LINKÖPINGS UNIVERSITET
Institutionen för kultur och kommunikation
ENGELSKA
American Cultural Studies
Government and Elections
English 1
Fall Term, 2012
The Discussion Seminars
There will be three discussion seminars in your American Cultural Studies course, covering three
different topics:
1. American Education
2. Government and elections
3. Foreign Policy
A compendium of articles for each of the above topics will be emailed to you about a week before the
relevant study group session. The discussion in your study groups and in the seminars will be based on
the articles contained in each compendium and the discussion questions following each of the articles.
The seminars are obligatory and you will be expected to know the main points covered in the discussion
in the exam.
Seminar 2: American government and elections
This is your second set of articles for the second study group and seminar on American government and
elections. At this point you will already have watched the online video lecture on the American system
of government & elections. In addition, you will be expected to prepare in the following way:
-
Read the government chapter in your course book, Windows on the United States.
Print out and read the articles below and the discussion questions at the end of each article,
underlining the points most relevant to the questions.
Put together written answers for all the questions. Questions with the * mean you will have to do
independent research either online or in the book.
Meet in your study groups (see timetable) and discuss the articles and the questions. This
discussion is meant to give you a wider understanding and to help you clear up difficult points.
Obviously this discussion must be in English.
Feel free to add to or modify your answers if the discussion has influenced you in some way, but each
student must bring individually written notes to the seminar.
The seminar itself will be organized partly in groups (note: not the same groups as in the study sessions)
and partly as a whole class.
Questions on “Electoral Votes” (from your compendium)
1. Who are ‘electors’ and what is their purpose in American elections? What kind of elections make
use of them?
2. How many electors are there per state and in the entire Electoral College?1
3. How does a person become named to a slate of electors which is pledged to one particular party
and presidential candidate?
4. What do critics see as the two main problems with the Electoral College?
5. How might the Electoral College be reformed and how might this bring about a more democratic
election campaign?
6. Who is Ross Perot and how might he have enabled the House of Representatives to elect a
President rather than the Electoral College?
The writer questions whether ‘Americans want a system compatible with national democracy or federal
democracy’. What is the difference and which do you think is better represented by the current system
of voting via the Electoral College?
1
This number has gone up slightly since this article was printed. You will find the current number
online
The civil war
Finally passing
Assessing America’s bloodiest war, 150 years later
IN FEBRUARY 1961 the festivities marking the centennial of Jefferson Davis's inauguration as
president of the Confederacy drew some 50,000 revellers, including the governors of three southern
states, to Montgomery, Alabama. In the run-up to the commemoration, which lasted a week, white
Alabamans formed “Confederate Colonel” and “Confederate Belle” chapters. Teachers came to school
in period costumes. Hundreds lined the streets to escort the actor playing Davis from the railway station
to the Exchange Hotel, where he was met by the sitting chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court
portraying his antebellum counterpart. The next night 5,000 people attended a centennial ball.
Compare Montgomery's centennial with the sesquicentennial, which this February drew a ragtag few
hundred enthusiasts (and no elected officials) to parade through Montgomery. The 1961 celebration took
place in a South engulfed in a battle over segregation. The war's ultimate legacy was not yet clear. But
that battle is now over. Forced segregation, the Confederacy's last death throes, lost. A black man now
sits in the White House, and by most economic indicators the South has drawn nearly level with the rest
of the country.
This month marks the 150th anniversary of the American civil war's beginning. The first shots were
fired at Fort Sumter, in South Carolina, on April 12th 1861. Passions can sometimes still flare—as
William Faulkner, the South's great novelist, wrote, “The past is never dead. It's not even past.” Earlier
this year, for instance, a group of Mississippians proposed honouring a Confederate general who later
became the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan with a special car licence-plate. In South Carolina
more than a thousand people marched through downtown Columbia in January to protest against the
flying of the Confederate flag on the statehouse grounds.
Such lingering echoes are hardly surprising, though they are ever rarer. The war split and nearly broke
America. It killed 620,000 soldiers—more Americans than died in all the country's wars until Vietnam,
combined. And it set 4m slaves free.
In 1860 in the 11 future Confederate states, 38% of the population—including majorities in Mississippi
and South Carolina, and nearly a majority in Alabama, Florida, Georgia and Louisiana (the other
Confederate states were Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia)—was enslaved. The
South's economy depended on them. During the 19th century the North's economy became largely
industrial and increasingly urbanised. The South remained largely agricultural, its wealth concentrated in
land and slaves. The war destroyed that wealth. Income per head in the South dropped to less than 40%
of that in the North, and stayed there for the rest of the century. As late as 1938 Franklin Roosevelt
singled out the South as “the nation's No. 1 economic problem.”
Yet after the huge public investments of the New Deal and the second world war, the South began to
attract industry and manufacturing—in part precisely because it was poor, and its labour cheap. Today,
average income per head in the 11 former Confederate states has almost caught up; it is $36,350,
compared with a national average of $40,584. Admittedly, the aggregate figure masks great regional
differences. Agriculture, manufacturing and mineral production remain central to the economies of the
Deep South states; almost all of the former confederate states are poorer than average (with Mississippi
the poorest state in the union). Virginia, by contrast, ranks 7th among states in income per head; it has a
thriving tech sector, as well as a number of federal agencies and wealthy suburbs of Washington, DC.
North Carolina boasts its own tech hub in the university triangle of Raleigh-Durham.
Texas and Florida both face budgetary problems, but so do many states. Economically they more closely
resemble Arizona, another state that has boomed over the past decade, than they do other Southern
states. Similarly, Mississippi's companions at the low end of the per-capita income table are West
Virginia and Idaho, neither of which fought for the Confederacy. Like Mississippi, they lack a big city,
have relatively uneducated populations and rely heavily on mining and agriculture. The poverty of the
Deep South is less southern than rural. The economic legacy of the war, in other words, has all but
faded.
Strong government, hated government
Politically as well as economically, the civil war left the South broken and directionless. Jefferson Davis
was captured in southern Georgia a month after his best general, Robert E. Lee, surrendered. Abraham
Lincoln advocated reconciliation, but he was shot just five days after Lee's surrender. The next election,
in 1866, put Congress under the control of radical Republicans, who stationed federal troops throughout
the South.
Republican Congresses also passed the 14th and 15th amendments to the constitution, which stated that
everyone born in the United States had certain rights as citizens that states could not take away, and that
states could not bar people from voting due to “race, colour or previous condition of servitude”. Those
amendments, like the 13th, which banned slavery, came with clauses granting Congress the power to
enforce them. Such grants of power were new. The Bill of Rights limited federal power. These postcivil-war amendments expanded it.
But if a more powerful and active federal government is one enduring legacy of the war, another is
distrust and even hatred of that government. White southerners resented “carpetbaggers” and
“scalawags”—their terms, respectively, for northerners who came south after the war to seek their
fortune, and for white southerners who supported the federal government. Some of these attitudes
persist. In late 1865 Confederate veterans in Tennessee formed the Ku Klux Klan, a terrorist
organisation that used violence against former slaves. It still survives, milder on the surface but vicious
underneath.
