Dr. Tabakian’s Political Science 1 US Government – Summer 2014

Power Point # 14

COURSE LECTURE TOPICS • American Federalism • Powers Flow To The National Elite • Five Patterns Of Federalism • Redefining Federalism Patterns • California Political History • Pressure Groups In The Golden State • Protecting Interests From Sacramento • Citizen Use Of Media For Manipulation • Progressive Movements • Civil Rights Movement

POLITICAL MESSAGE

Comedy serves as the best medium for promoting a message. Is this the case with this cartoon? If this is the case then can you identify the message?

SECOND TERM

AMERICAN FEDERALISM

AMERICAN FEDERALISM: STATES AND COMMUNITIES

American federalism involves the distribution of power between the national government and the state governments. • Constitution originally defined federalism in terms of powers

government exercised. • Powers are delegated to the national government. • There is national supremacy. • Powers are reserved to the states. • Powers are denied to both government levels. • States have a role in national government composition.

FLOW OF POWER

Powers flowed to the national elite. 1. Necessary and proper or implied powers gave Congress

numerous responsibilities. 2. Commerce power of Congress was broadly defined. 3. Power went to the national government through grants of

money to states.

American federalism evolved into different arrangements of government power and different state structures. 1. There have been five patterns of federalism. 2. Congress and the Supreme Court have redefined the federalism patterns. 3. There have been four patterns of elite structures in the states. 4. Old community economic elites have been replaced by new community political elites.

The Constitution divides power between two separate authorities, the nation and the states, each of which can directly enforce its own laws on individuals through its own courts. There are more than 86,000 separate governments in the US, of which more than 60,000 have the power to levy taxes. The Constitution endows states with all governmental powers not vested specifically in the national government or reserved to the people. All other governmental jurisdictions are subdivisions of states. States may create, alter, or abolish these other units of government by amending state laws or constitutions.

FEDERALISM DIVISION OF POWER – 1

American federalism does not allow the central government the constitutional authority to determine, alter, or abolish the power of the states. The American system shares authority and power constitutionally and practically. The Constitution defined federalism in terms of delegated powers (powers exercised by the national government) and the national supremacy clause, the powers reserved to the states, powers denied by the Constitution to both levels of government, and provisions giving the states a role in the composition of the national government.

FEDERALISM DIVISION OF POWER – 2

POWERS TO CONGRESS The Constitution lists eighteen grants of power to Congress, the last of which is the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers” of the federal government. This is the “necessary and proper” clause. When coupled with the assertion of “national supremacy” in Article VI, these ensure a powerful national government.

RESERVED POWERS The states retained considerable governing power. The Tenth Amendment states that “the powers not delegated to the United States . . . are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The states generally retain control over property and contract law, criminal and family law, education, and social-welfare activities. The states control the organization and powers of their own local governments. Finally, the states, like the federal government, retain the power to tax and spend.

POWERS DENIED The Constitution denies some powers to both national and state government, namely, the powers to abridge individual rights. The first eight amendments apply to the national government, and since the Fourteenth Amendment 1866, provided that the states must also adhere to fundamental guarantees of individual liberty. The Constitution denies the states some powers to promote national unity: to coin money, to make treaties with foreign nations, to interfere with the “obligations of contracts,” to levy taxes on imports and exports, and to engage in war, among others.

THE STATE’S ROLE The states are the basic units in the organizational scheme of the national government. The House of Representatives apportions members to the states by population, and state legislatures draw up their districts. Each state elects two U.S. senators, regardless of its population. The president is chosen by the electoral votes of the states. Finally, three-fourths of the states must ratify amendments to the Constitution.

POWER FLOWS TO THE ELITE Governmental power has centralized in Washington. This has come from the broad interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause to obscure the notion of “delegated powers” and allow the national government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, the victory of the national government in the Civil War, demonstrating that states could not successfully resist federal power by force of arms, the establishment of a national system of civil rights based on the Fourteenth Amendment, the growth of federal power under the interstate commerce clause as a national industrial economy emerged, and the growth of federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments as a major source of revenues for these governments and a major source of federal intervention into state and local affairs.

DUAL FEDERALISM The pattern of federal-state relations during the nation’s first hundred years has been described as dual federalism. The states and the nation divided most governmental functions. The national government concentrated its attention on the delegated powers while the states decided the important domestic policy issues. This separation of policy responsibilities is like a layer cake, with local governments at the base, state governments in the middle, and the national government at the top.

COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM The development of a national economy, the income tax, two world wars and the Great Depression all combined to end the strict distinction between national and state concerns. The new pattern of federal–state relations was labeled cooperative federalism. Both the nation and the states exercised responsibilities for welfare, health, highways, education, and criminal justice. This merging of policy responsibilities is compared to a marble cake. Congress generally acknowledged that it had no direct constitutional authority to regulate public health, safety, or welfare. Congress relied primarily on its powers to tax and spend for the general welfare in providing financial assistance to state and local governments to achieve shared goals. Congress did not usually legislate directly on local matters.

CENTRALIZED FEDERALISM It became increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that the national government was merely assisting the states in performing their domestic responsibility. By the time of Johnson and the Great Society in 1964, the federal government clearly set forth national goals. Virtually all problems confronting America were declared to be national problems. Congress legislated directly on any matter it chose. The Supreme Court no longer concerned itself with the reserved powers of the states; the Tenth Amendment lost most of its meaning. The pattern of federal–state relations became known as centralized federalism.

NEW FEDERALISM The term new federalism refers to efforts to return power and responsibility to states and communities. Nixon first used the term in the 1970s to describe his general-revenue-sharing proposal with the direct allocation of federal tax revenues to state and local governments to use for general purposes with no strings attached. Later, the term referred to a series of proposals by Reagan to reduce state and local dependency on federal revenues and return powers to states and communities through the consolidation of categorical grants into block grants. These block grants provide greater flexibility in the use of federal funds and allow state and local officials to exercise more power over programs within their jurisdictions. These efforts succeeded for a time in slowing the growth of federal grant money to the states and in reducing state and local reliance on federal funds.

REPRESENTATIONAL FEDERALISM

Despite the attempts at the new federalism, the flow of power toward federal government continued. The Supreme Court ended all pretense of constitutional protection of state power in its 1985 Garcia decision. Before this case it was generally believed that the states were constitutionally protected from direct congressional coercion in matters traditionally “reserved” to the states. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law requiring state and local governments to obey federal wage and hour rules. The Court declared that there were no constitutionally protected state powers and that the only protection given the states is in congressional and presidential elections. This weakened view of American federalism has been labeled representational federalism.

COERCIVE FEDERALISM Federal mandates are direct orders to state and local governments to perform a particular activity or service to comply with federal laws and performance of their functions. Federal mandates occur in a wide variety of areas, for example the Age Discrimination Act (1986), the Safe Drinking Water Act (1986), the Clean Air Act (1990), the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), the National Voter Registration Act (1993 and the No Child Left Behind Act (2001). Many of these mandates impose heavy costs on state and local governments. When no federal monies are provided to cover these costs, the mandates are said to be unfunded mandates.

ELITES RESPONDING TO MASS PROTEST

Protest movements and organizations are used to achieve civil rights and feminist goals. 1. Slavery and segregation were ended by protest against them. 2. Women rights were granted by protest against their denial.

Equality of opportunity and equality of results are goals used to petition the government. 1. The Supreme Court said segregation was unconstitutional in Brown v. Topeka (1954). 2. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 3. Presidents ordered, Congress passed, and the Supreme Court supported affirmative action programs. 4. Congress passed the Civil Rights and Women’s Equity of 1991

BARRIERS

Barriers to equality of opportunity and equality of results persist. • There are mass opinions against affirmative action. • The Supreme Court is indecisive about affirmative action. • A dual labor market and earnings gaps hurt women and

African Americans. • A glass ceiling prevents women from achieving many elite

positions.

PRESIDENTIAL USE OF FORCE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL INTEGRATION

Each branch of the federal government may “check” the other. The Executive Branch, or the President, may choose to “check” the Judicial Branch by refusing to use force in order to enforce a judicial ruling by the Supreme Court. The 1954 Brown decision was made meaningful when President Dwight D. Eisenhower decided to use military force in 1957 to secure the enforcement of a federal court order to desegregate Little Rock’s Central High School.

PRESIDENTIAL USE OF FORCE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL INTEGRATION

GOVERNOR WALLACE RESISTING Governor George Wallace of Alabama is best known for a line used in his inaugural speech given on January 14, 1963, “In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” To stop desegregation by the enrollment of black students, he stood in from of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama on June 11, 1963. He only stood aside after being confronted by federal marshals, Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, and the Alabama National Guard. Enjoy this example of presidential use of force.

