(Photo courtesy: SIPA Press)wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/951/974487/Chapter_01.pdf · accept at face value everything you see on the television news, ... we will look at the

We the People of the United States, in Order to form amore perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domesticTranquility, provide for the common defence, promotethe general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Libertyto ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establishthis Constitution for the United States of America.

(Pho

to c

ourt

esy:

SIP

A P

ress

)

OCON.6668.cp01.xliv-033 1/16/03 10:34 AM Page xliv

1Chapter Outline

■ The Roots of AmericanGovernment: Where Didthe Ideas Come From?

■ Characteristics ofAmerican Democracy

■ The Changing PoliticalCulture andCharacteristics of theAmerican People

■ Political Culture andViews of Government

1

ThePolitical

LandscapeOn the facing page, you’ll see the words that begin the Preamble to theUnited States Constitution. Written in 1787 by a group of men we todayrefer to as the Framers, this document has guided our nation, its govern-ment, its politics, its institutions, and its inhabitants for over 200 years.

Back when the Constitution was written, the phrases “We the Peo-ple” and “ourselves” meant something very different than they dotoday. After all, voting largely was limited to property-owning whitemales. Indians, slaves, and women could not vote. Today, through theexpansion of the right to vote, the phrase “the People” encompassesmen and women of all races, ethnic origins, and social and economic sta-tuses—a variety of peoples and interests. The Framers could not haveimagined the variety of people today who are eligible to vote.

In the goals it outlines, the Preamble to the Constitution describeswhat the people of the United States can expect from their government. In spiteof the wave of nationalism that arose in the wake of the September 11, 2001 ter-rorist attacks, some continue to question how well the U.S. government candeliver on the goals set out in the Preamble. Few Americans today classify theUnion as “perfect”; many feel excluded from “Justice” and the “Blessings of Lib-erty,” and even our leaders do not believe that our domestic situation is particu-larly tranquil, as evidenced by the creation of the Office of Homeland Security.Furthermore, recent poll results and economic statistics indicate that many Amer-icans believe their general welfare is not particularly well promoted by their gov-ernment. Others simply do not care about government much at all.

Change. If there has been one constant in the life of the United States, it ischange. The Framers would be astonished to see the forms and functions thatthe institutions they so carefully outlined in the Constitution have taken on, andthe number of additional political institutions that have arisen to support andfuel the functioning of the national government. The Framers also would beamazed at the array of services and programs the government—especially thenational government—provides. They further would be surprised to see how thephysical boundaries and the composition of the population have changed overthe past 200 plus years. And, they might well wonder, “How did we get here?”

OCON.6668.cp01.xliv-033 1/16/03 10:35 AM Page 1

It is part of the American creed that each generationshould hand down to the next not only a better Amer-ica, but an improved economic, educational, and socialstatus. In general, Americans long have been optimisticabout our nation, its institutions, and its future. ThomasJefferson saw the United States as the world’s “besthope”; Abraham Lincoln echoed these sentiments whenhe called it the “last, best hope on earth.”1 But, duringthe 1990s, for the first time in decades, some of thatoptimism faded. Many Americans were dismayed by the

Clinton/Lewinsky affair, campaign finance abuses, andoften even government in general. This disenchant-ment, some believe, led to the continued low voterturnout in the 2000 election. Still, most Americans con-tinued to report that their lives were better than theirparents’ and most were optimistic about the future. Inthe aftermath of the disputed 2000 presidential elec-tion, 2001’s stock market collapse, terrorist attacks, andthe continued economic downswing, however, manyare uncertain about what the future holds.

2 CHAPTER 1

I n this text, we present you with the tools that you need to understand howour political system has evolved, and to prepare you to understand thechanges that are yet to come. If you approach the study of American gov-ernment and politics with an open mind, it should help you become a bet-

ter citizen. We hope that you learn to ask questions, to understand how various issueshave come to be important, and to see why a particular law was enacted and how it wasimplemented. With such understanding, we further hope that you will learn not toaccept at face value everything you see on the television news, hear on the radio, or readin the newspaper. Work to understand your government, and use your vote and otherforms of participation to help ensure that your government works for you.

We recognize that the discourse of politics has changed dramatically in just the lastfew years, and that more and more Americans—especially the young—are turned offto politics, especially at the national level. The 2000 presidential election and its fail-ure to produce an immediate presidential winner refocused national attention on polit-ical participation and the importance of a single vote.

We believe that a thorough understanding of the workings of government will allowyou to question and think about the system—the good parts and the bad—and decidefor yourself the advantages and disadvantages of possible changes and reforms.Equipped with such an understanding, we hope you will become better informed andmore active participants in the political process.

Every long journey begins with a single step. In this chapter, we’ll examine the fol-lowing topics:

■ First, we will look at the roots of American government. To understand how the U.S.government and our political system work today, it is critical to understand thephilosophies that guided the American colonists as they created a system of gov-ernance different from those then in existence.

■ Second, we will explore the characteristics of American democracy. Several enduringcharacteristics have defined American democracy since its beginning and continueto influence our nation’s government and politics today.

■ Third, we will explore the changing political culture and characteristics of the Ameri-can people. Because government derives its power from the people, an understand-ing of who the American people are and how their changing age, racial, and ethniccomposition is critical to an understanding of American politics.

■ Fourth, we will discuss political culture and Americans’ views about government andthe role that government plays in their lives.

■ In highlighting continuity and change in our political system, we will examine howthe American dream for immigrants has changed over time as the racial and eth-nic composition of America also has changed dramatically.

To connect with others whoare interested in politics, see

www.ablongman.com/oconnor

W E B E X P L O R AT I O N


THE ROOTS OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT: WHERE DID THE IDEAS COME FROM? 3

natural lawA doctrine that society should begoverned by certain ethical princi-ples that are part of nature and, assuch, can be understood by reason.

THE ROOTS OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT:WHERE DID THE IDEAS COME FROM?

The current American political system did not spring into being overnight. It is theresult of philosophy, trial and error, and yes, even luck. To begin our examination ofwhy we have the type of government we have today, we look at the theories of govern-ment that influenced the Framers who drafted the Constitution and created the UnitedStates of America.

From Aristotle to the EnlightenmentAristotle (384–322 B.C.) and the Greeks were the first to articulate the notion ofnatural law, the doctrine that human affairs should be governed by certain ethicalprinciples. Being nothing more nor less than the nature of things, the principles ofnatural law can be understood by reason. Later, in the thirteenth century, the Ital-ian priest and philosopher Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) gave the idea of naturallaw a new, Christian framework. He argued that natural law and Christianity werecompatible because God created the natural law that established individual rights tolife and liberty. In contradiction to this view, kings throughout Europe continued torule as absolute monarchs, claiming their divine right to govern came directly fromGod. Thus, citizens were bound by the government under which they found them-selves, regardless of whether they had a say in its workings: If government reflectedGod’s will, who could argue with it?

In the early sixteenth century, a religious movement to reform the doctrine andinstitutions of Roman Catholicism began to sweep through Europe. In many cases theseefforts at reform resulted in the founding of Protestant churches separate from theirCatholic source. During this period, known as the Reformation, the Protestant faithgrew as it promoted the belief that people could talk directly to God without the inter-vention of a priest. The Reformation thus began to alter how people viewed govern-ment as they began to believe they should have a say in their own governance.

During the Enlightenment period, the ideas of philosophers and scientists suchas Isaac Newton (1642–1727) worked further to affect peoples’ views of government.Newton and others argued that the world could be improved through the use ofhuman reason, science, and religious toleration. He and other theorists directly chal-lenged earlier notions that fate alone controlled an individual’s destiny and that kingsruled by divine right. Together, the intellectual and religious developments of theReformation and Enlightenment periods encouraged people to seek alternatives toabsolute monarchies and to ponder new methods of governance.

A Growing Idea: Popular ConsentIn the late sixteenth century in England, “separatists” split from the Church of Eng-land. They believed that their ability to speak one-on-one to God gave them thepower to participate directly in the governance of their own local assemblies. Theyestablished self-governing congregations and were responsible for the first widespreadappearance of self-government in the form of social compacts. When some separatistssettled in America during the 1600s, they brought along their beliefs about self-gov-ernance. The Mayflower Compact, deemed sufficiently important to be written whilethat ship was still at sea, reflects this tradition. Although it addressed itself to seculargovernment, the Pilgrims called it a “covenant” and its form was akin to other com-mon religious covenants adopted by Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Baptists.2

Two English theorists of the seventeenth century, Thomas Hobbes(1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704), built on conventional notions aboutthe role of government and the relationship of the government to the people in

Sir Isaac Newton and other Enlightenmentthinkers challenged people’s ideas aboutthe nature of government.(Photo courtesy: SIPA Press)

For more on Aristotle and natural law, see




proposing a social contract theory of government (see Roots of Government: ThePhilosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke). They argued that, even before thecreation of God-ordained governments theorized by Aquinas, all individuals were freeand equal by natural right. This freedom, in turn, required that all men and womengive their consent to be governed.

Hobbes and Locke. In Hobbes’s now-classic political treatise, Leviathan (1651),he argued for King Charles’s restoration to the throne, which finally occurred in 1661.Hobbes argued pessimistically that man’s natural state was war. Government, Hobbestheorized, particularly a monarchy, was necessary to restrain man’s bestial tendenciesbecause life without government was but a “state of nature.” Without written, enforce-able rules, people would live like animals—foraging for food, stealing, and killing whennecessary. To escape the horrors of the natural state and to protect their lives, Hobbesargued, people must give up certain rights to government.3 Without government,Hobbes warned, life would basically be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”—a

constant struggle to survive against the evil of others.For these reasons, governments had to intrude onpeople’s rights and liberties to better control societyand to provide the necessary safeguards for property.

Hobbes argued strongly for a single ruler, no mat-ter how evil, to guarantee the rights of the weakagainst the strong. Leviathan, a biblical sea monster,was his characterization of an all-powerful govern-ment. Strict adherence to Leviathan’s laws, howeverencompassing or intrusive on liberty, was but a smallprice to pay for living in a civilized society, or even forlife itself.

In contrast, John Locke, like many other politi-cal philosophers of the era, took the basic survival ofhumanity for granted. He argued that a government’smajor responsibility was the preservation of privateproperty, an idea that ultimately found its way into theU.S. Constitution. In two of his works (Essay Con-cerning Human Understanding [1690] and Second Trea-tise on Civil Government [1689]), Locke responded toKing James II’s abuses of power. Locke not onlydenied the divine right of kings to govern but arguedthat men were born equal and with natural rights thatno king had the power to void. Under what Locketermed social contract theory, the consent of the peo-ple is the only true basis of any sovereign’s right torule. According to Locke, people form governmentslargely to preserve life, liberty, and property, and toassure justice. If governments act improperly, theybreak their contract with the people and therefore nolonger enjoy the consent of the governed. Because hebelieved that true justice comes from laws, Lockeargued that the branch of government that makeslaws—as opposed to the one that enforces or inter-prets laws—should be the most powerful.

Locke believed that having a chief executive toadminister laws was important, but that he shouldnecessarily be limited by law or by the social contractwith the governed. Locke’s writings influenced many

4 CHAPTER 1

The title page from Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan (1651) depicting the peoplecoming together under a single ruler.(Photo courtesy: Bettmann/Corbis)

social contract theoryThe belief that people are free andequal by God-given right and thatthis in turn requires that all peoplegive their consent to be governed;espoused by John Locke and influ-ential in the writing of the Declara-tion of Independence.


5

American colonists, especially Thomas Jefferson, whose original draft of the Decla-ration of Independence noted the rights to “life, liberty, and property” as key reasonsto split from England.4 This document was “pure Locke” because it based the justifi-cation for the split with England on the English government’s violation of the socialcontract with the American colonists.

Devising a National GovernmentAlthough social contract theorists agreed on the need for government, they did not nec-essarily agree on the form that a government should take. Thomas Hobbes argued fora single leader; John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a French philosopher(1712–1778), saw the need for less centralized power.

