Poll on the Bailout Plan

The 700 billion dollar plan, aimed at bailing out Wall Street and aggressively addressing the financial crisis, was voted down by the House of Representatives, 228-to-205. The plan would have allowed the government to buy up toxic assets from banks suffering from the economy. Although the plan was supported by a majority of Democrats, Republicans argued that the plan left taxpayers at risk and would be ultimately ineffective in stabilizing the markets. Both presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain gave their support to the plan.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/will_it_work/index.htm?postversion=2008091914

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7641733.stm

A Congress of Self-Interest

In Congress and the Quest for Power, Lawrence C. Dodd provides an incredibly cynical view of the nature of Congress. He argues that the only goal of Congressmen is power. While I disagree with the assumptions present behind his arguments, I loved his metaphor as congress as a kaleidoscope: something that, at first glance, appears simple and comprehensive, but subject to constant transformations.

 

“These transformations seem to flow naturally from the prior observations, yet the resulting mosaic is quite different and is not ordered by the same static interpretations used to interpret and understand the earlier one.” (American Government: Readings and Cases, p. 344).

 

As time goes by, political scientist’s interpretations of this vital component of American government change, much like the kaleidoscope Dodd described. However, one's interpretation of the abstract shapes and bright colors of Congress may be completely different than another's.

 

Woodrow Wilson, in Congressional Government, agrees that there are many different shapes of Congress. He argues that the public must struggle to understand its complex structures of committees and subcommittees. The enormous amount of leaders and decentralization of power make it complicated, he says.

 

This complex sharing of power allows those on the outside to see the legislature as a whole body, mutually agreeing to a decision through roll-call votes. However, the reality is that Congress is ruled by committees, and that roll-call votes are a relatively unimportant part of the system.

 

“The prerogatives of the Committees represent something more than a mere division of labor,” Wilson says (American Government: Readings and Cases, p. 334). He argues that the committees rule without hindrance in their assigned area. They determine what bills get sent to the full House for a roll call vote, and, Wilson believes, prescribe the decisions of the House.

 

“So it is not far from the truth to say that Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition whilst Congress in committee rooms is Congress at work” (American Government: Readings and Cases, p. 334).

 

In Congress and the Quest for Power, Lawrence C. Dodd argued that the Congressional committees are a way for representatives to satisfy an intrinsic desire for personal power.

 

He argues that the first lesson that any Congressman learns on this quest is the necessity of reelection. Reelection for multiple terms in a row is necessary to stay on the path toward positions of power in important committees. Reelection also reaffirms a feeling of political legitimacy.

 

Representatives accomplish this by casework and contact with their constituents. They avoid making important policy decisions that have to potential to split the electorate. After they start shoring up large margins against challengers and experience in Congress, Congressmen progress along a ladder of upward mobility, encompassing five stages of power.

 

First, one is elected. In the second stage, members begin to occupy themselves with national policy matters, seeking service on committees that draft legislation on things like interstate commerce, education, or labor. A third stage exists on a power committee. Power committees include Rules, Ways and Means, Finance, and Appropriations Committees. Finally, the forth stage involves being a party leader on the floor, or the Speaker of the House. With every stage comes a greater responsibility and a greater control over public policy.

 

However, once one reaches these new levels, one must continue to maintain the support of constituents and other party leaders. “To utilize fully the power prerogatives that are implicit in specific power positions, a member must maintain the respect, awe, trust, and confidence of House colleagues; he or she must sustain an aura of personal authority that is necessary to legitimize the exercise of power” (American Government: Readings and Cases, p. 349).

 So, although these individual members of Congress have a great deal of individual power over the fate of legislation, they must constantly be justifying their authority, thus maintaining the appearance of a democracy. 

 

Dodd also argues that the committee system began as a result of this complex desire for power in the hearts of Representatives. This way, power is evenly distributed over a greater amount of people, rather than being centralized in the hands of a single leader.

 

“Whatever the end product of their effort may be, members of Congress have actively sought to design a congressional structure and process that would maximize their ability to exercise personal power within Congress and, through Congress, within the entire nation at large.” (American Government: Readings and Cases, p. 346).

