As you know, the semester is drawing to a close, and the final examination is upon us. As promised, this exam is intended to cover material we have encountered throughout the semester. Almost two hours have been allotted for this exam, which will be divided into sections with which you are doubtless familiar by now.

Below are a few of the highlights of this semester’s investigation of government and politics in the United States. For the purposes of this review, the segments have been divided according to the major themes we have discussed. In addition to this review, you may refer to previously returned exams and whatever comments which may appear as preparation for the final.

Politics, originating from the Greek polis and politeia, deals with questions surrounding the purpose, organization, and conduct of ordered communities. Generally speaking, politics may also be understood as the process by which people within an ordered community relate among one another. Social scientists generally refer to politics as the means by which things of value are allocated, or in laymen’s terms, who gets what when and how.

Government involves the institutional structure by which politics is carried out. All governments must also deal with questions of rule, that is, how does one compel another to obey the directives, or laws, established by or through government, and how does government gain the right to enforce these directives.

The power of government to compel or restrain actions among people in an ordered community is referred to as authority, which the grounds upon which it derives its authority is called legitimacy. Generally speaking, if a government is not legitimate, it maintains itself only through great difficulty, as the Florentine writer Niccolo Machiavelli pointed out, either through force or through fraud.

Under the old science of politics, and especially through Plato and Aristotle, politics was understood as a natural condition of mankind. That man is a political animal was considered a self-evident truth, in that the definition of man included a natural inclination toward banding together to form organized communities. Since being political was a fundamentally human thing to do for both Plato and Aristotle, it was left to examine what kind of political societies were possible, in order to arrive at which one, if any, was the best way to order a community.

Plato favored the institution of a rule by a philosopher king, whose sole interest was the good of the community. However, such a king would be difficult at best to recognize, and this ideal city was practically impossible. Yet while no other regime (way of ordering the life of a city) quite measured up to the rule of the philosopher king, some regimes were preferable to others. In addition, every regime eventually collapses into a less ideal order, resulting in a hierarchy of regimes, with the rule of the philosopher king as the highest, followed by the rule by the best or most virtuous (aristocracy), then by the defenders of the city (timocracy), the few simply (oligarchy), the many (democracy), and finally a tyranny at the lowest.

By contrast, Aristotle recognized that all governments have some good as their reason for being, and that governments don’t always collapse in the manner Plato described. Rather, Aristotle divided governments according to the good they serve as well as their basic institutional structure. These are divided into those which are ordered around the good of all (the virtuous regimes) and those which are ordered around the good of the rulers themselves (the defective regimes) These forms could be either the rule of one, few, or many.

Under the new science of politics, the structure of government was less important than the manner in which it maintained itself, and governments must be established with a view to the natural rights of man, discernible outside the political order itself.

Nowhere are the ideas of the new science of politics more clearly articulated than in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration outlines certain self-evident truths, including the equality of all men, the endowment of certain natural, inalienable rights which cannot be legitimately taken away, including rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Governments are established to secure rights, and they must derive their power from the consent of the people they govern. Whenever government attempts to take away these inalienable rights, or else does not protect its citizens’ natural rights, the people have the right to change or abolish the existing government so that a new government which does secure the rights of the citizens can be put in place.

After the Declaration of Independence, the newly formed United States of America sought to establish a national government which would satisfy the requirements outlined in the Declaration itself. The Articles of Confederation appeared on the surface to meet those demands, but they would soon prove unworkable, largely because the national government lacked many of the powers required to maintain itself.

The Articles of Confederation limited the power of the government of the United States to those expressly found in the Articles themselves. Under a confederation each state retains its independence, entering into a contract with other states for the purpose of mutual aid and advantage.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the Congress of the United States only had the powers explicitly set forth in the Articles themselves. This way each state retains its independence and guarantees its sovereignty (position as sole legitimate authority over the citizens within each state). In a confederacy, the interstate government had certain express powers, but could only exercise those powers if the member states expressly consented. Power in this case flows upward, from the people to the states to the national government. The confederate government has no coercive power over the states or the citizens.

