View a Sample Chapter - CQ Press

View a Sample Chapter - CQ Press

View a Sample Chapter - CQ Press


You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

<strong>Chapter</strong><br />

14<br />

Voting,<br />

Campaigns,<br />

and Elections<br />

in How a Campaign Gets Out Its Vote<br />

When Election Day 2012 rolled around, both major party campaigns were feeling<br />

optimistic.<br />

The Obama campaign had been quietly confident for months. Its polls and most of<br />

the public polls showed a small but steady lead for the president, and the forecasting<br />

models that averaged all the polls together and added economic variables showed<br />

a good chance for an Obama win. The campaign was especially confident about its<br />

ground game—its ability to mobilize supporters and get out the vote. For over a<br />

year the campaign had been working on a system that aggregated all the data it had<br />

on potential voters, and it had constructed a massive electronic system for microtargeting<br />

voters, directing ads to them, soliciting money from them, and getting<br />

them to vote. The campaign had been working the early voting states, and the totals<br />

of the votes the campaign saw there reassured it that its statistical models of which<br />

voters would actually turn out on Election Day were sound.<br />

But the members of the Romney campaign were equally confident. They<br />

dismissed polls showing a lead for Obama, claiming that the public polls were<br />

overestimating the numbers of Democrats who would show up on Election<br />

Day. Traditionally Democratic voters are younger than the Republican base and<br />

less white; young people and minorities tend not to vote at the rates that the<br />

Republicans’ older and whiter base does. Consequently, the Romney campaign<br />

based its own polls on a different turnout model, reducing the percentage of<br />

Democratic voters expected to vote. Its polls found growing momentum for<br />

Romney because he was supported by Republicans as well as a majority of voters<br />

identifying as independents. The campaign felt good about its get-out-the-vote<br />

(GOTV) effort, too; it had a hugely expensive and technologically advanced system<br />

that would channel information about who voted on Election Day from volunteers<br />

on the ground, via their cell phones, to campaign headquarters in Boston. Armed<br />


Voting in a Democratic Society<br />

The Founders’ Intentions<br />

The Functions of Elections<br />

Exercising the Right to Vote in America<br />

Who Votes and Who Doesn’t<br />

Why Americans Don’t Vote<br />

Does Nonvoting Matter<br />

How the Voter Decides<br />

Partisanship and Social Group Membership<br />

Gender, Race, and Ethnicity<br />

Issues and Policy<br />

The Candidates<br />

Presidential Campaigns<br />

Getting Nominated<br />

The Convention<br />

The General Election Campaign<br />

Interpreting Elections<br />

The Citizens and Elections<br />

A Fourth Model<br />

Do Elections Make a Difference<br />

Let’s Revisit: What’s at Stake . . .<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

Nerd Cave<br />

Sequestered in a back room they dubbed the “Cave” in President Obama’s campaign<br />

headquarters in Chicago, the young number crunchers took voter data gathering and analysis<br />

to a new level and reset the standard for future campaigns. The chief analytics officer said of his<br />

fellow workers, “We’re kind of a weird bunch of kids. I haven’t seen the sun for a while.”<br />

with that information, volunteers could<br />

be dispatched to call or encourage the<br />

nonvoters to get to the polls in the<br />

swing states before they closed.<br />

The Romney campaign had given<br />

interviews the day before Election Day,<br />

touting the system that it called the<br />

Orca Project (because the Orca whale is<br />

the natural predator of the Narwhal, the<br />

name for the Obama data management<br />

system). Romney’s communications<br />

director said, “At 5 o’clock when the exit<br />

polls come out, we won’t pay attention<br />

to that. We will have had much more<br />

scientific information just based on<br />

the political operation we have set<br />

up.” 1 While the Romney campaign<br />

was talking up the virtues of Orca, the<br />

Obama campaign was much more silent<br />

about Narwhal, and about the program<br />

called Gordon, which was actually more<br />

comparable to Orca. Still, the Obama<br />

people insisted that they were going to<br />

win, and so did the Romney people.<br />

What happened Well of course, the<br />

president of the United States is still<br />

Barack Obama, so obviously he won.<br />

But the news took a while to sink in<br />

at the Romney campaign gathering at<br />

the Westin Boston Waterfront Hotel.<br />

An adviser for the campaign said that<br />

Mitt Romney was “shell-shocked”<br />

at the results. He delayed making<br />

a concession speech to President<br />

Obama, even after all the networks<br />

had called the election. The campaign<br />

had ordered an eight-minute fireworks<br />

display to celebrate its victory, and<br />

Romney had prepared a victory speech<br />

but no concession speech (candidates<br />

generally prepare both, just in case<br />

either outcome occurs). Another adviser<br />

said, “There is nothing worse than when<br />

you think you are going to win, and you<br />

don’t. It was like a sucker punch.” 2<br />

At Obama’s post-election gathering in<br />

Chicago’s McCormick Place, the mood<br />

was considerably better. There were<br />

no fireworks, but Obama, who had<br />

prepared two speeches, got to give<br />

the victory version. Behind the scenes<br />

there was a less visible but no less<br />

heartfelt celebration, and the in-house<br />

technical people who had been hired<br />

over a year before to design Narwhal<br />

and Gordon (and several other<br />

systems) heaved a sigh of relief.<br />

“I think the Republicans f**ked up in<br />

the hubris department,” said Harper<br />

Reed, the chief technology officer of<br />

the Obama campaign. “I know we had<br />

the best technology team I’ve ever<br />

worked with, but we didn’t know if it<br />

would work. I was incredibly confident<br />

it would work. I was betting a lot on<br />

it. We had time. We had resources.<br />

We had done what we thought would<br />

work, and it still could have broken.<br />

Something could have happened.” 3<br />

And, in fact, for the Republicans,<br />

something did happen. On the day of<br />

the election, with more than 30,000<br />

volunteers ready to gather information<br />

on who had voted and send it back<br />

to the campaign electronically, Orca<br />

crashed. The system had not been<br />

tried out in the field until that day;<br />

it hadn’t been checked for bugs, and<br />

there had been no dry run.<br />

Said one Romney volunteer who<br />

repeatedly tried to access the system<br />

all day on November 6:<br />

So, the end result was that<br />

30,000+ of the most active<br />

and fired-up volunteers were<br />

wandering around confused<br />

and frustrated when they<br />

could have been doing<br />

anything else to help. Like<br />

driving people to the polls,<br />

phone-banking, walking doorto-door,<br />

etc. We lost by fairly<br />

small margins in Florida,<br />

Virginia, Ohio, and Colorado. If<br />

this had worked, could it have<br />

closed the gap I sure hope<br />

not, for my sanity’s sake. 4<br />

The Romney camp was reduced to<br />

following CNN and calling county election<br />

offices for its turnout information, and<br />

without detailed information, was<br />

unable to direct its volunteers to get out<br />

their votes. Still, the campaign thought it<br />

was winning. It was only as the reports<br />

510 14: Voting, Campaigns, and Elections<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

indicated that turnout was high in areas<br />

that favored Obama that the campaign<br />

realized that its own turnout model<br />

had been flawed. The campaign had<br />

counted on turnout looking like it had<br />

in 2004, when participation of young<br />

people and minorities had not been high.<br />

Instead, it was looking more like 2008.<br />

Although apparently fewer voters overall<br />

had turned out, the demographic profile<br />

of the electorate looked like 2008,<br />

except that the percentage of young<br />

voters and minorities was slightly<br />

higher. While the Romney get-out-thevote<br />

effort was not stellar, it looked<br />

like the Obama effort was.<br />

In fact, the Obama team had prepared<br />

for the catastrophe that had befallen<br />

the Romney system. They had gamed<br />

out the system repeatedly, simulating<br />

every kind of crash and failure they<br />

could think of. The massive amounts<br />

of data that had been collected were<br />

analyzed by number crunchers sitting<br />

in a Chicago room known as the<br />

“Cave,” who used the data to construct<br />

a model that predicted turnout all over<br />

the nation. Volunteers had converged<br />

on the swing states from around the<br />

country, canvassing neighborhoods,<br />

ready to follow up with potential voters<br />

who had not voted early or gotten to<br />

the polls on Election Day. Thanks to<br />

the data, the campaign knew exactly<br />

where those voters were.<br />

Wrote one Obama volunteer from<br />

Idaho who had relocated to the swing<br />

state of Ohio for the four weeks<br />

preceding the election,<br />

For the last four days of the<br />

election, we helped manage a<br />

staging location for GOTV in<br />

one ward of a city in the<br />

eastern suburbs of Cleveland.<br />

I imagine that the campaign<br />

will never release the total<br />

number of people who worked<br />

or volunteered in Ohio; they<br />

might not even know. But<br />

extrapolating from our<br />

experience, I estimate that<br />

there might have been close<br />

to 50,000 people on the<br />

ground in one way or another<br />

during GOTV in Ohio,<br />

including 700 lawyers, 300 in<br />

the Cleveland area alone,<br />

protecting our vote. 5<br />

As the calendar ticked over to<br />

November 6, the tiny town of Dixville<br />

Notch, New Hampshire, which always<br />

votes at midnight, cast half of its<br />

votes (five) for the president and half<br />

for Romney. The kids in the Cave were<br />

thrilled. Their forecast model had<br />

predicted exactly that result, and as the<br />

day progressed, other turnout figures<br />

confirmed their model’s forecast as<br />

well. As they had expected, Obama<br />

ended up winning handily; the turnout<br />

machinery had done its work well.<br />

Once upon a time, getting out the vote<br />

meant making phone calls, knocking<br />

on doors, and hoping for the best.<br />

Systems didn’t crash on Election<br />

Day because there were no systems.<br />

Clearly, the effort has gotten far more<br />

sophisticated. Technology has changed<br />

the playing field. Just what is at stake<br />

in how a campaign mobilizes its<br />

supporters and gets out the vote •<br />

The mechanism that connects citizens with their governments, by which they signify<br />

their consent and through which they accomplish peaceful change, is elections.<br />

Although we pride ourselves on our democratic<br />

government, Americans seem to have a love-hate<br />

relationship with the idea of campaigns and voting. On<br />

the one hand, many citizens believe that elections do not<br />

accomplish anything, that elected officials ignore the wishes<br />

of the people, and that government is run for the interests of<br />

the elite rather than the many. Voters in 2008 were unusually<br />

motivated, with a turnout rate of higher than 60 percent,<br />

but typically only about half of the eligible electorate votes.<br />

On the other hand, when it is necessary to choose a leader,<br />

whether the captain of a football team, the president of a<br />

dorm, or a local precinct chairperson, the first instinct of most<br />

Americans is to call an election. Even though there are other<br />

ways to choose leaders—picking the oldest, the wisest, or the<br />

strongest; holding a lottery; or asking for volunteers—Americans<br />

almost always prefer an election. We elect over half a million<br />

public officials in America. 6 This means we have a lot of<br />

elections—more elections more often for more officials than<br />

in any other democracy.<br />

In this chapter we examine the complicated place of<br />

elections in American politics and American culture. You will<br />

learn about<br />

••<br />

what the founders were thinking when they<br />

established a role for elections, and the potential<br />

roles that elections can play in a democracy<br />

••<br />

Americans’ ambivalence about the vote and the reasons<br />

that only about half of the citizenry even bother to<br />

exercise what is supposed to be a precious right<br />

Elected Dog-Catcher<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

14: Voting, Campaigns, and Elections 511

••<br />

how voters go about making decisions, and how<br />

this in turn influences the character of presidential<br />

elections<br />

••<br />

the organizational and strategic aspects of running<br />

for the presidency<br />

••<br />

what elections mean for citizens<br />

Voting in a<br />

Democratic Society<br />

A nonviolent means for political change<br />

Up until the last couple hundred years, it was virtually<br />

unthinkable that the average citizen could or should have any<br />

say in who would govern. Rather, leaders were chosen by<br />

birth, by the church, by military might, by the current leaders,<br />

but not by the mass public. Real political change, when it<br />

occurred, was usually ushered in with violence and bloodshed.<br />

Today, global commitment to democracy is on the rise.<br />

Americans and, increasingly, other citizens around the world<br />

believe that government with the consent of the governed is<br />

superior to government imposed on unwilling subjects and that<br />

political change is best accomplished through the ballot box<br />

rather than on the battlefield or in the streets. The mechanism<br />

that connects citizens with their governments, by which they<br />

signify their consent and through which they accomplish<br />

peaceful change, is elections. Looked at from this perspective,<br />

elections are an amazing innovation—they provide a method<br />

for the peaceful transfer of power. Quite radical political changes<br />

can take place without blood being shed, an accomplishment<br />

that would confound most of our political ancestors.<br />

As we saw in <strong>Chapter</strong> 1, however, proponents of<br />

democracy can have very different ideas about how much<br />

power citizens should exercise over government. Elite<br />

theorists believe that citizens should confine their role to<br />

choosing among competing elites; pluralists think citizens<br />

should join groups that fight for their interests in government<br />

on their behalf; and participatory democrats call for more<br />

active and direct citizen involvement in politics. Each of these<br />

views has consequences for how elections should be held.<br />

How many officials should be chosen by the people How<br />

often should elections be held Should people choose officials<br />

directly, or through representatives whom they elect How<br />

accountable should officials be to the people who elect them<br />

We have already seen, in <strong>Chapter</strong> 11, that though<br />

Americans hardly resemble the informed, active citizens<br />

prescribed by democratic theory, that does not mean they are<br />

A Hard-Won Right<br />

Democracy is nothing if it is not about citizens choosing their leaders. In 1966 black voters in Peachtree, Alabama, lined up to vote for the first time<br />

since passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.<br />

512 14: Voting, Campaigns, and Elections<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

unqualified to exercise political power. At the end of this<br />

chapter, when we have a clearer understanding of the way<br />

that elections work in America, we will return to the<br />

question of how much power citizens should have and what<br />

different answers to this question mean for our thinking<br />

about elections. We begin our study of elections, however, by<br />

examining the functions that they can perform in democratic<br />

government. First we look at the very limited role that the<br />

founders had in mind for popular elections when they<br />

designed the American Constitution, and then we evaluate<br />

the claims of democratic theorists more generally.<br />

The Founders’ Intentions<br />

The Constitution reflects the founding fathers’ fears that<br />

people could not reliably exercise wise and considered<br />

judgment about politics. Consequently the founders built<br />

a remarkable layer of insulation between the national<br />

government and the will of the people. The president was<br />

to be elected not directly by the people but by an electoral<br />

college, which was expected to be a group of wiser-thanaverage<br />

men who would use prudent judgment. In fact, only<br />

the House of Representatives, one-half of one-third of the<br />

government, was to be popularly elected. The Senate and<br />

the executive and judicial branches were to be selected by<br />

different types of political elites who could easily check any<br />

moves that might arise from the whims of the masses. In the<br />

founders’ view, the government needed the support of the<br />

masses, but it could not afford to be led by what they saw as<br />

the public’s shortsighted and easily misguided judgment.<br />

The Functions of Elections<br />

Despite the founders’ reluctance to entrust much political<br />

power to American citizens, we have since altered our<br />

method of electing senators to make these elections direct,<br />

and the Electoral College, as we shall see, almost always<br />

endorses the popular vote for president. As we said in the<br />

introduction to this chapter, elections have become a central<br />

part of American life, even if our participation in them is<br />

somewhat uneven. Theorists claim that elections fulfill a<br />

variety of functions in modern democratic life: selecting<br />

leaders, giving direction to policy, developing citizenship,<br />

informing the public, containing conflict, and legitimizing<br />

and stabilizing the system. Here we examine and evaluate<br />

how well elections fill some of those functions.<br />

Selection of Leaders<br />

Like our founders, many philosophers and astute political<br />

observers have had doubts about whether elections are the best<br />

way to choose wise and capable leaders. Philosophers from<br />

Plato to John Stuart Mill have expressed doubts about citizen<br />

capability, arguing that you cannot trust the average citizen<br />

to make wise choices in Thinking Outside the Box<br />

the voting booth. 7 More<br />

recent critics also focus<br />

on the other side of the to choose our leaders<br />

equation, claiming that democratic elections often fail to<br />

produce the best leaders because the electoral process scares<br />

off some of the most capable candidates. Running for office<br />

is a hard, expensive, and bruising enterprise. Many qualified<br />

people are put off by the process, though they might be able<br />

to do an excellent job and have much to offer through public<br />

service. The simple truth is that elections ensure only that the<br />

leader chosen is the most popular on the ballot. There is no<br />

guarantee that the best candidate will run, or that the people<br />

will choose the wisest, most honest, or most capable leader<br />

from the possible candidates.<br />

Are elections the best way<br />

Policy Direction<br />

Democracy and elections are only partially about choosing<br />

able leadership. The fears of the founders notwithstanding,<br />

today we also expect that the citizenry will have a large<br />

voice in what the government actually does. Competitive<br />

elections are intended in part to keep leaders responsive to<br />

the concerns of the governed, since they can be voted out of<br />

office if voters are displeased.<br />

The policy impact of elections, however, is indirect. For<br />

instance, at the national level, we elect individuals, but we do<br />

not vote on policies. Although citizens in about half the states<br />

can make policy directly through initiatives and referenda, the<br />

founders left no such option at the national level. Rather, they<br />

provided us with a complicated system in which power is<br />

divided and checked. Those who stand for election have<br />

different constituencies and different terms of office. Thus the<br />

different parts of the national government respond to different<br />

publics at different times. The voice of the people is muted and<br />

modulated. At times, however, especially when there is a change<br />

in the party that controls the government, elections do produce<br />

rather marked shifts in public policy. 8 The New Deal of the<br />

1930s is an excellent case in point. The election of a Democratic<br />

president and Congress allowed a sweeping political response<br />

to the Depression, in sharp contrast to the previous Republican<br />

administration’s hands-off approach to the crisis.<br />

The electoral process actually does a surprisingly good<br />

job of directing policy in less dramatic ways as well. A good<br />

deal of research demonstrates, for example, that in the states,<br />

elections achieve a remarkable consistency between the<br />

general preferences of citizens and the kinds of policies that<br />

the states enact. 9 At the congressional level, members of the<br />

House and the Senate are quite responsive to the overall<br />

policy wishes of their constituents, and those who are not<br />

Representative<br />

Democracy<br />

Politify<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

Voting in a Democratic Society 513

Vote Smart<br />

Volunteer members of Project Vote Smart, liberals and conservatives alike, reach out to citizens to inform them about the voting records and<br />

backgrounds of thousands of candidates and elected officials so that voters can make informed decisions. The group accepts no funding from any<br />

organization, special interest group, or industry as part of its effort to maintain its neutral, nonbiased platform.<br />

tend to suffer at the polls. 10 At the presidential level, through<br />

all of the hoopla and confusion of presidential campaigns,<br />

scholars have found that presidents do, for the most part,<br />

deliver on the promises that they make and that the national<br />

parties do accomplish much of what they set out in their<br />

platforms. 11 Finally, elections speed up the process by which<br />

changes in public preferences for a more activist or less<br />

activist (more liberal or more conservative) government are<br />

systematically translated into patterns of public policy. 12<br />

Citizen Development<br />

Some theorists argue that participation in government in and<br />

of itself—regardless of which leaders or policy directions are<br />

chosen—is valuable for citizens and that elections help citizens<br />

feel fulfilled and effective. 13 When individuals are unable to<br />

participate in political affairs, or fail to do so, their sense of<br />

political efficacy, of being effective in political affairs, suffers.<br />

In studies of the American electorate, people who participate<br />

more, whether in elections or through other means, have<br />

higher senses of political efficacy. 14 From this perspective, then,<br />

elections provide a mechanism by which individuals can move<br />

from passive subjects who see themselves pushed and pulled<br />

by forces larger than themselves to active citizens fulfilling<br />

their potential to have a positive effect on their own lives.<br />

Informing the Public<br />

When we watch the circus of the modern presidential<br />

campaign, it may seem a bit of a stretch to say that an<br />

important function of elections, and the campaigns that<br />

Importance of Elections<br />

precede them, is to educate the public. But ideally the<br />

campaign is a time of deliberation when alternative points<br />

of view are aired openly so that the citizenry can judge<br />

the truth and desirability of competing claims and the<br />

competence of competing candidates and parties. The<br />

evidence is that campaigns do in fact have this impact.<br />

People learn a good deal of useful political information from<br />

campaign advertisements and for the most part choose the<br />

candidates who match their values and policy preferences. 15<br />

As citizens, we probably know and understand a lot more<br />

about our government because of our electoral process than<br />

we would without free and competitive elections.<br />

Containing Conflict<br />

Elections help us influence policy, but in other ways they<br />

also limit our options for political influence. 16 When groups<br />

of citizens are unhappy about their taxes, or the quality of<br />

their children’s schools, or congressional appropriations<br />

for cancer research or any other matter, the election booth<br />

is their primary avenue of influence. Of course, they can<br />

write letters and sign petitions, but those have an impact<br />

only because the officials they try to influence must stand<br />

for reelection. Even if their candidate wins, there is no<br />

guarantee that their policy concerns will be satisfied. And<br />

those who complain are likely to hear the systemwide<br />

response: If you don’t like what’s going on, vote for change.<br />

If elections help reduce our political conflicts to electoral<br />

contests, they also operate as a kind of safety valve for citizen<br />

discontent. There is always a relatively peaceful mechanism<br />

political efficacy citizens’ feelings of effectiveness in political affairs<br />

514 14: Voting, Campaigns, and Elections<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

through which unhappy citizens can vent their energy. Elections<br />

can change officials, replacing Democrats with Republicans or<br />

vice versa, but they do not fundamentally alter the underlying<br />

character of the system. Without the electoral vent, citizens<br />

might eventually turn to more threatening behaviors like<br />

boycotts, protests, civil disobedience, and rebellion.<br />

Legitimation and System Stability<br />

A final important function of elections is to make political<br />

outcomes acceptable to participants. By participating in<br />

the process of elections, we implicitly accept, and thereby<br />

legitimize, the results. The genius here is that participation<br />

tends to make political results acceptable even to those who<br />

lose in an immediate sense. They do not take to the streets,<br />

set up terrorist cells, or stop paying their taxes. Rather, in the<br />

overwhelming majority of instances, citizens who lose in the<br />

electoral process shrug their shoulders, obey the rules made<br />

by the winning representatives, and wait for their next chance<br />

to elect candidates whose policies are more to their liking.<br />

Even many supporters of Al Gore in 2000 came to accept<br />

Bush’s Electoral College victory as conferring legitimacy on<br />

him, despite his loss of the popular vote (see CLUES to Critical<br />

Thinking). The beauty of elections is that they can bring about<br />

change, but without grave threats to the stability of the system.<br />

Who • What • How<br />

Those with the greatest stake in the continued existence<br />

of elections in America are the citizens who live under<br />

their rule. At stake for citizens is, first, the important<br />

question of which candidates and parties will govern.<br />

However, by viewing elections in a broader perspective,<br />

we can see that elections also contribute to the quality of<br />

democratic life: they help to define a crucial relationship<br />

between the governed and those they choose as leaders, to<br />

influence public policy, to educate the citizenry, to contain<br />

conflict, and to legitimize political outcomes and decisions.<br />

Exercising the Right to<br />

Vote in America<br />

The costs of not voting<br />

We argued in <strong>Chapter</strong> 11 that even without being well<br />

informed and following campaigns closely, Americans can still<br />

cast intelligent votes reflecting their best interests. But what<br />

does it say about the American citizenry when, in a typical<br />

presidential election, barely half of the adult population<br />

votes In off-year congressional elections, in primaries, and in<br />

many state and local elections held at different times from the<br />

presidential contest, the rates of participation drop even lower.<br />

How do we explain this low voter turnout Is America<br />

just a nation of political slackers This is a serious and<br />

legitimate question in light of the important functions of<br />

democracy we have just discussed, and in light of the<br />

tremendous struggle many groups have had to achieve the<br />

right to vote. Indeed, as we saw in <strong>Chapter</strong> 6, the history of<br />

American suffrage—the right to vote—is one struggle after<br />

another for access to the ballot box.<br />

Voting varies dramatically in its importance to different<br />

citizens. For some, it is a significant aspect of their identities as<br />

citizens. Eighty-seven percent of American adults believe that<br />

voting in elections is a “very important obligation” for<br />

Americans. 17 Thus many people vote because they believe they<br />

should and because they believe the vote gives them a real<br />

influence on government. However, only about half the<br />

electorate has felt this way strongly enough to vote in recent<br />

presidential elections.<br />

Who Votes and Who Doesn’t<br />

Many political observers, activists, politicians, and political<br />

scientists worry about the extent of nonvoting in the United<br />

States. 18 When people do not vote, they have no voice in<br />

choosing their leaders, their policy preferences are not<br />

registered, and they do not develop as active citizens. Some<br />

observers fear that their abstention signals an alienation<br />

from the political process.<br />

From survey data, we know quite a lot about who votes<br />

and who doesn’t in America in terms of their age, gender,<br />

income, education, and racial and ethnic make-up:<br />

• Age. Older citizens consistently vote at higher rates.<br />

For example, 72.4 percent of those aged sixty-five<br />

to seventy-four years reported voting in the 2008<br />

election, compared to 48.5 percent of those aged<br />

eighteen to twenty-four years. This gap of 24 percent,<br />

however, is a bit smaller than it had been in previous<br />

elections (for example, 21 percent in 2004). However,<br />

the gap in turnout between the young and old<br />

grew to 40 percent as turnout dropped in the 2010<br />

midterm, but especially among young voters. 19<br />

• Gender. Since 1984 women have been voting at a higher<br />

rate than men, although the differences are typically<br />

only 3 or 4 percent. For example, in the 2008<br />

presidential election the turnout rates for women<br />

and men were 65.7 and 61.5 percent, respectively, 20<br />

dropping to 46.2 and 44.8, respectively, in 2010. 21<br />

• Income. The likelihood of voting goes up steadily with<br />

income. For example, in 2008 only 49 percent of those<br />

Bush Legitimacy Young Voters in 2008<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

Exercising the Right to Vote in America 515

• CLUES to Critical Thinking<br />

Al Gore’s Concession Speech<br />

December 13, 2000<br />

The 2000 presidential election was unusual<br />

on several counts (see What’s at Stake . . . <br />

in <strong>Chapter</strong> 10). A state’s election results<br />

were contested, amid accusations of fraud<br />

and misleading ballot design; that state’s<br />

supreme court was overruled by the U.S.<br />

Supreme Court in the matter of recounts;<br />

and the results of that contested state<br />

election gave an Electoral College victory to<br />

a candidate who had lost the popular vote.<br />

This concession speech by Al Gore, who won<br />

the popular vote even as he lost the<br />

Electoral College, highlights how elections,<br />

even as odd as this one, serve to<br />

legitimate government when people<br />

agree on the rules.<br />

Good evening.<br />

Just moments ago, I spoke with George W.<br />

Bush and congratulated him on becoming<br />

the 43rd president of the United States,<br />

and I promised him that I wouldn’t call<br />

him back this time.<br />

I offered to meet with him as soon as<br />

possible so that we can start to heal the<br />

divisions of the campaign and the contest<br />

through which we just passed.<br />

Almost a century and a half ago, Senator<br />

Stephen Douglas told Abraham Lincoln,<br />

who had just defeated him for the<br />

presidency, “Partisan feeling must yield<br />

to patriotism. I’m with you, Mr. President,<br />

and God bless you.”<br />

Well, in that same spirit, I say to<br />

President-elect Bush that what remains<br />

of partisan rancor must now be put aside,<br />

and may God bless his stewardship of this<br />

country.<br />

Neither he nor I anticipated this long<br />

and difficult road. Certainly neither of<br />

us wanted it to happen. Yet it came, and<br />

now it has ended, resolved, as it must be<br />

resolved, through the honored institutions<br />

of our democracy.<br />

Over the library of one of our great law<br />

schools is inscribed the motto, “Not under<br />

man but under God and law.” That’s the<br />

ruling principle of American freedom,<br />

the source of our democratic liberties.<br />

I’ve tried to make it my guide throughout<br />

this contest as it has guided America’s<br />

deliberations of all the complex issues of<br />

the past five weeks.<br />

Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken.<br />

Let there be no doubt, while I strongly<br />

disagree with the court’s decision, I<br />

accept it. I accept the finality of this<br />

outcome which will be ratified next<br />

Monday in the Electoral College. And<br />

tonight, for the sake of our unity of the<br />

people and the strength of our democracy,<br />

I offer my concession.<br />

I also accept my responsibility, which I<br />

will discharge unconditionally, to honor<br />

the new president elect and do everything<br />

possible to help him bring Americans<br />

together in fulfillment of the great vision<br />

that our Declaration of Independence<br />

defines and that our Constitution affirms<br />

and defends.<br />

Let me say how grateful I am to all<br />

those who supported me and supported<br />

the cause for which we have fought.<br />

Tipper and I feel a deep gratitude to<br />

Joe and Hadassah Lieberman who<br />

brought passion and high purpose to our<br />

partnership and opened new doors, not<br />

just for our campaign but for our country.<br />

This has been an extraordinary election.<br />

But in one of God’s unforeseen paths, this<br />

belatedly broken impasse can point us all to<br />

a new common ground, for its very closeness<br />

can serve to remind us that we are one people<br />

with a shared history and a shared destiny.<br />

Indeed, that history gives us many<br />

examples of contests as hotly debated, as<br />

fiercely fought, with their own challenges<br />

to the popular will.<br />

Other disputes have dragged on for weeks<br />

before reaching resolution. And each time,<br />

both the victor and the vanquished have<br />

accepted the result peacefully and in the<br />

spirit of reconciliation.<br />

So let it be with us.<br />

I know that many of my supporters are<br />

disappointed.<br />

I am too. But our disappointment must be<br />

overcome by our love of country.<br />

And I say to our fellow members of the<br />

world community, let no one see this<br />

contest as a sign of American weakness.<br />

The strength of American democracy<br />

is shown most clearly through the<br />

difficulties it can overcome.<br />

Some have expressed concern that the<br />

unusual nature of this election might<br />

hamper the next president in the conduct<br />

of his office. I do not believe it need be so.<br />

President-elect Bush inherits a nation<br />

whose citizens will be ready to assist him<br />

in the conduct of his large responsibilities.<br />

I personally will be at his disposal, and I<br />

call on all Americans—I particularly urge<br />

making $10,000 or less reported voting, compared to<br />

82 percent of those earning $150,000 or more. 22<br />

• Education. Education is consistently one of the strongest<br />

predictors of turnout. For instance, in the 2008<br />

election, only 39 percent of those with less than a<br />

high school education voted, compared to almost<br />

77 percent of those with a bachelor’s degree; 82.7<br />

percent of those with advanced degrees voted.<br />

• Race and ethnicity. Turnout among members of racial and<br />

ethnic minority groups has traditionally been lower<br />

516 14: Voting, Campaigns, and Elections<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

all who stood with us to unite behind our<br />

next president. This is America. Just as we<br />

fight hard when the stakes are high, we<br />

close ranks and come together when the<br />

contest is done.<br />

And while there will be time enough to<br />

debate our continuing differences, now is<br />

the time to recognize that that which unites<br />

us is greater than that which divides us.<br />

While we yet hold and do not yield our<br />

opposing beliefs, there is a higher duty than<br />

the one we owe to political party. This is<br />

America and we put country before party. We<br />

will stand together behind our new president.<br />

As for what I’ll do next, I don’t know the<br />

answer to that one yet. Like many of<br />

you, I’m looking forward to spending the<br />

holidays with family and old friends. I know<br />

I’ll spend time in Tennessee and mend<br />

some fences, literally and figuratively.<br />

Some have asked whether I have any regrets<br />

and I do have one regret: that I didn’t<br />

get the chance to stay and fight for the<br />

American people over the next four years,<br />

especially for those who need burdens lifted<br />

and barriers removed, especially for those<br />

who feel their voices have not been heard. I<br />

heard you and I will not forget.<br />

I’ve seen America in this campaign and I<br />

like what I see. It’s worth fighting for and<br />

that’s a fight I’ll never stop.<br />

As for the battle that ends tonight, I do<br />

believe as my father once said, that no<br />

matter how hard the loss, defeat might<br />

serve as well as victory to shape the soul<br />

and let the glory out.<br />

So for me this campaign ends as it began:<br />

with the love of Tipper and our family;<br />

with faith in God and in the country I have<br />

been so proud to serve, from Vietnam to<br />

the vice presidency; and with gratitude<br />

to our truly tireless campaign staff and<br />

volunteers, including all those who worked<br />

so hard in Florida for the last 36 days.<br />

Now the political struggle is over and we<br />

turn again to the unending struggle for<br />

the common good of all Americans and for<br />

those multitudes around the world who<br />

look to us for leadership in the cause of<br />

freedom.<br />

In the words of our great hymn, “America,<br />

America”: “Let us crown thy good with<br />

brotherhood, from sea to shining sea.”<br />

And now, my friends, in a phrase I once<br />

addressed to others, it’s time for me to go.<br />

Thank you and good night, and God bless<br />

America. •<br />

Consider the source and the audience: Gore is speaking to several<br />

audiences here. Who are they Why does he address “our fellow members of the<br />

world community” At the time, Gore was certainly considering a run for the<br />

presidency in the future. How might that have shaped his message How could<br />

he have used this speech to rally supporters if he had wanted to<br />

Lay out the argument, the values, and the assumptions: What personal<br />

values of Gore’s become apparent in this speech How do they affect his<br />

political views What is Gore’s view of the common good here How does that<br />

differ from partisan advantage, and when should the former take precedence<br />

over the latter When should a political outcome be accepted even when one<br />

doesn’t like it How do the “honored institutions of our democracy” help to<br />

resolve contests like this In what context does Gore refer to the Supreme Court<br />

and the Electoral College<br />

Uncover the evidence: What kinds of evidence does Gore use to support his<br />

argument that the result of the election process should be accepted even if one<br />

doesn’t agree with it, and that George W. Bush is the legitimate president of the<br />

United States<br />

Evaluate the conclusion: Did Gore’s use of symbolism and references to<br />

history, law, and religion convince supporters to accept the election result Did<br />

they convince the world that the United States was a stable and solid nation<br />

