Re: [RC] The Logic of American Politics

[David R. Block]

Title: “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respe

With the majority of the winning candidates for President since 1964, this begs the question as to whether ANY logic is involved in American Politics, Or is that overly cynical? David <---WHO, ME???  :-) “A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom.”—Fredrich August von Hayek   On 12/31/2011 11:11 AM, bil...@aol.com wrote:   The Logic of American Politics,  5th Edition 2011 Samuel Kernell, University of California, San Diego Gary C. Jacobson, University of California, San Diego Thad Kousser, University of California, San Diego   Chapter 1. The Logic of American Politics Chapter Summary Politics is the process through which individuals and groups reach collective agreements. Success at politics typically involves bargaining and compromise, as there is often substantial disagreement over the goals of collective action. Individuals and groups can usually benefit from collective undertakings. National defense, public order, civil liberties, and public parks are all examples of public goods provided by governments that would be difficult to provide through private activity. In order to achieve collective action, however, individuals have to overcome several challenges. These include coordination problems, where agreement must be reached on what to do and how to do it. In situations where individuals agree on the benefits of a collective undertaking, prisoner’s dilemmas can still lead to the pursuit of private rewards at the expense of the collective good. Politics is rife with forms of prisoner’s dilemmas including the free-rider and tragedy of the commons problems. Proper institutional design can help individuals and groups overcome these challenges. Often, simple agreement over the rules and procedures for reaching and enforcing collective agreements can mitigate conflict. Other mechanisms, such as agenda control, veto power, and supermajority rules, have been used in the past to solve problems and reduce certain costs associated with collective action. The costs of collective action include both transaction costs—the time, effort, and resources needed to reach collective decisions—and conformity costs—the extent to which collective decisions require individuals to do things they wish to avoid. Institutional design generally involves a trade-off between transaction and conformity costs. Enabling government to decide and act quickly, for example, often entails imposing substantial conformity costs. Modern democracies blend majority rule and delegation to form representative government. Politicians’ desire for reelection helps limit delegation problems such as agency loss. The American separation of powers system differs from parliamentary governments used by other nations primarily in the high transaction costs of its decision-making processes. Objectives After reading this chapter, you should understand: the meaning of “politics” and the ways in which people use politics to achieve their goals how the setting or circumstances of politics can affect outcomes why smart, rational people can combine to produce really bad outcomes how smart, rational people can set things up to produce better outcomes the risks and rewards of delegating power to agents the trade-offs between different ways of reaching decisions (majority rule, consensus, dictatorship) the difference between public and private goods, and how they are produced and consumed why politicians don't have to be ideal, selfless goody-two-shoes to be good representatives Review Questions Why can’t we solve our disputes through simple bargaining all the time? What factors serve to undermine bargaining in different settings? What can people or governments do to help solve disputes despite these factors? What sorts of institutions are commonly used to manage conflicts in societies? What are some examples of where these institutions have failed? According to Kernell, Jacobson, and Kousser, why are institutions difficult to change? Why and how did the Framers try to make the Constitution difficult to amend? Compare and contrast problems of coordination, free riding, the prisoner’s dilemma, and the tragedy of the commons. Give a real-world example of each. What are the various costs associated with collective action? Discuss how the coordination and transaction costs for states changed when the national government moved from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. Contrast the simple majority, plurality, and supermajority voting rules. For each rule, give an example of its use. Discuss the trade-off between transaction and conformity costs for each. What are principals and agents? When in your life have you been one or the other? Think of two examples of how you have delegated to a nongovernmental agent in your daily life. Have you ever had problems with one of your agents shirking or misusing your delegated authority? What precautions did you take? How has fire protection evolved in the United States from a private good to a public good? How did smoking evolve from a private issue to a public issue? What are some examples of public and private goods that you have consumed today?   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 10. Public Opinion Chapter Summary Political scientist V. O. Key defined public opinion as “those opinions held by private persons which governments find it prudent to heed.” In a democratic system, where regular elections determine control of the government and citizens have the right to express their opinions freely, join organizations, and vote, politicians must take public opinion into account if they want to be effective and keep their jobs. Scientific techniques for measuring public opinion were developed in the twentieth century, though problems with question wording and the representativeness of samples suggest caution in interpreting survey results. Modern presidents and other politicians use polling to regularly survey public opinion on important questions, and hire public relations staff to manage and mobilize it. The advent of scientific polling has contributed to the nationalization of American politics by producing collective expressions of opinion that politicians ignore at their peril. Americans