GOVERNOR WALLACE RESISTING

HOW ELITES MAKE DECISIONS

Public Policy Making is the Power Domain of the Elite. • There is an elite preference in the policy process. • Elites achieve policy goals through foundations, policy-planning

organizations, the media, and other elites in government. • Agenda setting is the result of decisions and non decisions by

the same institutional structures. Republicanism and Federalism are Elite Protection Against Mass Threats to the Status Quo. • Early elites like James Madison recommended a republican

and federal government to regulate agenda setting. • Today elites use the republican, federal government to realize

their preferences in the policy process.

What was to be a peaceful march for Civil Rights instead became a bloody clash in 1965 in Selma, Alabama. A voter registration protest resulted in a violent clash with police at the Edmund Pettus bridge. Known thereafter as “Bloody Sunday” this confrontation helped to foster national attention and passage of the Voting Rights Act .

PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENTS – 1

SELMA

PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENTS – 2 This is the famous march on Washington DC where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made his famous “I Have A Dream” speech. Many of you have watched just the speech in past classes or at home. What makes this video interesting is that it is not clipped. This was shown to the nation in its entirety. Enjoy the video.

MARCH ON DC

PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENTS – 3 Producer Richard D. Heffner of the NBC Sunday television program "The Open Mind" interviews King and former federal Judge J. Waties Waring, who wrote the sole dissenting decision against school segregation in Briggs v. Elliott. NAACP youth secretary Herbert Wright helped enlist King for this NBC Negro History Week program on "The New Negro." Heffner's first question followed a brief introduction of his two guests.

THE OPEN MIND

HOW THE MASSES PERCEIVE THE PARTIES

Activists are most likely to participate in campaign activities. These are the most partisan among typical voters. Two of the most common activities aside from voting is donating personal labor and financial resources. Political pandering refers to how parties cater to their core base of activists. Those found in the Republican Party tend to be more conservative than the average Republican voter. Democratic activists on the other hand tend to be more liberal than the average Democratic voter.

HOW THE MASSES VIEW THE PARTIES

Let us now see how Hollywood views the parties from the perspective of the average Joe or Jane. Our example comes from the movie “Bulworth” starring Warren Beatty. Two scenes are shown to demonstrate pandering as seen from the perspective of Hollywood. What are your thoughts after watching these clips? Do they coincide with your personal belief systems in any way?

Hollywood + Religion Race Based Politics

BULLWORTH – RELIGION

BULLWORTH – HOLLYWOOD

OBAMA & APPLE Constituents have witnessed influential campaign advertisements that are authored by the average person. The clip on the left was created from an Obama supporter with commonly available computer equipment who manipulated the famous 1984 Apple commercial that introduced the world to Macintosh.

OBAMA & APPLE

OBAMA & APPLE

CULTURAL CONFLICT - NEW COLD WAR?

• Tensions between civilizations are supplanting the political and ideological rivalries persistent during the Cold War.

• Samuel Huntington argue, "the values that are most important in the West are least important worldwide.”

• World politics will be directed in the future by conflicts that according to Kishore Mahbubani will be between "the West and the Rest".

• Samuel P. Huntington adds "...and the responses of non-Western civilizations to Western power and values.”

CONFLICT, VIOLENCE, AND WAR

1. Non-Western civilizations isolate themselves from the Western-dominated global community.

2. "Band-Wagoning" can lead non-Western countries to join with the West and accept its values and institutions.

3. Non-Western countries can attempt to "balance" the West by developing an alternative economic and military power and ally with one another to effective counter Western dominance.

CAUSES OF WAR

• Nationalism • Ethnicity • Religion • Culture • Natural Resources

“KIN-COUNTRY” SYNDROME

• States try to rally support from states that share a similar culture.

• Replaces political ideology and traditional balance of power as the principal basis for cooperation and coalitions.

REDEFINING CIVILIZATION IDENTITY

Samuel Huntington’s Three Requirements For Torn Countries To Redefine Its Civilization Identity:

• The Country’s economic and political elites have to enthusiastically endorse the transition.

• Its public has to endorse whatever new definition is adopted.

• Dominant groups in the recipient civilization have to embrace the convert.

WEST VS. THE REST

• Samuel P. Huntington stresses that civilization-consciousness is increasing and that global politics will be focused on "the West and the Rest".

• This applies to conflicts between the Western powers, especially the United States, against "others".

• The first conflict(s) will be between the West and several Islamic-Confucian states.

• Samuel Huntington made these arguments in the article “The Clash of Civilizations (1993)”.