 

Dodd sees many advantages to the committee system, including the fact that Representatives are able to specialize in one particular area of legislation and allows for profound oversight of public policy. The committees also bring a greater amount of people in to share responsibility.

 

However, the committee system has many drawbacks, in Dodd’s opinion. For example, its lack of centralized leadership undermines its internal decision-making capacity and external power. Related to lack of leadership is a lack of fiscal coordination. Committees do not work together as closely as they should to make sure that legislation conforms to the budget.

 

Lastly, there is a lack of accountability and responsibility. “No serious way exists to hold a specific committee chair accountable to the majority views of Congress or the American People” (American Government: Readings and Cases, p. 351).

 

Further, these committee meetings are sometimes insulated from the view of the public. Their closed nature, the multiplicity of them, and their blurred boundaries make it difficult to track legislation. 

 

Dodd says that decentralized power allows the executive to gain power over the legislature. As a result, Congress starts to lose power. In an effort to maintain personal power, Congressmen enact reforms to clear a Congressional “log-jam.” As the logjam clears, authority goes back to a decentralized state, and an imperial executive once again starts to seize power from Congress. This creates a full cycle of legislative power around the executive.

 

I disagree completely with Dodd when he describes the motivations of Congressmen as purely for personal power. It is silly to make such a broad and sweeping statements about 535 people. He also doesn’t explain why some members of Congress don’t begin the upward accent up the ladder, despite reelection. Some members are content to stay at the bottom ranks. Dodd also classifies “hope to construct a better world” under personal power. I don’t see how something as altruistic as helping to create a better world constitutes a pursuit of personal power.

 

I believe Dodd is oversimplifying the methods and motivations of the individual Congressmen. While personal interests may be part of the picture, I am sure that all Congressmen are driven by some sense of altruism or duty, and not merely by self-interest. I think his view is over-the-top cynical.

 

Morris P. Fiorina, in his article titled The Rise of the Washington Establishment, supports this notion of Congressional self-interest and describes election as a necessary victory toward the achievement of goals.  “The primary goal of the typical Congressman is reelection,” he says (American Government: Readings and Cases, p. 335).

 

As a means to this goal, Congressmen use three means to maintain their seats in Congress: lawmaking, pork-barreling, and casework. Lawmaking may cost voters, while pork-barreling and case work are “free.”

 

Fiorona argues that the Washington establishment remains in place because of a large cycle of events, which starts and ends with the Congressman.

 

Congressmen earn reelection by using pork-barrel and casework. They establish various federal programs in general terms, which creates a large Bureaucracy to run and enforce the program. Next, a constituent talks with the Congressman about the problems he has with the federal bureaucracy, and the cycle begins again when the Congressman does casework for the constituent. This leads to large government programs. “Congress does not just react to big government- it creates it” (American Government: Readings and Cases, p. 341). Hence, the self-interest of reelection strengthens the power of government.  

 

While there are clear problems with pork-barreling and casework, I think these two forms of securing electoral victory make the Congressman necessarily responsive to his constituents. He must always be forced to confront them with his decisions. These short term limits make the Congressman more responsive to the will of the people, despite a Congress that sometimes insulated from majority rule through the use of committees. 

--Juan 

Blog on presidential debates

The presidential debates are often thought of as the most important discourse the presidential candidates have and some feel the debates alone can make or break a candidates campaign for presidency. The dialogue is often heated and a candidates true colors and personality are shown. The election will be radical no matter which candidate wins since it will represent either the first black president or the first female V.P. Aside from this, the debates should prove remarkably compelling as both McCain and Obama seem deeply divided on some issues but also seem to agree on some issues (such as terrorism and the withdrawal of troops from Iraq). With pressing issues such as the economic recession, the war on terrorism, and the global energy crisis, the 2008 presidential debates should prove to be a determining factor for who is elected president as this really allows the candidates to make explicit their viewpoints to their constituents who may not have been able to pay close attention to the race. This allows the candidates to reaffirm and summarize their stances on such issues while trying to sway as many voters as possible during three 80-minute debates. I am interested to see what issues you all think will be most passionately discussed during the debates as we draw closer to the election. The dates and locations for the presidential debates begin September 26 @ the University of Mississippi, then the V.P. debates are October 2 @ Wash. U. in MO then the second presidential debate is Oct. 7 @ Belmont University in TN ending with the third debate October 15 @ Hofstra University NY.

