Politics- Who Gets What... Laswell

2

CHAPTER1POLITICS: WHO GETS

WHAT, WHEN, AND HOW

POLITICS: WHO GETS

WHAT, WHEN, AND HOW

5831ch01.qxd_mgIIIIIII 8/31/04 4:20 PM Page 2

1 Can you trust thegovernment to do what isright most of the time?Yes ● No ●

2 Should any group other thanthe government have theright to use force?Yes ● No ●

3 Is violence ever justified as ameans of bringing aboutpolitical change?Yes ● No ●

4 Is it ever right to disobey thelaw?Yes ● No ●

5 Should important decisionsin a democracy be submittedto voters rather than decidedby Congress?Yes ● No ●

6 Is the government run by afew big interests looking outfor themselves?Yes ● No ●

7 In a democracy should“majority rule” be able tolimit the rights of membersof an unpopular ordangerous minority?Yes ● No ●

8 Is government trying to dotoo many things that shouldbe left to individuals?Yes ● No ●

9 Does the threat of terrorismon American soil justifyincreased governmentsurveillance of its citizens?Yes ● No ●

Who has power and how they use it arethe basis of all these questions. Issuesof power underlie everything we callpolitics and the study of political sci-ence.

CHAPTER OUTLINE

Politics and PoliticalScience

Politics and Government

The Purposes ofGovernment

The Meaning of Democracy

The Paradox of Democracy

Direct versusRepresentativeDemocracy

Who Really Governs?

Democracy in America

Politics and Political SciencePolitics is deciding “who gets what, when, and how.” It is an activity bywhich people try to get more of whatever there is to get—money, prestige,jobs, respect, sex, even power itself. Politics occurs in many different set-tings. We talk about office politics, student politics, union politics, churchpolitics, and so forth. But political science usually limits its attention topolitics in government.

Political science is the study of politics, or the study of who gets what,when, and how. The who are the participants in politics—voters, special-in-terest groups, political parties, television and the press, corporations andlabor unions, lawyers and lobbyists, foundations and think tanks, and bothelected and appointed government officials, including members of Con-gress, the president and vice president, judges, prosecutors, and bureau-crats. The what of politics are public policies—the decisions thatgovernments make concerning social welfare, health care, education, na-tional defense, law enforcement, the environment, taxation, and thousandsof other issues that come before governments. The when and how are thepolitical process—campaigns and elections, political reporting in the newsmedia, television debates, fund raising, lobbying, decision making in theWhite House and executive agencies, and decision making in the courts.

Political science is generally concerned with three questions. Who gov-erns? For what ends? By what means? Throughout this book, we are concernedwith who participates in politics, how government decisions are made, whobenefits most from those decisions, and who bears their greatest costs (seeFigure 1.1).

Politics would be simple if everyone agreed on who should govern, whoshould get what, who should pay for it, and how and when it should bedone. But conflict arises from disagreements over these questions, and some-times the question of confidence in the government itself underlies the con-flict (see What Do You Think? “Can You Trust the Government?”). Politicsarises out of conflict, and it consists of all the activities—reasonable dis-cussion, impassioned oratory, balloting, campaigning, lobbying, parading,rioting, street fighting, terrorism, and waging war—by which conflict iscarried on.

3


4 CHAPTER 1 • POLITICS: WHO GETS WHAT, WHEN, AND HOW

President and White House staffExecutive Office of the President, including Office of Management and BudgetCabinet officers and executive agency headsBureaucrats

Congress membersCongressional staff

Supreme Court justicesFederal appellate and district judges

VotersCampaign contributorsInterest-group leaders and membersParty leaders and party identifiers in the electorateCorporate and union leadersMedia leaders, including press and television anchors and reportersLawyers and lobbyistsThink tanks and foundation personnel

When and How: Institutions and Processes

Constitution Separation of powers Checks and balances Federalism Judicial review Amendment procedures Electoral system

PresidencyCongress Senate House of Representatives

Courts Supreme Court Appellate courts District courts

Parties National committees Conventions State and local organizations

Press and television

InstitutionsSocialization and learningOpinion formationParty identificationVotingContributingJoining organizationsTalking politics

Running for officeCampaigningPollingFund raisingParading and demonstratingNonviolent direct actionViolence

Agenda settingLobbyingLogrollingDecidingBudgetingImplementing and evaluatingAdjudicating

Civil libertiesCivil rightsEqualityCriminal justiceWelfareSocial SecurityHealthEducation

