Governmental Bureaucracy versus Corporate Bureaucracy
Is the federal bureaucracy more constrained, that is, less flexible, dynamic, and innovative, than most large corporate bureaucracies? Why?

I like to give the example of the US Postal Service versus UPS. Of course the US Postal Service is a government corporation and is required to service all postal markets in the United States, no matter if these markets are profitable or not. Let’s imagine the mythical town of Twin Moose, Montana, population 25 people, and of course two moose. :-) Obviously this is not a profitable postal market and UPS might decide not to provide service to it, or if UPS does provide service, it would do so at a very high rate of cost per parcel. The US Postal Service, however, must provide service to Twin Moose and must do so at the same rate as which it services other locales. Hence, you can see that agents of the Federal bureaucracy face constraints not seen in the private sector, and these constraints many times make these government agencies, departments, and corporation appear to be less innovative and efficient than their private sector counterparts.

What follows is a sampling of some of the more insightful student comments from this and past discussions:

Yes, I do feel that the federal bureaucracy is more constrained, less flexible, dynamic, and innovative, than most large corporate bureaucracies. My personal opinion is two-fold: on the one hand there are less people involved in the setting of corporate policy, and on the other hand, corporations are trying to make a profit while government agencies are trying to simply provide services.

Controlling the Bureaucracy
How do the President, Congress, and the Courts exercise control over the bureaucracy? Cite some specific examples.

First we must remember that the President is the ‘CEO’ of the Federal bureaucracy. He has appointive power (along with the advice and consent of the Senate) to select the heads and upper management of all Federal agencies and departments. These individuals sever at the pleasure of the President.  While the Senate can deny Presidential appointments with which it disagrees, that is far from the only influences Congress wields over the bureaucracy. The power of the purse-strings is the most important. Congress (the House and the Senate) produced annual budgets by which Federal departments and agencies must abide – of course, the President also plays a role in this process for he can veto the budget if he disagrees strongly enough; this veto would necessitate a 2/3rds vote in both houses of Congress to override it. In fact Congress has the power (as long as the President signs the bill or it can muster the 2/3rds vote to override) eliminate Federal departments and agencies. The Courts cannot exercise direct control over the bureaucracy and in fact must rely on the bureaucracy (much as Congress and the President must do) to implement their decision. This implementation and the necessary interpretive power that goes with it is the real meat of bureaucratic power.

What follows is a sampling of some of the more insightful student comments from this and past discussions:

The President has three ways in which too control; He has the power of appointment and removal to place loyal and competent executives in the top layers of the bureaucracy, He can alter administrative procedures and reorganize agencies and departments to better achieve his purposes, and can centralize decision-making authority over personnel, programs and budgets in the office of personnel management, office of management and budget and various policy councils. Congress creates the agencies, establishes their programs and allocates funding to them annually, It defines their organizational structure, sets personnel ceilings and enacts such management systems as procurements and accounting standards…

In keeping with the Constitutional principle of checks and balances, each branch of government has specific legal authority over the bureaucracy. The President appoints certain officials and presents his wishes concerning department creation or agenda to Congress; Congress has the power to draft legislation concerning the bureaucracy and controls its funding; and the Courts intervene when charges are made that government (in its entirety or one branch vs. the other) has overstepped its legal bounds…

Presidential Effectiveness: Foreign versus Domestic Policy
Does the President have an easier time in shaping and implementing foreign policy than he does domestic policy? If so, why?

Traditionally Americans have considered domestic issues first and foreign second. We, the electorate, are most concern with that which affects our daily lives; thus foreign policy only matters to us when it intrudes upon our daily lives – war, terrorism, international trade, etc. In this kind of environment, the President is free to determine many international matters without the glare of media or Congressional attention. It is only when matter pops up on the ‘national radar’ that the President is forced to actively consult Congress and public opinion.