share a broad consensus on basic political values but disagree about how those values should be applied. The public’s diverse opinions often represent differences in background, education, and life experiences. Individual political opinions develop through political socialization and are influenced by a variety of sources, including attitudes, ideologies, and partisan affiliations. The latter provide cues that enable individuals to store the results of previous experience or decide upon a course of action with little cognitive effort. Most individuals have no incentive to pay attention to politics and are ambivalent about many political issues. As a result, individual opinion, especially among the less informed, is often unstable. Individuals’ opinions are susceptible to framing—efforts by the media and political campaigns to influence the criteria that individuals use to evaluate a political candidate or issue. Despite the instability of individual opinion, aggregate public opinion is both stable and coherent. Part of its stability is attributable to opinion leaders—individuals and groups that are incentivized to collect and disseminate information about particular issues. Opinion leaders provide cues that even uninformed citizens can use to make informed decisions. Because people can and do choose which leaders to follow, according to values and beliefs accumulated over a lifetime, public opinion is not easily controlled or manipulated. Indeed, individuals’ core values, ideologies, and even party preferences are resistant to change, and continue to give shape and stability to aggregate public opinion over time. Objectives After reading this chapter, you should understand: how different types of polls can measure public opinion differently the relationship between public attitudes and public opinion how pollsters can articulate public opinion just by measuring it how individuals acquire opinions why Americans generally tend to ignore politics how strategic politicians can use framing to advance their agenda the relative stability and coherence of individual versus aggregate public opinion and the sources of stability and coherence in opinion how demographics tend to affect survey responses why a large majority of voters chose to overlook President Bill Clinton’s personal failings and support him during the Monica Lewinsky affair, and why most Republicans in Congress chose to impeach him despite this support why Americans often regard politicians as a “suspect class” where Americans stand on the goals and means of major policy areas whether leaders and institutions “control” public opinion   Review Questions How did popular support for the war in Iraq change over time? How did the changes for Republicans, Democrats, and independents differ? In 1936 the Literary Digest ran a “straw poll” that mistakenly predicted that Franklin Roosevelt would be defeated in his reelection attempt. What factors undermine the accuracy of such polls? What factors can undermine the accuracy of even “scientific” polling? How have modern techniques for molding and measuring public opinion contributed to the nationalization of American politics? Do voters think in terms of ideologies? Are voters’ attitudes generally consistent? If not, what explains the inconsistency? Given the mechanisms through which politicians and the media can influence it, does public opinion really matter? Since aggregate opinion is simply the combination of all individual opinions, how can it be more stable and coherent than individual opinion? What are opinion leaders? Why might typical individuals rely on the statements or positions of these opinion leaders in forming their own opinions? What are the limits on how much these opinion leaders can control public opinion? How does the American public agree or disagree on basic political values and policies? How does this agreement or disagreement make politics possible or necessary? In what areas do men and women differ most in their opinions? Differ least?   -----------------------------------------------------     Chapter 11. Voting, Campaigns, and Elections   Chapter Summary The implementation of regular, free, and competitive elections provides citizens with a mechanism for determining who controls the government and holding public officials accountable. At the time the Constitution was ratified, the number of citizens who were allowed to participate in elections was small. Over time, the right to vote was extended to non–property holders, Native Americans, blacks, women, and finally, young people. Despite the central role of voting in our republican form of government, millions of Americans choose not to vote. This is a logical consequence of the fact that no individual’s vote is decisive and the reality that voting is costly. Nonetheless, a majority of those eligible to vote continue to turn out for presidential elections. The decision to vote is affected by personal characteristics (age, education, income) as well as institutional factors (registration requirements, literacy tests). The decline in aggregate turnout since the 1960s, however, reflects a steep reduction in mobilization activity by political parties and candidates. Most voters spend little time gathering information about politics. They base their choice on a variety of factors, including the party label, past performance, and issue positions of candidates and parties. Many voters also consider candidates’ demographic attributes, such as their gender or race, and personal qualities, like competence or honesty. In a world where voters have little direct information about individual candidates and the challenges they will face, all of these characteristics serve as shortcuts, or cues, that suggest how candidates will perform in the future. Politically ambitious candidates play a vital role in ensuring that elections remain competitive. Decisions about whether to run for office reflect the influence of national partisan trends and candidates’ ability to raise enough money to mount an effective campaign. Modern congressional and presidential campaigns require vast sums of money, with much of it spent on television and radio advertising. The need for money raises the possibility that candidates will be responsive to donors rather than voters. Since the 1970s, a variety