For most of the next hundred years, white southerners ardently subverted the promises of the civil-war
amendments by enacting the segregationist policies that came to be known as Jim Crow laws. These
laws gained legitimacy when the Supreme Court ruled in 1896 that laws enforcing segregation were
constitutional, provided the facilities available for blacks and whites were equal. In practice they never
were, but segregation remained law and custom in the South. The Supreme Court signalled an end to all
that in the 1954 case Brown v Board of Education, which ruled that separate facilities were inherently
unequal.
But that ruling set off huge resistance in the South. The governors of Alabama, Arkansas and
Mississippi all physically blocked black students from entering formerly white schools. The long
dormant Ku Klux Klan rose again. This time, however, southern resistance was met both by organised
civil disobedience and by some measure of federal will. John Kennedy and his successor, Lyndon
Johnson, were Democrats and civil-rights advocates, willing to use federal muscle where other
presidents were not.
The civil-rights movement presaged a partisan sea-change in American politics. After the war,
Republicans were anathema in the South, and southerners were anathema in national politics. Before the
outbreak of war southerners had dominated federal political institutions, producing most of its
presidents, House speakers, Senate leaders and Supreme Court justices. After the war's end, the next
president to be elected from a former Confederate state was Johnson, a Texan, in 1964. Johnson signed
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law with Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks in attendance. His
advocacy discomfited segregationist southern Democrats such as John Stennis and Strom Thurmond.
Thurmond switched parties early, in 1964. Others followed.
In 1980 Ronald Reagan's advocacy of smaller, less intrusive government resonated nationally, but he
made a particular push for southern white Democrats. During the civil-rights era, segregationists often
couched their position as a defence of “states' rights”; and Reagan's endorsement of those rights at a
Mississippi county fair, while campaigning for the presidency in 1980, sealed his success in the South.
His election gave Republicans control of the Senate for the first time since 1955.
Since then the South has grown steadily more Republican, though two of the three Democrats elected
after Johnson—Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton—were southerners, who could attract southern whites.
Today most southern members of Congress are Republican. And southern states are growing much
faster than northern ones. In the next Congress Texas, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina will all add
seats at the expense of the north-east and the Midwest.
The long tail
Segregation was the civil war's long tail. In 1963, two years after the mock inauguration of Jefferson
Davis, George Wallace, Alabama's governor, stood on those same capitol steps and declared that “from
this cradle of the Confederacy, this very heart of the great Anglo-Saxon Southland…I say segregation
today, segregation tomorrow, segregation for ever.” Segregation was so unjust that it is easy to see it as
inevitably doomed. It was not. It took blood and struggle to end it. But ended it was, and two decades
later Wallace himself, the face of segregation, apologised for his words.
Ten years after that, the South elected its first black governor, Douglas Wilder in Virginia. In 2008
Barack Obama won Virginia, North Carolina and Florida and ran strongly in Georgia. The gap in black
and white voter registration has narrowed dramatically throughout the South. And black Americans,
who left the South in the early 20th century in what became known as the Great Migration, are moving
back. Today Atlanta is home to more blacks than any city apart from New York, and 57% of black
Americans live in the South—the highest proportion since 1960.
Voting remains racially polarised; southern whites tend to vote Republican and southern blacks
Democratic. In 2008, for instance, Mr Obama won 98% of the black vote in Alabama and Mississippi
but only 10% and 11% of the white vote. But that is hardly unique to the South: Mr Obama ran 12 points
behind John McCain nationally among white voters. And racially polarised voting is both a subtle
problem—a far cry from the obvious injustice of segregation and slavery—and a waning one. Young
white voters backed Mr Obama in much higher numbers than older ones did.
This March Haley Barbour, who has a record of racially insensitive remarks, said in an interview:
“Slavery was the primary, central cause of secession…abolishing slavery was morally imperative and
necessary, and it's regrettable that it took the civil war to do it. But it did.” Mr Barbour wants to be
president. His remarks not only directly refute the ancient argument that slavery was not the principal
cause of the war; they showed that there is no longer political gain in pretending otherwise.
Some people have lamented the relative public indifference to the anniversary this year, compared with
50 years ago. But back then the war's fundamental question—whether all American citizens are equal,
regardless of race—was not fully answered. Today it is. This is not to say that racism no longer exists, or
that white southerners will not continue to oppose Mr Obama in greater numbers than any other
demographic group. But their battle with him will be at the ballot box. In his last appearance, in 1889,
Jefferson Davis told the young southerners in his audience: “The past is dead; let it bury its dead …let
me beseech you to lay aside all rancour, all bitter sectional feeling, and to take your places in the ranks
of those who will bring about a consummation devoutly to be wished—a reunited country.” His last
wish now seems to stand fulfilled.
QUESTIONS
1. Which states were part of the Confederacy? Find them on the map. What were the goals/policies
of the Confereracy? Who was President at the time? (see book for help)
2. Describe how the economy has changed over the years since the civil war.
3. Distinguish between the Bill of Rights and the amendments that came after it. Why was there a
change?
4. How did the KKK come about?
5. Why have the white population in the southern states become more and more Republican
thinking? Which President can take credit for that?
Tea Party movement threatened by internal
rifts
By Ed Hornick, CNN
December 7, 2009 -- Updated 1827 GMT (0227 HKT)
Protesters march through Washington at a Tea Party Express rally on September 12
Washington (CNN) -- It emerged in anger and it threatens to split in anger.
One major group in the Tea Party movement -- named after the famous Boston Tea Party -- is set to host
its first convention in February, with former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential
candidate Sarah Palin as its keynote speaker.
But there are fractures in the movement that threaten its future. And if history's any guide, such
movements tend to flame out.
The Tea Party movement erupted on April 15 -- tax day -- over criticism of President Obama's economic
policies and what organizers called big government out of control. The movement, made up of local,
state and national groups, continues to protest what it considers fiscally unsound policies.
And the movement is well funded. Action groups like FreedomWorks -- chaired by former House
Majority Leader Dick Armey -- helped organize and fund its April 15 rally in Washington.
Other groups, including Americans for Prosperity, Tea Party Nation and Tea Party Patriots, are also
vying for the helm of the movement, and it's creating what some are calling "competitive chaos."
Some Tea Partiers have voiced anger and concern over whether the powerful groups are "astroturfing''
what is supposed to be a grass-roots coalition -- the idea that the movement is being organized by oldfashioned GOP bigwigs to promote their agenda.
Donna Klink, of the Golden Triangle Tea Party-Texas, said in a post on the Tea Party Patriots Web site
that the chaos needs to be addressed.
"We must craft a simple coalition message that we can all agree on. ... We should all remember the
simple principles of 'Strength in Numbers' and 'United We Stand, Divided We Fall,' " she wrote.
Klink added that individual Tea Party groups can keep their own identity and beliefs while "still
reaching out to and working with other groups that share common goals."