A confederacy was considered preferable to the obvious alternative, a unitary government in which each state derives its authority from a strong central government, and in which each state is reduced to an administrative district of the broader national government. This is a form which most states themselves follow. Under a unitary system, power flows downward.

The Confederation endured for about nine years, (1777-1786) until the obstacles to effective national government forced the states to appoint delegates to amend the Articles of Confederation. However, this effort resulted not in mere amendment to the terms of the confederation; rather, it brought about a fundamental change in the structure of American government.

The changes in the American government from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution of 1787 reflect what Publius (the authors of the Federalist, taken together) called "improvements in the science of politics, " which included the division of political power into distinct branches, the introduction of legislative balances and checks, an independent judiciary, and elected representation in the legislative branch.

The Constitution established a federal form of government: a system whereby a strong national government shared power with state governments. Under a federal system, power flows in both directions: some power is expressly in the hands of the national government, while others are in the hands of the states.

Within the federal government itself, power under the Constitution was divided into three major branches, separated according to function, yet balanced in that some powers were in fact shared. The power to make laws rests in the legislative branch in a bicameral representative (two house) Congress consisting of a House of Representatives and a Senate. The power to enforce laws, the executive power, rests primarily in a single, indirectly elected President, with the ends of unity and energy clearly in mind. The power to resolve disputes rests in an appointed judiciary, appointed in order to shield judges themselves from the tumults of partisan politics.

The idea of a confederation can often be difficult for today’s Americans to grasp, since many of us have grown accustomed to thinking about the United States as a large political unit which has secondary levels of political units. Yet what exists today in the United States is vastly different from the original plan for a government based upon popular sovereignty and the security of natural rights articulated in the Declaration of Independence. In addition, while confederations may have the idea of a league of mutual friendship and defense as the core of their establishment, they may also be arranged differently. Under the Articles of Confederation, for example, a supermajority (In this case, nine out of thirteen) of states must give their express consent before the confederate congress may act. With their neighbors to the west under the Gayanashagowa, each member nation had an absolute veto against the confederate council in limited and specific policy areas. In both confederations, each member unit retained most of the power while the central government had a very limited role in the governing process. Under the Articles of Confederation especially, the loyalty most citizens had was to their state first and formost.

Th primary reason for the establishment of the Articles was to organize the states so they could defeat British forces and secure their independence from Great Britain. Once independence was secured, however, there was less pressure on the states to organize for their mutual good. The Articles also managed to provide a structure that would settle land disputes among the states, and formulated a structure for of government for new territories through the Northwest Ordinance.

However, the lack of a strong central authority to resolve other disputes between the states, and to organize the states for their mutual advantage, including the organization of a militia, was crucial to the development of the Constitutional Convention. The primary aim of the Confederation was to provide for the common defense and to promote the general welfare of the states, while securing the natural rights of the citizens by preserving their sovereignty in the form of independent states. However, since the confederate government did not have power to impose taxation, nor the power to regulate a defense force for the United States except at the highest ranks, it was unable to respond to domestic upheavals such as Shays’ Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. Consequently, the ability of the Confederation even to secure its express aims was called into question.

Establishing the new constitution was no easy task. A major obstacle was found in those who opposed any centralization of government power, as well as in the dispute over how to centralize power without threatening popular sovereignty.

One proposal, labeled the Virginia Plan, called for a bicameral (two-house) representative legislature, in which a lower house would be determined by the population of each state, while the upper house would be chosen by the lower house from nominees selected by the respective state legislatures. An executive would be chosen by this same assembly. This plan would allow for an internal check against the power of the legislative arm of government, but clearly favored those states with large populations. Suffice it to say, it did not sit well with delegates from smaller states.

