American Government Field Examination, Day One, August 2003

 

 

 

 

Part I – Answer one question

 

 

 

1.  Many scholars argue that beginning in the 1960s a "rights revolution" transformed American public policy. What is this alleged revolution and what evidence is there that it took place?  The historical status of a rights revolution notwithstanding, are "rights" (such as freedom of speech, the right of women to choose an abortion, property rights, and budgetary entitlements like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) truly insulated from politics? Or are rights subject to political attack and renegotiation no less than any other domestic policy instruments?  If rights can indeed be curbed or scaled back, does the term "right" have any real meaning in the modern U.S. state?

 

 

 

2.   Scholars such as Theodore Lowi, Theda Skocpol, and Stephen Skowronek have written about the development of an American "State." And yet, the absence of a sense of state seems to be a distinct part of the American political tradition. Does America have a State? What are its distinguishing features? What are the key historical developments that led to its formation in the United States?

 

 

 

 

Part II – Answer two questions

 

 

1.  David Mayhew argues that the electoral realignments perspective on American political development does not hold up under scrutiny and that scholars should abandon its terminology entirely.  What are the major empirical claims of realignment theory?  Be specific.  Why does Mayhew argue that the realignments model is wrong?  Do you agree with Mayhew's negative assessment, or do you think the realignments perspective remains a valuable one?  Justify your answer.

 

2.  Since the Warren Court, there has been much talk among scholars about an “imperial judiciary” and, more recently, about legalistic means of trying to resolve problems, such as higher education admissions standards? Have the Court and legalistic processes been so dominant in American political life?  Or does the Judiciary depend on “institutional partners,” such as Congress, the executive, and advocacy groups, to make its presence felt in the work of American constitutional government? Even with such “partners,” have the courts and legal processes achieved supremacy in too many areas, in Robert Kagan’s phrase, subjected American political life to a paralyzing and destructive form of “adversarial legalism”? Give specific examples of how judicial action has affected other institutions and public policy.

 

3. Some argue that the goal of strengthening federalism (understood here in the sense of protecting an important role for state governments within the overall political system) is one more often preached than practiced. Does this describe the case today? What are the chief forces at work –institutional, political, economic, cultural, etc. - that affect the strength of federalism? Is there a realistic program today for "strengthening federalism"? If so, by the initiative of what process or which institution(s) might it be launched and sustained?  How might it proceed and succeed'?

 

4. Political organizations called  “interest groups” are said to play a significant role in American politics. What are these “interests,” what are “interest groups,” how are interest groups mobilized or activated, and how are their roles in American politics best characterized? Does the American constitutional system encourage interest group politics and influence, or does the significant role interest groups play mark a departure from constitutional principles and institutional arrangements?

 

5. Congress is the most open and accessible branch of U.S. national government, and parties and committees are Congress’s most visible organizational forms.  Their activities are front-page news almost daily. Despite the prominence of committees and parties in the House and Senate, legislative scholars disagree vehemently over whether parties and committees really matter and, if these organizational forms do indeed possess significant influence, what their primary political functions are  (e.g., supplying policy information, cementing distributive bargains, enforcing majority rule, etc).

 

Why have legislative scholars been unable to reach a consensus on such basic questions?  What kinds of evidence would be needed to resolve these debates?  From the standpoint of scientific progress, have the major debates in the congressional literature over the past twenty or so years been productive ones, or do you think they have diverted scholarly attention from more important issues?  Support your answer with references to the contemporary literature on the American Congress.

 

 

6.  Scholars have debated whether a “modern” presidency emerged during the twentieth century. Some students of the presidency argue that many of the most important characteristics of the executive office date from the Constitutional Convention and the earliest days of the Republic. Others point out that significant patterns and practices took shape during the nineteenth century. Did the presidency undergo a fundamental transformation during the twentieth century? What are the key periods that mark this development? What are the distinguishing features of the modern executive office? Does the modern presidency embody a fundamental constitutional change? Be sure to support your answer with specific examples.