The Political
Landscape
1
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
These are the words that begin the Preamble to the United States Constitution. Written in 1787 by a group of men we today refer to as the Framers, this
document has guided our nation, its government, its politics, its institutions,
and its inhabitants for over 200 years.
When the Constitution was written, the phrases “We the People” and
“ourselves” meant something very different from what they do today. After
all, voting largely was limited to property-owning white males. Indians,
slaves, and women could not vote. Today, through the expansion of the right
to vote, the phrase “the People” encompasses men and women of all races,
ethnic origins, and social and economic statuses—a variety of peoples and
interests. The Framers could not have imagined the range of people today
who are eligible to vote.
In the goals it outlines, the Preamble to the Constitution describes what
the people of the United States can expect from their government. In spite
of the wave of nationalism that arose in the wake of the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks, some continue to question how well the U.S. government
can deliver on the goals set out in the Preamble. Few Americans today classify the union as “perfect”; many feel excluded from “Justice” and the “Blessings of Liberty,” and even our leaders do not believe that our domestic
situation is particularly tranquil, as evidenced by the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and calls for a national intelligence director. Furthermore, recent poll results and economic statistics indicate that many
Americans believe their general welfare is not particularly well promoted by
their government. Others simply do not care much at all about government.
Many believe that they have no influence in its decision making, or they do
not see any positive benefits from it in their lives.
If there has been one constant in the life of the United States, it is change.
The Framers would be astonished to see the current forms and functions of
CHAPTER OUTLINE
■ The Origins of American
Government: What It Is and
Why We Need It
■ Roots of American
Government: Where Did
the Ideas Come From?
■ American Political Culture
and the Characteristics of
American Democracy
■ Changing Characteristics of
the American People
■ Ideology of the American
Public
■ Current Attitudes Toward
American Government
3
4
CHAPTER 1
the institutions they so carefully outlined in the Constitution, as well as the number of additional political
institutions that have arisen to support and fuel the
functioning of the national government. The Framers
also would be amazed at the array of services and programs the government—especially the national government—provides. They further would be surprised
to see how the physical boundaries and the composition of the population have changed over the past 200
plus years. And, they might well wonder, “How did we
get here?”
It is part of the American creed that each generation should hand down to the next not only a better
America, but an improved economic, educational, and
social status. In general, Americans long have been
optimistic about our nation, its institutions, and its
future. Thomas Jefferson saw the United States as the
world’s “best hope”; Abraham Lincoln echoed these
sentiments when he called it the “last, best hope on
earth.”1 But, beginning in the 1990s, for the first time
in decades, some of that optimism faded. Many Americans were dismayed by the Clinton/Lewinsky affair,
campaign finance abuses, the negative presidential
campaigns, and often even government in general.
While their lives are better than their parents’ and
most are optimistic about the future, in the aftermath
of terrorist attacks, 2001’s stock market collapse, the
war in Iraq, and the continued loss of jobs to firms outside the United States, many Americans are uncertain
about what the future holds.
N THIS TEXT, WE PRESENT you with the tools that you need to understand how
our political system has evolved and to prepare you to understand the changes
that are yet to come. If you approach the study of American government and
politics with an open mind, it should help you become a better citizen. We
hope that you learn to ask questions, to understand how various issues have come to
be important, and to see why a particular law was enacted and how it was implemented. With such understanding, we further hope that you will learn not to accept
at face value everything you see on the television news, hear on the radio, or read in
the newspaper or on the Internet. Work to understand your government, and use
your vote and other forms of participation to help ensure that your government
works for you.
We recognize that the discourse of politics has changed dramatically in just the
last few years, and that many Americans—especially the young—are turned off to
politics, especially at the national level. We also believe that a thorough understanding of the workings of government will allow you to question and think about the system—the good parts and the bad—and decide for yourself the advantages and
disadvantages of possible changes and reforms. Equipped with such an understanding, we hope you will become better informed and more active participants in the
political process.
Every long journey begins with a single step. In this chapter, we will examine the
following topics:
I
■
■
■
First, we will discuss government: what it is and why we need it. Governments perform a range of well-known and not so well-known functions that affect citizens’
lives on a daily basis.
Second, 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
the philosophies that guided the American colonists as they created a system of
governance different from those then in existence.
Third, we will explore American political culture and the characteristics of American
democracy. Several enduring characteristics have defined American democracy since
its beginning and continue to influence our nation’s government and politics today.
GOVERNMENT: WHAT IT IS AND WHY WE NEED IT
■
■
■
5
Fourth, we will explore the changing characteristics of the American people. Because
the government derives its power from the people, an understanding of who the
American people are and their changing age, racial, and ethnic composition is critical to an understanding of American politics.
Fifth, we will discuss the political ideology of the American public. Political ideology
has a profound impact on the government policies that Americans support or
oppose.
Finally, we will discuss current American attitudes toward government and the role
that government plays in their lives.
THE ORIGINS OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT:
WHAT IT IS AND WHY WE NEED IT
THROUGHOUT HISTORY, ALL SORTS OF SOCIETIES have organized themselves into a
variety of governments, small and large, simple and complex, democratic and nondemocratic, elected and nonelected.
Governments, which are made up of individuals and institutions, are the vehicles
through which policies are made and affairs of state are conducted. In fact, the term
“government” is derived from the Greek for “to pilot a ship,” which is appropriate, since
we expect governments to guide “the ship of state.”
Unlike schools, banks, or corporations, the actions of government are binding on
all of its citizens. Citizens, by law, are members of the political community who by
nature of being born in a particular nation or having become a naturalized citizen are
entitled to all of the freedoms guaranteed by the government. In exchange for these
freedoms, citizens must obey the government, its laws, and its constitution. Citizens
also are expected to support their governments through exercising their right to vote,
paying taxes due, and, if they are eligible, submitting themselves to military service.
Only governments can legitimately use force to keep order, and without governments, societies may descend into chaos. The fall of Baghdad, Iraq, in April 2003,
vividly portrayed the need for government. With the end of Saddam Hussein’s government, Baghdad and other areas throughout Iraq experienced looting and violence.
The U.S. military immediately attempted to help Iraqis establish a government.
As we explore governments, especially American government, in this text, we are
referring to the web of formal administrative structures that exist on the national, state,
and local levels. But, these governments do not exist in a vacuum. Indeed, as we explore
throughout this text, these governments were a result of trial and error, experiment,
compromise, and sometimes bloodshed. Governments, then, must be discussed in the
context of politics, the study of what has been called “who gets what, when, and how,”
or more simply, the process of how policy decisions get made.
The study of “who gets what, when, and how” can be a fascinating process. While
all governments share to greater or lesser degrees the need to provide certain key functions, to whom they provide these benefits, which benefits they provide, when they provide them, and how they are provided vary tremendously across as well as within
nations. (See Global Perspective: American Uniqueness in the World: Are We Number One?) One need only look to recent debates on tax policy to realize that there are
many questions involving who, what, when, and how during policy debates.
Functions of Government
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution clearly recognized the need for a new government. As our opening vignette underscores, in attempting “to form a more perfect
government
A collective of individuals and institutions, the formal vehicles through
which policies are made and affairs
of state are conducted.
citizen
Member of the political community
to whom certain rights and obligations are attached.
politics
The study of who gets what, when,
and how—or how policy decisions
are made.
6
CHAPTER 1
Roots of Government
THE PHILOSOPHIES OF THOMAS HOBBES AND JOHN LOCKE:
THE PROPER SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT
N ALMOST any newspaper or television news report, on
any given day, you can find stories that show Americans
grappling with questions about the proper role of government in their lives. These questions are not new. Centuries
ago, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both wrote extensively on these issues. Their ideas, however, differed
remarkably. For Hobbes, who viewed humans as basically
evil, a government that regulated all kinds of conduct was
necessary. Locke, who was more optimistic, saw the need
only for limited government.
I
Hobbes: Government to Save People
from Themselves
Thomas Hobbes was born in
1588 in Gloucestershire, England, and began his formal education at the age of four. By the age
of six he was learning Latin and
Greek, and by the age of nineteen
he had obtained his bachelor’s
degree from Oxford University.
In 1608, Hobbes accepted a position as a family tutor with the earl
of Devonshire, a post he retained
Photo courtesy: [[TK]]
for the rest of his life.
Hobbes was greatly influenced by the chaos of the English Civil War during the mid-seventeenth century. Its impact
is evident in his most famous work, Leviathan (1651), a treatise on governmental theory that states his views on man and
citizen. Leviathan is commonly described as a book about
politics, but it also deals with religion and moral philosophy.
Hobbes characterized humans as selfishly individualistic and constantly at war with one another. Thus, he believed
that people must surrender themselves to rulers in exchange
for protection from their neighbors.
Locke: Government Through Consent
of the People
John Locke, born in England in
1632, was admitted to an outstanding public school at the age
of fifteen. It was there that he
began to question his upbringing
in the Puritan faith. At twenty,
he went on to study at Oxford,
where he later became a lecturer
in Aristotelian philosophy. Soon,
however, he found a new interest
in medicine and experimental
Photo courtesy: [[TK]]
science.