What Outcomes: Public PoliciesEnergyEnvironmental protectionEconomic developmentEconomic stabilityTaxationGovernment spending and deficitsNational defenseForeign affairs

Processes

Who Governs: ParticipantsGovernmental Nongovernmental

FIGURE 1.1 Who Gets

What, When, and How

Political science is thestudy of politics. Thedistinguished politicalscientist Harold Lassvellentitled his most popularbook Politics: Who GetsWhat, When and How.Thefirst topic of politics is“Who?” (that is, who arethe participants in politics,both within and outside ofgovernment?), “When andhow are political decisionsmade?” (that is, how do theinstitutions and processesof politics function?), and“What outcomes areproduced?” (that is, whatpublic policies areadopted?). Shown here aresome of the topics ofconcern to political science.

Politics and GovernmentWhat distinguishes governmental politics from politics in other institutions in so-ciety? After all, parents, teachers, unions, banks, corporations, and many other or-ganizations make decisions about who gets what in society. The answer is thatonly government decisions can extend to the whole society, and only government canlegitimately use force. Other institutions encompass only a part of society: for exam-

politics Deciding who getswhat, when, and how.

political science The studyof politics: who governs, forwhat ends, and by whatmeans.

Should any group otherthan the government havethe right to use force?

government Organizationextending to the wholesociety that can legitimatelyuse force to carry out itsdecisions.


CHAPTER 3 • THE CONSTITUTION: LIMITING GOVERNMENTAL POWER 5CHAPTER 3 • THE CONSTITUTION: LIMITING GOVERNMENTAL POWER 5

Conflict exists in all political activities as participants struggle over who getswhat, when, and how. From the streets to the Congress to the White House,participants in the political process compete to further their goals and ambitions.

ple, students and faculty in a college, members of a church or union, employeesor customers of a corporation. And individuals have a legal right to voluntarilywithdraw from nongovernmental organizations. But governments make decisionsaffecting everyone, and no one can voluntarily withdraw from government’s au-thority (without leaving the country, and thus becoming subject to some othergovernment’s authority). Some individuals and organizations—muggers, gangs,crime families—occasionally use physical force to get what they want. But onlygovernments can use force legitimately—that is, people generally believe it is ac-ceptable for the government to use force if necessary to uphold its laws, but theydo not extend this right to other institutions or individuals.

Most people would say that they obey the law in order to avoid fines and stayout of prison. But if large numbers of people all decided to disobey the law at thesame time, the government would not have enough police or jails to hold them all.

The government can rely on force only against relatively small numbers of of-fenders. Most of us, most of the time, obey laws out of habit—the habit of com-pliance. We have been taught to believe that law and order are necessary and thatgovernment is right to punish those who disobey its laws.

Government thus enjoys legitimacy, or rightfulness, in its use of force.1 A de-mocratic government has a special claim to legitimacy because it is based on theconsent of its people, who participate in the selection of its leaders and the mak-ing of its laws. Those who disagree with a law have the option of working for its

American Political

Science Association

Association of college anduniversity teachers advisesstudents how to studypolitical science.www.apsanet.org

Is violence ever justified asa means of bringing aboutpolitical change?

legitimacy Widespreadacceptance of something asnecessary, rightful, andlegally binding.



Can You Trust theGovernment?Americans are suspicious of big government. Manydo not trust the government in Washington to “dowhat is right.” Trust in government has varied overthe years, as measured by polls asking, “How muchof the time do you think you can trust the govern-ment in Washington to do what is right? Just aboutalways? Most of the time? Some of the time? Noneof the time?” During the early years of the JohnsonAdministration (and even earlier, during theKennedy and Eisenhower presidencies), public con-fidence in government was high. But in the late ’60sand early ’70s defeat and humiliation in Vietnam ap-peared to diminish public confidence. On the heelsof the Vietnam experience came the Watergate scan-dal and President Richard Nixon’s forced resigna-tion in 1974—the first resignation of a president inU.S. history—causing public confidence in govern-ment to fall further.

Throughout the long years of decline in publicconfidence in government, television broadcastmany negative images of government and publicpolicy. Television producers seldom consider goodnews as “news” but instead focus on violence,

scandal, corruption, and incompetence (see Chapter6, “Mass Media: Setting the Political Agenda”).

But public confidence in government can berestored, as it was in part during the Reagan presi-dency. Perhaps President Reagan’s personal popu-larity was part of the reason that popular confidencein government rose.