What follows is a sampling of some of the more insightful student comments from this and past discussions:

The President has a more difficult time leading in domestic policy than in foreign policy. Public opinion is split in regard to domestic policy issues. Education, Medicare and social security will get support from some and opposition from others. Many interest groups and major parties have already made their decision on domestic policy, you will always have some to disagree. In foreign policy the president has more current and often more relevant information than Congress or the public…

Presidents have more flexibility in Foreign Affairs because many Americans are not in tune with current events and how the foreign events and politics affect each of us directly. The President has full-time staff that devote all of their time, energy and talents to keep him informed and to offer advice regarding foreign affairs. domestic affairs are more closely monitored and the adoption of policy is regulated through Congressional actions that require more accountability by the President.

Domestic policies are harder to achieve due to the fact of so many that may not want change. Foreign policies are easier to get through. When it concerns war or peace the president only has to say it's for our national security and no one argues. None of the congress or senators want to look as though they are against national security.

The Ear of the President: The White House Staff versus the Cabinet
Should we be concerned that the White House staff seems to have displaced members of the Cabinet as the President's closest advisers? Who would you say is President Bush’s closest advisor?

As several of ya’ll have correctly pointed out, the White House Staff is responsible only to the President. While the Cabinet members hold their appoint at the pleasure of the President, they must be confirmed by a majority of Senators; thus these individuals many times are more moderate than the President (either more liberal or more conservative) depending on the President. The potential that the President might share a closer ideological stance with the White House Staff, has become more pronounced over the last 30 years as the confirmation process for Cabinet nominees has become more contentious. Today it is very difficult for a President to get his ‘champions’ into Cabinet positions, so many times he simply opts to put them in White House Staff positions which require no such Congressional advise and consent.

What follows is a sampling of some of the more insightful student comments from this and past discussions:

I don't think the Cabinet as a whole has been displaced but I think that issues that certain members have are not being and have not been addressed during Bush's presidency. I don't think he has met with them and listened to what's important to them or to what should probably be important to HIM. Having said that, I think Tom Ridge, Secretary of Homeland Security, may be a close advisor to the President in the current situation when it should have been Colin Powell, Secretary of State. He has a level head on his shoulders and is slow to make big decisions before analyzing the situation.

I don't know that I would be so concerned about it--I mean wouldn't we all think that the President would want people around him that somewhat share his views. I believe that the President's closest advisor right now would be Condeleza Rice, although it would be logical for him to discuss different situations with his  father--after all he was once President himself.

I don't feel a need to be concerned that the white house staff has displaced the cabinet members.  Cabinet members have other agenda to consider (I doubt I'd trust them either). The white house staff is dedicated to the president.  The president could always be impeached if need be.  I believe Condoleezza Rice is the president?s closest advisor are long time friends.
 

Take care,

Topic Notes

First we must always take polling data with a grain of salt. Americans are a notoriously fickle lot, and our opinions can change with the breeze. Also, it is very important to know exactly how the polling data was collected, for the way the question is asked can greatly influence the results. For example, if the question was phrased in the following manner, “Given that hundreds of Americans have lost their lives and we have still found no weapons of mass destruction, do you still support the President’s decision to invade Iraq?” we would expect far different results than if the question was phrased in this manner, “While it is true that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, we do see significant sign of hope and democracy beginning to develop in Iraq, given the events taken in total do you still support the President’s decision to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein?”. Obviously the first question is geared to solicit a basically negative response from the respondents and the second question aims to produce a largely positive response.

Now, of course, more factors are involved then simply the wording of the questions. We must also consider how the individuals have been socialized by various agents (parents, schools, churches, etc.), what sociodemographic factors (race, gender, ethnicity, etc.) are important, the role of the media, the degree of bipartisanship of the issue and how political ideology affect partisanship, and finally how US politics (e.g., the US Presidential campaign) would factor in.
 

Agents of Socialization (Primary, Secondary and Social Class):

Primary agents of socialization are actors with which the individual has direct and repeated contact – family and peers being two of the most significant. Usually these primary agents share similar sociodemographic characteristics with the individual and are also of the same social class. It is the rare individual who does not take her political party identification from her parents, or who regularly socialized outside her social class. This is not to say that we do not come into contact with individuals of differing races or income levels, but in general in our society we tend to seek out those who are most like us. The reason for this is really outside the scope of political science, but more of a psychology or sociology question.