In 1666, Locke met Anthony Ashley Cooper, the first
earl of Shaftsbury, a politician who believed in individual
rights and parliamentary reform. It was through Cooper
that Locke discovered his own talent for philosophy. In
1689, Locke published his most famous work, Second
Treatise on Civil Government, in which he set forth a theory of natural rights. He used natural rights to support his
“social contract [theory]—the view that the consent of the
people is the only true basis of any sovereign’s right to
rule.” A government exists, he argued, because individuals agree, through a contract, to form a government to protect their rights under natural law. By agreeing to be
governed, individuals agree to abide by decisions made by
majority vote in the resolution of disputes.
Both men, as you can see, relied on wealthy royal patrons
to allow them the time to work on their philosophies of government. While Hobbes and Locke agreed that government
was a social contract between the people and their rulers, they
differed significantly about the proper scope of government.
Which man’s views about government (and people) reflect
your views?
Union,” the Framers set out several key functions of government that continue to be
relevant today, over 200 years later. As discussed below, several of the Framers’ ideas
centered on their belief that the major function of government was creating mechanisms to allow individuals to solve conflicts in an orderly and peaceful manner. Just how
much authority one must give up to governments in exchange for this kind of security,
however, has vexed political philosophers as well as politicians for ages.
Establishing Justice. One of the first things expected from governments is a system of laws that allows individuals to abide by a common set of principles. Societies
adhering to what is called the rule of law allow for the rational dispensing of justice by
GOVERNMENT: WHAT IT IS AND WHY WE NEED IT
acknowledged legal authorities. Thus, today, the Bill of Rights entitles people to a trial
by jury, to know what the charges against them are, and to be tried in a courtroom
presided over by an impartial judge. The U.S. Constitution created a federal judicial
system to dispense justice, but the Bill of Rights specified a host of rights guaranteed
to all citizens in an effort to establish justice.
Ensuring Domestic Tranquility. As we will discuss throughout this text, the role
of government in ensuring domestic tranquility is a subject of much debate. In times of
crisis such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. government, as well
as states and local governments, took extraordinary measures to contain the threat of terrorism from abroad as well as within the United States. The creation of the Department
of Homeland Security as well as the passage of legislation giving the national government nearly unprecedented ability to ferret out potential threats shows the degree to
which the government takes seriously its charge to preserve domestic tranquility. On an
even more practical front, local governments have police forces, the states have national
guards, and the federal government can always call up troops to quell any threats.
Providing for the Common Defense. The U.S. Constitution calls for the president to be the commander in chief of the armed forces, and the Congress was given the
authority to raise an army. The Framers recognized that one of the major purposes of
government was to provide for the defense of its citizens, who alone had no ability to
protect themselves from other governments. As highlighted in Figure 1.1, the defense
budget is a considerable proportion of all federal outlays.
Promoting the General Welfare. When the Framers added “promoting the general welfare” to their list of key government functions, they never envisioned how the
involvement of the government at all levels would expand so tremendously. In fact, promoting the general welfare was more of an ideal than a mandate for government. Over
time, however, our notions of what the government should do have expanded along
with the size of government. As we discuss throughout this text, however, there is no
universal agreement on the scope of what governments should do. There is no doubt
that Social Security income programs as well as governmental programs providing
health care are designed to promote the general welfare. These programs make up a
significant proportion of the federal budget, as highlighted in Figure 1.1.
Securing the Blessings of Liberty. A well-functioning government that enjoys the
support of its citizenry is one of the best ways to secure the blessings of liberty on its
people. In a free society, citizens enjoy a wide range of liberties and freedoms and feel
free to prosper. They are free to criticize the government as well as to petition it when
they disagree with its policies or have a grievance.
FIGURE 1.1
Mandatory spending, in billions of dollars
Discretionary nonmilitary spending, in billions of dollars
Discretionary military spending, in billions of dollars
$438.8
$470.8
$1,309.1
Allocation of the Federal
Budget, 2005. ■
Source: Fiscal Year 2005 Budget,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/spec.pdf.
7
8
CHAPTER 1
■ ][[Saddam caption to come.
Allow 4-6 lines.]]
Photo courtesy: [[TK]]
Taken together, these principal functions of government permeate our lives.
Whether it is your ability to obtain a low-interest student loan, buy a formerly prescription-only allergy drug, Claritin, over the counter, or drive a car at a particular
age, government has played a major role. Similarly, without government-sponsored
research, we would not have cellular telephones, the Internet, four-wheel drive vehicles, or even Velcro.
monarchy
A form of government in which
power is vested in hereditary kings
and queens who govern in the interests of all.
totalitarianism
An economic system in which the
government has total control over
the economy.
oligarchy
A form of government in which the
right to participate is conditioned on
the possession of wealth, social status,
military position, or achievement.
Types of Government
As early as Plato and Aristotle, theorists have tried to categorize governments by who
participates, who governs, and how much authority those who govern enjoy. As revealed
in Table 1.1, a monarchy, the type of government rejected by the Framers, is defined by
the rule of one in the interest of all of his or her subjects. In contrast is totalitarianism,
as was the case in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. In a totalitarian system, the leader exercises unlimited power and individuals have no personal rights or liberties. Generally,
these systems tend to be ruled in the name of a particular religion or orthodoxy, an ideology, or a personality cult organized around the supreme leader. In an oligarchy,
participation in government is conditioned on the possession of wealth, social status,
military position, or achievement. Oligarchies are rare today.
TABLE 1.1
Types of Government
Whose Interests Are Represented
Rulers
The Ruled
Government by one
Government by a few
Government by many
Monarchy
Aristocracy
Citizenry
The Rulers
Totalitarian
Oligarchy
Democracy
Source: Adapted from Albert B. Saye, Merritt B. Pound, and John F. Allums, Principles of American Government,
5th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1966): 9.
ROOTS OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT: WHERE DID THE IDEAS COME FROM?
A democracy, from the Greek words demos (the people) and kratia (power or authority), is a system of government that gives power to the people either directly or through
their elected representatives. As we will explore below, this was the form of government
favored by the Framers.
9
democracy
A system of government that gives
power to the people, whether
directly or through their elected representatives.
ROOTS OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT:
WHERE DID THE IDEAS COME FROM?
THE CURRENT AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM did not spring into being
overnight. It is the result of philosophy, trial and error, and even luck. To
begin our examination of why we have the type of government we have today,
we will look at the theories of government that influenced the Framers who
drafted the Constitution and created the United States of America.
The Reformation and the Enlightenment:
Questioning the Divine Right of Kings
In the third century, as the Roman Empire began to fall, kings throughout
Europe began to rule their countries absolutely, claiming their right to govern came directly from God. Thus, since it was thought to be God’s will
that a particular monarch ruled a country, the people in that country had
no right to question their monarch’s authority or agitate for a voice in their
government’s operation.
During the Enlightenment period, the ideas of philosophers and scientists such as Isaac Newton (1642–1727) radically changed people’s views
of government. Newton and others argued that the world could be Photo courtesy: SIPA Press
improved through the use of human reason, science, and religious tolera- ■ Sir Isaac Newton and other Enlightenment
tion. He and other theorists directly challenged earlier notions that fate thinkers challenged people’s ideas about the nature
alone controlled an individual’s destiny and that kings ruled by divine right. of government.
The intellectual and religious developments of the Reformation and
Enlightenment periods of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries encouraged people to
seek alternatives to absolute monarchies and to ponder new methods of governance. In
the late sixteenth century, radical Protestants split from the Church of England (which
was created by King Henry VIII when the Roman Catholic Church forbade him to
divorce and remarry). These Protestants or Puritans believed in their ability to speak one
on one to God and established self-governing congregations. They were persecuted for
their religious beliefs by the English monarchy. The Pilgrims were the first group of these
Protestants to flee religious persecution and settle in America. There they established
self-governing congregations and were responsible for the first widespread appearance
social contract
of self-government in the American colonies. The Mayflower Compact, the document
An agreement between the people
setting up the new government, was deemed sufficiently important to be written while
and their government signifying
the Pilgrims were still at sea. It took the form of a social contract, or agreement between
their consent to be governed.
the people and their government signifying their consent to be governed.
Hobbes, Locke, and a Social Contract Theory of Government
Two English theorists of the seventeenth century, Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John
Locke (1632–1704), built on conventional notions about the role of government and the
relationship of the government to the people in proposing a social contract theory of
government (see Roots of Government: The Philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John
Locke). They argued that all individuals were free and equal by natural right. This freedom, in turn, required that all men and women give their consent to be governed.
social contract theory
The belief that people are free and
equal by God-given right and that
this in turn requires that all people
give their consent to be governed;
espoused by John Locke and influential in the writing of the Declaration of Independence.
10
CHAPTER 1
Global Perspective
AMERICAN UNIQUENESS IN THE WORLD:
ARE WE NUMBER ONE?
s the United States unique—or is it merely ordinary? Most
Americans consider this question at some point in their
lives as they ponder the meaning and significance of their citizenship and identity. After all, if the United States is ordinary, then by implication Americans are probably ordinary,
too. Most Americans, not satisfied with this answer, prefer
to think of their country as unique.