An alternative proposal, the New Jersey Plan, called for a preservation of the equal representation of the states found under the Articles of Confederation, but insisted on a single house and a body of delegates representing each state to serve on an executive committee. This plan would emphasize the nature of the Union as a Union of States, rather than people, and would ensure state participation in the execution of law.

The two sides debated representation for weeks before the Connecticut delegation proposed a compromise which would incorporate the advantages of a bicameral legislature with the principles of state equality and proportional representation.

The framers of the Constitution produced a document that did have considerably more power for a central authority. However, it is also clear that these men were distrustful of those who would hold this power as well as of the people who would select government officials.

Thus power was divided among three major branches of government, and each power when exercised would seek to gain power from the other branches, but would be counteracted by those other powers. "Ambition," says Publius, "must be made to counteract ambition." Since each branch would try to gain power they would also check the power of the other two branches.

Soon after the Constitution was written, a controversy erupted over whether or not the document should include an enumeration of rights, in order to clarify limitations against the Congress. James Madison proposed twelve amendments to the Constitution which sought to define specific limitations against the Congress, especially in matters of political and religious speech, congressional pay, and criminal cases.

While these amendments were intended to place express restrictions against Congress, others, including Alexander Hamilton, objected, on the grounds that not only would an enumeration of rights be unnecessary, as the Constitution itself implied certain rights, but that it would be dangerous, for an enumeration of rights may subvert the principle of popular sovereignty. If a bill of rights were enumerated, he argued, citizens would begin to suspect that these rights were given by government, and not inherent in themselves. Furthermore, such an enumeration would give cause to ask whether the rights expressly enumerated were the only rights citizens had.

Madison’s response to Hamilton’s objections could be found in the very text of what would be the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, where qualifications are placed on the enumeration of rights and powers generally, as not to indicate that others do not exist (Am. IX), nor that they originate with government (Am. X).

Each government has distinct powers which the other governments are not to override. Very few countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Mexico, and the United States) actually have a federal form of government.

In the United States, the reasons for a federal government include

a preservation of the idea of popular sovereignty as expressed in states which already existed at the time of the framing of the Constitution,

an ability to handle common problems shared by each state

large geographic areas of many states with limited population combined with the isolation of large segments of the nation’s citizens

sectionalism and political subcultures which led many to advocate a pluralist government.

Consequently there are now over 87,000 distinct governments existing in the United States, including the Federal government, state governments, municipal governments, tribal governments, school districts, utility districts, hospital districts, conservation districts, and others. For the most part, however, when we consider the principle of federalism, we are primarily concerned with the relationship between the federal government and the states, or else among the states themselves.

Arguments against federalism historically have tended to rely heavily on states-rights issues and the limits of federal power, as was seen in the Civil War. However, federalism was seen as a compromise between the incommodities of a confederation and the abuses of a unitary government.

Powers delegated to the national government (enumerated powers) include both express and implied powers. Most of the express powers are bestowed on Congress (Art. I.8). Implied powers allow the national government to make decisions which are not expressly found in the text of the Constitution, but which are seen as "necessary and proper" for carrying into execution the powers which are found there. Other powers, such as making law, enforcing law, and settling disputes, are considered inherent, and recognized by all sovereign nations.

In addition to the conduct of elections in the Constitution of 1787, reserved powers of the states include, according to the Tenth Amendment, potentially all powers which were not delegated to the national government (others may be reserved to the people themselves). Interpretation of the Constitution has significantly altered the meaning of this amendment. In 1791 when this amendment was ratified the federal government did not have the same reach that it does today. In theory states retain all powers not delegated to the national government. However, the national government has radically expanded the scope of its action, perhaps at the expense of the states.

Concurrent powers are those which are shares by both the national and state governments. Examples include the power to tax, to make and enforce laws, and to establish courts.

Prohibited powers apply to both the national and state governments. For example, the national government is prohibited from taxing exports. The state governments are prohibited from conducting foreign policy and from having a regular army.

