powers, but that didn’t work, he tried again with Germany, but that also didn’t work. Enter the Spanish Civil War. Stalin thinks that if he waits for the capitalist countries to go to war, he can wait and then come in and wipe them all out. The Nazis offered the SU good terms for an alliance. However, they didn’ count on the Nazis trying to promote racial conquest. SU fought Finland in the Winter War in 1939, the SU didn't start off very well, despite outnumbering the Fins. The Fins start off well because they have a good strategy. Stalin actually took Finland to defend against Germany, even though they were allies. Eventually, SU overwhelmed Finland. Day 17 Notes Nazis invaded the USSR in 1941. Early disaster for the SU, German forces are halted outside of Moscow. Stalin goes into hiding, for weeks on end after the Nazis invade. Both sides wipe out whole populations, with nobody being safe. Stalin rallies, as he creates more positions for himself to fill. The difference between Stalin and Hitler was charisma, with the exception being a famous speech in 1941 to motivate his soldiers. Women fight in the Soviet Union, unique for those times. The Germans make it all the way to Moscow, then are stopped. In the West of the Soviet Union, it’s a blood bath, and the Final Solution begins. Everybody is wiped out. When territory would be invaded, you would have to decide whether you would ally with the Nazis or with the Soviet Union. The SU refuses to retreat from Moscow, and it works. stalin from this point starts to delegate and not just do all of it himself. He allows the military experts to do what they do. Gregory Zhukov leads the military effort against the Nazis and turns the tables. They also get a significant amount of money, before America gets in the war, they don’t want to get involved in the war. The Soviets, unlike the Allies, are willing to sacrifice their people to win. Stalin starts to relent on things like religion, as well as delegating. However, Stalin, due to believed disloyality, orders his daughter in law arrested and murdered, killed his brother in law, and their wife, and Stalin's son was captured as a POW, and he allowed his son to die. From this, Stalin became a world leader in the big state. They were willing to ally with the Soviets despite disagreeing with him because of the threat the Nazis faced. The Soviets held the Nazis off long enough that the other countries realized the threat the Nazis faced, and they acted. Poland is stuck between Germany and Russia. So, they are sacrificed. Stalin goes to the Allies, and says that he needs help, he’s been fighting the Nazis by himself. He believes the Allies should attack the West so weaken Germany, which eventually happens and he is correct. This adds to Stalin's credibility. Because they are capitalists, Stalin believes that the Allies will negotiate with Hitler as soon as they can sell out the Soviets. So, he pushed the Red Army to aggressively pursue Hither, the Allies were also racing there for a different reason, they didn’t want to give a lot of the land to the Russians. Stalin encouraged his soldiers to rape Germans, and to kill as many citizens as possible. It didn't matter if they were Nazis or not. They also start to liberate concentration camps. The war ends, the Soviets are now a superpower. The reason for the Cold War starting is heavily debated, who started it? Was it Americans, or Russians? Could it have been stopped? The Soviet Union was scared of being invaded again, given recent history. However, the SU are now more powerful than after WW1, they are now in the Security Council and the United Nations. Stalin says that he wants Poland to be free, but friendly to the SU. That’s not what happens. The elections that do happen are not free or fair. Stalin does not trust former allies. In 1947, the United States agreed to the Marshall Plan, this is a generous infusion of American dollars, billions, into Europe, to help it recover from the war, with almost no strings attached. Stalin doesn’t trust it. He’s suspicious of those that participated in the war coming back to the Soviet Union, he worries his people have been Westernized. Stalin is angry at the donations, he believes Communism is being destroyed. He refuses the marshall plan, and forces various countries in the East to refuse it too. He threatens invasion. Day 18 Notes The Marshall Plan was made in part to stop eastern countries from becoming communist. The tensions in the Cold war ramp up. The Soviets stop food from going into Berlin if it’s not given to them by the West. The West ignored the demands, flew over the blockade that the Soviets had set up, and delivered food. The Soviets are still somewhat in a position of weakness, not as strong as the US, so they back down. Stalin is at his most powerful, but is more suspicious than ever. He was