In fact, American uniqueness—or exceptionalism—has
been a pervasive theme in American political rhetoric since
before the founding. Americans in the nineteenth century
routinely described the nation as a “City on a Hill”—a reference to a passage in the New Testament in which Jesus Christ
urges his followers to be an example for the rest of the world.
Others have declared that the United States has a manifest
destiny to occupy large swaths of land and exert significant
influence in the world. As expressed by Joseph S. Nye Jr.’s
1991 Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power,a
U.S. foreign policy has for many years been guided by the idea
that America is “bound to lead”—in the dual sense that its
leadership is both an obligation it owes to the world and an
inevitable role, given its strength and abilities.
Throughout this text we will consider, in these brief
Global Perspective features, the question of American
uniqueness. Study the figure included here, which shows how
the United States compares to the rest of the world in a variety of dimensions. Then, you can begin to judge for yourself
whether the United States is truly exceptional.
The data seem to reveal that the United States has
amassed a tremendous amount of wealth, technology, political stability, human and natural resources, and military might,
I
while at the same time the health and well-being of the American people are merely average. It is ironic, for example, that
a country with the most powerful military—capable of projecting its presence and influence around the planet and
beyond—is doing worse than fifty-eight other countries in
ensuring that every adult can read. Likewise, it seems odd that
the country with the highest gross domestic product (the sum
of all goods and services generated in a given year) has a harder
time distributing this wealth than do sixty-six other countries.
As you study each chapter of this text, it will be important for you to consider whether this situation is a matter of
choice or of circumstance. In other words, can the American
people, acting privately or through government, change the
rankings that we find here, or are they the product of structural forces that are impervious to change?
Questions
1. If you were surprised by any of the rankings in the figure, why were you under the impression that the United
States was worse (or better) than you thought?
2. How is the U.S. image presented to the world and to
American citizens? Assuming that this image does not
always fit reality, where would you go for more accurate
information?
a
Joseph S. Nye Jr. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power (New York:
Basic Books, 1990).
Sources: Figure data are taken from various sources, compiled by Globastat.com. In most
cases, the total number of countries listed is 192. The data are from 2001 and 2002.
Land mass
Population
Years since independence
Length of time under same constituion
Life expectancy at birth
Military expenditures
Military spending per person
Internet service providers
Percentage of adults who are HIV-positive
Net inward migration per population
Adult literacy rate
Rank in junior high student math scores
Rank in junior high student science scores
Gross domestic product (GDP)
GDP per capita
Gini coefficient (a measurement of income distribution)
Government spending per capita
Electricity production
Trade balance (exports minus imports)
Proportion of people with mobile/cellular telephones
Proportion of people with televisions
Total airports
(most equal is #1)
(last; largest deficit)
0
25
50
75
100
200
ROOTS OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT: WHERE DID THE IDEAS COME FROM?
11
In Hobbes’s now classic political treatise, Leviathan
(1651), he argued pessimistically that man’s* natural state
was war. Government, Hobbes theorized, particularly a
monarchy, was necessary to restrain man’s bestial tendencies because life without government was but a “state of
nature.” Without written, enforceable rules, people would
live like animals—foraging for food, stealing, and killing
when necessary. To escape the horrors of the natural state
and to protect their lives, Hobbes argued, people must give
up certain rights to government. 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 on people’s rights and liberties to better control
society and to provide the necessary safeguards for property.
Hobbes argued strongly for a single ruler, no matter how
evil, to guarantee the rights of the weak against the strong.
Leviathan, a biblical sea monster, was his characterization of
an all-powerful government. Strict adherence to Leviathan’s
laws, however all-encompassing or intrusive on liberty, was
but a small price to pay for living in a civilized society.
In contrast to Hobbes, John Locke, like many other
political philosophers of the era, took the basic survival of
humanity for granted. He argued that a government’s major
responsibility was the preservation of private property, an
idea that ultimately found its way into the U.S. Constitution. In two of his works (Essay Concerning Human Understanding [1690] and Second Treatise on Civil Government
[1689]), Locke not only denied the divine right of kings to
govern but argued that men were born equal and with natural rights that no king had the power to void. Under
Locke’s conception of social contract theory, the consent of
the people is the only true basis of any sovereign’s right to Photo courtesy: Bettmann/CORBIS
rule. According to Locke, people form governments largely ■ The title page from Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan (1651) depicts a giant
to preserve life, liberty, and property, and to assure justice. ruler whose body consists of the bodies of his subjects. This is symbolic of
If governments act improperly, they break their contract the people coming together under one ruler.
with the people and therefore no longer enjoy the consent
of the governed. Because he believed that true justice comes from laws, Locke argued
that the branch of government that makes laws—as opposed to the one that enforces or
interprets laws—should be the most powerful.
Locke believed that having a chief executive to administer laws was important, but
that he should necessarily be limited by law or by the social contract with the governed.
Locke’s writings influenced many American colonists, especially Thomas Jefferson,
whose original draft of the Declaration of Independence noted the rights to “life, liberty, and property” as key reasons to split from England.2 This document was “pure
Locke” because it based the justification for the split with England on the English government’s violation of the social contract with the American colonists.
Devising a National Government in the American Colonies
Although social contract theorists agreed on the need for government, they did not necessarily agree on the form that a government should take. Thomas Hobbes argued for
a single leader; John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a French philosopher
(1712–1778), saw the need for less centralized power.
*The term “man” is used here because only males were considered fit to vote.
12
CHAPTER 1
direct democracy
A system of government in which
members of the polity meet to discuss all policy decisions and then
agree to abide by majority rule.
indirect (representative)
democracy
A system of government that gives
citizens the opportunity to vote for
representatives who will work on
their behalf.
republic
A government rooted in the consent
of the governed; a representative or
indirect democracy.
The American colonists rejected a system with a strong ruler, as in the British
monarchy, as soon as they declared their independence. Many of the colonists had fled
Great Britain to avoid religious persecution and other harsh manifestations of power
wielded by King George II, whom they viewed as a malevolent despot who failed to
govern in their interests. They naturally were reluctant to put themselves in the same
position in their new nation.
The colonists also were fearful of replicating the landed and titled system of the
British aristocracy. They viewed the formation of a representative form of government
as far more in keeping with the ideas of social contract theorists.
As evidenced by the creation in 1619 of the Virginia House of Burgesses as the
first representative assembly in North America, and its objections to “taxation without
representation,” the colonists were quick to create participatory forms of government
in which most men were allowed to take part. The New England town meeting, where
all citizens gather to discuss and decide issues facing the town, today stands as a surviving 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.
Direct democracies, in which the people rather than their elected representatives
make political decisions, soon proved unworkable in the colonies. But, as more and
more settlers came to the New World, many town meetings were replaced by a system
called an indirect democracy (this is also called representative democracy). This system of government, in which representatives of the people are chosen by ballot, was
considered undemocratic by ancient Greeks, who believed that all citizens must have a
direct say in their governance.3 Later, in the 1760s, Jean-Jacques Rousseau also would
argue that true democracy is impossible unless all citizens participate in governmental
decision making. Nevertheless, indirect democracy was the form of government opted
for throughout most of the colonies.
Representative or indirect democracies, which call for the election of representatives to a governmental decision-making body, were formed first in the colonies and
then in the new union. Many citizens were uncomfortable with the term democracy
because it implied a direct democracy that conjured up Hobbesian fears of the people
and mob rule. Instead, they preferred the term republic, which implied a system of government in which the interests of the people were represented by more educated or
wealthier citizens who were responsible to those who elected them. Today, representative democracies are more commonly called republics, and the words democracy and
republic often are used interchangeably.
AMERICAN POLITICAL CULTURE
AND THE CHARACTERISTICS
OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
political culture
Commonly shared attitudes, beliefs,
and core values about how government should operate.
AS SHOWN ABOVE, the Framers devised a representative democratic system to govern the
United States. This system is based on a number of underlying concepts and distinguishing characteristics that sometimes conflict with one another. Taken together, these ideas
lie at the core of American political culture. More specifically, political culture can be
defined as commonly shared attitudes, beliefs, and core values about how government
should operate. American political culture emphasizes the values of personal liberty, equality, popular consent and majority rule, popular sovereignty, civil society, and individualism.
personal liberty
A key characteristic of U.S. democracy. Initially meaning freedom from
governmental interference, today it
includes demands for freedom to
engage in a variety of practices free
from governmental discrimination.
Personal Liberty
Personal liberty is perhaps the single most important characteristic of American
democracy. The Constitution itself was written to ensure life and liberty. Over the years,
however, our concepts of liberty have changed and evolved from freedom from to
AMERICAN POLITICAL CULTURE AND THE CHARACTERISTICS OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
13
freedom to. The Framers intended Americans to be free from governmental infringements 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 Constitution
and its emphasis on equal protection of the laws and subsequent passage of laws guaranteeing civil rights, however, expanded Americans’ concept of liberty to include
demands for freedom to work or go to school free from discrimination. Debates over
how much the government should do to guarantee these rights or liberties illustrate the
conflicts that continue to occur in our democratic system.
Equality
Another key characteristic of our democracy is political equality. This emphasis reflects
Americans’ stress on the importance of the individual. Although some individuals
clearly wield more political clout than others, the adage “one person, one vote” implies
a sense of political equality for all.