Article VI of the Constitution (the supremacy clause) mandates that actions by the national government are "the supreme law of the land." Any conflict between a legitimate action of the national government and a state are to be resolved in favor of the national government. Today states have accepted the concept of national supremacy, but if a state does not like an action of the national government, the state may question the legitimacy of the action in federal court. Once the federal court has ruled on the legitimacy of the action, theoretically the state accepts the answer.

Yet this was not always the case. How we view the relationship between national and state governments today is not how the relationship began. There were specific major events which dramatically changed the relationship between the national government and the states.

The Constitution outlines generally the structure, the powers, and the limitations of the federal government as well as limitations on the states which arise as a result of the establishment of a strong central government. Despite the enumeration of powers and limitations, however, several ways in which the parts of federal government relate (both horizontally and vertically) can be discerned. Dual Federalism, for example, understands a separation of the states and the federal government into exclusive spheres of influence. Cooperative federalism, on the other hand, emphasizes an expanded role for the national role in state and local affairs. Cooperative federalism, however, has often been cited as a culprit in the expansion of the federal bureaucracy through federal mandates and regulation of categorical grants-in-aid. An alternative, so-called "New Federalism," attempts to shift some power back to state and local governments by allowing states to determine how to spend revenue provided by the national government.

The Enumerated Powers of Congress are set forth in Article I, section 8. Enumerated powers, also referred to as express powers, are specific grants to Congress. These powers include the control of money (taxing, spending, borrowing, and coining), regulation of interstate trade, regulation of the military (regulate state militia, create and regulate an army and a navy, suppress insurrections within states, and to declare war), as well as defining the court structure below the Supreme Court. While these are not all the specific grants of Congressional power, they do represent the powers which Congress relies on to pass a vast number of laws each year. In addition to Article I section 8, Congress has received other grants of power through amendments.

The implied powers of Congress emanate from the "necessary and proper" clause of Article I section 8. This clause allows Congress to make all laws that are deemed to be necessary to carry out the expressed powers. In McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that this clause allows Congress considerable authority to enact laws which may assist the Congress in accompliching goals directly related to the enumerated powers.

The basic principle behind the institution of Congress as a legitimate lawmaking body is that of representation, whereby the citizens elect members to represent their interests and to facilitate the legislative process. However, as there are differences of opinion regarding how best to secure the rights of the citizens, and how best to respond to their interests, at least two competing interpretations of the representative role have emerged with respect to Congress. Those in Congress usually find themselves having to incorporate both ends of the representational spectrum.

One understanding of the representational function is that of the trustee, where, according to the 18^th Century thinker Edmund Burke, the representative is charged with securing the interest of the people he represents, but is not dependent upon their whim. This understanding affords a great amount of flexibility in lawmaking, and allows the representative to argue in Congress according to the dictates of conscience.

A competing vision of the representative is that of the instructed delegate, whereby the representative understands his role has having been given "marching orders" by his constituents. This interpretation focuses on the accountability of the representative to his constituents, and provides an avenue whereby citizens who are not a part of elected government nevertheless maintain access to public policy decision-makers.

Added to these competing views of representation is the variety of ways in which government and citizens relate to each other. The federal bureaucracy, for instance, has become a major source for decision making concerning public policy. Since the bureaucrats have gained considerable power in the last century there has been a development of considerable controversy concerning the proper role for such decision making. An iron triangle, or three-way alliance among legislators, bureaucrats and interest groups (or even individual constituents) seeks to make or preserve policies that benefits the interests of those who participate For Example:

voter who receives Social Security benefits

In the above example, Congress sets up a bureaucracy to provide a service, the benefits of Social Security, to the constituents. The qualifying constituent receives the service and is generally satisfied with that service, so he re-elects the Congressman who supports the agency. However, if the Agency for whatever reason fails to provide the service, (say, a retired citizen qualifying for Social Security benefits fails to receive his check) the constituent may exert pressure on the Congressman to remedy the situation. The Congressman in turn exerts pressure (usually budgetary pressure) on the agency to fix whatever internal problem prevented the service from being provided. If the problem is remedied and service to the constituent is restored, the constituent as voter may act favorably towards the Congressman and support him in the next election. With enough similar support the Congressman is re-elected, and he may support continued or even expanded budgetary consideration for the agency in question. The agency would generally favor an increase in their budget, partly to sustain their day-to-day activities, and partly to continue providing their service to the constituent. In this way all participants in the triangle are satisfied.

