 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Non-fiction and essays |
|||||||||||||
| University essays |
|||||||||||||
| American Studies First Year |
|||||||||||||
| Introduction to American Politics 104 |
|||||||||||||
| How well does the written Constitution explain the American system of government? (AMST 104, Spring 2002) It can be inferred that the written Constitution of the United was created to provide a framework for the government of the nation. In the document, three primary branches are outlined; the legislative, the executive and the judiciary, with some detailing of their proposed powers and functions. There are also certain controls, which each branch can exert on the others known as the system of checks and balances. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison explains this idea: The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachment by others.# However, this idea of separate government institutions, responsible for a particular branch of the government with some sort of checks on the others is a simplified version. In reality, there are many facets of the governmental system the Constitution does not describe, so it is necessary to establish what it does, and does not mention. If we look at the Constitution itself we can see the primary separation of power in the first three articles. The first describes Congress: Art. 1 Sec. 1, All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Art.1 Sec.8, The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes…coin money…declare war…raise and support armies…# The Congress as depicted in the Constitution seems to be rather powerful and as it comprises the first article, one might infer that it was intended to be the most powerful. Indeed, according to Pritchett, writing in the 1970s: Congress has all the power it needs to deal with space-age problems. If it has not always done so, the fault lies with legislative organisation, not with lack of constitutional power.# This raises the question of why the constitutional power of the legislature could be threatened, and will be dealt with subsequently. One possible explanation is the expansion of the executive branch, the President and his administration. However, the Congress itself is very different to the one envisaged by the Constitution, so will warrant further examination. The Presidency was seen as a necessary addition to the government after the somewhat leaderless nature of the national government under the Articles of Confederation. The office was given powers including Commander-in-Chief, treaty making and other national and foreign policy-orientated powers. These powers, in addition to the veto power over legislation, are definitely still enacted by Presidents today, however, it does suggest a somewhat limited role. In today’s government, the role of the President is anything but limited, so again, it seems the Constitution is inadequate in describing the true nature of the office. In the Supreme Court, the Constitution vests the ‘judicial power of the United States’, and describes a body separate from the legislative and executive branches. This body would be responsible for ‘all cases, in law and equity’ that could arise under either the Constitution itself or the laws of the United States. However, Article III is much shorter than the previous two articles, so one might argue that the Founders did not want a particularly influential judiciary. It certainly makes no mention that they should be the ultimate authority on constitutional interpretation, as they gradually became. Therefore, in this area it seems the Constitution is insufficient in describing the actual nature of the governmental system. It seems appropriate then to examine the areas that are present in the workings of government, but which are not described in the Constitution itself. There are organisations and structures that today have great political influence within the US government but which are not mentioned in the Constitution. The first of these is the cabinet, which forms part of the extended executive branch. The cabinet is a discretionary device, consisting of executive department heads and individuals appointed by the president. Every president has had a cabinet to support them, yet their presence is not required by the Constitution.# Congress also contains structures not provided for, but which today seem essential to the workings of government, such as congressional committees. These committees are involved in the so-called ‘log rolling’ process (political favours and bargaining), and engage in day to day working of legislation. There are further specialised groups in congressional sub-committees, and it is in these groups that a great deal of Congress’ workload is carried out. Their creation, as well as that of the cabinet, was a result of political necessity: The development of committees of Congress, the rise of the Cabinet… these and many other customs and usages were evolutionary adjustments to the constitutional system to practical problems with which it was confronted.# What this shows, and is often repeated, is that the Constitution laid the basic framework for the construction of government, leaving the actual details to be filled in, as and when solutions were needed. Other entities that were not provided for, but developed into influential parts of the governmental system are political parties and interest groups. Parties, under various guises and names have been a part of the political system since the early nineteenth century, and emerged as the ‘major agents of political mobilisation’.# In this manner they were formed of people with similar political ideas and allowed the effective use of power through common aims, but more usually through co-operation. Whether the parties are as relevant today as they once were, does not diminish the fact that they have been a major part of the political sphere, and the words ‘Democrat’ and ‘Republican’ still carry meaning. Interest groups could be seen as an evolution of parties. Usually campaigning for a specific law, or for certain policies, the interest groups now hold considerable influence in the governmental system: A dense jungle of interest groups and sophisticated networks of professional lobbyists have entwined themselves around these other extra-constitutional bodies as well as the constitutional offices themselves.