-John

Blog on the elastic clause

The elastic clause, otherwise known as the "necessary and proper" clause, states that Congress can make any laws to execute any powers that they deem as necessary and proper. This is so vague that it is scary. And that is why I posted my poll on this topic. I also connected this all to federalism, in the fact that the Constitution contradicts itself when it gives all other rights not talked about to the states and the people in the tenth amendment, but then gives Congress all this power with the elastic clause. I would love to know your thoughts about this, in the context of both federalism, and personal beliefs.
-Yahya

JOHN or Yahya! I erased your poll!

Oh my goodness! I am so sorry -- I accidentally deleted someone's poll on the price of food and obesity. Can you repost? I was the first and only to vote, so thankfully, we didn't lose any data!

Sorry again - it's Monday. :~(

ALSO -- EVERYONE needs to sign their polls so I can give you due credit!!!!

Thanks,

Dr. Berry

Cool Website for election!

This is a really cool website created by youth advocates throughout America to help young voters (like some of you!) to find the stances of the Presidential candidates. It lays their stances on all of the issues right next to each other so you can compare them. If you are 18 and will be able to vote but not sure who you're going to vote on, there is a section called "My Ballot" which helps you to organize your thoughts and see which candidate agrees with your political platform the most. Hope you enjoy it!

Also, if you're not 18 and can't vote, you should still look at it because it's really cool. :)

votegopher.org

-Ariella

Is the Constitution all that its cracked up to be?

The Constitution of the United States is often thought of and referred to as the single document that defines what America is as a political entity. It is a source of nationalism and patriotism because it lays the foundation upon which all political issues are rooted in. It epitomizes (not in the clearest way) the terms upon which our government was created and is maintained today. Perhaps the most important feature of the Constitution is the fact that it is the document that not only produces American democracy, but also regulates it. It does this by repeatedly reassuring the rights of its citizens as the original purpose of such as government. It is a work that is often seen as being too vague and even detrimental however, to some of the key tenets/facets of democracy. Sentiments such as this would imply that the Framers of the Constitution did not have the foresight to upon which to gauge their opinions. In fact, the Framers were thoughtful enough and inspired enough to realize that a nation built on democratic principles will be subject to changing opinions and currents of thought that naturally come about as time goes by. With this in mind, it is important to understand the basis of the “vagueness” of the Constitution and the sheer multitudes of paradoxes and moral sentiments that such a document must entail. Gaining a grasp on the motives and wishes behind the writers of the Constitution allows us, the citizenry of this nation, to understand our rights as citizens, which in turn should help us become more civically empowered.

    The part of the Constitution that would be most pertinent to individual freedoms specifically would be the Bill of Rights. Few question the significance of this document, but the role and rights of citizens are a source of debate even in a democracy. Woll writes in his fifth document that the ambiguity that readers of the Constitution are sometimes faced with is actually a predetermined and carefully thought out ploy of the Founders to maintain democracy for the centuries to come. In an article titled, “Debating Democracy”, the author argues that democracy is really only the standard for all other forms of government because it lacks as many flaws as they do. That isn’t to say that it is flawless. To different perspectives on the same government reflect the varied opinions that people have regarding the Constitution or our government as a whole, but the beauty that is almost universally recognized is the fact that democracy has been an enduring for of government so far that does a seemingly exceptional job at balancing government involvement with the lives of the citizens as well as protecting and ensuring our personal freedoms.