Under an iron triangle bureaucrats do not act as impartial administrators. Instead the bureaucrats may act as agents, either for a special interest, attempting to influence Congress to enact laws generally favorable to the groups they serve or regulate, or else for legislators, providing their own agencies as an indirect instrument whereby a Congressman can gain support for a re-election campaign.

Ultimately, the bureaucracy must answer both the president and Congress. Congressional control of the bureaucracy is especially significant since Congress establish agencies and departments in the first place. In addition, Congress holds the "power of the purse," meaning that Congress ultimately authorizes and appropriates the funds necessary to keep the bureaucracy running. Finally, Congress may oversee the bureaucracy through investigations and committee hearings to determine whether or not bureaucratic agencies are performing according to Congressional intentions.

According to Publius, faction is inevitable whenever one attempts to establish an order whose intended aim is to secure the rights and liberties of its citizens. This claim becomes more evident when one examines the differences of opinion about what is meant in the Declaration of Independence by "life," "liberty," or "the pusuit of happiness." Writing as Publius, Madison points out that

Incidentally, there are two principal ways in which one can address the problem of faction. The first, eliminating the causes is seen to be "worse than the disease," for to eliminate the causes of faction would destroy liberty in an effort to force everyone to share the same opinions. Such a policy would directly contradict the purpose of government outlined in the Declaration, not to mention the Constitution, of securing rights on the one hand, and securing "the blessings of liberty" on the other.

The second means of addressing the problem of faction is to control its effects. In this case, faction is recognized as "sown in the nature of man," yet the problem is made even more difficult when a nation or a government seeks to secure liberty, for "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires." In order to allow for political discourse, liberty must be secured; when liberty is secured faction will spread, and the most one can (or should, in Publius’ account) do is control only the most harmful effects of faction. Thus we live in a nation rife with differences of opinion, and groups who all seek to affect government.

These differences of opinion are often expressed either through voting in elections; through public demonstrations, including boycotts, protests, or even violence; or through organized efforts as part of an interest group.

One looks to the distribution of public opinion—the aggregate of individual attitudes or beliefs shared by some portion of the citizenry—in order to determine how united or divided the public is on any given issue. When there is general agreement, there is said to be a consensus. When opinions are sharply divided, it is a divisive opinion. When not enough have formed an opinion, there is said to be a non-opinion. Yet, public opinion is different from private opinion, in that public opinion must be expressed.

In order to understand how public opinion is formed, it is important to understand how individuals form their opinions. Political socialization is the process by which individuals acquire political beliefs and attitudes. The interactions an individual has with others has a major impact on the formation of individual opinion. Some of the most important factors include family, educational influence, peer groups, religious orientation, economic status; demographic traits such as race, gender, age, marital status and geography; as well as the influence of formal and informal leaders, generational effects, and information media. These factors not only affect individual opinion, they also affect how these opinions may ultimately be expressed, including whether or not one votes, joins an interest group, or supports a political party.

An interest group is any organization whose members share common goals and which actively attempts to influence government policy. More specific than a faction where each group seeks its own interest generally, an interest group must have some level of organization, and seeks actively to secure its interests by affecting public policy. When people who have commonly shared interests work together to change a law or to affect any aspect of public policy they are acting as an interest group. Unless participation were strictly limited to individual participation in a popular government, interest groups are inevitable, especially since organized groups are more likely to have influence than groups who lack organization. Furthermore, although groups which have a large membership are also more likely to exert more influence than those with few members, even relatively small groups, such as a farmers’ union, can still influence policy. Generally, however, an interest group requires a combination of organization and large numbers to ensure success.

