GOV 20 Midterm
Factions (Madison's definition)
"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." (Madison, Federalist 10)
War Powers Resolution
An act intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. It requires president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and to pull troops back home after 60 days if there has been no congressional action. No sitting president has agreed with this because they believe it is an illegal act. The resolution was override a veto by President Nixon and was violated in 1989 by Bill Clinton. Presidents say this is unconstitutional (going against pro executive chief) All major conflicts have had congressional confirmation (iraq afghanistan) Presidents have tried to respect it Example of congress trying to reign in the executive a little bit. Bigger check (gives more power to congress) on Executive branch with war congress.
Liberalism, Classical and New
Classical Liberalism: Govt. protecting your rights People have a natural state of rights Liberals believe that these rights would not be secure unless we have a state to protect and provide those rights. This means that the state has conditional loyalty, if the state does an insufficient job at protecting or providing those rights we as a people can revolt. Distrust of state Liberals are concerned with economic ambition and economic inequality. Liberals wanted regulation. Threat to liberty is in the state-- right to bear arms, freedom of speech. To protect against a tyrannical government New Liberalism: Govt. is providing rights Old liberal tradition has a distrust of state power, new liberalism tried to combat/rehabilitate that distrust We saw FDR's Economic Bill of rights which is considered the second wave of liberalism. This generated welfare rights to Americans as FDR said, "necessitous men are not free men." Are people really free if they are impoverished? Economic Bill or Rights brought right to housing, healthcare, living wage and socioeconomic security → medicaid, medicare food stamps, headstart came about from that. In the 60s there was a decline in liberal confidence. There was a growing discomfort with identifying as a "liberal" the term was negative. Positive liberties that the government has a duty to provide rights to its citizens The collapse of the New Deal Coalition happened in 1972 Democratic interest groups were not consistent enough in their support for welfare policies from New Deal The New Deal Coalition was a group of voting blocs and interest groups, that supported Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, and voted for Democrat presidential candidates from 1932 through until the 1960s Political scientists often refer to the New Deal Coalition as the realignment of US Politics, allowing the Democrats to become the majority party in US Politics throughout the period. The New Deal Coalition encompassed members from all sections of US Society including: unions, blue collar workers, industry, minorities, intellectuals, Southerners and Democratic party organisations in the states. Major reasons for the collapse included the Vietnam War and large scale riots Many of those in the Coalition joined in the 70s and 80s as Reagan democrats.
Political Machines
Definition: a hierarchical organization controlled by a single leader, a "boss," or a tightly organized clique. A majority of America's big industrial cities were once governed by machines. The classic machines flowered in the last years of the nineteenth century. Boss rule peaked in the 1920s and in 1932 10 of the top 30 major cities were ruled by machine bosses. Today, the urban political machine is pretty much extinct. 2 things made machine politics possible -- the emergence of a mass electorate and industrialization. A large proportion of machine politicians got their start from being pub owners. precinct captain → ward lieutenant → ward leader → the boss Precinct captains → alderman → Boss (usually mayor) No evidence that Machine politics accomplished more than non machine politics Precinct Captain: Lowest level of machine Precinct captain is responsible for mobilizing people to vote in their precinct. It is an informal position, they are not voted As long as they get people to vote, then they are in good graces of ward/alderman They know their voters by name, they have close ties and are intimate in nature. Ward: A district made up of a bunch of precinct The alderman is the leader of the ward. Alderman: The representative of that ward, like a city councilman Boss Mayor
Identity Politics, Critiques and Defenses of
Definition: a kind of pseudo-politics that, despite whatever one thinks of the claims being made, distracts attention away from issues and focuses it on questions of personal identity or social recognition. Lilla believed that the civil rights and feminist movements were important in their time but, "At the moment, however, he finds such movements to be counterproductive, sucking energy away from the simple and urgent task of getting more Democrats into office." Counter argument: "I've argued that all politics is identity politics insofar as politics involves the assertion of values in the public sphere. If you grant that values are bound up with identity, it's not clear to me how you circumnavigate this problem. Vox's Matthew Yglesias made a similar point in his response to your piece, which is that politics is not — and has never been — a public policy seminar. People have identities, and they're mobilized around those identities. And so, as Yglesias wrote, "there is no other way to do politics than to do identity politics." Arguments against: Lilla fails to bring up the fact that Republicans use identity politics in a major way. - Lilla does not use evidence to support his arguments (doesn't interview campus activists)
