Final- Article Questions
According to Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist #68, who should choose the president? What kinds of qualities should those people have?
"The people" should not choose the President but instead people should choose wise electors who can become well versed in the information of the given Presidential candidates in order to make an informed decision for the larger public. Hamilton believed that electing the president directly, without the intermediate step of the electors, might lead to instability. Hamilton argues that electors will be protected from bias since they do not hold any other political office and are separated from electors from other states. Hamilton believed that this system would best ensure that the president was a man of great virtue and ability. In designing the electoral college, the founders sought to insulate the selection of president from the convulsions of the multitudes. The college was essentially an extra layer of security helping to guarantee that the president would be a truly capable individual.
Describe three pieces of evidence that lead David Wong (a penname for Jason Pargin) to claim that the way of life for rural whites is dying.
(1) Since the great recession in 2008, small amounts of jobs have been found in small areas (2) there are a good deal of one-factory towns, and when the factory goes down the town is in a bind (3) their is a higher consumption rate or alcohol in rural areas and higher drug use in the city, but rates of suicide are up in rural areas (4) a lot of rural towns are built around paper mills (old paper towns), and as many of the mills have shut down over the years these towns have struggled
What do political scientists mean by the terms "weak states" and "failed states"? Use Somalia as an example.
A "weak state" means the state is in risk of becoming a failed state (ie. Democratic Republic of Congo). A "failed states" means the state is unable to provide public goods. Somalia, perhaps the world's most emblematic failed state, has been without a functional central government, and its capacity to provide key public goods to its citizens has collapsed. Somalia's civil war destroyed the state judiciary, leaving an institutional vacuum that was subsequently filled by the Islamic Courts Union. Somalia lacks not only the ability to effectively provide welfare services like healthcare, but that it also cannot police crime, protect property rights, provide courts and justice, build roads, dispose of garbage, and establish public hygiene States become more fragile as a result of violent conflict; particularly, violent conflict is more likely to occur in fragile states.
Why is a republic better than a pure democracy in checking the dangers of factions— especially majority factions? What is the advantage Madison sees in a large republic versus a small republic?
A faction is a group of people who share a belief that, if acted upon, would jeopardize the rights of individuals outside the group, or the interests of the community as a whole (later they became interest groups, but here are "negative" interest groups). Madison states, "By faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or interest, adversed to the rights of other citizen, or to the permanent aggregate interests of the community." A pure democracy is a society consisting of a small number of citizens who assemble and administer the government in-person (similar to direct as opposed to representative democracy). In a pure democracy, there is nothing to prevent the majority from sacrificing the minority (weaker party); this could include the wealthy, land-owning minority. This is why pure democracies have been incompatible with personal security and property rights. A republic differs from a pure democracy because more people are represented by fewer people and republics can be larger in territory. A larger republic has an advantage because there are more qualified people to choose from to represent the larger population.
How did the individual mandate begin its life as a Republican idea but eventually become a Democratic idea with Republicans not only opposing it but also claiming that it's unconstitutional?
After pushing for either single-payer systems or employer mandates, Democrats were unable to get comprehensive health care passed. They then turned to the individual mandate as a compromise position, as it had come out of the Heritage Foundation and found broad support among Republicans. Once the Democrats made the individual mandate a centerpiece of Obamacare, Republicans opposed it to take down Obamacare and the larger Obama presidency.From the article: "Orin Kerr says that, in the two years since he gave the individual mandate only a one-per-cent chance of being overturned, three key things have happened. First, congressional Republicans made the argument against the mandate a Republican position. Then it became a standard conservative-media position. 'That legitimized the argument in a way we haven't really seen before,' Kerr said. 'We haven't seen the media pick up a legal argument and make the argument mainstream by virtue of media coverage.' Finally, he says, 'there were two conservative district judges who agreed with the argument, largely echoing the Republican position and the media coverage. And, once you had all that, it really became a ballgame.'"
Describe two ways that American political institutions are distinctive compared to other Western democracies.
American institutions are unique and different because there is both a president and congress to make laws. This makes our government a great deal more complex than other countries. Because of the way our system is set up, the power of veto is greater which makes change harder to occur. Another American institution that is distinct compared to other Western democracies is our legal system. It differs because we have a powerful supreme court, legal landscape is a lot more harsh, and we are harder on crime with a higher prison population.
Describe two ways that American values and beliefs are distinctive compared to other Western democracies.
American values and beliefs are focused more on the individual. American's tend to believe people should be working for the benefits they receive, and we tend believe poverty is due to individual failing. American's tend to volunteer more which correlates to us being more religious and put value on strong religious practices. In addition, we go to school more than other countries, however, it is much more difficult to move on the social latter (social mobility) but people believe its possible.
According to Klein, how does congressional gridlock end up empowering the president?