The colonists rejected a system with a strong ruler like the British monarchy assoon as they declared their independence. Most European monarchical systems gave

Roots of Government

On almost any newspa-per or TV news report,on any given day, you

can find stories that showAmericans grappling with ques-

tions about the proper role of government in their lives. Thesequestions are not new. Centuries ago, Thomas Hobbes andJohn Locke both wrote extensively on these issues. Their ideas,however, differed remarkably. For Hobbes, who viewedhumans as basically evil, a government that regulated all kindsof conduct was necessary. Locke, who was more optimistic, sawthe need only for more limited government.

HobbesThomas Hobbes was born in 1588 inGloucestershire, England, and beganhis formal education at the age of four.By the age of six he was learning Latinand Greek, and by the age of nineteenhe had obtained his bachelor’s degreefrom Oxford University. In 1608,Hobbes accepted a position as a familytutor with the earl of Devonshire, a post he retained for the restof his life.

Hobbes was greatly influenced by the chaos of the Eng-lish Civil War during the mid-seventeenth century. Its impactis evident in his most famous work, Leviathan (1651), a trea-tise on governmental theory that states his views on man andcitizen. Leviathan is commonly described as a book about pol-itics, but it also deals with religion and moral philosophy.

Hobbes characterized humans as selfishly individualisticand constantly at war with one another. Thus, he believed that

people must surrender themselves to rulers in exchange for pro-tection from their neighbors.

LockeJohn Locke, born in England in 1632,was admitted to an outstanding publicschool at the age of fifteen. It was therethat he began to question his upbring-ing in the Puritan faith. At twenty, hewent on to study at Oxford, where helater became a lecturer in Aristotelianphilosophy. Soon, however, he found anew interest in medicine and experimental science.

In 1666, Locke met Anthony Ashley Cooper, the first earlof Shaftesbury, a politician who believed in individual rightsand parliamentary reform. It was through Cooper that Lockediscovered his own talent for philosophy. In 1689, Locke pub-lished his most famous work, Second Treatise on Civil Govern-ment, in which he set forth a theory of natural rights. He usednatural rights to support his “social contract [theory]—the viewthat the consent of the people is the only true basis of any sov-ereign’s right to rule.” A government exists, he argued, becauseindividuals agree, through a contract, to form a government toprotect their rights under natural law. By agreeing to be gov-erned, individuals agree to abide by decisions made by major-ity vote in the resolution of disputes.

Both men, as you can see, relied on wealthy royal patronsto allow them the time to work on their philosophies of govern-ment. While Hobbes and Locke agreed that government was asocial contract between the people and their rulers, they differedsignificantly about the proper scope of government. Whichman’s views about government (and people) reflect your views?

THE PHILOSOPHIES OF THOMAS HOBBES AND JOHN LOCKE

For more on ThomasHobbes and John Locke, see



monarchyA form of government in whichpower is vested in hereditary kingsand queens.


6 CHAPTER 1

oligarchyA form of government in which theright to participate is always condi-tioned on the possession of wealth,social status, military position, orachievement.

aristocracyA system of government in whichcontrol is based on rule of the highest.

democracyA system of government that givespower to the people, whetherdirectly or through their elected rep-resentatives.

direct democracyA system of government in whichmembers of the polity meet to dis-cuss all policy decisions and thenagree to abide by majority rule.

indirect (representative)democracyA system of government that givescitizens the opportunity to vote forrepresentatives who will work ontheir behalf.

hereditary rulers absolute power over all forms of activity. Many of the colonists hadfled Great Britain to avoid religious persecution and other harsh manifestations ofpower wielded by King George II, whom they viewed as a malevolent despot. Theynaturally were reluctant to put themselves in the same position in their new nation.

While some colonies, such as Massachusetts, originally established theocracies inwhich religious leaders eventually ruled claiming divine guidance, they later looked tomore secular forms of governance. Colonists also did not want to create an oligarchy,or “rule by the few or an elite,” in which the right to participate is conditioned on thepossession of wealth, property, social status, military position, or achievement. Aristo-tle defined this form of government as a perversion of an aristocracy, or “rule of thehighest.” Again, the colonists were fearful of replicating the landed and titled systemof the British aristocracy, and viewed the formation of a representative form of gov-ernment as far more in keeping with the ideas of social contract theorists. But, thedemocracy in which we live, as settled on by the Framers, is difficult to define. Nowhereis the word mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution.The term comes from two Greek words: demos (the people) and kratia (power or author-ity). Thus, democracy, which today enjoys increasing popularity around the world, canbe interpreted as a form of government that gives power to the people. The question,then, is how and to which people is this power given?

The Theory of Democratic GovernmentAs evidenced by the creation in 1619 of the Virginia House of Burgesses as the firstrepresentative assembly in North America, and its objections to “taxation without rep-resentation,” the colonists were quick to create participatory forms of government inwhich most men were allowed to take part. The New England town meeting, whereall citizens gather to discuss and decide issues facing the town, today stands as a sur-viving example of a direct democracy, such as was used in ancient Greece when all free,male citizens came together periodically to pass laws and “elect” leaders by lot (see Pol-itics Now: The Internet and Our Changing Society).

Direct democracies, in which the people rather than their elected representativesmake political decisions, soon proved unworkable in the colonies. But, as more andmore settlers came to the New World, many town meetings were replaced by a systemcalled an indirect democracy (this is also called representative democracy). This systemof government, in which representatives of the people are chosen by ballot, was con-sidered undemocratic by ancient Greeks, who believed that all citizens must have adirect say in their governance.5 Later, in the 1760s, Jean-Jacques Rousseau also wouldargue that true democracy is impossible unless all citizens participate in governmentaldecision making. Nevertheless, indirect democracy was the form of government optedfor throughout most of the colonies.

Representative or indirect democracies, which call for the election of representa-tives to a governmental decision-making body, were formed first in the colonies andthen in the new union. Many citizens were uncomfortable with the term “democracy”and used the term “republic” to avoid any confusion between the system adopted anddirect democracy. Historically, the term republic implied a system of government inwhich the interests of the people were represented by more educated or wealthier citi-zens who were responsible to those who elected them. Today, representative democra-cies are more commonly called “republics,” and the words “democracy” and “republic”often are used interchangeably.

Why a Capitalist System?In addition to fashioning a democratic form of government, the colonists also were con-fronted with the dilemma of what kind of role the government should play in the econ-omy. Concerns with liberty, both personal and economic, were always at the forefront

republicA government rooted in the consentof the governed; a representative orindirect democracy.


7

Politics Now

It is hard to believe that theInternet as we know it wasnot around when the first

edition of this text was pub-lished in 1993. What began in1969 as ARPANET, a com-

munications network developed by the U.S. Department ofDefense for its employees to maintain contact with defensecontractors and universities in the case of a nuclear attack, hasrevolutionized how students write papers, people seek infor-mation, and even how some individuals date. The Internet isnow a vast resource for those interested in politics and mayhave enormous consequences in the near future as it becomesas critical a part of our daily lives as televisions and telephones.

For the first decade of its existence, the Internet waslargely used for e-mail and access to distant data bases, and tofacilitate communication among governmental agencies, cor-porations, and universities.a During the early 1980s, all of theinterrelated research networks converted to a new protocol thatallowed for easy back-and-forth transfer of information;ARPANET became the backbone of the new system, facili-tating by 1983 the birth of the Internet we know today.

Only a decade ago, HTML, a hypertext Internet protocolthat allowed graphic information to be transmitted over theInternet, was devised. This allowed for the creation of graphicpages—called Web sites—which then became “part of a huge,virtual hypertext network called the World Wide Web.”b Thisnew, improved Internet was then christened the Web.

By 2000, over 64 percent of all adult Americans reportedthat they had used the Internet. Almost all schools have Inter-net access. By 2001, over 50 million households were online.In 2000, female Internet usage surpassed male usage for thefirst time. Usage by teenage girls soared 126 percent in justfour years.c

Thus, given estimates that computer ownership and Webaccess are increasing at remarkable rates, the Web’s impact ondemocracy must be considered.

Near-universal usage of home telephones, for example,changed the way that public opinion was measured, and tele-vision eventually changed the way that candidates and theirsupporters reached potential voters. Most candidates for majoroffice have Web pages and use the Internet to raise campaignfunds. More and more Americans look to the Web as a majorsource of information about politics, and the political partiesand interest groups are aware of this fact.

This has brought about increased reliance on candidate andparty Web sites to raise money and supporters, a more informedelectorate given easier access to information about candidatesand issues, and a more effective grassroots mechanism for citi-zens to contact officials, policy makers, and large corporations.It is hoped that the Internet will enhance voter turnout.

a“Internet History,” http://www.tdi.uregina.ca/~ursc/internet/history.htmlb“Internet History.”cLeslie Walker, “Teen Girls Help Create Female Majority Online,” Wash-ington Post (August 20, 2000): E3.

THE INTERNET AND OUR CHANGING SOCIETY

free market economyThe economic system in which the“invisible hand” of the market regu-lates prices, wages, product mix, andso on.

capitalismThe economic system that favorsprivate control of business and mini-mal governmental regulation of pri-vate industry.

mercantile systemA system that binds trade and itsadministration to the national gov-ernment.

of their actions and decisions in creating a new government. They were well aware ofthe need for a well-functioning economy and saw that government had a key role inmaintaining one. What a malfunction in the economy is, however, and what steps thegovernment should take to remedy it, were questions that dogged the Framers and con-tinue to puzzle politicians and theorists today.

The American economy is characterized by: (1) the private ownership of property;and, (2) a free market economy—two key tenets of capitalism, an economic systemthat favors private control of business and minimal governmental regulation of privateindustry. In capitalist systems, the laws of supply and demand, interacting freely in themarketplace, set prices of goods and drive production. Under capitalism, sales occur forthe profit of the individual. Capitalists believe that both national and individual pro-duction is greatest when individuals are free to do with their property or goods as theywish. The government, however, plays an indispensable role in creating and enforcingthe rules of the game.

In 1776, the year the Declaration of Independence was signed, Adam Smith(1723–1790) argued that free trade would result in full production and economic health.These ideas were greeted with great enthusiasm in the colonies as independence wasproclaimed. Colonists no longer wanted to participate in the mercantile system of GreatBritain and other Western European nations. Mercantile systems bound trade and itsadministration to national governments. Smith and his supporters saw free trade as “the

Participate.com

Longman

2.0

ParticipationDemocracy

and theInternet


8 CHAPTER 1

invisible hand” that produced the wealth of nations.This wealth, in turn, became the inspiration andjustification for capitalism.

From the mid- to late-eighteenth century, andthrough the mid-1930s in the United States and inmuch of the Western world, the idea of laissez-faireeconomics (from the French, “to leave alone”)enjoyed considerable popularity. While most statesregulated and intervened heavily in their economieswell into the nineteenth century, the U.S. nationalgovernment routinely followed a “hands-off ” eco-nomic policy. By the late 1800s, however, thenational government felt increasing pressure to reg-ulate some aspects of the economy (often, in part,because of the difficulties states faced in regulatinglarge, multistate industries such as the railroads, andfrom industry’s desire to override the patchworkregulatory scheme produced by the states). There-after, the Great Depression of the 1930s forced thenational government to take a much larger role inthe economy. Afterward, any pretense that theUnited States was a purely capitalist system wasabandoned. The worldwide extent of this trend,however, varied by country and over time. Inpost–World War II Britain, for example, the extentof government economic regulation of industry andsocial welfare was much greater than that attemptedby American policy makers in the same period.

For most of U.S. history, capitalism and the American dream have been alive andwell. Hard work has been rewarded with steady jobs and increased earning power andwages, and Americans have expected to hand down improved economic, social, andeducational status to their children. In many ways World War II ushered in the era ofthe American dream. Men returned from the war and went to college, and their tuitionwas paid for by the G.I. Bill. Prior to the war, a college education was mainly the pre-serve of the rich; the G.I. Bill made it available to men from all walks of life. Many mengot the education they needed to succeed and do much better than their parents hadbefore them. In addition, low-interest-rate mortgages were made available through theVeterans Administration, and the American dream of owning a home became a realityfor millions. Capitalism worked and made the efforts to preserve it worthwhile.

