Reflection Papers for the First Week of April

Lets post all of our reaction papers for the week as attachments to this post.

Monday

Hi,

I have the exams graded. Remember, we are still doing the chapter on foreign policy plus the readings in the syllabus from the Reader and de Tocqueville.

Post your reactions for Friday, March 22, here

Tocqueville, et al.

Global Warming

Now, for another viewpoint.....

Welcome Back

I hope you all had a nice break. I didn't. I was trapped in Las Vegas for like a week. Can you imagine a town that size and not a single book store? It was horrible.

Anyway, you can post reaction papers to the text here. We are going to start looking at different areas of policy, starting with foreign policy. This second half of the course is a little different. We look at what the government should do rather than at what it does. You may find this part of the course more engaging.

Good Question

A student has asked a good question. I have posted it with my answer in bold face.

"I am having trouble distinguishing between the different principles. When looking over the review of Wed and the end of chapter 6 page 264-there is a table, they are all similar and seem to apply to all categories."

You are right, they all apply to some degree. I am so glad that you have noticed this. I have been wondering when someone was going to notice this.

It is not a problem that they apply to the same case. You do want to keep them analytically distinct, but they can all apply to the same phenomenon.

For example, if you want to explain the temperature o the Earth some of the processes are from Chemistry, some from physics, some affect temperature in one direction, some in another. Likewise, if you want to explain the policy of a country, some of the explanation comes from economics (rationality) some from psychology (institutions) some from History (path dependency).

It is fine if they overlap in a particular case, what you want to avoid is allowing their definitions to overlap (though, with our text, they are defined in such a loose way that that, too, sometimes happens).

"The presidents use or non-use of a veto for example.
Rationally, the veto is carefully used in order to weigh the disadvatages and advantages."

Yes.

Note how rationality is a matter of weighing the costs and benefits in the future of your next move. The other principles sort of provide the rules of the game in which you rationally calculate your next move.

"Collective action, the veto is part of the bargaining between the president and congress."

Ok, the Congress is a group that is trying to act. But I am not sure that is a really interesting application of the concept.

To show it is a collective action problem you need to show how the incentives of the individual member of Congress differ from the interests of Congress as a whole. For instance, for the Congress as a whole, they might prefer the policy they passed, but each individual Congressman might have an incentive to ‘defect,’ as it were, to get into the good graces of the President.

Standing up to the President is like getting the swamp drained, but not voting against the president is like getting the swamp drained for free.

"Institution principle, veto power makes the president the most important single legislative leader."

I suppose, but this is using the word institution in its non-specialized sense. I think this distribution of decision making power among the various actors is more a matter of the policy principle.

The more important sense of ‘institutions’ in political science, of an informal convention about roles and prerogatives in decision making, would really come into play in how the president’s veto power is informally and conventionally understood. Before Jackson, Presidents thought they could only veto bills if they believed they were unconstitutional. Just vetoing something because you thought it was a bad idea was, well, kind of like not shaking hands with someone—something you might get away with but that would be considered out of line.

Another way the institutional principle might come into play is in the presidency as an institution, a collective personality with a memory and set of interests going beyond its current occupant. So presidents might decide to veto a bill not because they oppose it on policy grounds but because it takes power away from or otherwise reduces the prerogatives of the Presidency itself.

The current flap over the NSA wire tapping is driven largely by this sort of institutional competition. Congress and the president largely agree (or at least did agree) on the kind of program they want the NSA to conduct, but the President still threatens a veto. Why? Because signing a bill from Congress that gives him the power to order such foreign policy wiretaps would imply that the Presidency didn’t have the power in the first place and that, therefore, the Congress could at some point take the power away.


"Policy, congress changes bill content so the president wont veto."

Yes.

"History, the presidents history of vetoing can affect the bills passed now."

An even bigger yes.

Notice how this is a little different from the simple calculation of current costs and benefits implied by rationality. Here we have to weigh not just the policy outcome but the ‘reputational’ outcome of the veto decision.

You might veto a bill whose costs outweighed its benefits in order to establish a reputation for the future, perhaps because you have an unfortunate history of not vetoing enough to make your vetoes credible.

Or, conversely, a President with a reputation for vetoing bills he doesn’t like and effectively punishing Congressmen that try to pass things even though the President has signaled his intention to veto, may not have to use the veto in the first place. Why? Because Congress calculates it is too risky to pass the bill to begin with.

New features

The Blog now has a new feature. I just found out that I can label each post so I have gone back and labeled all the posts for the last year. You can click on the label at the end of the post and all the posts on that topic will come up. For example, there are several posts on rights. You may find this useful in studying for the exam.

Midterm

I am looking forward to seeing you all Monday morning for our midterm.

Until then, remember my offer on questions. I will be giving bonus points to anyone who submits a question-answer that I decide to include on the exam.

I am looking for short answer questions on the readings outside the main text. I need questions that show someone has given the piece in question a close reading and that focus on something from the text worth remembering.