"We MUST stop this battle within and fight together," she insists.
The factions, however, have said they are only trying to engage citizens in fiscal conservatism -- and
disagreements are inevitable.
"There are disagreements over the exact direction of the movement. There are some big battles between
some of the national organizations happening," said Brendan Steinhauser of FreedomWorks. "But
ultimately I think 90 percent of the Tea Party movement -- the grassroots members and state and
national leaders -- are all moving in the same direction. But there are certainly divisions that need to be
worked out."
While anger over economic issues sparked the movement, it has come to represent anger in general -from anger over health care reform to just anger against politicians, like Obama, House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
At rallies over the summer and fall, crowds carried signs portraying Obama as Hitler and likening his
policies to those of Nazi Germany. In one case, heavy criticism forced a Tea Party group in Danville,
Virginia, to cancel a bonfire in which an effigy of Pelosi was to be burned.
And there's the threat that fringe members will taint the public's perception of the movement.
"The Tea Party combines the best elements of civic activism with some of the worst elements of fringe
extremism," said GOP strategist and CNN contributor John Feehery in a CNN.com commentary. "While
most Tea Party activists are genuinely concerned about the future of the country, some others see
conspiracies around every corner and use unacceptable rhetoric to communicate their displeasure with
the president."
Steinhauser noted that the fringe elements only make up a small part of the movement and should not
come to represent the cause.
"If you have 500,000 people at a rally or say you have 10,000 people at a rally, there's always going to
be less than one percent or some small percentage of people that are there that have some fringe voice or
issue."
That issue is similar to what other populist movements in the U.S. have faced over time.
Jon Avlon, author of "Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics," has said that
history shows that Tea Party-esque movements and "demagogues rise when the economy turns south."
"They specialize in blaming others for the troubles with wild accusations. It's a time-honored
formulation, a powerful narcotic for the nervous and dispossessed, with violent side effects," he wrote in
a CNN.com commentary.
The populist movement started in the 19th century. The Populist Party later emerged, made up largely of
farmers, and coalesced around opposition to the gold standard as currency.
Its ties to the free-silver movement, among other things, failed to resonate with a broader base of
Americans -- especially urbanites in populous states.
Later in the 20th century, populist anger rose up during the Great Depression, focused on big business's
role in the 1929 stock market crash and its subsequent effect on American society. And in the late 1960s,
populist anger was geared against big government.
"But now we've got both -- anger at big business and big government," said Avlon, a columnist for The
DailyBeast.com. "It's a perfect political storm, primed for a return to pitchfork politics. ... The fringe is
blurring with the base, creating leverage on the party leadership."
Nathan Gonzalez of the Rothenberg Political Report said that in order for Tea Party activism to blossom
into a lasting movement, it "has to exhibit some real influence that goes beyond a set of rallies."
He said that while there's the risk of fading away -- based on the divisions within the movement -- it has
growth potential.
"There's certainly a risk of dying out [like many populist movements] but there's the potential for having
some staying power as well," he said. "If they become larger or more organized there's a potential to
have more influence. It depends on how they're able to harness the energy that's there now and translate
that into future success."
And part of that organization could come from having a face to associate with the Tea Party name.
Palin, Fox News' Glenn Beck and Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, have emerged as Tea Party
darlings.
Gonzalez said the Tea Partiers need to have a one person to identify with their message -- much in the
way Obama became identified with "change" in the 2008 presidential election.
If the Tea Party movement wants to develop into a political party or force, Gonzalez added, it should
take the lessons of the populists and other third-party movements to heart.
"I think if a third party wants to take off, there has to be a face with it. And Ross Perot was a good
example of that in 1992 and 1996. It's become more difficult [with this movement]."
Questions on Tea Party movement threatened by internal rifts
1. When and why has the Tea Party movement emerged?
2. Does this appear to be a cohesive party? Explain
3. Who is Nancy Pelosi and what was her position and responsibilities? Who is in her postion now?*
4. According to Jon Avlon, when do third parties like these tend to arise? What was the Populist Party in
the 19th Century? Did it succeed?
5. If this party really wants long lasting stature, what will they need to do?
6. How did the Tea Party do in the mid-term elections in Nov? *
First Inaugural Address
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will
address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our Nation impels.
This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need
we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as
it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the
only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which
paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a
leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is
essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.
In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material
things. Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all
kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the
withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of
many years in thousands of families are gone.
More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number
toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.
Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the
perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be
thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a
generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange
of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their
failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion,
rejected by the hearts and minds of men.
True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of
credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our
people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored
confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no
vision the people perish.
The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that
temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values
more noble than mere monetary profit.
Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort.
The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These
dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to
minister to ourselves and to our fellow men.
Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment
of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of
place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has
given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes,
for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish
performance; without them it cannot live.
Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.
Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and
courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we
would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly
needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural resources.
Hand in hand with this we must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers and, by
engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted
for the land. The task can be helped by definite efforts to raise the values of agricultural products and with this the
power to purchase the output of our cities. It can be helped by preventing realistically the tragedy of the growing
loss through foreclosure of our small homes and our farms. It can be helped by insistence that the Federal, State,
and local governments act forthwith on the demand that their cost be drastically reduced. It can be helped by the
unifying of relief activities which today are often scattered, uneconomical, and unequal. It can be helped by
national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities which
have a definitely public character. There are many ways in which it can be helped, but it can never be helped
merely by talking about it. We must act and act quickly.
Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the
old order; there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to
speculation with other people's money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.
There are the lines of attack. I shall presently urge upon a new Congress in special session detailed measures for
their fulfillment, and I shall seek the immediate assistance of the several States.
Through this program of action we address ourselves to putting our own national house in order and making
income balance outgo. Our international trade relations, though vastly important, are in point of time and
necessity secondary to the establishment of a sound national economy. I favor as a practical policy the putting of
first things first. I shall spare no effort to restore world trade by international economic readjustment, but the
emergency at home cannot wait on that accomplishment.
The basic thought that guides these specific means of national recovery is not narrowly nationalistic. It is the
insistence, as a first consideration, upon the interdependence of the various elements in all parts of the United
States -- a recognition of the old and permanently important manifestation of the American spirit of the pioneer. It
is the way to recovery. It is the immediate way. It is the strongest assurance that the recovery will endure.
In the field of world policy I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor -- the neighbor who
resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others -- the neighbor who respects
his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.
If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence
on each other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move
as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such
discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our
lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I
propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty
hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife.
With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a
disciplined attack upon our common problems.
Action in this image and to this end is feasible under the form of government which we have inherited from our
ancestors. Our Constitution is so simple and practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by
changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form. That is why our constitutional system has
proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has produced. It has met every
stress of vast expansion of territory, of foreign wars, of bitter internal strife, of world relations.
It is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet
the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action
may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure.
I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a
stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its
experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.
But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national
emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the
Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis -- broad Executive power to wage a war against the
emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.