Other Economic SystemsCapitalism is just one type of economic system. Others include socialism, communism,and totalitarianism.

Socialism. Socialism is a philosophy that advocates collective ownership and con-trol of the means of economic production. Socialists call for governmental, rather thanprivate, ownership of all land, property, and industry and, in turn, an equitable distri-bution of the income from those holdings. In addition, socialism seeks to replace theprofit motive and competition with cooperation and social responsibility.

Some Socialists actually tolerate capitalism as long as the government maintainssome kind of control over the economy. Others reject capitalism outright and insist onthe abolition of all private enterprise.

socialismAn economic system that advocatesfor collective ownership and controlof the means of production.

Here, the sameness of the track homes of Levittown, New York, the site of afford-able housing for World War II veterans and their families, is clearly shown. Feder-ally guaranteed G.I. low-interest loans made home ownership a possibility formany Americans for the first time in history.(Photo courtesy: Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

Participate.com

Longman

2.0

TimelineMajor

TechnologicalInnovationsthat Have

Changed thePolitical

Landscape


THE ROOTS OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT: WHERE DID THE IDEAS COME FROM? 9

Some Socialists, especially in Western Europe, argue that socialism can evolvethrough democratic processes. Thus, in nations such as Great Britain, certain criticalindustries or services including health care and the coal industry have been nationalized,or taken over by the state, to provide for more efficient supervision and to avoid the majorconcentrations of wealth that occur when individuals privately own key industries.

Communism. The German philosopher Karl Marx argued that government was sim-ply a manifestation of underlying economic forces and could be understood according totypes of economic production. In Das Kapital (1867), Marx argued that capitalism wouldalways be replaced by socialist states in which the working class would own the means ofproduction and distribution and be able to redistribute the wealth to meet its needs.

Marx believed that it was inevitable for each society to pass through the stages ofhistory: feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and then communism. When society reachedcommunism, Marx theorized, all class differences would be abolished and governmentwould become unnecessary. A system of common ownership of the means of sustenanceand production would lead to greater social justice. In practice, most notably in Russiaunder Vladimir Lenin, and the Soviet dictator, Joseph Stalin, many of the tenets ofMarxism were changed or modified.

Marx saw the change coming first in highly industrialized countries such as Britainand Germany, where a fully mature capitalism would pave the way for a socialist revo-lution. But, Lenin and the Bolshevik Party wanted to have such a revolution in under-developed Russia. So, instead of relying on the historical inevitability of the communistfuture (as Marx envisioned), they advocated forcing that change. Lenin argued that byestablishing an elite vanguard party of permanent revolutionaries and a dictatorship ofthe proletariat (working class), they could achieve socialism and communism withoutwaiting for the historical forces to work. In the 1940s, led by Mao Zedong, China fol-lowed the Leninist path.

In practice, the communist states rejected free markets as a capitalist and exploitativeway of organizing production and turned instead to planning and state regulation. In cap-italist economies, the market sets prices, wages, and product mix. In a planned economy,government makes conscious choices to determine prices, wages, and product mix.

The events leading to the fall of the Berlin Wall dividing free and communist Berlin,in 1989 reflected the increasing inability of communist governments to address economicand political demands of modern society. When the Soviet Union fragmented into fif-teen separate countries in 1992, state communism ceased to be an international model foreconomic and political development. With only a few notable exceptions, such as Cubaand North Korea, most countries, political leaders, and political groups abandoned therhetoric and policies of communism for market economics and democracy.6 By 2002, eventhe Chinese Communist Party, while keeping tight control on political power, had over-seen twenty years of market-oriented economic reforms.7 In Eastern Europe, the dis-credited Communists generally reinvented themselves as Social Democrats focused onthe needs of those unable or unwilling to benefit from the market economy. In someinstances, this conversion resulted in election victories and a return to political power. TheRussian Communist Party, in contrast, remained generally unrepentant, and its appealcontinues to diminish. At the same time, several of the other countries that emerged fromthe breakup of the Soviet Union have dispensed with communist ideology but haveretained many political and economic characteristics of Soviet-style communism.8

Totalitarianism. A totalitarian system is basically a modern form of extreme author-itarian rule. In contrast to governments based on democratic beliefs, totalitarian govern-ments have total authority over their people and their economic system. The tools oftotalitarianism are secret police, terror, propaganda, and an almost total prohibition oncivil rights and liberties. These systems also tend to be ruled in the name of a particular

communismAn economic system in whichworkers own the means of produc-tion and control the distribution of resources.

totalitarianismAn economic system in which thegovernment has total control overthe economy.


10

popular consentThe idea that governments mustdraw their powers from the consentof the governed.

religion or orthodoxy, an ideology, or a personality cult organized around a supreme leader.The reign of the Taliban in Afghanistan came close to the total control of forms of pro-duction, the airwaves, education, the arts, and even sports implied by totalitarianism.

CHARACTERISTICS OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

As earlier noted, the United States is an indirect democracy. It has several underlyingconcepts and distinguishing characteristics, including its political culture, which con-tinually affect the citizenry’s ideas about government. Many of these characteristics areoften in conflict. The political system, for example, is based on an underlying notionof the importance of balance among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches,between the state and federal governments, between the wants of the majority and theminority, and between the rights of the individual and the best interests of the nationas a whole. The Framers built the system on the idea that there would be statesmenwho would act for the good of the system. Without such statespersons, the systemnecessitates constant vigilance to keep a balance as the pendulum swings back and forthbetween various desires, demands, and responsibilities. To some, government may be anecessary evil, but a good government is less evil if it can keep things in balance as itoperates in various spheres. The ideas of balance permeate many of the concepts andcharacteristics of American democracy presented below.

Popular ConsentPopular consent, the idea that governments must draw their powers from the consentof the governed, is one distinguishing characteristic of American democracy. Derivedfrom Locke’s social contract theory, the notion of popular consent was central to theDeclaration of Independence. A citizen’s willingness to vote represents his or her con-sent to be governed and is thus an essential premise of democracy. Growing numbers ofnonvoters can threaten the operation and legitimacy of a truly democratic system. So,too, can voting systems where certain kinds of ballots or voting machines, such as manyof those used in Florida in 2000 and 2002, appeared not to count many of the votes cast.

Popular SovereigntyThe notion of popular sovereignty, the right of the majority to govern themselves, hasits basis in natural law. Ultimately, political authority rests with the people, who can

popular sovereigntyThe right of the majority to govern themselves.

The horrors of the Taliban regime inAfghanistan are revealed vividly asthe cloaked man is shot at closerange by the brother of the man hemurdered. These public executionswere commonplace under the Tal-iban’s version of Islamic justice.(Photo courtesy: Zaheer Uddin/Webista/Corbis Sygma)


CHARACTERISTICS OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY 11

create, abolish, or alter their governments. The idea that all governments derive theirpower from the people is found in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Con-stitution, but the term itself did not come into wide use until pre–Civil War debatesover slavery. At that time, supporters of popular sovereignty argued that the citizens ofnew states seeking admission to the Union should be able to decide whether or not theirstates would allow slavery within their borders. Today, public opinion polls are oftenused as instantaneous measures of the popular will.

Majority RuleMajority rule, another basic democratic principle, means that the majority (normally50 percent of the total votes cast plus one) of citizens in any political unit should electofficials and determine policies. This principle holds for both voters and their electedrepresentatives. Yet, the American system also stresses the need to preserve minorityrights, as evidenced by the myriad protections of individual rights and liberties foundin the Bill of Rights.

The concept of the preservation of minority rights has changed dramatically in theUnited States. It wasn’t until after the Civil War that slaves were freed and AfricanAmericans began to enjoy minimal citizenship rights. By the 1960s, however, rage atAmerica’s failure to guarantee minority rights in all sections of the nation fueled thecivil rights movement. This ultimately led to congressional passage of the Civil RightsAct of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, both designed to further minorityrights. Attacks on affirmative action often are fueled by cries that majority rights arebeing trampled.

Concepts of majority rule today are threatened by a tradition of political apathythat has emerged slowly over time within the American electorate. Since 1972, the per-centage of eligible voters who have cast ballots generally has continued to decline. While63 percent voted in 1972, just over 50 percent of eligible voters voted in 2000. Off-year,nonpresidential elections suffer the lowest rates; in 1998 only 36 percent of those eli-gible to vote did so. In some states, fewer than 25 percent of those eligible to vote casta ballot. Although one in five of those who did not vote said they didn’t do so becausethey were “too busy,”9 8 percent reported that they stayed home because they didn’t likethe candidates or issues.10 Ten percent reported that they were out of town, and 12 per-cent said they simply were uninterested.11 Whatever reasons are offered for nonvoting,however, it is an important phenomenon to keep in mind when we talk about majorityrule. Most discussions of elections as the voice of the majority really are better cast asdiscussions of the wishes of the majority who voted.

IndividualismTremendous value is placed on the individual in American democracy and culture. Allindividuals are deemed rational and fair, and endowed, as Thomas Jefferson proclaimedin the Declaration of Independence, “with certain unalienable rights.” Even today, manyview individualism, which holds that the primary function of government is to enablethe individual to achieve his or her highest level of development, as a mixed blessing.It is also a concept whose meaning has changed over time. The rugged individualismof the western frontier, for example, was altered as more citizens moved westward, citiesdeveloped, and demands for government services increased.

EqualityAnother key characteristic of our democracy is the emphasis on political equality, thedefinition of which has varied considerably over time (as discussed in chapter 6). Theimportance of political equality is another reflection of Americans’ stress on the impor-tance of the individual. Although some individuals clearly wield more political clout thanothers, the adage “one person, one vote” implies a sense of political equality for all.

majority ruleThe central premise of directdemocracy in which only policiesthat collectively garner the supportof a majority of voters will be madeinto law.

OCON.6668.cp01.xliv-033 2/11/03 12:59 PM Page 11

12 CHAPTER 1

personal libertyA key characteristic of U.S. democ-racy. Initially meaning freedom fromgovernmental interference, today itincludes demands for freedom toengage in a variety of practices freefrom governmental discrimination.

civil societySociety created when citizens areallowed to organize and express theirviews publicly as they engage in anopen debate about public policy.

Personal LibertyPersonal liberty is perhaps the single most important characteristic of Americandemocracy. The Constitution itself was written to assure “life” and “liberty.” Over theyears, however, our concepts of liberty have changed and evolved from “freedom from”to “freedom to.” The Framers intended Americans to be free from governmentalinfringements on freedom of religion and speech, from unreasonable search and seizure,and so on (see chapter 5). The addition of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Consti-tution and its emphasis on equal protection of the laws and subsequent passage of lawsguaranteeing civil rights, however, expanded Americans’ concept of liberty to includedemands for “freedom to” work or to go to school free from discrimination. Debatesover how much the government should do to guarantee these rights or liberties illus-trate the conflicts that continue to occur in our democratic system.

Civil SocietyMany of these hallmarks of democracy also are fundamentals of what many now termcivil society. This term is used to describe the “nongovernmental, not-for profit, inde-pendent nature” of people and groups who can express their views publicly and engage inan open debate about public policy.12 With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. gov-ernment has used a variety of initiatives to train people how to act in a new democraticsystem. Independent and politically active citizens are key to the success of any democ-racy, yet people who have not lived in democratic systems often are unschooled, reluc-tant, or afraid to participate after years in communist or totalitarian systems. The U.S.government routinely makes grants to nongovernmental organizations, professional asso-ciations, civic education groups, and women’s groups to encourage the kind of participa-tion in the political system that Americans often take for granted. The fall of the SovietUnion “accelerated the global trend toward democracy… which pushed democracy to thetop of the political agenda.”13 U.S. efforts to assist Afghanistan, for example, include notonly public works projects but also development of the new democratic government.