Secondary agents are more corporate entities – groups of individuals rather then an individual as is the case with primary agents. Churches, unions, interest groups and professional associations would all be examples of secondary agents. Unlike with primary agents, we see a real diversity of sociodemographic characteristics in the makeup of secondary agents. For example, membership in most churches cuts across ethnic, racially and social class characteristics. One other important consideration with secondary agents is that their influence tends to be more focused than that of primary agents. For example, the influence of your parents (a primary agents) will affect your outlook on almost every issue, but the influence of a professional organization, might only influence your perspective on the specific issues affecting your profession.

While our elementary textbooks on the founding of America would lead us to believe that the founders envisioned America to be a classless society, we all know that that is much more myth then reality. The founders were all men of means, and they believed that with those means privilege should follow. In this respect, the American Revolution was much different then the French Revolution that would shortly follow it, for it was the intent of the French revolutionaries to overturn the existing class structure in France. On the matter of social class, where the American founders differed from the British (from whom they sought independence) was the notion of mobility. The founders respected self-made men and believed that society should allow for upward mobility through the social classes. There is no better example of upward mobility among the founders then the life of Alexander Hamilton.  While it is hard to put a finger on social class (most Americans feel they are middle class), it does matter. Traditionally the sociodemographic characteristics of income and education have been used to differentiate between the classes.
 

Sociodemographic Influences (Age, Education, Income/Class, Region, Race, Ethnicity, and Gender):

Do we all respond in the same manner to external stimuli? Do the agents of socialization affect each of use the same? The answer to both these questions is no, and the reason is that we all come from differing sociodemographic backgrounds. The seven demographic factors of Age, Education, Income/Class, Region, Race, Ethnicity, and Gender greatly affect one’s political perceptions. Of course, these factors do not operate in a vacuum; we all are of some age have some degree of education, come from some social class, reside in a particular region of the country, identify with a specific racial or ethnic group, and are either male or female, but it does help to know a bit about each of these sociodemographic factors.

I don’t have any hard data on hand regarding the positions of the various sociodemographic groups regarding American involvement in Iraq, but I can share with you the following generalities regarding war. In general, we see that younger individuals will become more quickly disillusioned with a military action than older Americans, this has a great deal to do with a primary agent of socialization – peers. The great ones level of education the more skeptical they are likely to be regarding the use of military force. Social class factors come into play with many at the lower socio-economic end of the spectrum feeling that they are asked to disproportionate bare a greater burden. This was particular the case during the Vietnam War when one could avoid military service by seeking a deferment to attend college. Of course, if you could not afford to attend college, then you were not eligible for the deferment. Region of the country matters as well with Southerners and those from the rural Western states being more supportive of military action than the other regions of the country. Race and ethnicity play an important role with those groups that struggle economically from either present or past discrimination being less likely to support military action. Remember due to there social class, it is likely that such racial or ethnic groups will bear more than their share of the casualties from the conflict. And finally women in general tend to be less supportive of military action then men.
 

Political Ideology (Liberalism versus Conservatism):

There does exists a clear distinction in today’s America between the liberal and conservative viewpoints. However, it is important to note that we are using the terms of liberal and conservative in a contemporary context. For the classic meaning of 'liberal' relates to the ultimate freedom of the individual from government action – the works of John Locke are the foundation of classical liberalism. Today when we use the term liberal today, we use it to describe a person who believes that greater government action can be beneficial for society. In some ways, today's conservatives have more in common with John Locke; but Locke would disagree with many conservative values and the conservative idea that government had a role to play in forming the moral character of society. Perhaps the most legitimate inheritors of classical liberalism in the Untied States would be the Libertarian Party; they advocate a very small government with little influence on society.

In general, conservatives tend to be more supportive of military action than liberals, but this is not universally the case. For example, in the recent conflict in the Balkans, many liberal pundits were calling for American action to end a potentially genocidal situation, while conservatives were wary of involving US forces in something that was essentially a civil war. The conservatives were also wary of placing American forces under UN or international control. The fact that American forces are under direct US control in the Iraqi conflict is an important factor in continued conservative support of US action there.
 