Did they convince the nation to put the trauma of the partisan backbiting<br />

behind it and move on<br />

Sort out the political implications:<br />

Many electoral reforms were debated<br />

Submit Your Answers<br />

following the election, but few were<br />

enacted. Who would have resisted<br />

reform, and why<br />

than that of whites. But that changed in 2008, with<br />

an African American as the Democratic nominee.<br />

Turnout for blacks was 65 percent, virtually tied with<br />

non-Hispanic whites (66 percent). Hispanic turnout<br />

increased in 2008 to 50 percent, surpassing turnout<br />

among Asians for that year. 23 In the 2010 midterm,<br />

racial and ethnic differences reemerged with turnout<br />

among non-Hispanic whites surpassing African<br />

American turnout by 5 percent and Latino turnout by<br />

17 percent. 24<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

Exercising the Right to Vote in America 517

Figure 14.1<br />

Voter Turnout in Presidential and Midterm House Elections, 1932–2010<br />

80<br />

Percentage of eligible electorate<br />

70<br />

60<br />

50<br />

40<br />

Presidential turnout<br />

Midterm turnout<br />

30<br />

1932 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 2000 04 08 12<br />

Sources: Presidential data through 2000 from 2005, The New York Times Almanac, 114; midterm data through 1998 from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Statistical Abstract, 291; 2004 data and beyond<br />

from United States Election Project, elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm.<br />

fig 14.1<br />

When we add these characteristics together, the<br />

differences are substantial. Compare, for example, the turnout<br />

among eighteen- to twenty-four-year-old males with less than<br />

a high school education (only 25.5 percent) with the turnout<br />

rate for females aged sixty-five to seventy-four years with<br />

advanced degrees (87.6 percent). 25 By virtue of their different<br />

turnout rates, some groups in American society are receiving<br />

much better representation than others. The same patterns<br />

hold true and are even more pronounced for types of political<br />

engagement other than voting, such as actively working for a<br />

party or candidate in distributing literature, staffing the<br />

phone banks during a get-out-the-vote drive, or making<br />

financial contributions. 26 The upshot is that our elected<br />

officials are indebted to and hear much more from the higher<br />

socioeconomic ranks in society. They do not hear from and<br />

are not elected by the low-participation “have nots.” 27<br />

Why Americans Don’t Vote<br />

As we have noted elsewhere, compared with other<br />

democratic nations, the United States has low voter turnout<br />

levels (see Figure 11.1, on page 407). Despite overall<br />

increases in education, age, and income, which generally<br />

increase the number of voters, presidential election turnout<br />

rates have barely gotten over the 60-percent mark for more<br />

Voter Rights<br />

Voter Fatigue in<br />

Wisconsin<br />

than thirty years (and Thinking Outside the Box<br />

midterm congressional<br />

turnout rates have<br />

been much lower) 28<br />

(see Figure 14.1). What<br />

accounts for such low turnout rates in a country where 82<br />

percent of adults say voting is important to democracy 29 —<br />

indeed, in a country that often prides itself on being one of<br />

the best and oldest examples of democracy in the world The<br />

question of low voter turnout in the United States poses a<br />

tremendous puzzle for political scientists, who have focused<br />

on six factors to try to explain this mystery.<br />

Should there be penalties<br />

for those who don’t vote<br />

Legal Obstacles<br />

Voter turnout provides a dramatic illustration of our theme<br />

that rules make a difference in who wins and who loses in<br />

politics. The rules that govern elections vary in democracies<br />

around the world, yielding very different rates of turnout. So,<br />

for example, in many other democracies it is the government,<br />

not the individual voter, that bears the responsibility for<br />

registering citizens to vote, and in some countries—Australia,<br />

Belgium, and Italy, for example—voting is required by law.<br />

Turnout rates in these countries are high. 30 But in the United<br />

States, several election rules actually make it more difficult for<br />

voters to exercise their right to vote, not only by requiring<br />

advance registration but also by limiting voting to a single<br />

weekday when most people have to work. U.S. laws also allow<br />

for many elections, and evidence suggests that frequency of<br />

518 14: Voting, Campaigns, and Elections<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

elections results in “voter fatigue.” The low turnout that results<br />

may be an accidental consequence of laws intended for other<br />

purposes, but in some cases politicians support those laws in<br />

the belief that high turnout will benefit the other party or be<br />

harmful to stable government.<br />

A number of reform efforts have attempted to ease the<br />

burden of casting a ballot. For instance, Congress passed the<br />

National Voter Registration Act of 1993, or the Motor Voter Bill<br />

as it is more commonly called, which requires the states to take<br />

a more active role in registering people to vote, including<br />

providing registration opportunities when people are applying<br />

for driver’s licenses or at the welfare office. A number of states<br />

also allow extended periods of early voting. In addition, some<br />

states have instituted the option to register on an election day,<br />

and Oregon has even gone as far as having its elections by mail.<br />

Each reform has marginally increased the numbers of people<br />

voting, but on the whole the results have been a disappointment<br />

to reformers. An exhaustive review of the research concluded<br />

that, even with obstacles to voting removed, “for many people,<br />

voting remains an activity from which there is virtually no<br />

gratification—instrumental, expressive, or otherwise.” 31<br />

More recently, laws have been adopted widely in the states<br />

that require various forms of identification as a requirement of<br />

voting. Almost all of them have been sponsored by<br />

Republicans, passed by Republican-controlled legislatures, and<br />

strongly contested by Democratic and civil rights groups. The<br />

ostensible justification is to prevent voter fraud, although<br />

investigations have found virtually no instances of such<br />

fraud. 32 A stream of data shows those most likely to be<br />

disenfranchised by the voter ID laws are overwhelmingly the<br />

types of citizens more likely to support Democratic<br />

candidates. 33 In a close 2008 decision, the Supreme Court<br />

ruled that an Indiana voter ID law—at the time the strictest in<br />

the nation—does not violate the U.S. Constitution. However,<br />

the opinion left an opening for a future challenge if<br />

individuals can show their rights are violated, 34 and in the<br />

days leading up to the 2012 election there were a number of<br />

challenges before the courts. The courts put many of the new<br />

laws on hold, deciding that there wasn’t time to properly<br />

execute them, and altogether the courts pushed back on<br />

restrictive voting rules in Wisconsin, Texas, Florida, Arizona,<br />

South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. 35 But the Supreme<br />

Court agreed to hear a challenge to part of the 1965 Voting<br />

Rights Act that requires southern states to “preclear” changes<br />

to their voting laws to ensure they are nondiscriminatory.<br />

Conservatives argue the law is no longer necessary; liberals<br />

argue that the effort to disenfranchise minority voters is still<br />

alive and well. The Supreme Court has signaled that it is likely<br />

to strike down at least part of the law. 36<br />

Attitude Changes<br />

Political scientists have found that some of the low voter<br />

turnout we can see in Figure 14.1 is accounted for by<br />

changes over time in psychological orientations or attitudes<br />

toward politics. 37 For one thing, if people feel that they do<br />

not or cannot make a difference and that government is not<br />

responsive to their wishes, they often don’t bother to vote.<br />

Lower feelings of political efficacy lead to less participation.<br />

A second orientation that has proved important in<br />

explaining low turnout is partisanship. There was a distinct<br />

decline in Americans’ attachments to the two major political<br />

parties in the 1960s and 1970s. With a drop in party<br />

identification came a drop in voting levels. This decline,<br />

however, has leveled off, and in recent years there has even<br />

been an increase in the percentage of citizens saying they<br />

identify as Democrats or Republicans. This slight increase in<br />

partisanship may have stemmed the decline in turnout that<br />

was apparent from the late 1960s through the 1980s.<br />

Attitudes, of course, do not change without some cause; they<br />

reflect citizens’ reactions to what they see in the political world. It<br />

is easy to understand why attitudes have changed since the<br />

relatively tranquil 1950s. Amid repeated scandal and increasing<br />

partisanship, our public airwaves have been dominated by<br />

negative information about and images of the leadership in<br />

Washington, D.C. The Bush administration did enjoy a period of<br />

good feeling in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks as<br />

the nation rallied against the threat of terrorism, but that<br />

dissipated as politics got back to usual. President Obama ran<br />

successfully by raising expectations for a more inclusive, cleaner,<br />

and less partisan politics. Many in the electorate bought the<br />

message of hope, and the United States saw the highest turnout<br />

levels in decades. However, while Obama was able to pass quite a<br />

bit of legislation, the deep partisan differences that divide the<br />

parties and the complexities of our economic and environmental<br />

problems dashed the (perhaps unrealistic) hopes of many voters.<br />

In 2010 Democratic voter turnout was down, especially among<br />

young voters as discussed above, in part because midterm election<br />

turnout always drops but also possibly reflecting frustration with<br />

Obama’s inability to change the tone as he had promised and<br />

with the continued partisanship in politics. As we saw in <strong>Chapter</strong><br />

7, the new and very ideological Republican majority in the House<br />

did nothing to quell the rancorous partisanship inside the Beltway.<br />

Voter Mobilization<br />

Another factor that political scientists argue has led to lower<br />

turnout from the 1960s into the 2000s is a change in the<br />

Voter ID Laws<br />

More on Voter ID Battle<br />

Motor Voter Bill legislation allowing citizens to register to vote at<br />

the same time they apply for a driver’s license or other state benefit<br />

Daily Show on<br />

Voter ID<br />

Midterm Turnout<br />

Exercising the Right to Vote in America 519<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

Can’t Wait to Vote<br />

Mobilization efforts like early voting and mail-in ballots aim to boost turnout by making the<br />

process easier. Yet in some states, restrictions are making the process more difficult. Here,<br />

Florida voters lined up early to cast their ballots in the 2008 presidential election.<br />

efforts of politicians, interest groups, and especially political<br />

parties to make direct contact with people during election<br />

campaigns. 38 Voter mobilization includes contacting people—<br />

especially supporters—to inform them about the election<br />

and to persuade them to vote. It can take the form of making<br />

phone calls, knocking on doors, or even supplying rides to the<br />

polls. As the technology of campaigns, especially the use of<br />

television, developed and expanded in the 1980s and 1990s,<br />

fewer resources were used for the traditional shoe-leather<br />

efforts of direct contact with voters, but solid evidence now<br />

indicates that personal contacts do a better job of getting<br />

out the vote than do mass mailing and telephone calls. 39<br />

Television is certainly useful for reaching large numbers of<br />

citizens with a campaign message, but it is less effective at<br />

motivating people to vote. In fact, negative television attack<br />

ads tend to turn people off and hurt turnout. 40 As we saw<br />

in What’s at Stake. . . , recently, both Democrats and Republicans<br />

have increased their efforts at voter mobilization. They and a<br />

growing number of interest groups are combining computer<br />

technology with personal contacts as an integral part of their<br />

overall campaigns. 41 The increases in turnout that we have<br />

seen in the last few presidential elections (see Figure 14.1) are<br />

attributable, at least in part, to these efforts. 42<br />

Decrease in Social Connectedness<br />

Some of the overall decline in voter turnout toward the end<br />

of the last century is due to larger societal changes rather than<br />

Older Citizens Voting<br />

Don’t Vote<br />

to citizen reactions to parties and political<br />

leaders. Social connectedness refers to the<br />

number of organizations people participate<br />

in and how tightly knit their communities<br />

and families are—that is, how well integrated<br />

they are into the society in which they<br />

live. The evidence indicates that people<br />

are increasingly likely to live alone and to<br />

be single, new to their communities, and<br />

isolated from organizations. As individuals<br />

loosen or altogether lose their ties to the<br />

larger community, they have less of a stake in<br />

participating in communal decisions—and<br />

less support for participatory activities. Lower<br />

levels of social connectedness have been an<br />

important factor in accounting for the low<br />

turnout in national elections. 43<br />

Generational Changes<br />

Events occurring in the formative years of a<br />

generation continue to shape its members’<br />

orientation toward politics throughout their lives, and can<br />

account for varying turnout levels. This is different from the<br />

observation that people are more likely to vote as they get older.<br />

For instance, those age groups (cohorts) that came of age after<br />

the 1960s show much lower levels of attachment to politics, and<br />

they vote at lower rates than do their parents or grandparents.<br />

Some research suggests that generational differences account<br />

for much or most of the turnout decline at the end of the<br />

1990s. That is, people who once voted have not stopped voting;<br />

rather, they are dying and are being replaced by younger, less<br />

politically engaged voters. The result is lower turnout overall. 44<br />

Of course it is possible for this trend to be reversed as events and<br />

personalities politicize and mobilize new generations of citizens.<br />

The Rational Nonvoter<br />

A final explanation for the puzzle of low voter turnout in<br />

America considers that, for some people, not voting may be the<br />

rational choice. This explanation suggests that the question to ask<br />

is not “Why don’t people vote” but rather “Why does anyone<br />

vote” The definition of rational means that the benefits of an<br />

action outweigh the costs. It is rational for us to do those things<br />

from which we get back more than we put in. Voting demands<br />

our resources, time, and effort. Given those costs, if someone<br />

views voting primarily as a way to influence government and<br />

sees no other benefits from it, it becomes a largely irrational<br />

act. 45 That is, no one individual’s vote can change the course of<br />

voter mobilization a party’s efforts to inform potential voters<br />

about issues and candidates and to persuade them to vote<br />

social connectedness citizens’ involvement in groups and their<br />

relationships to their communities and families<br />

520 14: Voting, Campaigns, and Elections<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

an election unless the election would otherwise be a tie, and the<br />

probability of that happening in a presidential election is small<br />

(though, as the 2000 election showed, it is not impossible).<br />

For many people, however, the benefits of voting go<br />

beyond the likelihood that they will affect the outcome of the<br />

election. In fact, studies have demonstrated that turnout<br />

decisions are not really based on our thinking that our votes<br />

will determine the outcome. Rather, we achieve other kinds of<br />

benefits from voting. It feels good to do what we think we are<br />

supposed to do or to help, however little, the side or the causes<br />

we believe in. Plus, we get social rewards from our politically<br />

involved friends for voting (and avoid sarcastic remarks for not<br />

voting). These benefits accrue no matter which side wins.<br />

Does Nonvoting Matter<br />

What difference does it make that some people vote and<br />

others do not There are two ways to tackle this question. One<br />

approach is to ask whether election outcomes would be different<br />

if nonvoters were to participate. The other approach is to ask<br />

whether higher levels of nonvoting indicate that democracy<br />

is not healthy. Both questions, of course, concern important<br />

potential consequences of low participation in our elections.<br />

Consequences for Election Outcomes<br />

Studies of the likely effects of nonvoting come up with<br />

contradictory answers. A traditional, and seemingly logical,<br />

approach is to note that nonvoters, being disproportionately poor<br />

and less educated, have social and economic characteristics that<br />

are more common among Democrats than among Republicans.<br />

Therefore, were these people to vote, we could expect that<br />

Democratic candidates would do better. Some polling results<br />

support this thinking. Pollsters asked registered voters a number<br />

of questions to judge how likely it was that they would actually<br />

vote in elections for House members. When the voting intentions<br />

of all registered voters and the subset of likely voters were<br />

compared, the likely voters were distinctly more Republican.<br />

If this were to hold true generally, we could conclude that<br />

nonvoting works to the disadvantage of Democratic candidates.<br />

One political scholar found some evidence of this for the 1980<br />

presidential election and concluded that a much higher turnout<br />

among nonvoters would have made the election closer and<br />

that Jimmy Carter might even have won reelection. 46 Similarly,<br />

when political scientists have run simulations to test whether full<br />

turnout would alter the results in elections for the U.S. Senate,<br />

the share of the vote for Democratic candidates is increased, but<br />

given that these elections are not particularly close, the extra<br />

votes would seldom change the winner of the elections. 47<br />

Undermining this interpretation are findings from most<br />

other presidential elections that nonvoters’ preferences are quite<br />

responsive to short-term factors, so they go disproportionately<br />

for the winning candidate. Because these voters are less partisan<br />

and have less intensely held issue positions, they are moved<br />

more easily by the short-term campaign factors favoring one<br />

party or the other. In most presidential elections, nonvoters’<br />

participation would have increased the winner’s margin only<br />

slightly or not changed things at all. 48 Interviews taken shortly<br />

after the two most recent presidential elections suggest that<br />

those who did not vote would have broken for the winner,<br />

Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008. 49<br />

We are left with an interesting inconsistency: Research<br />

suggests that the potential effects of mobilizing nonvoters are<br />

probably not as consistently pro-Democratic as popular<br />

commentary suggests. But at the same time, in one voting<br />

reform rule after another, we see Democrats consistently<br />

favoring measures to increase turnout and Republicans just as<br />

consistently favoring more restrictive rules. 50 Thus, the politics<br />

of regulating the electorate is intensely partisan, even while<br />

the actual consequences remain somewhat uncertain.<br />

Consequences for Democracy<br />

Low turnout might not affect who wins an election, but<br />

elections do more than simply select leaders. How might<br />

nonvoting affect the quality of democratic life in America<br />

Nonvoting can influence the stability and legitimacy of<br />

democratic government. The victor in close presidential<br />

elections, for example, must govern the country, but as<br />

critics often point out, as little as 25 percent of the eligible<br />

electorate may have voted for the winner. When a majority of<br />

the electorate sits out of an election, the entire governmental<br />

process may begin to<br />

lose legitimacy in society Thinking Outside the Box<br />

at large. Nonvoting can<br />

also have consequences<br />

for the nonvoter. As we<br />

have noted, failure to participate politically can aggravate<br />

already low feelings of efficacy and produce higher levels of<br />

political estrangement. To the extent that being a citizen is an<br />

active pursuit, unhappy, unfulfilled, and unconnected citizens<br />

seriously damage the quality of democratic life for themselves<br />

and for the country as a whole.<br />

Who • What • How<br />

Is our democracy stronger<br />

if more Americans vote<br />

All political actors are not equal on Election Day. Some<br />

reduce their power considerably by failing to turn out to<br />

vote. Two things are at stake in these turnout patterns. The<br />

first is a question of representation and political power:<br />

while many politicians would like to attend to the needs of<br />

all constituents equally, when push comes to shove and they<br />

have to make hard choices, voters are going to be heeded<br />

more than silent nonvoters. A second issue at stake in low<br />

Voting Rights<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

Exercising the Right to Vote in America 521

and declining turnout rates is the quality of democratic<br />

life—and the stability and legitimacy of the system.<br />

Nonvoting is tied to citizen estrangement from the political<br />

process, and in this view the quality of democratic life itself<br />

depends on active citizen participation.<br />

How the Voter Decides<br />

Many factors determine the final choice<br />

Putting an X next to a name on a ballot or pulling a lever on a<br />

voting machine or even putting your finger on a party icon on<br />

a touch-screen monitor to register a preference would seem<br />

like a pretty simple act. But although the action itself may be<br />

simple, the decision process behind the choice is anything<br />

but. A number of considerations go into our decision about<br />

how to vote, including our partisan identification and social<br />

group membership; our gender, race, and ethnicity; our stance<br />

on the issues and our evaluation of the job government has<br />

been doing generally; and our opinions of the candidates.<br />

In this section we examine how these factors play out in the<br />

simple act of voting.<br />

Partisanship and<br />

Social Group Membership<br />

The single biggest factor accounting for how people decide to<br />

vote is party identification, a concept we discussed in <strong>Chapter</strong> 12.<br />

For most citizens, party ID is stable and long-term, carrying<br />

over from one election to the next in what one scholar has<br />

called “a standing decision.” 51 In 2012, for example, 92<br />

percent of those identifying with the Democratic Party voted<br />

for Barack Obama, and 93 percent of those identifying with<br />

the Republican Party voted for Mitt Romney. 52<br />

Clearly, party ID has a strong and direct influence on<br />

identifiers’ voting decisions. Scholars have demonstrated that<br />

party ID also has an important indirect influence on voting<br />

decisions, because voters’ party ID also colors their views on<br />

policy issues and their evaluation of candidates, leading them to<br />

judge their party’s candidate and issue positions as superior. 53<br />

Under unusual circumstances, social group characteristics can<br />

exaggerate or override traditional partisan loyalties. The 1960<br />

election, for instance, was cast in terms of whether the nation<br />

would elect its first Catholic president. In that context, religion<br />

was especially salient, and fully 82 percent of Roman Catholics<br />

supported John F. Kennedy, compared to just 37 percent of<br />

Protestants—a difference of 45 percentage points. Compare that<br />

to 1976, when the Democrats ran a devout Baptist, Jimmy Carter,<br />

for president. The percentage of Catholics voting Democratic<br />

Party Identification by<br />

Voters<br />

522 14: Voting, Campaigns, and Elections<br />

dropped to 58 percent, while Protestants voting Democratic<br />

increased to 46 percent. The difference shrank to just 12 percent.<br />

Gender, Race, and Ethnicity<br />

The impact of gender on voting decisions is not clear. In<br />

<strong>Chapter</strong> 11 we discussed the gender gap in the positions<br />

men and women take on the issues, which has generally<br />

led women to be more likely to support the Democratic<br />

candidate. Since 1964, women have been more supportive of<br />

the Democratic candidate in every presidential election but<br />

one (they were not more likely to support Carter in 1976),<br />

and the Democrats clearly wanted to put women’s issues at<br />

the forefront on the 2012 campaign. 54 But women do not<br />

vote monolithically; for instance, married women are more<br />

conservative than single women.<br />

It’s an open question whether the gender of a candidate<br />

affects the women’s vote. In statewide races, there is some<br />

evidence that Republican and independent women will cross<br />

party lines to vote for Democratic women candidates, though<br />

the opposite is not true for Republican women candidates. 55<br />

In the Super Tuesday 2008 Democratic primaries, a larger<br />

percentage of women than men voted for Hillary Clinton in<br />

fourteen out of sixteen states. 56 However, despite the<br />

speculation that the nomination of Sarah Palin as the<br />

Republican vice presidential candidate might have swayed<br />

some women to support the McCain-Palin ticket, there was<br />

little evidence in the 2008 exit polls to support that idea.<br />

African Americans have tended to vote Democratic since<br />

the civil rights movement of the 1960s. In fact, African<br />

Americans have averaged just under 90 percent of the<br />

two-party vote for the Democratic candidate in recent<br />

presidential elections (1988 to 2004). 57 The nomination of<br />

Barack Obama, the first black to receive a major party’s<br />

presidential nomination, increased the solidarity of the African<br />

American vote even further in 2008. This was evident in the<br />

Democratic primaries, where the African American vote was a<br />

major factor, with 82 percent of it going for Obama, compared<br />

to 16 percent for Hillary Clinton. Having a black presidential<br />

candidate heightened the role of race in the general election as<br />

well. African American support for the Democratic ticket<br />

reached a record 95 percent in 2008 and 93 percent in 2012. 58<br />

Ethnicity is less predictive of the vote than race, partly<br />

because ethnic groups in the United States become politically<br />

diverse as they are assimilated into the system. Although<br />

immigrant groups have traditionally found a home in the<br />

Democratic Party, dating back to the days when the party<br />

machine would provide a one-stop shop for new immigrants<br />

seeking jobs, homes, and social connections, recent immigrant<br />

groups today include Asians and Hispanics, both of which<br />

comprise diverse ethnic communities with distinct identities<br />

and varying partisan tendencies. 59 These diverse groups tend<br />

to support the Democratic Party, but each has subgroups that<br />

are distinctly more Republican: Vietnamese, in the case of<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

• Who Are We How did we vote in the 2012 election<br />

Changes in the Electorate, 2000–2012<br />

The 2012 Presidential Election, by Demographic Group<br />

Marital Status/Gender<br />

Married Men<br />

Married Women<br />

Unmarried Men<br />

Unmarried Women<br />

Size of Place<br />

Cities (over 50,000)<br />

Suburbs<br />

Small cities & rural<br />

Race/Ethnicity<br />

White (non-Hispanic)<br />

African American<br />

Latino<br />

Asian American<br />

Other<br />

Age<br />

18–29<br />

30–44<br />

45–64<br />

65 & over<br />

2000 2012<br />

33.2 29<br />

31.9<br />

15.5<br />

19.3<br />

29<br />

43<br />

28<br />

81<br />

9.7<br />

6.5<br />

1.7<br />

1.4<br />

16.7<br />

32.9<br />

28.4<br />

22<br />

31<br />

18<br />

23<br />

32<br />

47<br />

21<br />

74<br />

13<br />

9.0<br />

2.0<br />

3<br />

18<br />

29<br />

37<br />

16<br />

−10 −5 0 5 10<br />

Changes as percentage of voters<br />

Source: Figures for 2000 calculated by authors from Voter News Service General<br />

Election Exit Polls, 2000 (obtained from Inter-university Consortium for Political<br />

and Social Research); for 2012, figures calculated from ABC News 2012 Exit Polls,<br />

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/Nationalep=pre_na.<br />

Democrats (38%)<br />

Independents (29%)<br />

Republicans (32%)<br />

White (non-Hispanic)<br />

(72%)<br />

African American<br />

(13%)<br />

Latino (10%)<br />

Asian American (2%)<br />

Other (2%)<br />

Protestant (29%)<br />

Catholic (25%)<br />

Mormon (2%)<br />

Jewish (2%)<br />

Other (7%)<br />

None (12%)<br />

Party Identification<br />

0 20 40 60 80 100<br />

Race/Ethnicity<br />

0 20 40 60 80 100<br />

Religion<br />

0 20 40 60 80 100<br />

Liberals (25%)<br />

Moderates (41%)<br />

Conservatives (35%)<br />

Woman (53%)<br />

Men (47%)<br />

18–29 (19%)<br />

30–44 (27%)<br />

45–64 (38%)<br />

65 and over (16%)<br />

Under $30,000 (20%)<br />

$30,000–49,999<br />

(21%)<br />

$50,000–99,999<br />

(31%)<br />

$100,000–199,999<br />

(21%)<br />

$200,000–249,999<br />

(3%)<br />

More than $250,000<br />

(4%)<br />

Ideology<br />

0 20 40 60 80 100<br />

Gender<br />

0 20 40 60 80 100<br />

Age<br />

0 20 40 60 80 100<br />

Income<br />

0 20 40 60 80 100<br />

Barack Obama Mit Romney Other/No answer<br />

Issue Ownership in the 2012 Election<br />

Which issues were most important (percentage<br />

responding “most important”)<br />

Source: ABC News 2012 Exit Polls, http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/Nationalep=pre_na.<br />

Note: Values in parentheses indicate the proportion each group made up of the electorate; bars indicate the<br />

presidential vote division of that group.<br />

*The economy (59%)<br />

**Deficit (15%)<br />

*Health care (18%)<br />

*Foreign policy (5%)<br />

0 20 40 60 80 100<br />

% Voting for Obama % Voting for Romney<br />

% Voting for other candidates<br />

Source: ABC News 2012 Exit Polls, http://abcnews.go.com/<br />

politics/elections/Nationalep=pre_na.<br />

*Issues favoring Obama.<br />

**Issue favoring Romney.<br />

Behind the Numbers<br />

Here we see both long- and<br />

short-run problems that inform<br />

our understanding of the 2012<br />

presidential election. In what<br />

some have termed the “ticking<br />

demographic time bomb,” we<br />

can see the electorate has<br />

changed (and will continue<br />

to change). Fewer voters are<br />

in traditional households<br />

(husband and wife) and the<br />

electorate is becoming less<br />

rural, less white, and younger.<br />

Looking ahead, the Republican<br />

Party faces a challenge: all<br />

of these groups are growing<br />

and vote disproportionately<br />

Democratic. Also note that<br />

although Romney won handily<br />

among the 15% who considered<br />

the deficit the most important<br />

problem, he was unable<br />

to hold the advantage he<br />

initially had with voters on the<br />

economy. With that advantage<br />

neutralized, Obama was able<br />

to win with his edge on other<br />

issues, particularly among<br />

those most concerned with his<br />

signature policy, health care.<br />

How the Voter Decides 523<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

Asians, and Cubans, among Latino groups. 60 That said, in<br />

2012, Obama received the overwhelming majority of<br />

Hispanic votes. Nationally 71 percent of Latino voters<br />

supported Obama (up from 67 percent in 2008), as did 73<br />

percent of Asian Americans, and 58 percent of all other racial<br />

and ethnic minorities. One observer calls these groups the<br />

“coalition of the ascendant,” meaning that these are growing<br />

portions of the population whose support for the Democratic<br />

Party spells trouble for the Republicans if they cannot broaden<br />

their appeal. 61<br />

Issues and Policy<br />

An idealized view of elections would have highly attentive<br />

citizens paying careful attention to the different policy<br />

positions offered by the candidates and then, perhaps aided<br />

by informed policy analyses from the media, casting their<br />

ballots for the candidates who best represent their preferred<br />

policy solutions. In truth, as we know by now, American<br />

citizens are not “ideal,” and the role played by issues is less<br />

obvious and more complicated than the ideal model would<br />

predict. The role of issues in electoral decision making is<br />

limited by the following factors:<br />

• People are busy and, in many cases, rely on party<br />

labels to tell them what they need to know about the<br />

candidates. 62<br />

• People know where they stand on “easy” issues like<br />

capital punishment or prayer in schools, but some<br />

issues, like economic and tax policy, health care,<br />

Social Security reform, or foreign policy in the Middle<br />

East, are complicated. Many citizens tend to tune out<br />

these more complicated issues or, confused, fail to<br />

vote in their own interests. 63<br />

• The media do not generally cover issues in depth. Instead,<br />

they much prefer to focus on the horse-race aspect of<br />

elections, looking at who is ahead in the polls rather than<br />

what substantive policy issues mean for the nation. 64<br />

• As we discussed in <strong>Chapter</strong> 11, people process a<br />

lot of policy-relevant information in terms of their<br />

impressions of candidates (on-line processing) rather<br />

than as policy information. They are certainly influenced<br />

by policy information, but they cannot necessarily<br />

articulate their opinions and preferences on policy.<br />

Although calculated policy decisions by voters are rare,<br />

policy considerations do have a real impact on voters’<br />

decisions. To see that, it is useful to distinguish between<br />

prospective and retrospective voting. The idealized model of<br />

Side With Quiz<br />

Retrospective Voting<br />

policy voting with which we opened this section is<br />

prospective voting, in which voters base their decisions on<br />

what will happen in the future if they vote for a candidate—<br />

what policies will be enacted, what values will be<br />

emphasized in policy. Prospective voting requires a good deal<br />

of information that average voters, as we have seen, do not<br />

always have or even want. While all voters do some<br />

prospective voting and, by election time, are usually aware of<br />

the candidates’ major issue positions, it is primarily party<br />

activists and political elites who engage in the full-scale<br />

policy analysis that prospective voting entails.<br />

Instead, most voters supplement their spotty policy<br />

information and interest with their evaluation of how they<br />

think the country is doing, how the economy has performed,<br />

and how well the incumbents have carried out their jobs.<br />

They engage in retrospective voting, casting their votes as<br />

signs of approval based on past performance to signal their<br />

desire for more of the same or for change. 65<br />

In presidential elections this means that voters look back at<br />

the state of the economy, at perceived successes or failures in<br />

foreign policy, and at domestic issues like education, gun<br />

control, or welfare reform. In 1980 Ronald Reagan skillfully<br />

focused on voter frustration in the presidential debate by asking<br />

voters this question: “[A]re you better off than you were four<br />

years ago” 66 Politicians have been reprising that question ever<br />

since. In 2008 the situation was more complicated, as no<br />

incumbent was running, but nonetheless Democrat Barack<br />

Obama tried to make the election a retrospective referendum<br />

on the Bush years, tying Republican John McCain to Bush’s<br />

record whenever he could. The effort was partially successful;<br />

fully 67 percent of the almost three-quarters of the electorate<br />

who disapproved of how Bush was handling his job voted for<br />

Obama. But in the 2010 midterm elections Republicans<br />

managed to turn the strategy back on Obama, pegging the<br />

stubbornly bad economy to his policies and tapping into voter<br />

angst about the economy to turn Democrats out of office.<br />

In 2012 the central strategic campaign objective of the<br />

Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, was to cast the election<br />

as a referendum on Obama’s culpability for a slow economic<br />

recovery, hoping that this strategy would push voters to cast a<br />

ballot for change. The Obama campaign had the challenge of<br />

changing the subject and making the election a choice<br />

between the president’s and Romney’s visions for the country.<br />

The Obama campaign began a concerted effort to shape<br />

public views of Romney in the summer of 2012, running<br />

commercials that painted the Republican as a rich venture<br />

prospective voting basing voting decisions on well-informed<br />

opinions and consideration of the future consequences of a<br />

given vote<br />

retrospective voting basing voting decisions on reactions to<br />

past performance; approving the status quo or a desire for change<br />

524 14: Voting, Campaigns, and Elections<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

capitalist who was out of touch with middle-class America.<br />

By the time Romney began to answer those ads in the fall<br />

campaign, many people had made up their minds. Gaffes on<br />

Romney’s part, particularly his statement caught on videotape<br />

that 47 percent of Americans would never vote for him<br />

because they were dependent on government and took no<br />

responsibility for their lives, cemented his fate. Although the<br />

election was close, exit polls showed that most voters did not<br />

hold Obama responsible for the economy and thought he<br />

cared more about their concerns than Romney did.<br />

Retrospective voting is considered to be “easy” decision<br />

making as opposed to the more complex decision making<br />

involved in prospective voting because one only has to ask,<br />

“How have things been going” as a guide to whether to<br />

support the current party in power. Retrospective voting is<br />

also seen as a useful way of holding politicians accountable,<br />

not for what they said or are saying in a campaign, but for<br />

what they or members of their party in power did. Some<br />

scholars believe that this type of voting is all that is needed<br />

for democracy to function well. 67 In practice, voters combine<br />

elements of both voting strategies.<br />

The Candidates<br />

In addition to considerations of party, personal<br />

demographics, and issues, voters also base their decisions on<br />

judgments about candidates as individuals. What influences<br />

voters’ images of candidates<br />

Some observers have claimed that voters view candidate<br />

characteristics much as they would a beauty or personality<br />

contest. There is little support, however, for the notion that voters<br />

are won over merely by good looks or movie-star qualities.<br />

Consider, for example, that Richard Nixon almost won against<br />

John F. Kennedy, who had good looks, youth, and a quick wit in<br />

his favor. Then, in 1964, the awkward, gangly Lyndon Johnson<br />

defeated the more handsome and articulate Barry Goldwater in a<br />

landslide. In fact, ample evidence indicates that voters form clear<br />

opinions about candidate qualities that are relevant to governing,<br />

such as trustworthiness, competence, experience, and sincerity.<br />

Citizens also make judgments about the ability of the candidates<br />

to lead the nation and withstand the pressures of the presidency.<br />

Ronald Reagan, for example, was admired widely for his ability<br />

to stay above the fray of Washington politics and to see the<br />

humor in many situations. By contrast, his predecessor, Jimmy<br />

Carter, seemed overwhelmed by the job.<br />

The 2012 campaign allowed voters to develop distinct<br />

images of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. First, voters had<br />

four years of almost daily experience with Obama as<br />

president, and one thing that the polls showed was that voters<br />

generally liked him, even in an economy that virtually<br />

everyone agreed had not recovered fast enough. In January of<br />

2012 one poll found that fully 71 percent agreed that the<br />

president was “warm and friendly” rather than “cold and<br />

aloof.” 68 Similarly, Obama stacked up well as a “good<br />

communicator” and one who “cares about people like me.”<br />

Voters who valued this attribute most in their voting decisions<br />

cast 81 percent of their ballots for Obama. 69 Obama’s<br />

challenger Mitt Romney early on decided to stress his success<br />

in business as qualification for dealing with the economy. He<br />

did manage to hold an edge on who could manage the<br />

economy better (just 49 percent to 48 percent in the exit<br />

polls), but, with the help of a lot of Democratic and Obama<br />

ads, he came to be seen as a rich plutocrat who was<br />

unconcerned about the average person. Pundits and late-night<br />

comedians got a lot of mileage out of Romney’s off-the-cuff<br />

offer of a $10,000 wager during a primary debate, his remark<br />

that he liked to fire people who perform services for him, and<br />

his remarks to his contributors about the 47 percent who do<br />

not pay income taxes. Clearly there was a substantial<br />

difference in perceptions of the candidates in 2012: both<br />

candidates were seen as competent to deal with the most<br />

important problem, the economy, but Obama was perceived<br />

as also caring more about the average citizen.<br />

Who • What • How<br />

Citizens have a strong interest in seeing that good<br />

and effective leaders are elected and that power transfers<br />

peacefully from losers to winners. By the standard of highly<br />

informed voters carefully weighing the alternative policy<br />

proposals of competing candidates, the electorate may seem<br />

to fall short. However, by a realistic standard that considers<br />

the varying abilities of people and the frequent reluctance<br />

of candidates and the media to be fully forthcoming about<br />

policy proposals, the electorate does not do too badly.<br />

Voters come to their decisions through a mix of partisan<br />

considerations, membership in social groups, policy<br />

information, and candidate image.<br />

Presidential Campaigns<br />

The long, expensive road to the White House<br />

Being president of the United States is undoubtedly a<br />

difficult challenge, but so is getting the job in the first place.<br />

In this section we examine the long, expensive, and grueling<br />

“road to the White House,” as the media like to call it.<br />

Getting Nominated<br />

Each of the major parties (and the minor parties, too) needs<br />

to come up with a single viable candidate from the long<br />

list of party members with ambitions to serve in the White<br />

House. How the candidate is chosen will determine the<br />

sort of candidate chosen. Remember, in politics the rules<br />

are always central to shaping the outcome. Prior to 1972,<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