As Congress becomes weaker (in a gridlock), the president becomes stronger. And that's because gridlock doesn't just stop Congress from doing anything, it also stops them from blocking the president from doing things. This has been seen in the past term, when Congress has been too gridlocked to pass immigration reform or a climate bill or a reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, but it's also too gridlocked to stop Obama from pushing the boundaries of his executive authority and lifting the threat of deportation from millions of unauthorized immigrants, or using the Environmental Protection Agency to pass aggressive climate rules, or giving states waivers from No Child Left Behind as long as they do what the Obama administration asks.
What are Bartels' basic claims about voter rationality?
Bartel claims that at the individual level, voters tend to be singularly irrational, however, when looking at voters as a whole, the voters seem to balance out to about what political scientists would predict if all the voters were fully informed in their decision. Bartel went onto explain that uninformed voters would vote for the same candidate 70 percent of the time had they been fully informed.
Why were newspapers so profitable during the twentieth century? How did newspapers lose so much of their advertising revenues?
Because newspapers were the only outlet for news during the twentieth century they were very profitable. As the internet grey, newspapers have failed to keep up with the current pace and appeal to readers. Newspapers were generally localized to one city, creating less competition where only one newspaper was located in a given area. The best way for advertisers to get info out was through newspapers but since the rise of the internet, advertising has been centralized to where people are looking (the internet) rather than spending money on ads in newspapers when people don't read newspapers anymore.
How has a declining public trust in the traditional arbiters of truth—mainstream journalism, government reports, and academic research—allowed lies and conspiracy theories to spread wider and faster than ever before?
Because people have began to trust traditional arbiters less and less, people have began to look to their social networks for information. Social networks are where conspiracy theories thrive best (currently seen egged on by Trump's enormous social power.). Ideas passed from Facebook to Facebook, retweeted by thousands of anonymous accounts can spread quickly without verification or context. People tend to share content that gets the most extreme reactions, which means a terrifying but untrue story will be shared more widely than a mildly alarming but accurate one. In addition, decline in trust was seen amplified as Trump has done his best to discredit the few remaining news organizations that display any rigorous adherence to fact. He regularly tweets at the "failing @nytimes" and smears its "disgusting" and "dishonest" coverage. He calls out CNN for "phony reporting" and slams its "boring anti-Trump panelists, mostly losers in life." He is quick to attack anybody who exposes his falsehoods, painting legitimate news sources as biased and phony. This can add to people's distrust of reputable sources and cause them to turn towards social networks for their information.
Why is the line of conflict—the central issue dividing the parties—so important for understanding who wins elections and who loses?
Both sides (Democrat and Republican) have issues that they know they hold the majority on. They will try to push this issue to be the central issue of the election in order to win the most voted and therefore win the election. For instance, a traditional Republican value is fighting for less gun control laws. The majority of American's, even among Republicans, actually value more regulation on access to guns therefore Democrats would be more likely to push gun control as the central issue (because they would be more likely to win a majority vote) where as Republicans would try to push for an issue in which they hold the majority of people. The side who wins the fight for the central issue, will likely win the majority vote and win the election.
A recent Saturday Night Live skit included the joke, "Who are you going to vote for in this election—Donald Trump or the Republican?" Indeed, Hillary Clinton often gets labeled— especially by her critics on the left—as a conservative Democrat. Describe two ways in which her proposals on social welfare programs show how that description completely misses the mark.
But a world in which Clinton's agenda passed is one in which it would be the stated responsibility of government to ensure everyone can afford health care, child care, and college. It would radically expand the boundaries of the American welfare state, probably for good. She's creating a starter home for the welfare state, one that her successors can renovate to better fulfill the promises it makes. None of these are big, simple programs like Medicare or Social Security. They're kind of kludgy, because that's the sort of thing that gets through Congress. It's a serious attempt to adapt a comprehensive welfare state to the demands of American politics, to overcome the particular flaws of America's political system to create a cradle-to-grave safety net.All of which confirms that as ambitious as her agenda is, Clinton is, at root, a pragmatist who is focused on making the most of the current political atmosphere rather than pinning her hopes on transforming that atmosphere to make more expansive change possible.
What is "constitutional hardball"? Give two examples from each party.
Constitutional hardball describes legal and political moves "that are without much question within the bounds of existing constitutional doctrine and practice but that are nonetheless in some tension with existing pre-constitutional understanding." In other words, moves that do not violate the letter of the law, but do trample on our conventional understanding of how it is supposed to work. One example was seen during the George W. Bush administration, when liberals became concerned about the president taking away power from Congress. The Democrats exercised the Constitutional right of a filibuster in order to keep from approving President Bush's nomination for Justice in the Supreme Court. However, the same was seen exercised by the Republican members of Congress in Obama's term when he nominated someone for a position as Justice in the Supreme Court.
What does David Wong mean in analogizing Donald Trump's appeal among rural whites to that of Tony Stark/Iron Man?
Especially in desperate times, people of all political stripes will root for the person who will insult the other side, and break the rules in order to help them. Additionally, Trump's own supporters already think he's a jerk (insults people, abuses women, etc.), just like Tony Stark. Thus, you can't win them over and get them to oppose Trump by telling them he's a despicable human being. People want an "a**hole" on their side. Even if someone is a bad person, if they are a powerful person, some people trust that person to get things done.