AMERICAN MILITARY POWER

• The main reasons for the US to maintain such a high military expenditure are:

• US commitments on a global basis. US military forces must be able to project power to regions located thousands of miles away.

• US forces require high technology in order to defeat its enemies with limited casualties.

• US maintains a much more expensive all-volunteer force.

Human beings are the ultimate weapon. Biological weapon development is presented in this PBS Special “The Living Weapon. All slides from this point incorporate information from the PBS website dedicated to “The Living Weapon”: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/weapon/index.html. Chapter 1: (2:37) "Teaser" introduction for The Living Weapon on American Experience. Chapter 2: (3:15) In December 1942, the U.S. government holds a secret meeting at the National Academy of Sciences to discuss a biological warfare program.

BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS – ETHICS (1)

TEASER – THE LIVING WEAPON

SECRET MEETING – THE LIVING WEAPON

Chapter 3: (4:16) During the summer of 1942, the British conduct secret anthrax tests on the Scottish island of Gruinard.

Chapter 4: (5:11) American scientists begin secret biological warfare research at Camp Detrick in Maryland.

Chapter 5: (4:00) New weapons of mass destruction are deployed during World War II. Chapter 6: (10:32) Surprising news of German and Japanese biowarfare research emerge at the end of World War II.

BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS – ETHICS (2)

BRITISH SECRET – THE LIVING WEAPON

CAMP DETRICK – THE LIVING WEAPON

NEW WEAPONS – THE LIVING WEAPON

SUPRISE – THE LIVING WEAPON

Chapter 7: (5:59) The U.S. biological weapons program escalates during the Cold War.

Chapter 8: (10:05) In 1954, American scientists begin testing biological agents on human subjects. Chapter 9: (5:13) The U.S. biological weapons program comes under public scrutiny.

Chapter 10: (1:38) The United States ratifies international agreements leading to the end of the U.S. biological weapons program.

BIOLOGICAN WEAPONS – ETHICS (3)

ESCALATION – THE LIVING WEAPON

HUMAN SUBJECTS – THE LIVING WEAPON

SCRUTINY – THE LIVING WEAPON

RATIFICATION – THE LIVING WEAPON

Title Unknown (Botulism) (9:43) This experiment was conducted to determine whether primates would make suitable research subjects in a study of botulism. Researchers inject a monkey with botulisum toxin to determine if he will exhibit the same effects as human victims.

Operation Cover Up (9:04) This film questions how long military personnel would be able to remain in protective suits and gas masks in the event of an operation within a biological or chemical weapons area.

Incapacitation by Enterotoxin (5:40) The film shows the effect of enterotoxin, a form of food poisoning, when delivered as an aerosol spray to monkeys.

BIOLOGICAN WEAPONS – ETHICS (4)

BOTULISM – THE LIVING WEAPON

COVER UP – THE LIVING WEAPON

INCAPACITATION – THE LIVING WEAPON

• Foreign policies are the strategies governments use to guide their actions in the international arena. – Spell out the objectives state leaders

have decided to pursue in a given relationship or situation.

– Foreign policy process: How policies are arrived at and implemented.

MAKING FOREIGN POLICY (1)

• Range of views on foreign policy issues held by the citizens of a state.

• Has a greater influence on foreign policy in democracies than in authoritarian governments. – Legitimacy – Propaganda – Journalists as gatekeepers

PUBLIC INFLUENCES POLICY (1)

• In democracies, public opinion generally has less effect on foreign policy than on domestic policy. – Attentive public – Foreign policy elite – Rally ’round the flag syndrome – Diversionary foreign policy

PUBLIC INFLUENCES POLICY (2)

• Comparative foreign policy. – Study of foreign policy in various states

in order to discover whether similar types of societies or governments consistently have similar types of foreign policies.

• Foreign policy outcomes result from multiple forces at various levels of analysis.

MAKING FOREIGN POLICY (2)

• Conduit through which interest groups and public opinion can wield influence. – Presidential systems; separate elections.

• Legislatures play a direct role in making foreign policy.

• Different rules apply, however, to the use of military force.

– Rally ’round the flag. – May challenge the president if they have power

of the “purse”.

LEGISLATURES (1)

• Parliamentary systems; political parties are dominant

• Often parliamentary executives do not need to submit treaties or policies for formal approval by the legislature.

• Call elections; new executive • Legislatures play a key role in designing

and implementing foreign policy.

LEGISLATURES (2)