Presidential Campaigns 525

primary election results were mostly considered “beauty<br />

contests” because their results were not binding. But since<br />

1972, party nominees for the presidency have been chosen<br />

in primaries, taking the power away from the party elite<br />

and giving it to the activist members of the party who care<br />

enough to turn out and vote in the party primaries.<br />

The Pre-primary Season<br />

It is hard to say when a candidate’s presidential campaign<br />

actually begins. Potential candidates may begin planning<br />

and thinking about running for the presidency in childhood.<br />

Bill Clinton is said to have wanted to be president since<br />

high school, when he shook President Kennedy’s hand.<br />

At one time or another, many people in politics consider<br />

going for the big prize, but there are several crucial steps<br />

between wishful thinking and running for the nomination.<br />

Candidates vary somewhat in their approach to the process,<br />

but most of those considering a run for the White House go<br />

through the following steps:<br />

1. Potential candidates usually test the waters unofficially.<br />

They talk to friends and fellow politicians to see just<br />

how much support they can count on, and they often<br />

leak news of their possible candidacy to the press to<br />

see how it is received in the media. This period of<br />

jockeying for money, lining up top campaign<br />

consultants, generating media buzz, and getting<br />

commitments of potential support from party and<br />

interest group notables even before candidates<br />

announce they are running is called the invisible<br />

primary. Some candidates may have an interest but<br />

find during the invisible primary that there is not<br />

enough early support among the powerful or the<br />

public to support a presidential run. 70<br />

2. If the first step has positive results, candidates file with<br />

the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to set up a<br />

committee to receive funds so that they can officially<br />

explore their prospects. The formation of an exploratory<br />

committee can be exploited as a media event by the<br />

candidate, using the occasion to get free publicity for<br />

the launching of the still-unannounced campaign.<br />

3. It costs a lot of money for a candidate to be taken<br />

seriously. Some well-positioned candidates are able to<br />

raise large amounts of money before they officially<br />

enter the race, whereas others are forced to scramble<br />

to catch up. Those with the most pre-primary funds<br />

are more likely to win. 71 The 2012 Republican<br />

primary nicely illustrated this general truth about<br />

Selection of the<br />

President<br />

The Invisible Primary<br />

presidential primaries: Mitt Romney’s campaign had<br />

raised over $90 million before the primaries even<br />

began, vastly more than his several competitors. While<br />

others rose and fell in popularity, Romney, thanks in<br />

large part to his substantial war chest, was able to<br />

outlast all of them. Former Clinton campaign advisor<br />

and CNN analyst Paul Begala notes that “Napoleon said<br />

god is on the side of big battalions. Voters are usually<br />

on the side of big money.” 72 This is especially the case<br />

in party primaries where the ideological difference<br />

between candidates are not huge, and often the<br />

candidates are not well-known.<br />

4. The potential candidate must use the pre-primary<br />

season to position himself or herself as a credible<br />

prospect with the media. It is no coincidence that in<br />

the last nine elections, the parties’ nominees have all<br />

held prominent government offices and have entered<br />

the field with some media credibility. Incumbents<br />

especially have a huge advantage here.<br />

5. The final step of the pre-primary season is the official<br />

announcement of candidacy. Like the formation of the<br />

exploratory committee, this statement is part of the<br />

campaign itself. Promises are made to supporters,<br />

agendas are set, media attention is captured, and the<br />

process is under way.<br />

Primaries and Caucuses<br />

The actual fight for the nomination takes place in the state party<br />

caucuses and primaries in which delegates to the parties’ national<br />

conventions are chosen. In a party caucus, grassroots members<br />

of the party in each community gather in selected locations to<br />

discuss the current candidates. They then vote for delegates from<br />

that locality who will be sent to the national convention, or<br />

who will go on to larger caucuses at the state level to choose the<br />

national delegates. Attending a caucus is time consuming, and<br />

participation rates are frequently in the single digits, 73 although<br />

an especially heated battle, like that in 2008 between Barack<br />

Obama and Hillary Clinton, saw much higher turnout. Most<br />

states still hold primary elections, but in recent years there has<br />

been a trend toward caucuses, the method used in fifteen states. 74<br />

The most common device for choosing delegates to the<br />

national conventions is the presidential primary. Primary<br />

presidential primary an election by which voters choose<br />

convention delegates committed to voting for a certain candidate<br />

invisible primary early attempts to raise money, line up campaign<br />

consultants, generate media attention, and get commitments for<br />

support even before candidates announce they are running<br />

party caucus local gathering of party members to choose<br />

convention delegates<br />

526 14: Voting, Campaigns, and Elections<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

voters cast ballots that send delegates committed to voting for<br />

a particular candidate to the conventions. Presidential<br />

primaries can be either open or closed, depending on the<br />

rules the state party organizations adopt, and these can<br />

change from year to year. Any registered voter may vote in an<br />

open primary, regardless of party affiliation. At the polling<br />

place, the voter chooses the ballot of the party whose primary<br />

he or she wants to vote in. Only registered party members<br />

may vote in a closed primary. A subset of this is the semiopen<br />

primary, open only to registered party members and<br />

those not registered as members of another party.<br />

The Democrats also send elected state officials, including<br />

Democratic members of Congress and governors, to their<br />

national conventions. Some of these officials are<br />

“superdelegates,” able to vote as free agents, but the rest must<br />

reflect the state’s primary vote. 75<br />

In addition to varying in terms of whom they allow to<br />

vote, the parties’ primary rules also differ in how they<br />

distribute delegates among the candidates. The Democrats<br />

generally use a method of proportional representation, in<br />

which the candidates get the percentage of delegates equal to<br />

the percentage of the primary vote they win (provided they<br />

get at least 15 percent). Republican rules run from<br />

proportional representation, to winner-take-all (the candidate<br />

with the most votes gets all the delegates, even if he or she<br />

does not win an absolute majority), to direct voting for<br />

delegates (the delegates are not bound to vote for a particular<br />

candidate at the convention), to the absence of a formal<br />

system (caucus participants may decide how to distribute the<br />

delegates).<br />

State primaries also vary in the times at which they are<br />

held, with various states engaged in front-loading, vying to<br />

hold their primaries first in order to gain maximum exposure<br />

in the media and power over the nomination. By tradition and<br />

state law, the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary<br />

are the first contests for delegates. As a result, they get<br />

tremendous attention, from both candidates and the media—<br />

much more than their contribution to the delegate count<br />

would justify. This is why in 1998 other states began moving<br />

their primaries earlier in the season. 76 The process of moving<br />

up primary dates continued in 2012 with the Iowa caucuses<br />

held on January 3 and twenty-three states having held<br />

primaries or caucuses by “Super Tuesday,” which was on<br />

March 6, 2012.<br />

open primary primary election in which eligible voters need not<br />

be registered party members<br />

closed primary primary election in which only registered party<br />

members may vote<br />

front-loading the process of scheduling presidential primaries<br />

early in the primary season<br />

The Shake That Launched a Dream<br />

What inspires a person to want to become president Having the<br />

opportunity to shake the hand of a sitting president—especially one he<br />

particularly admired—clearly meant a lot to the teenaged Bill Clinton.<br />

The consequence of such front-loading is that candidates<br />

must have a substantial war chest and be prepared to<br />

campaign nationally from the beginning. Traditionally,<br />

winners of early primaries could use that success to raise more<br />

campaign funds to continue the battle. With the primaries<br />

stacked at the beginning, however, this becomes much harder.<br />

When the winner can be determined within weeks of the first<br />

primary, it is less likely that a dark horse, or unknown<br />

candidate, can emerge. The process favors well-known, wellconnected,<br />

and, especially, well-funded candidates. Again,<br />

incumbents have an enormous advantage here.<br />

The heavily front-loaded primary has almost no defenders,<br />

but it presents a classic example of the problems of collective<br />

action that politics cannot always solve. 77 No single state has an<br />

incentive to hold back and reduce its power for the good of<br />

the whole; each state is driven to maximize its influence by<br />

Iowa Caucus<br />

Front-Loading<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

Presidential Campaigns 527

Challengers Launching the Campaign<br />

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate, Wisconsin<br />

representative Paul Ryan, greet the crowd at the Republican National Convention<br />

in Tampa in September 2012. Facing an incumbent president during an economic<br />

downturn, Romney’s choice of Ryan as a running mate signaled that he was staking<br />

out positions on fiscal issues important to the party’s conservative base.<br />

strategically placing its primary early in the pack. Since states<br />

make their own laws, subject to only a few regulations laid<br />

down by the parties, they are able to schedule the primary<br />

season pretty much as they want, regardless of what system<br />

would produce the best nominees for national office.<br />

In the fierce battle that the primaries have become,<br />

incumbents, of course, have a tremendous advantage. No<br />

incumbent has been seriously challenged since Ronald Reagan<br />

gave Gerald Ford a good scare in 1976. While the incumbent’s<br />

advantage is most powerful here, most serious presidential<br />

contenders have at least held some major elected office. Of the<br />

two major parties’ nominees over the past eleven presidential<br />

elections, eight were incumbent presidents, three were former<br />

or incumbent vice presidents, five were senators, and six were<br />

governors. Governors, with executive experience and the<br />

ability to claim that they are untainted by the gridlock politics<br />

of Washington, have recently had the edge, with four of those<br />

six former governors going on to win the presidency.<br />

In most of the crowded primaries in recent years there<br />

has been a clear front-runner, a person who many assume<br />

will win the nomination before the primaries even begin.<br />

Early front-runner status is positive because it means the<br />

528 14: Voting, Campaigns, and Elections<br />

candidate has raised significant money, has a<br />

solid organization, and receives more media<br />

coverage than his or her opponents. But success<br />

in primaries comes not just from getting a<br />

majority of the votes but also from being<br />

perceived as a winner, and front-runners are<br />

punished if they fail to live up to lofty<br />

expectations—the fate shared by Republican<br />

Rudy Giuliani and Democrat Hillary Clinton in<br />

2008. The goal for all the other candidates is to<br />

attack the front-runner so as to drive down his<br />

or her support, while maneuvering into position<br />

as the chief alternative. Then if the front-runner<br />

stumbles, as often happens, each of the attacking<br />

candidates hopes to emerge from the pack.<br />

Generally a candidate’s campaign strategy<br />

becomes focused on developing momentum, the<br />

perception by the press, the public, and the<br />

other candidates in the field that one is on a roll,<br />

and that polls, primary victories, endorsements,<br />

and funding are all coming one’s way. Since all<br />

candidates in a primary are from the same party,<br />

voters cannot rely on partisanship as a cue in<br />

making up their minds. Considerations of<br />

electability—which candidate has the best<br />

chance to triumph in November—are important<br />

as voters decide whom to support, and here<br />

candidates who seem to have momentum can<br />

have an advantage. Developing momentum helps<br />

to distinguish one’s candidacy in a crowded field<br />

and is typically established in the early primaries.<br />

Consequently, who actually “wins” in the primaries is not<br />

always the candidate who comes in first in the balloting. An<br />

equally critical factor is whether the candidate is seen to be<br />

improving or fading—the matter of momentum and<br />

expectations. Much of the political credit that a candidate gets<br />

for an apparent “win” depends on who else is running in that<br />

primary and what the media expectations of that candidate’s<br />

performance were.<br />

Figure 14.2 shows the changes in Republican<br />

preferences among the 2012 contenders. Romney had an<br />

initial edge, but each of four different candidates had at least<br />

one short-lived spurt and actually led Romney for a short<br />

time in the polls. Without organization and money to match<br />

Romney, however, none of them could build momentum<br />

and staying power.<br />

front-runner the leading candidate and expected winner of a<br />

nomination or an election<br />

momentum the widely held public perception that a candidate is<br />

gaining electoral strength<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

Figure 14.2<br />

Preferences for 2012 Republican Presidential Candidates<br />

60<br />

50<br />

40<br />

30<br />

20<br />

10<br />

2/15/2011 6/05/2011 9/23/2011 1/11/2012 4/30/2012<br />

Romney Perry Santorum Huntsman Gingrich Bachmann Paul Cain<br />

Source: “RCP Poll Average: Republican Presidential Nomination,” Real Clear Politics, www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html.<br />

fig 14.2<br />

The Convention<br />

Since 1972, delegates attending the national conventions have<br />

not had to decide who the parties’ nominees would be. However,<br />

two official actions continue to take place at the conventions.<br />

First, as we discussed in <strong>Chapter</strong> 12, the parties hammer out<br />

and approve their platforms, the documents in which parties set<br />

out their distinct issue positions. Second, the vice presidential<br />

candidate is named officially. The choice of the vice president<br />

is up to the presidential nominee. Traditionally the choice was<br />

made to balance the ticket (ideologically, regionally, or even,<br />

when Democrat Walter Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro<br />

in 1984, by gender). Bill Clinton’s choice of Al Gore was a<br />

departure from this practice, as he tapped a candidate much like<br />

himself—a Democratic moderate from a southern state. In 2000<br />

George W. Bush picked Dick Cheney, a man whose considerable<br />

experience in the federal government could be expected to offset<br />

Bush’s relative lack of it. In 2004 liberal Bostonian John Kerry<br />

returned to the regional and ideological balancing principle,<br />

choosing moderate North Carolina senator John Edwards as his<br />

running mate, though he broke with tradition by announcing<br />

his choice three weeks before his party’s convention.<br />

In 2008 Barack Obama chose Delaware senator Joe Biden<br />

as his running mate, going for an experienced hand with a<br />

foreign policy background to shore up his own record.<br />

Democrats applauded his pick of Biden as one that balanced<br />

the ticket and showcased Obama’s own judgment and<br />

decision-making skills. They had barely finished cheering<br />

their new nominee, however, when John McCain upstaged<br />

Obama with his own pick, Alaska governor Sarah Palin, who<br />

he felt would bolster his maverick credentials, help him<br />

energize his base, and bolster his standing with women. The<br />

choice was immediately controversial; wildly popular with<br />

religious conservatives, it was viewed with surprise and<br />

skepticism by Democrats and media commentators.<br />

There is no clear evidence that the vice presidential<br />

choice has significant electoral consequences, but the<br />

presidential nominees weigh it carefully nonetheless. If<br />

nothing else, the caliber of the nominee’s choice for vice<br />

president is held to be an indication of the kind of<br />

Running Mate<br />

Scorecard<br />

Horserace Politics<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

Presidential Campaigns 529

Improv at the Convention<br />

In one of the more puzzling moments of the 2012 campaign, Clint Eastwood<br />

engaged an empty chair during prime time at the Republican National<br />

Convention, pretending it was President Obama and lecturing it for what<br />

he perceived as the inadequacies of Obama’s presidency. Eastwood<br />

had given some very effective speeches for Romney in the past, and the<br />

campaign assumed he would do the same thing again. Instead, the star<br />

saw the chair backstage as he was preparing to speak and was inspired<br />

to do a bit of eccentric improv that will go down as campaign legend. The<br />

performance prompted Obama to tweet a picture of his cabinet room chair<br />

labeled “The President” with the caption “This seat’s taken.”<br />

appointments the nominee would make if elected. Although<br />

McCain’s pick of Palin as his running mate was popular<br />

initially, with 20 percent more of the public having positive<br />

than negative feelings toward her, a cascade of bad news<br />

stories about her soon engulfed the McCain campaign. By the<br />

time of the election, Palin’s negatives were 7 percent higher<br />

than her positives. This all rebounded on the campaign amid<br />

charges that McCain could hardly have been following his<br />

slogan of “putting country first” with such a selection.<br />

In 2012 Mitt Romney also stepped on his own campaign<br />

message a bit, with his pick of Wisconsin congressman Paul<br />

The Undecided Voter<br />

Ryan. Throughout the primary season, Romney had<br />

emphasized his business credentials as his major qualification<br />

for office, claiming that a president should have private sector<br />

experience. In choosing Ryan, who had no such experience,<br />

he, like McCain, was forced to alter his message. Nonetheless,<br />

Ryan was a popular choice with the Republican base and<br />

helped to fill a hole in Romney’s own resume by putting<br />

someone with Tea Party credentials on the ticket.<br />

Although their party business is limited, the conventions<br />

still provide the nominee with a “convention bump” in the<br />

polls. The harmonious coverage, the enthusiasm of party<br />

supporters, and even the staged theatrics seem to have a<br />

positive impact on viewers. The result is that candidates have<br />

usually, though not always, experienced a noticeable rise in the<br />

polls immediately following the conventions. Both Obama and<br />

McCain received bounces from their conventions in 2008,<br />

though McCain’s was slightly larger. McCain briefly achieved a<br />

lead in the polls after his convention, but the negative publicity<br />

surrounding Palin and then the economic crisis that began in<br />

mid-September put Obama back on top, where he stayed until<br />

the election. Following the 2012 conventions, Romney gained<br />

a small bump that was quickly lost in the larger bounce for<br />

Obama that followed the Democratic convention. Media<br />

coverage of the Republican convention was dominated by odd<br />

moments such as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s keynote<br />

address, which neglected to mention Romney until 18 minutes<br />

in, and Clint Eastwood’s turn of improv. The Democrats, on the<br />

other hand, rallied around an epic speech by Bill Clinton that<br />

energized the party, even though Obama’s own speech was<br />

seen as a more somber moment.<br />

The General Election Campaign<br />

After the candidates are nominated in late summer, there is a<br />

short break, at least for the public, before the traditional fall<br />

campaign. When the campaign begins, the goal of each side is<br />

to convince supporters to turn out and to get undecided voters<br />

to choose its candidate. Most voters, the party identifiers, will<br />

usually support their party’s candidate, although they need<br />

to be motivated by the campaign to turn out and cast their<br />

ballots. Most of the battle in a presidential campaign is for the<br />

swing voters, the one-third or so of the electorate who have<br />

not made up their minds at the start of the campaign and who<br />

are open to persuasion by either side. As one would expect<br />

given the forces described in <strong>Chapter</strong> 12 (see Figure 12.3, page<br />

441), this means that for both parties, the general election<br />

strategy differs considerably from the strategy used to win a<br />

primary election. Traditionally the logic has been that to win<br />

the general election, the campaigns move away from the sharp<br />

ideological tone used to motivate the party faithful in the<br />

swing voters the approximately one-third of the electorate who<br />

are undecided at the start of a campaign<br />

530 14: Voting, Campaigns, and Elections<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

primaries and “run to the middle” by making less ideological<br />

appeals. However, in this era of polarized parties, especially<br />

since the second George W. Bush campaign, the tendency<br />

has been for a campaign to stay with the party’s ideological<br />

message, putting at least as much emphasis on mobilizing its<br />

base as appealing to independents and uncommitted voters.<br />

Besides keeping the parties’ bases involved, staying with more<br />

ideological appeals can help candidates avoid being charged<br />

with “flip-flopping” on the issues.<br />

In the general campaign, each side seeks to get its<br />

message across, to define the choice in terms that give its<br />

candidate the advantage. This massive effort to influence the<br />

information to which citizens are exposed requires a clear<br />

strategy, which begins with a plan for winning the states<br />

where the candidate will be competitive.<br />

The Electoral College<br />

The presidential election is not a national race; it is a race<br />

between the candidates in each of the fifty states and the<br />

District of Columbia (see “Who Are We Red Versus Blue<br />

States”). The reasons for the Electoral College’s existence<br />

may seem outdated sometimes, but it nevertheless drives<br />

campaign strategy. Because our founders feared giving too<br />

much power to the volatile electorate, we do not actually vote<br />

for the president and vice president in presidential elections.<br />

Rather, we cast our votes in November for electors (members<br />

of the Electoral College), who in turn vote for the president<br />

in December. The Constitution provides for each state to have<br />

as many electoral votes as it does senators and representatives<br />

in Congress. Thus Alaska has three electoral votes (one for<br />

each of the state’s U.S. senators and one for its sole member<br />

of the House of Representatives). By contrast, California<br />

has fifty-five electoral votes (two senators and fifty-three<br />

representatives). In addition, the Twenty-third Amendment<br />

gave the District of Columbia three electoral votes. There<br />

are 538 electoral votes in all; 270 are needed to win the<br />

presidency. Figure 14.3 shows the distribution of electoral<br />

votes among the states today.<br />

Electors are generally activist members of the party whose<br />

presidential candidate carried the state. In December, following<br />

the election, the electors meet and vote in their state capitals.<br />

In the vast majority of cases, they vote as expected, but there<br />

are occasional “faithless electors” who vote for their own<br />

preferences. The results of the electors’ choices in the states are<br />

then sent to the Senate, where the ballots are counted when<br />

the new session opens. If no candidate achieves a majority in<br />

the Electoral College, the Constitution calls for the House of<br />

Representatives to choose from the top three electoral vote<br />

winners. In this process, each state has one vote. If the vote<br />

goes to the House, then the Senate decides on the vice<br />

president, with each senator having a vote. This has happened<br />

only twice (the last time was in 1824), although some<br />

observers of the 2000 election speculated that that election,<br />

too, could have been decided in the House of Representatives<br />

if Florida’s election had not been decided in the courts.<br />

The importance of the Electoral College is that all the<br />

states but Maine and Nebraska operate on a winner-take-all<br />

basis. Thus the winner in California, even if he or she has less<br />

than a majority of the popular vote, wins all of the state’s fiftyfive<br />

electoral votes. The loser in California may have won 49<br />

percent of the popular vote but gets nothing in the Electoral<br />

College. It is possible, then, for the popular vote winner to lose<br />

in the Electoral College. This has happened only three times in<br />

our history, most recently in 2000, when Bush received an<br />

Electoral College majority even though Gore won the popular<br />

vote by more than half a million votes. Usually, however, the<br />

opposite happens: the Electoral College exaggerates the<br />

candidate’s apparent majority. The 2012 election is typical of<br />

this exaggeration of the victory margin in the Electoral College.<br />

Obama got more than 51 percent of the two-party popular<br />

vote, but his majority in the Electoral College was 61.7<br />

percent. This exaggeration of the winning margin has the effect<br />

of legitimizing the winner’s victory and allowing him to claim<br />

that he has a mandate—a broad popular endorsement—even if<br />

he won by a smaller margin of the popular vote.<br />

The rules of the Electoral College give greater power to<br />

some states over others. The provision that all states get at least<br />

three electoral votes in the Electoral College means that citizens<br />

in the smaller-population states get proportionately greater<br />

representation in the Electoral College. Alaska, for example, sent<br />

one elector to the Electoral College for every 240,000 people,<br />

while California had one elector for every 679,000 residents.<br />

However, this “advantage” is probably offset by the<br />

practice of winner-take-all, which focuses the candidates’<br />

attention on the largest states with the biggest payoffs in<br />

electoral votes, especially the competitive, or “battleground,”<br />

states. Small states with few electoral votes or those that are<br />

safely in the corner of one party or the other are ignored<br />

(although California, a reliably Democratic state, still<br />

received twenty-two visits by the Romney campaign, twenty<br />

of which were for fundraising). 78 Perennial battlegrounds get<br />

the most candidate attention. Ohio was the primary focus in<br />

2012 (as it usually is) and saw a total of 148 visits by the<br />

candidates and their wives (68 for the Obama campaign, and<br />

80 for the Romney campaign; of those visits, only a total of 7<br />

involved fundraising). Campaign spending figures tell the<br />

same story of unequal activity: our largest state of California<br />

saw the campaigns spend a total of $320 (two ads in tiny<br />

media markets), whereas in competitive Florida they spent<br />

$173 million on television ads ($78 million by the Obama<br />

campaign and $95 million by the Romney campaign). 79<br />

Over the years, hundreds of bills have been introduced in<br />

Congress to reform or abolish the Electoral College, an<br />

Electoral College 101<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

Presidential Campaigns 531

Figure 14.3<br />

Electoral College in 2012<br />

This distorted map, in which the states are sized according to their number of electoral votes, demonstrates the electoral power of<br />

the more populous states. Total electoral votes = 538.<br />

CA 55<br />

AK 3<br />

WA 12<br />

OR 7<br />

NV 6<br />

ID<br />

4<br />

VT 3 NH 4<br />

MA 11<br />

NY 29<br />

CT RI<br />

7 4<br />

WI 10 MI 16<br />

MT ND MN<br />

3 3 10<br />

SD<br />

WY 3NE IA<br />

PA 20<br />

3 6<br />

5<br />

IL IN OH 18<br />

20 11<br />

NJ 14<br />

MD 10<br />

WV<br />

UT CO KS MO<br />

5 DC 3<br />

6 9 6 10<br />

DE 3<br />

KY 8 VA 13<br />

OK 7<br />

AR 6 TN 11<br />

NC 15<br />

AZ 11<br />

NM 5<br />

TX 38<br />

LA 8<br />

MS 6<br />

AL<br />

9<br />

GA<br />

16<br />

SC 9<br />

ME 4<br />

HI 4<br />

FL 29<br />

especially urgent project for many Democrats after the 2000 fig 14.3<br />

election. 80 Major criticisms of the current system include the<br />

following:<br />

• The Electoral College is undemocratic because it is<br />

possible for the popular winner not to get a majority<br />

of the electoral votes.<br />

• In a very close contest, the popular outcome could be<br />

dictated by a few “faithless electors” who vote their<br />

consciences rather than the will of the people of their<br />

states.<br />

• The Electoral College distorts candidates’ campaign<br />

strategies. The winner-take-all provision in all but<br />

two states puts a premium on a few large, competitive<br />

states, which get a disproportionate share of the<br />

candidates’ attention.<br />

National Popular Vote<br />

Few people deny the truth of these charges, and hardly<br />

anyone believes that if we were to start all over, the current<br />

Electoral College would be chosen as the best way to elect a<br />

president. Nevertheless, all the proposed alternatives also<br />

have problems, or at least serious criticisms.<br />

Critics of this view point out that in 2004 the winning<br />

candidate got less than 55 percent of the vote in twenty-four<br />

of the fifty states, so we are not as divided as the conventional<br />

map makes us seem.<br />

In 2008 and 2012 Barack Obama turned the conventional<br />

wisdom about red and blue America on its head. While the<br />

states of the deep South and some of the western states stayed<br />

red, Obama targeted and won states that Democrats rarely<br />

carry, chalking up victories in Indiana, Virginia, North<br />

Carolina, Florida, and Nevada in 2008, and losing only two of<br />

those, Indiana and North Carolina, in 2012. Demographic<br />

changes in those states make them potentially more favorable<br />

territory for Democrats. Fearing that the future electoral math<br />

is going to work against them, Republicans in some blue states<br />

such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have begun to talk about<br />

dividing up their electoral college votes by congressional<br />

district, such as Maine and Nebraska.<br />

532 14: Voting, Campaigns, and Elections<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

• Who Are We Red versus blue states<br />

Election Results, 2012<br />

WA<br />

OR<br />

ID<br />

NV<br />

UT<br />

CA<br />

AZ<br />

AK<br />

MT<br />

WY<br />

CO<br />

NM<br />

HI<br />

ND<br />

SD<br />

NE<br />

KS<br />

TX<br />

MN<br />

WI<br />

IA<br />

IL<br />

MO<br />

OK AR<br />

MS<br />

LA<br />

MI<br />

IN<br />

TN<br />

AL<br />

KY<br />

OH<br />

WV<br />

GA<br />

SC<br />

FL<br />

PA<br />

MD<br />

VA<br />

NC<br />

NY<br />

VT<br />

ME<br />

NH<br />

MA<br />

RI<br />

CT<br />

NJ<br />

DE<br />

DC<br />

Source: “Obama’s Path to Victory,” <strong>CQ</strong> Weekly, Nov. 12, 2012, p. 2207.<br />

A More Nuanced <strong>View</strong><br />

fig WAW 14.2.a<br />

Source: Copyright 2012 IDV Solutions, LLC created by John Nelson.<br />

Behind the Numbers<br />

In our Electoral College system, presidential elections are won state<br />

by state. In election night coverage, the networks light up the states<br />

as red as they go for the Republican candidate and blue as they<br />

go for the Democrat. Because support for Republicans in the past<br />

several elections has tended to come from the southern and Plains<br />

states, and the Democrats have been successful in the coastal and<br />

upper Midwest regions, it has become popular to speak of a red and<br />

blue America—an America closely but irreconcilably split between<br />

conservative and liberal states. Are we really red and blue, or are<br />

there parts of America that are more properly understood as purple,<br />

as the second, county by county map here suggests<br />

The 2012 Election<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

Presidential Campaigns 533

• Profiles in Citizenship<br />

James Carville<br />

James Carville found his calling and his<br />

salvation in his love affair with politics.<br />

“You know, I was never that great<br />

at anything,” he says in that manic<br />

Louisiana drawl familiar to anyone who<br />

has watched the movie The War Room or<br />

seen him on CNN. “The only thing I was<br />

great at was being kind of, you know,<br />

a horrible student—a worse than bad<br />

lawyer. I sat in my office one day and<br />

said if I had to hire a lawyer I wouldn’t<br />

hire me.”<br />

But the man loved politics—had done so<br />

since he was a kid, when larger-than-life<br />

figures walked the Louisiana landscape<br />

of his youth, people like Gov. Earl Long<br />

(“There’s a great man! He’s my guy!”)<br />

and characters called “Pinhead Willie,”<br />

“Coozan Dud,” and “Wild Bill, Big Bad Bill<br />

Dodd.” Ask him if politics was a big deal<br />

in his family when he was growing up in<br />

Carville, Louisiana (a town named for his<br />

postmaster grandfather), and he gives a<br />

single-word answer: “Huge.”<br />

So politics was the path he chose to get<br />

himself away from lawyering. He set up<br />

shop as a political consultant, finding the<br />

pace of electoral politics perfectly suited<br />

to his personal occupational challenges<br />

(“I have pretty serious attention problems<br />

and dyslexia and the whole dictionary<br />

of fashionable childhood diseases”).<br />

It was a life made to measure for him:<br />

“You’re really determining something<br />

that profoundly matters to people all<br />

across the spectrum and it’s something<br />

that, if you’re like me and you’ve got a lot<br />

of energy left over—if you’re a sprinter,<br />

not a distance runner—it’s perfect. And<br />

you know at the end of the day if you’ve<br />

won or lost. How can you beat it There’s<br />

nothing that could be more fun.”<br />

With his brilliant mind and intuitive<br />

understanding of politics, Carville<br />

ran a couple of winning Pennsylvania<br />

campaigns and caught the attention<br />

of Bill Clinton in his 1992 run for the<br />

presidency. Carville headed up the Little<br />

Rock “War Room” and kept attention<br />

focused on the campaign’s famous<br />

mantra—“It’s the Economy, Stupid.” Of<br />

course, Clinton won—and now Carville<br />

was at the top of his game. “And there<br />

was a time—it certainly passed—there<br />

was a time in my life where if I had to<br />

hire a political consultant I would have<br />

hired me. Now that’s a great feeling. . . .<br />

And it was particularly great on the<br />

heels of knowing that I was a bad<br />

lawyer. It’s not a very satisfying way to<br />

go through life, being bad and not liking<br />

what you do.”<br />

Carville’s life must be superbly satisfying<br />

now. No longer running campaigns (he<br />

says he has become a victim of his own<br />

success, drawing more attention than the<br />

candidates he would work for), he is still<br />

active in the Democratic Party, appearing<br />

frequently as a commentator on<br />

television and with his wife, Republican<br />

Mary Matalin, on the lecture circuit.<br />

Matalin was working for the first<br />

president Bush when she and Carville met<br />

(they ran opposing campaigns in 1992),<br />

and she has worked for Vice President<br />

Dick Cheney and other Republicans since<br />

that time. If you think “politics makes<br />

strange bedfellows,” read their book, All’s<br />

Fair: Love, War, and Running for President,<br />

Who Runs the Campaign<br />

Running a modern presidential campaign has become a<br />

highly specialized profession. Most presidential campaigns<br />

are led by an “amateur,” a nationally prestigious chairperson<br />

who may serve as an adviser and assist in fundraising.<br />

However, the real work of the campaign is done by the<br />

professional staff the candidate hires, and who themselves<br />

become important figures not only in the campaigns but<br />

often in the administrations as advisers and, later, as political<br />

The Audacity to Win<br />

commentators. For example, James Carville, Bill Clinton’s<br />

campaign strategist (see the Profiles in Citizenship feature),<br />

continues to appear frequently on television as a campaign<br />

commentator, as has Karl Rove, who ran both of George W.<br />

Bush’s successful campaigns and worked as a policy adviser<br />

in the Bush White House. Obama’s campaign trust included<br />

David Axelrod, who continued as a political adviser in the<br />

White House; Robert Gibbs, who took the job as Obama’s first<br />

press secretary; and David Plouffe, who served as the 2008<br />

Obama campaign manager and then White House adviser.<br />

Jim Messina, an Obama White House staffer, joined on as<br />

campaign manager in 2012. Campaign work at the beginning<br />

of the twenty-first century is big business.<br />

534 14: Voting, Campaigns, and Elections<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