Popular Consent and Majority Rule
Popular consent, the idea that governments must draw their powers from the consent of
the governed, is one distinguishing characteristic of American democracy. Derived from
John Locke’s social contract theory, the notion of popular consent was central to the Declaration of Independence. A citizen’s willingness to vote represents his or her consent to
be governed and is thus an essential premise of democracy. Growing numbers of nonvoters can threaten the operation and legitimacy of a truly democratic system.
Majority rule, another core political value, means that the majority (normally 50 percent of the total votes cast plus one) of citizens in any political unit should elect officials and
determine policies. This principle holds for both voters and their elected representatives.
Yet, the American system also stresses the need to preserve minority rights, as evidenced by
the myriad protections of individual rights and liberties found in the Bill of Rights.
The concept of the preservation of minority rights has changed dramatically in the
United States. It wasn’t until after the Civil War that slaves were freed and African
Americans began to enjoy minimal citizenship rights. By the 1960s, however, rage at
America’s failure to guarantee minority rights in all sections of the nation fueled the civil
rights movement. This ultimately led to congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, both designed to further minority rights.
popular consent
The idea that governments must
draw their powers from the consent
of the governed.
majority rule
The central premise of direct
democracy in which only policies
that collectively garner the support
of a majority of voters will be made
into law.
Popular Sovereignty
The notion of popular sovereignty, the right of the majority to govern themselves, has
its basis in natural law. Ultimately, political authority rests with the people, who can
create, abolish, or alter their governments. The idea that all governments derive their
power from the people is found in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, but the term popular sovereignty did not come into wide use until pre–Civil
War debates over slavery. At that time, supporters of popular sovereignty argued that
the citizens of new states seeking admission to the Union should be able to decide
whether or not their states would allow slavery within their borders.
popular sovereignty
The right of the majority to govern
themselves.
natural law
A doctrine that society should be
governed by certain ethical principles that are part of nature and, as
such, can be understood by reason.
Civil Society
Several of these hallmarks of our political culture also are fundamentals of what many
now term civil society. This term is used to describe the “nongovernmental, not-forprofit, independent nature” of people and groups who can express their views publicly
and engage in an open debate about public policy.4 The fall of the Soviet Union “accelerated the global trend toward democracy . . . which pushed democracy to the top of
the political agenda.”5 In Russia, for example, the U.S. government has used a variety
of initiatives to train people how to act in a new democratic system.
civil society
Society created when citizens are
allowed to organize and express their
views publicly as they engage in an
open debate about public policy.
14
CHAPTER 1
Independent and politically active citizens are key to the success of any democracy,
yet people who have not lived in democratic systems often are unschooled, reluctant,
or afraid to participate after years in communist or totalitarian systems. The U.S. government routinely makes grants to nongovernmental organizations, professional associations, civic education groups, and women’s groups to encourage the kind of
participation in the political system that Americans often take for granted. U.S. efforts
to assist Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, include not only public works projects but
also development of the new democratic government.
Individualism
What Are American
Civic Values?
Although many core political values concern protecting the rights of others, tremendous value is placed on the individual in American democracy. All individuals are
deemed rational and fair, and endowed, as Thomas Jefferson proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, “with certain unalienable rights.” Even today, many view individualism, which holds that the primary function of government is to enable the
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 individualism of the
western frontier, for example, was altered as more citizens moved westward, cities developed, and demands for government services increased as many individuals no longer
could exist independently of others.
CHANGING CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
AMERICANS HAVE MANY THINGS IN COMMON in addition to their political culture.
Most Americans share a common language—English—and have similar aspirations for
themselves and their families. Most agree that they would rather live in the United
States than anywhere 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 best schools possible, viewing an education as the key to success.
Despite these similarities, politicians, media commentators, and even the citizenry
itself tend to focus on differences among Americans, in large part because these differences contribute to political conflicts among the electorate. Although it is true that
America and its population are undergoing rapid change, this is not necessarily a new
phenomenon. It is simply new to most of us. In the pages that follow, we take a look
at some of the characteristics of the American populace. Because the people of the
United States are the basis of political power and authority, their characteristics and
attitudes have important implications for how America is governed and how and what
policies are made.
Changing Size and Population
One year after the Constitution was ratified, fewer than 4 million Americans lived in
the thirteen states. They were united by a single language, most shared a similar Protestant-Christian heritage, and those who voted were white male property owners. The
Constitution mandated that each of the sixty-five members of the original House of
Representatives should represent 30,000 people. However, because of rapid growth,
that number often was much higher. Anti-Federalists, who opposed a strong national
government during the founding period, at least took solace in the fact that members
of the House of Representatives, who generally represented far fewer people than senators, would be more in touch with “the People.”
As revealed in Figure 1.2, as the nation grew with the addition of new states, the
population also grew. Although the physical size of the United States has remained sta-
CHANGING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
FIGURE 1.2 U.S. Population,
420
1790–2050
400
Since around 1890, when large
numbers of immigrants began arriving in America, the United States
has seen a sharp increase in population. The major reasons for this
increase are new births and
increased longevity, although immigration has also been a contributing
factor. ■
380
360
340
320
300
Resident Population (in millions)
15
280
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Statistical
Abstract of the United States.
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1790 1810 1830 1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050
(est.) (est.) (est.)
Year
ble since the addition of Alaska and Hawaii in 1959, in 2005 there were more than 293
million Americans. In 2005, a single member of the House of Representatives from
Montana represented more than 905,000 people. As a result of this growth, most citizens today feel far removed from the national government and their elected representatives. Members of Congress, too, feel this change. Often they represent diverse
constituencies with a variety of needs, concerns, and expectations, and they can meet
only a relative few of these people face to face.
Changing Demographics of the U.S. Population
As the physical size and population of the United States have changed, so have many
of the assumptions on which it was founded. Some of the dynamism of the American
system actually stems from the racial and ethnic changes that have taken place throughout our history, a notion that often gets lost in debates about immigration policy. Moreover, for the first time, the U.S. population is getting much older. This graying of
America also will lead assuredly to changes in our expectations of government and in
our public policy demands. The debate that took place in 2003 over Medicare prescription drug coverage illustrates this phenomenon. Below, we look at some demographic facts (that is, information on characteristics of America’s population) and then
discuss some implications of these changes for how our nation is governed and what
policy issues might arise.
Changes in Racial and Ethnic Composition.
From the start, the population of
America has been changed constantly by the arrival of various kinds of immigrants
Understanding
Who We Are
■ [[Immigration caption to come.
Allow 4-6 lines.]]
The Debate over
Immigration
from various regions to its
shores—Western Europeans
fleeing religious persecution
in the 1600s to early 1700s,
Chinese laborers arriving to
work on the railroads following the Gold Rush in 1848,
Irish Catholics escaping the
potato famine in the 1850s,
Northern and Eastern Europeans from the 1880s to
1910s, and, most recently,
Southeast Asians, Cubans,
and Mexicans, among others.
Immigration to the
United States peaked in the
first decade of the 1900s,
when nearly 9 million people,
Photo courtesy: [[TK]]
many of them from Eastern
Europe, entered the country. The United States did not see another major wave of immigration until the late 1980s, when nearly 2 million immigrants were admitted in one year.
While immigration has been a continual source of changing demographics in America, race has also played a major role in the development and course of politics in the United
States. As revealed in Figure 1.3, the racial balance in America is changing dramatically.
In 2003, for example, non-Hispanic whites made up 68.3 percent of the U.S. population,
African Americans 12.7 percent, and Hispanics 13.4 percent, surpassing the number of
African Americans in the United States for the first time. Originally, demographers did
not anticipate Hispanics would surpass African Americans until 2050.
Changes in Age Cohort Composition. Just as the racial and ethnic composition
of the American population is changing, so too is the average age of the population (See
Analyzing Visuals: Changing Age Composition in the United States.) “For decades,
the U.S. was described as a nation of the young because the number of persons under
the age of twenty greatly outnumber[ed] those sixty-five and older,”6 but this is no
Photo courtesy: New York Public Library
■ Concern over immigration is
not a new phenomenon, as
this cartoon from the early
1900s depicts.
16
CHANGING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
FIGURE 1.3 Race and Ethnicity in America: 2005 and Beyond. ■
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Statistical Abstract of the United States.
302,626
White, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic*
Black
Asian and Pacific Islander
Native American and Alaska Natives
*Persons of Hispanic origin can be of any race.
268,256
236,924
102,560
66,191
61,361
47,835
33,430
41,801
38,056
20,089
12,419
2005
2025
2050
Projected
2005
2025
2050
Projected
2005
2025
2050
2005
Projected
2025
2050
Projected
2,434
3,399
4,405
2005
2025
2050
Projected
U.S. Population (in thousands)
longer the case. Because of changes in patterns of fertility, life expectancy, and immigration, the nation’s age profile has changed drastically.7 When the United States was
founded, the average life expectancy was thirty-five years; by 2004, it was nearly eighty
years for women and seventy-four and a half years for men.