     What I find most compelling about democracy having read about its roots and modern connotations is that in theory, every type of government from restrictive communism to libertarian fascism is perfectly designed to better the quality of the lives of its citizens. In reality, history shows us that this is far from the truth. Where I find the most consensus among different democratic philosophies or ideologies that I have read about or heard is that democracy excels as a form of government when it comes to human nature. I feel predisposed to democracy (maybe because it is all I know) because it effectively protects me (and controls me) while at the same time maintaining my freedom. The role that government should have in an individuals life is often a great source of debate but the great thing about America is that it is able to fluctuate from one end of the political spectrum to the other based on the situation. With a system like communism, you are pretty much in no need of protection, but your rights are sacrificed as a result. With respect to the Bill of Rights, I think key Founders such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson realized that on order to maintain a strong and favorable government, there would have to be safeguards in place to prevent any one branch or person in the government from exploiting the positions power at the cost of democracy. They proposed the Bill of Rights to the First United States Congress in 1787 as amendments to the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights basically outlined and specified some of the key rights that are inalienable to the citizens of the United States. In effect on December of 1791, these amendments officially protected the governed from the governing. Let’s face it, any sort of organization in charge of running a nation and people has the potential for bad. Hopefully, the Founders outlined the regulations and restrictions of government clearly in the Constitution (which they sort of did to a reasonable extent) but as an “auxiliary precaution”, the Bill of Rights was put into place under the institution of the Fifth Amendment. Some of the rights preserved by the Bill of Rights are the ones that we hear referred to all the time. Popular ones are the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the restriction of any unauthorized search and seizure or any cruel and unusual punishment. These rights make democracy appealing to the citizens but the article "Debating Democracy", argues that such rights are secondary to democracy and that the ideals that are unique to American democracy such as equality and civic duty are necessary. He writes, "The notion does not, however, suggest that people must necessarily be equal in their impact on the political system..."(Debating Democracy 36). He also writes about democracy and citizen participation," Political effectiveness... depends on three varying factors: resources, especially time, money, and skills; psychological engagement with politics; and 'access to networks through which individuals can be recruited to political life"(Debating Democracy 36). This article contrasts greatly with the attitudes of the Bill of Rights and Woll's ideas of democracy for the people. 

    As 

--John

Debating Democracy and Economics

John Mueller, in Democracy’s Romantic Myths, argues that democracy is messy. No one idea wins out, but rather it is a series of compromises. He argues that the “saving grace” of democracy is that other methods of reaching decisions are worse.

Democracy, at least in theory, rests on the consent of the governed, which is justified through voting. While democratic theorists argue that the decline in voter participation is eroding the consent of the governed, this author argues otherwise.

The fact that democracy exists, no matter how messy it is, means that full voter participation isn’t necessary for a functioning democracy.  The author says, “It may be more useful to reshape democratic theories to take notice of the elemental fact that democracy works, even though it often fails to inspire very much in the way of participation from its citizenry” (p. 38 Debating Democracy).

The author also argues that special interests and lobbying groups are a critical component of democracy. He argues that a free, competitive play of special interests is the best representation of the will of the people. While the government is not responsive to the individual citizen, it is responsive to the citizenry.

The author of this document clearly represents the Pluralist viewpoint of democracy. The ideal definition of democracy, where all citizens contribute, is thrown out, and instead the reality is taken into account.

The author’s main argument is that we have a democracy because it is working today. However, I don’t think the fact that something works makes it a democracy. Plenty of governments work with a totalitarian leader. The reality is that we have moved from the ideal democracy, into a different form of democracy. To change the ideal definition of democracy to fit the reality would accomplish little. Changing the definition would instead say that ideal democracy isn’t a possibility.

Paul Rogat Loeb, in The Active Citizen, attributes this lack of participation in government to something that he calls “Learned helplessness.”

Americans today have begun to doubt their ability to effect change in society. “The magnitude of the issues at hand, coupled with this sense of powerlessness, has led far too many of us to conclude that social involvement isn’t worth the cost” (Debating Democracy, p. 44. )

The author takes on the role of a motivator, telling us that it is possible to effect change in society, as well as showing the personal rewards of getting involved. The author showed us the story of one fisherman, Pete. He tells us that we can be like Pete.

On top of motivating us to participate in society, he gives one possible reason that human beings are breaking off connections with each other, and encapsulating themselves in their own personal spheres.

 “It worries me that so many of us now sit alone for hours on end, passive spectators, paying more attention to the strangers on the screen than to the real people next door. What are the consequences for ourselves and our society? The greatest misfortune, in my view, is that by focusing so much on stories scripted by others, we forfeit the opportunity to create our own” (Debating Democracy, p. 46)

 While the growing apathy is worrisome, the author holds hope that Americans will rediscover what it means to be involved and lose the sense of learned helplessness.