Media Effects (Educational, Agenda-Setting, Framing and Persuasion):

Some critics cite surveys of print and electronic journalists that consistently show that these journalists identify themselves as liberals in higher proportions than do American citizens in general and they tend to vote for Democrat candidates for president in much higher proportions than do Americans in general. Others argue that editors, publishers, and owners, those who own, control, and operate the media on a day-to-day basis, tend to be more conservative than Americans are in general. Moreover, newspapers have traditionally endorsed candidates for office and they have overwhelmingly favored Republicans.

The media not only present information they also select certain issues over others and suggest how issues should be understood. They educate us, set the agenda for what we will discuss, frame the issues, and finally even attempt to persuade us what to think.

If one is to remain educated with regards to current global, domestic, and local events, he will have to rely on some type of media (print or electronic) in order to know what is going on. Ideally we should vary our media sources; we should read a combination of newspapers and newsmagazines and watch several news shows on TV – it would do the liberal good to watch Fox News every now and then and the conservative good to watch CBS from time to time. It is also important to get a perspective outside our own country. If you speak a foreign language read a newspaper from that country on Internet from time to time, and if you don’t speak a second language, try listing to the BBC every now and then.

The agenda-setting and framing roles of the media can be troubling, but are admittedly necessary. By their very selection of what stories to cover and what stories not to cover, the media set the national agenda for us. Also, journalist must frame the stories they present. By framing, I mean that they will choose who to interview or what video to shoot. As you can imagine such decisions will greatly affect the story. For example, many in the Bush Administration argue that the American media today is only focusing on the negatives in Iraq – the battle casualties, the anti-American protest, etc. They believe that the media is framing the story only on the negative and that items such as the reopening of schools, the restoration of public utilities and most importantly the elimination of the general repression of the Saddam Hussein regime are going largely unreported by the American media.

The persuasion effect would seem to be outside the bounds of good, professional journalism, until we remember that most media sources do engage in editorials. There is nothing wrong with a newspaper or television news show expressing an opinion as long as they make very clear the distinction between the ‘real’ news and the editorial.
 

Partisanship:

Historically Americans have divided along two sides of an issue. We see that in the development of out political parties. First the Federalist versus the Democrats, then the Whigs versus the Democrats, and finally the Republicans versus the Democrats. I should note here that the Democratic party of today is by no means the Democratic party of it founder’s era. Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic party was small government and the rights of the individual and the states. While the Democratic party of today is still very much for the rights of the individual, it is not predicated upon a need for small government and many would argue that it is actually anti-states rights.

When we speak of partisanship, we mean that elected officials have divided along party lines. Take for example the trial of President Clinton in the Senate. When the House was considering articles of impeachment against President Clinton, no one really expected that if impeached (indicted), he would ever be convicted in the Senator. For to convict the President in the Senator, there would need to be a two-thirds majority (67 votes), and it was very unlikely that 15 Democratic Senators would vote to convict a Democratic President. And this was largely the case, the vote to convict came out at about 50-50. This is an extreme example of partisanship, for the Senators really did not so much vote there conscious as they did their party.

Traditionally, we see a very high degree of bipartisanship (the putting aside of party differences) at the beginning of a conflict. There is a desire for political leaders in Congress to rally around the President and to present a united front to the world. Certainly this was the case immediately after September 11th, and it has been the case throughout our country’s history. Even that most controversial of wars, Vietnam, saw an extremely high degree of bipartisanship at the outset. The Gulf of Tonken (1965) resolution that authorized a massive increase in the number of US ground troops in Vietnam sailed through Congress with only a lone vote against it. Since the initial invasion of last year, the degree of bipartisanship regarding the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy has eroded significantly; this erosion was entirely predictable, the only way to have stopped it would have been for there to have been an immediate and complete success to the action. However, we should not allow the predictable emergence of partisan debate to keep us for engaging in military action when necessary, nor should we seek to unduly curtail the debate itself as unpatriotic. We must remember that we are the country that held a free and open election while in the middle of a civil war. In 1864, many believed that Abraham Lincoln would fall to his Democratic challenger George McCellean – as it turned out the election wasn’t even that close.
 