As people live longer, the types of services and policies they demand from government differ dramatically. In Florida, for example, which leads the nation in the percentage of its population over age sixty-five, citizens are far less concerned with the
quality of public schools (especially if they are being taxed for those schools) than are
the citizens in states with far lower proportions of the elderly.8
How to Satisfy
Aunt Martha
17
18
CHAPTER 1
A n a ly z i n g Vi s u a l s
CHANGING AGE COMPOSITION OF THE UNITED STATES
etween 1990 and 2000, the number of the elderly (age
sixty-five and older) increased at a rate similar to those
people under eighteen years old because of increased life
expectancy, immigration, and advanced medical technologies.
By 2040, the elderly will make up nearly the same percentage of the U.S. population as young people. This is a dramatic
B
What are the political implications of a
declining percentage of the population
age 0–17 years? How will Generations
X and Y politicians respond to more
elderly people and fewer young people
in the population?
0 –17 years
65+ years
40%
34%
Population Percentage
increase from 1900, when the elderly constituted only 4 percent of the population, and the young were 40 percent of the
population. After viewing the bar graph, answer the critical
thinking questions presented in the pointer bubbles, using
information provided in this chapter. See Analyzing Visuals:
A Brief Guide for additional guidance in analyzing graphs.
How will the allocation of
governmental resources
be affected by the increasing
percentage of elderly in the
population? What social
programs will suffer? Which
social programs will expand
or remain constant?
28%
26%
In 1900,
the average
person
was only
expected
to live to
age 47.
In 2000,
the average
person was
expected
to live to
age 77.
10%
11%
24%
23%
20%
17%
12%
4%
1900
1970
1980
2000
2020
2040
Year
Sources: 1900–1980 data from Susan A. MacManus, Young v. Old: Generational Combat in the 21st Century. © 1995 by Westview Press, Inc. Reprinted by permission 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, October 2001.
Accessed June 30, 2002, http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs.html. 2020–2040 data from U.S. Census Bureau, National Population Projections, Detailed Files, revised November 2, 2000. Accessed June 30, 2002, http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/natdetD1A.html.
As the age profile of the U.S. population has changed, political scientists and others have found it useful to assign labels to various generations. Such labels can help us
to understanding the various pressures put on our nation and its government, because
when people are born and the events they experience can have important consequences
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 to as Baby
Boomers. These individuals, who grew up in an America very different from that of
their parents, now are reaching retirement age, which will put a major strain on the
already overburdened Social Security and Medicare systems.9
CHANGING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
In contrast, the children of the Baby Boomers, the 50 million who were born in the
late 1960s through the mid-1970s, often are called Generation X, the name of an early
1980s punk band and, later, a novel.10 This group experienced the economic downturn of
the late 1980s. Jobs were scarce when Generation X-ers graduated from college, and many
initially had a hard time paying off their college loans. They overwhelmingly believe that
political leaders ignore them, and they distrust the political process. X-ers work longer
hours, are better educated, and are more grassroots oriented politically than their parents.11
Moreover, it is a very libertarian generation. According to one commentator, a difference
between Generation X-ers and the liberal Baby Boomers is that X-ers “see capitalism as
something that’s not necessarily evil.” X-ers believe they “can use capitalism for social
change. It’s one way to make government and big business stand up and take notice.”12
The fastest growing group under age sixty-five is called Generation Y, those people born from 1977 to 1994 (26 percent of the U.S. population). Members of this group,
unlike their Generation X predecessors, have “grown up in good times and have nothing but optimism about their future.”13 Generation Y is very Internet savvy and much
more globally focused than any generation preceding it.
Changes in Family and Family Size. Family size and household arrangements
can be affected by several factors, including age at first marriage, divorce rates, economic conditions, longevity rates, and improvements in health care. In the past, large
families were the norm (in part because so many children died early) and gender roles
were clearly defined. Women did housework and men worked in the fields. Large
families were imperative; children were a source of Photo courtesy: [[TK]]
cheap farm labor.
Industrialization and knowledge of birth control methods began to put a dent in the size of
American families by the early 1900s. No longer
needing children to work for the survival of the
household unit on the farm, couples began 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 percent responded that no children to two children were
the “best.”14 As chronicled in the popular press as well
as by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the American family also no longer looks like The Cosby Show or
even The Brady Bunch. While the actual number of
households 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 ten households were traditional family
households; by 2003, only 72.2 percent were two-parent family households, 27.8 percent of all households
were headed by a single parent, and more than 25 percent of all households consisted of a single person. Less
than one-half of the family households had children
under the age of eighteen. Since 1970, the number of
female-headed households has more than doubled from
5.5 million to 12.9 million.
These changes in composition of households,
lower birthrates, and prevalence of single-parent families, especially single-female-headed families, affect
the kinds of demands people place on government as
well as their perceptions of the role that government
should play in their lives.
■ caption to come. Allow 4-6
lines.]]
19
20
CHAPTER 1
Join the Debate
THE HUNTINGTON THEORY OF HISPANIZATION
OVERVIEW: Many observers of American culture and
politics argue that one of the United States’ greatest
strengths is its ability to absorb and assimilate into the
social body the diverse customs and values of different peoples. These commentators highlight the contributions to politics, the arts and sciences, national
defense, and the common good by various waves of
immigrants—and by those brought against their will
during the years of slavery. Traditionalists such as Harvard professor Samuel Huntington contend that the
American “melting pot” has been successful in part
because, historically, the new Americans have
absorbed the fundamental political principles of the
United States as their own. Though there are numerous cultures within the country, Huntington insists that
there is one shared American culture based on the values espoused in the Declaration of Independence—
that is, American political culture is based on the
fundamental principles of equality, individual rights,
and government by consent. In order for the love of
freedom and self-government to be nurtured and
maintained, American core principles must be
accepted and protected by all citizens.
untington argues that during the latter part of the twentieth and into the twenty-first century, there has been a
new wave of immigration into the United States unlike any
other; he considers immigration from Mexico in particular, and
Latin America in general, to be potentially destructive of original American political principles. According to Huntington’s
highly controversial thesis, this immigration wave is unique in
that there is a political agenda within part of the Hispanic
H
community to “reclaim” the lands ceded to the United States
after both the Texas war for independence and the MexicanAmerican War, thus giving Hispanic immigrants a political
claim no other group of immigrants have had.
Furthermore, Huntington argues, no other nation has had
to contend with a long, contiguous border that immigrants can
rather freely cross to maintain familial, economic, and cultural
ties, thereby fostering a type of dual national or cultural allegiance (or, at worst, immigrant loyalty to the home country)
that can weaken ties to American core values. Finally, he contends, Hispanic immigrants have created linguistic and cultural
enclaves within the United States (Los Angeles and Miami,
for example) in which there is no need to learn the language,
history, and political values of their adopted nation, thus further eroding social and political bonds between citizens.
Huntington’s thesis raises serious questions. Are American core ideals so exceptional that only persons who share
those values should be allowed citizenship? Can immigrants
whose political and social beliefs differ from or oppose
America’s core values be assimilated into American society?
If not, what corrective policy measures should be implemented? Has American history shown that, ultimately,
most immigrants and their descendents embrace the principles that underlie the U.S. Constitution and American
political culture?
Arguments for Huntington’s Thesis
■
The core political values found in the Declaration of
Independence and Constitution are essential to
Implications of These Changes
The varied races, ethnic origins, sizes of the various age cohorts, family types, and even
gender roles of Americans have important implications for government and politics.
Today, most Americans (76 percent) believe that the number of legal immigrants should
be kept below current levels.15 (See Join the Debate: The Huntington Theory of Hispanization.) Eighty-five percent believe that illegal immigration is a serious problem,
and several states have attempted to deny drivers licenses or access to other public services to undocumented immigrants. Many believe that the numbers of immigrants, legal
and illegal, flooding onto our shores will lead to disastrous consequences. Such antiimmigration sentiments are hardly new. In fact, American history is replete with examples of Americans set against any new immigration. In the 1840s, for example, the Know
Nothing Party arose in part to oppose immigration from Roman Catholic nations, charging that the pope was going to organize the slaughter of all Protestants in the United
States. In the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan, which had over 5 million members, called for
barring immigration to stem the tide of Roman Catholics and Jews into the nation.
Changing racial, ethnic, and even age and family demographics also seem to intensify—at least for some—an us versus them attitude. For example, government affirma-
20
CONGRESS
■
■
maintain freedom and protect rights. It may be that
original American principles run the risk of being
replaced by ideals that advocate forms of government
or politics opposed to liberty, self-government, and
individual rights, thus changing the character of the
American regime.
American institutions and political culture pursue “Justice as the end of government . . . as the end of civil society.” American ideals can be a guide for all to live together
effectively in peace and harmony, rather than an end in
themselves. These principles allow most individuals to pursue their unique conception of the American dream, relatively free from interference by the government and others.
A shared language and civic education bind citizens
together. Teaching multiple languages and cultural
viewpoints while denying a common civic education and
political origin can create competing sources of identity
that will weaken citizens’ attachments to one another
and to their government.
Arguments Against Huntington’s Thesis
■
■
Historically, certain waves of immigrants were incorrectly thought to be opposed to American values.