Coates writes: "When we think of white supremacy, we picture COLORED ONLY signs, but we should picture pirate flags." Drawing from different eras of American history down to the present, explain what Coates means by this statement.
FINISH
Describe why, according to Katherine Cramer, the opinions of rural white voters about the desirability of government spending depend on their perceptions of who benefits from that spending.
FINISH
Explain two of Norberg's reasons why people think the world is getting worse when the reverse is actually true.
FINISH
How can speeches and other public advocacy make presidents less likely to achieve a legislative goal?
FINISH
How did the campaign for and against proposed EPA regulations on air quality illustrate Andres's points about campaign-style advocacy?
FINISH
How does modern lobbying differ from the stereotype of behind-the-scenes pressure that lobbyists place on politicians?
FINISH
How has the content of American politics since the 1960s, and especially since 2008, made race and identity the central dividing line between the parties?
FINISH
Rauch argues that many features that used to define American politics were problematic, but we were nevertheless better off with than without them. Describe the advantages he sees in congressional seniority, closed-door negotiations, and pork.
FINISH
What is the best predictor of when a lobbyist will succeed in winning a policy change? Why does that factor matter so much?
FINISH
Why does Arnold think that proposals to raise the wage base subject to social security taxes get no traction now but will become politically appealing once the trust fund runs out and revenues can pay for only 77% of benefits?
FINISH
Why does Coates believe that a national conversation over reparations is both urgent and necessary?
FINISH
Why does Cunningham think that an excessive devotion to objectivity leaves journalists vulnerable to getting manipulated by politicians and spin doctors?
FINISH
Why have trade publications been able to increase their staff and coverage of government operations even as newspapers have shrunk?
FINISH
Why is news coverage a public good, in the economic sense?
FINISH
Why is patience a virtue for lobbyists?
FINISH
On what grounds does Iglesias (drawing from the research of Larry Bartels and Christopher Achen) think that we can't count on voters to reject horrible candidates?
FINISH Iglesias argues that voters use heuristics or shortcuts to make decisions on candidates as well their own perception of the economy (gas prices, how they are doing financially). A traditional way of interpreting this is through what Achen and Bartels call the "folk theory of democracy," a theory that "begins with the voters" and the voters' preferences about politics and government. Ordinary people, according to the folk theory, have various views about what the government should be doing and how the government should be run. And then they "choose leaders who will do those things, or they enact their preferences directly in referendums." But it turns out that this isn't really what happened. Gabriel Lenz did a more sophisticated study of voter dynamics and found that it's actually the opposite. Rather than voters changing their minds about the candidates in response to information about their Social Security plans, voters changed their minds about Social Security.
The US has much in common with Canada, which makes the differences in values, institutions, and policies of the two countries all the more striking. Give two reasons why immigration in Canada, despite being much greater (as a proportion of the population) than in the US, is less contentious.
FINISH: Don't have illegal immigration, there is less inequality, less fear of immigration taking jobs
Why does the goal of objectivity lead journalists to rely on official sources and what Cunningham calls "lazy reporting"?
FINISH: Even among scholars there is disagreement over the meaning of "objectivity". Analysis is seen as inserting bias. By covering both sides of the story they give validity to a side that doesn't deserve it. Lynching is an example for how people to feel the need to justify both sides in order to be a fair reporter however there isn't any valid justification to lynching.
What evidence indicates that race and racism contributed greatly to the emergence and appeal of Donald Trump?
For some on the left, Trump is the result of decades of divisive politics—the inevitable outcome of a Republican political strategy that stoked white racial resentment to win elections. The Republican Party does have a tradition of harnessing white racial resentment to win elections, from the infamous "welfare queen" rhetoric. higher levels of racial resentment have been shown to be associated with greater support for Trump. "White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves,". These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium." . Trump took the "birtherism" conspiracy. Those who feel insecurity most acutely have turned out to back the real estate mogul en masse.
How did discrimination in mortgage loans from the 1930s to the 1960s keep blacks from building wealth through home ownership? What did it mean to buy a house "on contract" from a predatory lender?
From the article: "In a contract sale, the seller kept the deed until the contract was paid in full—and, unlike with a normal mortgage, Ross would acquire no equity in the meantime. If he missed a single payment, he would immediately forfeit his $1,000 down payment, all his monthly payments, and the property itself." Families would often be evicted, leaving the owners with the down payments, monthly payments, and the property itself. Aside from extralegal barriers to mortgage loans, the FHA also practiced redlining, coding areas with large African-American populations as ineligible for home loans. Entire mortgage industry follows suit, making it near-impossible to obtain a legitimate mortgage.
In Arnold's alternative model of citizen control of legislators, what role do activists, interest groups, and challengers play?