scared of the different military leaders, as some of them were executed. He believes some of his people that had been in the war had been exposed to the western version of living. He starts having his own family members executed, his daughter escapes, and actually advocates against him Stalin's anti-semitism became stronger during this time as well. Stalin died in March 1953, they had not attended a meeting, so had been scared that he would kill them, so it took several days for anyone to realize he was dead. He had tens of millions of people killed during his reign, de stalinization began almost immediately, although the dictatorship was maintained for decades. Mao Zedong Qing Dynasty Was a Manchu family, a small minority within the massive country of China. However, they are the royal family. This was not well received by most of the country, since Manchus were considered outsiders. Most of China are peasants, Mao comes from a royal family, but his father had been a peasant, and had worked his way up to being a successful farmer, where he hired people. He was rural, but being a land owner at the time was a big deal in China. Mao is outspoken and rebellious, that doesn’t fit into society. His mother is a devout Buddhist, and is illiterate. She had bound her feet for most of her life, which was a tradition that deformed the feet of those that did it. Mao wants to be more than the farmer that his dad is. Day 19 Notes Sino Japanese war is a war that the Japanese won soundly over the Chinese, where the Chinese called it the Century of Darkness. The Chinese were unable to protect land, and were unable to modernize their military. This is when America gets involved, takes over Spain, and wages war against the Filipino population. This was seen as a good step towards China, America has interest in China for economic possibilities. However, America is late in the game, compared to the European powers. They try to negotiate, this doesn’t go well, the negotiation, rather unconvincingly saying that they should negotiate together against the Chinese, without taking them, but we’re not taking them over, just control the whole economy. The Chinese Revolution is next, moderate reforms at first, such as local elected assemblies. Don’t have much power, but the idea is you can give them a place to vent anger. Dr. Sun Yat sen founded the Revolutionary Alliance, he believed in nationalism. He founded a political party as well. Dedicated to overthrowing the monarchy. The Qing dynasty was overthrown, though Mao is not a part of the Revolution. Shikai names himself emperor, and only lasts three days. China started to enter world politics, called Warlordism. China is disintegrated into regional warlords and competing authorities. Remnants of Shikais Beiyang government. Sun Yat-sen returned from exile to the south, re-established the Guomindang, and tried to organize a rival power. May 4th Movement, student led protest against Treaty of Versailles. Left wing radicalism gained in popularity. The treaty was an agreement they had to get stuff back that had been taken from them from Germany, however, it was given to Japan. It was around here when Mao started reading Marx, anything he can get translated. So, the Chinese Communist Party came into play in 1921. To this day, they rule the government in China. Mao was converted to Communism in two years, and was a founding participant. He organizes labour and students. He is concerned about the anti-nationalism parts of it however. Is looked at as a voice of the people because he was well educated while also being a peasant at the same time. It was Guomindang and the CCP worked together to oust the Beiyang government and the warlords. Chiang Kai shek Sun Yat sen died in 1925, succeeded by Kai shek. He was a military leader in the Guomindang, leader of the right wing faction of the party. Keep the United Front, but only for convenience. Mao began to theorize more about the centrality of the peasantry for the achievement of true Chinese Communism. Mobilization of mass peasantry, radical transformation from spontaneous mass action. Day 20 Notes In 1926-28, warlordism was broken, Chiang established a government in Nanjing. Started to purge Communists and leftists in 26. Mao was unsure at this point about supporting the United Front, but stayed the course. The People would decide the revolution, not the United Front. So, the White Terror starts in 1927, Chiang betrays the Communists, slaughtering thousands. Mao and roughly 1000 communists organize the Chinese Red army. Shiang is trying to wipe out the Communist party in one fell swoop. Mao leads his faction to killing thousands of political opponents. Chiang becomes obsessed with wiping out communists, they lose a whole region of China under his rule, and they are forced to negotiate with the Japanese. Only Mao's stronghold