Presidential Campaigns (General Election and Electoral College):

Labor Day is the traditional kickoff point for the general election campaign. Now the remaining candidates move from running against members of their own party to running against the opposition party. During this period the candidates try to move their campaign rhetoric to the ideological middle – for that is where the votes are (most American's identify themselves as moderate). At the same time, they try to paint their opponent as an extremist – either too conservative or too liberal. Given the fact that it is a foregone conclusion that President Bush will represent the Republican party and Senator Kerry will represent the Democrats, this movement to the political middle is starting a bit early, and the two major issues that will impact the election appear to be the state of the economy and the war in Iraq.

The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November is the general election. In reality the general election is really 51 (50 states plus DC) smaller elections.

The candidate who wins a plurality of a state’s votes will see his party's slate of electors become the official electors for the state. Constitutionally, these electors are free to vote for whomever they desire, but in reality the faithless elector problem is relatively rare. Each state receives a number of electors equal to its congressional delegation (House membership plus Senate membership). A state such as North Carolina which has 12 congressional districts would receive 14 electors. The 23rd Amendment grants the District of Columbia 3 electors. In total there are 538 electors, and a candidate needs 270 (an absolute majority) to win.

In mid-December the electors will meet in their respective state capitals to vote. This vote will be counted in front of a joint session of Congress (with the Vice President presiding) on January 3rd. If no presidential candidate receives 270 votes, the top three vote getters will go before the House. With each state receiving 1 vote, the House will determine the President; 26 votes (an absolute majority) are needed. If no vice-presidential candidate receives 270 votes, the top two vote getters will go before the Senate. Through either method (straight electoral college vote or House vote) the candidate is not officially the President-Elect until a winner has been determined. Never was this fact more clearly demonstrated than in the election of 2000.

The Lawmaking Process
What are the stages of consideration through which a legislative proposal must pass before it becomes a law? Pick one stage and discuss it in some depth.

In order to introduce a bill before the Senate or the House, the individual must be a member of either the Senate or the House.

In the House -- Once the bill has been introduced, it will be referred to the relevant Standing Committee. This Committee will immediately forward the bill to one of its Sub-Committees for an investigative phase. The Sub-Committee will then forward the bill along with its findings back to the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee will likely hold some additional hearing and then move to a vote. If the vote is negative, the bill dies. If positive, the bill moves on to the Rules Committee which will do three things for the bill: 1) it will schedule a time for the debate, 2) it will determine how long the debate will last, and 3) it will decide what kind of amendments can be offered to the bill. The Rules Committee also has the option of not scheduling the bill for debate. If this happens the bill dies. The only possible remedy for such a situation is for the supporters of the bill to circulate a Discharge Petition. If this petition is signed by a majority of the House membership than the Rules Committee will be force to schedule the bill for debate. If the bill is approved on the floor of the House it will then move to a Conference Committee (a committee made up of both Representative and Senators) assuming that the Senate has passed a version of the bill as well. The purpose of the Conference Committee is to workout differences between the House version and the Senate version of the bill -- for only one version may be sent to the President.

In the Senate -- Once the bill has been introduced, it will be referred to the relevant Standing Committee. This Committee will immediately forward the bill to one of its Sub-Committees for an investigative phase. The Sub-Committee will then forward the bill along with its findings back to the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee will likely hold some additional hearing and then move to a vote. If the vote is negative, the bill dies. If positive, the bill will be schedule for debate by the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders. There is no equivalent of the Rules Committee in the Senate. When the bill reaches the Senate floor some Senators might try to oppose it by talking the bill to death (a Filibuster); here the Senators orchestrating the Filibuster will refuse to yield the floor for a vote on the bill. If 3/5ths of the Senators vote to invoke Cloture, the Filibuster will be forced to an end and the Senate will move to an immediate vote on the bill. If the bill is approved on the floor of the Senate it will then move to a Conference Committee (a committee made up of both Representative and Senators) assuming that the House has passed a version of the bill as well. The purpose of the Conference Committee is to workout differences between the House version and the Senate version of the bill -- for only one version may be sent to the President.