 Just as there are a small number of people participating actively in society, there are fewer and fewer people in the upper economic echelons holding more and more overall wealth. Two contrasting opinions on this were present in the Debating Democracy packet.

 Michael Cox and Richard Alm, in Myths of Rich and Poor, says that the increasing social stratification is not concerning. Rather, the increasing stratification provides greater opportunity. “Opportunity, not equality of income, is what made the U.S. economy grow and prosper. It’s more important to provide equality of opportunity that equality of results.”

 However, I know that equality of opportunity does not exist. A student living in the Catalina Foothills school district, for example, where higher incomes and greater tax revenue recieves a better-financed education, versus schools in South Tucson. Equality of results will always affect equality of opportunity, in my view.

 In For Richer, Paul Krugman argues that today’s society is a new “Gilded Age” of stratified wealth and subsidized business. This author is completely opposed to the “Trickle down” theory of economics. “Here’s a radical thought: if the rich get more, that leaves less for everybody else.” (Debating Democracy, p. 347)

 Krugman compares the U.S. with other advanced foreign nations. While we have the highest G.D.P, we have sub-par healthcare and education systems. He argues we have the highest G.D.P because our rich are so rich, but an enormous number of Americans can’t afford to pay healthcare.

 Krugman translates this financial inequality into political inequality. He argues that politicians are showing a greater inclination to cater to the interests of the wealthy.

 “In other words, the growing inequality of our incomes probably lies behind the growing divisiveness of our politics” (Debating Democracy, p. 351).

 Debating this stratification of wealth and political equality is important  as our financial institutions fall into disarray. These two documents do a nice job of providing opposing viewpoints. The irony is that the second document argued that because of the economy, political parties have unified and stratified against eachother.  The same stratification of viewpoints is visible when comparing these two documents. 

 --Juan

Chicken soup for the Constitutionally baffled

We all take an oath to protect a document that was written oh so long ago, which defines our freedoms and the limitations of our government. However, today we see that this whole notion is flipped upon its head; today our freedoms are limited and the government has an uneasy amount of control. The way that today's government has justified this is by claiming that it is their constitutional right to do so in times of war, or in a state of emergency. This is what confuses me. In an examination of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights we can see how incredibly vague and optimistic of a document it is. To me the Constitution seems like the moral code of a government, and less like a doctrine. The vagueness of this document and its openness to interpretation is both its blessing and its curse.

The analysis of the blessings is one that is easier. The document has become timeless for two main reasons: its ability to be adapted to each new-coming generation's morals and values, and its openness to amendments. The argument still remains of whether or not the Constitution should be read as its framers intended. If you think about it much of the framers hated big government and wanted more states' rights, and wanted to limit the power of the president, and created a strong congress. However, today we also have the exact opposite. But that is coming to dwell upon the curse and not the blessing. The primary blessing of the Constitution is the fact that it keeps true American blood pumping within us. By this I don't mean the blind tribalism that plagues us into ignorance and intolerance, I am talking about the fact that the Constitution keeps the blood of debate pumping within us that we received from our forefathers. The fact that the Constitution is so vague it lends itself to intelligent debate over how it should be interpreted, and one text can support so many different points of view. I saw a great example of this in Woll document # 5. We see a classic debate over this Constitution by two of our greatest minds, Madison, the writer of the Constitution, and Hamilton, the writer of many of the Federalist Papers. They both argued about the pros and cons of the separation of powers system. Madison saw the system as one that would encourage competition and insure the checks and balances, which would limit arbitrary and excessive governmental actions. Hamilton argued that an independent presidency, a central component of the separation of powers, makes the national government energetic and effective. Also he argued that if the presidency was going to be effective it could not be equal to the Congress and the Supreme Court. This leads us to the curses of its vagueness.

The Constitution's vagueness becomes explicitly clearer when it speaks of war. Within the Constitution it seems that just about any right of the people is subject to suspension when it comes to "states of emergency," which ironically erodes democracy and strengthens the executive branch and especially the president. This brings us to more appetizing arguments about the interpretation of the Constitution and what it explicitly states.