was left, and they had to abandon it. So, what do they do? Why don’t we just leave, and walk somewhere else? We need to pick a time period where Chiang is busy, then we can try and escape. The Long March 1934-35, a 6000 mile walk, 18 mountain ranges. Roughly 70,000 people died, one of the reasons for that is that soldiers were following them, any mistakes, they die. Mao consolidated support by acting against Soviet advice. Portrayed the March as moving against Japanese imperialism. Guomindang was weak in face of foreign influence. They can’t fully wipe them out though. There are only 20,000 communists left, yet they are able to rebuild. Mao almost dies on the march. Japan invaded 1937, resulting in GMD-CCP United Front, CCP and Mao proved to be more capable at reaching out to the peasantry, crushing internal opposition and enforcing ruthless discipline centred in Mao's interpretations of Marxism. Red Army forces were often on the frontlines against Japan. Shiang is forced to constantly give concessions to the Japanese, he can’t do anything else, CCP calls him a cronie, he complains that it’s only because he has to deal with the Communists. Shiang is now told he can’t work with the Japanese anymore, they just signed a deal with the Nazis and Fascist Italy. They get tired of Shiang, so his own military kidnaps him. Shiang concedes, and says they will focus on Japan as well now. Day 21 Notes Another new wife for Mao, named Jiang Qing. For WW2, Guonmindang and CCP forces forced a stalemate on Japan. The Red Army cultivated grassroots support in occupied China. Guomindang is not in occupied China and continues in corruption and even sometimes its anti CCP actions. Mao Zedong Thought: Became the official ideology of the CCP, Rectification Movement, and self criticism to save people from error. Mao used the fact that Sheng needed help to take over. One of the reasons Japan lost is due to the violence they were inflicting, they were unable to gain allies. Part of it too is Shiang tries to force people into joining his army, his government is also super corrupt. IN this period, the SU is dealing with something else, which helps Mao. Japan and Germany had terrible communication with each other, in part because Hitler didn’t want to communicate with them, because he thought they were lesser. For Pearl Harbour, for example, Germany didn’t advise Japan on that. China was viewed as the fourth of the big three, and was underestimated. Not consulted on the plan to bomb Japan by the Allies, the Allies also didn’t trust Sheng's government. They didn’t understand the GMD CCP hatred, didn’t understand the appeal of the CCp in China, and didn’t see China as an issue in the postwar era. Mao agreed to American backed negotiations for a coalition government. Mao and Sheng are actively trying to backstab each other at this time. The United Nations were formed in October 1945, General Assembly, one nation, one vote, where most of the big stuff happens. Security Council: 5 permanent, 6 rotating members, China was one of the 5 permanent members, Chiang's Republic of China would hold this seat until 1971. Another Civil War breaks out between CCP and GMD forces. Mao ordered strategic retreat into the countryside and abandonment, which had been going on for almost 40 years at this point. Mao knew the longer the war went, it would be worse for GMD. GMD corruption, reliance on conscription, reliance on foreign money. They rely on the people's support, and have far more discipline. They outsmart Shiang's army. CCP now occupied Beijing, Nanjing, and Shanghai. Chiang fled to Taiwan, with men, civilians, and money. They are still the Republic of China. Mao declared the People's Republic of China, there are now technically two Chinas. Day 22 Notes Korean War Communist North Korea invaded Western allied South Korea, prompting a United Nations backed, US led force. Mao was pressured into involvement by North Korean weakness and US strength. China lost 500k troops, stood against the USs, who now was committed to permanently protect Taiwan. The economy was militarized. Eventually, China gets pulled in, North Korea gets pretty far, but the US forces push the North Koreans back. The US forces were told not to cross a border line so as to not provoke the Chinese, the men didn’t listen, and the Chinese entered the war. War ends in a stalemate, with little to no territory changing hands. Mao commits to building a massive bomb, and announces a five year plan. To collectivize agriculture to support the military and industrialization. Thousands were executed in a two year span. America decides that Taiwan needs to be defended, which sends a massive fleet to protect them from China, the forces are still there. Taiwan at this time was run by Shiang's government. China and Taiwan are often still considered the same, much to the