States has many levels of government: federal, state, county, city, and town.
Regional and local governments are appendages of the national government.
In the United States, Politics where state and local governments have considerable independence is not true.
Each level of government consists of an array of depart to Analyze the American ments, agencies, offices, and bureaus, each with its own policies, jurisdiction, Political System and responsibilities.
In the case of governmental response to emergencies, the complexity gets in the way of effective governance.
The United States' federal, state, and local public safety agencies rarely share information and often use incompatible communications equipment, so they can't speak to one another.
New York City's police and fire departments couldn't coordinate their responses to the World Trade Center attack because their communications systems weren't linked.
The Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Homeland Security have separate computer operating systems and databases that make it difficult to share information.
The U.S. government is complex.
The grand constitutional design had an element of complex ity.
The framers of the Constitution hoped that an elaborate sharing of power among national institutions and between the states would allow competing interests access to arenas of decision making and a voice in public affairs while preventing any single group or coalition from monopolizing power.
Many groups would be able to achieve some of their political goals because of the dispersion of power and opportunity.
The arrangement places a burden on citizens who want to achieve something through political participation.
They may not be able to discern where the policies are made, who the decision makers are, and what forms of political participation are most effective.
One of the paradoxes of political life is that in a dictatorship, lines of political authority may be simple, but opportunities to influence the use of power are few; in the United States, political opportunities are plentiful, but how they should be used is far from obvious.
Many Americans are confused by government because it is so complex.
Many Americans have difficulty understanding the basic features of the Constitution according to Chapter 10.
The politics of the U.S. government can be confusing.
The political processes are similar to the nation's governmental structure.
The electoral process is the focal point of politics for most Americans.
In Chapter 11, we see that tens of millions of Americans participate in national, state, and local elections, during which they hear thousands of candidates debate a variety of issues.
Candidates inundate the media with promises, charges, and countercharges while pundits and journalists, whom we also discuss in Chapters 10 and 14, add their own clamor to the din.
Politics doesn't end on Election Day.
Five principles of politics can help us understand the politics of the U.S.
Political behavior has a purpose.
All politics is collective action.
Policy principle states that political outcomes are the result of individual preferences and institutional procedures.
The history principle says how we got here matters.
The participants and their goals seem obvious.
Labor unions oppose increasing the eligibility age for Social Security, businesses and upper-income wage earners support tax reduction, and farmers support agricultural subsidies.
Each of these forces has formed groups to advance their cause.
Some groups are examined in Chapter 13.
The participants and their goals are not clear in some instances.
Corporate groups hide behind environmental causes to promote their economic interests.
It is difficult for prospective competitors to enter their markets with strong environmental requirements.
Some groups want to help the poor, but only to help themselves.
Many government policies are made behind closed doors.
Ordinary citizens don't have to be blamed for failing to understand bureaucratic rule making and other obscure techniques of government.
The purpose of this text is to do so.
Political scientists find order in politics.
The study of American politics seeks to identify and explain patterns in all the noise and maneuvering of everyday political life.
These and many other questions have prompted political scientists to observe and ascertain what is true about the political world, and we will take them up in detail in later chapters.
The fundamental concern of science is the second question.
We want to know that something is true about the world.
We need to create a theory of how the world works to know why it is true.
A theory is constructed from basic principles.
The rest of the chapter gives us basic principles to help navigate the chaos of politics and make sense of what we see.
We analyze politics in this way.
In this book we believe that answers to the empirical and analytical help us formulate answers.
One of the most important goals of this book is to help readers learn to analyze what they observe in American politics.
Pundits, journalists, and other commentators make up the province of such explanations.
We seek a more general theory of voting choice that we can apply to many instances, not just the 2016 elections.
The five principles of politics are introduced.
We want the principles to apply to a wide range of circumstances.
Government is made up of a single institution and process that rulers establish to strengthen and perpetuate their rules.
Governments have different institutional structure, size, and modes of operation.
Governments have different ways of governing.
A system of rule is an organized church.
The powers of the government are in a small group of nations.
Politics is about having a say in the government's leadership, how the government is organized, and what its policies will be.
Lobbying public might challenge it, as individuals may run for office, vote, join polit, and seek to eliminate other social institutions that contribute money to candidates.
Conflict and cooperation power use many strategies to achieve their goals.
Power is a focus of politics, but not always for its own sake.
Power is sought for structure and policies in order to introduce new policies and government.
The powerful may not always have the authority to do what they want, and those who are authorized to do it may not be very effective.
Political behavior has a purpose.
