American Government Field Examination, Day One, January 2004

 

 

 

 

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?  Given the foundational status of rights in American political life, can one call this a revolution? 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 instrument?  If rights can indeed be curbed or scaled back, does the term "right" have any real meaning in the modern U.S. state?

 

 

 

2.   Although some prominent political scientists stress the importance of incorporating historical analysis into the study of contemporary politics and government, the fact is that current political developments are determined by the strength of clientele groups. For example, Social Security and Medicare have been protected because seniors are a strong constituency while the AFDC entitlement was scrapped because the poor are politically marginalized. History has nothing to do with it.

 

Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Be sure to justify your answer with specific examples. What, if anything, can the growing subfield of American Political Development add to political analysis?

 

 

 

 

Part II – Answer two questions

 

 

1. Some rational choice scholars argue that American politics is best understood as a chain of principal-agent relationships:  the citizenry empowers the Congress, which in turn delegates its collective power to its various standing committees, which in turn delegate authority to various bureaus (e.g., the EPA, IRS, etc), which are organized internally as administrative hierarchies.  From this theoretical perspective, the key issue is democratic control.  Good government obtains when each agent receives the proper incentives from its political superiors. 

Is principle-agent theory a useful framework for understanding American national government?   What insights does it offer that other frameworks downplay or ignore?  What if anything does principal-agent theory mask or suppress?  Justify your answer with cites to relevant works and concrete examples.

 

 

2.  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.

 

3.  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.

 

4. 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'?

 

5.                     The press is no substitute for institutions. It is like the beam of a searchlight that moves restlessly about, bringing one episode and then another out of darkness and into vision. Men cannot do the work of the world by this light alone. They cannot govern by episodes, incidents, and interruptions.

 

Walter Lippmann

 

 

Does Lippmann anticipate a critical failing of modern democracies? Does this failing stem from mass media displacing institutions? (Discuss one or two institutions) Could what Lippmann says here about the press (or media) also be said about public opinion? What happens when media and public opinion intrude on the domain of institutions?

 

 

6.Political scientists have long argued that U.S. officeholders have a strong electoral incentive to please the median voter, but in recent years Congress has enacted many laws that offer few if any benefits to middle-of-the-road Americans (e.g.,. farm subsidy legislation, the phase-out of the estate tax paid by super wealthy Americans, etc.).  How can we make sense of such “off median” policy outcomes? Do these outcomes suggest that the federal government does not represent the concerns of average citizens? Under what conditions can average citizens have real political influence in the American polity today?

 

7. Stephen Skowronek argues in The Politics Presidents Make that certain presidents in history-Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan -have played the principal part in "reconstructing" the American constitutional order during their time in office.  Have presidents truly been "regime builders'"? Or has it been political parties, or perhaps Congress? Or some relationship among presidents, Congress, and parties? What attributes of the presidency as an institution might be said to make it possible for presidents to bring about such critical transformations? What about parties or Congress?  Is the role of the regime builder compatible with the concept of republican government held by the Framers of the Constitution? Or, has the presidency played a part in history that was not anticipated by the architects of the Constitution?