In Arnold's alternative model, he describes the use of intermediaries between politicians and the citizens. These intermediaries, such as activists, interest groups and challengers, keep politicians accountable. Because each individual does not have the time, resources or power to keep track of each thing the legislators do, interest groups can step in and keep the politicians aligned for the population. This can also help people gauge a better understanding of the politicians they are choosing to vote for because many of these interest groups release information about the stances of each politician, creating a large information shortcut for citizens. As an example, the NRA releases a report card on each politician and their stance on gun control laws, ranking them. This makes it easy (1) for citizens to know their politicians are being held to their promises on gun control issues and (2) for citizens to gain information quickly about each candidates policies without having to research individually.
What is the solution in a parliamentary system to a situation where the legislative and executive are at loggerheads? Why can't that solution work in a presidential system?
In parliamentary system, when the legislative and executive are at loggerheads, officials can be voted out. In the presidential system, since both the president and congress were elected by the people, it is assumed it was the will of the people.
How were presidential candidates expected to behave during the early years of the American republic? How did those expectations reflect political elites' beliefs about democracy?
In the first few contests for America's highest office, the candidates were almost completely passive. Campaigns were orderly procedures for designating society's obvious, virtuous, natural leaders. Candidates functioned as icons, ideal representations of the perfect gentleman and leader. Fear of mob rule and dictatorship which drove elections to look like this. Elites selected the president, not the people.
How did presidential candidates campaign differently beginning in the populist era (late 19th century)?
In the populist era, candidates were more aggressive, independent candidates. Rise in media coverage caused candidates to began speaking to public about issues. There was more dialogue with the wishes of the public and more personality with the public rather than just having the candidate state what they stand for and standing back to see who votes. Candidates were no longer mere actors but activists, more independent of party, less regional in orientation, and more visible in the campaign. With the empowered president speaking to people in their living rooms via radio, then television, the office became more powerful yet more personal, requiring candidates who were charismatic and eloquent yet accessible.
For the standard model of citizen control of legislators, why does Arnold find it useful to distinguish between outcomes and policy preferences? What must citizens know about legislators for the model to work?
In the standard model, citizens have outcomes and policy preferences. A problem can arise from this because sometimes outcomes and policies don't align and citizens are unaware of this fact. For example, if citizens wanted to have more firemen (outcome), they may not understand that taxes must go up to fund more firemen (policy) when they wish for lower taxes and therefore their outcome and policy preferences will not align. In the standard model, Arnold explains the legislators want to be reelected so they try to appeal to citizens outcome and policy preferences.
What kinds of presidential candidates were most successful during the electronic era (1950s to the present)? How did campaigns differ from earlier eras?
In this electronic era, smooth talkers such as John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama dominated elections with what George H. W. Bush's chief of staff John Sununu called the "see-me-feel-me-touch-me" campaign. This era began with the access to use television for campaign purposes. Candidates had to appear charismatic. TV commercials were became a big part of each campaign and candidates personalities became more important than party platform, transparency. Campaigns became more expensive. In the Nixon and JFK first debate, the way the debate looked on television and sounded on the radio made people disagree on who won the debate.
What aspects of political science make it seem to be a science?
It has scientific qualities when using the scientific method.
How does the concept of motivated reasoning help explain why people with greater political awareness are often, paradoxically, less accurate in their knowledge of specific facts?
It is defined as "when a person is conforming their assessments of information to some interest or goal that is independent of accuracy." This is more of a problem with well-informed individuals because they have more strongly held views regarding their interests and goals. Because people with "more knowledge" have more access to information, they have a greater ability to pick and choose the information they want to use to back up their previously held beliefs. This is just an example and extension of the confirmation bias.
Describe the difference between journalists, who emphasize campaign events as the main causes of presidential election outcomes, and political scientists, who focus on what Noel calls the "fundamentals."
Journalists focus on election outcomes through use of intuition rather than basing their claims on fact. They also try to overhype elections to draw in readers focusing on campaign events (which makes sense because the goal of journalists is to engage as many readers as possible). Journalists also tend to take polls at face value. Political scientists, on the other hand, look more at the context of the surrounding to describe election outcomes. They look to see what is happening in the country as a whole and focus on quantitative analysis. Political scientists focus on "fundamentals" which are factors such as the state of the economy, people's view towards the incumbent (if they think the incumbent is doing well they will be more likely to vote for the incumbent party nominee), natural disasters, war and other factors like these to describe the outcome of any given election.
What does Klein mean in claiming that the American political system will "muddle through"?
Klein argues that the American political system is actually far less fragile that people believe.
According to Madison, why does a pure democracy make majority factions dangerous?
Madison defines factions as groups of people who gather together to protect and promote their special economic interests and political opinions. Although these factions are at odds with each other, they frequently work against the public interest, and infringe upon the rights of others. In a pure democracy, there would be nothing to stop the majority factions from taking over and creating a government which doesn't take into consideration the wellbeing of the minority factions. They can be harmful to other factions who don't share the same interest.
When asked their party preferences, roughly 1/3 of Americans declare themselves to be "independents." Are that many people really independents? What have political scientists discovered about how independents vote?
Many people who identify as independent tent to demonstrate as partisans would in times of election or when asked to take a position on a given topic. Even at times some independents act as strong as weak partisans do. Independents can be split into two groups: true independents who truly feel that they do not identify with any party and leaners who claim they are independent but act partisans.