Benjamin Franklin expressed concerns that German
immigrants could not be assimilated into colonial
American life because of their culture and history, and
Irish-Catholic immigrants were accused of both giving allegiance to the pope and of being anti-republican in political outlook—fears that proved to be
unfounded.
Bilingualism in the Hispanic community does not
indicate the creation of competing sources of social
■
21
and political identity. According to an opinion poll
coordinated by the Washington Post in 2000, a mere 10
percent of second-generation Hispanic immigrants rely
on speaking only Spanish, which follows the pattern of
English language adoption by previous waves of immigration to the United States.
American political culture is more than its AngloProtestant core. A strength of the American experience
is its ability to absorb different cultures and values and
transform them into one unique political society. It is
arguable that it took both the successive waves of immigration and the freeing of the slaves to move the United
States toward the realization of the ideals espoused in the
Declaration of Independence.
Questions
1. Is this latest wave of immigration truly unique in American history? If so, are core American political values in
danger of becoming undermined?
2. Is American political culture more than its core principles and institutions? If so, what other values and institutions add to the United States’ claim that it is a true
“melting pot?”
Selected Readings
Samuel Huntington. Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity. New York: Simon and Schuster,
2004.
Roger Daniels. Guarding the Golden Door: American Immigration Policy and Immigrants Since 1882. New York: Hill
and Wang, 2004.
tive action programs, which were created in the 1960s to redress decades of overt racial
discrimination, continue to be under attack. As discussed in chapter 6, vocal critics of
affirmative action believe that these programs give minorities and women unfair advantages in the job market, as well as in access to higher education. Similarly, as more and
more women graduated from college and entered the workforce, some men criticized
efforts to widen opportunities for women, while many women complained that a glass
ceiling barred their advancement to the highest levels in most occupations. Dramatic
changes in educational and employment attainment for women, revealed in Table 1.2,
also underscore these changes.
Demographics also affect politics and government because an individual’s perspective influences how he or she hears debates on various issues. Thus, many African
Americans viewed former football great O.J. Simpson’s acquittal as vindication for
decades of unjust treatment experienced by blacks in the criminal justice system, and
the poor and working class viewed corporate collapses quite differently from many
wealthy executives.
These cleavages and the emphasis many politicians put on our demographic differences play out in many ways in American politics. Baby Boomers and the elderly
object to any changes in Social Security or Medicare, while those in Generation X vote
21
22
TABLE 1.2
CHAPTER 1
Men and Women in a Changing Society
1970
Estimated life expectancy
% high school graduates
% of BAs awarded
% of MAs awarded
% of PhDs awarded
% of JDs awarded
Median earnings
Single parents
2003
Men
Women
Men
Women
67
53
56
60
87
95
$26,760
1.2 million
74
52
43
40
13
5
$14,232
5.6 million
74
45
43
41
55.1
52.7
$29,101
4.4 million
80
65
56
59
44.9
47.3
$16,614
13.1 million
Sources: 1970 data: U.S. Census Bureau, 1996 Statistical Abstract of the United States. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census. 2003 data: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Statistical Abstract of the United States.
for politicians 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 themselves the target of
many different factions. This
diversity can make it difficult to
devise coherent policies to “promote the general welfare,” as
promised in the Constitution.
IDEOLOGY OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
political ideology
The coherent set of values and
beliefs about the purpose and scope
of government held by groups and
individuals.
Who Are Liberals
and Conservatives?
POLITICAL IDEOLOGY IS THE COHERENT SET of values and beliefs about the purpose
and scope of government held by groups and individuals. “It is the means by which the
basic values held by a party, class, group or individual are articulated.”16 Most Americans espouse liberalism or conservatism, although a growing number call themselves
libertarians. Libertarians do not place themselves on the traditional liberal/conservative continuum used by political scientists.
In general, conservatives tend to identify with the Republican Party; liberals usually identify with the Democratic Party. Both parties, in fact, make frequent reference
to their own conservative and liberal wings. Thus, many commentators have difficulty
identifying ideological differences between liberal Republicans and conservative
Democrats. These groups often make up the bulk of those people willing to identify
themselves on the political spectrum as moderates, as is illustrated in Figure 1.4. However, in recent years there has been a growing split in ideology between the two groups
(see Analyzing Visuals: Popular Vote by County—An Ideological Divide?).
Conservatives
conservative
One thought to believe that a government is best that governs least
and that big government can only
infringe on individual, personal, and
economic rights.
According to William Safire’s New Political Dictionary, a conservative “is a defender
of the status quo who, when change becomes necessary in tested institutions or practices, prefers that it come slowly, and in moderation.”17 As shown in Table 1.3, Conservatives tend to believe that a government is best that governs least, and that big
government can only infringe on individual, personal, and economic rights. They want
less government, especially in terms of regulation of the economy. Conservatives favor
local and state action over federal action, and emphasize fiscal responsibility, most
notably in the form of balanced budgets. Conservatives are likely to support smaller,
less activist governments and believe that domestic problems like homelessness,
poverty, and discrimination are better dealt with by the private sector than by the government. They also tend to be more churchgoing and look to government to regulate
some aspects of personal behavior such as abortion or same-sex marriage.
TABLE 1.3 Liberal? Conservative? Libertarian? Chart Your Views on These Issues
Government Support of:
Conservative
Liberal
Libertarian
Abortion
Rights
Environmental
Regulation
Gun
Control Laws
Oppose
Favor
Favor
Oppose
Favor
Oppose
Oppose
Favor
Oppose
Poor
Oppose
Favor
Oppose
Domestic Unions
Oppose
Favor
Favor
IDEOLOGY OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
23
A n a ly z i n g Vi s u a l s
POPULAR VOTE BY COUNTY—AN IDEOLOGICAL DIVIDE?
s the 2004 presidential election approached, analysts
began to speak of a growing split in ideology that was
occurring throughout the United States. After the election,
a quick look at a U.S. map showing state-by-state Electoral
College results made clear the split between those voters
from the Northeast and West Coast and those in the vast
expanse of states between these coasts. However, a careful
look at a U.S. map showing the popular vote by county
brings out several other demographic differences. After
studying the map depicted below, answer the following
questions: Note the numerous blocks of counties within the
A
noncoastal states that voted for John Kerry rather than for
George W. Bush, despite a state Electoral College win for
Bush. What demographic factor might account for this
trend? In a number of states—for example, Utah, Oklahoma, Nevada, Kansas, and Nebraska—Kerry won very few
or no counties. What might account for this result? Do you
recognize any other demographic aspects as you view the
county map? Now take a look at the Electoral College map
shown on page ••• of the text. Describe the differences you
see between that map and the county-by-county map
depicted below.
Seattle
Chicago
San
Francisco
New York City
Washington
Los Angeles
Atlanta
Miami
For Bush
For Kerry
Sources: Associated Press; Congress; Census Bureau.
Liberals
Liberalism is a political view held by those who “seek to change the political, economic,
or social status quo to foster the development and well-being of the individual.”18 Safire
defines a liberal as “currently one who believes in more government action to meet
individual needs, originally one who resisted government encroachments on individual liberties.”19 Liberals now are considered to favor a big government that plays an
active role in the economy. They also stress the need for the government to provide
for the poor and homeless, to provide a wide array of other social services, and to take
liberal
One considered to favor extensive
governmental involvement in the
economy and the provision of social
services and to take an activist role
in protecting the rights of women,
the elderly, minorities, and the environment.
24
CHAPTER 1
FIGURE 1.4 Adult Self-
50
Identification as Liberal,
Moderate, or Conservative,
1974–2004. ■
40
Percentage
Source: Roper Center at the University of Connecticut, Public Opinion Online.
MODERATE
CONSERVATIVE
30
LIBERAL
20
10
1974
1979
1984
1989
Year
1994
1999
2004
an activist role in protecting the rights of women, the elderly, minorities, gays and lesbians, and the environment. It is a political philosophy that has roots in the American
Revolution and eighteenth-century liberalism. Today, many of its supporters refer to
it as the “modern revival of classical liberalism.”20
Libertarians
libertarian
One who favors a free market economy and no governmental interference in personal liberties.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy based largely on individual freedom and the curtailment of state power. Libertarians have long believed in the evils of big government
and stress that government should not involve itself in the plight of the people or attempt
to remedy any social ills. Basically, libertarians, although a very diverse lot, favor a free
market economy and an end to governmental intrusion in the area of personal liberties.
Generation X-ers are more libertarian in political philosophy than any other age cohort.
In 2004, nearly 600 members of the Libertarian Party held public office—more than the
combined total of office holders representing all of the other third parties. Liberals criticize libertarian calls for elimination of all government-sponsored welfare and public
works programs; conservatives bemoan libertarian calls for reductions in the defense budget and elimination of federal agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Problems with Political Labels
When considering what it means when someone identifies himself or herself as a conservative, liberal, libertarian, or some other political philosophy, it is important to remember that the labels can be quite misleading and do not necessarily allow us to predict
political opinions. In a perfect world, liberals would be liberal and conservatives would be
conservative. Studies reveal, however, that many people who call themselves conservative
actually take fairly liberal positions on many policy issues. In fact, anywhere from 20 percent to 60 percent will take a traditionally conservative position on one issue and a traditionally liberal position on another.21 People who take conservative stances against “big
government,” for example, often support increases in spending for the elderly, education,
or health care. It is also not unusual to encounter a person who could be considered liberal
on social issues such as abortion and civil rights but conservative on economic or pocketbook issues. Moreover, libertarians, for example, often are against any governmental restrictions on abortion (a liberal view) but against any kind of welfare spending (a conservative
CURRENT ATTITUDES TOWARD AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
25
■ [[Pelosi/DeLay caption to come.