In order to better analyze how the Constitution is read and interpreted, it is best to look at how it shouldn't. Woll argues that the Constitution should not be seen as a manuscript for the government, but as a proclamation of ideals; it should not be seen as a "framework," and not a "blueprint." The statements of Amendments are explicit, but no examples are given. In order to tackle these ideas Woll poses a few questions of his own: "How are the visions, premises, and convictions [that applied to our forefathers] relevant to how this brief text ought to be read?" In easier words he asks how should we read it, or better yet, how should it not be read. He goes on to divide us into two types of readers of the Constitution, those of us who see the Constitution as a mirror in which we see what we wish to, and those of us who see it as literal law. The fact that the Constitution is so loosely written it is easy to see why so many fear, "how easily men satisfy themselves that the Constitution is exactly what they wish it to be." And also if the Constitution was nothing more than a mere mirror for self interests then it would loose all "legitimacy." Woll's solution is to hold true to the core ideals of the Constitution, and simply maneuver around the edges. He states that there are many areas of contradictions in the Constitution, but that is because of all that it contains, both a manuscript for government, and a proclamation of ideals. However, I feel as though the Constitution does not necessarily gives all the rights that are accredited to it.

In the original Constitution the right of women and African Americans were not even stated let alone insured, but that is history. What about today? Which rights to do we assume we have but are not neccarily given textually within the Constitution? In the light of the coming Constitution day, the Arizona Daily Star published an article titled Constitutional Myth busters (http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/257155.php). From this article it was easy to gather all the rights that we simply assume are endowed to us from our Constitution, and we all see how important it the Constitution itself is for a successful government. The most obvious of these unwritten rights is the right to privacy, which can be implied from many places such as the Fourth Amendment, and then reassured by the Supreme Court cases such as Roe v. Wade and court cases in Connecticut which led up to it. Also the right for freedom against censorship is also not explicitly given in the Constitution and specifically it’s First Amendment. The First Amendment is no shield for absolute rights, but it does guarantee a few of our fantasized rights such as free speech as long as it does not over step its bounds. The two areas that are not protected are classified information, and obscenity such as child pornography. The moral from these two examples is that there are limits that are not meant to overstep. However, an interesting argument can be made as a tangent to these points: is a Constitution, which is so incredibly malleable and vague, even all that necessary in government, and even more importantly in a democracy?

This leads me into the "Debating Democracy" packet reading, which presents interesting points and counter points in this very discussion. Miroff writes about how civic partisanship (which is also not textually insured by the Constitution) is also not all that necessary when it comes to actual nuts and bolts of running a democracy. For him a Constitution itself is secondary as well, and that idea of democracy is one that is just to broad to be limited be petty mechanics. However, these petty mechanics are what hold our breached freedoms in place today. Honestly there is no chicken soup for the constitutionally baffled. In this case intellectual debate is our cure to unbafflement.

Various healthcare systems America could have:

*Health care in America is currently on a downward spiral. Approximately 47 million Americans are without health care for various reasons. Some are poor and cannot afford it and some are simply denied health care by HMO's for previous diseases. Something needs to be changed in America so that the citizens are take care of, and the only way to do this is to change the current health care system that America has.

Privatized:

• Citizens buy health care plans from privately owned business (HMOs and PPOs). The issue with this is that many Americans cannot afford the high costs of private health care organizations.
  

Universal:

• Free health care is guaranteed to all citizens by the government, regardless of any restrictions.
• Hillary Clinton proposed this idea while she was First Lady for Bill Clinton.
• Canada has this system currently.
  

Comprehensive:

• A combination of private and universal health care. There can be different standards for deciding which citizens receive health care. For example, all citizens under a certain income rate could be guaranteed free health care while those above the income rate and those who can pay for private health care have the opportunity to buy it.
  

There isn't a layout thing on my dashboard...  But if anyone can make this into a poll that would be awesome!

1-

Privacy is a right secured in the constitution. 

agree

disagree

2-

The right to privacy is....

upheld by the government today.

is being completely disregarded by the government.

3- 

The right to privacy needs to be upheld in our society

agree

disagree

Hi Dr Berry

I just thought I would write on this blog since I was checking it out and the password is the same as last year.

--Zack Grossman