Collective action is what politics is all about.
Individual preferences, institutional procedures, and collective action are the products of political outcomes.
It matters how we got here.
Some of the principles may seem abstract.
They are useful because they have a distinct truth on one side and a general truth on the other.
We can see the order in which political events and processes take place with these principles.
Governments respond to what people want.
The political behavior of all people is guided by their goals.
For many citizens, political behavior is simple and familiar, like reading news headlines on social media or having a discussion with a neighbor over the fence.
Watching a political debate on television, arguing about politics with a co-worker, signing a petition, or attending a city council meeting are all examples of political behavior.
These are political activities that require planning.
Casting a vote in the November election, contacting one's legislative representatives about a political issue, contributing time or money to a political campaign, or even running for local office require even more effort.
Some of these acts require time, effort, financial resources, and resolve, while others place small, even insignificant, demands on a person.
All of them are done for specific reasons.
Sometimes they read the front page in the morning for entertainment or chat about politics with a co-worker or family member.
Sometimes, they take on a lot of personal importance because of their political content, because an individual cares about, and wants to influence, an issue, a candidate, or a cause.
All of this political activity will be treated as goal oriented.
Our attempts to understand the goals of political activities will be aided by our attempts to identify them.
We've noted that many of the political activities of ordinary citizens are hard to distinguish from normal everyday behavior.
Almost every act of the professional politician is political.
The legislator's decision to introduce a piece of legislation, give a speech in the legislative chamber, move an amendment to a pending bill, vote for or against that bill, or accept a contribution from a particular group requires careful attention.
There are pitfalls and dangers to be aware of.
If you introduce a bill that appears to be too pro-labor in the eyes of your community, you will be charged with being in bed with the unions during the next election campaign.
You risk alienating minority communities in your state or district if you give a speech against job quota for minorities.
If you accept campaign contributions from industries that are known to pollute, environmentalists think you're not a good friend of the earth.
When making decisions, it's important to consider the probabilities and personal value of the potential outcomes.
Consider elected officials as examples of instrumental behavior.
They like their jobs for a variety of reasons.
We can understand why politicians think of their behavior as instrumental, with a goal of keeping their jobs.
This is straightforward for elected politicians, who often see no further than the next election and think about how to prevail and who can help them win.
Retail politics is when a politician helps an individual navigate a federal agency or misplace a Social Security check.
Wholesale politics is when a legislator introduces a bill that benefits a group that is active in his state or district, secures money for a public building in his hometown, or intervenes in an official proceeding on behalf of an interest.
Politicians may do these things for ideological reasons, but they may also have policy and personal concerns of their own.
We give incentives for politicians to help their voters if their generosity of spirit and personal ideology aren't enough to win elections.
Politics are based on behavior by politicians.
This book has been around for more than four decades.
Agency heads and bureau chiefs are motivated by policy preferences and power to maximize their budgets.
Legislative committee chairs are intent on maximizing their committee's policy jurisdiction and thus their power.
We can think of reasons that fit the political context.
The welfare of others such as their families, the entire society, or even all of humanity may be incorporated into these goals, even if they have a strong element of self-interest.
In pursuing political goals, people, especially elected leaders and other government officials, confront recurring problems and develop standard ways of addressing them.
The majority of political actors are motivated by their own interests.
It's difficult to determine the motives of judges and justices since they typically enjoy lifetime appointments and are not looking ahead to the next election.
Politics is shaped by a set of rules.
Conflict can be discouraged, coordination can be encouraged, and procedures can be used to facilitate decision making, cooperation, and administered by a collective action.
The institutions are scorecard and script.
Politics and governance are choreographed as script.
They list the players, their positions, what they want, what they know, and what they can do.
When the members of the U.S. Senate were elected by the people of their state, it became a different kind of legislative body.
The power of an incumbent politician such as a mayor, governor, or president can be weakened by a prohibition against running for re-election if there were a chance of securing another term in office.
The framework for American political institutions is set by the Constitution, but much adaptation takes place as the institutions themselves are bent to the various purposes of strategic political actors.
The authority that institutions give politicians for the pursuit of public policies will be our focus.
jurisdiction, agenda, veto power, and delegation are covered in the discussion.
The authority of the institution's members to make decisions is a critical feature.
The U.S. Congress has a standing commit that is carefully defined by official rules.
Most members of Congress become specialists in all aspects of their committees' jurisdiction, and they often seek committee assignments based on the subjects in which they authority.
Committee members have the authority to set the agenda of the parent chamber.