Deliberative vs. Popular Majorities (Bessette Reading)
Deliberation is in conflict with democracy because you need all these reforms that are un democratic, however popular majority (surveying the public etc.) is different than deliberate majority. Deliberate majority would be better because they are doing what a popular majority "would think/do" if they had all the time and resources to debate the issue in a deep way. Congress is designed to favor deliberation majority, not to empower the majority One demand of from a popular majority came in Rhode Island in 1786 when there was a demand for paper money. Only officials who would go through with creating a paper money would be elected and it destroyed the state's economy. This was very alarming to the founding fathers. Popular majority is what the majority wants Deliberative is what the public would want if it knew everything about politics House of Representatives-- 2 year terms Senate-- 6 year terms
Deliberative Democracy Definition
Deliberative democracy was the conscious creation of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, ratified by the "reflection and choice" of the people of the U.S. acting through representative state conventions. These events forced political leaders to think through more fully and more deeply than they previously had the principles, problems, and institutional basis of effective self-government. (Bessette)
Patronage
Developed under Andrew Jackson. Built around the post office but spread to American cities. Designed to get less elite in politics and include everyday people in politics And build a party What did the voters get? → In the early years it was jobs in the post office, it was centered initially in federal patronage. This existed mainly in cities Started in federal level Jackson would give jobs in the post office this would help build the party, they would get the job with their loyalty to Jackson It's machine politics
Paradox of Diversity (Lecture on Madison/Federalists)
Diversity creates tension and challenges stability in terms of interest. It de-homogenizes society which can lead to one group oppressing another. However a lot of diversity is actually a blessing because it decreases or eliminates the possibility of one group being the overwhelming majority that oppresses the minority. In having separate groups interests it evens out the playing field. Difference of thought leads to oppression. If you are going to have diversity, you need a lot of it.
Second (Economic) Bill of Rights
FDR created the New Deal Basically he said that no man could be free while impoverished. In order to achieve life liberty and the pursuit of happiness we need to implement safety nets to guarantee citizens rights to welfare, housing and food stamps etc. "All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being."
Parties and the Constitution
Federalist 10 desires to get rid of majority factions. Some might say that parties have done the opposite of this as the conservative movement looks for one party domination-- a majority faction looking to take over the government. Others, though, say that parties have cured the mischiefs of parties and forced compromises. If you are a part of a specific group you need to conform to other ideals within the parties and you must think about the public good in a broader way. The quest to dominate forces individuals to become more moderate, undermine some core principles in order to achieve a more popular union. An example of this was when Grover Cleveland supported the Bush plan to expand medicare to gain key votes in Florida. A sacrifice that was needed to advance his other objectives. If they want to dominate the party they need to be more inclusive to diversity of thought. Party is based on 3 majority groups: social/cultural conservatives (religious groups) Economic conservatives Foreign Policy Conservative Because the Republican party is so large and becoming more diverse, (they are the combination of multiple interest groups) they unite under the idea of anti liberalism. This means that if the Democratic party died, so might the republican party.
Democracy, Popular and Representative
Federalist 10 → Madison on Factions Factions are bound to happen in any govt that allows liberty. One is destroy liberty (which he knows isn't a good alternative) Make every single person have the same ideas (which is impossible) So he advocated for diversity. In terms of Popular democracies, Madison believes that this will enable factions to have more control politically and oppress the other factions even more. Representatives helped resolve this issue by allowing one person to make decisions that were best for the people they were representing. It kept the power away from the popular majority/faction
Federalist Nos. 10
Federalist 10→ (From wikipedia) Written by James Madison, Federalist No. 10 addresses the question of how to reconcile citizens with interests contrary to the rights of others or inimical to the interests of the community as a whole. Madison saw factions as inevitable due to the nature of man - that is, as long as men hold differing opinions, have differing amounts of wealth and own differing amount of property, they will continue to form alliances with people who are most similar to them and they will sometimes work against the public interest and infringe upon the rights of others. He thus questions how to guard against those dangers. -- "There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects. There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests." He believes that factions are inevitable and go against the good fo the community. He uses this to argue for a republic and not a direct democracy.