If the bill passes both houses it moves on to a Conference Committee -- Once the conference committee has drafted a single version of the bill, it will be referred back to both the floors of the House and the Senate for approval. If either body defeats the compromise version of the bill, it dies. If both bodies approve the bill, it moves on to the President for his consideration.

As Chris reminded us, some of ya’ll will remember the old Schoolhouse Rock video, “I’m just a bill.” Go to http://www.school-house-rock.com/Bill.html or you can go to http://www.jacksheldon.com/school.htm and scroll down a bit to listen or view the video.

What follows is a sampling of some of the more insightful student comments from this and past discussions:

Any new legislation must first have a Congressional sponsor (usually the person who composed its draft), responsible for introducing it to the House/Senate floor. It is then assigned an "HR" (House) or "S" (Senate) number, and given over to an appropriate committee for consideration. In the House, a bill may be assigned to a single committee (simple referral); given first to one committee and then to another (sequential referral); or divided, with each component given over to a separate committee (split referral). The latter two (complex) referral methods reduced exclusive committee authority, giving it in part to the Speaker, who decides which committees will get first dibs. The 1995 Republican House Majority modified the complex referral system, requiring the Speaker to designate a primary committee for each new proposed bill, in an effort to reduce intercommittee "turf battles." Once the primary committee gives its report, the Speaker then sets deadlines for work completion by all committees involved. Once at the committee level, bills undergo 3 stages of consideration: public hearings, markup and report. Public hearings support the necessary tenet of open government participation...Markup allows committee members to consider the proposed legislation carefully as they scrutinize it line by line...The most interesting stage to me, however, is the committee report. What lends intrigue is that this report is prepared at the committee level, and is usually the only thing that other Congressional members will examine before deciding whether or not to offer their support. While I understand that it would be logistically impossible for every Congressional representative to dissect each piece of proposed legislation...the potential for "slipping in" undesirable provisions certainly exists. Is it really necessary to add volumes to our already bulging shelves of federal statutes each Congressional session? Perhaps if Congresspersons had to actually read the bills "line by line," they wouldn't be so eager to legislate so many areas of our lives. (?!)…While the House operates according to strict rules of order (discussed at length in the text), the Senate is much more relaxed. Senators have several tools at their disposal for stalling bills. They include: filabuster(unlimited debate), hold (blocking the bill until personal reservations are addressed), and voicing disapproval, making the needed unanimous consent impossible. Before bills can be sent from Congress to the President for signature, they must be passed in identical form by both the House and Senate. In 10-15% of bills, differences are hammered out in House/Senate conference committees... The final version is sent to the President, who can either accept it or veto (kill) it. The line-item veto provision, which went into effect in 1997, defied the traditional Congressional inclusion of provisions that have little to do with a given bill's stated purpose by allowing the President to review it line by line, striking provisions individually as he saw fit. (Why are there multitudes of provisions contained in a single bill, anyway?) Career politicians such as Robert Byrd got their way, however, when federal Judge Thomas Jackson struck down the line item veto the same year...The Supreme Court concurred in its 1998 decision that the line item veto could only be granted by constitutional amendment. It isn't likely that 2/3 of the legislatures will vote to impose limits upon their own conduct anytime soon. So it's back to "legalese - love it or leave it." While the President could well approve of SOME portions of a bill...he must choose whether or not the additional provisions are worth the hassle of debate. Again, if Congress wouldn't pack so much into a proposed law, not only could the electorate better understand federal statutes in general...much waste and "fat" could be eliminated from the federal budget. But, then...they couldn't justify their icon status, large paychecks, and "perks." Legalese remains the law of the land.

Decision-Making and the Individual Member
What influences and considerations operate on a member of Congress as she prepares to make an important legislative decision?

There are really three general types of decision-making roles played by members of Congress -- Delegate, Trustee, and Politico.

The Delegate will copiously follow the exact wishes of her constituency; she see herself as the voting embodiment of the people she represents. If her polling data tells her that her district is leaning one way on an issue than that is the way she will vote.