How have political scientists analyzed whether unified or divided government leads to greater congressional productivity, as measured by passage of important laws?
Mayhew says there is no difference between the number of landmark laws passed under both types of government. Binder looks at the ratio at the number of laws they tried to pass against the number that did and found that the agenda items are the same size in the different governments however looking at the number of things that passed on the agenda it was found that divided government is less productive especially in polarized government. That is in unified government, there were fewer laws trying to pass but they would pass at a high rate and in divided government, more laws were trying to be passed but only a few were passed through. Mayhew only looked at the end result which appeared similar in productivity.
Who are the people that Rauch calls political middlemen? According to Rauch, what happens in a political system with weak or nonexistent middlemen?
Middlemen are state and national party committees, county party chairs, congressional subcommittees, leadership pacs, convention delegates, bundlers, and countless more, mediated between disorganized swarms of politicians and disorganized swarms of voters. They brought order from chaos. They encouraged coordination, interdependency, and mutual accountability. They discouraged solipsistic and antisocial political behavior. Middlemen have a characteristic that is essential in politics: They stick around. Because careerists and hacks make their living off the system, they have a stake in assembling durable coalitions, in retaining power over time, and in keeping the government in functioning order. Think of them as analogous to antibodies and white blood cells, establishing and patrolling the barriers between the body politic and would-be hijackers on the outside. As with biology, so with politics: When the immune system works, it is largely invisible. Only when it breaks down do we become aware of its importance.
According to a landmark study of lobbying, how much difference does money make to lobbyist's prospects for winning a policy change? Describe two reasons that help explain that result.
One of the most in-depth studies ever conducted on the day-to-day workings of Washington, and the only one based on a random sample — the prizewinning 2009 book, Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses and Why — reveals that the groups with the most money and lobbyists don't necessarily get their congressional way. In fact, an analysis of about 100 randomly selected issues with interest-group involvement shows that advocates on both sides of an issue tend to form diverse coalitions, more or less equalizing their resources. "The weak link between money and policy change is counterintuitive but understandable, the authors say. The balance of power in Washington already hugely favors the rich. The status quo reflects the considerable advantages the wealthy have managed to secure in the law, down through the generations. "If they really wanted something, they probably already have it," Baumgartner says. Yet across the board for the 98 issues, the side with more lobbyists, more PAC donations, bigger organizational budgets and more members won only half the time. Any issue that unites business groups is likely to unite environmentalists, consumers and labor officials in opposition. Wealth and resources can make a difference, the researchers conclude, but only if the balance of resources is heavily skewed toward one side, and that occurred only 19 percent of the time. Even then, the wealthier side didn't always win.
Explain two arguments for originalism as a doctrine of constitutional interpretation.
Originalism is the interpretation of the constitution based on contemporaneous texts, by interpretation the intention of Founders and grounding interpretation based on the meaning of the Constitution at the time it was written. A case for originalism can be that it provides strict guidelines on how the Constitution can be interpreted, creating unbiased interpretation by reduced influence of personal preferences. Another benefit from originalism is that it prevents historical revisionism and judicial activism, when judges practice legislation from the bench, making their own laws (these nine judges should not be allowed to make their own laws).
According to Mark Bauerlein, how have sensitivities over race, sex, citizenship, and religion (often called "political correctness") contributed to Donald Trump's appeal to many Americans?
Our culture has reached a point of exhaustion. The national mood is sour, and it's not all about jobs and medical costs. There is something else to many people's dismay. The problem is this: Our society has sunk so far into sensitivity and guilt that it has relinquished the liberalism that both liberals and conservatives espouse. A society filled with people easily offended ends up an illiberal one running on manners and norms of deference and guardedness. It was a dissent in need of a voice. TV commercials (Daisy & Willie Horton ad). mushrooming campaign budgets (candidates had to be good fundraisers, "invisible primary").
According to Yglesias, why is party polarization over principles more threatening to political stability than party polarization over patronage?
Patronage power is the privilege of placing one's political friends and supporters in in subordinate offices. The old polarization was about control over jobs and money — the kind of thing where split-the-difference compromises are easiest. That polarization was eventually undermined by a new politics built around principles. For decades, politicians found themselves cross-pressured between their commitments to a national party network and to various ideological causes. Today, however, politicians are no longer cross-pressured. We have strong Gilded Age-style parties, but organized around questions of principle rather than questions of patronage. When polarized over principles, its harder to compromise, when polarized about patronage its easier to bargain a few jobs or benefits.
Explain the differences between three possible drivers of election outcomes: persuasion, mobilization, and fundamentals.
Persuasion is how well you can get voters on your side. For example, if I'm a Republican and you're Independent, how well can I get you to be on my side. Mobilization is how many people you actually get out. Continuing with the example, once I, the Republican candidate persuade you to support me, how well can convince you to actually go out and vote for me. Fundamentals are the basics, such as how the economy is doing, demographics of who lives where, people's view towards the incumbent. Political scientists believe the fundamental matter most in election results, but the other two can influence other parts of election outcomes.