“. . . don’t confuse the right to do something with the right thing to do.”<br />

to see just how strange. With the highoctane<br />

life their parents lead, it would<br />

seem that politics could hardly help being<br />

as “huge” for their two kids as it was<br />

for Carville (although he says since it’s<br />

“the family business,” they are not too<br />

impressed).<br />

But it’s hard to imagine that they will<br />

remain wholly unmoved by their father’s<br />

powerful feelings about politics. Nobody<br />

could be. Leafing through a book of<br />

photographs of his beloved Louisiana,<br />

Carville talks about politics with the<br />

passion and reverence of a man recalling<br />

a first love. His voice gets hushed with<br />

the intensity of his memories, reading<br />

passages out loud and getting so eager to<br />

share the stories that he impulsively gives<br />

us the book to keep.<br />

Impulsive and emotional Carville may<br />

be, but when it comes to assessing the<br />

day-to-day stakes of politics, he is a<br />

sharp-eyed realist. He knows powerful<br />

people would prefer us to check out<br />

and let them have their way. “All these<br />

decisions are going to get made—<br />

doesn’t matter whether you’re involved<br />

in them,” he says. “The school’s going<br />

to go on, somebody’s going to have the<br />

hiring policy, somebody’s going to decide<br />

the curriculum, the hospitals are going<br />

to get built, somebody’s going to have to<br />

decide where they are, who gets served,<br />

etc., etc. . . . the taxes are going to get<br />

collected. Whatever. Okay. Now what a<br />

lot of powerful people would like to tell<br />

you is, you don’t worry your pretty little<br />

head with that. We’ll take care of all<br />

these things and you don’t need to, you<br />

know, you just have a couple of beers and<br />

eat some Doritos and watch the game.”<br />

He is amazed that people fall for the idea<br />

that they can’t figure out complex issues.<br />

“None of this stuff is impenetrable. The<br />

only way that the political golden rule<br />

operates—that those who have got the<br />

gold make the rules—is if it’s by default,”<br />

that is, if people fail to pay attention.<br />

More Carville wisdom:<br />

On why politics matters:<br />

There’s a lot of things you can say about<br />

politics and politicians . . . some are<br />

corrupt and some are liars . . . but the<br />

one thing you can’t say is that what they<br />

do doesn’t matter. Because it matters<br />

profoundly. From where you put the<br />

intersection, to the park, to the taxes,<br />

to the bonds, you name it. Abortion,<br />

euthanasia, it doesn’t matter. On a<br />

sliding scale of does the bridge get built or<br />

not, all of this is decided by politicians. So<br />

every criticism that a young person has of<br />

politics is valid until they get to the point<br />

that it doesn’t matter. Then that’s where<br />

the whole argument completely falls<br />

apart. Right on its face.<br />

On keeping the republic:<br />

The first thing we need to do is remove this<br />

thing that participating in public affairs in<br />

whatever form you want to is some kind<br />

of chore. I don’t think it really is. I think<br />

it’s kind of a privilege and it’s fun. . . . I<br />

tell young people you have the right not<br />

to participate, but don’t confuse the right<br />

to do something with the right thing to<br />

do. They are two distinct things. I think<br />

the biggest thing that young people can<br />

do is, when it comes to this, be guided by<br />

your passion. . . . It’s a hell of a lot of fun.<br />

And it’s a really fascinating thing. And you<br />

learn a lot. But the biggest thing you do is<br />

you actually get to make a difference. •<br />

Some of the jobs include not only the well-known ones<br />

of campaign manager and strategist but also more specialized<br />

components tailored to the modern campaign’s emphasis on<br />

information and money. For instance, candidates need to hire<br />

research teams to prepare position papers on issues so that the<br />

candidate can answer any question posed by potential<br />

supporters and the media. But researchers also engage in the<br />

controversial but necessary task of oppo research—delving<br />

into the background and vulnerabilities of the opposing<br />

oppo research investigation of an opponent’s background for the<br />

purpose of exploiting weaknesses or undermining credibility<br />

candidate with an eye to exploiting his or her weaknesses.<br />

Central to the modern campaign’s efforts to get and control<br />

the flow of information are pollsters and focus group<br />

administrators, who are critical for testing the public’s<br />

reactions to issues and strategies. Media consultants try to get<br />

free coverage of the campaign whenever possible, and to make<br />

the best use of the campaign’s advertising dollars by designing<br />

commercials and print advertisements.<br />

Candidates also need advance teams to plan and prepare<br />

their travel agendas, to arrange for crowds (and the signs they<br />

wave) to greet the candidates at airports, and even to reserve<br />

accommodations for the press. Especially in the primaries,<br />

staff devoted to fundraising are essential to ensure the<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

Presidential Campaigns 535

constant flow of money necessary to grease the wheels of any<br />

presidential campaign. They work with big donors and<br />

engage in direct-mail and Internet campaigns to solicit money<br />

from targeted groups. Much of the success of the Obama<br />

campaign rested on its effectiveness at communicating with<br />

and mobilizing its supporters electronically. Assisted by Mark<br />

Zuckerberg, the inventor of Facebook, among others, the<br />

Obama campaign raised more money and had many more<br />

volunteers than its competitor campaigns, which did not<br />

benefit from such skilled use of the Internet. 81<br />

Finally, of course, candidates need to hire a legal team to<br />

keep their campaigns in compliance with the regulations of<br />

the FEC and to file the required reports. In general, campaign<br />

consultants are able to provide specialized technical services<br />

that the parties’ political committees cannot. 82<br />

Presenting the Candidate<br />

An effective campaign begins with a clear understanding of<br />

how the candidate’s strengths fit with the context of the times<br />

and the mood of the voters. To sell a candidate effectively, the<br />

claims to special knowledge, competence, or commitment<br />

must be credible. 83 In 1992 the Clinton campaign contrasted<br />

its candidate’s fresh, young, energetic image with the public’s<br />

perceptions of the incumbent, President George H. W. Bush, as<br />

lacking a clear policy direction or vision. The Clinton campaign<br />

headquarters (which staffers called “The War Room”)<br />

prominently displayed a sign—“It’s the Economy, Stupid”—to<br />

help keep the campaign on track. In 2000 and 2004, George<br />

W. Bush’s campaign staff were able to portray him as an<br />

effective “decider” as opposed to the more ineffective and flipflopping<br />

images they created of Al Gore and John Kerry.<br />

The 2008 Obama presidential campaign is considered by<br />

many observers to be one of the best-run campaigns in<br />

modern American politics. It paired near complete message<br />

control with an unprecedented use of technology and a<br />

massive and very well-organized volunteer component. The<br />

campaign capitalized on a national weariness with the Bush<br />

years and crafted a campaign theme emphasizing change that<br />

was well suited to Obama’s apparent competence, his skills as a<br />

speaker, and his relative outsider status (he had served only two<br />

years in the U.S. Senate when he decided to run for president).<br />

He highlighted his change theme by continually linking<br />

McCain to the unpopular Bush administration and its policies,<br />

arguing that McCain was running for Bush’s third term.<br />

In 2012 the Obama campaign again won plaudits for its<br />

organization and excellent technological innovation.<br />

Sometimes lost in the general awe of the data-crunching and<br />

get-out-the-vote operation is the strategic effort the campaign<br />

made early on to frame the election as a choice between two<br />

It’s the Economy, Stupid Oppo Depot<br />

candidates offering very different visions for America rather<br />

than as a referendum on the president. Given slow economic<br />

growth and the Republicans’ success in denying the president<br />

any legislative victories in the two years preceding the<br />

election, the campaign felt it would lose the latter, so as soon<br />

as the campaign was sure that Romney would be the<br />

Republican nominee, it began to define him as a wealthy<br />

plutocrat out of touch with middle-class American concerns.<br />

Inexplicably, the Romney campaign let the Obama campaign<br />

have the stage to itself in the summer before the election. By<br />

the time Romney’s campaign began to introduce Romney as it<br />

wanted voters to see him, as a bipartisan economic problem<br />

solver, it was too late. Many voters’ perceptions were locked<br />

in, and the release of the tape with Romney’s “47 percent”<br />

comments only reinforced them.<br />

As the campaigns struggle to control the flow of<br />

information about their candidates and influence how voters<br />

see their opponent, oppo research comes into play, sometimes<br />

complete with focus groups and poll testing. In fact, oppo<br />

research has become a central component in all elections,<br />

contributing to the negative campaigning so prevalent in<br />

recent years. 84 Astute candidates also have oppo research done<br />

on themselves; knowing that their opponent will be studying<br />

them, they work to be prepared to deal with attacks that<br />

might be coming. With his checkered youth in mind, Texas<br />

governor George W. Bush hired people to do oppo research on<br />

him twice during his runs for governor. The benign results<br />

then convinced him later that he had nothing to fear from the<br />

close scrutiny of a national campaign.<br />

The Issues<br />

Earlier we indicated that issues matter to voters as they decide<br />

how to vote. This means that issues must be central to the<br />

candidate’s strategy for getting elected. From the candidate’s<br />

point of view, there are two kinds of issues to consider when<br />

planning a strategy: valence issues and position issues.<br />

Valence issues are policy matters on which the voters<br />

and the candidates share the same preference. These are what<br />

we might call “motherhood and apple pie” issues, because no<br />

one opposes them. Everyone is for a strong, prosperous<br />

economy; for America having a respected leadership role in<br />

the world; for fighting terrorism; for thrift in government;<br />

and for a clean environment. Similarly, everyone opposes<br />

crime and drug abuse, government waste, political<br />

corruption, and immorality.<br />

Position issues have two sides. On abortion, there are<br />

those who are anti-abortion and those who are pro-choice. On<br />

valence issues issues on which most voters and candidates share<br />

the same position<br />

position issues issues on which the parties differ in their<br />

perspectives and proposed solutions<br />

536 14: Voting, Campaigns, and Elections<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

military engagements such as Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan,<br />

there are those who favor pursuing a military victory and<br />

those who favor just getting out. Many of the hardest decisions<br />

for candidates are on position issues—although a clear stand<br />

means that they will gain some friends, it also guarantees that<br />

they will make some enemies. Realistic candidates who want<br />

to win as many votes as possible try to avoid being clearly<br />

identified with the losing side of important position issues.<br />

For instance, activists in the Republican Party fought to keep<br />

their strong pro-life plank in the party platform in 2000.<br />

However, because a majority of the electorate is opposed to<br />

the strong pro-life position, George W. Bush seldom<br />

mentioned the issue during the campaign, even though one of<br />

his first acts as president was to cut federal funding to overseas<br />

groups that provide abortions or abortion counseling. John<br />

McCain, needing to solidify his Republican base in 2008, was<br />

more explicit about his party’s pro-life stance, and it appeared<br />

to cost him with independent voters, as it did with Mitt<br />

Romney in 2012. When two Republican senate candidates<br />

made news by arguing that abortion should not be legal even<br />

in the case of rape, President Obama was able to paint Romney<br />

as extreme on the issue by association.<br />

When a candidate or party does take a stand on a<br />

difficult position issue, the other side often uses it against<br />

them as a wedge issue. A wedge issue is a position issue on<br />

which the parties differ and that proves controversial within<br />

the ranks of a particular party. For a Republican, an anti–<br />

affirmative action position is not dangerous, since few<br />

Republicans actively support affirmative action. For a<br />

Democrat, though, it is a very dicey issue, because liberal<br />

party members endorse it but more moderate members do<br />

not. An astute strategy for a Republican candidate is to raise<br />

the issue in a campaign, hoping to drive a wedge between the<br />

Democrats and to recruit to his or her side the Democratic<br />

opponents of affirmative action.<br />

The idea of issue ownership helps to clarify the role of<br />

policy issues in presidential campaigns. Because of their past<br />

stands and performance, each of the parties is widely<br />

perceived as better able to handle certain kinds of problems.<br />

For instance, the Democrats may be seen as better able to deal<br />

with education matters, and the Republicans as more effective<br />

at solving crime-related problems. The voter’s job then is not<br />

so much to evaluate positions on education and crime, but<br />

rather to decide which problem is more important. If<br />

education is pressing, a voter might go with the Democratic<br />

candidate; if crime is more important, the voter might choose<br />

the Republican. 85 From the candidate’s point of view, the trick<br />

wedge issue a controversial issue that one party uses to split the<br />

voters in the other party<br />

issue ownership the tendency of one party to be seen as more<br />

competent in a specific policy area<br />

Bringing Women’s Issues to the Fore<br />

Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke, whom Rush Limbaugh<br />

called a “slut” after her testimony to congressional Democrats in<br />

support of the Obama administration’s policy of having health insurers<br />

provide no-cost contraceptive care, campaigns with President Obama<br />

in Denver, Colorado, in August 2012. With conservative initiatives in<br />

several states seeking to limit women’s access to birth control and<br />

abortion services, Democrats seized on women’s health issues as a<br />

major theme of the Obama reelection strategy.<br />

is to convince voters that the election is about the issues that<br />

his or her party “owns.”<br />

An example of how issue ownership operated in the<br />

2008 presidential election can be seen in exit poll data. Voters<br />

were asked which of five issues was the most important facing<br />

the country. Three of those issues worked to the advantage of<br />

Barack Obama. Two of them—the economy and health care—<br />

are Democratic-owned issues, and Obama received clear<br />

majorities on both. John McCain owned just one issue,<br />

terrorism. Unfortunately for McCain, only 9 percent of the<br />

electorate felt that was the most important issue. We might<br />

have suspected that McCain would also command an<br />

advantage on the war in Iraq issue, but by 2008 the war was<br />

relatively unpopular and Obama had initially claimed<br />

attention in the Democratic field by being an early critic of the<br />

war, and thus got the support of most of these voters. What is<br />

clear is that Obama benefited electorally from the economic<br />

crisis that directed voters’ attention to that issue.<br />

Because valence issues are relatively safe, candidates<br />

stress them at every opportunity. They also focus on the<br />

position issues that their parties “own” or on which they<br />

Affirmative Action<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

Presidential Campaigns 537

• Don’t Be Fooled by . . . Campaign Advertising<br />

“Long History” of Attack Ads<br />

Candidates on both sides use negative ads to paint their opponents in an unfavorable light. In<br />

2012 the Romney campaign’s “Long History” ad painted President Barack Obama as unfavorable<br />

to the welfare reforms enacted during the Clinton administration, claims that fact checkers said<br />

were false.<br />

“Sticks and stones may break my bones,”<br />

goes the old childhood rhyme, “but<br />

words can never hurt me.” Try telling<br />

Ad Attack Hall of Fame<br />

that to the innumerable targets of<br />

negative advertising, sloganeering that<br />

emphasizes the negative characteristics<br />

of one’s opponents rather than one’s<br />

own strengths. Negative advertising<br />

has characterized American election<br />

campaigns since the days of George<br />

Washington. George Washington His<br />

opponents called him a “dictator” who<br />

would “debauch the nation.” 1 Thomas<br />

Jefferson was accused of having an<br />

affair with a slave, a controversy that<br />

has outlived any of the people involved;<br />

Abraham Lincoln was claimed to have<br />

had an illegitimate child; and Grover<br />

Cleveland, who admitted to fathering a<br />

child out of wedlock, was taunted with<br />

the words, “Ma, Ma, where’s my Pa” 2 (His<br />

supporters had the last laugh, however:<br />

“Gone to the White House, ha, ha, ha.”)<br />

Like it or not (and most Americans say<br />

they do not), the truth is that negative<br />

campaign advertising works, and in the<br />

television age it is far more prevalent<br />

than anything that plagued Washington,<br />

Jefferson, Lincoln, or Cleveland. People<br />

remember it better than they do positive<br />

advertising; tracking polls show that after<br />

a voter has seen a negative ad eight times,<br />

he or she begins to move away from the<br />

attacked candidate. 3 Some candidates<br />

have majority support. What this suggests is that the real<br />

campaign is not about debating positions on issues—how to<br />

reduce the deficit or whether to restrict abortion—but about<br />

which issues should be considered. Issue campaigning is to a<br />

large extent about setting the agenda.<br />

The Media<br />

It is impossible to understand the modern political<br />

campaign without appreciating the pervasive role of the<br />

media. Even though many voters tend to ignore campaign<br />

ads—or at least they tell survey interviewers that they<br />

do—we know that campaign advertising matters. It has<br />

Presidential Campaign<br />

Ad Database<br />

increased dramatically with the rise of television as people’s<br />

information source of choice. Studies show that advertising<br />

provides usable information for voters. Political ads can<br />

heighten the loyalty of existing supporters, and they can<br />

educate the public about what candidates stand for and<br />

what issues candidates believe are most important. Ads also<br />

can be effective in establishing the criteria on which voters<br />

choose between candidates.<br />

One of the best examples of this effective advertising<br />

came from the 1988 presidential campaign. Because George<br />

H. W. Bush was behind in the polls and perceived as not<br />

very sympathetic to average citizens, his campaign sought to<br />

change the way people were thinking about him and his<br />

opponent, Michael Dukakis. The campaign came up with an<br />

effective ad showing criminals walking in and out of a<br />

538 14: Voting, Campaigns, and Elections<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

claim that their advertising is not really<br />

negative but rather “comparative,” and<br />

indeed a candidate often needs to compare<br />

his or her record with another’s in order to<br />

make the case that he or she is the superior<br />

choice. Negative advertising is nonetheless<br />

unpopular with voters, who often see it as<br />

nasty, unfair, and false. In fact, advertising<br />

that is proved to be false can frequently<br />

backfire on the person doing the advertising.<br />


How is a savvy media consumer to know<br />

what to believe Be careful, be critical,<br />

and be fair in how you interpret campaign<br />

ads. Here are some tips. Ask yourself<br />

these questions:<br />

• Who is running the ad What do<br />

they have to gain by it Look to see<br />

who has paid for the ad. Is it the<br />

opponent’s campaign An interest<br />

group A political action committee<br />

(PAC) or a 527 group What do they<br />

have at stake, and how might that<br />

affect their charges If the ad’s<br />

sponsors do not identify themselves,<br />

what might that tell you about the<br />

source of the information About the<br />

information itself<br />

• Are the accusations relevant to the<br />

campaign or the office in question<br />

If character is a legitimate issue,<br />

questions of adultery or drug use<br />

might have bearing on the election. If<br />

not, they might just be personal<br />

details used to smear this candidate’s<br />

reputation. Ask yourself, What kind of<br />

person should hold the job What kinds<br />

of qualities are important<br />

• Is the accusation or attack timely If<br />

a person is accused of youthful<br />

experimentation with drugs or<br />

indiscreet behavior in his or her twenties<br />

but has been an upstanding lawyer and<br />

public servant for twenty-five years, do<br />

the accusations have bearing on how<br />

the candidate will do the job<br />

• Does the ad convey a fair charge<br />

that can be answered, or does it<br />

evoke unarticulated fears and<br />

emotions A 1964 ad for Lyndon<br />

Johnson’s presidential campaign<br />

showed a little girl counting as she<br />

plucked petals from a daisy. An adult<br />

male voice gradually replaced hers,<br />

counting down to an explosion of a<br />

mushroom cloud that obliterated the<br />

picture. The daisy commercial never<br />

even mentioned Johnson’s opponent,<br />

Barry Goldwater, though the clear<br />

implication was that the conservative,<br />

promilitary Goldwater was likely to<br />

lead the nation to a nuclear war. Amid<br />

cries of “Foul!” from Goldwater’s<br />

Republican supporters, the ad was<br />

aired only once, but it became a classic<br />

example of the sort of ad that seeks to<br />

play on the fears of its viewers.<br />

• Is the ad true FactCheck.org, a<br />

project of the Annenberg Public Policy<br />

Center, is an excellent resource for<br />

monitoring factual accuracy in<br />

campaign ads. Other media outlets like<br />

the New York Times will often run “ad<br />

watches” to help viewers determine if<br />

the information in an advertisement is<br />

true. If it is not (and sometimes even if<br />

it is), you can usually count on hearing<br />

a response from the attacked candidate<br />

rebutting the charges. Occasionally<br />

candidates have chosen not to respond,<br />

claiming to take the high road, but as<br />

Michael Dukakis’s dismal performance<br />

in the 1988 election showed, false<br />

attacks left unanswered can be<br />

devastating. Try to conduct your own<br />

“ad watch.” Study the campaign ads<br />

and evaluate their truthfulness.<br />

1. Alexandra Marks, “Backlash Grows Against Negative<br />

Political Ads,” Christian Science Monitor, September 28,<br />

1995, 1.<br />

2. Roger Stone, “Positively Negative,” New York Times,<br />

February 26, 1996, 13.<br />

3. Stone. •<br />

prison through a turnstile. A voice-over claimed that<br />

Dukakis’s “revolving door prison policy” had permitted firstdegree<br />

murderers to leave on weekend furloughs. At the<br />

same time, a pro-Bush group called the National Security<br />

PAC ran the more controversial Willie Horton ad, which<br />

focused on the mug shot of Horton, showing (without saying<br />

so) that he was African American. Implying that Dukakis<br />

bore some responsibility for the events described, the<br />

commercial coolly told how Horton, who was serving a life<br />

sentence for murder, had stabbed a man and raped his<br />

girlfriend while on a weekend pass. 86 The Dukakis campaign<br />

negative advertising campaign advertising that emphasizes<br />

the negative characteristics of opponents rather than one’s own<br />

strengths<br />

failed to respond to this one-two punch, and subsequent<br />

surveys showed that those who saw the commercials came to<br />

think of crime as an important issue in the campaign. Bush’s<br />

standings began to climb, and, of course, he went on to win<br />

the election. 87 (See Don’t Be Fooled by Campaign Advertising for<br />

some advice on how to critically evaluate the political ads<br />

that come your way.) Although negative advertising may<br />

turn off some voters and give the perception that politics is<br />

an unpleasant business, the public accepts accurate attacks on<br />

the issues. As long as it does not go too far, an attack ad that<br />

highlights negative aspects of an opponent’s record actually<br />

registers more quickly and is remembered more frequently<br />

and longer by voters than are positive ads. 88 Experts have<br />

suggested that requiring candidates to appear in their own<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

Presidential Campaigns 539

ads would discourage negativity. Negative ads, however,<br />

continue to be the rule, rather than the exception, though<br />

not all candidates resort to them equally. During the heat of<br />

the 2008 campaign, in one week, nearly 100 percent of the<br />

McCain campaign’s ads were negative, compared to 34<br />

percent of Obama’s ads during the same time period. 89<br />

Because paid media coverage is so expensive, a campaign’s<br />

goal is to maximize opportunities for free coverage while<br />

controlling, as much as possible, the kind of coverage it gets. The<br />

major parties’ presidential candidates are accompanied by a<br />

substantial entourage of reporters who need to file stories on a<br />

regular basis, not only for the nation’s major newspapers and<br />

television networks but also to keep reporters and commentators<br />

on the cable news stations like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox busy. These<br />

media have substantial influence in setting the agenda—<br />

determining what issues are important and, hence, which<br />

candidates’ appeals will resonate with voters. 90 As a result, daily<br />

campaign events are planned more for the press and the demands<br />

of the evening news than for the actual in-person audiences, who<br />

often seem to function primarily as a backdrop for the<br />

candidates’ efforts to get favorable airtime each day. The<br />

campaigns also field daily conference calls with reporters to attack<br />

their opponents and defend their candidates and to try to control,<br />

or “spin,” the way they are covered. In the last couple of election<br />

cycles, a strategy for getting on the news without spending a lot<br />

of money has been to produce negative “web ads” designed for<br />

Internet circulation, which, if catchy enough, could get endless<br />

coverage by the networks, the cable stations, and the blogs.<br />

Although the candidates want the regular exposure, they<br />

do not like the norms of broadcast news, which they see as<br />

perpetuating horse-race journalism, focusing on who is ahead<br />

rather than on substantive issues. 91 In addition, the<br />

exhausting nature of campaigns, and the mistakes and gaffes<br />

that follow, are a source of constant concern because of the<br />

media’s tendency to zero in on them and replay them<br />

endlessly. The relationship between the campaigns and the<br />

media is testy. Each side needs the other, but the candidates<br />

want to control the message, and the media want stories that<br />

are “news”—controversies, changes in the candidates’<br />

standings, or stories of goofs and scandals. We discuss the<br />

complex relationship between the media and the candidates<br />

at greater length in <strong>Chapter</strong> 15.<br />

Candidates in recent elections have turned increasingly to<br />

“soft news” and entertainment programming to get their<br />

messages across. Candidates have been especially effective at<br />

appealing across party lines to reach the less engaged voters in<br />

the soft news formats. Many 2008 candidates, including John<br />

McCain, Barack Obama, Ron Paul, and Hillary Clinton,<br />

appeared on NBC’s Saturday Night Live and Comedy Central’s The<br />

Talk Show Appearances<br />

Presidential Politics Enters the Media Age<br />

The first televised debates were held in 1960 between then–vice<br />

president Richard Nixon and the younger and less experienced<br />

Sen. John F. Kennedy. Many people believe that television made the<br />

difference in Kennedy’s razor-thin victory. Kennedy appeared relaxed<br />

and charismatic compared with the brooding Nixon—reinforced by<br />

the latter’s unfortunate five o’clock shadow. Today, the presidential<br />

debates are an expected and anticipated feature of presidential<br />

campaigns.<br />

Daily Show With Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report (even Michelle<br />

Obama made a stop at the latter two). Obama kept up the<br />

tradition in 2012, but Mitt Romney chose to avoid the<br />

informal appearances, playing it safe but missing an<br />

opportunity to show himself in a more relaxed light.<br />

In 2008 the Internet really came into its own as a source<br />

of news. Mainstream media outlets like the New York Times, the<br />

Washington Post, Time magazine, and the major networks<br />

maintained blogs that joined independent bloggers like Josh<br />

Marshall of Talkingpointsmemo.com and National Review<br />

Online in updating campaign news and poll results throughout<br />

the day. And with everyone having a cell phone camera or a<br />

video camera in his or her pocket, YouTube has helped to<br />

transform the electoral landscape as well. A recorded gaffe or<br />

misstatement by a candidate or a campaign surrogate could go<br />

viral—reaching millions of viewers with the quick clicks of<br />

many mouses. Politicians accustomed to a more conventional<br />

way of campaigning were often caught in the YouTube trap.<br />

Bill Clinton, for instance, campaigning for his wife in the<br />

Democratic primary, was several times captured on tape saying<br />

something ill-advised that spread quickly before he could<br />

attempt damage control. Even the media-savvy Obama found a<br />

tape of his words about frustrated voters becoming bitter,<br />

spoken at what he thought was a closed fundraiser, making the<br />

Internet and then the mainstream media rounds at lightning<br />

speed. And as we have seen, in 2012 Mitt Romney was<br />

recorded at a private fundraiser speaking about how 47 percent<br />

of Americans, who pay no taxes, would never vote for him or<br />

540 14: Voting, Campaigns, and Elections<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

e persuaded to take responsibility for their lives. His poll<br />

numbers dipped after this, and although they improved after<br />

the first debate, he was haunted by the image of being<br />

unsympathetic to the plight of almost half of Americans.<br />

Presidential Debates<br />

Since 1976 the presidential debates have become one of the<br />

major focal points of the campaign. The first televised debate<br />

was held in 1960 between Sen. John F. Kennedy and Vice<br />

President Richard Nixon. The younger and more photogenic<br />

Kennedy came out on top in those televised debates, but<br />

interestingly, those who heard the debates on the radio<br />

thought that Nixon did a better job. 92 In general, leading<br />

candidates find it less in their interest to participate in<br />

debates because they have more to lose and less to win, and<br />

so for years debates took place on a sporadic basis.<br />

More recently, however, media and public pressure have<br />

all but guaranteed that at least the major-party candidates will<br />

participate in debates, although the number, timing, and<br />

format of the debates are renegotiated for each presidential<br />

election season. Recent elections have generated two or three<br />

debates, with a debate among the vice presidential contenders<br />

worked in as well. Third-party candidates, who have the most<br />

to gain from the free media exposure and the legitimacy that<br />

debate participation confers on a campaign, lobby to be<br />

included but rarely are. Ross Perot was invited in 1992<br />

because both George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton hoped to<br />

woo his supporters. Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan were shut<br />

out of all three debates in 2000.<br />

Do the debates matter Detailed statistical studies show, not<br />

surprisingly, that many of the debates have been standoffs.<br />

However, some of the debates, especially those identified with<br />

significant candidate errors or positive performances, have<br />

moved vote intentions 2 to 4 percent, which in a close race<br />

could be significant. 93 In addition, a good deal of evidence<br />

indicates that citizens learn about the candidates and their issue<br />

positions from the debates. 94 In 2012, President Obama was<br />

familiar to voters, but his challenger, Mitt Romney, was known<br />

mostly as the plutocratic caricature that had been painted of him<br />

in Obama advertisements. During their first debate, Romney<br />

looked relaxed, confident, and presidential, while the president<br />

looked grumpy and passive. Polls showed a huge win for<br />

Romney, and many of the Republican-leaning voters who had<br />

been turned off by Romney’s 47 percent gaffe returned to his<br />

camp. Obama’s poll numbers dipped, and Romney even took the<br />

lead in the polls for a short while. Mad at himself for his sleepy<br />

performance in the first debate, Obama snapped back in the<br />

second and third debates, and polls showed that voters<br />

government matching funds money given by the federal<br />

government to qualified presidential candidates in the primary and<br />

general election campaigns<br />

Figure 14.4<br />

Increase in Total Spending in Presidential<br />

Campaigns, 1976–2012<br />

Total spending (in millions of dollars)<br />

2,000<br />

1,900<br />

1,800<br />

1,700<br />

1,600<br />

1,500<br />

1,400<br />

1,300<br />

1,200<br />

1,100<br />

1,000<br />

900<br />

800<br />

700<br />

600<br />

500<br />

400<br />

300<br />

200<br />

100<br />

0<br />

1976 1980 1984 1988 1992<br />

Year<br />

1996 2000 2004 2008 2012<br />

Source: Center for Responsive Politics, “Presidential Fund-raising and Spending, 1976 -2008,”<br />

www.opensecrets.org/pres08/totals.phpcycle=2008; “Banking on Becoming President,”<br />

www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php; and “2012 Presidential Race,” www.opensecrets.<br />

org/pres12/index.phpql3.<br />

fig 14.4<br />

considered him the winner. By Election Day he had returned to<br />

his pre-debate standing in the polls.<br />

Money<br />

Winning—or even losing—a presidential campaign involves<br />

serious money. The presidential candidates in 2012 spent a total<br />

of more than $2 billion, almost double what was spent by the<br />

presidential candidates in 2004, which had doubled what was<br />

spent in 2000. The data in Figure 14.4 show this striking upward<br />

trend, which came about despite significant fundraising limits<br />

put into place by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).<br />

This torrent of cash is used to cover the costs of all the<br />

activities just discussed: campaign professionals, polling and<br />

travel for the candidates and often their spouses (along with<br />

the accompanying staff and media), with the biggest share<br />

going to the production and purchase of media advertising.<br />

The campaign costs for all federal offices in 2008 came in at<br />

about $5.3 billion, or just over $18 for every man, woman,<br />

and child in the country. 95 Of course, the 2012 expenditures<br />

easily top all previous records.<br />

First Televised Debate<br />

2012 Campaign<br />

Spending Map<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

Presidential Campaigns 541

Do presidential debates matter<br />

Analysts have argued that presidential debates seldom have much influence on the<br />

election outcome. The election of 2012, however, may have proved to be the exception.<br />