of reforms have tried to reduce the influence of money on elections. Fortunately, a wide variety of individuals, groups, and interests take part in financing campaigns, preventing any single interest from dominating the rest. Objectives After reading this chapter, you should understand: the logic of restricting (and expanding) the number of people who have the right to vote why people don't vote what factors make people more likely or less likely to vote why turnout rates have fallen the impact of the “motor voter” law on voting turnout how voters can cheaply gather information in making their vote choices what makes a candidate “strong” and what leads such candidates to enter (or avoid) a race how candidates choose between alternative campaign messages the impact of negative advertising, and why it is so common why campaigns are more expensive now than in the past the limits on campaign spending by candidates and the means by which candidates circumvent these rules the relative importance of challenger and incumbent spending in elections the difficulties presented by reforming the campaign finance system     Review Questions What are the potential problems with delegating authority to representatives in government? How do elections help reduce these risks? Why did those in favor of restricting suffrage link it to property ownership? Why did the elite fear giving those without property the vote? What benefits do people get from voting? Which of these benefits do they still receive if they personally do not vote? What factors explain the decline in voter turnout since the 1960s? Why is this decline surprising? Voting, in effect, makes voters choose between a future governed by candidate A and one governed by candidate B. Most voters can't actually predict the future. What tools allow voters to make predictions about future performance? What are the basic requirements for mounting a successful election campaign? Why do so many members of Congress run unopposed? What factors make strong challengers more likely or less likely to enter the race? What are the main differences between modern campaigns and those of the patronage-based party organizations of the past? Why are campaigns more expensive now? Where does the money required to finance these modern campaigns come from? What are the legal limitations on campaign spending? How has the passage of bans on “soft money” changed these limitations? What are the four basic sources of congressional campaign money? How is the money spent? Why do congressional incumbents who spend more money actually appear to be more likely to lose their elections? What “free” means of communicating with voters are available to candidates? What must candidates do to take advantage of them? Where do candidates spend their advertising dollars?   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------     Chapter 13. Interest Groups   Chapter Summary Interest groups and lobbying are inevitable and essential components of democratic politics. Though political thinkers like James Madison feared the corrosive effects of factions, interest groups do provide several benefits. When testifying before deliberative bodies, interest groups supply technical information about the activities that governments seek to regulate. Through mobilizing protests and participating in election campaigns, interest groups help elected officials discover how voters are responding to government initiatives.   Many interest groups formed in the early years of the Republic, including the American Anti-Slavery Society (1833), National Trades Union (1834), and American Temperance Union (1836). Groups such as these were able to overcome the free-rider problem and other barriers to collective action. Unfortunately, the resources—money, information, access to authority, bargaining skills—needed for effective organization are distributed unequally, meaning that some political interests will be better represented than others. The primary goal of all interest groups is survival. Group leaders often spend as much time recruiting supporters and obtaining resources as they do lobbying public officials. Lobbying strategies include both “insider” tactics—cultivating relationships with existing government officials—and “outsider” tactics—grassroots lobbying and demonstrations designed to pressure officials. Many interest groups have also formed political action committees to influence elections. What lobbying strategies a group chooses will depend on the nature of the interests it represents and the resources at its disposal. The expansion of the interest group universe in recent years has been driven by the expanding scope of government activity. Fragmentation of old interests and the growing specialization of groups has also contributed. The proliferation of interest groups has actually strengthened the hand of elected officials. Politicians control access and are well-positioned to know when particular interests are at stake. With many interest groups on both sides of contentious issues, elected officials can pick and choose according to their own beliefs. Nonetheless, as the number of active groups has increased, it has become more difficult to initiate changes that impose significant costs, even when these are far outweighed by the benefits to the general public.     Objectives After reading this chapter, you should understand: the ways in which politicians and interest groups can benefit each other why pluralism has been defended as fostering democracy and attacked as being undemocratic the factors that make it easier or harder to form groups, according to Mancur Olson the scope of lobbying efforts in Washington, D.C., and the types of organizations involved why public interest groups have proliferated over the past three decades how government policy has fostered the rise of interest groups the most common and important activities of interest groups how lobbyists responded to the attacks of September 11, 2001 the difference between “insider” and “outsider” lobbying tactics how contributions by political action committees (PACs) have affected modern election campaigns the strategies PACs use in making campaign donations Review Questions What sorts of benefits do politicians receive from lobbyists? If interest groups are so beneficial, why do citizens