Allow 4-6 lines.]]
FPO
PH01.11 TK
OCON.1984.0015
Photo courtesy: [[TK]]
view). Today, like libertarians, most Americans’ positions on specific issues cut across liberal/conservative ideological boundaries to such a degree that new, more varied ideological categories may soon be needed to capture division within American political thought.
CURRENT ATTITUDES TOWARD
AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
AMERICANS’ VIEWS ABOUT AND EXPECTATIONS OF government and democracy affect the
political system at all levels. It has now become part of our political culture to expect negative campaigns, dishonest politicians, and political pundits who make their living bashing
politicians and the political process. How Americans view politics, the economy, and their
ability to achieve the American dream—an American ideal of a happy and successful life
to which many aspire, which often includes wealth, a house, a better life for one’s children,
and, for some, the ability to grow up to be president—also is influenced by their political
ideology as well as by their social, economic, educational, and personal circumstances.
Since the early 1990s, the major sources of most individuals’ on-the-air news—
the four major networks (ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC) along with CNN and CSPAN—have been supplemented dramatically as the number of news and quasi-news
outlets has grown exponentially. First there were weekly programs such as Dateline on
the regular networks. Next came FOX News, MSNBC, and CNBC—all competing
for similar audiences. During the 2004 election, for example, more people turned to a
cable news program than to the regular networks for their political coverage. In addition, the Internet has quickly developed as an instantaneous source of news, as well
as rumor, about politics. One online newsletter, the Drudge Report, was actually the
first to break the story about the sexual relationship between President Bill Clinton
and Monica Lewinsky.
As more and more news programs develop, the pressure on each network or news
program to be the first with the news—often whether actually verifiable or not—multiplies exponentially, as was illustrated on Election Night 2000 when all of the networks
rushed to call states for a particular candidate and to be the first to predict the overall
American dream
An American ideal of a happy, successful life, which often includes
wealth, a house, a better life for one’s
children, and, for some, the ability
to grow up to be president.
26
CHAPTER 1
winner. The competition for news stories, as well as the instantaneous nature of these communications, still often highlights the negative, the sensational, the sound bite, and usually the extremes. It’s hard to remain upbeat about America or politics amidst the media’s
focus on personality and scandal. It’s hard to remain positive about the fate of Americans
and their families if you listen to talk radio or watch talk news shows that feature guests
trying to outshout each other or watch campaign ads that highlight only the negative.
High Expectations
Comparing Political
Landscapes
In roughly the first 150 years of our nation’s history, the federal government had few
responsibilities, and its citizens had few expectations of it beyond national defense,
printing money, and collecting tariffs and taxes. The state governments were generally
far more powerful than the federal government in matters affecting the everyday lives
of Americans (see chapters 3 and 4).
As the nation and its economy grew in size and complexity, the federal government
took on more responsibilities, such as regulating some businesses, providing poverty relief,
and inspecting food. Then, in response to the Great Depression of the 1930s, President
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal government programs proliferated in almost every area
of American life, including job creation, income security, and aid to the poor. 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 promising
far more than they or government could deliver. Although President George W. Bush
vowed to “leave no child behind,” the high costs of waging war, a failing economy, and
increases in the cost of homeland security left little money to fund that ambitious program to ensure minimal educational standards for all children nationwide.
As voters look to governments to solve a variety of problems from education to
terrorism, their expectations are not always met. Unmet expectations have led to cynicism about government and apathy, as evidenced in low voter turnout. It may be that
Americans have come to expect too much from the national government and must
simply readjust their expectations. Still, as revealed in Table 1.4, after many years of
more positive views toward a variety of governmental and nongovernmental institutions, Americans’ confidence in most of these institutions fell quite sharply in recent
years. And, as revealed in Politics Now: Deepening Distrust of the United States,
views about America from abroad aren’t too favorable, either.
A Missing Appreciation of the Good
During the Revolutionary period, average citizens were passionate about politics
because the stakes—the very survival of the new nation—were so high. Until September 11, 2001, the stakes weren’t readily apparent to many people. Today, however,
if you don’t have faith in America, its institutions, or symbols (and Table 1.4 shows
that many of us don’t), it becomes even easier to blame the government for all kinds
of woes—personal as well as societal—or to fail to credit governments for the things
they do well. Many Americans, for example, enjoy a remarkably high standard of
living, and much of it is due to governTABLE 1.4 Faith in Institutions
mental programs and protections. (See
Table 1.5 for quality of life measures.)
Percentage of Americans Declaring They Had a “Great Deal”
Even in the short time between
of Confidence in the Institution
when
you get up in the morning and
1966
1975
1986
1996
2004
when you leave for classes or work, the
Congress
42%
13%
16%
8%
8%
government—or its rulings or regulaExecutive branch
41
13
21
10
25
tions—pervades your life. The national
The press
29
26
18
11
9
Business & industry
55
19
24
23
19
or state governments, for example, set
Medicine
73
51
46
45
19
the standards for whether you wake up
on Eastern, Central, Mountain, or
Sources: Newsweek (January 8, 1996): 32; Public Perspective 8 (February/March 1994): 4. Data for 2004: Public Opinion Online.
CURRENT ATTITUDES TOWARD AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
27
Politics Now
DEEPENING DISTRUST OF THE UNITED STATES
ust as Americans’ confidence in the institutions of government has fallen, so has global public opinion toward the
United States. Although many citizens throughout the
world stood solidly with the United States in the aftermath
of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the actions of
the United States in Iraq, as well as concerns about globalization, have made Americans and America the target of considerable wrath, even among citizens of normally strong
allies. The Spanish electorate’s stunning election within days
after a terrorist attack of an anti–Iraq War prime minister
who pledged to withdraw Spain’s troops from Iraq underscores this shift in support for American foreign policy.
Although 67 percent of Americans polled in one 2004
survey expressed their belief that “the U.S.-led war on terrorism [was] a sincere effort to reduce international terrorism,” most citizens of other nations did not agree, as is
revealed in the figure shown here. Similarly, in Morocco,
J
Jordan, and Pakistan, George W. Bush’s unfavorable ratings
are higher than Osama bin Laden’s! The majority of those
polled in Morocco and Jordan even believe that suicide
bombings carried out against Americans in Iraq are justified. Said former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright,
“the broad mistrust of American leadership will be difficult
to reverse.”a
Surveys also find that most Western Europeans hold an
unfavorable view of President Bush and American foreign
policy. Can you think of other reasons why the citizens of
other nations distrust the United States? Are these concerns
well founded? What might be the consequences of this mistrust of the United States when coupled with Americans’ distrust of many political institutions in general?
a
Quoted in Susan Page, “Survey Tracks Deepening Distrust Toward U.S.,” USA
Today (March 17, 2004): 7A.
Approval of U.S.-led War on Terrorism, %
83%
80%
Great
Britain
73%
70%
67%
68%
Germany
67%
65%
64%
Russia
71%
58%
France
53%
31%
32%
32%
Turkey
54%
Morocco
37%
17%
38%
Pakistan
25%
53%
Jordan
18%
21%
Pacific Standard Time. The national government regulates the airwaves and licenses the
radio or television broadcasts you might listen to or glance at as you eat and get dressed.
States, too, regulate and tax telecommunications. Whether the water you use as you brush
your teeth contains fluoride is a state or local governmental issue. The federal Food and
Drug Administration inspects 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
2002
2003
2004
28
CHAPTER 1
labeling. Are they really “lite,” “high in
fiber,” or “fresh squeezed”? Usually, one
1945
1970
2003
or more levels of government are authoLife expectancy
65.9
70.8
75.4
rized to decide these matters.
Per capita income (1999 constant dollars)
$6,367
$12,816
$21,181
Although all governments have
a
problems,
it is important to stress the
Adults who are high school grads
25%
52.3%
84.1%
a
good
they
can
do. In the aftermath of the
Adults who are college grads
5%
10.7%
25.6%
Great
Depression
in the United States,
Households with phones
46%
87%
94.2%
for
example,
the
government
created the
Households with cable TV
0%
4%
67.5%
Social
Security
program,
which
dramatWomen in labor force
29%
38%
60%
ically decreased poverty among the
Own their own home
46%
63%
66.9%
elderly. Our contract laws and judicial
Below poverty rate
39.7%b
12.6%
11.8%
system provide an efficient framework
1940 figure.
1949 figure.
for business, assuring people that they
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 Statistical Abstract of the United States.
have a recourse in the courts should
someone fail to deliver as promised.
Government-guaranteed student loan programs make it possible for many students to
attend college. Even something as seemingly mundane as our uniform bankruptcy laws
help protect both a business enterprise and its creditors if the enterprise collapses.