chagrin of people from Taiwan. They launch the Hundred Flowers Campaign. The Chinese people are too afraid to criticize Mao because he was in power, so he’s willing to criticize himself, then they are willing to criticize him. He encourages this feedback. A few months later, he kills them all. He was trying to make the enemies of the people clear. It led to the greatest famine in human history, killing at least 34 million people. Any suffering was covered up. Mao fails to take responsibility for this famine. Mao is so determined to prove himself right he exports grain to the Soviet Union to impress them, leading to more deaths. The alternative to Stalin's communism is Mao's, which isn’t anything better. Maos has a book on how to fight imperialists, which enables people around the world to model themselves after Mao. Soviets don’t like this. The two of them finally realize that the two countries need to learn how to live together, Mao looks down upon the Soviets for backing off of Stalin's approach. Mao also believes they are trying to isolate China. They broke diplomatic relations in 1961, that was the case for about 25 years, almost going to war multiple times. Mao retreated from the public eye, and focused on developing a cult of personality. He realizes that his rule has been a disaster, but he needs a scapegoat. So, he allows two other people to clean up the mess, to enact some reforms to help the people recover. They were similar to Stalin, allowed some private property, didn't take their food, etc. He allows this so that he can blame them later for China being poorly run. A key part of this cult of personality is the little red book. It’s been printed hundreds of millions of times, it’s actually known as Quotations of Mao, literally just quotes of wisdom from Mao that spread his cult of personality. In 1964, China tested its first bomb. This changes how the West sees China, gaining them respect out of fear. Day 23 Notes Mao is being convinced that the Revolution is being corrupted from within. Starting in 1966, Chinese society was purified of bourgeois intellectualism. Empowered youth to murder authority figures. Mao thought the SU had lost its way and condemned Stalin's legacy, he believed the Communist Party didn’t care about the Revolution anymore, just staying in power. He didn’t want this to happen in China. The Chinese had really struggled, but Mao blaming himself wasn’t an option, so he advertised that the Revolution was being corrupted. May 16th, Mao announced that some people in authority were capitalists, he said that they would try to seize power. Striking fear among the people by bringing up the Soviet Union as an example. The Gang of Four stands out in Mao's camp as being especially violent and aggressive, one of them being Mao's wife, despite not having a great relationship. Young people should attack their parents, professors, and unleash a tidal wave. There was no significant challenge to him at this time. China is now in social and economic chaos. Mao disbanded the Red Guards, ordered them to be labour for peasants. The People's Liberation Army is now tasked with protecting the Revolution. In the 70’s, Mao was almost dead. He continues to purge the parties. He is concerned with what will happen when he dies. SU and China are still bickering about who the Communist Party truly is. Mao then decides to meet with the West, specifically Richard Nixon. Nixon is a strong capitalist, why is he meeting with Mao in China? The talks aren’t extensive, more symbolic, but there are some trade talks, and it ends up increasing trade between the two of them. China opens its markets up to the world eventually. He likely had Parkinsons, maybe ALS. Addicted to drugs, poor hearing, likely was blind. Multiple heart attacks as well. Died in 1976. Day 25 Notes Idi Amin is our African dictator. Uganda is divided significantly regionally, tribally, ethnically. Buganda was viewed by the British as civilized by Africans. The Bugandans were propped up by the British as sort of being trusted and capable. The Northerners were viewed as backwards and primitive. It was claimed they had no government, which wasn’t true, though it wasn’t very capable. They were called Muslims, maybe even Arabic, however, they were good fighters, it was all based on racist assumptions. Britain used these divisions to their advantage by convincing the population that they will need to oversee them. Idi Amin was a Muslim convert, his father was a police officer and in the King's Army Rifles, and his mother was a traditional healer, or witch according to the British. The British claimed they wanted to remove slavery, they just changed it to indebted servitude, which they viewed as the same thing by raising taxes to such an extent that most would have to do it. Idi was one of many that joined the military to avoid