# Therefore in the system of government today, one can see the existence of many of these ‘extra- constitutional’ bodies, which have become practically indispensable in the workings of the government. Additionally, the branches of government themselves have evolved and adapted to fulfil different needs, usually through the ambiguity of the document itself. Probably the most significant example of a constitutional ambiguity, is in the phrase ‘the executive power’. While there are several powers that the president should have, it makes little mention of the powers he should not have. It is evident that the power of the presidency has increased since its initial inception. One area where this has been shown in the twentieth century, and up to the present is in war: For example, the president’s power as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. While this allows them to conduct war, it confers no power to declare war. That is specifically given to Congress.# When American troops were committed to Afghanistan, as they were to Vietnam, no declaration of war was made, and the argument could be put forth that the president was fighting the wars, with or without the consent of the legislature. The War Powers Act, 1973: Requires the president to inform Congress within forty-eight hours of committing troops abroad in a military action…but neither the law’s constitutionality not its effectiveness in limiting the president’s military authority has even been tested.# Examples of presidents taking action without informing Congress include Reagan in Grenada in 1983 and more recently, Clinton in the 1993 involvement in Somalia. This use of military action reflects the way in which the presidency is suited for dealing with ‘extraordinary situations’. The President may have to act promptly without clear constitutional or statutory support. Quick action is not a quality or purpose of a legislative assembly, Congress is essentially a deliberative body.# This is just one example of the way in which the presidency has expanded outside its perceived constitutional role, reflecting the changes in American and world society. The executive power itself, in the Constitution invested in the president, now seems to be shared amongst the members of an expanded executive branch. In his book, Five Branch Government, Merry suggests that the executive is actually divided into three separate entities. Together with the president, there is the “Continuing Executive Branch”, made up of career officials, who outlast the time a single president is in office. The third aspect of the executive is the “Changing Executive Branch”, which comprises those members of the administration who are brought in with the president, but can act independently, with their own agendas.# There does seem to be some relevance to this idea in explaining the nature of the executive today, and certainly bears little resemblance to the constitutional idea of three branches. The executive branch is not the only part of the government that has enjoyed an expansion of its powers and role due to the ambiguities in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has become very influential in the system of government. One example of this increasing power is in the exercise of judicial review, as McKeever puts it: Article III of the Constitution clearly created a court …however, Article III makes no mention of judicial review or of the power of the Supreme Court to declare legislation unconstitutional.# The validity of the Supreme Court’s actions comes from the emphasis on a need for a “workable” government: At first criticised by reformers who opposed “government by judiciary”, this policy-making role was accepted as legitimate by the end of the 1930s.# This is another example of a power that developed gradually over time, until it became precedent and accepted. This is similar to how an unwritten constitution operates, and certainly does not refer back to the document of the Constitution. It seems, therefore, that with a number of extra-constitutional bodies, and with the exercise of power not constitutionally granted to the three branches, that the Constitution does not offer a very accurate depiction of the American governmental system. However, one might argue that this was the intention of the framers of the Constitution. Indeed, many authors make reference to the idea that the written document simply provides a framework, the simple basis for the government, with the details intended to be filled in as and when needs arose. Lutz writes that: ‘The institutions and procedures described are so designed that there is no need for great detail. Almost any possibility falls into one of the institutions and/or procedures.’# Another factor to consider is the ways in which American society has changed over the two hundred and more years since the Constitution was adopted. Taking this into consideration, what is more remarkable is not that the document fails to describe the governmental system, but that it is still in effect. David McKay sums up this idea: All these changes have had to be accommodated within certain institutional limits which the Constitution imposes. Political and economic changes have indisputably altered the relationships between institutions and the broader society, but they have not transformed in such a way that the document has ceased to have meaning.# It therefore seems that the Constitution describes the foundations of the governmental system in the United States, but the system has changed and expanded over the years to such an extent that it can only describe the basics, not the details. Bibliography The Constitution of the United States. Fisher, L, Constitutional Conflicts Between Congress and the President, Third Edition, Revised, (1991). Hamilton, A et al, The Federalist, (John Harvard Library, 1961). Kelly, AH, Harbison, WA & Belz, H, The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development, Sixth Edition, (1983). Kernell, S, & Jacobson, GC, The Logic of American Politics’, (2000). Levinson, S (ed.) Responding to Imperfection: The Theory and Practice of Constitutional Amendments, (1995). Lutz, DS, The Origins of American Constitutionalism, (1988). McKay, D, American Politics and Society, Fifth Edition, (2001). McKeever, R, Zvesper, J, & Maidment, R, Politics USA, (1999). Merry, HJ, Five Branch Government: The Full Measure of Constitutional Checks and Balances, (1980). Pritchett, CH, The American Constitutional System, Fourth Edition, (1976). Rakove, JN, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution, (1997). How do interest groups seek to influence the US government? (AMST 104, Spring 2002) There are a variety of tactics used by organised interests in the United States, and the nature of the strategies employed depend on the type of interest group and the type of issue they are attempting to influence. There are, however, two main categories that their strategies fall into, direct and indirect influence, also described by Lipsitz as ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ strategies: Insider methods revolve around direct connections between interest groups and the major political players involved – legislators, bureaucrats, or other members of the executive branch. Outsider strategies build on connections between legislators and their home districts.