view them with such suspicion? Why was Prohibition passed despite lacking widespread support in many areas of the country? Why was it later repealed? According to David Truman, does pluralism work? Why or why not? On what basis do critics disagree with Truman? What actions has the government taken to foster interest groups? How do governmental policies themselves create potential interest groups? Why have interest groups become increasingly fragmented and specialized? How do “insider” and “outsider” lobbying tactics differ? What situations favor the use of each? When might an interest group choose to enlist litigation as it tries to influence policy? What do PACs get in return for their donations to candidates? What evidence exists that such contributions are corrupting our political system? How did the collapse of Enron illustrate the limits of the power of lobbying? Overall, how does PAC activity affect public policy? Has the proliferation of interest groups strengthened or weakened the influence of elected officials? Why? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Chapter 14. The News Media   Chapter Summary Technological advances and market competition have shaped efforts to gather, package, and transmit political news. In the early Republic, high unit costs limited the production of news to a few weeklies that were heavily subsidized by political parties. The adoption of steam-powered printing facilitated the rise of the penny press and the modern newspaper chains in the nineteenth century. The invention of radio and television ended newspapers’ monopoly on political communication. In recent years, the proliferation of cable television and Internet outlets has changed how most citizens receive political information. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, making it difficult for government to censor information, even when disclosure impacts national security. Nonetheless, public officials are actively involved in creating the news. Indeed, political news is the joint product of two independent actors—politicians and the news media. Politicians seek favorable coverage in order to influence other politicians and the public. Whether through strategic leaks of information or elaborate events choreographed for television, politicians who lack the resources to engage in direct communication find it advantageous to chase media attention. Unlike the public officials they cover, news organizations are driven primarily by profits. With too few resources to cover every government agency or political event, these organizations rely on reporters and editors to assemble news that will appeal to their various audiences. The president receives more coverage than members of Congress, due to the former’s greater status and authority. Stories that involve controversy or that report bad news are also more likely to be published. Relations between politicians and the media have always involved a healthy dose of both strategy and mutual distrust. Politicians need the media to publicize their plans and policies, but must adapt communications to the preferences of news organizations and the technologies they use. Presidents, for example, have become masters of the mediums available to them—be it the press conference or shrinking sound bite. Successful manipulation of the media, however, only adds to the tension between government and the Fourth Branch. Objectives After reading this chapter, you should understand: how the economics of news coverage has changed over time in the United States why the president benefited more than other politicians from the development of television why the advent of virtually unlimited news programming has not resulted in a better-informed citizenry how the Federal Communications Commission prevented a tragedy of the commons in the broadcast spectrum in the 1930s how news outlets compete for audiences, and which types of audiences tend to learn better from each news outlet how the Internet has altered the nature of news and its influence on politics that political news results from the interaction and competition of two independent actors, each of whom has potentially incompatible motives the different motivations and considerations that go into a decision to leak information to the press the main criteria the media seem to use in selecting news the strategic relations between press and reporters how the beat system can reinforce particular patterns of coverage historical changes in the relationship between political sources and reporters why presidential sound bites have shrunk in television coverage of politics, and the impact of this shrinkage on the behavior of politicians Review Questions How do market forces make political news more “democratic”? Have market forces played the same role in press coverage throughout U.S. history? Why did newspaper editors accept party subsidies in the early Republic? What motivated these same editors to give up the subsidies later? Why didn't they give them up earlier? How did the rise of newspaper chains affect the political influence of the press? What ultimately eroded the political power of these chains? How and why has the influence of newspapers continued to decline today? Why are broadcast media outlets generally more regulated than print media? What are some examples of this regulation, and what consequences do they have for political news? How has the rising popularity of Internet, cable, and satellite news affected the rationale for more broadcast regulation? How do differences in factors such as carrying capacity and target audiences lead to differences in the substance and style of news in different media? How and why do politicians seek to manipulate the news? What strategies do they use to generate beneficial coverage? How does the number of politicians holding information or the number of journalists distributing it affect the ability of these actors to manipulate one other? What are examples of situations in which the power of politicians has exceeded that of journalists? When have journalists had more power? What resources do politicians have that might allow them to “go around” the press and communicate with the public directly? In general, how successful are these attempts?             -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org