The debates certainly changed the momentum of the contest, with a very strong<br />

performance by Republican Mitt Romney in the first debate and an unusually lively and<br />

testy face-off in the second town-hall meeting debate, pictured here.<br />

Where does all this money come from To make sense of<br />

the changing world of election campaign finance, we need to<br />

start by defining the different kinds of campaign<br />

contributions, each with different sources and regulations:<br />

• Government matching funds are given, in the<br />

primary and general election campaigns, to qualified<br />

presidential candidates who choose to accept them<br />

and to spend only that money. The funds come<br />

from citizens who have checked the box on their tax<br />

returns that sends $3 ($6 on joint returns) to fund<br />

presidential election campaigns. The idea behind the<br />

law is to more easily regulate big money influence<br />

on campaign finances, ensure a fair contest, and free<br />

up candidates to communicate with the public. For<br />

primary elections, if a candidate raises at least $5,000<br />

in each of twenty states and agrees to abide by overall<br />

spending limits (almost $55 million in 2012), as<br />

well as state-by-state limits, the federal government<br />

matches every contribution up to $250.<br />

This same fund has in the past fully financed both<br />

major-party candidates’ general election campaigns<br />

and continues to subsidize the two national party<br />

nominating conventions. John McCain opted to<br />

participate in the 2008 federal campaign<br />

financing and faced a spending limit of $84.1<br />

million. Barack Obama was the first presidential<br />

nominee not to participate in the general<br />

election federal financing, arguing that by<br />

relying on small donors, his campaign was<br />

essentially publicly funded anyway. This meant<br />

that his campaign had to raise all the funds it<br />

would spend rather than receiving the federal<br />

subsidy, but it also meant that the Obama<br />

campaign was not limited in the amount it<br />

could spend. If presidential candidates accept<br />

this public funding, they may not raise any other<br />

funds or use any leftover funds raised during the<br />

primary campaign.<br />

In 2012 both parties’ candidates anticipated<br />

raising and spending at least $1 billion each, so<br />

the option of government matching funds<br />

(about $94 million available in 2012) and the<br />

limited spending accepting those would impose<br />

was passed up entirely by both campaigns. This<br />

may well spell the death of public funding of<br />

presidential general election campaigns. 96 Third<br />

parties that received at least 5 percent of the vote<br />

in the previous presidential campaign may also<br />

collect public financing. Unlike the two major<br />

parties, however, the money a third party receives<br />

depends on the number of votes the party received in<br />

the previous election. Ross Perot was eligible to receive<br />

$29 million for his 1996 presidential campaign after<br />

his party won 19 percent of the vote in 1992, while<br />

the two major parties received $61.8 million each. 97<br />

• Hard money refers to the funds given directly to<br />

candidates by individuals, political action committees<br />

(PACs), the political parties, and the government. The<br />

spending of hard money is under the control of the<br />

candidates, but its collection is governed by the rules<br />

of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971,<br />

1974, and its various amendments. This act established<br />

the FEC and was intended to stop the flow of money<br />

from large contributors (and thus limit their influence)<br />

by outlawing contributions by corporations and unions,<br />

and by restricting contributions from individuals. The<br />

campaign finance reform bill passed in 2002 actually<br />

raised the hard money limits. Under that law, individuals<br />

can give a federal candidate up to $2,300 per election<br />

and can give a total of $108,200 to all federal candidates<br />

Spooky PACs<br />

hard money campaign funds donated directly to candidates;<br />

amounts are limited by federal election laws<br />

542 14: Voting, Campaigns, and Elections<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

and parties in a two-year election cycle. 98 The limit on<br />

the parties’ hard money contributions to candidates was<br />

held to be unconstitutional in a 1999 Colorado district<br />

federal court decision but was later upheld in a five-tofour<br />

Supreme Court decision. 99<br />

However, in the 2010 decision in Citizens United v.<br />

Federal Election Commission, 100 the Supreme Court struck<br />

down a provision of BCRA that prohibited<br />

corporations (and, by implication, unions and interest<br />

groups) from sponsoring broadcast ads for or against<br />

specific candidates. Corporations, unions, and<br />

individual citizens are thus free to engage in<br />

broadcast campaigns, although provisions requiring<br />

disclosure and limitations on direct contributions to<br />

candidates were retained. A new loophole is being<br />

exploited by what are called 501c groups (after the<br />

section of the tax codes under which they are<br />

chartered). Experts disagreed about the likely<br />

consequences of the far-reaching decision, but<br />

mirroring the Court’s five-to-four breakdown on the<br />

ruling, it was generally decried by liberals and<br />

supported by conservatives. 101 What is not<br />

controversial is that the decision opened the<br />

floodgates for vast sums of money, much of it coming<br />

through what are known as “super PACs” funded by<br />

very wealthy individuals, corporations, and unions. 102<br />

• Soft money is unregulated money collected by parties<br />

and interest groups in unlimited amounts to spend<br />

on party-building activities, get-out-the-vote drives,<br />

voter education, or issue position advocacy. Prior to the<br />

passage of campaign finance reform in 2002, as long<br />

as the money was not spent to tell people how to vote<br />

or coordinated with a specific candidate’s campaign,<br />

the FEC could not regulate soft money. This allowed<br />

corporate groups, unions, and political parties to raise<br />

unlimited funds often used for television and radio<br />

advertising, especially in the form of issue advocacy ads.<br />

As we discussed in <strong>Chapter</strong> 13, issue advocacy ads are<br />

television or radio commercials run during an election<br />

campaign that promote a particular issue, usually<br />

by attacking the character, views, or position of the<br />

soft money unregulated campaign contributions by individuals,<br />

groups, or parties that promote general election activities but do<br />

not directly support individual candidates<br />

issue advocacy ads advertisements paid for by soft money, and<br />

thus not regulated, that promote certain issue positions but do not<br />

endorse specific candidates<br />

get-out-the-vote (GOTV) drives efforts by political parties,<br />

interest groups, and the candidate’s staff to maximize voter turnout<br />

among supporters<br />

candidate the group running the ad wishes to defeat.<br />

The courts have considered these ads protected free<br />

speech and have held that individuals and organizations<br />

could not be stopped from spending money to express<br />

their opinions about issues, or even candidates, so long<br />

as they did not explicitly tell viewers how to vote.<br />

Most observers thought that BCRA would remove<br />

unregulated money from campaigns and curb negative<br />

advertising. While it limited the spending of PACs and parties,<br />

new groups, called 527 groups after the loophole (section<br />

527) in the Internal Revenue Code that allows them to avoid<br />

the regulations imposed by BCRA, sprang up in their stead<br />

(see <strong>Chapter</strong> 13). Like groups that raised and spent soft money<br />

prior to BCRA, 527s can raise unlimited funds for issue<br />

advocacy or voter mobilization so long as they do not openly<br />

promote any candidate or openly try to defeat any particular<br />

candidate. BCRA does forbid all groups, even 527s, from<br />

running such ads funded by soft money within sixty days of a<br />

general election, or within thirty days of a primary election.<br />

The 2010 Citizens United case loosened the regulations further,<br />

lifting the sixty-day limit. For upcoming elections it appears<br />

that interest groups, corporations, and unions will have<br />

greater leeway in how and when they campaign for<br />

candidates. Even so, they are still limited in making direct<br />

(hard money) contributions; most of their efforts will be as<br />

independent expenditures (efforts that cannot be coordinated<br />

with the candidates’ campaigns). Moreover, it can be argued<br />

that the new decision will not affect our elections in a major<br />

way as these entities found plenty of ways to attempt to<br />

influence campaigns under the old laws. In any case, given<br />

that such contributors do not share a single common ideology<br />

or set of issue preferences, some observers argue that any<br />

effects will largely cancel each other out. Only with the<br />

unfolding of future elections will we know for sure. 103<br />

Getting Out the Vote<br />

Get-out-the-vote (GOTV) drives refer to the voter mobilization<br />

efforts we discussed earlier in this chapter. As we saw in What’s at<br />

Stake…, voter mobilization efforts are, an increasingly important<br />

part of any presidential campaign. As we noted, in the 1980s and<br />

1990s such efforts concentrated mostly on television advertising.<br />

The expense of these “air wars” meant that parties and<br />

campaigns worried less about knocking on doors and the shoeleather<br />

efforts associated with a campaign’s “ground war.” Parties<br />

mistakenly associated GOTV with “get on television” rather than<br />

its traditional meaning of “get out the vote.” 104 Beginning in<br />

1998 the campaigns renewed efforts to contact potential voters<br />

face-to-face. This is consistent with research that shows that<br />

Meet the Bundlers<br />

Campaign Finance<br />

Debates<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

Presidential Campaigns 543

decreased party mobilization efforts were a substantial part of the<br />

reason that voter turnout had been decreasing. 105<br />

In 2008 and 2012, however, the Obama campaign<br />

rewrote the strategy book for modern campaigns. Not only<br />

did it reawaken efforts at direct contacting, but it tied such<br />

contact to advances in Internet technology and social<br />

networking, from regular ads on YouTube, to recurring emails<br />

and text messages to contributors, to highly sophisticated and<br />

coordinated volunteer efforts at voter mobilization. 106 The<br />

Obama team had paid staff, hundreds of offices, and thousands<br />

of volunteers in place across all the battleground states. One<br />

high-level Republican campaign official said in 2008, “This is<br />

the greatest ground game they’ve ever put together. It’s<br />

scary.” 107 As we have seen, the 2012 campaign improved on<br />

the innovations of 2008, engaging everyday citizens as integral<br />

parts of the campaigns rather than just as spectators and voters.<br />

The Obama campaign’s successful mobilization efforts were<br />

able to turn typically Republican states such as Indiana to the<br />

Democratic column in 2008, and to keep all the states they<br />

won in 2008 except North Carolina in 2012. 108<br />

What is particularly interesting about these grassroots efforts<br />

is that they are not just a return to a bygone era. Rather,<br />

mobilization efforts combine old-school door-to-door<br />

campaigning with modern technology. 109 Vast computer databases<br />

tell volunteers whose doors to knock on, and these volunteers<br />

often have hand-held personal electronic devices that have detailed<br />

information on each voter. 110 This allows parties and groups to<br />

target swing voters and their base voters. Campaigns and interest<br />

groups also flood supporters’ email in-boxes and tie up the phone<br />

lines. Seventy-six percent of voters in battleground states reported<br />

that they had been contacted and urged to vote a particular way. 111<br />

In their zeal to seek out all possible voters, campaigns have<br />

reached out to poorer voters in both urban and rural areas who<br />

have not received either party’s attention in recent decades. 112<br />

Interpreting Elections<br />

After the election is over, when the votes are counted, and<br />

we know who won, it would seem that the whole election<br />

season is finally finished. In reality, the outcomes of our<br />

collective decisions cry for interpretation. Probably the most<br />

important interpretation is the one articulated by the victor.<br />

The winning candidate in presidential elections inevitably<br />

claims an electoral mandate, maintaining that the people<br />

want the president to do the things he campaigned on and<br />

that the election is all about the voters’ preference for his<br />

leadership and policy programs. Presidents who can sell<br />

the interpretation that their election to office is a ringing<br />

endorsement of their policies can work with Congress from a<br />

favored position. 113 To the extent that the president is able to<br />

sell his interpretation, he will be more successful in governing.<br />

In contrast, the losing party will try to argue that its loss<br />

was due to the characteristics of its candidate or specific<br />

campaign mistakes. Party members will, predictably, resist the<br />

interpretation that the voters rejected their message and their<br />

vision for the nation. In general, Congress responds less to<br />

presidential declarations of a mandate and more to indications<br />

of changes in public preferences signaled by a change in<br />

which party wins the presidency or a large legislative seat<br />

turnover, especially one that produces a change in party<br />

control of Congress. 114<br />

The media also offer their interpretations of elections. In<br />

fact, research shows that of the many possible explanations<br />

that are available, the mainstream media quickly—in just a<br />

matter of weeks—hone in on an agreed-upon standard<br />

explanation of the election. 115 In 2000 the media, in<br />

explaining the closeness of the race, focused on how much<br />

more likable voters found George W. Bush, despite the<br />

majority’s agreement with Al Gore on the issues, and on what<br />

they claimed to be Gore’s badly run campaign. In 2004 the<br />

media decided quickly that, although the nation was closely<br />

divided, moral-values voters in red states put Bush over the<br />

top. In 2008 the media story was that President Bush’s rockbottom<br />

approval ratings were dragging down McCain and<br />

that, with the economy in collapse, the Republican was facing<br />

insurmountable odds while the voters were hungry for<br />

change. The media, assisted by the left-leaning blogosphere,<br />

also maintained that Obama had run a reasonably positive<br />

campaign, but that Republicans were stirring up anger and<br />

mob-like sentiments with their insinuations that Obama was<br />

“un-American” and “risky.” These explanations offer parts of<br />

the truth, but they oversimplify reality and do not give us a<br />

complete understanding of the complex decisions made by<br />

the American electorate.<br />

Who • What • How<br />

In the matter of presidential elections, the parties, their<br />

elites, party activists, and the candidates all have something<br />

vital at stake. The traditional party leaders fared best under<br />

the old rules and closed-door decision making that yielded<br />

seasoned and electable politicians as the parties’ nominees.<br />

Activists, with a broader agenda than simply winning power,<br />

seek control of the platform and the nomination, and may<br />

well have goals other than electability in mind. The primary<br />

system allows them to reap the fruits of the considerable<br />

time and resources they are willing to invest in politics.<br />

2008 Get<br />

Out the<br />

Vote<br />

Why Don’t<br />

People<br />

Vote<br />

Electoral<br />

Mandate<br />

electoral mandate the perception that an election victory<br />

signals broad support for the winner’s proposed policies<br />

544 14: Voting, Campaigns, and Elections<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

Candidates seeking the nomination must<br />

answer to both the traditional party leaders and<br />

the activist members. This often puts them in a<br />

difficult position. Once nominated and pursuing<br />

a national bipartisan victory, the candidate needs<br />

to hold on to party supporters while drawing in<br />

those not already committed to the other side.<br />

Here the candidate makes use of the rules of<br />

the Electoral College, professional staff, strategic<br />

issue positions, the media, fundraising, and voter<br />

mobilization.<br />

• The Citizens and<br />

Elections<br />

Do too many informed voters lead<br />

to too much conflict<br />

At the beginning of this chapter we acknowledged<br />

that the American citizen does not look like the<br />

ideal citizen of classical democratic theory. Nothing<br />

we have learned in this chapter has convinced us<br />

otherwise, but that does not mean that Americans<br />

are doomed to an undemocratic future. In the first<br />

chapter of this book we considered three models of<br />

citizen activity in democracies, which we revisit here.<br />

The first model we discussed is the elite<br />

model, which argues that as citizens we can do no more (or<br />

are fitted to do no more) than choose the elites who govern<br />

us, making a rather passive choice from among remote<br />

leaders. The second model of democratic politics, the pluralist<br />

model, sees us as participating in political life primarily<br />

through our affiliation with different types of groups. Finally,<br />

the participatory model of democracy is perhaps more<br />

prescriptive than the other two models, which it rejects<br />

because it believes that it is unsatisfactory for the majority of<br />

the citizenry to play a largely passive role in the political<br />

system. This model holds that we grow and develop as<br />

citizens through being politically active. In fact, rather than<br />

fitting any of these models exclusively, the American citizen’s<br />

role in elections seems to borrow elements from all three<br />

models in a way that might be called a fourth model. As we<br />

shall see, American citizens, though they do not meet the<br />

ideals of democratic theory, do make a difference in<br />

American politics through the mechanism of elections.<br />

A Fourth Model<br />

The early studies of voting that used survey research found<br />

that most citizens had surprisingly low levels of interest in<br />

Unpleasant October Surprise<br />

Just weeks before the 2012 election, Hurricane Sandy devastated parts of the<br />

nation’s east coast. Both President Obama and his Republican challenger Mitt<br />

Romney suspended campaign activities in the storm’s immediate aftermath, but<br />

Obama, shown here touring the damage and comforting the storm’s victims with<br />

Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, was able to stay in the public eye.<br />

Many in Romney’s campaign felt that the storm sapped any momentum he might<br />

have gathered after the first presidential debate.<br />

presidential election campaigns. These studies of the 1944 and<br />

1948 presidential elections found that most citizens had their<br />

minds made up before the campaigns began and that opinions<br />

changed only slightly in response to the efforts of the parties<br />

and candidates. Instead of people relying on new information<br />

coming from the campaigns, people voted according to the<br />

groups to which they belonged. That is, income, occupation,<br />

religion, and similar factors structured who people talked to,<br />

what they learned, and how they voted.<br />

The authors of these studies concluded that democracy is<br />

probably safer without a single type of citizen who matches the<br />

civics ideal of high levels of participation, knowledge, and<br />

commitment. 116 In this view, such high levels of involvement<br />

would indicate a citizenry fraught with conflict. Intense<br />

participation comes with intense commitment and strongly<br />

held positions, which make for an unwillingness to<br />

compromise. This revision of the call for classic “good citizens”<br />

holds that our democratic polity is actually better off when it<br />

has lots of different types of citizens: some who care deeply, are<br />

highly informed, and participate intensely; many more who<br />

care moderately, are a bit informed, and participate as much<br />

out of duty to the process as commitment to one party or<br />

candidate; and some who are less aware of politics until some<br />

great issue or controversy awakens their political slumber.<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

The Citizens and the Courts 545

The virtue of modern democracy in this political specialization<br />

view is that citizens play different roles and that together these<br />

roles combine to form an electoral system that has the attributes<br />

we prefer: it is reasonably stable; it responds to changes of<br />

issues and candidates, but not too much; and the electorate as a<br />

whole cares, but not so intensely that any significant portion of<br />

the citizenry will challenge the results of an election. Its most<br />

obvious flaw is that it is biased against the interests of those<br />

who are least likely to be the activist or pluralist citizens—the<br />

young, the poor, the uneducated, and minorities. 117<br />

Do Elections Make a Difference<br />

If we can argue that most Americans do take more than a<br />

passive role in elections and that, despite being less-than-ideal<br />

democratic citizens, most Americans are involved “enough,”<br />

then we need to ask whether the elections they participate<br />

in make any difference. We would like to think that elections<br />

represent the voice of the people in charting the directions<br />

for government policy. Let us briefly discuss how well this<br />

goal is attained. At a minimal but nevertheless important<br />

level, elections in the United States do achieve electoral<br />

accountability. By this we mean only that by having to stand for<br />

reelection, our leaders are more or less constantly concerned<br />

with the consequences of what they do for their next election.<br />

The fact that citizens tend to vote retrospectively provides<br />

incumbent administrations with a lot of incentive to keep<br />

things running properly, and certainly to avoid policies that<br />

citizens may hold against them. Thus we begin by noting that<br />

elections keep officeholders attentive to what they are doing.<br />

We can also ask if elections make a difference in the sense<br />

that it matters who wins. The answer is yes. Today the parties<br />

stand on opposite sides of many issues, and given the chance,<br />

they will move national policy in the direction they believe in.<br />

Thus in 1980 the election of Ronald Reagan ushered in<br />

conservative policies—especially his tax cuts and domestic<br />

spending reductions—that Jimmy Carter, whom Reagan<br />

defeated, would never have even put on the agenda. Looking at<br />

elections over time, scholars Robert S. Erikson, Michael<br />

MacKuen, and James A. Stimson observe a direct relationship<br />

between national elections and the policies that government<br />

subsequently enacts. Electing Democrats results in more liberal<br />

policies; electing Republicans results in more conservative<br />

policies. 118 This same generalization can be seen in the politics<br />

of the American states, where we find that more liberal states<br />

enact more liberal policies and more conservative states enact<br />

more conservative policies. Policy liberalism, which is a<br />

composite measure of things like the tax structure, welfare<br />

benefits, educational spending, voting for the Equal Rights<br />

Amendment, and so forth, is higher as the states become more<br />

liberal. 119 There is much solid evidence that elections are<br />

indeed crucial in bringing about a degree of policy<br />

congruence between the electorate and what policymakers do.<br />

Just because elections seem to work to bring policy into<br />

rough agreement with citizen preferences does not mean that<br />

all citizens know what they want and that candidates know this<br />

and respond. Some citizens do know what they want; others do<br />

not. Some candidates heed the wishes of constituents; others<br />

pay more attention to their own consciences or to the demands<br />

of ideological party activists and contributors. Averaged over all<br />

these variables, however, we do find that policy follows<br />

elections. Citizens, even with the blunt instrument of the<br />

ballot, can and do change what government does. 120<br />

Take the <strong>Chapter</strong> Quiz<br />

Let’s Revisit:<br />

You could call it the revenge of the<br />

nerds: the triumph of geeky science<br />

over faith and finger-crossing. The<br />

chief analytics officer for the Obama<br />

campaign said of the young data<br />

crunchers tasked with coming up with<br />

a turnout forecast in the Cave in the<br />

campaign’s Chicago office, “We’re kind<br />

of a weird bunch of kids. I haven’t seen<br />

the sun for a while.” 121 An article about<br />

the campaign’s tech team was called<br />

“When the Nerds Go Marching In.” 122<br />

And one campaign official said, “It’s<br />

about turning over control to some<br />

nerds. And more than any other year,<br />

campaign leadership really took that<br />

leap of faith.” 123<br />

Getting out the vote, which used<br />

to be a matter of old-fashioned,<br />

face-to-face retail politics, now begins<br />

in dark rooms filled with glowing<br />

computer screens. The personal touch<br />

is still important, but the science of<br />

campaigning has come a long way even<br />

from the beginning of this century. It<br />

was 2004 when Republican political<br />

guru Karl Rove broke new ground in the<br />

George W. Bush reelection campaign<br />

by micro-targeting supporters and<br />

mobilizing a strong turnout for the<br />

incumbent. Democrats were caught off<br />

guard, but by 2012 they had caught up.<br />

One writer who has studied the<br />

science of campaigning says that<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

the Obama campaign was better<br />

than its opponents in getting out the<br />

vote because the entire door-to-door<br />

element of the campaign was backed<br />

up by powerful data analysis that told<br />

the canvassers who to target and how<br />

to persuade. A campaign doesn’t want<br />

to waste time on the unpersuadable,<br />

and the nerdy Obama analytics team<br />

had eliminated the guesswork. This<br />

writer says,<br />

With an eager pool of<br />

academic collaborators in<br />

political science, behavioral<br />

psychology, and economics<br />

linking up with curious<br />

political operatives and<br />

hacks, the left has birthed an<br />

unexpected subculture. It<br />

now contains a full-fledged<br />

electioneering intelligentsia,<br />

focused on integrating largescale<br />

survey research with<br />

randomized experimental<br />

methods to isolate particular<br />

populations that can be<br />

moved by political contact. 124<br />

The Romney campaign had tried<br />

to construct a system that would<br />

help garner information on Election<br />

Day, but it was years behind the<br />

Obama team, in part because it<br />

had rejected what science could do<br />

for it. One analysis points out three<br />

miscalculations the campaign made. 125<br />

First, when the polls said that the<br />

electorate had a lot of Democrats in it,<br />

but the Romney campaign members’<br />

impressions of the enthusiasm on<br />

their side made them doubt the<br />

polls, they rejected the science and<br />

altered the partisan balance in their<br />

model to fit their intuition. Second,<br />

they believed that doing well with<br />

independents meant they were bound<br />

to win, without researching who the<br />

independent voters were. In hindsight,<br />

it became apparent that fewer voters<br />

were self-identifying as Republicans in<br />

the polls and were calling themselves<br />

Independents instead. By adopting<br />

voter models that subtracted<br />

Democrats and bolstered the<br />

percentages of Republicans while also<br />

counting Independents, the Romney<br />

campaign model was essentially<br />

double-counting some of its voters.<br />

And, finally, the campaign members<br />

were confident that the voters who<br />

said they were undecided would break<br />

for Romney at the last minute, again<br />

basing their expectations on what<br />

they guessed would happen.<br />

The geeky Obama campaign, having<br />

cast its lot with science, knew that<br />

none of those things were true. What’s<br />

at stake in how a campaign gets out<br />

its vote is winning, and the mistakes<br />

of the Romney campaign will be ones<br />

no campaign can afford to make in the<br />

future. •<br />

To Sum Up<br />

Key terms, chapter summaries, practice quizzes, Internet links, and<br />

other study aids are available on the companion web site at<br />

http://republic.cqpress.com.<br />

Define<br />

Understand<br />

Read<br />

Click<br />

Watch<br />

closed primary (p. 527)<br />

electoral mandate (p. 544)<br />

front-loading (p. 527)<br />

front-runner (p. 528)<br />

get-out-the-vote (GOTV) drives (p. 543)<br />

government matching funds (p. 541)<br />

hard money (p. 542)<br />

invisible primary (p. 526)<br />

issue advocacy ads (p. 543)<br />

issue ownership (p. 537)<br />

momentum (p. 528)<br />

Motor Voter Bill (p. 519)<br />

negative advertising (p. 539)<br />

open primary (p. 527)<br />

oppo research (p. 535)<br />

party caucus (p. 526)<br />

political efficacy (p. 514)<br />

position issues (p. 536)<br />

presidential primary (p. 526)<br />

prospective voting (p. 524)<br />

retrospective voting (p. 524)<br />

social connectedness (p. 520)<br />

soft money (p. 543)<br />

swing voters (p. 530)<br />

valence issues (p. 536)<br />

voter mobilization (p. 519)<br />

wedge issue (p. 537)<br />

Define<br />

Understand<br />

Read<br />

Click<br />

Watch<br />

••<br />

Elections represent the core of American democracy, serving<br />

several functions: selecting leaders, giving direction to policy,<br />

developing citizenship, informing the public, containing<br />

conflict, and stabilizing the political system.<br />

••<br />

Voting enhances the quality of democratic life by<br />

legitimizing the outcomes of elections. However, American<br />

voter turnout levels are typically among the lowest in the<br />

world and may endanger American democracy. Factors such<br />

To Sum Up 547<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

as age, income, education, and race affect whether a person<br />

is likely to vote.<br />

••<br />

Candidates and the media often blur issue positions, and<br />

voters realistically cannot investigate policy proposals on<br />

their own. Therefore, voters make a decision by considering<br />

party identification and peer viewpoints, prominent issues,<br />

and campaign images.<br />

••<br />

The “road to the White House” is long, expensive, and<br />

grueling. It begins with planning and early fundraising in the<br />

pre-primary phase and develops into more active campaigning<br />

during the primary phase, which ends with each party’s choice<br />

of a candidate, announced at the party conventions. During<br />

the general election the major-party candidates are pitted<br />

against each other in a process that relies increasingly on<br />

the media and getting out the vote. Much of the battle at this<br />

stage is focused on attracting voters who have not yet made<br />

up their minds.<br />

••<br />

The Electoral College demonstrates well the founders’ desire<br />

to insulate government from public whims. Citizens do not<br />

vote directly for the president or vice president but rather for<br />

an elector who has already pledged to vote for that candidate.<br />

Except in Maine and Nebraska, the candidate with the<br />

majority of votes in a state wins all the electoral votes in that<br />

state.<br />

••<br />

Although American citizens do not fit the mythical ideal<br />

of the democratic citizen, elections still seem to work in<br />

representing the voice of the people in terms of citizen policy<br />

preferences.<br />

Define<br />

Understand<br />

Read<br />

Click<br />

Watch<br />

Adkins, Randall E. 2008. The Evolution of Parties,<br />

Campaigns, and Elections: Landmark Documents from 1787–<br />

2007. Washington, D.C.: <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>. Adkins examines parties<br />

and elections over history through primary documents such as<br />

speeches, letters, court cases, legislation, and documentary<br />

photographs.<br />

Anonymous (Joe Klein). 1996. Primary Colors: A Novel of<br />

Politics. New York: Random House. This is a “fictional”<br />

account of a southern governor running for president whose<br />

campaign is constantly plagued by scandal. Fun to read!<br />

Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and<br />

Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York:<br />

Define<br />

Understand<br />

Read<br />

Click<br />

Watch<br />

Wiley. This classic in voting studies shows the importance of party<br />

identification in electoral behavior. These surveys developed into the<br />

National Election Studies, which continue to serve as the chief<br />

source of data for academic electoral research in the United States.<br />

Conway, M. Margaret, Gertrude A. Steuernagel, and David<br />

W. Ahern. 2005. Women and Political Participation: Cultural<br />

Change in the Political Arena, 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: <strong>CQ</strong><br />

<strong>Press</strong>. This volume offers a succinct overview of the various ways<br />

in which women participate in politics.<br />

Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American<br />

National Elections. New Haven: Yale University <strong>Press</strong>. In an<br />

intriguing analysis of voting behavior, Fiorina argues that citizens<br />

vote based on retrospective evaluations of the incumbent and, if the<br />

issues are clear, prospective evaluations of the candidates’ positions.<br />

Heilemann, John, and Mark Halperin. 2010. Game Change:<br />

Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a<br />

Lifetime. New York: HarperCollins. Two veteran political<br />

reporters unearth the inside story on the historic 2008 campaign,<br />

detailing Obama’s meteoric rise, Hillary Clinton’s unexpected fall,<br />

and struggles within the McCain camp surrounding the selection of<br />

Sarah Palin as his running mate.<br />

Herrnson, Paul S. 2011. Congressional Elections:<br />

Campaigning at Home and in Washington, 6th ed.<br />

Washington, D.C.: <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>. Herrnson offers a systematic<br />

analysis of congressional campaign dynamics and the fight for<br />

votes and financial resources among electoral candidates.<br />

Polsby, Nelson W., and Aaron Wildavsky. 2004. Presidential<br />

Elections: Strategies and Structures of American Politics,<br />

11th ed. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. This is a great<br />

text on presidential elections.<br />

Raymond, Allen (author), and Ian Spiegelman<br />

(contributor). 2008. How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a<br />

Republican Operative. New York: Simon & Schuster. Written<br />

by Republican campaign adviser Allen Raymond, this highly<br />

acclaimed book offers an insider’s perspective on the “dark” side of<br />

electoral campaigns.<br />

Semiatin, Richard J., ed. 2012. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge,<br />

2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>. Semiatin offers a detailed<br />

548 14: Voting, Campaigns, and Elections<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

look at the changing face of modern political campaigns, with an<br />

emphasis on the increasingly prominent role played by digital media.<br />

Suarez, Ray. 2007. The Holy Vote: The Politics of Faith in<br />

America. New York: HarperCollins. Suarez, a National Public<br />

Radio commentator, analyzes separation of church and state in<br />

America and its implications for voting behavior in American elections.<br />

Toobin, Jeffrey. 2001. Too Close to Call: The Thirty-Six-Day<br />

Battle to Decide the 2000 Election. New York: Random<br />

House. This in-depth, dramatic account of the 2000 election mess<br />

follows the activities of the Bush and Gore camps from election<br />

night through the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to stop the recount<br />

in Florida thirty-six days later.<br />

Define<br />

Understand<br />

Read<br />

Click<br />

Watch<br />

Center for Responsive Politics www.opensecrets.org This<br />

web site keeps tabs on campaign finance, offering multiple ways<br />

to research contributions to candidates and spending patterns in<br />

presidential elections.<br />

CNN Politics www.cnn.com/politics This site is a great source for<br />

up-to-the-minute analysis of current elections.<br />

Electoral College Home Page www.archives.gov/federalregister/electoral-college/<br />

This site is a fascinating compendium<br />

of information on the Electoral College, including its history,<br />

procedures, and presidential and vice presidential “box scores” for<br />

1789 through 2004.<br />

FactCheck.org: A Project of the Annenberg Public Policy<br />

Center www.factcheck.org This web site separates fact from fiction in<br />

campaigns and everyday politics. Both articles and podcasts are available.<br />

The Living Room Candidate: Presidential Campaign<br />

Commercials www.livingroomcandidate.org This is an<br />

excellent site from which to view old and new presidential<br />

campaign commercials. The historical value of comparing<br />

past commercials to current commercials is especially<br />

useful.<br />

Project Vote Smart www.vote-smart.org This useful site will<br />

answer just about any question you might have about current<br />

elections and candidates.<br />

U.S. Government Voting and Elections www.usa.gov/Citizen/<br />

Topics/Voting.shtml This web site contains a variety of information<br />

to help you get involved in the voting process. Get started by<br />

learning about elections and voting, registering to vote, and<br />

contacting elected officials.<br />

Vote411.org: Election Information You Need www.vote 411.<br />

org Find out the basic information you need as a voter, including<br />

how to register, whom to contact in your state with questions,<br />

when and where debates will be held, and exactly what will be<br />

appearing on your ballot in upcoming elections.<br />

Define<br />

Understand<br />

Read<br />

Click<br />

Watch<br />

American Blackout 2005. Winner of the Special Jury Prize<br />

at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival, this controversial<br />

documentary situates itself at the intersection of race and<br />

voting, exploring African Americans’ systematic exclusion from<br />

the voting process.<br />

Game Change 2012. This Emmy-winning HBO dramatization is<br />

based on the part of the book by the same name that dealt with John<br />

McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate. It is a penetrating<br />

look at the consequences of the unrelenting pressure to win that<br />

campaign staffers face.<br />

Hacking Democracy 2006. This well-received HBO documentary<br />

explores the dangers inherent in America’s increasing reliance<br />

on computerized voting machines, with a specific focus on those<br />

created by the Diebold Corporation.<br />

Journeys With George 2003. This comical, Emmy-winning<br />

documentary follows a reporter (and filmmaker) and the presidential<br />

candidate—George W. Bush—with whom she travels during the<br />

2000 campaign.<br />

The Perfect Candidate 1996. In this superb documentary on the<br />

1994 Virginia Senate race between Oliver North and Charles Robb,<br />

the cameras take you on the campaign trail for a behind-the-scenes<br />

look at how campaigns are run.<br />

Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections 2007. This<br />

eye-opening documentary exposes the extent of fraud during the<br />

2004 U.S. presidential election.<br />

The War Room 1992. This excellent documentary puts you at the<br />

heart of Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign.<br />

To Sum Up 549<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

Politics:<br />

Who Gets<br />

What, and How<br />

<strong>Chapter</strong><br />

1<br />

in Taking It to the Streets<br />

Like so many others, twenty-four-year-old<br />

Matthew Brandi heard the call through the<br />

Internet. “I actually decided to go protest after<br />

seeing online videos of protesters being arrested,<br />

with the caption, ‘for each one they take away, two<br />

will replace them!’” He says, “It’s like it was my<br />

duty to go. I owed it to the person who got arrested.<br />

They stepped up and got taken out so someone had<br />

to replace them. I called three friends to come with<br />

me as well.” 1<br />

And so on October 1, 2011, Matt and his friends<br />

marched across the Brooklyn Bridge as a part of<br />

Occupy Wall Street—soon to be shortened to just<br />

“Occupy” as the movement spread from New York’s<br />

Zuccotti Park to other locations—to protest the<br />

growing income gap between the top 1 percent of<br />

income earners in this country and everyone else.<br />

By the end of the day, Matt and seven hundred other<br />

marchers found themselves under arrest—an official<br />

response that only galvanized them to further action.<br />

What was especially striking about the Occupy<br />

movement was the clear assumption that the<br />

economic inequality it lamented was the result<br />


What Is Politics<br />

Politics and Government<br />

Rules and Institutions<br />

Politics and Economics<br />

Political Systems and the<br />

Concept of Citizenship<br />

Authoritarian Systems<br />

Nonauthoritarian Systems<br />

The Role of the People<br />

Origins of Democracy<br />

in America<br />

The Ancient Greek Experience<br />

Politics in the Middle Ages<br />

The Protestant Reformation<br />

and the Enlightenment<br />

Sources of Democracy<br />

Closer to Home<br />

Citizenship in America<br />

The Dangers of Democracy<br />

Madison’s Vision of Citizenship<br />

American Citizenship Today<br />

Thinking Critically About<br />

American Politics<br />

Analysis<br />

Evaluation<br />

Let’s Revisit: What’s<br />

at Stake . . .<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

Internet-generation movement, fired<br />

up and sustained by Twitter, Facebook,<br />

and YouTube.<br />

Standing Up, by Sitting In<br />

The notion that young people are politically disengaged was challenged by the thousands of<br />