Federalist Nos. 51
Federalist 51 → (From wiki) Addresses means by which appropriate checks and balances can be created in government and also advocates a separation of powers within the national government. One of its most important ideas is the often quoted phrase, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition" and its "if men were angels" argument is famous. Madison advocates checks and balances through separation of powers
Purpose of the State (Federalists vs. Antifederalists)
Federalists-- greatly influenced by John Locke. Rights would be violated without a State. Government is an unfortunate necessity. Everyone should have a conditional loyalty to the gov. Pure democracies can't improve public advances→ ancient Greece. After revolution, democracies were a disaster in the Federalist opinion. The solution was a republic so we could vote in officials to represent issues. In a large population it is hard to organize big factions. Federalist thought proximity to the politicians is bad because of corruption. They wanted representatives with a broad knowledge of the country. Did not want people with small minds just for their districts. Wanted elites. Purpose of govt is to represent the people, to do this, you need to be far removed/ not intimate with the people they are representing. This would lead to corruption. They want more elitist representatives. Anti-Federalists- Purpose of state-- Looked to Aristotle. Politics should make us more virtuous. Develop moral characteristics. Aim of humans to develop moral and intellectual capacity. Wanted to keep things small and defended states rights. Close ties will hold all officials accountable. Wanted a small republic that know their representatives well so they can develop the same values. Wanted a physical and social proximity. Didn't need to be a genius to be a good representative. They wanted trust and intimacy. One size doesn't fit all. You can't represent a radically diverse group and there is no such thing as a national/public interest. More in favor of popular majorities and weren't into deliberation. Before constitution, states were a lot more antifederalist.
Game vs. Governing Schema (Patterson)
Game vs. Governing Schema (Patterson) Schema in general is a way of interpreting information. Everyone has their own schema. For someone with a game schema who is looking at a policy, they will be critical of why the candidate is creating that policy because they believe he or she is only creating that policy so that that candidate can win because they want more powerful. For someone with a governing schema, they will see how these policies affect or help them personally or within their community The Game: (more critical) Politics is a game played by individual politicians for personal advancement, gain or power. The game is a competitive one and the players' principal activities are those of calculating and pursuing strategies designed to defeat competitors and to achieve their goals. The game is played before an audience (the electorate) which controls most of the prizes and players therefore constantly attempting to make a favorable impression. In consequence, there is an endemic tendency for players to exaggerate their good qualities and minimize their bad ones, to be deceitful to engage in hypocrisies to manipulate appearances. These bad tendencies should be expose. They reduce the electorate's ability to make its own discriminating choices, and they may hide player's infractions of the game's rules, such as those against corruption and lying. Governing Schema: (more naive) The voters possess a different schematic overlook. They view politics primarily as a means of choosing leaders and solving their problems. As the voters see it, policy problems, leadership traits, policy debates and the like are all key dimensions of presidential politics. The common thread in voter's schematic structure is the broad question of governance. We will use the simplified term governing schema to indicate the overs' perspective on campaign politics. Political Scientist Samuel Popkin explains: voters actually do reason about parties, candidates and issues. They have premises and they use those premises to make inferences about their observations of the world around them. They think about who and what political parties stand for, they think about the meaning of political endorsements, they think about what government can and should do . And the performance of government parties and candidates affect their assessments and preferences. How they are linked: The quest for victory and power is connected to issues of leadership and policy in the minds of both journalists and voters. It is not that journalists lack a governing schema, or that voters do not have a game schema. But the game schema dominates the journalist's response to new information far more than the voter's response. The governing schema is, by contrast, a larger part of the voter's response than the journalist. Media is going more toward game schema
Self-interest Properly Understood (Tocqueville Reading)
It is in our self interest to be virtuous because we want to live in a society that is virtuous. In reality there is not much effort in this idea of self interest and helping others. This doctrine does not produce great devotion, but little safricices every day. This will not make a man virtuous but will being him near to it through good habits. Being honest with others, that basic idea promotes a happy community culture. Dishonesty doesn't make good business or commerce. Virtue is not a good in of itself because it is inherently self beneficial. It is use as an instrument for their own self interest. It is not giving back just to give back. It also puts limits on how saintly/heroic people can be.