I will also entertain suggestions for longer essay questions, though I tend to have those already in my mind.

Review

We are going to have a review for the Midterm on Wednesday Morning. There will be a movie that evening, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

Think of questions from the previous chapters. Use the book's website. The midterm will be mostly like our quizzes with some short answer questions based on the reader and our class discussions. The more questions you come in with the better.

Lincoln and King

Rights for Lincoln and King



A good tool for understanding their disagreement is the distinction between process and substance, or means and ends. The process refers to the procedures that we follow in making and enforcing laws, our ‘means’ of making laws. The substance is the rightness of the content or outcome of those laws, the ‘ends’ of those laws.

This distinction between procedural and substantive justice is at the heart of many disagreements about rights and political conflict in general.

Lincoln argues that the process is more important than the substance of rights. He is almost callous in describing some of the criminals whose rights have been violated as being deserving of their fate and claiming that we are better off with them dead. The substance, the outcome, is not what concerns him, it is the procedure, or process, by which they ended up dead that is the problem. His concern is not with the guys getting hanged and burned, it is with the good citizen who, gradually, over time, starts to figure that the law is a sucker’s game. He is concerned with loyal citizens losing their affection for the law.

King is concerned with and argues mainly from the basis of the substance of the law. As Charles pointed out, he also makes a process argument, that the laws are illegitimate because the process excluded people that by the letter of the law had a right to vote. But his main objection is deeper and he would hardly be forced to change his argument if segregationist laws could win a fair vote (which in some places they could have). His claim is that the substance of these laws is unjust, regardless of the process by which they were made.

In Lincoln’s speech, obeying the law, even if, or especially if, it is unjust is the highest duty of the citizen. King turns this on its head. Doing the right thing, the just thing, even if, and especially if you know you will be punished for it, is the highest duty of a citizen. This is because it arouses the citizens to the unjustness of the law.

Lincoln’s speech could have been given in Rome without too much alteration. He argues that we should protect these rights out of fealty to our forefathers, to honor their sacrifices.

King makes an argument based more on a very un-classical idea, the idea that all men are equal in the sight of God.

Both of them use religion, and specifically, the Christian religion, in their argument.

King cites Augustine to put substantive justice, the justness of the laws outcome, over formal justice, the justice of the process by which the law was made.

Lincoln uses the Christian religion in a novel way to ask us to imagine seeing Washington on the day of the resurrection. He asks us to image being able to look Washington in the face and be able to say that we faithfully preserved our inheritance form him, our “father,” so to speak.

I find this a really interesting twist because it is essentially a pagan argument. The Roman’s justified everything in terms of living up to our ancestor’s expectations and explicitly deified illustrious ancestors and political leaders (like Caesar) to legitimate the laws and justify sacrifice. Lincoln uses a peculiarity of Christian doctrine to get an essentially pagan effect.

Lincoln’s is “it’s the law” and King’s is “it’s God’s will,” (or at least the Judeo-Christian God).

Monday

Post here on the essays by Lincoln and MLK about the nature and basis of rights.

Friday

Ok, new plan.

So, we have the midterm the Monday after next, March 5th. Next week we will have class on Monday and Wednesday and a special Wednesday evening class on the 28th of Feburary to watch "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," exact time and place to be announced.

For your reading Friday I would like you to read Tocqueville, Chapter 7, from page 235 to 248 (leaving off the very last section). It is a brilliant piece of writing and, if you remember only one thing from the course it is the one I hope sticks with you.

For next week I would like to go back to the reader for Monday and read Lincoln and Martin Luther King's respective pieces on Rights, selections 19 and 20. Lincoln's piece is called "On the Prepetuation of our Institutions," and King's is called "Letter from a Birmingham Jail Cell." If you don't have the reader for some reason I am certain you can find them on the web. For Wendesday morning we will review for the exam.

Wednesday

Let's discuss the Harry Truman readings. Truman is the President whose reputation is most improved over the last 30 years. There will not be a quiz so if for any reason you can't get the readings to open don't worry about it. They are entertaining, I think.

For Friday we will review for the midterm. Also, if you submit questions you think would appropriate for the exam and I use them I will give you extra credit. Be thinking about things you would like to ask about Friday.

Monday

Ok, I screwed up.

1) I forgot to make an entry for Monday's reaction papers

2) I forgot that we are having class on President's day.

that means that we don't have anything in particular to read for today. I guess that means it is a good day for review questions. Think of some things that you would like to ask about from the Presidency Chapter or anywhere else for that matter.

On the reflection papers, try to connect what you write with the Presidency. I think it is especially useful to try to apply the principles of politics and arguments from the text to current events or other things related to politics and government.

Hey

The Presidency, continued.

Post here for Friday's class. Just click on the comment link below.

I think we are still behind on quizzes, so, as always, be on time and smile!