American youth who took part in Occupy protests, which began in New York’s Zuccotti Park<br />

(pictured) and spread quickly to cities all over the world. Although the movement drew criticism<br />

for it rangy style and unorthodox tactics, it did succeed in drawing national attention to the<br />

tremendous growth in income inequality that has developed in the United States.<br />

of a rigged system, that politicians<br />

by themselves could not solve the<br />

problem because they were a central<br />

part of it. Said Matt Brandi, “When<br />

action is left to politicians, the end<br />

result is often no action at all.” So<br />

the Occupy people took matters into<br />

their own hands, protesting what<br />

they saw as corruption that kept the<br />

system from working to the benefit of<br />

everyone, and criticizing the growing<br />

inequality of income in the United<br />

States. What they did not do was issue<br />

a list of “demands” or specify certain<br />

policies that would satisfy them.<br />

While the movement had many<br />

supporters—even President Barack<br />

Obama spoke words of encouragement,<br />

noting that the movement reflected a<br />

broad-based frustration about how our<br />

Brief Interviews With<br />

Occupy Protesters<br />

financial system works 2 —critics<br />

immediately attacked the movement<br />

for being “anti-capitalist,”<br />

“disorganized,” and “unfocused.” CNN’s<br />

Erin Burnett, reporting on the protests,<br />

said, “What are they protesting No<br />

one seems to know.” 3<br />

As the rallying cry “We are the 99%”<br />

swept through the nation—through<br />

cities, smaller towns, and college<br />

campuses—it was particularly<br />

attractive to young Americans,<br />

struggling in the difficult economy<br />

and frustrated with the status quo<br />

that seemed to enrich the few at the<br />

expense of the many. As those most<br />

tied into social media, they were also<br />

most likely to hear about the protests<br />

and to spread the word. Like the<br />

protests that fueled the Arab Spring<br />

in the Middle East, Occupy was an<br />

Are You in the 99 Percent<br />

Young people are notoriously<br />

uninvolved in politics, often seeing<br />

it as irrelevant to their lives and the<br />

things they really care about. Knowing<br />

that they pay little attention and<br />

tend not to vote in large numbers,<br />

politicians feel free to ignore their<br />

concerns, reinforcing their cynicism<br />

and apathy. Young people did turn out<br />

in larger-than-usual numbers in 2008<br />

(51 percent of those under thirty turned<br />

out, and they made up 17 percent<br />

of the electorate, an increase of 2.2<br />

million voters over 2004), breaking<br />

decisively (66 to 39 percent) for<br />

President Obama over his opponent,<br />

John McCain. But the recession had<br />

dampened their enthusiasm, and it<br />

was not at all clear that they would<br />

turn out in such numbers again. 4<br />

But the Occupy movement spoke to<br />

many of them, and to their disillusion<br />

with the political system. Again, Matt<br />

Brandi: “The people lose their power once<br />

they commit to supporting a particular<br />

policy, politician, or party. Their energy<br />

and efforts are co-opted for political<br />

power wrangling and electioneering.”<br />

Our founders were no fans of political<br />

parties (they aren’t even mentioned in<br />

the Constitution), but they did value<br />

political engagement and they knew<br />

that democracies needed care and<br />

attention in order to survive. In 1787,<br />

when Benjamin Franklin was asked by<br />

a woman what he and other founders<br />

of the Constitution had created, he<br />

replied, “A republic, madam, if you can<br />

keep it.” Many contemporary writers<br />

worry that we are not keeping the<br />

republic, that as new generations find<br />

politics a turn-off they will become<br />

disaffected adults and the system will<br />

start to unravel. As one writer says, “a<br />

nation that hates politics will not long<br />

thrive as a democracy.” 5<br />

2 1: Politics: Who Gets What, and How<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

Yet protesters like Matt Brandi sound<br />

as committed to democracy as<br />

Benjamin Franklin could have wished,<br />

even though his efforts are not focused<br />

on voting or traditional methods of<br />

political engagement. Is a nation of<br />

Matt Brandis a nation in trouble, or<br />

does his brand of activism, and the<br />

whole protest ethic of the Occupy<br />

movement, help to keep the republic<br />

What, exactly, is at stake in taking<br />

one’s views to the street We return<br />

to this question after we learn more<br />

about the meaning of politics and the<br />

difference it makes in our lives. •<br />

Politics can best be understood as the struggle over who gets the power and resources<br />

in society. Politics produces winners and losers, and much of the reason it can look so<br />

ugly is that people fight desperately not to be losers.<br />

Have you got grand ambitions for your life Do<br />

you want a powerful position in business, influence<br />

in high places, money to make things happen Perhaps you<br />

would like to make a difference in the world, heal the sick,<br />

fight for peace, feed the poor. Or maybe all you want from life<br />

is a good education; a well-paying job; a comfortable home;<br />

and a safe, prosperous, contented existence. Think politics has<br />

nothing to do with any of those things Think again.<br />

All the things that make those goals attainable—a strong<br />

national defense, education loans or tax deductions for tuition<br />

money, economic prosperity, full employment, favorable<br />

mortgage rates, policies that let us take time off from work to<br />

have kids, secure streets and neighborhoods, cheap and<br />

efficient public transportation—are influenced by or are the<br />

products of politics.<br />

Yet, if you listen to the news, politics may seem like one long<br />

campaign commercial: eternal bickering and finger-pointing by<br />

public servants who seem more interested in feathering their<br />

own nests than in helping voters secure theirs. Public policy often<br />

seems to focus on bailouts for banks and powerful industries like<br />

automobile manufacturers at the expense of those everyday<br />

citizens who politicians like to refer to as “Main Street.” Politics,<br />

which we would like to think of as a noble and even morally<br />

elevated activity, takes on all the worst characteristics of the<br />

business world, where we expect people to take advantage of<br />

each other and pursue their own private interests. Can this really<br />

be the heritage of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln Can<br />

this be the “world’s greatest democracy” at work<br />

In this chapter we get to the heart of what politics is,<br />

how it relates to other concepts such as power, government,<br />

rules, economics, and citizenship. We propose that politics<br />

can best be understood as the struggle over who gets power<br />

and resources in society. Politics produces winners and losers,<br />

and much of the reason it can look so ugly is that people fight<br />

desperately not to be losers.<br />

Contrary to their depictions in the media, and maybe<br />

even in our own minds, the people who are doing that<br />

desperate fighting are not some special breed who are<br />

different—more corrupt or self-interested or greedy—from<br />

the rest of us. They are us—whether they are officials in<br />

Washington or mayors of small towns, corporate CEOs or<br />

representatives of labor unions, local cops or soldiers in the<br />

Middle East, churchgoers or atheists, doctors or lawyers,<br />

shopkeepers or consumers, professors or students, they are<br />

the people that in a democracy we call citizens.<br />

As we will see, it is the beauty of a democracy that all the<br />

people, including the everyday people like us, get to fight for<br />

what they want. Not everyone can win, of course, and many<br />

never come close. There is no denying that some people bring<br />

resources to the process that give them an edge, and that the<br />

rules give advantages to some groups of people over others. But<br />

the people who pay attention and who learn how the rules work<br />

can begin to use those rules to increase their chances of getting<br />

what they want, whether it is a lower personal tax bill, greater<br />

pollution controls, a more aggressive foreign policy, safer streets,<br />

a better-educated population, or more public parks. If they<br />

become very skilled citizens, they can even begin to change the<br />

rules so that they can fight more easily for the kind of society<br />

they think is important, and so that people like them are more<br />

likely to end up winners in the high-stakes game we call politics.<br />

The government our founders created for us gives us a<br />

remarkable playing field on which to engage in that game.<br />

Like any other politicians, the designers of the American<br />

system were caught up in the struggle for power and<br />

resources, and in the desire to write laws that would<br />

maximize the chances that they, and people like them, would<br />

be winners in the new system. Nonetheless, they crafted a<br />

government remarkable for its ability to generate compromise<br />

and stability, and also for its potential to realize freedom and<br />

prosperity for its citizens.<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

1: Politics: Who Gets What, and How 3

To help you better understand the system they gave us<br />

and our place in it, in this chapter you will learn<br />

••<br />

the meaning of “politics”<br />

••<br />

the varieties of political systems and the roles they<br />

endorse for the individuals who live in them<br />

••<br />

the historical origins of American democracy<br />

••<br />

the goals and concerns of the founders as they<br />

created the American system<br />

••<br />

the components of critical thinking and how the<br />

themes of power and citizenship will serve as our<br />

framework for understanding American politics<br />

What Is Politics<br />

A peaceful means of determining who gets<br />

power and influence in society<br />

Over two thousand years ago, the Greek philosopher Aristotle<br />

said that we are political animals, and political animals we seem<br />

destined to remain. The truth is that politics is a fundamental<br />

and complex human activity. In some ways it is our capacity<br />

to be political—to cooperate, bargain, and compromise—that<br />

helps distinguish us from all the other animals out there.<br />

Politics may have its baser moments—Watergate and White<br />

House interns come to mind—but it also allows us to reach<br />

more exalted heights than we could ever achieve alone, from<br />

the dedication of a new public library, to the building of a<br />

national highway system, to the stabilization of a crashing<br />

economy, to the guarantee of health care to all U.S. citizens.<br />

Since this book is about politics, in all its glory as well as<br />

its shame, we need to begin with a clear definition. One of<br />

the most famous definitions, put forth by the well-known<br />

political scientist Harold Lasswell, is still one of the best, and<br />

we use it to frame our discussion throughout this book.<br />

Lasswell defined politics as “who gets what when and how.” 6<br />

Politics is a way of determining, without recourse to violence,<br />

who gets power and resources in society, and how they get<br />

them. Power is the ability to get other people to do what you<br />

want them to do. The resources in question here might be<br />

governmental jobs, tax revenues, laws that help you get your<br />

way, or public policies that work to your advantage.<br />

The tools of politics are compromise and cooperation;<br />

discussion and debate; even, sometimes, bribery and deceit.<br />

Politics is the process through which we try to arrange our<br />

collective lives in some kind of social order so that we can<br />

live without crashing into each other at every turn, and to<br />

provide ourselves with goods and services we could not<br />

obtain alone. But politics is also about getting our own way.<br />

Our way may be a noble goal for society or pure self-interest,<br />

but the struggle we engage in is a political struggle. Because<br />

politics is about power and other scarce resources, there will<br />

always be winners and losers in politics. If we could always<br />

get our own way, politics would disappear. It is because we<br />

cannot always get what we want that politics exists.<br />

What would a world without politics be like There<br />

would be no resolution or compromise between conflicting<br />

interests, because those are certainly political activities. There<br />

would be no agreements struck, bargains made, or alliances<br />

formed. Unless there were enough of every valued resource to<br />

go around, or unless the world were big enough that we could<br />

live our lives without coming into contact with other human<br />

beings, life would be constant conflict—what the philosopher<br />

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) called a “war of all against all.”<br />

Individuals, unable to cooperate with one another (because<br />

cooperation is essentially political), would have no option but<br />

to resort to brute force to settle disputes and allocate resources.<br />

Our capacity to be political saves us from that fate. We do<br />

have the ability to persuade, cajole, bargain, promise,<br />

compromise, and cooperate. We do have the ability to agree on<br />

what principles should guide our handling of power and<br />

other scarce resources and to live our collective lives according<br />

to those principles. Because there are many potential theories<br />

about how to manage power—who should have it, how it<br />

should be used, how it should be transferred—agreement on<br />

which principles are legitimate, or accepted as “right,” can<br />

break down. When agreement on what is legitimate fails,<br />

violence often takes its place. Indeed, the human history of<br />

warfare attests to the fragility of political life.<br />

Although one characteristic of government is that it has a<br />

monopoly on the legitimate use of force, politics means that<br />

we have alternatives, that bloodshed is not the only way of<br />

dealing with human conflict. Interestingly, the word politics<br />

comes from the Greek word polis, meaning “city-state.”<br />

Similarly, the word civilization comes from the Latin word civitas,<br />

meaning “city” or “state.” Thus our Western notions of politics<br />

Aristotle Bio<br />

Thomas Hobbes Bio<br />

Harold Lasswell Bio<br />

Batman and Political<br />

Violence<br />

politics who gets what, when, and how; a process of determining<br />

how power and resources are distributed in a society without<br />

recourse to violence<br />

power the ability to get other people to do what you want<br />

social order the way we organize and live our collective lives<br />

legitimate accepted as “right” or proper<br />

4 1: Politics: Who Gets What, and How<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

and civilization share similar roots, all<br />

tied up with what it means to live a<br />

shared public life.<br />

Politics and Government<br />

Although the words politics and<br />

government are sometimes used<br />

interchangeably, they refer to<br />

different things. Politics is a process<br />

or an activity through which power<br />

and resources are gained and lost.<br />

Government, on the other hand, is a<br />

system or organization for exercising<br />

authority over a body of people.<br />

American politics is what happens in<br />

the halls of Congress, on the campaign<br />

trail, at Washington cocktail parties, and<br />

in neighborhood association meetings.<br />

It is the making of promises, deals, and<br />

laws. American government is the<br />

Constitution and the institutions set up<br />

by the Constitution for the exercise of<br />

authority by the American people, over<br />

the American people.<br />

Authority is power that citizens view as legitimate, or<br />

“right”—power to which we have given our implicit consent.<br />

You can think of it this way: As children, we probably did as our<br />

parents told us, or submitted to their punishment if we didn’t,<br />

because we recognized their authority over us. As we became<br />

adults, we started to claim that our parents had less authority<br />

over us, that we could do what we wanted. We no longer saw<br />

their power as wholly legitimate or appropriate. Governments<br />

exercise authority because people recognize them as legitimate<br />

even if they often do not like doing what they are told (paying<br />

taxes, for instance). When governments cease to be regarded as<br />

legitimate, the result may be revolution or civil war, unless the<br />

state is powerful enough to suppress all opposition.<br />

Rules and Institutions<br />

Government is shaped by the process of politics, but it in turn<br />

provides the rules and institutions that shape the way politics<br />

continues to operate. The rules and institutions of government<br />

have a profound effect on how power is distributed and who<br />

wins and who loses in the political arena. Life is different<br />

for people in other countries not only because they speak<br />

government a system or organization for exercising authority<br />

over a body of people<br />

authority power that is recognized as legitimate<br />

rules directives that specify how resources will be distributed or<br />

what procedures govern collective activity<br />

The Best Medicine<br />

The political parties and their candidates frequently clash on issues and ideology. Norms<br />

of courtesy have evolved so that competing elites continue to work together to reach the<br />

compromises that make democratic politics possible. Here, President Barack Obama and then–<br />

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney share a moment of hilarity with a laughing<br />

Cardinal Timothy Dolan at the 2012 Alfred E. Smith Dinner, a humorous respite in the midst of an<br />

otherwise acrimonious political campaign.<br />

different languages and eat different foods but also because<br />

their governments establish rules that cause life to be lived in<br />

different ways.<br />

Rules can be thought of as the how in the definition “who<br />

gets what . . . and how.” They are directives that determine how<br />

resources are allocated and how collective action takes place—<br />

that is, they determine how we try to get the things we want. We<br />

can do it violently, or we can do it politically, according to the<br />

rules. Those rules can provide for a single dictator, for a king, for<br />

rule by God’s representative on Earth or by the rich, for rule by a<br />

majority of the people, or for any other arrangement. The point<br />

of the rules is to provide some framework for us to solve without<br />

violence the problems that are generated by our collective lives.<br />

Because the rules we choose can influence which people<br />

will get what they want most often, understanding the rules is<br />

crucial to understanding politics. Consider for a moment the<br />

impact a change of rules would have on the outcome of the<br />

sport of basketball, for instance. What if the average height of<br />

the players could be no more than 5'10" What if the baskets<br />

were lowered What if foul shots counted for two points<br />

rather than one Basketball would be a very different game,<br />

and the teams recruited would look quite unlike the teams for<br />

which we now cheer. So it is with governments and politics:<br />

change the people who are allowed to vote or the length of<br />

time a person can serve in office, and the political process and<br />

the potential winners and losers change drastically.<br />

Winners and<br />

Losers; Health<br />

Care<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

Rules of Politics<br />

What Is Politics 5

Figure 1.1<br />

A Comparison of Economic Systems<br />

More<br />

government<br />

control<br />

of the<br />

economy<br />

(substantive<br />

guarantees)<br />

Socialism<br />

Complete<br />

government<br />

ownership and<br />

control (substantive<br />

guarantees)<br />

Examples:<br />

North Korea, Cuba,<br />

former Soviet Union<br />

Social<br />

democracy<br />

Mostly private<br />

ownership but<br />

extensive government<br />

control (substantive<br />

and procedural<br />

guarantees)<br />

Examples:<br />

Sweden, Norway<br />

Regulated<br />

capitalism<br />

Private ownership<br />

and some government<br />

control<br />

(procedural<br />

guarantees)<br />

Examples:<br />

Britain, United States<br />

Laissez-faire<br />

capitalism<br />

Private ownership<br />

and no government<br />

control<br />

There are no<br />

real-world examples.<br />

Less<br />

government<br />

control<br />

of the economy<br />

(procedural<br />

guarantees)<br />

Economic systems are defined largely by the degree to which government owns the means by which material resources are produced<br />

(for example, factories and industry) and controls economic decision making. On a scale ranging from socialism—complete<br />

government ownership and control of the economy (on the left)—to laissez-faire capitalism—complete individual ownership and<br />

control of the economy (on the right)—social democracies would be located in the center. These hybrid systems are characterized by<br />

mostly private ownership of the means of production but considerable government control over economic decisions.<br />

fig 1.1<br />

We can think of institutions as the where of the political<br />

struggle, though Lasswell didn’t include a “where”<br />

component in his definition. They are the organizations where<br />

governmental power is exercised. In the United States, our<br />

rules provide for the institutions of a representative<br />

democracy—that is, rule by the elected representatives of the<br />

people, and for a federal political system. Our Constitution<br />

lays the foundation for the institutions of Congress, the<br />

presidency, the courts, and the bureaucracy as a stage on<br />

which the drama of politics plays itself out. Other systems<br />

might call for different institutions—perhaps an all-powerful<br />

parliament, or a monarch, or even a committee of rulers.<br />

These complicated systems of rules and institutions do<br />

not appear out of thin air. They are carefully designed by the<br />

founders of different systems to create the kinds of society<br />

they think will be stable and prosperous, but also where<br />

people like themselves are likely to be winners. Remember<br />

that not only the rules but also the institutions we choose<br />

influence who most easily and most often get their own way.<br />

Politics and Economics<br />

Whereas politics is concerned with the distribution of power<br />

and resources in society, economics is concerned specifically<br />

Modern Political<br />

Institutions<br />

with the production and distribution of society’s wealth—<br />

material goods such as bread, toothpaste, and housing, and<br />

services such as medical care, education, and entertainment.<br />

Because both politics and economics focus on the distribution<br />

of society’s resources, political and economic questions<br />

often get confused in contemporary life. Questions about<br />

how to pay for government, about government’s role in the<br />

economy, and about whether government or the private sector<br />

should provide certain services have political and economic<br />

dimensions. Because there are no clear-cut distinctions here, it<br />

can be difficult to keep these terms straight.<br />

The sources of the words politics and economics suggest that<br />

their meanings were once more distinct than they are today. We<br />

already saw that the Greek source of the word political was polis,<br />

or “city-state,” the basic political unit of ancient Greece. For the<br />

free male citizens of the city-state of Athens (by no means the<br />

majority of the inhabitants), politics was a prestigious and<br />

jealously restricted activity. However, the public, political world<br />

of Athens was possible only because a whole class of people<br />

(slaves and women) existed to support the private world, the<br />

oikonomia, or “household.” This early division of the world into<br />

institutions organizations in which governmental power is<br />

exercised<br />

economics production and distribution of a society’s material<br />

resources and services<br />

6 1: Politics: Who Gets What, and How<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

the political and the economic clearly separated the two realms.<br />

Political life was public, and economic life was private. Today<br />

that distinction is not nearly so simple. What is public and<br />

private now depends on what is controlled by government. The<br />

various forms of economic systems are shown in Figure 1.1.<br />

Capitalism<br />

In a pure capitalist economy, all the means used to produce<br />

material resources (industry, business, and land, for instance)<br />

are owned privately, and decisions about production and<br />

distribution are left to individuals operating through the<br />

free-market process. Capitalist economies rely on the market—<br />

the process of supply and demand—to decide how much<br />

of a given item to produce or how much to charge for it. In<br />

capitalist countries, people do not believe that the government<br />

is capable of making such judgments (like how much<br />

toothpaste to produce), and they want to keep such decisions<br />

out of the hands of government and in the hands of individuals<br />

who they believe know best about what they want. The<br />

philosophy that corresponds with this belief is called laissezfaire<br />

capitalism, from a French term that, loosely translated,<br />

means “let people do as they wish.” The government has no<br />

economic role at all in such a system. However, no economic<br />

system today maintains a purely unregulated form of<br />

capitalism, with the government completely uninvolved.<br />

Like most other countries today, the United States has a<br />

system of regulated capitalism. It maintains a capitalist economy<br />

and individual freedom from government interference remains<br />

the norm, but it allows government to step in and regulate the<br />

economy to guarantee individual rights and to provide<br />

procedural guarantees that the rules will work smoothly and<br />

fairly. Although in theory the market ought to provide<br />

everything that people need and want, and should regulate itself<br />

as well, sometimes the market breaks down, or fails. In regulated<br />

capitalism, the government steps in to try to fix it.<br />

Markets have cycles, with periods of growth often<br />

followed by periods of slowdown or recession. Individuals<br />

capitalist economy an economic system in which the market<br />

determines production, distribution, and price decisions, and<br />

property is privately owned<br />

laissez-faire capitalism an economic system in which the<br />

market makes all decisions and the government plays no role<br />

regulated capitalism a market system in which the government<br />

intervenes to protect rights and make procedural guarantees<br />

procedural guarantees government assurance that the rules<br />

will work smoothly and treat everyone fairly, with no promise of<br />

particular outcomes<br />

socialist economy an economic system in which the state<br />

determines production, distribution, and price decisions, and<br />

property is government owned<br />

Why Is This Man Smiling<br />

Space travel was once the sole province of government agencies, but these<br />

days private entrepreneurs are getting involved, like billionaire Richard<br />

Branson, who seems quite delighted that his Virgin Galactic spaceship will<br />

offer civilian “space tourists” the chance to travel like astronauts—for<br />

just $200,000 (roundtrip, of course). The lesson, however, is that without<br />

government investment in the technology of space travel, it would never<br />

have been profitable for private enterprise to take it up.<br />

and businesses look to government for protection from<br />

these cyclical effects. For example, President Franklin D.<br />

Roosevelt created the Works Progress Administration to get<br />

Americans back to work during the Great Depression, and<br />

more recently, Congress acted to stabilize the economy in<br />

the wake of the financial collapse caused by the subprime<br />

mortgage crisis in the fall of 2008. Government may also<br />

act to ensure the safety of the consumer public and of<br />

working people, or to encourage fair business practices<br />

(like prevention of monopolies), or to provide goods and<br />

services that people have no incentive to produce<br />

themselves.<br />

Highways, streetlights, libraries, museums, schools,<br />

Social Security, national defense, and a clean environment are<br />

some examples of the goods and services that many people<br />

are unable or unwilling to produce privately. Consequently,<br />

government undertakes to provide these things (with money<br />

provided by taxpayers) and, in doing so, becomes not only a<br />

political but an economic actor as well. To the extent that<br />

government gets involved in a capitalist economy, we move<br />

away from laissez-faire to regulated capitalism.<br />

Socialism<br />

In a socialist economy like that of the former Soviet Union<br />

(based loosely on the ideas of German economist Karl<br />

Marx), economic decisions are made not by individuals<br />

through the market but rather by politicians, based on their<br />

Confused by<br />

Capitalism<br />

2008 Financial Crisis<br />

What Is Politics 7<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

judgment of what society needs. Rather than allowing the<br />

market to determine the proper distribution of material<br />

resources, politicians decide what the distribution ought<br />

to be and then create economic policy to bring about that<br />

outcome. In other words, they emphasize not procedural<br />

guarantees of fair rules and process, but rather substantive<br />

guarantees of what they believe to be fair outcomes.<br />

According to the basic values of a socialist or communist<br />

system (although the two systems have some theoretical<br />

differences, for our purposes they are similar), it is unjust for<br />

some people to own more property than others and to have<br />

power over them because of it. Consequently, the theory<br />

goes, the state or society—not corporations or individuals—<br />

should own the property (like land, factories, and<br />

corporations). In such systems, the public and private spheres<br />

overlap, and politics controls the distribution of all resources.<br />

The societies that have tried to put these theories into practice<br />

have ended up with very repressive political systems, but<br />

Marx hoped that eventually socialism would evolve to a point<br />

where each individual had control over his or her own<br />

life—a radical form of democracy.<br />

Many theories hold that socialism is possible only after a<br />

revolution that thoroughly overthrows the old system to<br />

make way for new values and institutions. This is what<br />

happened in Russia in 1917 and in China in the 1940s. Since<br />

the socialist economies of the former Soviet Union and<br />

Eastern Europe have fallen apart, socialism has been left with<br />

few supporters, although some nations, such as China, North<br />

Korea, and Cuba, still claim allegiance to it. Even China,<br />

however, introduced market-based reforms in the 1970s and<br />

by 2010 ranked as the world’s second largest economy, after<br />

the United States.<br />

Social Democracy<br />

Some countries in Western Europe, especially the<br />

Scandinavian nations of Norway, Denmark, and Sweden,<br />

have developed hybrid economic systems. As noted<br />

in Figure 1.1, these systems represent something of a<br />

middle ground between socialist and capitalist systems.<br />

Primarily capitalist, in that they believe most property<br />

can be held privately, proponents of social democracy<br />

argue nonetheless that the values of equality promoted<br />

by socialism are attractive and can be brought about by<br />

democratic reform rather than revolution. Believing that<br />

the economy does not have to be owned by the state for<br />

its effects to be controlled by the state, social democratic<br />

countries attempt to strike a difficult balance between<br />

providing substantive guarantees of fair outcomes and<br />

procedural guarantees of fair rules.<br />

Since World War II, the citizens of many Western<br />

European nations have elected social democrats to office,<br />

where they have enacted policies to bring about more<br />

equality—for instance, the elimination of poverty and<br />

unemployment, better housing, and adequate health care for<br />

all. Even where social democratic governments are voted out<br />

of office, such programs have proved so popular that it is<br />

often difficult for new leaders to alter them.<br />

Political Systems<br />

and the Concept of<br />

Citizenship<br />

Different ideas about power and the social<br />

order, different models of governing<br />

Too Small<br />

If the U.S. Postal Service is forced to make a profit, small rural sites like<br />

this one in Bradley, Michigan, would probably be shut down. As a public<br />

corporation, the Postal Service has to be accessible and deliver mail<br />

everywhere, from the icy slopes of Alaska to the swamps of Florida, for the<br />

cost of one first-class stamp.<br />

Karl Marx Bio<br />

A Real<br />

Socialist<br />

Social<br />

Democracy<br />

Just as there are different kinds of economic systems, there<br />

are different sorts of political systems, based on different<br />

substantive guarantees government assurance of particular<br />

outcomes or results<br />

social democracy a hybrid system combining a capitalist<br />

economy and a government that supports equality<br />

8 1: Politics: Who Gets What, and How<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

ideas about who should have power and what the social<br />

order should be—that is, how much public regulation there<br />

should be over individual behavior. For our purposes, we<br />

can divide political systems into two types: those in which<br />

the government has the power to impose a particular social<br />

order, deciding how individuals ought to behave, and those<br />

in which individuals exercise personal power over most<br />

of their own behavior and ultimately over government as<br />

well. These two types of systems are not just different in a<br />

theoretical sense. The differences have very real implications<br />

for the people who live in them. Thus the notion of<br />

citizenship (or the lack of it) is tied closely to the kind of<br />

political system a nation has.<br />

Figure 1.2 offers a comparison of these systems. One<br />

type of system, called authoritarian government,<br />

potentially has total power over its subjects; the other<br />

type, nonauthoritarian government, permits citizens to<br />

limit the state’s power by claiming rights that the<br />

government must protect. Another way to think about the<br />

distinction is that in authoritarian systems, government<br />

makes substantive decisions about how people ought to live<br />

their lives; in nonauthoritarian systems, government<br />

merely guarantees that there are fair rules and leaves the<br />

rest to individual control. Sometimes governments that<br />

exercise substantive decision making in the economic<br />

realm also do so with respect to the social order. But, as<br />

Figure 1.3 shows, there are several possible combinations<br />

of economic and political systems.<br />

Authoritarian Systems<br />

Authoritarian governments give ultimate power to the<br />

state rather than to the people to decide how they ought to<br />

live their lives. By “authoritarian governments,” we usually<br />

mean those in which the people cannot effectively claim<br />

rights against the state; where the state chooses to exercise its<br />

power, the people have no choice but to submit to its will.<br />

Authoritarian governments can take various forms:<br />

sovereignty can be vested in an individual (dictatorship or<br />

monarchy), in God (theocracy), in the state itself (fascism),<br />

or in a ruling class (oligarchy). When a system combines<br />

authoritarian governments systems in which the state holds<br />

all power over the social order<br />

totalitarian a system in which absolute power is exercised over<br />

every aspect of life<br />

authoritarian capitalism a system in which the state<br />

allows people economic freedom but maintains stringent social<br />

regulations to limit noneconomic behavior<br />

anarchy the absence of government and laws<br />

democracy government that vests power in the people<br />

an authoritarian government with a socialist economy, we<br />

say that the system is totalitarian. As in the earlier<br />

example of the former Soviet Union, a totalitarian system<br />

exercises its power over every part of society—economic,<br />

social, political, and moral—leaving little or no private<br />

realm for individuals.<br />

But an authoritarian state may also limit its own<br />

power. In such cases, it may deny individuals rights in those<br />

spheres where it chooses to act, but it may leave large areas of<br />

society, such as a capitalist economy, free from governmental<br />

interference. Singapore is an example of this type of<br />

authoritarian capitalism, where people have considerable<br />

economic freedom but stringent social regulations limit their<br />

noneconomic behavior. When American teenager Michael Fay<br />

was caught vandalizing cars in Singapore in 1994, the<br />

government there sentenced him to be caned. In the United<br />

States, people have rights that prevent cruel and unusual<br />

punishment like caning, but in Singapore, Fay had no such<br />

rights and had to submit to the government’s will.<br />

Authoritarian governments often pay lip service to the<br />

people, but when push comes to shove, as it usually does in<br />

such states, the people have no effective power against the<br />

government. Again, to use the terminology we introduced<br />

earlier, government does not provide guarantees of fair<br />

processes for individuals; it guarantees a substantive vision of<br />

what life will be like—what individuals will believe, how<br />

they will act, what they will choose.<br />

Nonauthoritarian Systems<br />

In nonauthoritarian systems, ultimate power rests with<br />

individuals to make decisions concerning their lives. The<br />

most extreme form of nonauthoritarianism is called anarchy.<br />

Anarchists would do away with government and laws<br />

altogether. People advocate anarchy because they value the<br />

freedom to do whatever they want more than they value the<br />

order and security that governments provide by forbidding<br />

or regulating certain kinds of behavior. Few people are true<br />

anarchists, however. Anarchy may sound attractive in theory,<br />

but the inherent difficulties of the position make it hard<br />

to practice. For instance, how could you even organize a<br />

revolution to get rid of government without some rules about<br />

who is to do what and how decisions are to be made<br />

Democracy<br />

A less extreme form of nonauthoritarian government, and<br />

one much more familiar to us, is democracy (from the Greek<br />

demos, meaning “people”). In democracies, government is not<br />

external to the people, as it is in authoritarian systems; in a<br />

fundamental sense, government is the people. Recognizing<br />

Anarchy<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

Political Systems and the Concept of Citizenship 9

that collective life usually calls for some restrictions on what<br />

individuals may do (laws forbidding murder, for instance,<br />

or theft), democracies nevertheless try to maximize freedom<br />

Figure 1.2<br />

A Comparison of Political Systems<br />

Nonauthoritarian system<br />

(such as democracy)<br />

Individuals (citizens)<br />

decide how to live their<br />

lives. Government role<br />

is limited to procedural<br />

guarantees of individual<br />

rights.<br />

Examples: United States,<br />

Sweden, Japan, South Korea,<br />

India<br />

Authoritarian system<br />

Government decides how<br />

individuals (subjects)<br />

should live their lives and<br />

imposes a substantive vision.<br />

Examples: China, North Korea,<br />

Cuba, Saudi Arabia<br />

Less government control<br />

over individual lives and the<br />

social order (procedural<br />

guarantees)<br />

More government control<br />

over individual lives and the<br />

social order (substantive<br />

guarantees)<br />

Anarchy<br />

No government or<br />

man-made laws;<br />

individuals do as they<br />

please.<br />

There are no real-world<br />

examples.<br />

Political systems are defined by the extent to which individual<br />

citizens or governments decide what the social order should<br />

look like—that is, how people should live their collective,<br />

noneconomic lives. Except for anarchies, every system allots<br />

a role to government to regulate individual behavior—for<br />

example, to prohibit murder, rape, and theft. But beyond such<br />

basic regulation, they differ radically on who gets to determine<br />

how individuals live their lives, and whether government’s<br />

role is simply to provide procedural guarantees that protect<br />

individuals’ rights to make their own decisions or to provide a<br />

much more substantive view of how individuals should behave.<br />

for the individuals who live under them. Although they<br />

generally make decisions through some sort of majority rule,<br />

democracies still provide procedural guarantees to preserve<br />

individual rights—usually protections of due process and<br />

minority rights. This means that if individuals living in a<br />

democracy feel their rights have been violated, they have the<br />

right to ask government to remedy the situation.<br />

Democracies are based on the principle of popular<br />

sovereignty; that is, there is no power higher than the people<br />

and, in the United States, the document establishing their<br />

authority, the Constitution. The central idea here is that no<br />

government is considered legitimate unless the governed<br />

consent to it, and people are not truly free unless they live<br />

under a law of their own making.<br />

Theories of Democracy<br />

Generally, as we indicated, democracies hold that the will<br />

of the majority should prevail. This is misleadingly simple,<br />

however. Some theories of democracy hold that all the<br />

people should agree on political decisions. This rule of<br />

unanimity makes decision making very slow, and sometimes<br />

impossible, since everyone has to be persuaded to agree.<br />

Even when majority rule is the norm, there are many ways<br />

of calculating the majority. Is it 50 percent plus one Twothirds<br />

Three-fourths Decision making becomes increasingly<br />

difficult as the number of people who are required to agree<br />

grows. And, of course, majority rule brings with it the<br />

problem of minority rights. If the majority gets its way, what<br />

happens to the rights of those who disagree Democratic<br />

theorists have tried to grapple with these problems in various<br />

ways, none of them entirely satisfactory to all people:<br />

• Theorists of elite democracy propose that democracy<br />

is merely a system of choosing among competing<br />

leaders; for the average citizen, input ends after the<br />

leader is chosen. 7 Some proponents of this view<br />

believe that political decisions are made not by elected<br />

officials but by the elite in business, the military,<br />

the media, and education. In this view, elections are<br />

merely symbolic—to perpetuate the illusion that<br />

citizens have consented to their government. Elite<br />

theorists may claim that participation is important, if<br />

not for self-rule, then because people should at least<br />

feel as if they are making a difference. Otherwise they<br />

have no stake in the political system.<br />

popular sovereignty the concept that the citizens are the<br />

ultimate source of political power<br />

Popular Sovereignty<br />

Democracy on the Block<br />

elite democracy a theory of democracy that limits the citizens’<br />

role to choosing among competing leaders<br />

10 1: Politics: Who Gets What, and How<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

• Advocates of pluralist democracy argue that what is<br />

important is not so much individual participation<br />

but rather membership in groups that participate<br />

in government decision making on their members’<br />

behalf. 8 As a way of trying to influence a system that<br />

gives them a limited voice, citizens join groups of<br />

people with whom they share an interest, such as labor<br />

unions, professional associations, and environmental or<br />

business groups. These groups represent their members’<br />

interests and try to influence government to enact<br />

policy that carries out the group’s will. Some pluralists<br />

argue that individual citizens have little effective power<br />

and that only when they are organized into groups are<br />

they truly a force for government to reckon with.<br />

• Supporters of participatory democracy claim that<br />

more than consent or majority rule in making<br />

governmental decisions is needed. Individuals have<br />

the right to control all the circumstances of their lives,<br />

and direct democratic participation should take place<br />

not only in government but in industry, education,<br />

and community affairs as well. 9 For advocates of<br />

this view, democracy is more than a way to make<br />

decisions: It is a way of life, an end in itself.<br />

These theories about how democracy should (or does)<br />

work locate the focus of power in individuals, groups, and<br />

elites. Real-world examples of democracy probably include<br />

elements of more than one of these theories; they are not<br />

mutually exclusive.<br />

The people of many Western countries have found the<br />

idea of democracy persuasive enough to found their<br />

governments on it. In recent years, especially since the<br />

mid-1980s, democracy has been spreading rapidly through<br />

the rest of the world as the preferred form of government. No<br />

longer the primary province of industrialized Western nations,<br />

pluralist democracy a theory of democracy that holds that<br />

citizen membership in groups is the key to political power<br />

participatory democracy a theory of democracy that holds that<br />

citizens should actively and directly control all aspects of their lives<br />

advanced industrial democracy a system in which a<br />

democratic government allows citizens a considerable amount of<br />

personal freedom and maintains a free-market (though still usually<br />

regulated) economy<br />

communist democracy a utopian system in which property is<br />

communally owned and all decisions are made democratically<br />

subjects individuals who are obliged to submit to a government<br />

authority against which they have no rights<br />

citizens members of a political community with both rights and<br />

responsibilities<br />

attempts at democratic governance now extend into Asia,<br />

Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe, and the republics of the<br />

former Soviet Union. There are many varieties of democracy<br />

other than our own. Some democracies make the legislature<br />

(the representatives of the people) the most important<br />

authority; some retain a monarch with limited powers; some<br />

hold referenda at the national level to get direct feedback on<br />

how the people want them to act on specific issues.<br />

Most democratic forms of government, because of their<br />

commitment to procedural values, practice a capitalist form of<br />

economics. Fledgling democracies may rely on a high degree of<br />

government economic regulation, but advanced industrial<br />

democracies combine a considerable amount of personal<br />

freedom with a free-market (though still usually regulated)<br />

economy. It is rare to find a country that is truly committed to<br />

individual political freedom that also tries to regulate the<br />

economy heavily. The philosopher Karl Marx believed that<br />

radical democracy would coexist with communally owned<br />

property, in a form of communist democracy, but such a system<br />

has never existed, and most real-world systems fall somewhere<br />

along the horizontal continuum shown in Figure 1.3.<br />

The Role of the People<br />

What is important about the political and economic systems we<br />

have been sorting out here is that they have direct impact on<br />

the lives of the people who live in them. So far we have given a<br />

good deal of attention to the latter parts of Lasswell’s definition<br />

of politics. But easily as important as the what and the how in<br />

Lasswell’s formulation is the who. Underlying the different<br />

political theories we have looked at are fundamental differences<br />

in the powers and opportunities possessed by everyday people.<br />

The People as Subjects<br />

In authoritarian systems, the people are subjects of their<br />

government. They possess no rights that protect them from<br />

that government; they must do whatever the government<br />

says or face the consequences, without any other recourse.<br />

They have obligations to the state but no rights or privileges<br />

to offset those obligations. They may be winners or losers in<br />

government decisions, but they have very little control over<br />

which it may be.<br />

The People as Citizens<br />

Everyday people in democratic systems have a potentially<br />

powerful role to play. They are more than mere subjects;<br />

they are citizens, or members of a political community<br />

with rights as well as obligations. Democratic theory says<br />

Pluralist Democracy in<br />

America<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

Political Systems and the Concept of Citizenship 11

Figure 1.3<br />

Political and Economic Systems<br />

Communist democracy<br />

Marx’s hope for a system<br />

embracing personal freedom<br />

and a collectively owned<br />

economy.<br />

Has never existed.<br />

Less government control<br />

over individual lives and<br />

the social order<br />

Advanced industrial<br />

democracy<br />

Personal freedom within a<br />

free-market economy<br />

(although usually with some<br />

government regulations).<br />

Examples: United States, Great Britain,<br />

Japan<br />

More government<br />

control of the economy<br />

Less government<br />

control of the economy<br />

Totalitarian system<br />

Government controls<br />

all economic and<br />

individual behavior.<br />

Examples: Former Soviet<br />

Union, North Korea<br />

More government control<br />

over individual lives and<br />

the social order<br />

Authoritarian<br />

capitalism<br />

Government allows market<br />

economy but highly regulates<br />

individual behavior.<br />

Examples: Singapore, China<br />

Political systems work in conjunction with economic systems, but government control over the economy does not necessarily<br />

translate into tight control over the social order. We have identified four possible combinations of these systems, signified by the<br />

labeled points in each quadrant. These points are approximate, however, and some nations cannot be classified so easily. Sweden is<br />

an advanced fig industrial 1.3 democracy by most measures, for instance, but because of its commitment to substantive economic values,<br />

it would be located much closer to the vertical axis.<br />

that power is drawn from the people, that the people<br />

are sovereign, that they must consent to be governed,<br />

and that their government must respond to their will. In<br />

practical terms, this may not seem to mean much, since not<br />

consenting doesn’t necessarily give us the right to disobey<br />

government. It does give us the option of leaving, however,<br />

and seeking a more congenial set of rules elsewhere. Subjects<br />

of authoritarian governments rarely have this freedom.<br />

In democratic systems the rules of government can<br />

provide for all sorts of different roles for citizens. At a<br />

minimum, citizens can usually vote in periodic and free<br />

elections. They may be able to run for office, subject to certain<br />

Democracy in Sweden<br />

conditions, like age or residence. They can support candidates<br />

for office, organize political groups or parties, attend meetings,<br />

write letters to officials or the press, march in protest or<br />

support of various causes, even speak out on street corners.<br />

Theoretically, democracies are ruled by “the people,” but<br />

different democracies have at times been very selective about<br />

whom they count as citizens. Beginning with our days as<br />

colonists, Americans have excluded many groups of people<br />

from citizenship: people of the “wrong” religion, income<br />

bracket, race, ethnic group, lifestyle, and gender have all been<br />

excluded from enjoying the full rights of colonial or U.S.<br />

citizenship at different times. In fact, American history is the<br />

story of those various groups fighting to be included as<br />

citizens. Just because a system is called a democracy is no<br />

guarantee that all or even most of the residents under that<br />

system possess the status of citizen.<br />

12 1: Politics: Who Gets What, and How<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

Citizen Rights and Responsibilities<br />

Citizens in democratic systems are said<br />

to possess certain rights, or powers to<br />

act, that government cannot limit. Just<br />

what these rights are varies in different<br />

democracies, but they usually include<br />

freedoms of speech and the press, the right<br />

to assemble, and certain legal protections<br />

guaranteeing fair treatment in the criminal<br />

justice system. Almost all of these rights<br />

are designed to allow citizens to criticize<br />

their government openly without threat of<br />

retribution by that government.<br />

Citizens of democracies also possess<br />

obligations or responsibilities to the public<br />

realm. They have the obligation to obey the<br />

law, for instance, once they have consented to<br />

the government (even if that consent<br />

amounts only to not leaving); they may also<br />

have the obligation to pay taxes, serve in the<br />

military, or sit on juries. Some theorists argue<br />

that virtuous citizens should put community<br />

interests ahead of personal interests. A less<br />

extreme version of this view holds that while<br />

citizens may go about their own business<br />

and pursue their own interests, they must<br />

continue to pay attention to their<br />

government. Participating in its decisionmaking<br />

process is the price of maintaining their own liberty and, by<br />

extension, the liberty of the whole. Should citizens abdicate this role<br />

by tuning out of public life, the safeguards of democracy can<br />

disappear, to be replaced with the trappings of authoritarian<br />

government. There is nothing automatic about democracy. If left<br />

unattended by nonvigilant citizens, the freedoms of democracy can<br />

be lost to an all-powerful state, and citizens can become transformed<br />

into subjects of the government they failed to keep in check.<br />

Origins of Democracy<br />

in America<br />

From divine right to social contract<br />

Government in the United States is the product of particular<br />

decisions the founders made about the who, what, and how<br />

of American politics. There was nothing inevitable about<br />

those decisions, and had the founders decided otherwise,<br />

our system would look very different indeed.<br />

Given the world in which the founders lived, democracy was<br />

not an obvious choice for them, and many scholars argue that in<br />

some respects the system they created is not really very democratic.<br />

Rough Going for the Arab Spring<br />

Protests and revolutions in 2011 across the Arab region brought significant progress toward<br />

democratic government in a number of nations, including Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Yemen.<br />

But the authoritarian government of Syria has brutally suppressed the movement for change,<br />

including killing thousands of its citizens. Pictured is a protest before the Syrian embassy in<br />

Egypt against the violent crackdown in the Syrian city of Homs.<br />

We can see this more clearly if we understand the intellectual<br />

heritage of the early Americans, the historical experience, and the<br />

theories about government that informed them.<br />

The Ancient Greek Experience<br />

The heyday of democracy, of course, was ancient Athens, from<br />

about 500 to 300 BCE. Even Athenian democracy, as we have<br />

already indicated, was a pretty selective business. To be sure,<br />

it was rule by “the people,” but “the people” was defined<br />

narrowly to exclude women, slaves, youth, and resident aliens.<br />

Athenian democracy was not built on values of equality, even of<br />

opportunity, except for the 10 percent of the population defined<br />

as citizens. With its limited number of citizens and its small area<br />

of only one thousand square miles, Athens was a participatory<br />

democracy in which all citizens could gather in one place to<br />

vote on political matters. While this privileged group indulged<br />

its passion for public activity, the vast majority of residents were<br />

required to do all the work to support them. We can see parallels<br />

to early American democracy, which restricted participation in<br />

political affairs to a relatively small number of white men.<br />

Rights and<br />

Responsibilities<br />

of Citizens<br />

Importance<br />

of Civil<br />

Society<br />

Classical<br />

Greek<br />

Democracy<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

Origins of Democracy in America 13

• Profiles in Citizenship<br />

Meagan Szydlowski<br />

“Don’t think you are too young or your voice<br />

doesn’t matter. During campaigns they love<br />

young people and their energy and excitement,<br />

and you will be welcomed. . . .”<br />

You don’t hear college students say this<br />

every day, but Meagan Szydlowski loves<br />

politics. Her imagination was captured by<br />

her father’s election to the city council. “I<br />

went to everything I could with him, like<br />

meetings, talking to newspapers and stuff,<br />

and I loved it! It was so exciting,” she says<br />

of her dad’s campaign.<br />

She calls that election her “jump start”—<br />

she has been hooked on politics ever since.<br />

A term as the chair of the Illinois College<br />

Republicans followed, and internships in<br />

her local state representative’s office as<br />

well as in her congressman’s office—a<br />

congressman who just happened to be<br />

Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House<br />

of Representatives. When we caught up<br />

with her, she was spending a summer in<br />

Washington, D.C., having been selected<br />

as one of five participants in Northern<br />

Illinois’s Congressional Internship<br />

Program, working on Capitol Hill, and<br />

loving it.<br />

Szydlowski says she always knew she<br />

was a Republican. “My dad and I talked<br />

about these things,” she says. “Our<br />

conversations were always political.” So<br />

once she got to college at Northern Illinois<br />

University (NIU) and saw a sign that said,<br />

“Join the NIU College Republicans,” she<br />

knew it was for her.<br />

“I went to the first meeting, and it was<br />

perfect,” she says. “It was a great way<br />

to meet people. . . . So I volunteered for<br />

everything they had and went to all the<br />

meetings.” And then the chair at the<br />

time asked her to run for chair for next<br />

year. “And I was like, I’ve only been here<br />

a year, there’s people that’s been here<br />

longer than me, he’s like—no, you are<br />

active, you are involved in things and<br />

I want you to do this.” So she ran and<br />

she won, and spent her sophomore year<br />

running the NIU College Republicans.<br />

Within the year she was being approached<br />

to run as chair of the statewide<br />

organization. She did some research and<br />

decided to take it on, contacting all the<br />

different campus chairs around the state<br />

and developing relationships with them.<br />

It all paid off: “We had a big convention in<br />

downtown Chicago and had a campaign<br />

and I got elected to chairman of the<br />

statewide convention.” She served from<br />

January 2008 to April 2009, also getting to<br />

sit on the national College Republicans’<br />

Executive Committee and serving as a<br />

member of the Illinois Republican Party’s<br />

State Central Committee as a result.<br />

That position involved her in Republican<br />

Party politics around the state, but maybe<br />

the best part of the job included attending<br />

the 2008 Republican National Convention<br />

in Minneapolis that September as an<br />

alternate. She had a blast. The most<br />

exciting event was the night of Sarah<br />

Palin’s speech. Rudy Giuliani spoke first,<br />

and Meagan had been a big supporter of<br />

his, working on his primary campaign,<br />

so she was already fired up, and then<br />

Palin’s speech electrified the crowd. While<br />

disappointed in the outcome of that<br />

election, she’s philosophical, knowing that<br />

in American politics no party stays on top<br />

forever.<br />

Meagan managed to fit a few more<br />

activities into her college career<br />

before she graduated—she studied<br />

in Oxford, England; held a variety of<br />

student government posts; and was a<br />

student research assistant for one of<br />

her professors. She is thinking graduate<br />

school might lie in her future. “I got a<br />

great education at NIU, and I want to<br />

have that influence on other people,”<br />

she says.<br />

What Not running for office herself At<br />

least right now, Meagan is pretty sure<br />

that’s not for her. The scrutiny of public<br />

officials turns her off. But whatever she<br />

ends up doing, she’s confident that it will<br />

involve politics.<br />

Here’s some of her advice for fellow<br />

students:<br />

On majoring in political science:<br />

I’m just really, really happy that I<br />

found something I love so much, and<br />

that I’ve been able to turn it into my<br />

area of study and hopefully a career.<br />

I love this—political science is not just<br />

my major, it is my life—I read all the<br />

newspapers every day, check the web<br />

sites, and watch the news every day. It’s<br />

pretty rewarding.<br />

On keeping the republic:<br />

Keeping the republic is all about<br />

involvement and interest. Don’t be afraid<br />

to get involved right away—don’t think<br />

you are too young or your voice doesn’t<br />

matter. During campaigns they love young<br />

people and their energy and excitement,<br />

and you will be welcomed. . . . Alexander<br />

Hamilton in the Federalist Papers said,<br />

“The ingredients which constitute<br />

safety in the republican sense are a due<br />

dependence on the people, and a due<br />

responsibility.” That basically sums up<br />

how important I think it is for people to be<br />

active and engaged. •<br />

14 1: Politics: Who Gets What, and How<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

Politics in the Middle Ages<br />

Limited as Athenian democracy was, it was positively wide<br />

open compared to most of the forms of government that<br />

existed during the Middle Ages, from roughly AD 600 to<br />

1500. During this period, monarchs gradually consolidated<br />

their power over their subjects, and some even challenged<br />

the greatest political power of the time, the Catholic Church.<br />

Some earthly rulers claimed to take their authority from<br />

God, in a principle called the divine right of kings. Privileged<br />

groups in society, like the clergy or the nobles, had some<br />

rights, but ordinary individuals were quite powerless<br />

politically. Subjects of authoritarian governments and an<br />

authoritarian church, they had obligations to their rulers but<br />

no rights they could claim as their own. If a ruler is installed<br />

by divine mandate, who, after all, has any rights against God<br />

Education was restricted, and most people in the Middle Ages<br />

were dependent on political and ecclesiastical leaders for<br />

protection and information, as well as salvation.<br />

The Protestant Reformation<br />

and the Enlightenment<br />

Between 1500 and 1700, important changes took place<br />

in the ways that people thought about politics and their<br />

political leaders. The Protestant Reformation led the way in<br />

the 1500s, claiming essentially that individuals could<br />

pray directly to God and receive salvation on faith alone,<br />

without the church’s involvement. In fact, Martin Luther,<br />

the German priest who spearheaded the Reformation,<br />

argued that the whole complex structure of the medieval<br />

church could be dispensed with. His ideas spread and were<br />

embraced by a number of European monarchs, leading to a<br />

split between Catholic and Protestant countries. Where the<br />

church was seen as unnecessary, it lost political as well as<br />

religious clout, and its decline paved the way for new ideas<br />

about the world.<br />

Those new ideas came with the Enlightenment period of<br />

the late 1600s and 1700s, when ideas about science and the<br />

possibilities of knowledge began to blow away the shadows<br />

and cobwebs of medieval superstition. A new and refreshing<br />

understanding of human beings and their place in the<br />

natural world, based on human reasoning, took hold.<br />

Enlightenment philosophy said that human beings were not<br />

at the mercy of a world they could not understand, but<br />

rather they could learn the secrets of nature and, with<br />

divine right of kings the principle that earthly rulers receive<br />

their authority from God<br />

social contract the notion that society is based on an agreement<br />

between government and the governed in which people agree to<br />

give up some rights in exchange for the protection of others<br />

education as their tool, harness the world to do their<br />

bidding.<br />

Not only did scientific and economic development take<br />

off, but philosophers applied the intoxicating new theories<br />

about the potential of<br />

knowledge to the<br />

political world.<br />

Thomas Hobbes<br />

(who slightly<br />

preceded the<br />

Enlightenment) and<br />

John Locke, both English philosophers, came up with<br />

theories about how government should be established that<br />

discredited divine right. Governments are born not because<br />

God ordains them, but because life without government is<br />

“solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” in Hobbes’s words,<br />

and “inconvenient” in Locke’s. The foundation of government<br />

is reason, not faith, and reason leads people to consent to<br />

being governed because they are better off that way.<br />

The idea of citizenship that was born in the<br />

Enlightenment constituted another break with the past.<br />

People have freedom and rights before government exists,<br />

declared Locke. When they decide they are better off with<br />

government than without it, they enter into a social contract,<br />

giving up a few of those rights in exchange for the<br />

protection of the rest of their rights by a government<br />

established by the majority. If that government fails to protect<br />

their rights, then it has broken the contract and the people<br />

are free to form a new government, or not, as they please.<br />

But the key element here is that for authority to be<br />

legitimate, citizens must consent to it. Note, however, that<br />

nowhere did Locke suggest that all people ought to<br />

participate in politics, or that people are necessarily equal. In<br />

fact, he was concerned mostly with the preservation of<br />

private property, suggesting that only property owners would<br />

have cause to be bothered with government because only<br />

they have something concrete to lose.<br />

Sources of Democracy Closer to Home<br />

While philosophers in Europe were beginning to explore<br />

the idea of individual rights and democratic governance,<br />

there had long been democratic stirrings on the founders’<br />

home continent. The Iroquois Confederacy was an alliance<br />

of five (and eventually six) East Coast Native American<br />

nations whose constitution, the “Great Law of Peace,”<br />

impressed American leaders such as Benjamin Franklin with<br />

its suggestions of federalism, separation of powers, checks<br />

and balances, and consensus building. Although historians<br />

Protestant<br />

Reformation<br />

Thinking Outside the Box<br />

Do subjects enjoy<br />

any advantages that<br />

citizens don’t have<br />

The<br />

Enlightenment<br />

John<br />

Locke Bio<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

Origins of Democracy in America 15

• Don’t Be Fooled by . . . Your Textbook<br />

Consider these two passages describing<br />

the same familiar event: Christopher<br />

Columbus’s arrival in the Americas. 1<br />

From a 1947 textbook:<br />

At last the rulers of Spain gave Columbus<br />

three small ships, and he sailed away to<br />

the west across the Atlantic Ocean. His<br />

sailors became frightened. They were<br />

sure the ships would come to the edge of<br />

the world and just fall off into space. The<br />

sailors were ready to throw their captain<br />

into the ocean and turn around and go<br />

back. Then, at last they all saw the land<br />

ahead. They saw low green shores with tall<br />

palm trees swaying in the wind. Columbus<br />

had found the New World. This happened<br />

on October 12, 1492. It was a great day for<br />

Who Gets to Write Public School<br />

Textbooks<br />

How Texas Influences What’s in<br />

Your Textbooks<br />

Christopher Columbus—and for the whole<br />

world as well.<br />

And from a 1991 text:<br />

When Columbus stepped ashore on<br />

Guanahani Island in October 1492, he<br />

planted the Spanish flag in the sand<br />

and claimed the land as a possession of<br />

Ferdinand and Isabella. He did so despite<br />

the obvious fact that the island already<br />

belonged to someone else—the “Indians”<br />

who gathered on the beach to gaze with<br />

wonder at the strangers who had suddenly<br />

arrived in three great, white-winged<br />

canoes. He gave no thought to the rights<br />

of the local inhabitants. Nearly every later<br />

explorer—French, English, Dutch and<br />

all the others as well as the Spanish—<br />

thoughtlessly dismissed the people they<br />

encountered. What we like to think of as<br />

the discovery of America was actually the<br />

invasion and conquest of America.<br />

Which one of these passages is “true” The<br />

first was the conventional textbook wisdom<br />

through the 1950s and 1960s in America.<br />

The latter reflects a growing criticism<br />

that traditional American history has<br />

been told from the perspective of history’s<br />

“winners,” largely white middle-class<br />

males of European background. Together<br />

they highlight the point that history does<br />

vary depending on who is telling it, and<br />

when they are telling it, and even to whom<br />

they are telling it. The telling of history is<br />

a potent political act, as one recent study<br />

explains, citing George Orwell’s 1984 that<br />

“who controls the past controls the future.” 2<br />

What this means to you is that the critical<br />

vigilance we urge you to apply to all the<br />

information that regularly bombards you<br />

should be applied to your textbooks as well.<br />

And, yes, that means this textbook, too.<br />

There is some truth to the idea that history<br />

is written by the winners, but it is also true<br />

that the winners change over time. If history<br />

was once securely in the hands of the white<br />

European male, it is now the battleground<br />

of a cultural war between those who believe<br />

the old way of telling (and teaching) history<br />

was accurate, and those who believe it<br />

left out the considerable achievements of<br />

are not sure that these ideas had any direct influence on the<br />

founders’ thinking about American governance, they were<br />

clearly part of the stew of ideas that the founders could dip<br />

in to, and some scholars make the case that their influence<br />

was significant. 10<br />

• Citizenship in America<br />

The tension between a self-interested nature<br />

and a public-interested ideal<br />

For our purposes, the most important thing about these ideas<br />

about politics is that they were prevalent at the same time<br />

James Madison Bio<br />

the American founders were thinking about how to build a<br />

new government. Locke particularly influenced the writings<br />

of James Madison, a major author of our Constitution. The<br />

founders wanted to base their new government on popular<br />

consent, but they did not want to go too far. Madison, as we<br />

will see, was particularly worried about a system that was<br />

too democratic.<br />

The Dangers of Democracy<br />

Enthusiastic popular participation under the government<br />

established by the Articles of Confederation—the document<br />

that tied the colonies together before the Constitution was<br />

drafted—almost ended the new government before it began.<br />

Like Locke, Madison thought government had a duty to<br />

protect property, and if people who didn’t have property<br />

could get involved in politics, they might not care about<br />

protecting the property of others. Worse, they might form<br />

16 1: Politics: Who Gets What, and How<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

women and minorities and masked some of<br />

the less admirable episodes of our past in<br />

order to glorify our heritage. 3 For instance,<br />

one author in the 1990s studied twelve high<br />

school history textbooks and documented<br />

areas where he felt the “history” was<br />

inaccurate or misleading. His criticism<br />

includes claims that history textbooks<br />

create heroic figures by emphasizing the<br />

positive aspects of their lives and ignoring<br />

their less admirable traits; that they create<br />

myths about the American founding that<br />

glorify Anglo-European settlers at the<br />

expense of the Native Americans and<br />

Spanish settlers who were already here;<br />

that they virtually ignore racism and its<br />

opponents, minimizing its deep and lasting<br />

effects on our culture; that they neglect the<br />

recent past; and that they idealize progress<br />

and the exceptional role America plays in<br />

the world, skipping over very real problems<br />

and issues of concern. 4<br />

The question of bias in textbooks is not<br />

reserved for history books; this textbook<br />

itself has a point of view. In these pages<br />

we have an interest in highlighting the<br />

issues of power and citizenship, and in<br />

focusing on the impact of the rules in<br />

American politics. In addition, we take<br />

a multicultural approach. We do not<br />

ignore or disparage the achievements<br />

of the traditional heroes of American<br />

history, but we do not think that their<br />

outstanding political accomplishments<br />

warrant ignoring the contributions, also<br />

substantial, of people who have not<br />

traditionally been politically powerful.<br />

The fact that all textbooks have some sort of<br />

bias means you must be as critically careful<br />

in what you accept from textbook authors<br />

as you are (or should be) in what you accept<br />

from any other scholars, newspaper writers,<br />

or other media commentators.<br />


Here are some things you can think about<br />

when you are reading a textbook.<br />

· The author’s point of view. Where is<br />

the author coming from Does he or<br />

she promote particular values or<br />

ideas Are any points of view left out<br />

of the story being told<br />

· The book’s audience. If it is a big,<br />

colorful book, it is probably aimed at a<br />

wide market. If so, what might that<br />

say about its content If it is a smaller<br />

book with a narrower focus, who is it<br />

trying to appeal to<br />

· Use of evidence. If it backs up an<br />

argument with plenty of facts from<br />

reputable sources, then perhaps its<br />

claims are true, even if they are<br />

surprising or unfamiliar to you. Do the<br />

authors make an effort to cover both<br />

sides of an issue or controversy Read<br />

the footnotes, and if something troubles<br />

you, locate the primary source (the one<br />

the authors relied on) and read it yourself.<br />

· Your own reactions. Did the book<br />

cause you to look at a subject in a new<br />

way Are its conclusions surprising<br />

Exciting Troublesome What is the<br />

source of your reaction Is it<br />

intellectual, or emotional What<br />

caused you to react this way<br />

1. These two passages were cited in a chart<br />

accompanying Sam Dillon, “Schools Growing Harsher<br />

in Scrutiny of Columbus,” New York Times, October 12,<br />

1992, 4, web version. The first paragraph is from Merlin<br />

M. Ames, My Country (Sacramento: California State<br />

Department of Education, 1947); the second is from<br />

John A. Garraty, The Story of America (New York: Holt<br />

Rinehart Winston, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1991).<br />

2. Laura Hein and Mark Seldon, eds., Censoring History:<br />

Citizenship and Memory in Japan, Germany, and the<br />

United States (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2000).<br />

3. Frances Fitzgerald, America Revised (New York: Vintage<br />

Books, 1979).<br />

4. James W. Loewen, Lies My Teacher Told Me (New York:<br />

New <strong>Press</strong>, 1995). •<br />

“factions,” groups pursuing their own self-interests rather<br />

than the public interest, and even try to get some of that<br />

property for themselves. So Madison rejected notions of<br />

“pure democracy,” in which all citizens would have direct<br />

power to control government, and opted instead for what he<br />

called a “republic.”<br />

A republic, according to Madison, differs from a<br />

democracy mainly in that it employs representation and can<br />

work in a large state. Most theorists agree that democracy is<br />

impossible in practice if there are a lot of citizens and all have<br />

to be heard from. But we do not march to Washington or<br />

phone our legislator every time we want to register a political<br />

preference. Instead, we choose representatives—members of<br />

republic a government in which decisions are made through<br />

representatives of the people<br />

the House of Representatives, senators, and the president—to<br />

represent our views for us. Madison thought this would be a<br />

safer system than direct participation (all of us crowding into<br />

town halls or the Capitol) because public passions would be<br />

cooled off by the process. You might be furious about health<br />

care costs when you vote for your senator, but he or she will<br />

represent your views with less anger. The founders hoped<br />

that the representatives would be older, wealthier, and wiser<br />

than the average American, and that they would be better<br />

able to make cool and rational decisions.<br />

Madison’s Vision of Citizenship<br />

The notion of citizenship that emerges from Madison’s<br />

writings is not a very flattering one for the average American,<br />

and it is important to note that it is not the only ideal of<br />

citizenship in the American political tradition. Madison’s<br />

low expectations of the American public were a reaction<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

Origins of Democracy in America 17

Citizenship as Volunteerism<br />

Although Americans emphasize the individual, they don’t always shun collective action.<br />

Habitat for Humanity provides good housing for those in need. It is one of many such<br />

examples of volunteerism and civic virtue that show that there is more to citizenship in<br />

America than simple self-interest.<br />

to an earlier tradition that had put great faith in the ability<br />

of democratic man to put the interests of the community<br />

ahead of his own, to act with what scholars call “republican<br />

virtue.” According to this idea, a virtuous citizen could be<br />

trusted with the most serious of political decisions because<br />

if he (women were not citizens at that time, of course) were<br />

properly educated and kept from the influence of scandal<br />

and corruption, he would be willing to sacrifice his own<br />

advancement for the sake of the whole. His decisions would<br />

be guided not by his self-interest but by his public-interested<br />

spirit. At the time of the founding, hope was strong that,<br />

although the court of the British monarch had become<br />

corrupt beyond redemption, America was still a land where<br />

virtue could triumph over greed. In fact, for many people this<br />

was a crucial argument for American independence: severing<br />

the ties would prevent that corruption from creeping across<br />

the Atlantic and would allow the new country to keep its<br />

virtuous political nature free from the British taint. 11<br />

When democratic rules that relied on the virtue, or<br />

public interestedness, of the American citizen were put into<br />

effect, however, especially in the days immediately after<br />

JFK “Ask Not” Speech<br />

independence, these expectations<br />

seemed to be doomed. Instead of acting<br />

for the good of the community,<br />

Americans seemed to be just as selfinterested<br />

as the British had been. When<br />

given nearly free rein to rule themselves,<br />

they had no trouble remembering the<br />

rights of citizenship but ignored the<br />

responsibilities that come with it. They<br />

passed laws in state legislatures that<br />

canceled debts and contracts and<br />

otherwise worked to the advantage of<br />

the poor majority of farmers and<br />

debtors—and that seriously threatened<br />

the economic and political stability of<br />

the more well-to-do. It was in this<br />

context of national disappointment that<br />

Madison devised his notion of the<br />

republic. Since people had proved, so he<br />

thought, not to be activated by virtue, a<br />

government was needed that would<br />

produce virtuous results, regardless of<br />

the character of the citizens who<br />

participated in it.<br />

American Citizenship Today<br />

Today two competing views of citizenship still exist in the<br />

United States. One, echoing Madison, sees human nature<br />

as self-interested and holds that individual participation in<br />

government should be limited, that “too much” democracy<br />

is a bad thing. The second view continues to put its faith<br />

in the citizen’s ability to act virtuously, not just for his or<br />

her own good but for the common good. President John<br />

F. Kennedy movingly evoked such a view in his inaugural<br />

address in 1960, when he urged Americans to “ask not<br />

what your country can do for you—ask what you can<br />

do for your country.” These views of citizenship have<br />

coexisted throughout our history. Especially in times of<br />

crisis such as war or national tragedy, the second view of<br />

individual sacrifice for the public good has seemed more<br />

prominent. In the wake of September 11, 2001, citizens<br />

freely gave their time and money to help their fellow<br />

countrypeople and were more willing to join the military<br />

and volunteer for community service. At other times, and<br />

particularly at the national level of politics, the dominant<br />

view of citizenship has appeared to be one of self-interested<br />

actors going about their own business with little regard for<br />

the public good, especially at moments such as the one in<br />

2011 when a stand-off between the president and Congress<br />

brought the nation to the brink of economic default for<br />

18 1: Politics: Who Gets What, and How<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

Thinking Outside the Box<br />

When, if ever, should<br />

individuals be asked to<br />

sacrifice their own good<br />

for that of their country<br />

the sake of a political<br />

dispute. When observers<br />

claim, as they often<br />

do today, that there is<br />

a crisis of American<br />

citizenship, they usually<br />

mean that civic virtue is<br />

taking second place to<br />

self-interest as a guiding principle of citizenship.<br />

These two notions of citizenship do not necessarily have<br />

to be at loggerheads, however. Where self-interest and public<br />

spirit meet in democratic practice is in the process of<br />

deliberation, collectively considering and evaluating goals and<br />

ideals for communal life and action. Individuals bring their<br />

own agendas and interests, but in the process of discussing<br />

them with others holding different views, parties can find<br />

common ground and turn it into a base for collective action.<br />

Conflict can erupt, too, of course, but the process of<br />

deliberation at least creates a forum from which the possibility<br />

of consensus might emerge. Scholar and journalist E. J. Dionne<br />

reflects on this possibility: “At the heart of republicanism<br />

[remember that this is not a reference to our modern parties]<br />

is the belief that self-government is not a drab necessity but a<br />

joy to be treasured. It is the view that politics is not simply a<br />

grubby confrontation of competing interests but an arena in<br />

which citizens can learn from each other and discover an<br />

‘enlightened self-interest’ in common.” Despite evidence of a<br />

growing American disaffection for politics, Dionne hopes that<br />

Americans will find again the “joy” in self-governance<br />

because, he warns, “A nation that hates politics will not long<br />

thrive as a democracy.” 12<br />

Thinking Critically<br />

About American Politics<br />

How to use the themes and features in<br />

this book<br />

Our primary goal in this book is to get you thinking critically<br />

about American politics. Critical thinking is a crucial skill to<br />

learn no matter what training your major or career plans call<br />

for. As we discuss in the Consider the Source box in this chapter,<br />

critical thinking is the analysis and evaluation of ideas and<br />

arguments based on reason and evidence—it means digging<br />

deep into what you read and what you hear and asking tough<br />

questions. Critical thinking is what all good scholars do, and<br />

it is also what savvy citizens do.<br />

As Figure 1.4 on page 22 illustrates, our analytic and<br />

evaluative tasks in this book focus on the twin themes of<br />

power and citizenship. We have adopted the classic definition<br />

of politics proposed by the late political scientist Harold<br />

Lasswell that politics is “who gets what when and how.” We<br />

simplify his understanding by dropping the when and focusing<br />

on politics as the struggle by citizens over who gets power and<br />

resources in society and how they get them, although we do<br />

occasionally use timelines to illustrate how the struggle for<br />

power and resources can change dramatically over time.<br />

Analysis<br />

Lasswell’s definition of politics gives us a framework of<br />

analysis for this book; that is, it outlines how we break down<br />

politics into its component parts in order to understand<br />

it. Analysis helps us understand how something works,<br />

much like taking apart a car and putting it back together<br />

again helps us understand how it runs. Lasswell’s definition<br />

provides a strong analytic framework because it focuses our<br />

attention on questions we can ask to figure out what is going<br />

on in politics.<br />

Accordingly, in this book, we analyze American politics<br />

in terms of three sets of questions:<br />

• Who are the parties involved What resources,<br />

powers, and rights do they bring to the struggle<br />

• What do they have at stake What do they stand to<br />

win or lose Is it power, influence, position, policy, or<br />

values<br />

• How do the rules shape the outcome Where do the<br />

rules come from What strategies or tactics do the<br />

political actors employ to use the rules to get what<br />

they want<br />

If you know who is involved in a political situation,<br />

what is at stake, and how (under what rules) the conflict<br />

over resources will eventually be resolved, you will have a<br />

pretty good grasp of what is going on, and you will<br />

probably be able to figure out new situations, even when<br />

your days of taking a course in American government are far<br />

behind you. To get you in the habit of asking those<br />

questions, we have designed several features in this text<br />

explicitly to reinforce them.<br />

As you found at the start of your reading, each chapter<br />

opens with a What’s at Stake . . . feature that analyzes a<br />

political situation in terms of what various groups of citizens<br />

stand to win or lose. Each chapter ends with a Let’s Revisit<br />

feature, where we return to the issues raised in the<br />

introduction, once you have the substantive material of the<br />

chapter under your belt. We also focus our analysis along the<br />

Decline<br />

of Civic<br />

Virtue<br />

E. J. Dionne<br />

Critical<br />

Thinking<br />

Test<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher<br />

Thinking Critically About American Politics 19

• CLUES to Critical Thinking<br />

Thinking Like a Political Scientist<br />

This book is an introduction to American<br />

politics, and in a way it is also an<br />

introduction to political science. Political<br />

science is not exactly the same kind of<br />

science as biology or geology. Not only is<br />

it difficult to put our subjects (people and<br />

political systems) under a microscope<br />

to observe their behavior, but we are<br />

somewhat limited in our ability to test<br />

our theories. We cannot replay World War<br />

II to test our ideas about what caused<br />

it, for example. A further problem is our<br />

subjectivity; we are the phenomena<br />

under investigation, and so we may have<br />

stronger feelings about our research and<br />

our findings than we would, say, about<br />

cells and rocks.<br />

These difficulties do not make a science of<br />

politics impossible, but they do mean we<br />

must proceed with caution. Even among<br />

political scientists, disagreement exists<br />

about whether a rigorous science of the<br />

political world is a reasonable goal. We<br />

can agree, however, that it is possible to<br />

advance our understanding of politics<br />

beyond mere guessing or debates about<br />

political preferences. Although we use<br />

many methods in our work (statistical<br />

analysis, mathematical modeling, case<br />

studies, and philosophical reasoning, to<br />

name only a few), what political scientists<br />

have in common is an emphasis on critical<br />

thinking about politics.<br />

Critical thinking means challenging the<br />

conclusions of others, asking why or<br />

why not, turning the accepted wisdom<br />

upside down, and exploring alternative<br />

interpretations. It means considering the<br />

sources of information—not accepting<br />

an explanation just because someone<br />

in authority offers it, or because you<br />

have always been told that it is the<br />

true explanation, but because you have<br />

discovered independently that there<br />

are good reasons for accepting it. You<br />

may emerge from reading this textbook<br />

with the same ideas about politics that<br />

you have always had; it is not our goal<br />

to change your mind. But as a critical<br />

thinker, you will be able to back up your<br />

old ideas with new and persuasive<br />

arguments of your own, or to move<br />

beyond your current ideas to see politics<br />

in a new light.<br />

Becoming adept at critical thinking has a<br />

number of benefits:<br />

••<br />

We learn to be good democratic<br />

citizens. Critical thinking helps us sort<br />

through the barrage of information<br />

that regularly assails us, and it<br />

teaches us to process this information<br />

thoughtfully. Critical awareness of<br />

what our leaders are doing and the<br />

ability to understand and evaluate<br />

what they tell us is the lifeblood of<br />

democratic government.<br />

••<br />

We are better able to hold our own in<br />

political (or other) arguments: we think<br />

more logically and clearly, we are more<br />

persuasive, and we impress people<br />

with our grasp of reason and fact. There<br />

is not a career in the world that is not<br />

enhanced by critical thinking skills.<br />

••<br />

We become much better students.<br />

The skills of the critical thinker are not<br />

just the skills of the good citizen; they<br />

are the skills of the scholar. When we<br />

read critically we figure out what is<br />

important quickly and easily, we know<br />

what questions to ask to tease out<br />

more meaning, we can decide whether<br />

what we are reading is worth our time,<br />

and we know what to take with us and<br />

what to discard.<br />

Although it may sound a little dull and<br />

dusty, critical thinking can be a vital and<br />

enjoyable activity. When we are good at<br />

it, it empowers and liberates us. We are<br />

not at the mercy of others’ conclusions<br />

and decisions. We can evaluate facts<br />

and arguments for ourselves, turning<br />

conventional wisdom upside down<br />

and exploring the world of ideas with<br />

confidence.<br />

How does one learn to<br />

think critically<br />

The trick to learning how to think<br />

critically is to do it. It helps to have<br />

a model to follow, however, and we<br />

provide one below. The focus of critical<br />

thinking here is on understanding<br />

political argument. Argument in this<br />

case refers not to a confrontation<br />

or a fight, but rather to a political<br />

contention, based on a set of<br />

assumptions, supported by evidence,<br />

leading to a clear, well-developed<br />

conclusion with consequences for how<br />

we understand the world.<br />

Critical thinking involves constantly<br />

asking questions about the arguments<br />

we read: Who has created it, what is<br />

the basic case and what values underlie<br />

it, what evidence is used to back it up,<br />

what conclusions are drawn, and what<br />

difference does the whole thing make<br />

To help you remember the questions to<br />

ask, we have used a mnemonic device<br />

that creates an acronym from the five<br />

major steps of critical thinking. Until<br />

asking these questions becomes second<br />

nature, thinking of them as CLUES to<br />

critical thinking about American politics<br />

will help you keep them in mind. To help<br />

you develop the critical thinking habit,<br />

20 1: Politics: Who Gets What, and How<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

eadings featured in each chapter of this<br />

book will provide a CLUES model for you to<br />

follow.<br />

This is what CLUES stands for:<br />

••<br />

Consider the source and the audience<br />

••<br />

Lay out the argument and the<br />

underlying values and assumptions<br />

••<br />

Uncover the evidence<br />

••<br />

Evaluate the conclusion<br />

••<br />

Sort out the political implications<br />

We’ll investigate each of these steps in a<br />

little more depth.<br />

Consider the source and<br />

the audience<br />

Who wrote the argument in question<br />

Where did the item appear What<br />

audience is it directed toward What<br />

does the author or publisher need to do to<br />

attract and keep the audience How might<br />

that affect content<br />

If the person is a mainstream<br />

journalist, he or she probably has a<br />

reputation as an objective reporter to<br />

preserve, and will at least make an<br />

honest attempt to provide unbiased<br />

information. Even so, knowing the<br />

actual news source will help you nail<br />

that down. Even in a reputable national<br />

newspaper like the New York Times<br />

or the Wall Street Journal, if the item<br />

comes from the editorial pages, you can<br />

count on its having an ideological point<br />

of view—usually (but not exclusively)<br />

liberal in the case of the Times,<br />

conservative in the case of the Wall<br />

Street Journal. Opinion magazines will<br />

have even more blatant points of view.<br />

Readers go to those sources looking for<br />

a particular perspective, and that may<br />

affect the reliability of the information<br />

you find.<br />

Lay out the argument,<br />

the values, and the assumptions<br />

What basic argument does the author<br />

want to make What assumptions about<br />

the world does he or she make What<br />

values does he or she hold about what is<br />

important and what government should<br />

do Are all the important terms clearly<br />

defined<br />

If these things aren’t clear to you, the<br />

author may be unclear about them,<br />

too. There is a lot of sloppy thinking<br />

out there, and being able to identify<br />

it and discard it is valuable. You may<br />

be intimidated by a smart-sounding<br />

argument, only to discover on closer<br />

examination that it just doesn’t hold up.<br />

A more insidious situation occurs when<br />

the author is trying to obscure the point<br />

to get you to sign on to something that<br />

you might not otherwise accept. If the<br />

argument, values, and assumptions are<br />

not perfectly clear and up front, there<br />

may be a hidden agenda you should<br />

know about. You don’t want to be<br />

persuaded by someone who claims to be<br />

an advocate for democracy, only to find<br />

out that democracy means something<br />

completely different to him or her than it<br />

does to you.<br />

Uncover the evidence<br />

Has the author done basic research to<br />

back up his or her argument with facts<br />

and evidence<br />

Good arguments cannot be based on gut<br />

feelings, rumor, or wishful thinking. They<br />

should be based on hard evidence, either<br />

empirical, verifiable observations about<br />

the world or solid, logical reasoning. If the<br />

argument is worth being held, it should<br />

stand up to rigorous examination, and<br />

the author should be able to defend it on<br />

these grounds. If the evidence or logic<br />

is missing, the argument can usually be<br />

dismissed.<br />

Evaluate the conclusion<br />

Is the argument successful Does it<br />

convince you Why or why not Does it<br />

change your mind about any beliefs you<br />

held previously Does accepting this<br />

argument require you to rethink any of<br />

your other beliefs<br />

Conclusions should follow logically<br />

from the assumptions and values of an<br />

argument, if solid evidence and reasoning<br />

support it. What is the conclusion here<br />

What is the author asking you to accept<br />

as the product of his or her argument<br />

Does it make sense to you Do you “buy<br />

it” If you do, does it fit with your other<br />

ideas, or do you need to refine what you<br />

previously thought Have you learned<br />

from this argument, or have you merely<br />

had your own beliefs reinforced<br />

Sort out the political implications<br />

What is the political significance of this<br />

argument What difference does it make<br />

to your understanding of the way the<br />

political world works How does it affect<br />

who gets what scarce resources and how<br />

they get them How does it affect who<br />

wins in the political process and who<br />

loses<br />

Political news is valuable if it means<br />

something. If it doesn’t, it may entertain<br />

you, but essentially it wastes your time<br />

if it claims to be something more than<br />

entertainment. Make the information you<br />

get prove its importance, and if it doesn’t,<br />

find a different news source to rely on.<br />

Source: Adapted from the authors’ “Preface to the<br />

Student,” in Christine Barbour and Matthew J. Streb, eds.,<br />

Clued in to Politics: A Critical Thinking Reader in American<br />

Government, 3rd ed. (Washington, DC:<br />

<strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, 2010). •<br />

Thinking Critically About American Politics 21<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

Figure 1.4<br />

Themes and Goal of This Book<br />

Goal of<br />

the book<br />

Skills to reach<br />

the goal<br />

Themes through<br />

which these<br />

skills are applied<br />

way by closing each major chapter section, beginning in<br />

<strong>Chapter</strong> fig 1.42, with a Who, What, How feature that explicitly<br />

addresses the questions of who gets what, and how they get<br />

it, and concisely summarizes what you have learned. We<br />

reinforce the task of analysis with a Don’t Be Fooled feature that<br />

discusses ways you can improve your critical thinking skills<br />

by analyzing (that is, taking apart) different kinds of sources<br />

of information about politics. Similarly, CLUES to Critical<br />

Thinking features in each chapter provide a text that is central<br />

to the substantive material you are learning to give you some<br />

practice in using the critical thinking model we described on<br />

pages 20–21. Finally, Thinking Outside the Box questions, found<br />

throughout each chapter, help you take the analysis one step<br />

further: What if the rules or the actors or the stakes were<br />

different What would be the impact on American politics<br />

How would it work differently<br />

Evaluation<br />

Analysis of how the<br />

American political<br />

system works<br />

Power (who,<br />

what, and how)<br />

As political scientists, however, we not only want to<br />

understand how the system works, we also want to assess how<br />

well it works. A second task of critical thinking is evaluation,<br />

or seeing how well something measures up according to<br />

a standard or principle. We could choose any number of<br />

standards by which to evaluate American politics, but the<br />

most relevant, for most of us, is the principle of democracy<br />

and the role of citizens.<br />

How to Think Critically<br />

Critical thinking<br />

about American<br />

politics<br />

Evaluation of how<br />

well the political<br />

system is working<br />

Citizenship<br />

(participation<br />

and diversity)<br />

Franklin on a Republic<br />

We can draw on the two traditions of self-interested and<br />

public-interested citizenship we have discussed to evaluate the<br />

powers, opportunities, and challenges presented to American<br />

citizens by the system of government under which they live. In<br />

addition to the two competing threads of citizenship in<br />

America, we can also look at the kinds of action that citizens<br />

engage in and whether they take advantage of the options<br />

available to them. For instance, citizen action might be restricted<br />

by the rules, or by popular interest, to merely choosing<br />

between competing candidates for office, as in the model of elite<br />

democracy described earlier. Alternatively, the rules of the system<br />

might encourage citizens to band together in groups to get what<br />

they want, as they do in pluralist democracy. Or the system might be<br />

open and offer highly motivated citizens a variety of<br />

opportunities to get involved, as they do in participatory democracy.<br />

American democracy has elements of all three of these models,<br />

and one way to evaluate citizenship in America is to look at<br />

what opportunities for each type of participation exist and<br />

whether citizens take advantage of them.<br />

To evaluate how democratic the United States is, we look<br />

at the changing concept and practice of citizenship in this<br />

country with respect to the subject matter of most chapters in a<br />

section called The Citizens and . . . . That feature looks at<br />

citizenship from<br />

many angles,<br />

considering the<br />

following types of<br />

questions: What role<br />

do “the people” have<br />

in American politics<br />

Thinking Outside the Box<br />

Why does critical thinking<br />

feel like so much more work<br />

than “regular thinking”<br />

How has that role expanded or diminished over time What<br />

kinds of political participation do the rules of American politics<br />

(formal and informal) allow, encourage, or require citizens to<br />

take What kinds of political participation are discouraged,<br />

limited, or forbidden Do citizens take advantage of the<br />

opportunities for political action that the rules provide them<br />

How do they react to the rules that limit their participation<br />

How have citizens in different times exercised their rights and<br />

responsibilities What do citizens need to do to “keep” the<br />

republic How democratic is the United States<br />

To put all this in perspective, the book includes two<br />

other features that give you a more concrete idea of what<br />

citizen participation might mean on a personal level. In each<br />

chapter, Profiles in Citizenship introduce you to individuals who<br />

have committed a good part of their lives to public service<br />

and focus on what citizenshi p means to those people and<br />

what inspired them to take on a public role. Who Are We<br />

provides some demographic data to bring the diversity of the<br />

American citizenry front and center and highlight the<br />

difficulties inherent in uniting into a single nation individuals<br />

and groups with such different and often conflicting<br />

interests.<br />

22 1: Politics: Who Gets What, and How<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

We have outlined nine features that recur throughout<br />

this book. Remember that each is designed to help you to<br />

think critically about American politics either by analyzing<br />

power in terms of who gets what, and how, or by evaluating<br />

citizenship to determine how well we are keeping Benjamin<br />

Franklin’s mandate to keep the republic. And remember that<br />

further exploration of the book’s themes is always available<br />

on the companion web site at http://republic.cqpress.com.<br />

Take the <strong>Chapter</strong> Quiz<br />

Let’s Revisit:<br />

We began this chapter looking at the<br />

problem of youthful disengagement<br />

from politics and the rise of the Occupy<br />

movement in 2011 and asked, What<br />

is at stake in taking it to the streets<br />

Does getting oneself arrested marching<br />

across the Brooklyn Bridge count as<br />

“keeping the republic” Since then, we<br />

have covered a lot of ground, arguing<br />

that politics is fundamental to human<br />

life and, in fact, makes life easier for us<br />

by giving us a nonviolent way to resolve<br />

disputes. We pointed out that politics is<br />

a method by which power and resources<br />

get distributed in society: politics is who<br />

gets what and how they get it. Citizens<br />

who are aware and involved stand a much<br />

better chance of getting what they want<br />

from the system than those who check<br />

out or turn away. One clear consequence<br />

when young people disregard politics,<br />

then, is that they are far less likely to get<br />

what they want from the political system.<br />

This is exactly what happens.<br />

So what does that mean for the<br />

Occupy protesters in Zuccotti Park and<br />

across the nation Were they really<br />

the disorganized, leaderless bunch of<br />

radicals their critics implied they were,<br />

or were they engaged in something more<br />

intentional and, perhaps, democratic<br />

It’s worth listening to Occupy protestor<br />

Matt Brandi on this at some length:<br />

The strategy of civil disobedience and<br />

protest is one that many don’t understand.<br />

You often hear people disparage Occupy<br />

as lacking a clear objective or specific<br />

message. . . . If the movement restricts<br />

itself to a single point of policy (like the<br />

Tea Party did with spending cuts and the<br />

deficit) the imperative for action moves<br />

from the hands of the people to politicians<br />

in Washington. . . . From the very start<br />

Occupy was adamant about avoiding<br />

such a situation. This is why we have no<br />

hierarchical structure, no list of “demands,”<br />

and have avoided focusing on voting drives,<br />

writing letters to your congressman, and<br />

all the usual suggestions focused on the<br />

political arena. What was interpreted as<br />

a lack of discipline and a clear message is<br />

really quite the opposite.<br />

The objective of Occupy was to change<br />

the direction of the national dialogue<br />

and debate. First you have to understand<br />

that there is constantly a national<br />

dialogue going on, in the media, on the<br />

Internet, between friends at the mall,<br />

and politicians in Congress. We are all<br />

increasingly connected and tend to talk<br />

about the same things. The national<br />

dialogue and the debate in Washington<br />

are closely connected, since politicians<br />

want to be talking about the same<br />

issues that their constituents are talking<br />

about. If you can change the national<br />

dialogue, you can change the very<br />

nature of the debate in government,<br />

far more effectively than if you were to<br />

simply write letters to Congress, start<br />

a petition, or make phone calls. In fact,<br />

letters, phone calls, and petitions are all<br />

generated by, and measure, the national<br />

dialogue, not vice versa.<br />

By appearing in strong numbers<br />

and generating media interest (both<br />

new/social and commercial/mass),<br />

Occupy was able to influence the<br />

national dialogue. We protested<br />

about inequality and exploitation,<br />

the corruption of our government by<br />

wealth and influence; and while we did<br />

not make “demands,” people began<br />

to talk about inequality, exploitation,<br />

and the corruption of democracy. The<br />

very way people talked and thought<br />

about these issues changed.<br />

What Matt is suggesting was at stake<br />

for the Occupy protesters was, in the<br />

language of political scientists, agenda<br />

setting. A problem not defined as a<br />

problem, or not on the national agenda,<br />

cannot be solved by public action. By<br />

defining income inequality, which many<br />

of us simply took for granted, as a<br />

problem in need of a solution, Occupy<br />

did indeed change the conversation.<br />

In fact, it is arguable that the Occupy<br />

protesters had as much or more power<br />

than they would have had if they had<br />

confined their participation to voting,<br />

since they actually helped set the<br />

choices that people faced at the ballot<br />

box. Because many Republicans and<br />

even quite a few Democrats are heavily<br />

indebted to the financial industry, neither<br />

was likely to point out the problems<br />

generated by it unless prodded by some<br />

external event or action. By doing that<br />

prodding, Occupy convinced at least the<br />

Democrats that they needed to respond<br />

to these constituent concerns.<br />

You only needed to listen to the<br />

debates between President Obama<br />

and his 2012 Republican challenger,<br />

Mitt Romney, to see that both<br />

candidates were participating in the<br />

conversation Occupy had begun. The<br />

two disagreed on how the federal<br />

tax burden should be distributed,<br />

with the president arguing that the<br />

wealthy should pay a higher share<br />

and Romney maintaining that higher<br />

taxes would inhibit the ability of<br />

“job creators” to grow the economy.<br />

The Elusive<br />

Youth Vote<br />

Rock the<br />

Vote<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

Romney’s comment, caught on a<br />

video of a fundraiser, that 47 percent<br />

of Americans paid no taxes and could<br />

not be convinced to take responsibility<br />

for themselves only underscored the<br />

two parties’ different views of income<br />

inequality.<br />

By the time the ballots were counted<br />

on November 7, the answer to whether<br />

young people would turn out in 2012<br />

as they had in 2008 was answered.<br />

Early estimates were that youth<br />

turnout had gone up—19 percent<br />

of the electorate was eighteen to<br />

twenty-nine years of age, and they<br />

split for Obama 60 to 36 percent. But<br />

the commitment to more conventional<br />

means of participation did not mean<br />

the spirit of Occupy had been lost.<br />

When Hurricane Sandy hit the East<br />

Coast just days before the election, the<br />

movement, reborn as Occupy Sandy,<br />

was at the forefront of the relief efforts.<br />

Without the cumbersome bureaucracy<br />

of organizations like the Red Cross and<br />

the Federal Emergency Management<br />

Agency (FEMA), Occupy Sandy was<br />

lighter on its feet and better able to get<br />

supplies to those in need. 13<br />

Perhaps the lesson of the Occupy<br />

movement, and the answer to the<br />

question of what is at stake in taking<br />

it to the streets, is that there is no<br />

one-size-fits-all answer to keeping<br />

the republic. Voting, indeed, is<br />

an essential part of the equation.<br />

Knowing how dependent he was on<br />

the votes of young people, President<br />

Obama was attentive to issues<br />

like student loans and Obamacare<br />

regulations that allowed those under<br />

twenty-six to stay on their parents’<br />

health insurance. And having seen, for<br />

two elections in a row, that the youth<br />

turnout can be decisive, Republicans<br />

will also likely try to be more youthfriendly<br />

in their policy positions.<br />

But Occupy highlights the value of<br />

grassroots action, and the power of<br />

stepping outside the system to put<br />

pressure on the status quo to respond<br />

to unmet and even previously unvoiced<br />

needs. It might not have been what<br />

Benjamin Franklin had in mind, but<br />

occupying the republic may very well<br />

be another means of keeping it. •<br />

To Sum Up<br />

Key terms, chapter summaries, practice quizzes, Internet links,<br />

and other study aids are available on the companion web site at<br />

http://republic.cqpress.com.<br />

Define<br />

Understand<br />

Read<br />

Click<br />

Watch<br />

advanced industrial democracy (p. 11)<br />

anarchy (p. 9)<br />

authoritarian capitalism (p. 9)<br />

authoritarian governments (p. 9)<br />

authority (p. 5)<br />

capitalist economy (p. 7)<br />

citizens (p. 11)<br />

communist democracy (p. 11)<br />

democracy (p. 9)<br />

divine right of kings (p. 15)<br />

economics (p. 6)<br />

elite democracy (p. 10)<br />

government (p. 5)<br />

institutions (p. 6)<br />

laissez-faire capitalism (p. 7)<br />

legitimate (p. 4)<br />

participatory democracy (p. 11)<br />

pluralist democracy (p. 11)<br />

politics (p. 4)<br />

popular sovereignty (p. 10)<br />

power (p. 4)<br />

procedural guarantees (p. 7)<br />

regulated capitalism (p. 7)<br />

republic (p. 17)<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

ules (p. 5)<br />

social contract (p. 15)<br />

social democracy (p. 8)<br />

social order (p. 4)<br />

socialist economy (p. 7)<br />

subjects (p. 11)<br />

substantive guarantees (p. 8)<br />

totalitarian (p. 9)<br />

Define<br />

Understand<br />

Read<br />

Click<br />

Watch<br />

••<br />

Politics may appear to be a grubby, greedy pursuit, filled<br />

with scandal and backroom dealing. In fact, despite its<br />

shortcomings and sometimes shabby reputation, politics is<br />

an essential means for resolving differences and determining<br />

how power and resources are distributed in society. Politics<br />

is about who gets power and resources in society—and how<br />

they get them.<br />

••<br />

Government, a product of the political process, is the system<br />

established for exercising authority over a group of people.<br />

In the United States the government is embodied in the<br />

Constitution and the institutions set up by the Constitution.<br />

The Constitution represents the compromises and deals made<br />

by the founders on a number of fundamental issues, including<br />

how best to divide governing power.<br />

••<br />

Politics establishes the rules and institutions that shape<br />

how power is distributed in political interactions. The<br />

most fundamental rules of our political system are those<br />

that define and empower our political institutions and the<br />

way these institutions interact with each other and with<br />

individual citizens.<br />

••<br />

Government is shaped not only by politics but also by<br />

economics, which is concerned specifically with the<br />

distribution of wealth and society’s resources. The United<br />

States has a regulated capitalist economy, which means<br />

that property is owned privately and decisions about<br />

the production of goods and the distribution of wealth<br />

are left to marketplace forces with some governmental<br />

control.<br />

••<br />

Political systems dictate how power is distributed among<br />

leaders and citizens, and these systems take many forms.<br />

Authoritarian systems give ultimate power to the state;<br />

nonauthoritarian systems, like democracy, place power<br />

largely in the hands of the people. Democracy is based on<br />

the principle of popular sovereignty, giving the people the<br />

ultimate power to govern. The meaning of citizenship is key<br />

to the definition of democracy, and citizens are believed to<br />

have rights protecting them from government as well as<br />

responsibilities to the public realm.<br />

••<br />

The meaning of American democracy can be traced to<br />

the time of the nation’s founding. During that period,<br />

two competing views of citizenship emerged. The first<br />

view, articulated by James Madison, sees the citizen as<br />

fundamentally self-interested; this view led the founders<br />

to fear too much citizen participation in government. The<br />

second view puts faith in citizens’ ability to act for the<br />

common good, to put their obligation to the public ahead<br />

of their own self-interest. Both views are still alive and<br />

well today, and we can see evidence of both sentiments at<br />

work in political life.<br />

••<br />

In this book we look at two ways of thinking critically about<br />

American politics: analyzing how our American political<br />

system works and evaluating how well it works. We rely<br />

on two underlying themes to pursue this course. The first<br />

is the assumption that all political events and situations<br />

can be examined by looking at who the actors are, what<br />

they have to win or lose, and how the rules shape the<br />

way these actors engage in their struggle. This analytic<br />

framework should provide us with a clear understanding<br />

of how power functions in our system. Examining who<br />

gets what they want and how they achieve it in political<br />

outcomes highlights the second theme of this text: how<br />

diverse citizens participate in political life to improve their<br />

own individual situations and to promote the interests of<br />

the community at large. We evaluate citizenship carefully<br />

as a means to determine how well the American system is<br />

working.<br />

Define<br />

Understand<br />

Read<br />

Click<br />

Watch<br />

Dalton, Russell J. 2009. The Good Citizen: How a Younger<br />

Generation Is Reshaping American Politics, revised ed.<br />

Washington, DC: <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>. Dalton shows that trends in<br />

participation and policy priorities reflect a younger generation that<br />

is more engaged, more tolerant, and more supportive of social<br />

justice, leading to new norms of citizenship.<br />

To Sum Up 25<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

Define<br />

Understand<br />

Read<br />

Click<br />

Watch<br />

Hobbes, Thomas. 1996. Leviathan. Edited by Richard Tuck.<br />

New York: Cambridge University <strong>Press</strong>. Writing in 1651, English<br />

philosopher Thomas Hobbes described a state of nature in which life<br />

is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” His analysis of society<br />

and power explains why citizens agree to be ruled by a powerful<br />

state: to preserve peace and security.<br />

Lasswell, Harold. 1936. Politics: Who Gets What, When, and<br />

How. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lasswell’s classic work on<br />

politics, originally published in 1911, lays out the definition of<br />

politics that is used throughout this textbook.<br />

Locke, John. 1952. Second Treatise on Government. With<br />

Introduction by Thomas P. Peardon. Indianapolis, IN:<br />

Bobbs-Merrill. Here you’ll find Locke’s influential ideas about<br />

natural rights, consent, the social contract, and the legitimacy<br />

of revolting against a government that breaks the<br />

contract.<br />

Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1945. Democracy in America. Edited<br />

by Phillips Bradley. New York: Vintage Books. An intricate<br />

and extremely interesting report on American politics and culture<br />

as described by a visiting Frenchman during the nineteenth<br />

century.<br />

Van Belle, Douglas A., and Kenneth M. Mash. 2013. A Novel<br />

Approach to Politics: Introducing Political Science Through<br />

Books, Movies, and Popular Culture, 3rd ed. Washington,<br />

DC: <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>. Drawing on examples from popular culture and the<br />

media, the authors explain essential political theory in a way that<br />

will entertain and enlighten.<br />

Wheelan, Charles. 2010. Naked Economics: Undressing<br />

the Dismal Science. New York: Norton. Stripping the subject<br />

of complex jargon, equations, and diagrams, Wheelan offers<br />

clear and simple explanations of the economic principles that<br />

shape public policy.<br />

Define<br />

Understand<br />

Read<br />

Click<br />

Watch<br />

American Political Science Association www.apsanet.org<br />

The leading professional organization for political scientists offers<br />

information on political science, careers in the field, and its many<br />

publications.<br />

USA.gov This official information portal for the U.S. federal<br />

government provides easy access to all online government resources.<br />

Internet Public Library www.ipl.org Hosted by the University<br />

of Michigan, this is a gateway to countless sources. Go to the<br />

government and political science categories.<br />

Rock the Vote www.rockthevote.com For more than twenty<br />

years, this campaign has used music and popular culture to incite<br />

young people to “step up, claim their voice in the political process,<br />

and change the way politics is done.”<br />

SpeakOut.com This site, managed by an online opinion research<br />

company, provides a way for visitors to participate in online polls,<br />

send messages to public officials, and sign petitions on issues they<br />

care about.<br />

Define<br />

Understand<br />

Read<br />

Click<br />

Watch<br />

Erin Brockovich 2000. A woman down on her luck manages to<br />

find a job as a legal assistant and works toward the good of the<br />

community by exposing a power company that has been dumping<br />

toxic waste. This popular film exposes what’s at stake when an<br />

everyday citizen takes an interest and gets involved.<br />

The Hunger Games 2012. Set in a future North America, this<br />

dystopian film (and trilogy of novels) imagines a country in which a<br />

brutal and decadent capitol rules over twelve impoverished districts,<br />

and offers a frightening exploration of the ways in which power can<br />

be distributed, abused, and perhaps even challenged.<br />

Lord of the Flies 1963. A group of schoolboys are shipwrecked on<br />

an uninhabited island and turn into savages for their own survival.<br />

While the movie (based on William Golding’s 1954 novel) is chilling,<br />

it provides an excellent illustration of what life would be like without<br />

a ruling government.<br />

Nineteen Eighty-Four 1984. This adaptation of George Orwell’s<br />

classic novel depicts a totalitarian society in which the government<br />

controls all aspects of life.<br />

26 1: Politics: Who Gets What, and How<br />

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

Copyright © 2014 by <strong>CQ</strong> <strong>Press</strong>, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in<br />

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!