# It is therefore necessary to examine the various strategies that fall into each of these main categories. In the direct form of influence, the most prominent actions are conducted by lobbyists, usually based in Washington, who try to forge relationships with legislators in order to benefit their interest. As David McKay writes: On every issue lobbies mobilise for and against which makes the cost of pursuing a particular policy option very high. Members of Congress, in particular, are electorally vulnerable if they are seen to be taking the ‘wrong’ position. # This electoral vulnerability is where public action committees (PACs) seek to influence the government. PACs operate by trying to get favourable candidates elected, or by attempting to stop candidates who oppose their position from getting elected. Indirect methods usually involve appealing to the public directly, and trying to use public opinion to influence how legislators or other officials approach an issue: Organised interest in recent years have honed their techniques for preying on legislators’ heightened feelings of electoral insecurity and their sensitivity to the expressed and particular issue needs of their constituents.# The lobbyists in Washington constitute the most direct form of interests trying to influence the policymakers in the government. One of the most important ways of achieving this is through information. In today’s complex political world, there is little chance that any given legislator will be familiar with the details of an issue and its political consequences. This is where an informed lobbyist can seek to push forward his interests. The more factual the information the better, as Jeffrey Berry writes: A reputation for creditability and high-quality information are prerequisites for becoming a lobbyist from whom government officials request help. The final ingredient is developing the relationship gradually, with the lobbyist providing the right kind of information at the right time.# So by being recognised as a purveyor of useful facts, the lobbyist is able to exert a certain degree of influence over officials who might rely on him for information, to ‘create a basis for mutually beneficial exchanges.’# The information from a lobbyist will often be aimed specifically at telling how a certain policy will affect their group’s interests within a congressman’s home district. If, for example, there is a particular industry in a district that could be adversely affected by a piece of legislation, interest groups might employ lobbyists to make the legislator for that district aware of their views. The threat of the loss of votes from that interest group might be enough to persuade the legislator to try to make some sort of change to the legislation. For, as noted by Birnbaum: Every lawmaker’s chief interest is getting re-elected. So lobbyists see it as their job to persuade lawmakers that voters are on the lobbyist’s side.# Testifying at legislative hearings, which offer the group and their issues media exposure is another method employed. The rate of participation in these sorts of processes is high, as the costs are reasonably low: Testifying is regarded as window dressing for the more substantive lobbying efforts made by the organisation. Still, hearings do offer an opportunity for media coverage and interest groups give a lot of thought to whom they want to put forward to testify.# Interest groups can usually only affect small amendments to legislation, but these discrete changes can usually be enough to benefit their members. This might include extra funding or tax breaks added into the finer aspects of a bill, no major alterations, but enough to be significant to the members of the interest groups. Interest groups are also able to participate in litigation proceedings. Though normally restricted to, and favoured by big businesses due to the high costs involved, there are other instances where other groups may be able to use litigation to their advantage: This strategy is especially attractive to groups that can rest claims on constitutional rights and that do not have the political clout to influence elected politicians.# Therefore, interest groups seek to influence the government in presenting legal challenges, and, even if they fail to win, on a controversial issue, they will undoubtedly attract media and public attention to their issues. It is without question essential that lobbyists are able to hold the attention of the people they are trying to influence. In order to make legislators take notice of how they stand on an issue, and act in the interest group’ s favour, private social relationships are often carefully crafted. Indeed, according to Baumgartner: “Lobbying” has most often been used to refer to face-to-face individual meetings between legislators and representatives of an interest.# In order to accomplish their goals, lobbyists might invite congressmen to lunch, with the bill picked up by the interest group. While trying to engage the legislator in a social context, the lobbyist could seek to drop hints into the conversation about an upcoming issue that would affect the interest group. Over time, these relationships can become important enough that the lobbyist, and through him or her, the interest group could have significant influence over the legislator. However, the key to these sorts of relationships, and therefore the key to all lobbyist influence is, according to Berry, honesty: For the lobbyist…honesty is not so much a matter of virtue as of necessity. Lobbyists simply cannot do their job if there are any doubts about their credability.# Indirect influence over the government is usually exerted through ‘grass-roots’ activities. In this area, the interest groups attempt to influence the policymakers through making the public or the media involved in their issues. For as John Tierney suggests: When members of Congress are considering a policy issue…they pay attention to whether there is a mobilised group of citizens out there who care intensely about the issue and are likely to act politically on their views.