The Trustee believes that she has been entrusted by her constituency with the right to make decisions for the district. She reasons that her constituents want her to spend the time investigating and pondering the tough issues and then to make a decision that she feels is in the best interest of the district -- regardless of what the current feeling of her constituents might be.

The Politico sometimes behaves like a Delegate and sometimes behaves like a Politico depending on the importance and saliency of the issue.

In reality must members of Congress are Politicos. However, we can say that freshman members and those members who anticipate electoral challenges in the next election are more likely to act in the Delegate role.  While members who have served numerous terms and those for 'safe' districts are more likely to act as Trustees.

What follows is a sampling of some of the more insightful student comments from this and past discussions:

The public or rather the citizens the Congressman represents has influence because elected officials always have the public opinion in the back of their mind but are often called upon to make unpopular decisions if they feel it is in the best interest of the people they represent. Other Congressman have influence over each other, support staff to the Congressman provide information to assist the Congressman with making educated decisions. Party leaders often try to influence other members of their party to support their issues and the issues of the party they were elected under. Special interest groups and lobbyists also try to influence their decision-making. There are times I feel as though I am being pulled in twenty directions, I cannot even imagine how a Congressman may feel before a big vote.

As a member of Congress prepares to make a legislative decision, many factors play out in their minds. First of all, they have to consider what their political party is in favor of. Many parties have stands on certain issues, and are not expected to turn from that platform. Another responsibility a congress member faces is that of his/her supporters. He/she must vote the way their supporters feel or they won't get elected back in office. Finally, they must react on the betterment of society. They have many people and groups to represent and must consider each one before making a legislative decision.

I'm always intrigued when a congressman claims to be voting her conscience on an issue because of its importance. Issues such as war and reproductive choice are often at hand during these claims. What about all the other votes? Certainly the next election is central to the governing process for many. Incumbents gain advantage from a voting record which generally agrees with the political ideology of their constituents. Further, most legislators seem to agree that strength lies in party numbers. Differences often arise, however, between party platforms and local issues. A conservative Republican from a farm state would most likely not vote conservative ideology when farmers' aid bills are introduced. By ideology federal expansion is a bad thing, but voting against federal dollars which could prevent thousands of family farm auctions would be worse. The best we can hope for is that our representatives consider each vote in terms of what's best for those they represent...and then vote accordingly.

There is more than adherence to personal convictions at stake when a Congressperson considers new legislation. Unfortunately, influencing factors also include intra-House politics...Party leaders observe representatives' actions, rewarding the faithful for toeing the party line with positions of seniority and influence (perhaps senior committee assignments) and subtly disciplining dissenters. Lobbyists also play a role...when a Congressperson hasn't had sufficient time to review a proposed statute, it's easy to see where a vote might be traded for later support by interest group members.

• agents of socialization (primary, secondary and social class),
• sociodemographic influences (age, education, income/class, region, race, ethnicity, and gender),
• political ideology (liberalism versus conservatism),
• media effects (educational, agenda-setting, framing and persuasion),
• partisanship,
• or presidential campaigns (general election and electoral college).

Now, I have asked ya'll to limit your answers to around 1000 to 1500 words (approximately two to three, single-spaced pages). That of course is an estimate. If you go a little over that, I will still accept you answer, so don't let any limits hold you back. Do remember that this is an assignment that ya'll have had nearly two weeks to work on, and my expectations are geared accordingly.

Take care,

The Campaign for the Presidency
How does the campaign for the presidency differ from campaigns for other offices that are less visible, powerful, and prestigious?

The chief differences revolve around the levels of money, time, and exposure associated with presidential campaigns.

Here are a couple of interesting websites ya'll might like to check out.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pcam.html

http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/americavotes/

What follows is a sampling of some of the more insightful student comments from this and past discussions:

Two important areas where presidential campaigns differ from those for lower offices are scope and organizational level. The scope of a presidential election is national, not simple state-wide or regional. This means that candidates must be flexible, visible, and very well financed. They must be able to hop all over the country and attend hundreds of events. They must focus on issues (and/or personality traits) that interest the entire country, not just one region. A presidential campaign must also be meticulously organized. Since the scope is so large and the stakes are so high, there are specific roles that many people in a campaign play, such as lead pollster. Another result is that events must be scheduled carefully, since there are often fairly wide distances to cover. Since the election hinges not on the popular vote but on the electoral college, there is also a decision that must be made about which states should be focused on most intensely.