this. He enlisted in 1946, and gained a reputation as an effective soldier. He is very violent, and helps quash Black African resistance to British rule in Uganda. Through the 50’s, he helped quash the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya. He was seen as a stooge of the British, this was because he was a part of the British forces that took down African resistance, he betrayed his people. Critics of that would say that assuming that is racist in and of itself, he may not have identified with black people necessarily, he was also following orders. British forces viewed Amin as an ideal candidate if armed forces were to be Africanized, although that is not the plan that they favour. Gets to a point where he is one of two black supervisors. Amin rose quickly, Ugandan independence came in 1962 under PM Milton Obote. Amin was very important during this time under Obote, he helped to calm down mutinies and present grievances to Obote, who made concessions. He was seen as defending Ugandan rights, while also proving himself to the British. There are significant revolts during this time, where the Africans recognize and believe that the British are still running the show. Amin uses the fact he is one of them to appeal to them. Amin takes demands from the people to Obote, which show to be reasonable. It doesn’t last, but helps to prove Amin. Obote, worried for his powers, goes on the offensive, suspending the constitution. Amin is appointed head of the armed forces. He is united Uganda, whether anyone likes it or not. This created a rift between Amin and Obotoe after a while. They negotiated with the British during the Cold War, threatening to not help them if they didn't give in. Amin is promoted to commander of the army during this time as well. Amin knows at this point Obotoe will try to kill him, but nonetheless Obotoe gets convinced to go to an important meeting in Singapore. Amin overthrows his government while Obotoe is at the meeting. Amin is named temporary leader. Immediately, Amin purges the military, which is the only thing he seems to know how to do. He relies on an army from his hometown, which he gives special privileges to. Obote allied forces attacked Uganda in 1972 of people that didn't like Amin. Repression increases significantly during this time. Amin orders the expulsion of all Asians, he calls himself the Black Hitler. Thousands of people have to leave during this time. The West condemns this, but most Ugandans support it. But it devastated the Ugandan economy. Day 28 Notes The Vietnam war went poorly for the States because they weren’t willing to sacrifice their own people. Bombs were dropped on Cambodia, an innocent party, in 1973, by the Americans. It kills a lot of Vietnamese, but the Vietnamese don’t care about losing people, eventually, they realize the Americans won’t keep killing citizens like that. They reach a treaty, but the treaty is quickly broken. So the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea takes over. They are unknowns, they were not known as the people that had taken over Cambodia. In fact, the citizens think they defeated the Americans, and the war was going to stop. They had been in the rural areas through most of this area. Within weeks, the Kampuchea over evacuated everyone in the cities, everyone was an enemy of the people that needed to be eradicated or removed. Leads to significant deaths as the Kampuchea starts to purge, if they aren’t helpful to the revolution, they are killed. Sick people, old people, children. They abolish money, and all forms of religion. Money is no longer worth anything. Poi Pot is the general secretary of the Democratic party, but no one knows he’s the leader, as he lies in the background. The head of state tries to rein them in, ends up getting kidnapped and becomes a puppet leader. To the detriment of the Cambodian people, they continue to rule for years. Collectivize agriculture to gather money, even though they had gotten rid of money. They would be able to stand on their own against their enemies, primarily Vietnam. They wanted the country to be self-sufficient. Pot was very convinced it only didn’t work because people didn’t try hard enough, so he executed people as his system didn’t work. Pot arrests all the people he’s been allied with for years. Pot also abolishes education, turning high school into an interrogation complex, which is now a genocide museum. One example is over 5000 people were in the place, only 6 survived. The people from April 17th were turned into slaves, many of which died. They went to war with Vietnam in 1977. A series of border raids are carried out by the Cambodians, which in response leads to attacks. He resented Vietnam for believing that they didn’ t respect Cambodia. Su supported Vietnam, China supported Cambodia, became a proxy war between two communist