For the trust reposed in me I will return the courage and the devotion that befit the time. I can do no less.
We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of the national unity; with the clear
consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values; with the clean satisfaction that comes from the stern
performance of duty by old and young alike. We aim at the assurance of a rounded and permanent national life.
We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their
need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and
direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I
take it.
In this dedication of a Nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us. May
He guide me in the days to come.
Inaugural Address
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
(Friday, January 20, 1961: Washington, DC)
Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice
President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today
not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom -- symbolizing an end, as well as a
beginning -- signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn I before you and
Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears l prescribed nearly a century and
three quarters ago.
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish
all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our
forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the
generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and
place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans -- born in this
century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage -- and unwilling to
witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to
which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any
hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge -- and more.
To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United,
there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do -- for we dare not
meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.
To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial
control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect
to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom --
and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up
inside.
To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we
pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required -- not because the
Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help
the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge -- to convert our good words into good deeds
-- in a new alliance for progress -- to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty.
But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we
shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power
know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.
To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the
instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support--to prevent it
from becoming merely a forum for invective -- to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak -- and to enlarge
the area in which its writ may run.
Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that
both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all
humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain
beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course -- both sides
overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet
both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.
So let us begin anew -- remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always
subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.
Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms -and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.
Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars,
conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.
Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah -- to "undo the heavy burdens ...
and to let the oppressed go free."
And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new
endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure
and the peace preserved.
All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this
Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.
In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this
country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty.
The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.
Now the trumpet summons us again -- not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle,
though embattled we are -- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing
in hope, patient in tribulation" -- a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and
war itself.
Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can
assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its
hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us
would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which
we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it -- and the glow from that fire can truly light the
world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom
of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength
and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our
deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth
God's work must truly be our own.
Barack Obama has been sworn in as the 44th US president. Here is his inauguration speech in full.
My fellow citizens:
I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the
sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity
and co-operation he has shown throughout this transition.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of
prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging
storms.
At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but
because we, the people, have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding
documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
Serious challenges
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of
violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of
some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have
been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day
brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our
adversaries and threaten our planet.
We have chosen hope over
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less
fear, unity of purpose over
measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our
conflict and discord
land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next
generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met
easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn
out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
Nation of 'risk-takers'
We remain a young nation, but in the words of scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time
has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble
idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all
deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our
journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for
those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risktakers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labour,
who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and travelled across oceans in search of a new life.
For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and ploughed the hard earth.
For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.
'Remaking America'
Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we
might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the
differences of birth or wealth or faction.
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous,
powerful nation on earth. Our workers are no less productive than when
The state of the economy calls
for action, bold and swift
this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services
no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our
capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off
unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off,
and begin again the work of remaking America.
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and
we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and
bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science
to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will
harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our
schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.
Restoring trust
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too
many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free
men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common
purpose, and necessity to courage.
We reject as false the choice
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath
between our safety and our
them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so
ideals
long no longer apply.
The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it
helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is
yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the
public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day
- because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and
expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin
out of control - that a nation cannot prosper long when it favours only the prosperous. The success of our
economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our
prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest
route to our common good.
'Ready to lead'
As for our common defence, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding
fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of
man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them
up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the
grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and
every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity,
and we are ready to lead once more.
We will not apologise for our
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not
way of life, nor will we waver
just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring
in its defence
convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor
does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power
grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example,
the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that
demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to
responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former
foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the spectre of a warming planet. We will not
apologise for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defence, and for those who seek to advance their aims by
inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken;
you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
'Era of peace'
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and
Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every
end of this earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that
dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that
the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself;
and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders
around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will
judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit
and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you
are willing to unclench your fist.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters
flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty,
we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's
resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
'Duties'
As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who,
at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen
heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honour them not only because they are guardians of
our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than
themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must
inhabit us all.
For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith
and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It
What is required of us now is
a new era of responsibility
is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the
selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend
lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with
smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.
Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon
which our success depends - honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and
patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our
history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths.
What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we
have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize
gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than
giving our all to a difficult task.
'Gift of freedom'
This is the price and the promise of citizenship.
This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith
can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not
have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.
So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have travelled. In the year of America's
birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river.
The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when
the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the
people:
"Let it be told to the future world... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...
that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."
America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless
words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it
be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn
back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift
of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.
Presidential Inaugurations
Directions: Use this chart to help organize your research of historic inaugurations. Examine the inaugural
addresses (and the conditions surrounding them) of the three presidents provided, and write your answers in the
chart below. Then use your observations to draw conclusions – compare and contrast.
Roosevelt
Kennedy
Obama
President
State of the Nation
Key words/phrases from Address
1. Pick one past president and add him to the chart. Read his inaugural address and consider the state of the
nation during his inaugural address. What can you learn about American history through his inaugural address?
How can you connect the state of the nation today to that period in history?
Note: You will need more room to write than this chart so it is advised to use additional paper for this task.
Leading the lawmakers
Jan 8th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Until he becomes unpopular, Barack Obama will get most of what he wants from
Congress
Illustration by KAL
“CHANGE begins at home,” say the billboards in Washington, DC. They are adverts for IKEA, a
discount furniture store, urging people to spruce up their apartments with new sofas. But they also
describe Barack Obama’s agenda. The president-elect was chosen to stop wasting blood and
treasure on foreign wars and start fixing what’s broken at home. As the flames in Gaza attest, the
rest of the world is hard to ignore. Nonetheless, Mr Obama started work in the capital this week
with a hugely ambitious domestic programme. He wants to rescue the economy from free fall,
extend health care to nearly everyone and re-engineer the way Americans produce and consume
energy. This package will be somewhat costlier and harder to assemble than an IKEA bookshelf,
and he cannot hope to accomplish it alone.
As Obamamania grips the planet, it is easy to forget that power in America is divided. The
president cannot do much, especially at home, without a willing legislature. Before he can sign a
bill, Congress must pass it. Before he can spend money, Congress must appropriate it. Before his
nominees for high office can start work, the Senate must approve them. The executive and the
legislature are supposed to be coequal branches of government, so the first meeting of the 111th
Congress on January 6th was, in theory, just as important as Mr Obama’s impending inauguration.
Few saw it that way. No cheering crowds filled the Mall, nor were lavish parties thrown to
celebrate. But the success of the new presidency depends as much on the 535 unpredictable
denizens of Capitol Hill as it does on Mr Obama himself.
For all their power, America’s lawmakers are surprisingly little-known. Harry Reid, the Senate
majority leader, is a fascinating man. He was born in a shack in Searchlight, Nevada, where his
mother took in laundry from the local brothels. He ran the Nevada gaming commission and was
nearly murdered by gangsters. As the Senate’s top Democrat, he has mercilessly hounded George
Bush, whom he considers possibly the worst president ever. Yet he could walk down any street in
America without being recognised. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, is
somewhat better-known, partly because she is the first woman to fill that post. But many
Americans who know her name are hard-pressed to say what exactly she does. Indeed, during last
year’s election campaign, only about half of Americans knew which party controlled the House. (It
was the Democrats.)