These campaigns begin years before the election and cost considerably more to fund.

Elections: Who Controls the Policymakers?
Do elections allow citizens to control politics and policymaking in the American democracy?

Elections allow the electorate control over who the policymakers will be, but once elected those policymakers will have nearly complete decision making power -- very few issues (at the local, state, or federal levels) in this country are decided by general referendum. Of course, the desire for reelection will temper the decisions of most policymakers, very few of whom desire to be one term wonders.

What follows is a sampling of some of the more insightful student comments from this and past discussions:

Elections allow citizens to control politics and policymaking in America to the extent that we choose the policy makers. The problem is that the people who choose to be politicians are usually the people we'd least like to have making the policy decisions. What America lacks is an effective way to eliminate career politicians and encourage the most brilliant members of society to serve their government for a few years.

No, elections do not allow citizens to control politics and policymaking in the American "democracy." Not directly, anyway. Through elections, the electorate chooses one of several available agendas--it does not craft its own agenda. (This is one of the distinctions I think ought to be made between a democracy and a republic.) Elections do provide indirect control in the sense that it is entirely up to the electorate which agenda to pursue. The most direct way for citizens to push their own agenda (and attempt to "control politics and policymaking") is to try to influence office-holder(s) outside of the election process. This includes actions such as writing letters and participating in demonstrations. In this case, the citizens aren't simply choosing from several possible agendas--they're attempting to directly refine an agenda that is already in place. It should definitely be noted, though, that in many cases the indirect electoral control citizens have over policy is more significant than their direct control in demonstrations, etc. because although it doesn't let them directly pursue their own agenda, it allows them to replace the current agenda with one they prefer instead of refining it.

Essay #3 is due this coming Friday (4/8) evening by midnight. For more information please do carefully review the Essay #3 message on the Announcement page and the assignment itself. If you have any questions at all concerning the assignment, please do let me know.

You should send your answer to me via regular email -- no attachments -- just copy and paste your answer into the body of a regular email message. There is an 8-hour grace period extending from midnight Friday to 8am Saturday the 9th. During that time, I will still be accepting answers, but after 8am Saturday, I will no longer accept any answers for Essay #3.

It is important that you include your full name at the top of the text of your email message, and that the subject line of your email message reads POL 120: Essay #3. When I receive your answer, I will send a very short confirmation message. Usually, you will receive it a few hours after your submission; however, if you send your assignment in the evening, I might not get you a confirmation message till the next morning. If you do not received a confirmation message, by all means resend you answer. My point is, if you have not received a confirmation message from me, consider that I have not received your answer. My confirmation message to you is your receipt showing that you have submitted the assignment. I strongly urge you to complete your assignment as soon as possible and never plan on using the grace period. In fact, submitting your essay a few days in advance of the deadline would be the best plan. Remember it is your responsibility to get the assignment to me in the manner I have described above.

Finally, please do remember the key to the assignment is to demonstrate your mastery of the political concepts by incorporating them, in detail, into your examination of the topic. Don't become overly concerned with the topic to the detriment of a detailed discussion of the political concepts, and do be sure to put everything in your own words. If you do use the words, thoughts or ideas of another, you must properly cite your source (author name, publication, and page number) and direct quotes must include the previous reference information and be placed inside quotation marks "...", to do otherwise is plagiarism. I am here to answer any questions you might have about the assignment. I will not review drafts, but if you’d like to send me a skeletal outline of what you are working on (be sure to include the specific political concepts you will use), I’ll be very happy to provide feedback. If you do wish me to look over a skeletal outline, you'll need to get it to me by Tuesday (4/5), otherwise I won't have enough time to thoroughly go over your outline and get you any meaningful feedback in time for you to incorporated it into your essay.

Take care,