Module 1 - Chapter One

Politics: Who Gets What, When, and How

• In the Online Lecture section, explore the instructor's discussion of the points raised in the first chapter.
• Ask yourself: how do these points compare to those found in the text?
• Make a note of the major concepts as listed in the text and as highlighted below.
• You may want to follow some of the current events hyperlinks to find examples of issues mention at the end of the online lecture.
• Go to the Dye textbook publisher site to look at the chapter overview and to test yourself as required (see below).

 

Dye Textbook: Overview

• Look at the Dye overview to assure yourself that you have absorbed the main points.  Only look at the overview after you have read the chapter!

Online Lecture

Politics as deciding who gets what, when and how.  

This points to the idea that politics has to do with a process of making decisions.   The question faced by political scientists is: "How does a political system organize the way in which decisions are made?"

Ponder: If politics involves making decisions, then all organized settings involve politics since such settings must intrinsically determine who - leaders, rank and file, loyalists - gets what - distribution of resources, responsibilities and privileges - when - in what order - and how - in large amounts, quickly/slowly, through consensus or decree.

A political system is an orderly way for making these decisions.  

"Government" makes decisions of great magnitude - affecting potentially all of society.  But if by "government" we understand only official institutions like "the federal government" or "county government" we miss the larger picture.   A political system involves more than a static "decision-producing box" called government; rather it also deals with the methods by which society is able to influence government, and in turn the effect of government on society.  That is why the textbook is divided into several sections with one part "participants" really not dealing with government as such but with voters, political parties, interest groups and public opinion - the inputs into government conveying societal preferences.

Consider the purposes of government:  

These include "to tax, penalize, punish, restrict, and regulate" according to Dye.  How can government know how much to tax, who to penalize and for doing what?  Obviously a system, an orderly method for conveying social preferences must be established in order for government and its decisions to be legitimate (perceived as fair and acceptable).

In reading this chapter, ask yourself "how far have we drifted from the essential functions envisioned by the founders of the American political system?"

• How much of a trade-off between personal freedoms and the need for social order was meant by the idea of "ensuring domestic tranquility?"
• How much of a global leadership role was envisioned when the words "providing for a common defense" were written?
• Did "promoting the general welfare" meaning social security programs, taxation running to 40% of income or more, and extensive environmental regulation?
• What kinds of trade-offs have been made in "natural rights" to pursue "equality?"  What kind of equality was envisioned by the founders anyway?

When examining these points it seems useful to ask: "Exactly what difference does it make what the founders thought about all these things?"

After all, slavery was in the Constitution; voting rights were limited to only a small fraction of what we would now consider the eligible adult population; industry was only just beginning, with less consciousness and concern for the environment, worker safety and consumer protection.

Certainly the American political system has evolved over the centuries, responding to both pressures from "rule of the many" in the form of majority opinion, as well as concern over individual rights.  All would generally agree that checks and balances, separation of powers, federalism and judicial review are all important concepts which have oriented American political institutions, guiding the delicate balance between majority will and protecting the rights of minority opinion and individuals.

The textbook mentions the issue of who "really" governs.  In an authoritarian or totalitarian political system, individual freedoms are constrained, with political power held by a relatively small number of political leaders, military officers, and party officials who refuse all political competition; all opposition is "disloyal." 

But how much democracy do we have in modern "capitalist democracies" where wealth is concentrated; the public is often apathetic; and elections too often hold little drama as incumbents are carried back into power over and over again?

According to your text, direct democracy - in which the people attend town meetings to directly elect officials and vote on legislation - is in decline.  Instead, an overworked public, lacking the time for democracy, relies increasingly on representative democracy to make decisions for them. But is this a suitable substitute?  While party competition and "free and fair" elections seem prerequisites for democracy, are they both necessary and sufficient conditions?  Is there something lost when democracy is less participatory and more "perfunctory?"

According to the elitist perspective, "Government is always government by the few, whether in the name of the few, the one or the many" (Dye text, p 21).  What do we think about a world in which "out of more than 280 million Americans, only a few thousand individuals at most participate directly in decisions about war and peace, wages and prices, employment and production, law and justice, taxes and benefits, health and welfare" (ibid).

Should such a system be called "democracy" at all?

Pluralist theory tries to rescue us from this critique of democracy.  By arguing that democracy in "large, complex society [can be achieved] by competition, bargaining, and compromise among organized groups and that individuals can participate in decision making through membership in these groups and by choosing among parties and candidates in elections"  (Dye, p. 22)   The pluralists seem resigned to accepting apathy from the many who remain unorganized, while most of the action is centered on the few, usually well-financed and highly organized, interest groups who do most of the lobbying.  Individuals have the theoretical ability to participate in decision-making, but only indirectly through a membership in yet another organization...

Can individuals really rely on these mechanisms to ensure that their interests are being represented?  What choices are there?  Is there a solution for "large, complex societies" that brings the political process closer to what Dye asserts as "the strength of democratic ideals in American society?"

Current Events application:

Can you think of a current situation in which the problem of democracy in America is being confronted? Are there any conflicts between majority will and individual rights that you can spot?  Try going to the http://cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/ site for some national events.  Local events are covered in several newspapers such as the Annapolis Capital, the Baltimore Sun or the Washington Post.