Economic recessions erode public confidence ingovernment. People expect the president and Con-gress to lead them out of “hard times.” GeorgeBush’s Gulf War success raised public confidenceonly temporarily; the perceived failure of his ad-ministration to act decisively to restore the nation’seconomic health helped to send public confidence ingovernment back down. Sustained growth in theeconomy during the 1990s under President Clintonimproved public trust in government.

The terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, ralliedAmericans behind their government as no otherevent since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in1941. American flags sprouted from homes, busi-nesses, and automobiles. Trust in government “todo the right thing” leaped to levels not seen sincethe 1960s. This dramatic rise in trust after “9/11” lev-eled off in 2002, but still remained higher than atany time in recent years.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

80

70

60

40

30

20

10

50

0

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1998

2004

2000

Year

Perc

enta

ge E

xpre

ssin

g C

onfid

ence

in G

over

nmen

t

2001

2002

Public Confidence,That the Federal Government Can Be Trusted to “Do What is

Right Most of the Time”

Source: 1992–2004 data from Gallup Opinion Polls (http://www.gallup.com/poll/topics/trust_gov.asd), Copyright © 1992–2004, The Gallup Organization, see also Arthur H. Miller,“Confidence in Government during the 1980’s,” American Politics Quarterly 19 (April 1991): 147–73.See also Marc J. Hetherington and Suzanne Globetti, “Political Trust and Racial Policy Prefer-ences,” American Journal of Political Science 46 (April, 2002): 253–275.


CHAPTER 1 • POLITICS: WHO GETS WHAT, WHEN, AND HOW 7

The King Center

Atlanta-based centercommemorates the life andteachings of Martin LutherKing, Jr.www.theKingCenter.com

Internet

Encyclopedia of

Philosophy

At this site, you can find aconcise description of socialcontract theory along with adiscussion of John Locke’swriting.www.utm.edu/research/iep/

social contract Idea thatgovernment originates as animplied contract amongindividuals who agree toobey laws in exchange forprotection of their rights.

DefenseLink

Official site of theU.S. Department of Defense,with current news as well aslinks to Army, Navy, AirForce, Marine, and otherdefense agencies.www.defenselink.gov

Is it ever right to disobeythe law?

change by speaking out, petitioning, demonstrating, forming interest groups or par-ties, voting against unpopular leaders, or running for office themselves. Since peo-ple living in a democracy can effect change by “working within the system,” theyhave a greater moral obligation to obey the law than people living under regimesin which they have no voice. However, there may be some occasions when “civildisobedience” even in a democracy may be morally justified (see A Conflicting View:“Sometimes It’s Right to Disobey the Law”).

The Purposes of GovernmentAll governments tax, penalize, punish, restrict, and regulate their people. Gov-ernments in the United States—the federal government in Washington, the 50state governments, and the more than 86,000 local governments—take nearly 40cents out of every dollar Americans earn. Each year, the Congress enacts about 500laws; federal bureaucracies publish about 19,000 rules and regulations, the state leg-islatures enact about 25,000 laws; and cities, counties, school districts, and otherlocal governments enact countless local ordinances. Each of these laws restricts ourfreedom in some way. Each dollar taken out of our wages or profits reduces ourfreedom to choose what to do with our money.

Why do people put up with governments? An answer to this question can befound in the words of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States:

We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establishJustice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the gen-eral Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do or-dain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

To Establish Justice and Insure Domestic Tranquility Governmentmanages conflict and maintains order. We might think of government as a socialcontract among people who agree to allow themselves to be regulated and taxedin exchange for protection of their lives and property. No society can allow indi-viduals or groups to settle their conflicts by street fighting, murder, kidnapping,rioting, bombing, or terrorism. Whenever government fails to control such vio-lence, we describe it as “a breakdown in law and order.” Without the protection ofgovernment, human lives and property are endangered, and only those skilledwith fists and weapons have much of a chance of survival. The seventeenth-cen-tury English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes described life without gov-ernment as “a war where every man is enemy to every man,” where people live in“continual fear and danger of violent death.”2

To Provide for the Common Defense Many anthropologists link the ori-gins of government to warfare—to the need of early communities to protect them-selves from raids by outsiders and to organize raids against others. Since theRevolutionary War, the U.S. government has been responsible for the country’s de-fense. During the long Cold War, when America confronted a nuclear-armed, ex-pansionist-minded, communist-governed Soviet Union, the United States spentnearly half of the federal budget on national defense. With the end of the ColdWar, defense spending fell to about 15 percent of the federal budget, but defensespending has begun to creep upward again as the nation confronts the new war onterrorism. National defense will always remain a primary responsibility of UnitedStates government.