How will Congress work with Mr Obama? Some say he will charm it like a snake. His party has the
same hefty majority in both chambers, with 59% of seats to the Republicans’ 41%. He has no
formal power to boss Democratic lawmakers around, but he can set the agenda and promote it
with his huge and expertly wielded megaphone. If his presidency is deemed a success, his party
will reap the electoral benefits. Just as Mr Bush has recently dragged congressional Republicans
down, a popular President Obama would help Democrats maintain their majorities in 2010. So Mr
Reid and Ms Pelosi will be eager to speed his proposals—with which they mostly agree, anyway—
into law.
Speed will be of the essence. The economy is in dreadful shape. Wise folk concur that a swift and
powerful stimulus is required. The public are receptive: nearly two-thirds say the government
should spend more to revive the economy. Democrats are anxious not to let the crisis go to waste.
Some see a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reshape America. They liken the current times to the
Depression of the 1930s, in part because they want to enact a new New Deal. And they figure that
a big chunk of their wish-list can be whizzed through as part of a stimulus package. More money
for health care means more jobs for nurses. More money for green technology means more jobs
fixing solar panels on roofs. “The house is burning down, and the president of the United States
says this is the way to put out the fire,” said Bertrand Snell, a Republican congressman, urging his
colleagues to support Franklin Roosevelt. Seventy-five years later, plenty of Democrats hope that
Mr Obama will follow FDR in uniting the country, taming capitalism and bringing back happy days.
Not to be taken for granted
But will Congress really be so pliant? In the Senate, Republicans have just enough votes to mount
a filibuster and block bills. They are in a foul mood, not least because of a disputed vote recount in
Minnesota, where Democrats claimed victory this week. And they have ideological objections to the
Obama agenda. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, frets that he will hire
600,000 new civil servants while congressional Democrats waste a fortune on “things like Mob
museums and waterslides”. Fiscally conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats may rebel if the stimulus
grows too big. And public support may prove fragile. Though voters broadly support action to curb
greenhouse gases, provide universal health care and kick-start the economy, they may change
their minds if that leads to higher fuel bills or taxes.
Despite all this, the chances are that Mr Obama will enjoy a lengthy honeymoon. For one thing, he
shows every sign of handling Congress deftly. Both he and his vice-president are former senators,
as are his proposed secretaries of health (Tom Daschle) and state (Hillary Clinton). His team is
packed with people who know how Capitol Hill works. Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, was the
fourth-ranking Democrat in the House. Philip Schiliro, his liaison to Congress, used to work for
Henry Waxman, who now heads the House committee that will draft energy bills. Mr Obama is also
shrewdly reaching out to Republicans, proposing that a large part of the stimulus should take the
form of tax cuts. As long as he is popular, he will get most of what he wants. And he could remain
popular for a while. Since the economic crisis conspicuously began under Mr Bush, Mr Obama can
plausibly blame him for everything that goes wrong and then take the credit for the recovery, when
it comes.
Questions
1. Explain the make-up of the Senate. What are its responsibilities? Explain why only 35 out of a
hundred seats in Senate were up for grabs in the Senate election. Which political party currently
holds the majority in the Senate?
2. Along with the senate, which other body makes up Congress? What are its responsibilities? How
often are they elected? Who currently holds the majority in this body?
3. What powers does the Senate have over the executive in America? What powers does the President
have over Congress?
4. The current economic crisis is compared to the Depression of the 1930s, in part because they want to
enact a new New Deal? What is the New Deal?*
5. What is a filibuster?*
6. Why was there a recount in Minnesota?
January 7, 2010
The Year the Senate Fell
By IRA SHAPIRO
Washington
ON Wednesday, Senator Chris Dodd announced his retirement after 30 years in the Senate. As a Senate
Democratic staffer in 1980, I remember Mr. Dodd’s election well — it was the only bright spot on the
night that changed the Senate drastically, and in ways we still feel today.
In the 1960s and ’70s, a great Senate had occupied a unique place in our country. It was the Senate that
broke the Southern filibuster to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964; became the arena for challenging,
and ultimately ending, the Vietnam War; called Richard Nixon to account; spearheaded new
environmental and consumer protections; and advanced equal treatment for women. In an era marked by
war, assassinations and political scandal, the Senate provided continuity, gravitas and leadership.
The Senate’s fall was as swift as it was surprising. In 1977, the Senate greeted a new president, Jimmy
Carter, with a new leadership team of its own, Robert Byrd as majority leader and Howard Baker as
minority leader. Several iconic members — Sam Ervin, J. William Fulbright, Mike Mansfield, Philip
Hart — were gone. But the core of the great Senate, the liberal Democrats elected in 1958 and 1962, and
the moderate-to-progressive Republicans who had forged so many bipartisan alliances, was still intact.
The Russell and Dirksen Senate Office Buildings were filled with young, talented, ambitious staff
members like Madeleine Albright, Tim Russert, Susan Collins and Tom Daschle. And after battling the
imperial presidencies of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, the Senate was armed with new legislative
tools, including the War Powers Act, the Budget Control Act and the Freedom of Information Act.
There was every reason to think that the Senate would continue with a solid Democratic majority,
operate in a bipartisan fashion, and have a powerful, positive influence in the country. But the assertive
Senate Democrats and the new, outsider president clashed from the start. Republicans formed strong
alliances with an energized business community and surging social conservatives. Jesse Helms, finishing
his first term, and Orrin Hatch, newly elected, mastered and exploited the Senate rules; liberal senators
retaliated in kind. The filibuster, previously a weapon of last resort, became increasingly commonplace.
Still, thanks to statesmanship and bipartisan traditions, the 95th Congress compiled a respectable record,
including passage of a far-ranging energy program, the Civil Service Reform Act and financial relief for
New York City.
America’s politics, however, had already started moving to the right, spurred by anger over the Panama
Canal treaty and a tax revolt that started in California and swept across the country. In the 1978 election,
conservatives helped oust several Democratic senators and purged Republican liberals: defeating
Clifford Case in a primary; standing by while Ed Brooke, the only African-American senator, lost; and
causing Charles Percy, who won re-election only after pledging that he had “gotten the message,” to turn
hard to the right.
Nixon’s 49-state sweep in 1972 had not diminished the Democratic majority. But by 1980, with
America facing an economy in tailspin and the hostage crisis in Iran, the conservative tide was running
too strong, and the veteran liberal senators had plainly lost a step.
Frank Church, who had overseen the Senate investigation into intelligence abuses, turned hawkish in a
desperate effort to revive his sagging political fortunes. George McGovern, who had provided singular
leadership in opposing the Vietnam War and fighting hunger, slumped badly in his re-election bid. Jacob
Javits, the most liberal Republican and perhaps the greatest legislator of his era, unwisely sought one
more term despite failing health.