Paradox of Liberty (Lecture on Madison/Federalists)
Liberty requires the people to be weak and somewhat powerless Citizens need to be weak for a republic to be stable. The constitution is designed to protect our liberty but can only do so if it keeps us weak. Lengthening terms, expanding districts, etc. If we want to be more powerful as citizens we run the risk of having our rights violated-- because nothing will stop the majority, If we want to be free, we need this constitution to keep us weak If you exercise your political freedom and liberty, you are likely to have limited power Whole system is designed to keep factions weak, institutions weak. Too much democracy leads to tyranny
Constitution and Deliberation (Bessette reading)
Madison and Washington were concerned that things were going to become "too democratic. They were revolutionaries and going from a revolution to a government order, they were in general worried that the people would gain too much power. They wanted a just system with deliberation and democracy They wanted a government that was democratic and wise. They thought that the unwise politicians were formed through small governments that elected on mere popularity and rhetoric. Deliberation: "reasoning on the merits of public policy. In order to achieve deliberation and democracy: Longer terms for representative → this gives them time for someone to become educated and familiar with issues Staggered terms for senate → only ⅓ is up for re-election at a time, that way there is always some experienced personnel in senate. This also prevents any drastic shift in terms of party. Federalists thought that deliberation was better in small groups They wanted small legislature with large districts Anti-Federalists wanted large legislature with small districts. (example, Massachusetts had 300 assembly members with 1,100 constituents each) Before the Constitution was ratified Madison stated the state governments failed to provide stable, effective and just governance within their borders. And the states had "injustice" in their laws. Additionally, legislatures would too often pass foolish, shortsighted measures-- ie- North Carolina prohibited the export of beef, pork and maize (to try to combat scarcity) and destroyed a viable trading system with South Carolina. State legislatures also had complete legislative tyranny over state gov. State political systems were too democratic, going with the popular vote, thus making bad policy because they were not informed enough to make well thought out laws etc. State officials also had shorter terms (1 year), which was changed constitutionally. Crux of democracy and deliberation: Democracies and republics had traditionally been governed by mass assemblies of the citizenry or by relatively large representative institutions. Yet such bodies too easily swayed by demagogues and sophists and too often characterized by passion, confusion, and intemperance are ill suited for calm and regular deliberation on the merits of public measures. Thus the more closely the governing body in a republic or democracy resembles the people themselves in number and types, the less it will be suited for the business of sound political deliberation. This is the crux of the tension between democracy and deliberation. Deliberation puts a premium on reason, order, information, commonality of interest and farsightedness; yet these qualities do not in general characterize decision making through the most apparently democratic forms: that is by mass assemblies of the people or by very large representative bodies. Electoral mechanisms that would promote the selection of wise and virtuous leaders would mitigate but not solve this fundamental problem.
Popular Presidency
Madison and other founders did not want popular voters because they thought voters would have a tough time assessing whether someone was of high moral character. Given the President is hemmed in by the Constitutional powers, the concerns were that the President would go out the Constitutional limits to get real powers. The electoral college limits the rhetorical powers and keeps the costs down.
Virtues of extended (large) republic
Prevent majority factions, keeps the majority of factions weak, elevates good leaders into office- you needed to be successful and well known.
Virtues of small republic
Representatives needed to try and have the same interests as the common people. To do so you needed physical and social proximity. Federalists thought that this intimacy would create a bias in decision making → "good representation is from weak ties to those they are representing." There is an aristocratic quality to federalists Federalists want distance between constituents and representatives Distance destroys intimacy and trust. A lack of intimacy and trust creates the ideal unbiased representatives for federalists.
Saloons
Saloons seem to have exercised significant roles in a growing urban industrial environment: it was a neighborhood center, an all male establishment and a transmitter of working-class and immigrant cultures. A real community center where men could congregate and discuss social and political topics. Saloons were often associated with urban machine politics. Saloons provided politicians a means to contact and organize workingmen and political machine sold favors to saloons. Very useful at the ward level-- the alderman was the backbone of the political machine. The saloons served as a social institution, a center for recreation and camaraderie and a refuge from the family. Excellent base for organizing the vote. A great proportion of councilmen were saloon keepers. And 2/3rd of the political conventions and primaries in NYC were held in saloons.