Legislation related to the military must pass through the armed services committee before the entire house or senate can consider it.
The politics of the U.S. legislative institution are affected by the way the committees are structured.
The scope of authority of a bureau or agency is firmly fixed by law.
June 2016 was when the FDA gained jurisdiction over tobacco products.
The gate may be slammed in the face of any alternatives that pass through it onto the institution's agenda.
Gatekeeping includes the power to make proposals and the power to block them.
The legislature can't force a proposal to be taken up even if it makes it on to the agenda, because the ability to defeat has no agenda power.
Congress has its own agenda, while its members can place matters on the legislative agenda.
A presidential veto can prevent a measure from becoming the law of the land.
Agenda power is vested in the legislature when it comes to legislation.
Veto power is held by both the legislature and the president, both of which have to approve a bill to become a law.
Chapters 6 and 7 detail these processes.
Rules for making decisions are a crucial feature of an institution.
There are a lot of conditions and qualifications that need to be met in order to lay out the rules for decision making.
The requirement of participation must be balanced with the need to bring activity to a close so that a decision can be made, if an organization values participation by the broadest range of members.
There is a specification of when a motion can be made.
To take another vote in the U.S. Senate, a supermajority (60 votes) is required to close debate and move to the sequence in which the vote is taken.
The division and specialization of labor is related to this.
Both principals and agents benefit from it.
Principals can off-load to specialists tasks that they themselves are not capable of doing.
Ordinary people don't know as much about governance as professional politicians do, just as they don't know as much about fixing a burst water pipe.
citizens don't have to be specialists and can focus on other things Since there is a demand for their services, agents are able to exercise authority and receive compensation for their efforts.
The rationale for representative democracy is the division and specialization of labor.
There are examples of principals and agents in politics.
The elected officials are agents for citizens.
They are agents for their followers.
Lobbyists work for special interests.
The political world has links between principals and agents.
The relationship between their customers and their own self-interest is what they do.
When giving agents to be citizens, the elected principal must take care that those agents are motivated to serve the official, either by sharing their interests or by acting to advance the interests of the principal.
The principal needs instruments on his behalf.
An agent's prospective deviations from her interests will not be completely eliminated by a principal.
At some point, the cost of clarifying relationship becomes more expensive than it is worth.
The potential for agents to march to the beat of their own sure arrangements is the down relationship and side.
There is a double-edged sword.
Characterizing institutions in terms of jurisdiction, agenda power, veto power, decisiveness, and delegation is an immense amount of ground.
Our purpose here is to introduce the many ways collectivities arrange their business and enable cooperation and facilitating political bargaining and decision making.
A second purpose has been to highlight the fact that the 10 elected officials are agents of their principals for bureaucrats to whom they delegate authority to implement policy.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution made institutional choices more than two centuries ago.
We want to make it clear that institutions not only make rules for governing but also present strategic opportunities for various political interests, depending on how the institutions are designed.
George Washington Plunkitt said that he saw his opportunities and took them.
Collective political action involves building, combining, mixing, and amalgamating people's individual goals.
This can happen in a committee, legislature, or bureaucracy.
It can happen in a campaign rally, a get-out- the-vote drive, or a civil rights march.
Collective action can be difficult to plan because of the different goals and preferences of the individuals involved.
There are mixed motives for cooperation.
The question is how can conflict be solved.
Bargaining is the most common means of resolving collective dilemmas.
Incentives must be provided to get everyone to act collectively when the number of parties is too large for face-to-face bargaining.
Political bargaining can be formal or informal.
In our daily lives, we engage in informal bargaining.
One of the book's authors has a neighbor with whom he shares a hedge on their property line.
The first one takes responsibility for trimming the hedge and the other for the rest of the year.
This arrangement is an understanding, not a legally binding agreement, and it was reached amicably and without much fuss or fanfare after a brief conversation.
It was necessary to hire lawyers, draft an agreement, and have it signed at the courthouse.
Bargaining in politics can be informal.
It has the same flavor as the casual negotiation between neighbors.
Depending on the participants' preferences and beliefs, deals will be struck.
It may not be possible to make a deal if preferences are incompatible.
There will be a range of possible bargaining outcomes if preferences and beliefs are not too far out of line.
There will be room for compromise.
The club that ran New York City's Democratic Party from the 19th century to the 20th century was called Tammany Hall.
Establishing formal machinery for dealing with disputes that are subjected to bargaining is not worth the effort.
Repetition can contribute to successful cooperation.