nations, and supported by communist parents. It doesn’t go well with Cambodia, who had killed all of the people that could have served in the army. When Vietnam is able to liberate prisoners, Pot kills the soldiers, this method obviously has consequences. Most of the fighting takes place in Cambodia. In 1978, Vietnam invaded Cambodia fully, which they won easily and quickly. Vietnam then creates their own Communist government. They kick out Poi Pot. They publicize Poi Pot's crimes. Vietnam gives the government the same name as the previous one, basically a puppet government for Vietnam. Poi Pot and some others are able to flee to Thailand. By 1980, everyone knows what Poi Pot did, in less than four years, they had killed about 25% of the Cambodian population. However, because of Vietnam's reputation, Thailand agrees to protect Poi Pot and his people, in exchange for China not funding Vietnam. So, China sends supplies and pays for Poi Pot, and so does America, they reject the new government in Cambodia because they lost in Vietnam. America supports Poi Pot being protected and funded by Thailand and China. Pot carries out raids in Cambodia from Thailand trying to retake it. Also means they keep their seats in the United Nations for 14 years after his crimes were made public. The justification made by the US is that Pot isn’t running the party anymore, which he claims, but he’s lying. In the mid 90’s, Cambodia had an election under the supervision of the UN, which didn't last very long. This ends all the international support for Poi Pot. In 1997, he ordered the murder of his closest ally and their family. Finally, his party has enough, and they consider Poi Pot a traitor, Pot dies while on trial by heart attack. Some repetition from previous tests. Need to know authors' last names and who they wrote about. Will focus on major events, themes, people, and organizations. Won’t be testing on specific dates or stats. Guest lectures can be included. Most questions will be about a specific dictator, although some might be on themes. What were the themes or the focus of specific readings? List of Authors of Readings + Subheadings Non-Specific Dictators: Dictatorship: Modern Tyranny Between Leviathan and Behemoth by Jan C Behrends Benito Mussolini: Mussolini by Peter Neville Chapters 2,5,6,9 Sub Headings: Chapter 2: The Achievement of Power The Genesis Fascism The Red Two Years The Death of Liberal Italy The Taking of Power The March on Rome Fascism: revolution or counter-revolution? Mussolini and Parliament The Fascist Grand Council The Voluntary Militia for National Security The 1924 Elections Chapter 5: Italian society under Mussolini, 1931–39 Winning Over Italy's Youth Women Under Fascism The Media Corporativism and the Great Depression The Dopolavoro Opposition in Fascist Italy Anti-Semitism Was there a Fascist consensus? Chapter 6: The Ethiopian War, 1935–36 The end of the old diplomacy, 1932–35 The Austrian crisis Fascism in Africa The Ethiopian Question The invasion of Ethiopia’ The Hoare–Laval Pact The consequences of the war Chapter 9: The last phase, 1943–45 The foundation of the Italian Social Republic A dictator's twilight The Congress of Verona The last days Conclusion Mussolini in retrospect Adolf Hitler Hitler by Ian Kershaw Eva Braun: Life With Hitler by Heike Gortenmaker War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust by Doris Bergen Kershaw Chapter 1: Power of the Idea No subheadings Braun Chapter 9: Isolation of War The Outbreak of War The Berghof of Fuhrer Headquarters The Beginning of the End Bergen Death Throes and Killing Frenzies Attacks on the Nazi Regime The Soviet Advance Allied Bombing and Conditions in Germany D Day - Allied Invasion from the West The Plot of 20 July, 1944 The Volkssturm The Warsaw Uprising Germany's Allies and the Jews of Hungary Auschwitz and the end of war The Death Marches Final Collapse Joseph Stalin Popular Opinion in Stalin’s Russia: Terror, Propaganda, and Dissent, 1934- 1941 by Sarah Davis Stalin by Hiroaki Kuromiya Davis Chapter 9: The leader cult in official discourse The evolution of the cult The cult as official culture Chapter 10: Affirmative representations of the leader and the leader cult The leader as benefactor The traditional defender of the people The Charismatic Leader Kuromiya Chapter 7: Twilight of the god Victory Cold War Death Also, supposed to read Conclusion ig Mao Zedong From Urban Radical to Rural Revolutionary: Mao from the 1920s to 1937 by Brantly Womack War, Cosmopolitanism, and Authority: Mao from 1937-1956 by Han J

Being A Good Citizen Vocab 2

Unit 5: Citizen Participation AP Government

SOP’s ON FIRE ARSON INVESTIGATION & BFP CITIZENS CHARTER

World Citizens

ETVT citizens can no longer feels that their rights are secure

Thẻ ghi nhớ: Unit 9. Good citizens | Quizlet

Being A Good Citizen Vocab 1