Presidential Mandate (Dahl)
The President was the leader of the people Clinton wanted 50% of votes, giving him mandate → Majority of public had voted for him so he can push his agenda. Woodrow Wilson took the further step in the evolution of the mandate theory by asserting that in representing the people the president was not merely equal to Congress, but actually superior to it. It also questions if 50% of the votes mean that those voters approve of everything they want to implement in their term
Shrinking sound bite (Patterson)
The Shrinking sound bite is discussing the decreasing amount of time the news spends using uninterrupted videos or audio clips from politicians, especially presidential candidates. Media outlooks have used less and less direct quoting and more on the game schema in the presidential nomination process. Less audio and more "why" the candidate is saying what they are saying. More critical, less of a summary of what they are saying. The quotes in newspapers, not its shorter and quicker in order to play towards this game interpretation of campaigns. It limits the information the public has of policies and information on candidates
Partisan segregation (the big sort)
The big sort states that people do not live in states, they live in communities. And those communities are not close to being in equipoise, even within solidly blue or red states. They are, most of them, becoming more democratic or more republican. As Americans have moved over the past three decades, they have clustered in communities of sameness. Little of the political migration was by design. In 1976 less than a quarter of Americans lived in places where the presidential election was a landslide. By 2004, nearly half of all voters lived in landslide counties.
Democracy vs. Deliberation
The founding fathers believed that democracies were too easily swayed by demagogues and was characterized by passion and confusion and ill suited for regular deliberation on the merits of public measures. So, the Framers looked to design a government that would promote reasoned policy making while preserving the spirit and the form of popular government-- combining Deliberation and Democracy. Four conditionals for deliberative democracy to work 1. Defuse the problem of majority factions. 2. Restrict the legislative authority to properly legislative matters. (So they implemented separation of powers) 3. Promote the election of more knowledgeable political leaders. 4. Fashion an institutional environment that would foster genuine deliberation.
Social Capital (definition)
The networks of relationships among people who live and work in a particular society, enabling that society to function effectively.
Partisanship (new evidence) VOX Political Identity is Fair Game for Hatred
The point of IATs is to measure the snap judgments your brain makes at speeds faster than conscious thought. Mountains of psychological research shows that these judgments are powerful — that much of what we consciously think is an after-the-fact rationalization for the instant judgment we made before we had time to think. IATs are meant to expose those judgments. Iyengar and Westwood's idea was simple: Why not use an IAT to measure partisan bias, too? Used the IAT test, the one that is used to show racial bias, for partisan bias. What they found was that people were discriminating against the other party more than people are racist. "Political identity is fair game for hatred," he says. "Racial identity is not. Gender identity is not. You cannot express negative sentiments about social groups in this day and age. But political identities are not protected by these constraints. A Republican is someone who chooses to be Republican, so I can say whatever I want about them." What Iyengar and Westwood's research shows, however, is that partisanship is no longer just a political phenomenon. Party and ideology have become powerful forms of personal identity, and the way they inform our lives — who we listen to, who we help, even who we love — now stretches far beyond the political realm.
War powers controversy (case for presidential vs. congressional war powers)
There is a lot of debate regarding how the Constitution delegates war powers. A lot of powers are directly given to Congress (ie. to declare war, to levy money) but the President is defined as the commander in chief. What branch of government has the power to place us in a state of war? Pro Congress Interpretation: Only congress can place the U.S. in a state of war. If we are attacked we can immediately respond without the immediate approval of Congress but this interpretation states that we are already in a state of war when another force attack us. The Constitution originally was worded as "make war" but this was changed so Congress wouldn't be involved in the tactics of war. Hamilton (usually on the side of the executive) believed in Congressional powers of war. -Early presidents went to Congress to address wartime efforts (ie- a conflict with Native Americans). - Argue that it's too much pressure/power to be given to one person. Pro Executive Interpretation: More skeptical of key quotes/historical record to interpret the constitution. We don't have a full record and the quotes are hard to follow. Textual Evidence President is commander in chief clause Vestment clause in Article II- list all congressional powers but the Presidential powers are not written and so they have unwritten rules. If someone attacks the US we are in war. (not the same as declaring war)
Woodrow, Wilson (Myth of presidential Mandate)
There was a progressive reform under Woodrow Wilson. A more unified direction with more power to the president. President gained the responsibility to rally popular demands and give American states more direction. (Richard Nixon, though, was the pioneer of the modern President and was the first to use television successfully). Congress should follow presidential leadership He rethought the relationship of the president
Social Capital and Diversity
This was a difference between Tocqueville and Madison's view on social capital. Tocqueville emphasis was on culture. He liked groups, because it went against individualism. Madison focused on institutions and the constitution → he feared factions Tocqueville believed that even with a good constitution, you can still have a bad democracy, he said that having strong cultural capital and a civically engaged culture is vital. Tocqueville believed that groups can be positive and teaches us welfare of state, which are the schools of democracy Madison believed that groups (factions) would only result in the majority oppressing the minority.