What aspects of political science make it seem to be not a science?
Political science can be argued not a science because there aren't any universal laws applicable and methods don't exist in a way that people can agree upon. In additions, political science is not predictable because it attempts to describe the nature of people and people don't follow certain rules and regulations as in hard science, there is no specific law for a given situation, it's hard to pinpoint what causes what.
How have political scientists attempted to measure and study the causes of the growing polarization in American politics?
Political scientists measure polarization by collecting data through role call votes (who showed up to vote and how do they vote), election results and interviews with voters. Methods of measuring polarization: the longitudinal approach, where political scientists look at the same subjects over time to see how they change, and cross-sectional, where political scientists look at one period of time and several subjects at that time to see which is most polarized. Some causes of polarization have been found. One cause is that party heads becoming polarized. Another is when people become more loyal to the party they believe they belong to. Third, the people who watch the news tend to be more extreme so as news expands so do the number of people who identify with each party.
Why does Wearing think it both inevitable and desirable that political scientists study politics from an explicit point of view?
Politics tend to be objective and biased. Wearing argues that we need to acknowledge the biases when researching or making an argument. People should express their bias in their writing.
Describe two ways that American public policies are distinctive compared to other Western democracies.
Public Policies are different in several instances. One, American education is funded in different amounts determined by area. This leads to inequality in funding. Most educational funding is determined at the local level, therefore areas with less freedom in financial spending may have less money funded towards public education than other, well-off areas. This creates inequality in public schooling among different areas in the United States, and limits access to public goods due to minority status or peoples financial wellbeing. Another instance is that the State level has the most control over prison system and law enforcement is a lot more decentralized. For example, we have the Seattle police, Kent police, Spokane police rather than one larger police organization that's jurisdiction lyes in greater area's such as Washington or the United States.
What kinds of threats do authoritarians react strongly on? On what kinds of threats do authoritarians react in similar ways to non-authoritarians?
Read Article/Look at Old Notes
Why is it useful to measure authoritarianism through questions asking about a person's preferred parenting style?
Read Article/Look at Old Notes
On what grounds does Kuo think that campaign finance reform could reduce the amount of polarization in Congress?
Read Article/Look at Old Notes: Kuo argues that the more campaign finance reform is regulated the more Congress will see a reduce in the amount of polarization. He writes "if polarization is a product of who participates in politics—if it stems from party activists and wealthy donors—then regulating campaign finance can go a long way to reduce the influence of the affluent." High reform causes high polarization. He goes on to argue that if there was regulation on the amount of money large benefactors could donate, then candidates would need to appeal not only to the top percent who donate but also to the majority of people
How do the experiences of Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan undermine widespread beliefs about the persuasive power of presidents?
Reagan - Despite his supposed rhetorical mastery, "surveys of public opinion have found that support for regulatory programs and spending on health care, welfare, urban problems, education, environmental protection and aid to minorities"—all programs that the President opposed—"increased rather than decreased during Reagan's tenure." Meanwhile, "support for increased defense expenditures was decidedly lower at the end of his administration than at the beginning." In other words, people were less persuaded by Reagan when he left office than they were when he took office. FDR - Was unable to persuade Americans to enter the Second World War until Pearl Harbor. Despite the credit given to his "fireside chats, he gave only two or three fireside chats a year, and rarely did he focus them on legislation under consideration in Congress.
Across American history what have right-wing and left-wing populism held in common? How have they differed?
Right-wing and left-wing populism both are "champion of the people" and are against the elite and the establishment. They are usually extremes and are more radical in the changes they want. Rise in populous movements are mainly caused by the economy (economic crisis) and tend to be more broad about reform. Left-wing populism tends to try to get people against the top one percent and blame elite themselves. Right-wing populism, however, blame elites cadelizing third parties (ie. minorities).
Explain two arguments against originalism as a doctrine of constitutional interpretation.
Some arguments against originalism is that examining history is a process that is not free of bias. In the case Heller v. DC, two different justices were able to support opposing sides with the use of history. Some also argue that originalism wasn't necessarily the intent of the Founders. This can be argued in the sense that the Founders left some things written in a way that warrants interpretation based on the time and judgement of the justices. For example, the Founders clearly stated that the minimum age of the president was 35. This statement is hard to misinterpret or deny. However, for the statement regarding rule or unusual punishment, the Founders didn't state exactly what qualifies as cruel or unusual punishment. Some argue that this was because the Founders wanted people, each time this was brought up, to interpret themselves based on current times.
Give three reasons why David Roberts advocates for voting by mail.
States save millions of dollars because they don't need to establish polling places or pay polling staff. Voter turnout is higher, especially among younger, older, poorer, and minority voters. There's no need to run two separate election processes, one for in-person votes and another for mail-in absentee votes. Voter rolls are much easier to maintain and verify. Every vote leaves a paper trail. There are no issues with forms of ID, difficulties with access, or opportunities for voter intimidation. Voting by mail is inherently more resistant to wholesale voter fraud.