Before joining Thomas Eagleton’s staff, I had worked for Gaylord Nelson, the great Wisconsin
environmentalist who was now campaigning unconvincingly as a champion of small business. One
afternoon, I found Eagleton scribbling furiously on a pad, talking on the phone, smoking constantly.
“We’ve got to help Gaylord,” Eagleton boomed. “He just did a three-day California fund-raising trip.”
Nelson hated fund-raising. “That sounds like a good thing,” I ventured.
“He actually came out behind,” Eagleton told me. “The trip cost more than he raised.”
On election night, my wife, Nancy, and I got into the car to go to the first of several parties. It was just
after 8 p.m.; the radio told us that Birch Bayh had been defeated by Dan Quayle.
“They’re all going down,” I said. Nancy knew I meant the veteran Senate liberals.
That night, they were all defeated as Ronald Reagan won a crushing victory over Jimmy Carter.
Additionally, Abraham Ribicoff, one of the liberal stalwarts, had retired, as had Adlai Stevenson, while
Ed Muskie had left the Senate in May to become secretary of state. It was the greatest exodus of talent
and experience in Senate history. The incoming Republican class had a few promising politicians, but it
also included many who came with no visible accomplishments, and left, one term later, with that record
intact.
In the weeks that followed, we Democrats were virtual zombies, numb with grief and shock. It didn’t
help that the Republicans celebrated boisterously and endlessly. At the end of one long day, the elevator
opened in front of me, and a group of happy Republicans, dressed in formal wear, poured out. I noticed
a heavily made-up but still strikingly attractive woman: Senator John Warner’s wife, better known as
Elizabeth Taylor.
The 1980 election was more than just a change of party control from Democratic to Republican. Gone
was the Senate that had been experienced, progressive and bipartisan; 30 years have passed, and the
decline has only accelerated. The Senate today is bitterly divided, frequently paralyzed and borderline
bizarre. Olympia Snowe offered this sad observation: “We have been miniaturized.”
Can the Senate renew itself? In late 1963, the Senate was also in crisis, to the point that Mike Mansfield,
the majority leader, prepared to offer his resignation as majority leader. But one towering achievement,
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, transformed the legislative body and began the period of great
accomplishment that lasted until 1980. Against the odds, let us hope that the Senate’s recent passage of
landmark health care legislation can have the same effect.
Ira Shapiro, a lawyer and former Clinton administration official, is working on a book about the Senate
in the ’60s and ’70s.
QUESTIONS FOR THE YEAR THE SENATE FELL
1. According to the article, the 1960's and 70's were a glorious time for the Senate. What are the reasons
stated?
2. Research one of the Acts and one of the important people mentioned in the article. (suggestion: 1
member of each study group research a different act and person)
3. According to the author, what factors lead to the Congress moving to the far right?
4. When was the turning point where the Senate fell? What are the author's opinions about this?
Suing Arizona and bashing the Republicans will not solve America's
immigration problem
Jul 8th 2010 The Economist
HOW often should you give a politician the benefit of the doubt—take what he says at face value, trust in the
sincerity of his motives, make allowances for the baffling complexities of his predicament? Never, says the jaded
half of Lexington’s brain. Sometimes, answers the half that still likes words such as hope and change and has a
soft spot for Barack Obama. The president brings out this reaction in a lot of people. Polls show that even among
voters who loathe his policies a great many continue to admire the qualities of the man himself.
When it comes to the politics of immigration, however, it is getting harder to give Mr Obama the benefit of the
doubt. On July 1st he made a big speech on how to reform America’s broken immigration system. He laid out the
problem at hand with his customary clarity. Thanks to decades of porous borders, some 11m illegal immigrants
live in the United States. America cannot give them a blanket amnesty because that would encourage a further
surge of illegal immigration. But since they are now woven into the fabric of the nation and its economy, nor can
they all be slung out. So what they need is a pathway to legal status: they should register, admit that they broke
the law, pay a fine, and taxes, and learn English. “They must get right with the law before they can get in line and
earn their citizenship,” said the president.
The only decent solution
This is surely right. America cannot kick out all its illegal immigrants without undertaking one of the biggest
forced migrations in history. America could not do such a thing and still be true to itself. Illegal immigrants from
Mexico have picked America’s fruit, shined America’s shoes and sweated in America’s workshops; many of their
children have grown up to become Americans themselves. That is why Mr Obama’s plan is both the only practical
and decent plan and, in essence, the same one the Republican administration of George Bush pushed for.
Good speech. Good plan. So why the cynicism? Because making a speech, and having a plan, are not the same as
doing something. And Mr Obama does not intend to do anything right now. He is not proposing a particular piece
of legislation. At most, his speech is a promissory note, a reminder to America’s Hispanic voters that they can at
some point count on the Democrats to do the right thing. Hispanics voted in droves for Mr Obama in 2008 but
their ardour has cooled: the proportion approving of his performance fell from 69% in January to 57% in May,
says Gallup.
Hence, concludes the jaded half of Lexington, Mr Obama is merely pandering to an important segment of his
political base. And this comes soon after a cynical manoeuvre by Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, who in
April contrived to give the misleading impression that Congress intended to enact immigration reform before the
end of this year. That did not damage Mr Reid’s prospects in Nevada, where he faces a desperate battle in
November and 25% of the population is Hispanic. But it did damage the Democrats’ relations with Senator
Lindsey Graham, part of the small band of Republicans in the Senate who are still true believers in comprehensive
immigration reform.
Mr Obama’s defenders argue that the president cannot match words with deeds at present. As he said in his
speech, no law will pass without some Republican support: “That is the political and mathematical reality.” And
the Republicans in their present obstructive mood show little appetite for this cause. Even a potential partner such
as John McCain, who with the late Ted Kennedy was the brains of the reform efforts of Mr Bush’s second term,
has bent with the nativist winds as he fights for re-election in Arizona, one of many states in which a moral panic
against illegal immigration has taken hold. No Republican votes, no reform bill: you cannot blame Mr Obama for
that, can you?
Perhaps you can. Mr Obama is president; he chooses his own priorities. Had he not promoted health care above
immigration, a comprehensive reform might have been put before Congress before the mid-terms made it toxic.
But the bigger point is that if he cannot move on what he calls this “moral imperative” this year he must do so in
2011, before the presidential election of the following year casts an equally chilling shadow. That means he
should be bending every sinew to preserve relations with the small band of senior Republicans who support the
cause and whose co-operation will be no less essential in 2011.
Instead, Mr Obama in his speech and Mr Reid in his stratagem seem to have gone out of their way to inject
immigration into the mid-terms and place exclusive blame on the Republicans—even though many Democrats in
Congress are no less obstructive. And nothing could be better calculated to alienate potential Republican partners
than this week’s move by the Department of Justice to invoke the supremacy clause of the constitution to strike
down the new law in Arizona that gives the police wider powers to identify illegals. Arizona’s law is an
abomination, says Tamar Jacoby, president of a pro-reform lobby, ImmigrationWorks, but suing Arizona will
baffle and anger the 60% of Americans who say they support it. Only the federal government can fix what is
wrong with immigration, she says—but not with a lawsuit.