TABLE 1.5 How Are Americans Really Doing?
a
b
Mistrust of Politicians
Voter Apathy
Photo courtesy: [[TK]]
■ [[new photo, caption to come.
Allow 4-6 lines.]]
It’s not difficult to see why Americans might be distrustful of politicians. In August
1998, after President Bill Clinton announced to the American public that he had misled them concerning his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, 45 percent said they were
disgusted, 33 percent were angry, but only 18 percent were surprised, according to a
poll conducted by the Washington Post.22
President Bill Clinton wasn’t the only politician to incur the public’s distrust. One 1998
poll conducted by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that 40 percent of those polled thought that most politicians were
“crooks.”23 These perceptions are reinforced when politicians
such as James McGreevey, the Democratic governor of New Jersey, are forced to resign under the threat of imminent corruption
charges. Most politicians, however, are hard working and pride
themselves on being able to deliver programs and services to the
residents of their districts.
“Campaigns are the conversation of democracy,” an observer
once said.24 But, a Gallup poll conducted after the 1988
presidential contest between George Bush and Michael
Dukakis found that 30 percent of those who voted would
have preferred to check off a “no confidence in either” box
had they been given the choice.
Americans, unlike voters in most other societies, get an
opportunity to vote on a host 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 sufficient information of the vast array of candidates and issues facing them.
A Census Bureau report examining the reasons given by
the millions of eligible voters who stayed home from the polls
on Election Day in 2002 showed that being too busy was the
single biggest reason Americans gave for not voting. The head
CURRENT ATTITUDES TOWARD AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
29
of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate thinks
that time is just an excuse.25 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, Ralph Nader tried to run as
an alternative to the two major parties in 2000 and 2004, 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?
Redefining Our Expectations
Just as it is important to recognize that governments serve many
important purposes, it is also important to recognize that government and politics are not static. Politics, moreover, involves
conflicts over different and sometimes opposing ideologies, and
these ideologies are very much influenced by one’s racial, economic, and historical experiences. These divisions are real and
affect the political process at all levels. It is clear to most Americans today that politics and 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 Americans come to terms with America as it is today—not as it was in
the past—real or imaginary. 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
the citizen-activist must be ultimately responsible for the resolution of these divisions.
The current frustration and dissatisfaction with politics and Photo courtesy: Reuters/Jamal Wilson/Archive Photos
government may be just another phase, as the changing American
■ Doris “Granny D” Haddock walked 3,200 miles across Amerbody politic seeks to redefine its ideas about and expectations of ica to agitate for campaign finance reform in 2000. In 2004,
government. This process is one that is likely to define politics well Haddock, along with two friends, drove across the United States
into the future, but the individualistic nature of the American sys- in a brightly painted camper. This time, Granny D was trying to
tem will have long-lasting consequences on how that redefinition motivate single women to vote. Although they make up 46 percan be accomplished. Americans want less government, but as they cent of all women eligible to vote, historically, unmarried women
vote in fewer numbers than their married sisters. Underscoring
get older, they don’t want less Social Security. They want lower her commitment, also in 2004, she ran unsuccessfully for the
taxes and better roads, but they don’t want to pay for toll roads. U.S. Senate from New Hampshire.
They want better education for their children but lower expenditures on schools. They want greater security at airports but low fares and quick boarding. Some clearly want less for others but not themselves, a demand that puts politicians
in the position of nearly always disappointing voters. This inability to please voters and
find a middle ground undoubtedly led to the unprecedented number of members of Congress who have retired in recent years.
Politicians, as well as their constituents, are looking for ways to redefine the role of
government, much in the same way that the Framers did when they met in Philadelphia to forge a solution between Americans’ quest for liberty and freedom tempered by
order and governmental authority. While citizens charge that it is still government as
usual, a change is taking place in Washington, D.C. Sacrosanct programs such as Social
Security and welfare continually are being reexamined, and some powers and responsibilities are slowly being returned to the states. Thus, the times may be different, but
the questions about government and its role in our lives remain the same.
Although national crises such as the Civil War, the Great Depression, Watergate,
and the 9/11 terrorist attacks created major turmoil, they demonstrated that our system
can survive and even change in the face of enormous political, societal, and institutional
pressures. Often, these crises have produced considerable reforms. The Civil War led
30
CHAPTER 1
to the dismantling of the slavery system and to the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments (see chapter 6), which planted the seeds of recognition of African Americans as American citizens. The Great Depression led to the
New Deal and the creation of a government more actively involved in economic and
social regulation. In the 1970s, the Watergate scandal and resignation of President
Richard M. Nixon resulted in stricter ethics laws that have led to the resignation or
removal of many unethical elected officials. Post 9/11, Americans seem more willing to
accept limits on civil liberties to battle terrorism. At the same time, they are more aware
of the nation’s interdependence with the rest of the world. President George W. Bush
even took the lead in an effort to export American democracy to the world while also
educating the American public that these actions are never easy and without huge personal and economic costs.
SUMMARY
IN THIS CHAPTER, we have made the following points:
1. Government: What It Is and Why We Need It
Governments, which are made up of individuals and
institutions, are the vehicles through which policies are
made and affairs of state are conducted. We need governments to maintain order because governments
alone can use force legitimately. Governments have
many functions. In the U.S. context, most are included
in the Preamble to the Constitution. Governments
take many forms depending on the number who rule
as well as whose interests are represented.
2. Roots of American Government: Where Did the
Ideas Come From?
The American political system is based on several
principles that have their roots in classical Greek ideas.
The ideas of social contract theorists John Locke and
Thomas Hobbes, who held the belief that people are
free and equal by God-given right, have continuing
implications for our ideas of the proper role of government in our indirect democracy.
3. American Political Culture and the Characteristics of American Democracy
Key characteristics of the political culture are personal
liberty, equality, popular consent and majority rule,
popular sovereignty, civil society, and individualism.
4. Changing Characteristics of the American People
Several characteristics of the American electorate can
help us understand how the system continues to evolve
and change. Chief among these are changes in size,
population, and demographics.
5. Ideology of the American Public
Most Americans identify themselves on a traditional
conservative-to-liberal continuum, with most believ-
ing themselves to be moderates. Libertarians often
hold liberal views on many issues and conservative
views on others.
6. Current Attitudes Toward American Government
Americans have high and often unrealistic expectations
of government. At the same time, they often fail to
appreciate how much their government actually does
for them. Some of this failure may be due to Americans’ general mistrust of politicians, which may explain
some of the apathy evidenced in the electorate.
KEY TERMS
American dream, p. 25
citizen, p. 5
civil society, p. 13
conservative, p. 22
democracy, p. 9
direct democracy, p. 12
government, p. 5
indirect (representative) democracy, p. 12
liberal, p. 23
libertarian, p. 24
majority rule, p. 13
monarchy, p. 8
natural law, p. 13
oligarchy, p. 8
personal liberty, p. 12
political culture, p. 12
political ideology, p. 22
politics, p. 5
popular consent, p. 13
popular sovereignty, p. 13
republic, p. 12
social contract, p. 9
social contract theory, p. 9
totalitarianism, p. 8
WEB EXPLORATIONS
SELECTED READINGS
Almond, Gabriel A., and Sidney Verba. Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1963.
Craig, Stephen C., and Stephen Earl Bennett, eds. After the Boom: The
Politics of Generation X. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997.
Dahl, Robert A. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, 1971.
Elshtain, Jean Bethke. Democracy on Trial. New York: Basic Books, 1995.
Glendon, Mary Ann. Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political
Discourse. New York: Free Press, 1991.
Grossman, Lawrence K. The Electronic Republic: Reshaping Democracy in the Information Age. New York: Viking, 1995.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Richard Tuck, ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Hochschild, Jennifer L. Facing Up to the American Dream: Race, Class, and
the Soul of the Nation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995.
Hunter, James Davison. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York: Basic Books, 1991.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. Dirty Politics: Deception, Distraction, and
Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Peter Lasleti, ed. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Nye, Joseph S., Jr. The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s
Superpower Can’t Go It Alone. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2002.
Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: Collapse and Revival of the American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000.
Skocpol, Theda, and Morris Fiorina, eds. Civic Engagement in American Democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1999.
Verba, Sidney, Kay Schlozman, and Henry Brady. Voice and Equality: Civic Volunteerism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.
31
Zakaria, Fareed. The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home
and Abroad. New York: Norton, 2003.
WEB EXPLORATIONS
To connect with others who are interested in politics, see
http://www.pbs.org/news/news_government.html
For more on Aristotle and natural law, see
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus
%3Aabo%3Atlg%2C0086%2C035&query=1252a
For more on Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, see
http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hobmoral.htm and
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/locke.htm
To get a minute by minute update on U.S. population, see
http://www.census.gov/
For more detail on population projections, see
http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/natsum.html
To learn more about Generation Y, see
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/firey-011203.html
For more information on families and household composition, see
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/98ppla.txt
For more information on conservatives, see
http://www.conservative.org/
For more information on liberals, see
http://www.turnleft.com/
For more information on libertarians, see
http://www.lp.org/ and
http://www.cato.org/
To find out your ideological stance, go to
http://people-press.org/fit/
For more information on the American electorate, see
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting/p20542.html