After an interest group has formed, its members are likely to attempt to recruit new members. The larger the membership is, the more likely it will be successful. Individuals may choose to join an interest group for a variety of reasons. There may be social benefits, such as group activities, social events, or public recognition. There may be economic benefits, or opportunities derived from participating in the interest group. Some are committed to a particular issue, and their beliefs draw them toward an organization that focuses on that issue. Generally, individuals become part of interest groups for a variety of reasons, and have multiple incentives for their participation.

Consequently, there are thousands of interest groups in the United States. Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out that "in no country of the world has the principle of association been more successfully used or applied to a greater multitude of objectives than in America." This statement is no less true today than in 1834 when Tocqueville made the observation. Why are interest groups so successful in the United States? Perhaps the very structure of American government lends itself to their reinforcement, since "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire."

Since an interest group is any organization whose members share the same basic objective and actively seek to secure that objective by influencing government policy, nearly any organization can be an interest group. In fact, interest groups often form alliances with others to achieve their ends. Some are active at the national level, others at the state level, some at the local level, and others at all levels of government. Generally, an interest group can include the following:

In order for an interest group to be successful, it must be able to influence officials who are responsible for making public policy. There are two primary methods used to influence officials of the government: direct action toward the official, and indirect action which is an attempt to have others directly influence the official.

Direct techniques include

1. private meetings with public officials
2. testifying before congressional committees
3. testifying before regulatory agencies
4. submitting proposed legislation to congressmen or state legislators for introduction
5. arranging social gatherings for informal discussions
6. providing information to legislators

1. Ratings lists. Published voting records on selected votes by members of the legislature. A higher rating indicates support for issues important to the interest group publishing the ratings list. A lower score indicates opposition.
2. Campaign assistance, including endorsements for election, unpaid volunteers who work for the election of the candidate, and information about voters or potential voters.
3. Financial contributions. Political Action Committees (PACs) provide candidates with contributions which cannot exceed $5000 per election. This is referred to as a hard money contribution, as is a contribution made by an individual donor, which cannot exceed $1000 per candidate. These limits were imposed in 1974 in an effort to limit the practice of individuals and interest groups securing support for their interests by financing a congressman’s campaign. Of greater concern more recently is the issue of soft money, that is, financial contributions by individuals and special interests not to campaigns, but to the political parties to which the target candidate is a member. Currently there are no limits on soft money contributions, and efforts to regulate soft money through legislation have met with opposition in Congress.

Indirect techniques include:

In generating public pressure or using constituents as lobbyists, interest groups generally employ one of two basic methods:

Efforts have been made to regulate the direct efforts of lobbyists in government. In 1946, the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act established guidelines, which required anyone who received money for the purpose of influencing legislation to register as lobbyists. It also required that they disclose their lobbying-related financial information and make quarterly reports about their activities. In 1995, the 105^th Congress overhauled the lobbying laws, redefining a lobbyist as anyone who spent 20% of the time lobbying members of Congress, and requiring lobbyists to register within 45 days of making contact with a congressman. Reports must disclose the nature of the lobbying business twice a year, and lawyers for foreign companies must register as lobbyists. Tax-exempt organizations and religious organizations, however, are exempt from the 1995 requirements.

Many claim that these regulations are not strong enough to curb the power of organized interests. At the beginning of each new Congress, numerous proposals which would dramatically restrict interest group activity are proposed. However, since interest groups are already highly successful at influencing legislation, most of these proposals quickly die in Congress.