Senator Graham, Senator McCain and John Kyl, Arizona’s junior senator, could form the nucleus of Republican
support for a bipartisan reform of immigration next year. In theory, both parties will have an interest in cooperating. Mr Obama needs to redeem his promise to Hispanic voters and Republicans need to restore their
standing with a constituency whose power to swing elections grows with every passing year. But Mr Obama has
put the noses of those who should be key allies out of joint. The instinct to give him the benefit of the doubt may
be understandable. But on this occasion, no need to give the man a break.
Questions:
1. What are the immigration problems as outlined in the article? Why can’t America just kick-out
the illegals?
2. Research the new Arizona immigration law? Is this the only state looking at reform?*
3. Why, according to the article, is it important to have Republican support on the immigration bill?
4. (Discuss the tone of this article) What reasons does the author give for his tone? What is the bias
detected? Where did Obama go wrong?
The Democrats may not merely lose the House in November, but the
Senate too. How did it go so wrong?
Jul 22nd 2010 The Economist
SOMETIMES in politics stating the obvious can get you into trouble. So it was a fortnight ago when Robert
Gibbs, Barack Obama’s spokesman, admitted on a talk show that the Democrats might lose their majority in the
House of Representatives in the mid-term elections. This earned him a scolding from House Democrats, many of
whom already resent Mr Obama for forcing them to vote for unpopular bills and, as they see it, failing to
campaign effectively enough to save their jobs in November. It is therefore safe to bet that Mr Gibbs will not be
giving public voice to a new fear now spreading through Democratic hearts, namely that it is not just the lower
chamber that is vulnerable in November. The Senate may be “in play” as well.
Only 37 of the Senate’s 100 seats will be up in November. The Democrats are defending a majority of 59 to 41
(though their majority includes two independents), which means that the Republicans need a net gain of ten seats
to win control. Until recently this feat was thought to be beyond their reach, and many pollsters continue to think
so. RealClearPolitics, a website that publishes an average of multiple polls, is projecting a Republican gain of
only six. To gain ten, as the Wall Street Journal argued recently, the Republicans would have to win virtually
every competitive seat without losing any of their own.
That is a very tall order. And yet Bill Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, thinks that this could
be another of those election years, such as 1980, 1986 and 2006, when most of the close races tip in the same
direction and produce a shift of control. It is certainly the case that many once-safe Democratic seats, such as
Wisconsin and Washington, are looking vulnerable. The Cook Political Report now judges it possible for the
Republicans’ Carly Fiorina, the deep-pocketed former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, to defeat the sitting
Democrat, Barbara Boxer, in California. As well as winning the House and Senate, says Mr Galston, the
Republicans could hit the trifecta, capturing Mr Obama’s former seat in Illinois, Vice-President Joe Biden’s in
Delaware and, in Nevada, unseating Harry Reid, the majority leader.
Since his chastisement Mr Gibbs has insisted stoutly that he expects the Democrats to hold on to both chambers.
With more than three months to polling day, there may still be time for the president’s party to confound the
doomsayers. But the panic in the party is palpable—along with a mounting sense of injustice.
Its Democratic masters say that the 111th Congress has been bold, busy and effective. Since starting work in the
middle of an economic crisis it has authorised $1 trillion or so of stimulus spending, steered GM and Chrysler out
of bankruptcy, pushed through health-care reform and overhauled financial regulation. True, unemployment
remains stuck above 9%, but haven’t the Democrats just shown their superior compassion by overcoming hardhearted Republican objections to extending benefits for the jobless? Don’t they have one of the coolest and most
articulate of presidents? Why, only yesterday (or so it seems; it was in fact 17 months ago) nearly seven out of ten
Americans approved of how Mr Obama did his job. So what have the Democrats done to deserve humiliation in
November?
No answer to this question is painless to Democrats. Many explanations blame the fall from grace squarely on
their own decisions. Was it a mistake to work so hard on a divisive health bill instead of the economy and,
especially, job creation? Did they underestimate how bitter the average Joe would feel at the spectacle of the
government bailing out the undeserving banks, and carmakers, and feckless homebuyers who had spent beyond
their means? Has Mr Obama positioned himself too far to the left? Could he have done a better job of giving his
administration a sense of direction and his countrymen a sense of hope?
What they did, and what they couldn’t do
The one explanation that comes nearest to relieving the Democrats of blame is that they were hoist on George
Bush’s petard. The economy drives election results; Mr Bush wrecked the economy; the Democrats succeeded in
staving off a depression; but voters will blame them anyway for the recession they could not avert. Not even this
theory lets them off the hook altogether, mind: the pugnacious Paul Krugman, fortified by his Nobel prize for
economics, has been arguing in the New York Times that Mr Obama’s original sin was his failure to enact a
stimulus that matched the scale of the crisis he inherited.
To put the blame entirely on the economy may seem crudely deterministic. But consider the findings of a recent
Pew survey on how this recession has changed America 30 months after it started. More than half of all workers
have experienced a spell of unemployment, taken a cut in pay or hours or been forced to go part-time. The typical
unemployed worker has been jobless for nearly six months. Collapsing share and house prices have destroyed a
fifth of the wealth of the average household. Nearly six in ten Americans have cancelled or cut back on holidays.
About a fifth say their mortgages are underwater. One in four of those between 18 and 29 have moved back in
with parents. Fewer than half of all adults expect their children to have a higher standard of living than theirs, and
more than a quarter say it will be lower.
Another way to put this is that for many Americans the great recession has been the sharpest trauma since the
second world war, wiping out jobs, wealth and hope itself. That is why fewer than half now think that Mr Obama
is doing a good job. He and his party will need to present an astonishingly good argument to talk the electorate
out of doing what will come naturally in a mid-term: casting a protest vote against the party in power. They have
not yet provided one that is sufficiently persuasive.
Questions:
1. According to the author, the Democratic Party is in a panic, why? Why does he claim it is unjustified?
2. What does he claim is to blame for Obama’s fall from grace?
3. Compare the tone of this article to the one before it. Is there bias in this article?
Following Souter
May 7th 2009 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition
Barack Obama has a chance to rejuvenate the Supreme Court’s liberal wing
AP
DAVID SOUTER (second from right, above) is a singular character. Though wealthy, he lives the life
of Diogenes. He lunches frugally at his desk, typically on yogurt and an apple, which he eats to the
core. He seldom goes out. He has no time for modern distractions such as television. But most
unusually of all, despite having life tenure as a judge on the Supreme Court, he is planning to
retire at the tender age of 69.
He loves judging but hates Washington, DC. He calls it the worst city in the world, though he has
barely travelled. He yearns to return to his home in a tiny hamlet in New Hampshire, a dilapidated
wooden farmhouse where he lives alone. His announcement, on May 1st, sent ripples of excitement
through the city he despises. President Barack Obama now has a chance to pep up the court’s
liberal wing with a youthful replacement.