Ward Boss/Alderman
This was the structure of Machine Politics The Organization of local political machines or parties parallels the formal structures of government but is also separate from them. Like the mayor, the party leader or boss controls the entire city or perhaps country. The alderman represents a ward in the city council or board of aldermen. The alderman may or may not serve as ward leader of the party. Each ward consists of many precincts or election districts. Precinct captains are responsible for delivering the vote in their precinct. In principle, power flows from the bottom up: Precinct captains elect the ward leaders, the ward leaders elect the party boss. In reality, power flows from the top.
Class Bias and Political Participation (Lecture)
Those who are college educated are more likely to participate politically and vote. Civic engagement is less inclusive now to lower socioeconomic groups and immigrants (Example: Latinos) Machines were good at including the poor due to their ability to provide jobs and material incentives for voting. It was also very ethnicity based, something that brought in a lot of immigrant voters.
Individualism (Tocqueville Reading)
Tocqueville didn't believe groups were natural. He feared that we would become more individual and disconnect from our communities. Tocqueville was particularly interested in individualism. It was new to him. He believed that citizens weren't linked to each other, due to equality. In a democracy you are independent and in a sense can get this idea that you don't need other citizens. Individuals would thrive in democracy It is created by social order Tendency of americans to confine oneself with family and friends, in a small group of people A danger of individualism is that you are not concerned with others in society. However he saw civic and political organizations already in place that would combat this issue. He saw Americans combatting this individualism through churches, town hall meetings etc. He believed that socially connected communities help solve communal/societal problems Disconnected communities are harder to organize Connected communities are often homogenous. Without strong communities, democratic citizens are relatively powerless individuals This is by design, as it is a republic.
Social Capital (evidence for decline) (Bowling Alone)
Tocqueville saw social capital as the interconnectedness of a community with civic engagement. Community connectedness: once front porch, however now people are now declining in social capital possibly through the consequences of social media? Decrease in PTA and Bowling. → people are becoming more insulated. The institutions that promoted social capital and increased civic participation are declining.
McGovern Commission
Up until 1968, presidential nominations in the primary elections were determined by each party. These nominations were entrusted to the leaders in their party with no obligation to align their decision with the voters. This generated a lot of frustration due to its undemocratic nature, especially with the election of Hubert Humphreys in the 1968 Democratic National Convention. During that primary election, the votes and nominations were not in alignment, Humphreys had not entered a single state primary election and was not who the voters wanted. In response, the McGovern-Fraser Commission was created, making the nomination process more transparent and inclusive to the voters. This unintentionally opened the doors for the media to enter the campaign process.
Presidential Character
Who is Presidential? A popular leader-- someone who we can relate to, someone who "gets us". But we don't want them to be identical to us, we expect them to be of higher moral character. Do they need to have a political background with many connections or can it be like Trump or Obama, people who would not have been nominated had it not been for the McGovern Commission? With media influx, it makes us as voters look critically at our presidential candidates and their character.
Energy vs. Deliberation (the Executive vs. Congress)
Yet while the new independent executive branch was to contribute to deliberative decision making, its distinctive contribution to effective and competent governance was to come through energy. Hamilton called for a energy in the executive- which is needed for the steady administration of laws, protection of property and the security of liberty. Deliberation directed toward wise policies is often a slow, untiday and contentious process but an energetic administration requires a hierarchical institution in which authority is concentrated in one set of hands that can act quickly, decisively, and often secretly. The president needs to act quickly and decisively "critical times". A full fledged deliberative process within a legislative body is not well suited for the kind of immediate decision making central to energetic administration. Tension between two democratic goods Energy → Executive is quick, but less deliberative. (Example Obama pardons) Deliberative → Congress is deliberative, but cannot create quick changes