Sometimes It’s Right toDisobey the LawCivil disobedience is the nonviolent violation of lawsthat people believe to be unjust. Civil disobediencedenies the legitimacy, or rightfulness, of a law andimplies that a higher moral authority takes prece-dence over unjust laws. It is frequently a politicaltactio of minorities. (Majorities can more easilychange laws through conventional political activity.)

Why resort to civil disobedience in a democracy?Why not work within the democratic system tochange unjust laws? In 1963 a group of Alabamaclergy posed these questions to Martin Luther King,Jr., and asked him to call off mass demonstrationsin Birmingham, Alabama. King, who had been ar-rested in the demonstrations, replied in his now fa-mous “Letter from Birmingham City Jail”:

One may well ask, “How can you advocate break-ing some laws and obeying others?” The answer isfound in the fact that there are unjust laws. I wouldbe the first to advocate obeying just laws. One hasnot only a legal but a moral responsibility to obeyjust laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibil-ity to disobey unjust laws.

King argued that nonviolent direct action was avital aspect of democratic politics. The political pur-pose of civil disobedience is to call attention or “tobear witness” to the existence of injustices. Onlylaws regarded as unjust are broken, and they arebroken openly, without hatred or violence. Punish-ment is actively sought rather than avoided, sincepunishment will further emphasize the injustice ofthe laws.

The objective of nonviolent civil disobedience isto stir the conscience of an apathetic majority and towin support for measures that will eliminate the in-justices. By accepting punishment for the violationof an unjust law, persons practicing civil disobedi-ence demonstrate their sincerity. They hope toshame the majority and to make it ask itself how farit is willing to go to protect the status quo. Thus, ac-

cording to King’s teachings, civil disobedience isclearly differentiated from hatred and violence:

One who breaks an unjust law must do-it openly,lovingly (not hatefully as the white mothers did inNew Orleans when they were seen on televisionscreaming “nigger, nigger, nigger”) and with a will-ingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an indi-vidual who breaks a law that conscience tells him isunjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by stayingin jail to arouse the conscience of the communityover its injustice, is in reality expressing the veryhighest respect for law.

In 1964 Martin Luther King, Jr., received theNobel Peace Prize in recognition of his extraordinarycontributions to the development of nonviolentmethods of social change.

Source: Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter from Birmingham CityJail,” April 16, 1963.

A CONFLICTING VIEW

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., shown here marchingin Mississippi with his wife, Coretta Scott King,and others, used civil disobedience to advancethe rights of African Americans during the 1950sand 1960s. (Copyright Flip Schulke)

To Promote the General Welfare Government promotes the general welfarein a number of ways. It provides public goods—goods and services that private mar-kets cannot readily furnish either because they are too expensive for individuals tobuy for themselves (for example, a national park, a highway, or a sewage disposalplant) or because if one person bought them, everyone else would “free-ride,” or usethem without paying (for example, clean air, police protection, or national defense).

public goods Goods andservices that cannot readily beprovided by markets, eitherbecause they are too expensivefor a single individual to buy orbecause if one person boughtthem, everyone else would usethem without paying.



free market Freecompetition for voluntaryexchange among individuals,firms, and corporations.

gross domestic product

(GDP) The dollar sum of allthe goods and servicesproduced in a nation in ayear.

externalities Costs imposedon people who are not directparticipants in an activity.

income transfers

Government transfers ofincome from taxpayers topersons regarded asdeserving.

democracy Governingsystem in which the peoplegovern themselves, from theGreek term meaning “rule bythe many.”

Nevertheless, Americans acquire most of their goods and services on the freemarket, through voluntary exchange among individuals, firms, and corporations.The gross domestic product (GDP)—the dollar sum of all the goods and servicesproduced in the United States in a year—amounts to more than $10 trillion. Gov-ernment spending in the United States—federal, state, and local governmentscombined—amounts to about $3 trillion, or an amount equivalent to 30 percentof the gross domestic product.