In a way, political parties are themselves interest groups, and at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, they were generally understood to be a part of the "associations" Tocqueville would write about in 1834. Although there is no provision for political parties in the Constitution, they have evolved into a crucial part of the operation of government. Unlike other interest groups, a political party is primarily focused on electoral politics. The goal of any political party in the United States, is simply to have its members hold elective offices, although a competing theory of partisan behavior describes a "responsible party" organization which develops a party platform and ensures that party candidates and elected party members adhere to party principles and objectives. They recruit candidates, they organize and run elections (although the responsibility for the conduct of general elections falls to individual states), and mobilize their membership among voters. They present alternative policies to the electorate, and make clear the party position on particular issues, usually in the form of a party platform. Finally, they provide opposition to the party whose members form a majority in Congress, or hold executive offices such as the Presidency.

Political parties did not formally exist when the Constitution was ratified, but the seeds of the two-party system we now see originated among supporters of the Constitution (Federalists) and those who thought the state should be a locus of authority and a advocated a Bill of Rights (anti-Federalists) From 1790 to 1816 the political landscape began to form, with the Federalists as the first party to gain control of the national government. By 1796 the Democratic-Republicans, headed by Thomas Jefferson, had entered into the process. This party held the government from 1817 to 1828 and today’s Democratic Party claims its origins with Jefferson. The Federalists eroded as a viable party, to be replaced in a two-party system in 1828 by the National Republicans, or Whigs. This would last until the 1840s when the Whigs began to collapse and the Democrats split into separate factions. The Republican Party did not become a factor until shortly before the Civil War. From 1860 to about 1928 the Republicans controlled the government and the Democrats were seen as the opposition party. Since the 1930s these two parties have traded control of the government, while minor parties have had only a very limited influence.

Political parties in the United States are composed of three components:

The party organization, which provides leadership and structure for the party, outlining a party platform, fielding candidates, and submitting electors to represent their party in presidential elections.

The party in electorate, which includes those people who identify with the party or who regularly vote for the candidates of the party in general elections. Without the party in electorate it would not be possible for the party to have electoral success.

The party in government, which includes all elected and appointed officials who gained office on the label of the party. Once in office the leaders work to organize the efforts of the party in order to influence government policy which is favorable to the platform of the party. In this way it is clear that a political party, while unique in its institutionalized electoral position, is nevertheless a kind of interest group.

For a political party to be successful, it must have all three components. Institutional obstacles such as state and federal laws which favor the existence of a two-party system, the winner-take-all electoral system, and social self-perpetuation of the two-party system have all prevented new parties from developing or even allowing existing third parties to have parties in government. However, minor parties have had an impact in that they raise issues which the two major parties must address.

Political parties may choose the candidates they field for a particular elected office through a variety of means, including caucuses and primary elections. The older method, the caucus, focuses on the party organization, who meet to establish the party platform and choose those members who will seek to attain elected office. Caucuses may also be opened to include those party members in the electorate who wish to participate. Generally only those in attendance may choose who shall run.

In a primary election, on the other hand, the choice of nominee is up to the party in electorate through an election, not unlike a general election for the office itself. Most state parties have adopted the primary election system in order to connect partisanship with the electorate. Primaries may either be closed, or direct, primaries, in which only declared party members may participate in the election, or they may be open primaries, in which any registered voter in the state or district is eligible to participate. Primaries and caucuses are the principal methods by which the field of potential candidates for any election, but especially the Presidential election, may be narrowed down. Consequently electoral politics typically receives a great amount of attention from news media organizations, often publishing poll results and following the "horse race" that is an electoral season.

Interest groups and political parties, in order to succeed in their efforts to influence public policy or win an election, must communicate not only with government, and not only with their party leadership, but also with the public at large. The media exists to provide the public with information, and since the information media in the United States is not directly controlled by the government itself, it has become a principal means by which parties and interest groups communicate with the public in their efforts to influence policy and opinion.

The various types of media in the United States are owned by people in the private sector, meaning that the media is a business. Ultimately the object of media is to make a profit for the owners. This drive for profit in turn influences the time media organizations spend on any particular subject. How much time is devoted to public affairs or government is directly tied to the purchasing power of the public. Furthermore, media organizations, because they are themselves businesses, also seek to influence public policy in ways that will benefit their business. Thus even the media is a special interest. The media’s functions include:

Entertainment

Reporting news

Identifying public problems, either by setting the public agenda or by investigating possible wrong-doing.