The Supreme Court matters. Its nine members decide what the constitution means. When there is
doubt as to whether a law, a president or the actions of a local police department are lawful, the
nine get the final say. Their decisions cannot be overruled, except by a future Supreme Court or a
constitutional amendment. And they are appointed for life.
Small wonder that confirmation hearings for nominees are ferocious. One jurist with superb
qualifications was scuppered when it was revealed that, at the age of 12, he had described the film
“To Kill a Mockingbird” as “kind of boring”. Obviously a racist, concluded the Senate. Another
candidate had once offered to marry his girlfriend if she was pregnant. This proved he was
“maniacally” opposed to abortion, said the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, a windbag
who “had uttered his first full sentence at the age of 14 months and hadn’t stopped since.”
These, as it happens, are scenes from “Supreme Courtship”, an amusing novel by Christopher
Buckley. But reality is not so far removed from satire. When Robert Bork, a learned conservative
judge, was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987, Ted Kennedy called him a “Neanderthal” who
would bring back segregated lunch counters and slam the courthouse doors “on the fingers of
millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of…individual rights.” Mr Bork
was not confirmed. Clarence Thomas, a black conservative, was narrowly confirmed in 1991, but
only after enduring what he called a “high-tech lynching” over allegations that he sexually harassed
a colleague.
Mr Souter, who was picked by President George Bush senior in 1990, escaped with only a light
hazing, largely because he was so little known. At the time of his nomination he had been an
appeals court judge for only two months. Mr Bush figured that Senate Democrats would be unable
to attack his record because there was no record to attack.
This brilliant plan backfired. Mr Bush had been assured that Mr Souter was a staunch conservative;
he proved to be anything but. Pro-lifers who expected him to help overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973
Supreme Court decision that established a right to abortion, were disappointed. He had a chance to
scrap it in 1992. Instead, he reaffirmed it. The same year, he joined a 5-4 majority upholding the
ban on prayer in public schools. And in 2000, in Bush v Gore, he voted against automatically
awarding the presidency to the son of the man who nominated him. As some readers will recall, he
lost that one. He is said to have considered resigning.
In 2005 Mr Souter sparked another controversy by voting to allow the government to seize
people’s homes and hand the land to private developers. The constitution allows the expropriation
of private property for “public use”, such as building a road. In Kelo v New London, a town in
Connecticut wanted to evict some homeowners and replace them with wealthier people and
businesses who might pay higher taxes. Mr Souter and four other justices thought that was just
fine. Outraged property-rights sticklers proposed to have Mr Souter’s home bulldozed and replaced
with a hotel. They failed, of course, but most states have since passed laws curbing the power of
local governments to grab land on behalf of private corporations.
In the past year, in cases that were not decided unanimously, Mr Souter has voted 86% of the
time with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court’s liberal lioness. He agreed with Samuel Alito, a
young conservative, only 14% of the time. Republicans rate him one of the elder President Bush’s
biggest mistakes. Democrats, having been pleasantly surprised, hope that Mr Obama does not
hand them the other sort of surprise with his replacement.
That seems unlikely. With at least 59 Democrats in the 100-seat Senate, Mr Obama can be fairly
sure that his choice will be confirmed. The question is: what sort of judge would he like? The
answer is unclear. Although Mr Obama has taught constitutional law and edited the Harvard Law
Review, his opinions on constitutional matters are hard to pin down.
When campaigning for the Democratic nomination, he told liberals what they wanted to hear.
Addressing a Planned Parenthood conference in 2007, he said: “[W]e need somebody who’s got the
heart, the empathy, to recognise what it’s like to be a young teenage mom [or] poor or AfricanAmerican or gay or disabled or old. And that’s the [criterion] by which I’ll be selecting my judges.”
For conservatives, this was alarming. Justice is supposed to be blind, not empathetic. As
conservatives see it, liberal judges have repeatedly subverted the rule of law in recent decades by
overruling elected lawmakers with scant constitutional justification. Roe v Wade, which relies on a
constitutional right to privacy that is nowhere written in the constitution, is the most controversial
example.
But as president Mr Obama has sent out mixed signals. On the one hand, he says he wants
“someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a
casebook. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives.” That sounds like
a prescription for judicial activism. But Mr Obama also says he wants “somebody who is dedicated
to the rule of law, who honours our constitutional traditions… and the appropriate limits of the
judicial role”. That is exactly what conservatives say they want.
So no one knows what to expect. Many Democrats want him to choose a Hispanic woman, since
the court currently has no Hispanics and only one woman. Speculation swirls around Sonia
Sotomayor, an appeals court judge who grew up in poverty in the South Bronx after her father, a
manual labourer from Puerto Rico, died when she was nine.
It could be no more than speculation, however. Unkind critics question Ms Sotomayor’s intellect.
And she upset many with her ruling in Ricci v DeStefano, a case now before the Supreme Court. A
group of white firefighters sued for racial discrimination when they were denied promotions. They
had passed an aptitude test, but because none of their black colleagues passed, the city decided to
promote no one. Ms Sotomayor sided with the city.
The conventional wisdom about Mr Souter’s retirement is that an ageing liberal will simply be
replaced by a younger one. On the most angrily debated issues, such as abortion, that may be
true. And the court may soon be forced to rule on some aspect of gay marriage, although the
states seem for now to be liberalising apace without direction from above. But Mr Souter does not
entirely fit the liberal stereotype. For example, he complains about the “stark unpredictability” of
the punitive damages that lawyers often urge juries to impose. Last year he wrote the majority
opinion striking down a $2.5 billion award against Exxon for an oil spill in Alaska.
The next court could hear plenty of commercial cases, not least because the recession has spurred
the federal government to involve itself more in private business. Mr Obama is propping up banks,
managing car firms, re-writing mortgage contracts and chasing white-collar criminals. All these
ventures raise legal questions. Mr Obama will want an ally on the Supreme Court; but as Mr
Souter’s career attests, unsackable judges make unpredictable allies.
Questions
1. Why are nominees for Supreme Court Justices so ferocious? What is the procedure a nominee must
go through to actually sit on the Supreme Court?* See course book
2. Why was David Souter picked by President Bush to sit on the Supreme Court? How has his choice
proven to be an unwelcome surprise? Give examples.
3. What is the Roe vs. Wade case all about?* Why is it so controversial?
4. Who has now replaced Souter? Was it an easy confirmation process or was there controversy
surrounding the proceedings? Has this person set a new precedent for the Supreme Court?*
5. Since this article, yet another Supreme Court justice has been appointed. How does this person affect
the political and demographic balance of the court? *
General Task Look up the man who is running against Obama in this election and the person running
for Vice President as well. What do they stand for? Are they uniform in their beliefs on all of the
issues? How do they differ from Obama? Find at least two sources of information. Share this info with
your study groups.