THE CHANGING POLITICAL CULTURE ANDCHARACTERISTICS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Political culture has been defined as the “attitudes toward the political system and itsvarious parts, and attitudes toward the role of the self in the system.”14 It is a set of ori-entations toward a special set of social objects and processes. Where you live, how youwere raised, and even your age or age cohort can affect how you view the governmentor a governmental program.

Americans are very divided on some issues; politicians, media commentators, andeven the citizenry itself also tend to focus on how different Americans are. But, beforewe explore some of those differences, which have profound implications on policy andindividual preferences, we must note the similarities of Americans. Most Americansshare a common language—English—and have similar aspirations for themselves andtheir families. Most agree that they would rather live in the United States than any-where else and that democracy, with all of its warts, is still the best system for most.Most Americans highly value education and want to send their children to the bestschools possible, viewing an education as the key to success.

Still, at the heart of the American political system is change, be it in population,demographics, or interest in politics. But, while it is true that America and its popula-tion are undergoing rapid change, this is not necessarily a new phenomenon. It is sim-ply new to most of us. In the pages that follow, we take a look at some of thecharacteristics of the American populace and its political culture. Because the people

political cultureAttitudes toward the political sys-tem and its various parts, and atti-tudes toward the role of the self inthe system.


THE CHANGING POLITICAL CULTURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 13

of the United States are the basis of political power and authority, their characteristicsand attitudes have important implications for how America is governed and how andwhat policies are made.

Changing Size and PopulationOne year after the Constitution was ratified, less than 4 million Americans lived in thethirteen states. They were united by a single language and opposition to the king. Mostshared a similar Protestant-Christian heritage, and those who voted were white maleproperty owners. The Constitution mandated that each of the sixty-five members ofthe original House of Representatives should represent 30,000 citizens. However, dueto rapid growth, that number often was much higher. Anti-Federalists, who opposed astrong national government during the founding period, at least took solace in the factthat members of the House of Representatives, who generally represented far fewerpeople than senators, would be more in touch with “the People.”

As revealed in Figure 1.1, as the nation grew as new states were added, the popu-lation also grew. Although the physical size of the United States has remained stablesince the addition of Alaska and Hawaii in 1959, there are now more than 286 millionAmericans. In 2002, a single member of the House of Representatives from Montanarepresented 905,000 people.

To get a minute-by-minuteupdate on U.S. population, see



Year

280,000

Res

iden

t P

op

ula

tio

n (

in t

ho

usa

nd

s)

260,000

240,000

220,000

200,000

180,000

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0

1790 1810 1830 1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2030(est.)

2050(est.)

300,000

400,000

380,000

360,000

340,000

320,000

2010(est.)

FIGURE 1.1 U.S. Population, 1790–2050Since around 1890, when more and more immigrants came to America, the population of the United States,although largely fueled by new births and increased longevity, has continued to rise.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001 Statistical Abstract of the United States.


14 CHAPTER 1

As a result of this growth, most citizens today feel far removed from thenational government and their elected representatives. Members of Congress,too, feel this change. Often they represent diverse constituencies with a varietyof needs, concerns, and expectations, and they can meet only a relative few ofthese people in face-to-face electioneering.

Changing Demographics of the U.S. PopulationAs the physical size and population of the United States have changed, so havemany of the assumptions on which it was founded. Some of the dynamism ofthe American system actually stems from the racial and ethnic changes thathave taken place throughout our history, a notion that often gets lost in debatesabout immigration policy. Moreover, for the first time, the U.S. population isgetting much older. This “graying” of America also will lead assuredly tochanges in our expectations of government and in our public policy demands.The debate that took place in the 2000 presidential election over what to dowith the budget surplus illustrates this phenomenon. Below, we look at somedemographic facts (that is, information on characteristics of America’s popula-tion) and then discuss some implications of these changes for how our nationis governed and what policy issues might arise.

Changes in Racial and Ethnic Composition. From the start, the popula-tion of America has been changed constantly by the arrival of various kinds ofimmigrants to its shores—Western Europeans fleeing religious persecution inthe 1600s to early 1700s, Irish Catholics escaping the potato famine in the 1850s,Chinese laborers arriving to work on the railroads, Northern and Eastern Euro-peans from the 1880s to 1910s, and most recently, Southeast Asians, Cubans,Mexicans, among others.

Immigration to the United States peaked in the first decade of the 1900s,when nearly 9 million people, many of them from Eastern Europe, entered the

Elian Gonzalez holds American and Cuban flagsas a crowd of supporters grows outside hisuncle’s Miami home. The large Cuban commu-nity is a powerful force in Miami politics andobjected strenuously to Elian’s return to Cuba in 2000.(Photo courtesy: AFP/Corbis)

Concern over immigration is not anew phenomenon, as this cartoonfrom the early 1900s depicts.(Photo courtesy: New York Public Library)



226,232

2000 2025

Projected

2050

U.S. Population(in thousands)

2000 2025

Projected

2050 2000 2025

Projected

2050

11,157

2000 2025

Projected

2050

35,589

22,020

2,434

2000 2025

Projected

2050

4,4053,399

32,440

98,229

61,443

35,307

59,239

47,089

302,453

265,306

White, Non-HispanicHispanic*BlackAsian and Pacific IslanderAmerican Indian and Alaska Natives*Persons of Hispanic origin can be of any race.

FIGURE 1.2 Race and Ethnicity in America: 2000 and Beyond

country. The United States did not see another major wave of immigration until thelate 1980s, when nearly 2 million immigrants were admitted in one year. Unlike thearrivals in other periods of high immigration, however, these “new” Americans wereoften “nonwhite”; many were Southeast Asians or Latin Americans. In fact, in 1997, apoll commissioned by PBS revealed that 45 percent of Americans polled thought “toomany” immigrants were entering the United States from Latin American countries.15

While immigration has been a continual source of changing demographics in Amer-ica, race has also played a major role in the development and course of politics in theUnited States. As revealed in Figure 1.2, the racial balance in America is changing


Participate.com

Longman

2.0

ParticipationThe Debate

OverImmigration


16 CHAPTER 1

dramatically. In 2000, for example, whites made up 75.1 percent of the U.S. population,African Americans 12.3 percent, and Hispanics 12.5 percent, surpassing the number ofAfrican Americans in the United States for the first time. Originally, demographers didnot anticipate Hispanics would surpass African Americans until 2050. In some states,the Hispanic population is rivaling white, non-Hispanic populations.

Changes in Age Cohort Composition. Just as the racial and ethnic compositionof the American population is changing, so too is the average age of the population asis revealed in Analyzing Visuals: Changing Age Composition of the United States. “Fordecades, the U.S. was described as a nation of the young because the number of per-sons under the age of twenty greatly outnumber[ed] those sixty-five and older,”16 butthis is no longer the case. Due to changes in patterns of fertility, life expectancy, andimmigration, the nation’s age profile has changed drastically.17 When the United Stateswas founded, the average life expectancy was thirty-five years; by 2002, it was nearlyeighty years for women and seventy-four years for men.

As people live longer, the types of services and policies they demand from govern-ment differ dramatically. In Florida, for example, which leads the nation in the per-centage of its population over age sixty-five,18 citizens are far less concerned with thequality of public schools (especially if they are being taxed for those schools) than thecitizens in states with far lower proportions of the elderly.

As the age profile of the U.S. population has changed, political scientists and oth-ers have found it useful to assign labels to various generations. Such labels can be use-ful in understanding the various pressures put on our nation and its government, becausewhen people are born and the kinds of events they experience can have important con-sequences on how they view other political, economic, and social events. For example,those 76.8 million people born after World War II (1946–1964) often are referred toas “Baby Boomers.” These individuals grew up in a very different America than didtheir parents and now are reaching retirement age, which will put a major strain on thealready overburdened Social Security system.19 In contrast, their children, the 50 mil-lion who were born in the late 1960s through the mid-1970s, often are called Gener-ation X-ers, the name of an early 1980s punk band and, later, a novel.20

This group experienced the economic downturn of the late 1980s. Jobs were scarcewhen Generation X-ers graduated from college, and many initially had a hard time pay-ing off their college loans. They overwhelmingly believe that political leaders ignorethem, and they distrust the political process. X-ers work longer, are better educated,and are more grassroots oriented politically than their parents.21 Moreover, it is a verylibertarian generation. According to one commentator, a difference between Genera-tion X-ers and the liberal Baby Boomers is that X-ers “see capitalism as something that’snot necessarily evil.” X-ers believe they “can use capitalism for social change. It’s oneway to make government and big business stand up and take notice.”22

In contrast, the fastest-growing group under age sixty-five is called “GenerationY,” those people born from 1977 to 1994 (26 percent of the U.S. population). Thisgroup, unlike their Generation X predecessors, “has grown up in good times and [they,at least until recently,] have nothing but optimism about their future.”23 This group isvery Internet savvy and much more globally focused than any generation before it.

Changes in Family and Family Size. Family size and household arrangements,which also affect views on government, can be affected by several factors, including ageat first marriage, divorce rates, economic conditions, longevity rates, and improvementsin health care. In the past, large families were the norm (in part because so many chil-dren died early) and gender roles were clearly defined. Women did housework and menworked in the fields. Large families were imperative; children were the source of cheapfarm labor.

Industrialization and knowledge of birth control methods, no matter how primi-tive, began to put a dent in the size of American families by the early 1900s. No longer

For more detail on popula-tion projections, see



To learn more about Generation Y, see



Participate.com

Longman

2.0

SimulationHow to SatisfyAunt Martha



40%

1900

Year

Po

pu

lati

on

Per

cen

tag

e

4%

34%

1970

10%

28%

1980

11%

26%

2000

12%

24%

2020 2040

17%

23%

20%

0–17 years65+ years

What are the political implications of a declining percentage of the populationage 0–17 years? How will GenerationsX and Y politicians respond to moreelderly people and fewer young peoplein the population?

How will the allocation ofgovernmental resourcesbe affected by the increasingpercentage of elderly in thepopulation? What socialprograms will suffer? Whichsocial programs will expandor remain constant?

In 1900,the averagepersonwas onlyexpectedto live toage 47.

In 2000,the averageperson wasexpectedto live toage 77.

A N A L Y Z I N G V I S U A L SChanging Age Composition of the United States

Sources: 1900–1980 data from Susan A. MacManus, Young v. Old: Generational Combat in the 21st Century. © 1995 by Westview Press, Inc. Reprinted bypermission of Westview Press, a member of Perseus Books, L.L.C. 2000 data from Julie Meyer, “Age: 2000,” U.S. Census Bureau, C2KBR/01–12, October2001. Accessed June 30, 2002, http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs.html. 2020–2040 data from U.S. Census Bureau, National Popula-tion Projections, Detailed Files, revised November 2, 2000. Accessed June 30, 2002, http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/natdet-D1A.html.

needing children to work for the survival of the household unit on the farm, couplesbegan to limit the sizes of their families.

By 1949, 49 percent of those polled thought that four or more children was the“ideal” family size; in 1997, only 8 percent favored large families, and 54 percentresponded that no children to two children were the “best.”24 As chronicled in the pop-ular press as well as by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the American family nolonger looks like The Cosby Show or even the Brady Bunch. While the actual number ofhouseholds in the United States grew from 93.3 million in 1970 to 103 million in 2000,what those households looked like has changed dramatically. In 1940, nine out of tenhouseholds were “traditional” family households; by 2000, only 55.6 percent were two-parent family households, 14.9 percent of all households were headed by a single par-ent, and nearly 30 percent of all households consisted of a single person. Fewer than

For more information on families and household

composition, see www.ablongman.com/oconnor


Between 1990 and 2000, the elderly (age sixty-five andolder) increased at a rate similar to those people under

eighteen years old because of increased life expectancy, immi-gration, and advanced medical technologies. By 2040, theelderly will comprise nearly the same percentage of the U.S.population as young people. This is a dramatic increase from

1900, when the elderly constituted only 4 percent of the pop-ulation, and the young were 40 percent of the population. Afterviewing the bar graph below, answer the critical thinking ques-tions presented in the pointer bubbles, using information pro-vided in this chapter. See Analyzing Visuals: A Brief Guide foradditional guidance in analyzing graphs.