Friday

Ok, Now we are going to finish up the chapter on the founding in the text. We are also probably due for a quiz.

The passages from Tocqueville and from Madison are among the most interesting and important in the history of political thought. I hope you find them stimulating.

Also, just to make sure we don't get lost with these papers, it might be a good idea to include in your posting which paper this is for you, i.e., first, second etc. That way, if I have let any slip through the cracks we can catch it more quickly.

Wednesday

Here is a place to post for tomorrow's class. You might want to talk about the movie or move on to discuss the rest of the Constitution Chapter. I am looking forward to what you have to say.

Monday

Hi,

For today, I am hoping to show some of the play, "Julius Caesar," by the Bard. I have a great 1953 version with Marlon Brando as Mark Antony.

I mentioned this in class, but this will switch around our readings, since I had originally planned to show this on Friday. Also, check the syllabus on the web, I had the wrong page numbers up for the Tocqueville reading up at first.

Wednesday--American Revolution Quiz

1. During the period leading to the Revolutionary War, England was attempting to extract revenues from its American colonies in order to

a.	subsidize the East India Company.
b.	pay for providing military protection.
c.	supplement the low salaries in the House of Commons.
d.	compensate for travel expenses of colonial representatives to Parliament.

B, we were in much the same position in comparison to Britain as we often accuse our allies in of being in in relation to us—sponging off their defense expenditures.

2. For years, the imperial center in London had left its American colonists to enjoy an immense amount of local control and home rule because the British empire was

a.	being ruled by an inattentive king.
b.	preoccupied by a war with France.
c.	in the midst of quelling the Irish rebellion.
d.	pursuing a deliberate laissez-faire policy toward its territorial possessions.

B

3. The British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre were defended by a pillar of Boston society and future president of the United States,

a.	John Adams.
b.	James Madison.
c.	Thomas Jefferson.
d.	George Washington.

A. the authors use this fact to illustrate the conservatism and upper-class loyalties of the Founders, but I argue it is more an illustration of Adam’s character—a belief in order and a willingness to take up unpopular causes. In Adam’s case, we have unusually good evidence of his motivations because of the extensive and intellectually serious correspondence he had with his wife, Abigail.

Adams’ willingness to take on unpopular causes followed him and his descendents. His presidency ended in one term, mainly because of his unpopular decision to head off war with France. His son, JQA, who was President from 1824 to 1828 was similarly universally admired and universally disliked. He is depicted in the largely accurate movie Amistad (spelling?) defending mutinous slaves. His grandson, Henry, was a diplomat and famous contrarian. His memoirs, The Education of Henry Adams, is included in the University of Chicago’s Great books series of the 100 or so greatest books of all time. I don’t know if it is that good but he is a great writer. The Adams family still lives in the same place. They are independently wealthy but still, as a family, have a sense of duty. His 7^th generation grandson volunteered to join the Army as a helicopter pilot. He was killed there last year.

4. The Declaration of Independence was written by

a.	James Madison.
b.	Thomas Jefferson.
c.	George Washington.
d.	Alexander Hamilton.

B. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB! Who does not know this? No one misses this. No one misses this in Kyrgyzstan!

5. The relationship between Congress and the states under the Articles of Confederation was much like the contemporary relationship between the

a.	state of Louisiana and its parishes.
b.	United Nations and its member states.
c.	General Motors and its subdivisions such as Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Cadillac.
d.	Disney Corporation and its media networks, production companies, and resorts.

B. Keep this in mind. In fact, the UN is somewhat stronger institutionally than the Articles of Confederation, something to think about, for better or worse.

6. During the winter of 178687, John Adams of Massachusetts was sent to negotiate a new treaty with the British to cover disputes left over from the war. The British government responded that it would

a.	set a blockade around Boston Harbor.
b.	relinquish control over the lands to the west.
c.	negotiate with each of the thirteen states separately.
d.	require war reparations before signing any new treaty.

This is a key point. The theory of democracy tells you that the majority rules, but majority of what? Democratic theory has no answer for the question “of what?” There are always people that aren’t included in the group that could be added and subsets of the group where you can find a different majority.

7. Between 1783 and 1785, the Rhode Island legislature, dominated by representatives of small farmers, artisans, and shopkeepers, frightened businessmen and property owners throughout the country by instituting

a.	free trade policies.
b.	economic policies including drastic currency inflation.
c.	generous agricultural subsidies and severely protective tariffs.
d.	eminent domain activities for an extensive statewide park system.

B. “Free trade” is an idea that wasn’t yet common, even though it had already received its classic statement in Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. The government wasn’t sufficiently well organized to offer agricultural subsidies even if it had wanted to at that time. It is the idea of printing money and inflating the currency that is really the problem at this point in history. Think about whose interests are affected and how by such a policy.

Revolution

Ok, now we start our first substantive chapter on the American Revolution. Try to actually have an opinion in what you write this week. Don't feel you just have to tell me what you read, make a comment on what you read.