What does Teles mean in claiming that America has become a "kludgeocracy"? How do the various federal retirement programs (social security, 401k plans, IRAs, pension regulation, etc.) illustrate his points?
Teles creates this term "kludgeocracy" in order to describe the dispute between complexity and simplicity in government seen in regressive redistribution of public policy (rich benefiting, poor not). He defines "kludgeocracy" as a program or policy where the fundamental policy mechanism is substantially more complicated than the problem it is trying to solve dictates. In general, it is a "kludge" because it builds upon, rather than supersedes, the policies that came before it. In Social Security for example, the price paid by ordinary citizens to comply with programmatic complexity is the most obvious downside of kludgeocracy. One of the often overlooked benefits of Social Security, for example, is that recipients silently have taxes taken out of their paycheck and then, without any effort on their part, checks begin to magically appear upon retirement. By contrast, 401(k)s, IRAs, 529 plans and the rest of our crazy quilt of savings incentives require enormous investments of time, effort and stress. Just for a start, equity mutual funds charge an annual fee of around one percent of assets — compounded until retirement, this reduces savings by around twenty percent.2 Including items beyond the management fee (like transaction costs and the reduced returns that come from having to hold cash to deal with redemptions), can push that number up considerably.
According to James Madison in The Federalist #63, what is the purpose of the Senate?
The Senate as a defense against majority rule. Main point of the Senate is to remove government from the passion of the people. The Senate was designed to be elected by the Representatives in order to have a group of people (the representatives) who were knowledgable in their choices select the people who could best govern and represent the larger population. Because of this, the Senate was designed to be the calmer portion of the government.
According to Teles, what are the costs of kludgeocracy for Americans as a whole? Why does Teles think conservatives should oppose kludgeocracy? Why does Teles think liberals should oppose kludgeocracy?
The complexity of our grant-in-aid system makes the actual business of governing difficult and wasteful, sometimes with tragic results. It also poses a significant risk to the quality of our democracy. Teles argues that conservatives should oppose kludgeocracy because it makes it hard to tell what businesses are doing and it hides the size of the government. Teles argues that liberals should apse kludgeocracy because it creates both the image and the reality that government is incompetent and corrupt. Kludgeocracy makes it hard to tell if the government is doing poor or well.
How do the numerous veto points in American political institutions help cause kludgeocracy?
The most obvious reason why American institutions generate policy complexity is our numerous veto points for action. Separation of powers means that any proposal must generate agreement at three different stages — each house of Congress and the president. But veto points turn out to be more extensive than the simple text of the constitution would imply. Most legislation has to pass through separate subcommittee and committee stages, each of which presents opportunities for legislators to stymie action. Even worse, many ambitious proposals are considered by Congress under "multiple referrals," in which more than a single committee is given jurisdiction. This multiplies the number of veto points, as in the recently passed health care reform bill, which had to pass through five separate committees in Congress. Finally, the super-majority requirement for breaking a filibuster in the Senate, combined with the intense partisanship that accompanies most major policy reform, means that any single member of the majority party can stall the progress of legislation. First, many of our legislative toll-takers have a vested interest in the status quo. In exchange for their willingness to allow action to proceed, they often require that legislation hold their favored programs harmless. Consequently, new ideas have to be layered over old programs, rather than replacing them — the textbook definition of a policy kludge. Second, the need to generate consent from so many actors makes attaining any degree of policy coherence difficult, at best. Finally, the enormous number of veto points that legislation must now pass through gives legislative strategists a strong incentive to pour everything they can into giant omnibus legislation. The multiplication of veto points, therefore, does not necessarily stop legislation from happening, but it does considerably raise its cost and, more importantly, its complexity.
How are partisan conflict in Congress, the growing use of the filibuster and other blocking tactics, and the rise of the administrative Presidency all connected?
The president has high perceived power but low actual power, so when the legislator can't, there comes an assentive to use executive power. There has been a reported 70 years worth of filibusters in Obama's first term.
Describe two ways in which President Obama used his "We Can't Wait" program to bolster his prospects for reelection in 2012.
The program included job act bills in swing states. The logic was that when citizens like it, congress is more likely to be pressured to pass the bill. Also included in the program was giving more leeway for immigrant status. 1.4 million people benefited. This helped reelection Obama because you could show that he had the ability to pass initiatives and it appeals to hispanic voters in 2012. Defense marriage act was also included in this program.
Describe the main characteristics of the top 20 fake news stories that got more clicks on Facebook than the top 20 mainstream news stories.
The stories tended to be overtly pro-Donald Trump or anti-Hillary Clinton. Two of the biggest stories claimed that Clinton sold weapons to ISIS (anti-Clinton) and a hoax claiming that Donald Trump was endorsed by the Pope (pro-Donald Trump). The only anti-Trump reports were found to claim were a false quote from Mike Pence about Michelle Obama, a false report that Ireland was accepting American "refugees" fleeing Trump and a hoax claiming that RuPaul said he was groped by Trump. A significant number of false stories were being published out of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The majority of the sites that published these articles were created within a year of the election and tended to be hyper-partisan right-wing sided.
