American Government Field Examination, Day One, January 2003

 

 

 

 

Part I – Answer one question

 

1)      Although some prominent political scientists stress the importance of incorporating historical analysis into the study of policy making, the fact is that public policy outcomes are determined by the contemporary 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 social science literature on path dependency, increasing returns, and policy feedbacks add to political analysis?

 

2) The Progressive era gave voice to champions of “direct democracy,” which has had an important influence on American political life ever since. This celebration of popular rule became especially powerful during the 1960s and 1970s, when advocates of “participatory democracy” were influential in the reform of the political process and government institutions. Their legacy is not only seen in the expanded use of initiatives and referenda in the States and a transformation in the presidential nomination process, but also in the close attention public officials and the press pay to “public opinion.”  Has progressive democracy remade politics and government in the United States? Has it strengthened “democracy” at the cost of “liberalism”? Or has the promise of a more democratic republic been sorely disappointed, empowering new elites including a small circle of advocacy groups and issue activists?

 

 

Part II – Answer two questions

 

 

1. 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?

 

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 the use of tobacco? 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. Many scholars discern a more aggressive Congress since the late 1960s. Has there been a resurgence of Congressional power in the formulation and administration of public policy during the past three decades? Should this development merely be viewed as a renewal of the constitutional system of separated powers, after several years of expanded presidential influence? Or has Congress achieve greater influence by becoming more like the executive branch – more administrative – in its organization and practices? If the latter is true, what are the consequences for maintaining an energetic and accountable executive? A representative Congress?

 

6. How is the content of the policy agenda set in the United States today? To what extent does the current agenda-setting process ensure that policymakers focus their attention of the concerns most important to average citizens? On the concerns most important to policy experts?