18 CHAPTER 1

one-half of the family households had children under the age ofeighteen, and the average U.S. household had 2.62 people.

Since 1970, the number of female-headed households hasincreased dramatically from 5.5 million to 12.8 million—awhopping 133 percent increase. These changes in compositionof households, lower birthrates, and prevalence of single-par-ent families, especially single female-headed families, affectthe kinds of demands people place on government as well astheir perceptions of the role that government should play intheir lives.

Implications of These ChangesThe varied races, ethnic origins, sizes of the various age cohorts,family types, and even gender roles of Americans have impor-tant implications for government and politics. Today, a fewAmericans, including the 2000 Reform Party presidential can-didate Patrick Buchanan, believe that immigrants (legal and ille-gal) are flooding onto our shores with disastrous consequences.Such anti-immigration sentiments are hardly new—in fact,American history is replete with examples of “Americans” setagainst any new immigration. In the 1840s, for example, theKnow Nothing Party arose in part to oppose immigration fromRoman Catholic nations, charging that the pope was going toorganize the slaughter of all Protestants in the United States. Inthe 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan, which had over 5 million mem-bers, called for barring immigration to stem the tide of RomanCatholics and Jews into the nation.

In the presidential campaign of 1996, immigration (legaland illegal) was a big issue. Many Americans believed (erro-neously, for the most part) that floods of immigrants wereputting Americans out of work and putting a strain on ouralready overburdened state and federal resources, especiallyschool systems and welfare programs. In 1998, California vot-ers passed Proposition 227 abolishing bilingual education pro-grams in public elementary and secondary schools, a measuremany viewed as anti-immigrant. In 2001, after the attacks onthe World Trade Center and the Pentagon, 83 percent of those

polled answered yes to the question, “Do you think U.S. immigration laws should betightened to restrict the number of immigrants from Arab or Muslim countries intothe United States?”25

Changing racial, ethnic, and even age and family demographics also seem to inten-sify—at least for some—an “us” versus “them” attitude. For example, government affir-mative action programs, which were created in the 1960s to redress decades of overtracial discrimination, now have been largely abolished because some people and amajority of the U.S. Supreme Court believe that they give minorities and women unfairadvantages in the job market, as well as in access to higher education. As more and morewomen graduated from college and entered the workforce, for example, some men crit-icized efforts to widen opportunities for women, while many women complained thata “glass ceiling” barred their advancement to the highest levels in most occupations.Dramatic changes in educational and employment opportunities for women, revealedin Table 1.1, also underscore these changes.

Sociologist James Davison Hunter defines the culture conflict that is the result ofchanging demographics as “political and social hostility rooted in very different systemsof moral understanding.”26 These different worldviews—worker versus CEO, educated

The Osbournes are not the Cosbys or the Bradys. Still, in spite oftheir unconventional ways, to some they exhibit the caring andcloseness many see as hallmarks of an American family.(Photo courtesy: Getty Images)



versus uneducated, young versus old, white versus black, male versus female, native-born versus immigrant—can create deep cleavages in society, as exemplified by the“polarizing impulses or tendencies” in American society.27 Just as the two parties at timesseem to be pushed to take extreme positions on many issues, so are many of those whospeak out on those issues.

Demographics also affect politics and government because an individual’s per-spective often influences how he or she hears the debate on various issues. Thus, manyAfrican Americans viewed O.J. Simpson’s acquittal as vindication for decades ofunjust treatment experienced by blacks in the criminal justice system and the poorand working class view corporate collapses such as Enron quite differently than domany richer executives.

These cleavages and the emphasis many politicians put on our demographic differencesplay out in many ways in American politics. Baby Boomers and the elderly object to anychanges in Social Security or Medicare, while those in Generation X vote for politicians

TABLE 1.1 Men and Women in a Changing Society

1970 2001

Men Women Men Women

Estimated life expectancy 67.1 74.1 74.34 80.01% high school graduates 53 52 84.2 84% of BAs awarded 56.6 43.4 43.7 56.3% of MAs awarded 60 40 42.2 57.8% of PhDs awarded 87 13 58 42% of JDs awarded 95 5 56 44Median earnings $26,760 $14,232 $40,257 $25,551Single parents 1.2 million 5.6 million 1.78 million 7.57 million

Sources: 1970 data: U.S. Census Bureau, 1996 Statistical Abstract of the United States. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statis-tics Administration, Bureau of the Census. 2001 data: The World Factbook; U.S. Census Bureau, 2001 Statistical Abstract of the United States.

With the slowing of the U.S. econ-omy after several years of economicgrowth, anti-immigration sentimentis surfacing once again, althoughimmigration, especially from Mexico,is down dramatically post 9/11.(Photo courtesy: Essdras Suarez/LiaisonAgency/Getty Images)


20

HOW DOES AMERICA’S PLURALISMAFFECT OUR CORE VALUES?

On September 11, 2002, former New York City MayorRudy Giuliani and others commemorated the September11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center by reading thenames of 2,801 people who were killed there. The nameswere clearly representative of a wide array of nationalitiesfrom around the world and demonstrated in a very realway that modern America includes peoples from all overthe globe. The increasingly multicultural nature of life in theUnited States often stirs debate over the potential effectsof such pluralism on American cultural and political values.

Are core American values secure, or are they endan-gered when America changes? Some Americans worry thatthe changing demographics of our population will inevitablysupplant long-established values with those of peoplessocialized in other cultures. They argue that demographicdiversity does occasionally have the potential to undermineAmerican liberal democratic values, since some cultureshold different views about women’s rights, church-staterelations, political competition, and so forth. Others arguethat the pluralistic nature of American society enriches socialand civic life and enhances core American values.

George Washington University sociologist AmitaiEtzioni explores these issues in the following op-edpiece, arguing for the positive effects of pluralism. Asyou may know, articles on the “op-ed” page of a news-paper (which as the name suggests, usually appearsopposite the editorial page) present the perspectives ofguest columnists, and, unlike more “objective” newsreports, usually put forth an argument on a particulartopic. Read the following op-ed article with an eyetoward determining whether or not increasing demo-graphic diversity is undermining American liberal demo-cratic values. Are there any beliefs or practices of othercultures that you believe might have that potential?What traditions should a majority be able to insist onpreserving in the face of different traditions practiced bya minority? Join the debate over pluralism, American val-ues, and majority/minority dynamics by considering thedebating points and questions posed at the end of thisfeature, and sharpen your own arguments for the posi-tion you find most viable.

Our Monochrome ValuesBy Amitai Etzioni

“What is going to happen to ‘white’ val-ues?” Dale Hurd repeatedly asked whileinterviewing me for a TV program for theChristian Broadcasting Network. His con-cern was aroused by the detailed data aboutthe racial makeup of American society…

Although the precise breakdowns by 63racial categories (including racial combina-tions) are not yet known, figures depictingthe basic changes in America’s demographyhave been issued. US census data alreadyavailable are often said to point to a rise of a“majority of minorities” (beginning in Cali-fornia, next in Texas, and thereafter all overthe United States). But it is far from obvi-ous what these figures mean, let alone thatthey entail a decline of European values,those of the founders.

I told Mr. Hurd that American corevalues—respect for life, liberty, and thepursuit of happiness (as well as the com-munitarian quest for a more perfectunion), the democratic way of life, and thebill of rights—either deserve our commit-ment because we find them compelling orthey should be rejected. The race of who-ever first articulated them matters not.Imagine discovering that the ancientGreeks really got their ideas from Egypt orLibya, as some claim. Would they be lessvalid? What if we learned that John Lockewas a Moor?

Also, the fact is that most Americansfrom all social groups want the same basicthings … prosperity and peace, a brilliantfuture for themselves and their kids, safestreets and honest government, among otherthings. (Next time you read about racial dis-crepancies found in opinion polls, note thatthe differences played up often amount toless than 20 percent, which means that the

similarities, usually not referred to, amountto more than 80 percent.)

Granted, there are differences on selectissues, especially when they directly concernracial relations, for instance between theviews of African-Americans and others onthe outcome of the O.J. Simpson trial. Butthese are exceptions, not the rule.

The very notion that there are twoAmerican camps, the majority and “theminorities,” is a dubious construction. Notonly do most minority members agree withthe majority on most issues, but on thoseissues where they differ with the majority,they also disagree with one another. Thetwo major nonwhite groups, Asian Ameri-cans and African-Americans, are particu-larly disparate, with the first much moreconservative than the latter….

Furthermore, the very notion that thereare monolithic “minorities,” a term bandiedabout daily, ignores the fact that differenceswithin each minority often exceed differ-

Join the DebateJoin the Debate


21

ences among them. Many Cuban Ameri-cans’ attitudes are closer to Asian Ameri-cans’ than those of Puerto RicanAmericans, whose viewpoints are closer toAfrican-Americans. Japanese Americansshare little with Filipino Americans, and soon. Among those surveyed in the NationalLatino Political Survey, approximatelythree-quarters of Puerto Ricans and two-thirds of Cuban Americans and MexicanAmericans chose to be labeled by theirplace of birth, as opposed to “pan-ethnic”terms such as “Hispanic” or “Latino.”

Last but not least, Americans of differentbackgrounds intermarry, and they do so at anever-rising rate, especially the young, whoown the future. Before too long, the majorityof Americans will not be minorities or themajority, but people whose parents, in-laws,uncles, and cousins are like those of TigerWoods: Americans of all kinds. These mul-

tiracial and multiethnic Americans will blurthe sharp edges now attributed to the varioussocial groups, moving America ever closer toa monochrome society—although its appear-ance will be more akin to chocolate milkthan to that of palefaced Americans.

The importance of all this is that if peo-ple were to stop looking at pigmentationand other factors that are skin deep, jump-ing to the conclusion that there is a closerelationship between race and the way onethinks and behaves, they would see thatAmerica is much less diverse than racial sta-tistics are often said to imply.

Does all this mean that American soci-ety will remain basically unchanged? Cer-tainly not. It has been the genius ofAmerica from its inception as a society ofimmigrants that it both incorporates new-comers and adapts, growing richer byabsorbing some of their unique features.

Thus, the US may well become morefocused on nations south of its border andon the Pacific Rim than on Europe, but thiswill entail few basic substantive changes inAmerican foreign policy. We shall still favorfree trade, oppose nuclear proliferation,support human rights, and so on. Andteaching children more about cultures otherthan Western ones will add to the broaden-ing of our educational horizons rather thanto abandonment of the “classics.”

Will we be a society free from racial andethnic conflict? America never has been.However, we learned long ago to resolve, inpeaceful ways, most of these conflicts mostof the time. We have nothing to fear butthose who try to promote fear.

Source: Amitai Etzioni, Christian Science Monitor,June 4, 2001, Vol. 93, Issue 132, page 9.Reprinted by permission of the author.

JOIN THE DEBATE!

CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING: Make sure you understand thefollowing key points from the article; go back and review it ifyou missed any of them:

• Census data trends show a proportionally larger increaseof groups that now constitute a minority of the population.

• Intermarrying among the sixty-three racial groups in thepopulation is increasing.

• There are measurable differences of opinion within thesame groups in American society.

• The differences of opinion between groups are usuallysmaller than the degree of agreement.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: News articles and op-ed pieces don’tprovide all the information an informed citizen needs to knowabout an issue under debate. Here are some questions thearticle does not answer that you may need to consider inorder to join the debate:

• What might be defined as core values?• Does polling data demonstrate any significant differences

among groups on core value issues?• How have the events of September 11, 2001, affected atti-

tudes about “minority” groups and their contributions tosociety?

What other information might you want to know? Wheremight you gather this information? How might you evaluate

the credibility of the information you gather? Is the infor-mation from a reliable source? Can you identify any poten-tial biases?