How has the "traceability chain" regarding costs and benefits shaped congressional action and inaction on social security since its inception in 1935?
The traceability chain is when politicians voted for benefit increases many times over the early decades of the program, they could claim credit (i.e, win votes) from social security recipients. The benefit increase is visible, easily noticed. Meanwhile, the taxes are harder to trace, less visible, especially when they don't even take effect until well after the benefit increases. Tax increases to pay for Social Security have come gradually and in small increments, making it more difficult for voters to point their fingers at a legislator as the cause of a sharp hit to their wages. Delegating this task in the future is impossible, given that taxing is one of Congress' main functions. Further, it would be hard to package tax increases with commensurate benefits, given the size of the tax increases that need to happen.
Why do Goldstein, Dallek, and Rivlin think that we should pay careful attention to persuasion and mobilization even though fundamentals are the most important influence on national election outcomes?
Turnout (mobilization) and persuasion, on top of economic and partisan fundamentals, yield small but more than occasionally decisive determinants of election outcomes. That is fundamentals can determine the majority of the election outcomes, but elections are not determined by large majorities, they are decided within a few percentages. These few percentages can be influenced by the small yield caused by mobilization and persuasion. Marginal variance can mean the difference between victory and defeat. Elections outcomes in competitive races rarely boil down to a single explanatory factor. In Nevada, for example, Senate candidate Shelly Berkely lost because she failed to persuade Democrats and independents to support her at the same levels that they voted for Obama in 2012. Candidates of the same party, with similar electorate can draw vastly different vote shares. The difference in performance is partly due to how candidates are supported by independents, but also a function of how well they do with their own and their opponent's partisans. The notion that competing campaign communications cancel one another out is unpersuasive. Effective messaging matters.
Why does Iyengar think that "unmediated communication" can inform and engage voters in a way that media coverage does not?
Unmediated communication is when politicians communicate directly to the public instead of through the media by giving speeches on their website or other forms of direct communication. Obama's site had over two million viewers and Trump used Twitter. This helps eliminate the chance of the media twisting around sound bites. Politicians want to turn away so they have greater control over the way they are portrayed with no filter.
To Wehner, how should we act in the political realm once we recognize that we are all subject to confirmation bias?
We have to see that the existence of such bias doesn't mean that no one's arguments are ever true; it only means that no one's—not even yours or mine—are always true. The truth exists, but none of us fully apprehends it. At best, we see only parts of the whole, which is why our politics will always be properly partisan. But the fact that politics consists of groups locked in debate, each possessed of part of the truth makes it even harder to overcome our biases. The desire to defend our "team" is often an even more powerful inducement to ignore contrary arguments than the desire to confirm our own personal assumptions. We should not conclude that no one makes rational arguments in our politics, but rather than even people we disagree, both sides can hold rational arguments. So perhaps we should hold our views a little more lightly than we do, try to be less sure and listen to each side trying best to respect and understand the opposing view.
Many young people think that social security won't be there when they retire. Why does Arnold think that fear is unwarranted?
We've approached doomsday before and fixed it so Arnold argues the same thing will happen when we approach the "solvency cliff" in 2033.
How can people's tribal instincts—their affiliation with a political "team"—undermine their ability to search for the truth?
Wehner claims that people do not seek which policy is best for the whole but instead they align themselves with the party they identify with even if the policy is switched. He found this in studies where one half of a group was told that education plan A was a Democratic plan and education plan B was a Republican plan while the other half were told that plan A was a Republican plan and plan B was a Democratic plan. When the specifics in Plan A were presented as the Democratic plan and B as the Republican plan, Democrats preferred A by 75 percent to 17 percent, and Republicans favored B by 13 percent to 78 percent. When the exact same elements of A were presented in the exact same words, but as the Republicans' plan, and with B as the Democrats' plan, Democrats preferred B by 80 percent to 12 percent, while Republicans preferred "their party's plan" by 70 percent to 10 percent. In short, support for an identical education plan shifted by more than 60 points among partisans, depending on which party was said to back it.
Why does Starr think the decline of newspapers makes it easier for state and local officials to engage in corruption?
When newspapers were written Newspaper journalism declines so does the integrity, more trade press reporters, fewer eyes watching the politicians The press is the intermediary of the new model, that influence declines with the influence of the media
What does Roberts mean in claiming that despite the differences in institutions between the U.S. and other democracies, the processes of politics are often similar.
While the US may differ from its more developed peers in religiosity, economics, and crime, it is not usually an extreme outlier, and it fits quite well with many middle-income and developing countries. And in some unacknowledged ways, the US is very typical. Consider the consistently high degree of support of the American public for multilateralism and the UN, even if politicians do not share these views or consider widespread opposition to inequality and the pop- ularity of the main institutions of the welfare state, like Social Security and Medi-care. Given our institutions, we have different outcomes but the processes that get us there are the same. For example, if US had a parliamentary system, we would also likely have more than 2 parties. Previously held "American" trends such as distrust in government are more widespread. Rather than being "exceptional", the US fits "quite well with middle-income and developing countries".