Socializing new generations in to the political culture

Providing a political forum, either through paid-for political announcements, news coverage of political events, or political debates.

Making profits, mostly through selling advertisements

Currently the most influential type of media is television. Before television and radio, voters received political information primarily through newspapers. Today, however, voters receive most information from some type of electronic medium.

The proper role for the media in government is hard to define. At minimum the media is responsible for informing the public about topics which are important to the public so that the public can attempt to influence government policy. Some would argue that the media is also responsible for informing the public about government actions which the government would prefer to make public, at least not at this time. If the latter is considered to be a part of the media’s role the media and the government will be adversaries on occasion.

Investigative reporting has been very popular with the American public. Since the Watergate scandal of 1972, the media has devoted considerable attention to investigating the government. Such investigations have revealed covert actions by the executive branch which may not have become public had such investigations not been conducted. More recently investigative reporting has focused on Congress and scandals about the House banking system as well as other alleged inappropriate actions concerning perks have become public.

The relationship between the media and the presidency has been seen often to be symbiotic, where each needs the other to accomplish major objectives. The media needs information about the development of policy in the executive branch, while the president needs the media to report his ideas to the public in order to gain public support for those ideas. Yet the complexity of the nature of the relationship between the media and the President became increasingly clear during the scandal involving President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. It quickly became clear that the media would benefit with increased profits from sales and viewers from embarrassing details about the scandal. The relationship between the media and the President is likely to remain complicated. How much access the media should have to the president and to the rest of government will be determined by the media and government officials because of the needs the media and government have for each other.

Below are a few of the highlights of this semester’s inquiry in to Texas Government, which will appear on the final. For the purposes of this review, the segments have been divided according to major themes we have covered. In addition to this review, you may refer to previously returned exams and whatever comments which may appear as preparation for the final.

Political culture is typically defined as the attitides, habits, and behavior that shape a region’s politics. All countries have a distinct political culture. In the United States, this is characteristically shared by diverse groups of citizens around the nation, including naturalized citizens, and incorporate principles of liberty, equality, property, popular sovereignty, and fraternity. How these principles are prioritized, however, differs among citizens, and has given rise to three distinct political subcultures, two of which find their expression clearly in Texas. The two predominant political cultures found in the Lone Star State are what social scientists describe as "individualistic" and "traditionalistic." The former is rooted in notions of independence, self-reliance, free enterprise, and a general distrust of government. The latter emphasizes maintaining the prevailing social and political order, preserving the status quo, and resisting change.

Remember that federalism is understood as a constitutional sharing of power between national and state governments. It is distinct from either a unitary or a confederate form of government in terms of the flow of power and the relation between different levels of government. In a unitary government, "states" would be understood as merely administrative districts determined by a central national government. Power flows in one direction: from the national government to the states. On the other hand, in a confederation the national government depends entirely on the states for its existence and legitimacy, and is limited in power to whatever the states are willing to grant to it. Thus power in a confederacy flows in one direction: from the states to the national government.

In contrast, a federal system relies on power flowing in both directions, shared by both the states and the national government. Power is vested in both states and the national government, and both states and the national government are limited in their powers. This unique relationship is outlined in the US Constitution, and the federal character further influences the Texas Constitution.

Texas has lived under seven constitutions, and by reading any of these constitutions, one can get a sense of the political and social conditions which surrounded those who adopted them. The current constitution in Texas was ratified in 1876, and reflects strongly the individualist and traditionalist political cultures which still prevail in the Lone Star State. The current document puts severe limits on state power, and the framers’ fear of centralized power is most evident in the limitations on legislative sessions, the establishment of a plural executive and a dual court system. To punctuate Texans’ general distrust even of their own government, the state Constitution includes a detailed Bill of Rights at the beginning of the document.