If neighbors bargain over draining a meadow, fixing a fence, and trimming a hedge in the same day, then patterns will develop.
The others will stop doing business with someone if they constantly try to get an advantage.
A pattern of cooperation develops if each party gives a little to get a little.
It is the repetition of similar, mixed-motive occasions that allows this pattern to emerge.
Rules govern other bargaining situations.
The rules describe who gets to make the first offer, how long the other parties have to consider it, whether other parties can make counteroffers, and what happens when all of the others accept it.
It's hard to imagine two neighbors deciding how to trim their hedges.
It makes sense to imagine a bargaining session over wages and working conditions at a large manufacturing plant.
Some bargaining is more suited to formal proceedings than others.
The same can be said about situations.
The same couple would use a formal procedure if they were to divide household assets in a divorce settlement.
Formal bargaining is associated with events in official institutions.
There are situations involving mixed motives in these settings.
Statutes are passed, executive budgets are approved, and the administrative branch of government is overseen by the legislature.
Courts rule on guilt or innocence, resolve differences between disputants, and give interpretive opinions.
The candidates are nominated and the campaign platforms are approved.
Administrative and regulatory agencies make rulings about policy applicability.
Bargaining failures are a definite possibility in mixed-motive circumstances in which different parties have different goals.
This is the first application of the institution principle.
It may not be feasible to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion when gains are possible from collective action.
Two farmers are interested in repairing a fence.
The net benefit to one farmer repairing it on his own is less than the cost of the mended fence, so it's not an attractive option.
Each row has options for Jones and Smith.
If Smith selects the column option, the upper-right entry in each cell is the payoff to Jones.
The logic says that the other two cells are filled in.
Jones might think about this problem in a different way.
Smith will arrive at the same conclusion.
It is a dilemma because the two individuals share a common goal, but each person's individual rationality causes both of them to do worse than they needed to.
Each would have been better served if they had only suspended their rationality and contributed to the common objective.
The dilemma persists even if the two farmers tried to overcome it, as each has a rational temptation to defect from a bargain in which both agree to mend the fence.
Both of them are nervous that the other will defect, and so they feel compelled to defect themselves.
Bargaining, even with common values and objectives, is not a guarantee of a positive outcome.
In politics, we encounter a lot of bargaining failures.
Some people have invented ways to partially mitigate bargaining failures.
The idea of political bargaining suggests an intimate kind of politics, involving face-to-face relations, negotiation, compromise, give-and-take, and so on.
Bargaining may no longer be practical when the number of people is large.
Everyone agrees that eliminating the mosquito habitat is a good thing, but they may disagree on other matters.
It's known as the prisoner's dilemma because some people may want to use pesticides and others may be concerned about the environment.
In Chapter 13 we discuss interest groups.
There will be disagreements over how to pay for the project.
A collective action problem arises when there is something to be gained if the group can cooperate and assure one another that no one will get away with bearing less than her fair share of the effort.
Faceto-face bargaining is impractical because of sheer numbers.
How to accomplish a common objective among a large number of interested parties is the issue.
Workers in a manufacturing plant may attempt to form a union, and citizens in similar positions may organize a political party.
Each landowner wants the area to have common goals.
The actions of a few owners would benefit all the other owners.
It is the prospect of free riding that risks undermining collective action.
A leadership structure will have to be put in place so that punishments are not used to discourage individuals from following through on their promises.
The mosquito-free meadow is a common goal that can be described as a public good.
It is a public good that can be "consumed" by individuals without using it up if it is provided and enjoyed by anyone.
A lighthouse is a classic example.
It aids all ships and there is no easy way to provide it.
The charge a ship for its use is also called that.
Clean air is an example.
The cleansed air may be enjoyed by people who have not restricted their pollution.
Some members of a group can free ride on others' efforts because public goods have these properties.
It may be difficult to get anyone to give it in the first place.
Collective action is required, and this often requires leaders with the ability to induce all to contribute to its provision.
Collective action problems involve too much of a good thing.
A political party's reputation can be seen as something that fits all politicians affiliated with the party.
If one legislator in the party pushes her advantage by securing a minor amendment that is helpful to a special interest in her district, this collective reputation is not irrep access facility, owned arably.
The party will be known as the champion of special inter if lots of party are available to everyone.
Individuals try to accomplish goals not only as individuals but also as members of larger collectivities such as families, associations, political parties and even larger groups.
Review flashcards and saved quizzes
Getting your flashcards
You're all caught up!
Looks like there aren't any notifications for you to check up on. Come back when you see a red dot on the bell!