IDENTIFYING THE ARGUMENTS: Now that you have some informa-tion on the issue, and have thought about what else you needto know, see whether you can present the arguments on bothsides of the debate. Here are some ideas to get you started.We’ve provided one example each of “pro” and “con” argu-ments, but you should be able to offer others:

PRO: Pluralism enhances core democratic values. Here’s why:

• Tolerance for differences is essential in democracy, and expo-sure to a broad spectrum of influences increases tolerance.

CON: Increasing levels of pluralism has a great potential forundermining core democratic values. Here’s why:

• Liberal democratic values of openness and political com-petition are not as strong in many cultures, and immigrantsfrom those cultures understandably bring with them theirown values, some of which are anti-democratic.

TAKING A POSITION AND SUPPORTING IT: After thinking about theinformation in the op-ed piece on the increasingly pluralisticnature of American society, placing it in the broader contextof core American values, and articulating the arguments inthe debate, what position would you take? What informationsupports your position? What arguments would you use topersuade others to your side of the debate? How would youcounter arguments on the other side?


22 CHAPTER 1

Year

CONSERVATIVE

LIBERAL

MODERATE

Per

cen

tag

e

Note: "Liberal" equals the combined percentages of those identifying themselves asextremely liberal, liberal, or slightly liberal; "conservative" equals the combined percentagesof those identifying themselves as extremely conservative, conservative, or slightlyconservative.

20

30

40

50

20

101974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2002

FIGURE 1.3 Self-Identification as Liberal,Moderate, or Conservative,1974–2002

who support change, if they vote at all. Many policies are targeted at one group or the other,further exacerbating differences—real or imagined—and lawmakers often find themselvesthe target of many different factions. All of this can make it difficult to devise coherent poli-cies to “promote the general welfare,” as promised in the Constitution.

The Ideology of the American PublicPolitical ideology is a term used by political scientists to refer to the more or less con-sistent set of values that historically have been reflected in the political system, eco-nomic order, social goals, and moral values of any given society. “It is the means bywhich the basic values held by a party, class, group or individual are articulated.”28 MostAmericans espouse liberalism or conservatism, although a growing number call them-selves libertarians, who do not place themselves on traditional liberal/conservative con-tinuums used by political scientists (see Figure 1.3).

You probably already have a good idea of what the terms liberal and conservative mean,but you may not be aware that the meaning of these terms has changed dramatically overtime. During the nineteenth century, for example, conservatives supported governmentalpower and favored a role for religion in public life; in contrast, liberals supported freedomfrom undue governmental control. (See Table 1.2 for additional information about theseterms.) In general, your ideology often is a good predictor of where you stand on a varietyof issues (see Table 1.2) as well as how you view the proper role of government.

Conservativism. According to William Safire’s New Political Dictionary, a conser-vative “is a defender of the status quo who, when change becomes necessary in testedinstitutions or practices, prefers that it come slowly, and in moderation.”29 Conservativesare thought to believe that a government is best that governs least, and that big govern-ment can only infringe on individual, personal, and economic rights. They want less gov-ernment, especially in terms of regulation of the economy. Conservatives favor local andstate action over federal action, and emphasize fiscal responsibility, most notably in theform of balanced budgets. Conservatives are likely to support smaller, less activist gov-ernments and believe that domestic problems like homelessness, poverty, and discrimi-nation are better dealt with by the private sector than by the government. Less rigidconservatives see the need for governmental action in some fields and for steady changein many areas. They seek to achieve such change within the framework of existing insti-tutions, occasionally changing the institutions when they show a need for it.

political ideologyAn individual’s coherent set of val-ues and beliefs about the purposeand scope of government.

conservativeOne thought to believe that a gov-ernment is best that governs leastand that big government can onlyinfringe on individual, personal, andeconomic rights.

For more information onconservatives, see



Source: Roper Center at the University of Connecticut, Public Opinion Online.

Participate.com

Longman

2.0

ParticipationAre You a

Liberal or aConservative?



liberalOne considered to favor extensivegovernmental involvement in theeconomy and the provision of socialservices and to take an activist rolein protecting the rights of women,the elderly, minorities, and theenvironment.

Liberalism. Liberalism is a political view held by those who “seek to change thepolitical, economic, or social status quo to foster the development and well-being of theindividual.”30 Safire defines a liberal as “currently one who believes in more govern-ment action to meet individual needs, originally one who resisted government encroach-ments on individual liberties.”31 Liberals now are considered to favor a big governmentthat plays an active role in the economy. They also stress the need for the governmentto provide for the poor and homeless, to provide a wide array of other social services,and to take an activist role in protecting the rights of women, the elderly, minorities,and the environment. It is a political philosophy that has roots in the American Revo-lution and eighteenth-century liberalism. Today, many of its supporters refer to it asthe “modern revival of classical liberalism.”32

Libertarianism. Libertarianism is a political philosophy based largely on individualfreedom and the curtailment of state power. Libertarians have long believed in the evilsof big government and stress that government should not involve itself in the plight of thepeople or attempt to remedy any social ills. Basically, libertarians, although a very diverselot, favor a free market economy and an end to governmental intrusion in the area of per-sonal liberties. Generation X-ers are more libertarian in political philosophy than any otherage cohort and were credited with the election of Governor Jesse Ventura of Minnesota in1999. He ran as the Reform Party candidate, became an Independent after election, andnow claims to be a libertarian. Liberals criticize libertarian calls for elimination of all gov-ernment sponsored welfare and public works programs; conservatives bemoan libertariancalls for reductions in the defense budget and elimination of federal agencies such as theCentral Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Problems with Political LabelsWhen considering what it means when someone identifies himself or herself as a con-servative, liberal, libertarian, or some other political philosophy, it is important to

libertarianOne who favors a free market econ-omy and no governmental interfer-ence in personal liberties.

During the 107th Congress, DickArmey (R–TX), then the Housemajority leader and chair of theHouse Select Committee on Home-land Security, talks to then HouseDemocratic Whip Nancy Pelosi(D–CA) as the committee begandebate on legislation creating adepartment of homeland security. Inthe House, they stand at oppositeends of the liberal (Pelosi) and con-servative (Armey) spectrum. Pelosiwas elected minority leader in 2002.(Photo courtesy: Dennis Cook/AP/Wide World Photos)

TABLE 1.2 Liberal? Conservative? Libertarian? Chart Your Views on These Issues

Abortion Environmental Gun Government Support of:Rights Regulation Control Laws Poor School Vouchers

Conservative Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose FavorLiberal Favor Favor Favor Favor OpposeLibertarian Favor Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose

For more information on liberals, see



For more information on libertarians, see




24 CHAPTER 1

remember that the labels can be quite misleading and do not necessarily allow us to pre-dict political opinions. In a perfect world, liberals would be liberal and conservativeswould be conservative. Studies reveal, however, that many people who call themselvesconservative actually take fairly liberal positions on many policy issues. In fact, any-where from 20 percent to 60 percent will take a traditionally “conservative” position onone issue and a traditionally “liberal” position on another.33 People who take conser-vative stances against “big government,” for example, often support increases in spend-ing for the elderly, education, or health care. It is also not unusual to encounter a personwho could be considered liberal on social issues such as abortion and civil rights butconservative on economic or “pocketbook” issues. Moreover, libertarians, for example,often are against any governmental restrictions on abortion (a liberal view) but againstany kind of welfare spending (a conservative view). Today, like libertarians, most Amer-icans’ positions on specific issues cut across liberal/conservative ideological boundariesto such a degree that new, more varied ideological categories may soon be needed tocapture division within American political thought. (See Table 1.2 to gauge where yourpolitical views place you.)

POLITICAL CULTURE AND VIEWS OF GOVERNMENT

Americans’ views about and expectations of government and democracy affect the polit-ical system at all levels. It has now become part of our political culture to expect nega-tive campaigns, dishonest politicians, and political pundits who make their living bashingpoliticians and the political process. How Americans view politics, the economy, andtheir ability to achieve the American dream also is influenced by their political ideologyas well as by their social, economic, educational, and personal circumstances.

Since the early 1990s, the major sources of most individuals’ on-the-air news—thefour major networks (ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC) along with CNN and C-SPAN—have been supplemented dramatically as the number of news and quasi-news outletshave multiplied like rabbits. First there were weekly programs such as Dateline on theregular networks. Then came the rapid expansion of cable programming beginning withCNN and C-SPAN, then the new FOX cable channel, MSNBC, and CNBC—allcompeting for similar audiences. By Election Night 2000, most people turned to a cablenews program to learn who won, never suspecting that the results weren’t to be final forfive more weeks. These networks’ news programming also has been supplemented bythe phenomenal development of the Internet as an instantaneous source of news as wellas rumor about politics. One online newsletter, the Drudge Report, was actually the firstto break the story about President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

As more and more news programs developed, the pressure on each network or newsprogram to be “the first” with the news—often whether it actually is verifiable or not—multiplied exponentially, as was illustrated on Election Night 2000 when all rushed to“call” states for a particular candidate and to be the first to predict the overall winner.Their focus on political scandals also increased, be it President Bill Clinton’s relation-ship with Monica Lewinsky or Congressman Gary Condit’s relationship with Chan-dra Levy, which made him a suspect in her disappearance. For seven months the nationgot a daily diet of speculation and conjecture about “Bill and Monica” until the presi-dent finally admitted to an “improper relationship.” Chandra Levy’s body was found inspring 2002, after Condit was defeated in his Democratic primary.

The competition for news stories, as well as the instantaneous nature of these com-munications, often highlights the negative, the sensational, the sound bite, and usuallythe extremes. It’s hard to remain upbeat about America or politics amidst the media’sfocus on personality and scandal. It’s hard to remain positive about the fate of Ameri-cans and their families if you listen to talk radio or watch talk shows like Jerry Springeror Ricki Lake. It was far easier for the press to focus on the Clinton/Lewinsky matter

To find out your ideologicalstance, go to




POLITICAL CULTURE AND VIEWS OF GOVERNMENT 25

than to devote time and space to a story of a teenage mother who, aided by governmentprograms, went to college, got a job, and became an involved parent and citizen. Thosekinds of success stories are generally showcased only in State of the Union Addressesor at presidential nominating conventions.

High ExpectationsIn roughly the first 150 years of our nation’s history, the federal government had fewresponsibilities, and its citizens had few expectations of it beyond national defense,printing money, collecting tariffs and taxes, and so on. The state governments were gen-erally far more powerful than the federal government in matters affecting the everydaylives of Americans (see chapters 3 and 4).

As the nation and its economy grew in size and complexity, the federal governmenttook on more responsibilities such as regulating some businesses, providing poverty relief,and inspecting food. Then, in the 1930s, in response to the Great Depression, PresidentFranklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal government programs proliferated in almost every areaof American life (job creation, income security, aid to the poor, and so on). Since then,many Americans have looked to the government for solutions to all kinds of problems.

Politicians, too, have often contributed to rising public expectations by promisingfar more than they or government could deliver. Although President Bill Clinton’s vowto end “welfare as we know it” was realized by the end of his first term, his ambitiouspromises to overhaul the health care system went nowhere.

As voters look to governments to solve a variety of problems from education toanthrax, their expectations are not always met. Unmet expectations have led to cyni-cism about government and apathy, as evidenced in low voter turnout. It may be thatAmericans have come to expect too much from the national government and must sim-ply readjust their expectations. Nevertheless, Table 1.3 reveals increased confidence inmost institutions.

During the 2000 presidential cam-paign, George W. Bush appeared oninformal talk shows like Oprah Win-frey and Live with Regis in an effortto appeal to women voters.(Photo courtesy: Tannen Maury/Image Works)


26 CHAPTER 1

TABLE 1.3 Faith in Institutions

PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS DECLARING THEY HAD A “GREAT DEAL”OF CONFIDENCE IN THE INSTITUTION

1966 1975 1986 1996 2002

Congress 42% 13% 16% 8% 19%Executive branch 41 13 21 10 35The press 29 26 18 11 16Business & industry 55 19 24 23 12Colleges/universities 61 36 28 23 33Medicine 73 51 46 45 29

Sources: Newsweek (January 8, 1996): 32; Public Perspective 8 (February/March 1994): 4. Data for 2002: Public Opinion Online.