# Therefore, it is necessary to firstly inform, and secondly persuade the public about the issues the interest group is concerned with. The methods employed in grass-roots activities vary, but usually will involve mass appeals for public support. These include direct marketing, in which interest groups send letters to citizens informing them of the issues. According to R. Kenneth Godwin: During every electoral cycle, more than 200 million pieces of political direct mail reach millions of American citizens. These mailings induce over 14 million persons to give money to candidates and causes, raise over $1 billion in political contributions, and generate over 20 million letters to Congress.# It is the letters to Congress, in addition to telephone calls, telegrams, and emails that are most significant for interest groups. With enough pressure from the electorate, the legislators may be forced to address the issues of the interest groups, or else face not being re-elected. Again, it is a way to play on the elected officials’ fears of losing their position that can allow interest groups to exert influence effectively. An example of this is in the activities of the National Rifle Association (NRA). They are able to conduct computer and direct- mail campaigns to mobilise their membership, and can campaign for or against certain senators and representatives. However, an organisation such as the NRA also exhibits other signs of influence: wealth and a large membership. There is little disputing that the wealthier the interest group the more opportunity they have to influence policymakers: Money can buy a great deal. It translates into a vast array of potential weapons in the influence-gaining process – campaign contributions, media exposure, the ability to procure the talents of able people. Wealthy organisations can afford to employ large lobbying staffs and offer extensive data-gathering resources to legislators as a means of winning influence.# Although simply pouring money into the system is unlikely to have a direct effect, it enables interest groups to ‘lubricate’ the machinery to their advantage. Large membership can also have an indirect impact, making the interest group more influential from a vote- gathering perspective. However, as in the case of the Chamber of Commerce, it also provides a wide range of potential contacts within the governmental system: The Chamber has business proprietors and executives in every congressional district, and we can use them to open a lot of doors for us that were closed before.# Therefore a well-organised interest group, with money at its disposal is more likely to be able to influence government officials, particularly the elected legislators. Of course, if the legislators seem unwilling to compromise, the alternative open to interest groups is to attempt to get a more favourable candidate elected, which is the modus operandi of the PACs. Political action committees, while usually offering some direct support to candidates that may be favourable to their particular issues, this support is usually limited by statute. However, more often they engage in separate campaigning for, or in some cases, against a particular candidate: Of the tactics they use in their electoral activities, many centre on offering candidates access to their group’s resources: money, advice, volunteer labour, and votes.# The groups will often try to persuade the candidates with endorsements. They offer the votes of their members in return for a favourable stance on their issues of concern. PACs will also share information and can sometimes act in concert to promote mutual benefits through favourable candidates. It is difficult to assess which form of interest group activity is the most important in trying to influence the members of the government, as it usually depends on the particular group and the issue in question. As noted by Baumgartner: Most groups use a wide variety of lobbying tactics rather than relying on a single method in their efforts to influence politics…tactic choice depends on the characteristics of the situation just as much as it depends on the characteristics of the group.# It is clearly important that an interest group has direct access to the policymakers, usually with a lobbying presence in Washington. Through their specialist knowledge and information they are able to make themselves useful to the people they are trying to influence. These business relationships are strengthened by the social relationships forged. All these aspects are designed to make a lobbyist indispensable in the policymaking activities of a legislator. However, the support of the public, gathered through direct marketing campaigns is crucial as a potential threat should a legislator not allow some concessions to the interest group. The threat of a loss of voters, possibly followed by a loss of job, is a powerful motivator to congressmen. The activities of the PACs are geared towards helping election campaigns of candidates sympathetic to their group’s position. This is in the attempt to place a favourable official within the government, and therefore make the rest of the interest group’s activities easier and more effective in promoting their issues. Bibliography Baumgartner, Frank R & Leech, Beth L. Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science (Princeton, 1998). Berry, Jeffrey M. The Interest Group Society, Third Edition (New York, 1997). Birnbaum, Jeffrey H. The Lobbyists: How Influence Peddlers Work Their Way in Washington (New York, 1993). Cigler, Allan J & Loomis, Burdett A (eds.) Interest Group Politics (Washington, 1983). Kernell, Samuel & Jacobson, Gary C. The Logic of American Politics (Washington, 2000). Lipsitz, Lewis & Speak, David M. American Democracy, Third Edition (New York, 1993). McKay, David. American Politics and Society, Fifth Edition (2001). Petracca, Mark P. The Politics of Interests: Interest Groups Transformed (San Francisco, 1992). Rozell, Mark J & Wilcox, C. Interest Groups in American Campaigns: The New Face of Electioneering (Washington, 1999). Sabato, Larry J. PAC Power: Inside the World of Political Action Committees (New York, 1990). Schroedel, Jean Reith. Congress, The President, and Policymaking: A Historical Analysis (New York, 1994). |
|||||||||||||
| Non-fiction |
|||||||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |