Topic 1: Historical Context
Guiding Question: What trade-offs are made when creating a social contract? What trade-offs are made when choosing between different forms of government?
The State of Nature and the Social Contract
Historical context is going to cover the philosophical backgrounds for our American government and lay out the tradeoffs we have to make to have our social contract. You should be able to articulate the different ways society can be organized around a social contract as well as differentiate between different political philosophers's views on the state of nature and social contract, particularly Thomas Hobbes, Charles Montesquieu, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Social contracts are all around us - we have them with every one on our lives, both people we know and strangers. A social contract can be an explicit set of laws, like our Constitution, or it can be an informal set of rules or guidelines we follow, like an agreement that shaking hands is better than slapping each other's faces.
These agreements help us to have some security in our day-to-day lives, knowing what to expect from others. To gain this security, we have to give up some liberty - our freedoms - like the liberty to do or say whatever we please to ensure that others cannot do or say anything to us. We also sacrifice liberty or security to gain some equality, forcing us all onto a more equal situation with each other. |
Just as the founders did, we have to make value judgements as to what we want and what we are willing to give up. If we want the freedom to say whatever we want, even if it comes at a potential loss of security, then we have to give up security for liberty. If we want to promote equality, then we have to accept that others give up their liberty to discriminate. And while some may not want to, our society has deemed those trade-offs to be fundamental to it.
|
America's First Attempt
Following the Declaration of Independence and ratified in 1781, the Articles of Confederation established a loose union of the thirteen states, providing a framework for governance. Many of its key provisions were influenced by grievances outlined in the Declaration of Independence, such as a distrust of centralized authority and a desire to protect individual liberties. Additionally, the emphasis on state sovereignty and the absence of a strong executive branch reflected a desire to avoid the perceived abuses of monarchical rule. However, while the Articles succeeded in preserving certain freedoms, they also exhibited significant weaknesses. The central government lacked the authority to levy taxes or regulate commerce effectively, leading to financial instability and difficulties in maintaining order and the lack of a national judiciary and the requirement for unanimous consent among the states for any amendments hindered the effectiveness of the government, leading to its replacement by the Constitution in 1789.
|
American Democratic Ideals
While visiting America, Alexis de Tocqueville noticed that America was quite different from Europe, and he tried to identify the ways. The results was his book, Democracy in America, which was published in 1835. His book serves as a guide to measure how America has changed since it was written. It also allows us to gain some perspective on what aspects of American society have remained the same. He asked how it was that the American system of democracy had survived so well, when France had undergone a series of revolutions and restorations during the same years couldn't find political stability. Those answers were in America’s social and cultural roots as well as in its political institutions.
|
Topic 2: Ideology and Bias
Guiding Question: What trade-offs exist within each ideology? What trade-offs do political parties have to make?
Liberty, Equality, Security
When we decide what kind of society we want to live in, we are identifying the core ideals we want to live under: liberty, equality, and security. But we cannot be both completely free and completely secure and promote complete equality. Ultimately, to get more of one ideal we have to give up at least one of the others. Think of it as a giant pie chart, with the three ideals. If you have about 1/3 of each, but want to increase liberty, that increase has to come at the expense of security, equality, or both.
|
Ideology and Bias
Ideology is more than just political parties, it is how we believe that government should be used to solve society's problems. A standard or typical ideology spectrum looks like this:
From far-left to far-right, we see a general sense of more or less government (and in return, less or more freedom). But that's too one-dimensional for us. In fact, there are many instances were conservatives and reactionaries want more government and many instances were radicals and liberals want less government and more freedom. For example, radicals and liberals believe that the government can be used to control corrupt businesses but that we should have less government when it comes to telling us what we can and can't do with our bodies. Conservatives and reactionaries may want little top no government telling businesses what they can and can't do but they want more government regulation about what people can do in private.
What this ideology spectrum needs is a 2nd dimension, one that encapsulates those differences in views when it comes to personal-social (moral) issues and economic issues.
|
To fully capture these nuances, we expand the chart by adding another axis (and tilting it for ease). Now we can have one line that shows personal or social freedoms and one that shows economic freedoms. This allows us to show, to a greater degree, the relative differences in ideologies. If we want to think of American politics, you can always place the original spectrum on top of the Nolan chart, so that liberals overlap with Left Liberal and Centrist and conservatives overlap with Right Conservative and Centrist.
|
American Political Parties
Ideologies in the United States are as varied as our population, you should be sure to be aware what the ideologies are and where the parties fall on the political spectrum. While no ideology test is perfect, we will use the Nolan chart in class and you can take a quiz with another format here.
Luckily, to go along with our diverse ideologies, we have a fairly diverse group of political parties. Which party or politician do you side with? The major political parties in the United States are the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. There are also third parties, the two most popular being the Libertarian Party and the Green Party. |
Currently, of the two major parties, the Democratic Party is the more liberal of the two. But that doesn't mean they always were or always will be. Political parties are always trying to win, and to do that they need to capture as many votes as possible. Sometimes that means they need to make trade-offs, either giving up a previously held position or giving up a position that aligns with their more likely ideology. Over US history, the political parties have shifted - this is called realignment. They always do this in an effort to get what they believe will be more votes.
When you look at the image from the Pew Research Center on political polarization, you'll notice that the parties do share some overlap - the most liberal members of the Republicans and the most conservative members of the Democrats have views in common. This makes political parties more likely to move their beliefs towards a middle ground or center in order to grab more votes away from the other party too. Sometimes it is not about getting more votes, just more votes than the other party or parties.
|
Topic 3: Three Branches
Guiding Question: What trade-offs exist in the three-branch system used by the United States?
The Constitution
Go through the Constitution and see if you can find the following information:
- Leader of the House of Representatives (Article I)
- Leader of the Senate (Article I)
- Leader of the Executive Branch (Article II)
- Leader of the Judicial Branch (Article III)
These three articles also lay out the powers that each branch has. By separating the powers into three branches, the founders made sure the people kept more liberty, though at the loss of greater security, because it meant that the three branches each had less power. The Founders put what they considered some of the most important powers with Congress, specifically the House, as that was the branch closest to the people: it was up for reelection every two years, it was elected by district (by population), and it was elected via popular vote. This is why an all-important power, the power to enact or change taxes (raising revenue) is situated in the House of Representatives.
|
American Federalism
American Federalism is an evolving compromise between the power and authority of the Federal government, and the power and authority of the 50 state governments. It is useful to think about different trade-offs have been made to push power in one direction or the other in various areas of governmental action and authority.
Under our federal system, some areas of power belong to the federal government. These areas are where we lose our liberties because the federal government has all the power. Some areas also belong to the states in which we live. This provides us some more liberty, since we have a greater say in what happens at the state level as opposed to the federal level,
|
Powers that belong to the national government are called expressed powers, because the Constitution specifically expresses that they belong to the federal government. State powers are called reserve powers because they are reserved, or kept, for the states. Overlapping powers are referred to as concurrent powers as they are used by both state and federal.
The Separation of Powers & Checks and Balances
The Constitution is built to try to make sure no one person or group can get too powerful and overtake the rest of us. It does this by separating the powers of the country into 3 different branches: the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch (which you read about above). The Legislative Branch is responsible for writing laws. This power is held by Congress, and our Congress is bicameral - meaning it is made up of two houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate (again, which you read about above). All bills which can become laws can start in either chamber, either the House or the Senate, unless they deal with "raising revenue," which is a fancy way of saying it deals with taxes.
In the Executive Branch, where we find the president, is the role of carrying out the laws. Congress writes them, but the President is responsible for seeing them through. This gives the president some leeway. For example, if Congress passes a law that seeks to make elections safer, the President is in charge of making sure the money goes where it should and enforcing the law, in this case by ordering the Department of Justice to oversee the process.
The Judicial Branch is made up of the courts, and at the top is the Supreme Court. Their rulings are the final interpretation of how the Constitution and any laws that were questioned should be understood. They interpret any laws that were questioned or challenged.
|
Together, these three branches carry out the three vital aspects of laws: making them, carrying them out, and interpreting them. Ideally, they would always operate perfectly and never seek to grab more power for themselves. However, they are operated by humans, and humans aren't perfect, so we need to have ways that each branch can check the other one from gaining too much power. There are many ways this occurs in reality, but simply put, it is usually carried out by making different tasks unable to be fully carried out with only the actions from one branch.
|
|
A president can't just put someone in charge of the Supreme Court, they have to be approved by the Senate; Congress can't just pass any law it wants, it has to be approved by the President; the Supreme Court can't just carry out any interpretations it wants, it's members can be impeached by Congress; and so on and so forth.
Tribal Government
Tribal sovereignty in the United States encapsulates the inherent rights of Native American tribes to self-governance, territorial autonomy, and cultural preservation within their respective reservations. Rooted in the historical treaties between Indigenous nations and the federal government, tribal sovereignty acknowledges tribes as distinct political entities with the authority to govern their lands, enact laws, and manage resources. This concept is central to the unique relationship between Native American tribes and the U.S. government, shaping policies and legal frameworks that impact issues ranging from healthcare and education to natural resource management and economic development. Despite centuries of encroachment, displacement, and assimilation efforts, tribal sovereignty remains a cornerstone of Indigenous resilience, offering a legal and political foundation for the preservation and revitalization of Native cultures and communities.
The history of tribal sovereignty is marked by a complex interplay of negotiations, conflicts, and legal battles. From the earliest interactions between European settlers and Native tribes, treaties were established to delineate boundaries and recognize tribal rights. However, these agreements were often disregarded or violated, leading to a long history of injustices, including forced removals, broken promises, and cultural suppression. Despite these challenges, tribes have persistently asserted their sovereignty through activism, litigation, and legislative advocacy. Landmark cases such as Worcester v. Georgia (1832) and United States v. Kagama (1886) have affirmed tribal sovereignty as a constitutional right, while the passage of key legislation like the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 and the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 have provided mechanisms for tribes to strengthen their self-governance and pursue economic self-sufficiency. Today, tribal sovereignty remains a dynamic and evolving principle, shaping the ongoing struggle for Indigenous rights, dignity, and self-determination in the United States.
The history of tribal sovereignty is marked by a complex interplay of negotiations, conflicts, and legal battles. From the earliest interactions between European settlers and Native tribes, treaties were established to delineate boundaries and recognize tribal rights. However, these agreements were often disregarded or violated, leading to a long history of injustices, including forced removals, broken promises, and cultural suppression. Despite these challenges, tribes have persistently asserted their sovereignty through activism, litigation, and legislative advocacy. Landmark cases such as Worcester v. Georgia (1832) and United States v. Kagama (1886) have affirmed tribal sovereignty as a constitutional right, while the passage of key legislation like the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 and the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 have provided mechanisms for tribes to strengthen their self-governance and pursue economic self-sufficiency. Today, tribal sovereignty remains a dynamic and evolving principle, shaping the ongoing struggle for Indigenous rights, dignity, and self-determination in the United States.
How a Bill Becomes a Law
Here you can see Nancy Pelosi (a former speaker herself) handing over the Speaker's gavel to the new Speaker, Paul Ryan, in 2015.
|
The United States balances power between three branches, the legislative, executive, and the judicial branch. Together they run our government and ensure the rules are followed.
While there are many ways our government gets things done, perhaps the most important is through the passage of laws. Passing laws can be complicated, but you should know and understand the various steps a bill must go through, as well as the many ways a bill can die. Click the image below to go to a larger version of the image that you can zoom and move around in to discover the process. |
In total, there are many more ways that a bill can die than there are for it to become a law. It is a much harder process to make a law. This process may seem frustrating but it was designed that way - otherwise we would have a government always making and passing laws and it might get confusing or burdensome. There are even ways that bills die that rarely make the news. In these cases, they just stop moving forward, and people usually forget about them. This, too, can be a good thing since it means people aren't tasked with passing laws for things that people eventually forget about or lose interest in.