A Missing Appreciation of the GoodDuring the Revolutionary period, average citizens were passionate about politicsbecause the stakes—the very survival of the new nation—were so high. Until Septem-ber 11, 2001, the stakes weren’t readily apparent to many people. If you don’t have faithin America, its institutions, or symbols (and Table 1.3 shows that many of us don’t), itbecomes even easier to blame the government for all kinds of woes—personal as wellas societal—or to fail to credit governments for the things governments do well. ManyAmericans, for example, enjoy a remarkably high standard of living, and much of it isdue to governmental programs, practices, and protections from food safety to nationalsecurity. (See Table 1.4 for quality of life measures.)

Even in the short time between when you get up in the morning and when youleave for classes or work, the government—or its rulings or regulations—pervades yourlife. The national or state governments, for example, set the standards for whether youwake up on Eastern, Central, Mountain, or Pacific Standard Time. The national gov-ernment regulates the airwaves and licenses the radio or television broadcasts you mightlisten to or glance at as you eat and get dressed. States, too, regulate and tax telecom-munications. Whether or not the water you use as you brush your teeth contains fluo-ride is a state or local governmental issue. The federal Food and Drug Administrationinspects your breakfast meat and sets standards for the advertising on your cereal box,orange juice carton, and other food packaging. States set standards for food labeling.Are they really “lite,” “high in fiber,” or “fresh squeezed”? Usually, one or more levelsof government is authorized to decide these matters.

TABLE 1.4 How Americans Really Are Doing

1945 1970 2002

Population 132 million 203 million 285 millionLife expectancy 65.9 70.8 75.4Per capita income (1999 constant dollars) $6,367 $12,816 $21,181c

Adults who are high school grads 25%a 52.3% 84.1%d

Adults who are college grads 5%a 10.7% 25.6%d

Households with phones 46% 87% 94.2%c

Households with televisions 0% 95% 98.2%c

Households with cable TV 0% 4% 67.5%c

Households with computers n/a n/a 51%d

Women in labor force 29% 38% 60%d

Own their own home 46% 63% 66.9%e

Annual airline passengers 7 million 170 million 635.4 millionc

Below poverty rate 39.7%b 12.6% 11.8%c

Divorce rate (per 1,000 people) 3.5 3.5 4.2e

Children born out of wedlock 3.9% 16.7% 33%c

a1940 figure. b1949 figure. c1999 figure. d2000 figure. e1998 figure.




Although all governments have problems, it is important to stress the goodthey can do. In the aftermath of the Great Depression in the United States, forexample, the government created the Social Security program, which dramat-ically decreased poverty among the elderly. Our contract laws and judicial sys-tem provide an efficient framework for business, assuring people that they havea recourse in the courts should someone fail to deliver as promised. Govern-ment-guaranteed student loan programs make it possible for many students toattend college. Even something as seemingly mundane as our uniform bank-ruptcy laws help protect both a business enterprise and its creditors when theenterprise collapses.

Mistrust of PoliticiansIt’s not difficult to see why Americans might be distrustful of politicians. InAugust 1998, after President Bill Clinton announced to the American publicthat he had misled them concerning his relationship with Monica Lewinsky,45 percent said they were disgusted, 33 percent were angry, but only 18 percentwere surprised, according to a poll conducted by the Washington Post.34

President Bill Clinton wasn’t the only politician to incur the public’s dis-trust. One 1998 poll conducted by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that 40percent of those polled thought that most politicians were “crooks.”35 Theseperceptions are reinforced when politicians such as James A. Traficant, a Demo-cratic representative from Ohio, are tried and convicted of tax evasion and rack-eteering. Later, he was ousted from the House with only Representative GaryCondit (D-CA) voting against his expulsion.

Voter Apathy“Campaigns are the conversation of democracy,” an observer once said.36 But,a Gallup poll conducted after the 1988 presidential contest between GeorgeBush and Michael Dukakis found that 30 percent of those who voted wouldhave preferred to check off a “no confidence in either” box had they been giventhe choice.

Americans, unlike voters in most other societies, get an opportunity to vote on ahost of candidates and issues, but some say those choices may just be too numbing.Responsible voters may simply opt not to go to the polls, fearing that they lack suffi-cient information of the vast array of candidates and issues facing them.

James A. Traficant (D–OH), who wasexpelled by the House after his con-viction for tax evasion and racketeer-ing, is just one of the most colorfulrepresentatives who did not returnfor the 108th Congress. Also miss-ing were Representatives Gary Con-dit (D–CA), Bob Barr (R–GA), wholed the battle to impeach PresidentClinton, and Cynthia McKinney(D–GA), who accused the Bush fam-ily of profiting from 9/11.(Photo courtesy: Dennis Cook/AP/Wide World Photos)

Doris “Granny D” Haddock, who completed afourteen-month, 3,200-mile trek across Americato agitate for campaign finance reform, is anactivist voter as opposed to an apathetic voter.(Photo courtesy: Reuters/Jamal Wilson/Archive Photos)

Participate.com

Longman

2.0

Visual LiteracyVoter Turnout:Who Votes?

Do AmericansVote as Much

as OtherCitizens?


28

Global Politics

Two scholars of Americanpolitics recently pub-lished books examining

their field of study in compara-tive context. The title of one,

America the Unusual, speaks volumes about how Americansperceive their national politics. The other, Only in America?,wonders whether the political differences make that much dif-ference.a Do political institutions and practices in the UnitedStates truly differ from politics elsewhere?

To give you a sense of how different, and in many caseshow similar, politics in this country is to politics in other coun-tries, each chapter of this book includes a Global Politics boxthat compares some aspect of American politics with that inother countries. One line of comparison will be with Canada,France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and theUnited States (known as the G-7), which represent a variety ofexperiences within a common framework. They are all indus-trial democracies, holding among the highest gross nationalproducts (GNPs) in the world and enjoying a comparativelyhigh standard of living. The group has become known as theG-8 by the addition of the Russian president to the annualsummit. In this book, we continue the G-7 shorthand to standfor a set of advanced capitalist industrial democracies. Eventhough Russia is now officially a member of this “leadershipclub,” its situation as a country making the transition to capi-talism and parliamentary democracy from a socialist economyand political system makes its recent political experience qual-itatively different from that of the original G-7 members.

There is, however, variation among the G-7 on specificindicators. The United States, for example, is far larger thanany of its counterparts except Canada. It has more than twicethe population of Japan. The United States also has a lowunemployment rate, especially compared to the Europeancountries. Thus, the industrial democracies provide a pool ofgood cases for comparison of politics.

Industrial democracies, however, do not represent themajority of political systems in the world. Of the other 190 orso nation-states in existence today, we will consider China,Egypt, India, Indonesia, Mexico, and Russia as representativeexamples. The first five are typically classified as developingcountries. Egypt, India, and Mexico are often characterized assemidemocracies, meaning that they have some democraticfeatures (such as holding regular elections for public offices)but also apply significant constraints on free public participa-tion in politics. Indonesia and Russia have begun the transi-tion to democracy only recently. In one way or another, theserepresentative nations demonstrate the problems many coun-tries face in achieving democracy. China is a communist coun-try, and as such differs from the G-7 even as to basicdefinitions of democracy. Russia, as discussed above, is classi-fied as a transitional democracy, attempting to move from thesocialist political and economic pattern of the former SovietUnion to parliamentary democracy and a capitalist economy.

aJohn W. Kingdom, America the Unusual (New York: Worth Publishers,1999). Graham K. Wilson, Only in America (Chatham, NJ: ChathamHouse, 1998).

THE UNITED STATES IN COMPARATIVE CONTEXT

Vital Statistics of Selected Countries

Labor Force Population GDP/ Participation

(million, Area Capita Life Form of (ratio femaleCountry 2000) (1,000 km2) ($ 2000) Expectancy Government to male)

Canada 31.1 9,971 24,800 78.9 federal republic 0.8China 1,284.9 9,597 3,600 68.6 communist 0.8Egypt 69.53 1,001 3,600 63.7 republic 0.4France 59 552 24,400 77.9 unitary republic 0.8Germany 82 357 23,400 76.5 federal republic 0.7India 1,029 3,287 2,200 62.9 federal republic 0.5Indonesia 212.1 1,905 2,900 62.7 unitary republic 0.7Italy 57.2 301 22,100 78.1 unitary republic 0.6Japan 126.7 378 24,900 80.5 constitutional monarchy 0.7Mexico 98.8 1,958 9,100 71.5 federal republic 0.5Russia 146.9 17,075 7,700 64.9 federation 1.0United Kingdom 58.8 243 22,800 76.8 constitutional monarchy 0.8United States 278.3 9,364 36,200 76.1 federal republic 0.8

Sources: United Nations Statistics Division online, http://www.un.org/Depts/unsd/social /. CIA World Factbook 2001 online, http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/.World Bank, World Development Indicators 2001.



A Census Bureau report examining the reasons given by the 3.9 million eligible vot-ers who stayed home from the polls on Election Day in 2000 showed that “[t]ime con-straints [were] the single biggest reason Americans” gave for not voting. The head of theCommittee for the Study of the American Electorate thinks that time is just an excuse.37

Instead, he believes many Americans don’t vote because they lack real choices. Why vote,if your vote won’t make much difference? In fact, unsuccessful Green Party presidentialcandidate Ralph Nader tried to run as an alternative to the two major parties in 2000,arguing that there was little difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Some commentators have noted that nonvoting may even be a sign of contentment.If things are good, or you perceive that there is no need for change, why vote?

Whatever the reason, declining voter participation is cause for concern. If informa-tion is truly a problem, it may be that the Internet, access to information, and new waysto vote may change the course of elections in the future. The aftermath of the 2000 elec-tion, when it first became clear to many Americans that absentee ballots are not alwayscounted and that some kinds of ballots produce large numbers of unreadable ballots, mayonly serve to exacerbate that problem at worst, or, for the best, lead to reforms.

The 2002 elections continued to see problems with ballot boxes, especially duringthe primaries. Voter turnout in some areas such as Minnesota was high; in other areas,in spite of economic woes and the threat of war with Iraq, millions of voters stayed awayfrom the polls.

Redefining Our ExpectationsJust as it is important to recognize that governments serve many important purposes,it is also important to recognize that government and politics—the process by whichpolicy decisions are made—are not static. Politics, moreover, involves conflicts over dif-ferent and sometimes opposing ideologies, and these ideologies are very much influ-enced by one’s racial, economic, and historical experiences. These divisions are real andaffect the political process at all levels. It is clear to most Americans today that politicsand government no longer can be counted on to cure all of America’s ills. Government,however, will always play a major role. True political leaders will need to help Ameri-cans come to terms with America as it is today—not as it was in the past—real or imag-inary. Perhaps a discussion on how “community” is necessary for everybody to get along(and necessary for democracy) is in order. Some democratic theorists suggest that thecitizen-activist must be ultimately responsible for the resolution of these divisions.

The current frustration and dissatisfaction about politics and government may bejust another phase, as the changing American body politic seeks to redefine its ideasabout government. This process is one that is likely to define politics well into thefuture, but the individualistic nature of the American system will have long-lasting con-sequences on how it can be accomplished. Americans want less government, but as theyget older, they don’t want less Social Security. They want lower taxes and better roads,but they don’t want to pay for toll roads. They want better education for their childrenbut lower expenditures on schools. They want greater security at airports but low faresand quick boarding. Some clearly want less for others but not themselves, which putspoliticians in the position of nearly always disappointing voters. This inability to pleasevoters and find a middle ground undoubtedly led to the unprecedented retirements ofmembers of Congress in 1994 and 1996.

Politicians, as well as their constituents, are looking for ways to redefine the role ofgovernment, much in the same way that the Framers did when they met in Philadel-phia to forge a solution between Americans’ quest for liberty and freedom tempered byorder and governmental authority. While citizens charge that it is still government asusual, a change is taking place in Washington, D.C. Sacrosanct programs such as SocialSecurity and welfare continually are being reexamined, and some powers and respon-sibilities are slowly being returned to the states. Thus, the times may be different, butthe questions about government and its role in our lives remain the same.

politicsThe process by which policy deci-sions are made.

For more information onthe American electorate, see



Participate.com

Longman

2.0

ComparativeComparing

PoliticalLandscapes

OCON.6668.cp01.xliv-033 2/11/03 12:59 PM Page 29

30 CHAPTER 1

Since 1960, voter turnout has declined in U.S. presidentialelections, (with the exception of slight increases in 1992 and

2000 over the preceding presidential elections). In 2000, slightlymore than 50 percent of age-eligible voters cast ballots in thepresidential election. Because declining voter participation is acause for concern in a democracy, political scientists have triedto understand why a smaller percentage of age-eligible citizensare voting. The Charles Barsotti cartoon below, which origi-nally appeared in The New Yorker magazine, offers one possible

explanation for declining voter turnout. After examining thecartoon, answer the following critical thinking questions: Ofthe possible causes mentioned in this chapter’s material on voterapathy, which cause is the cartoonist depicting? What elementsin the cartoon indicate that the person depicted in the cartoonwould be a likely voter? What do you perceive to be the car-toonist’s purpose in drawing the cartoon? How does the car-toon achieve that purpose? See Analyzing Visuals: A BriefGuide for additional guidance in analyzing political cartoons.

A N A L Y Z I N G V I S U A L SWhy Has Voter Turnout Declined: Apathy or Antipathy?

(Photo courtesy: ©The New Yorker Collection 1980 Charles Barsotti from cartoonbank.com. All Rights Reserved.)

Although the Civil War and other national crises such as the Great Depression,the September 11 terrorist attacks, and the anthrax scares created major turmoil, theydemonstrated that our system can survive and even change in the face of enormouspolitical, societal, and institutional pressures. Often, these crises have produced con-siderable reforms. The Civil War led to the dismantling of the slavery system and tothe passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments (see chapter 6),which led to the seeds of recognition of African Americans as American citizens. TheGreat Depression led to the New Deal and the creation of a government more activelyinvolved in economic and social regulation. In the 1970s, the Watergate scandal andresignation of President Richard M. Nixon resulted in stricter ethics laws that have ledto the resignation or removal of many unethical elected officials.

Elections themselves, which often seem chaotic, help generation after generationremake the political landscape as new representatives seek to shake up the establishedorder. Thus, while elections can seem like chaos, from this chaos comes order and oftenthe explosive productivity of a democratic society.


SUMMARY 31

When the original settlers came to what is now theUnited States, they did so for a variety of reasons.

Still, they recognized the critical role that governmentcould play for them in the New World. So, even thoughthe colonists considered themselves British subjects, theyknew the importance of fashioning some form of gover-nance, as illustrated by their signatures of agreement onthe Mayflower Compact. Those who signed that historicdocument were largely British, male, and Caucasian.They expected the government to be best that governedleast, but they also recognized the importance of orderand protection of property and were willing to give upsome rights in return for government preservation ofthose ideals.

Over time, young men in a variety of large and notso large wars fought for what they believed was theAmerican ideal. At the same time, women often left theirhomes to work in hospitals or factories to help the wareffort, generally forgoing their personal goals. Immi-grants and native-born citizens alike all shared theAmerican dream.

Today, the American dream is more difficult to see. Anew wave of immigrants in the 1980s has changed thecomposition of many U.S. cities and states, often strainingscarce resources such as access to quality public education,

which has always been at the forefront of the Americanpolitical socialization process. Several states, especially Cal-ifornia, recently have attempted to restrict the rights andprivileges of aliens in unprecedented ways. It is a system ofmajority rule, where the rights of those newest to our bor-ders often lose out.

As illustrated by Figure 1.2, however, the ethnic “look”of America is changing, and in some places such as Cali-fornia, Texas, and Florida it is changing especially quickly.These changes prompt several questions.

1. What challenges do you believe national and state gov-ernments will face as the racial and ethnic compositionof their citizenry changes dramatically?

2. In the wake of the 2000 Census that found Hispanicsnow to be the largest U.S. minority group, do you fore-see any changes in how minorities, especially Hispan-ics, will be treated?

C A S T Y O U R V O T E What other challenges do you thinknational and state governments will face in the twenty-first

century? To cast your vote, go to www.ablongman.com/oconnor

Continuity & ChangeThe Face of America

SUMMARY

In this chapter, we have made the following points:

1. The Roots of American Government: Where Did theIdeas Come From?The American political system was based on severalnotions that have their roots in classical Greek ideas,including natural law, the doctrine that humanaffairs should be governed by certain ethical princi-ples that can be understood by reason. The ideas ofsocial contract theorists John Locke and ThomasHobbes, who held the belief that people are free andequal by God-given right, have continuing implica-tions for our ideas of the proper role of governmentin our indirect democracy.

2. Characteristics of American DemocracyKey characteristics of this democracy established bythe Framers are popular consent, popular sovereignty,

majority rule and the preservation of minority rights,equality, individualism, and personal liberty, as is theFramers’ option for a capitalistic system.

3. The Changing Political Culture and Characteristicsof the American PeopleSeveral characteristics of the American electorate canhelp us understand how the system continues toevolve and change. Chief among these are changes insize and population, demographics, racial and ethnicmakeup, family and family size, age patterns, and ide-ological beliefs.

4. Political Culture and Views of GovernmentAmericans have high and often unrealistic expectationsof government. At the same time, they often fail toappreciate how much their government actually doesfor them. Some of this failure may be due to Ameri-cans’ general mistrust of politicians, which may explainsome of the apathy evidenced in the electorate.


32 CHAPTER 1

KEY TERMS

aristocracy, p. 6capitalism, p. 7civil society, p. 12communism, p. 9conservative, p. 22democracy, p. 6direct democracy, p. 6free market economy, p. 7indirect (representative) democracy, p. 6liberal, p. 23libertarian, p. 23majority rule, p. 11mercantile system, p. 7monarchy, p. 5natural law, p. 3oligarchy, p. 6personal liberty, p. 12political culture, p. 12political ideology, p. 22politics, p. 29popular consent, p. 10popular sovereignty, p. 10republic, p. 6social contract theory, p. 4socialism, p. 8totalitarianism, p. 10

SELECTED READINGSAlmond, Gabriel A., and Sidney Verba. Civic Culture: Political Atti-

tudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1963.

Craig, Stephen C., and Stephen Earl Bennett, eds. After the Boom:The Politics of Generation X. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Little-field, 1997.

Dahl, Robert A. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven,CT: Yale University Press, 1971.

Elshstain, Jean Bethke. Democracy on Trial. New York: Basic Books,1995.

Glendon, Mary Ann. Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of PoliticalDiscourse. New York: Free Press, 1991.

Grossman, Lawrence K. The Electronic Republic: Reshaping Democ-racy in the Information Age. New York: Viking, 1995.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Richard Tuck, ed. New York: Cam-bridge University Press, 1996.

Hochschild, Jennifer L. Facing Up to the American Dream: Race, Class,and the Soul of the Nation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress, 1995.

Hunter, James Davison. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define Amer-ica. New York: Basic Books, 1991.

Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. Dirty Politics: Deception, Distraction, andDemocracy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Peter Lasleti, ed. NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: Collapse and Revival of the Amer-ican Community. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000.

Skocpol, Theda, and Morris Fiorina, eds. Civic Engagement inAmerican Democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings InstitutionPress, 1999.

Verba, Sidney, Kay Schlozman, and Henry Brady. Voice and Equal-ity: Civic Volunteerism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Har-vard University Press, 1995.

NOTES1. Thomas Byrne Edsall, “The Era of Bad Feelings,” Civilization

(March/April 1996): 37.2. The English and Scots often signed covenants with their

churches in a pledge to defend and further their religion. In theBible, covenants were solemn promises made to humanity byGod. In the colonial context, then, covenants were formal agree-ments sworn to a new government to abide by its terms.

3. The term “men” is used here because only males were consideredfit to vote.

4. Jack C. Plano and Milton Greenberg, The American Political Dic-tionary, 6th ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1982).

5. Frank Michelman, “The Republican Civic Tradition,” Yale LawJournal 97 (1988): 1503.

6. Herbert Kitschelt, Zdenka Mansfeldova, Radoslaw Markowski,and Gabor Toka, Post-Communist Party Systems: Competition,Representation and Inter-Party Cooperation (New York: Cam-bridge University Press, 1999).

7. Merle Goldman and Roderick MacFarquhar, eds., The Paradoxof China’s Post-Mao Reforms, Harvard Contemporary ChinaSeries, 12 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).

8. Anna Gryzmala-Busse, “The Programmatic Turnaround ofCommunist Successor Parties in East Central Europe,1989–1998,” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 35 (March2002): 51–66.

9. Lynne Casper and Loretta Bass, “Hectic Lifestyles Make forRecord-Low Election Turnout, Census Bureau Reports,” U.S.Census Bureau News (August 17, 1998).

10. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/p20-542/tab12.txt.

11. Ibid.12. The United States Agency for International Development,

“Agency Objectives: Civil Society.”13. Thomas Carothers, “Democracy Promotion: A Key Focus in a

New World Order,” Issues of Democracy (May 2000): online.14. Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture: Polit-

ical Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press, 1963), 4.

15. “The USA’s New Immigrants,” USA Today (October 13, 1997):11A.

16. Susan A. MacManus, Young v. Old: Generational Combat in the21st Century (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995), 3.

17. MacManus, Young v. Old, 4.18. “Sixty-Five Plus in the United States,” http://www.census.gov/

socdemo/www/agebrief.html.


NOTES 3319. See William Strauss and Neil Howe, Generations: The History of

America’s Future, 1984–2069 (New York: William Morrow, 1991),and Fernando Torres-Gil, The New Aging: Politics and Genera-tional Change in America (New York: Auburn House, 1992).

20. William R. Buck and Tracey Rembert, “Not Just Doing It: Gen-eration X Proves That Actions Speak Louder than Words,”Earth Action Network (September 19, 1997): 28.

21. Ibid.22. Ibid.23. Teresa Gubbins, “Teens Push Aside the Boomers, Emerge as

New Kings of Cool,” Times-Picayune (April 11, 1999): B3.24. Kavita Varma, “Family Values,” USA Today (March 11, 1997):

6D.25. Public Opinion Online, Question Number 27, Sept. 15–17, 2001.26. James Davison Hunter. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define

America (New York: Basic Books, 1991), 42.27. Ibid.28. Plano and Greenberg, The American Political Dictionary, 10.

29. William Safire, Safire’s New Political Dictionary (New York: Ran-dom House, 1993), 144–45.

30. Jack C. Plano and Milton Greenberg, The American PoliticalDictionary, 9th ed. (Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace, 1993), 16.

31. Safire, Safire’s New Political Dictionary.32. Plano and Greenberg, The American Political Dictionary, 16.33. Philip E. Converse, “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass

Publics,” in David E. Apter, ed., Ideology and Discontent (NewYork: Free Press, 1964), 206–21.

34. David Broder and Richard Morin, “Americans See 2 DistinctBill Clintons,” Washington Post (August 23, 1998): A10.

35. Howard Wilkinson and Patrick Crowly, “Campaign ’98: RacesOffer Definite Choices.” Cincinnati Enquirer (September 7,1998): Bl.

36. “Apathetic Voters? No, Disgusted,” Ledger ( July 12, 1998): A14.37. Scott Shepard, “Non-voters Too Busy or Apathetic?” Palm Beach

Post (August 1998): 6A.


Documents

(Photo courtesy: SIPA Press)wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/951/974487/Chapter_01.pdf · accept at face value everything you see on the television news, ... we will look at the