Governments also regulate society. Free markets cannot function effectively ifindividuals and firms engage in fraud, deception, or unfair competition, or if con-tracts cannot be enforced. Moreover, many economic activities impose costs onpersons who are not direct participants in these activities. Economists refer to suchcosts as externalities. A factory that produces air pollution or wastewater imposesexternal costs on community residents who would otherwise enjoy cleaner air orwater. A junkyard that creates an eyesore makes life less pleasant for neighborsand passersby. Many government regulations are designed to reduce these exter-nal costs.

To promote general welfare, governments also use income transfers from tax-payers to people who are regarded as deserving. Government agencies and pro-grams provide support and care for individuals who cannot supply these thingsfor themselves through the private job market, for example, ill, elderly, and disabledpeople, and dependent children who cannot usually be expected to find produc-tive employment. The largest income transfer programs are Social Security andMedicare, which are paid to the elderly regardless of their personal wealth. Otherlarge transfer payments go to farmers, veterans, and the unemployed, as well as toa wide variety of businesses. As we shall see, the struggle of individuals and groupsto obtain direct government payments is a major motivator of political activity(see What Do You Think? “What Government Programs Do You Support?”).

To Secure the Blessings of Liberty All governments must maintain order,protect national security, provide public goods, regulate society, and care for thoseunable to fend for themselves. But democratic governments have a special added re-sponsibility—to protect individual liberty by ensuring that all people are treatedequally before the law. No one is above the law. The president must obey theConstitution and laws of the United States, and so must members of Congress, gov-ernors, judges, and the police. A democratic government must protect people’sfreedom to speak and write what they please, to practice their religion, to petition,to form groups and parties, to enjoy personal privacy, and to exercise their rightsif accused of a crime.

The concentration of government power can be a threat to freedom. If a de-mocratic government acquires great power in order to maintain order, protect na-tional security, or provide many collective goods and services, it runs the risk ofbecoming too powerful for the preservation of freedom. The question is how tokeep government from becoming so pervasive it threatens the individual liberty itwas established to protect.

The Meaning of DemocracyThroughout the centuries, thinkers in many different cultures contributed to thedevelopment of democratic government. Early Greek philosophers contributedthe word democracy, which means “rule by the many.” But there is no single def-inition of democracy, nor is there a tightly organized system of democratic thought.



WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Support for Government Programs

Support a Great Deal Percent

Social Security 69The Armed Forces 64Medicare 64Enforcing workplace safety 63Enforcing laws against discrimination 61Programs for public schools 61Enforcing food and drug safety 60College student loans 56Enforcing minimum wage laws 56Enforcing environmental protection laws 55Federal law enforcement, such as the FBI 45Enforcing family and medical leave laws 40NASA and the space program 34Affirmative action programs 29Welfare programs 24

What Government ProgramsDo You Support?Although many Americans lackconfidence in their governmentin general, they support manyspecific programs of the govern-ment. In somewhat of a paradox,Americans often express distrustin the federal government, yet atthe same time approve of manyof the programs and activities ofthat government.

Source: Council Excellence in Government nationwide survey, February, 1997.www.excelgov.org. Reprinted by permission of Council on Excellence in Government.

The Council on Excellence inGovernment, which conductedthis poll, believes that the mosthighly regarded programs arethose that serve (or potentiallyserve) all Americans, rather thantarget groups.

democratic ideals

Individual dignity, equalitybefore the law, widespreadparticipation in publicdecisions, and publicdecisions by majority rule,with one person having onevote.

It is better, perhaps, to speak of democratic traditions than of a single democraticideology.

Unfortunately, the looseness of the term democracy allows it to be perverted byantidemocratic governments. Hardly a nation in the world exists that does notclaim to be “democratic.” Governments that outlaw political opposition, suppressdissent, discourage religion, and deny fundamental freedoms of speech and pressstill claim to be “democracies,” “democratic republics,” or “people’s republics” (forexample, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is the official name of Com-munist North Korea). These governments defend their use of the term democracyby claiming that their policies reflect the true interests of their people. But theyare unwilling to allow political freedoms or to hold free elections in order to findout whether their people really agree with their policies. In effect, they use the termas a political slogan rather than a true description of their government.3

The actual existence of democratic ideals varies considerably from country tocountry, regardless of their names (see Compared to What? “Freedom and Democracyaround the World”). A meaningful definition of democracy must include the fol-lowing ideals: recognition of the dignity of every individual; equal protectionunder the law for every individual; opportunity for everyone to participate in pub-

U.S. Information

Agency

Official government sitedefining democracy,individual rights, and theculture of democracy www.usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem



Freedom and Democracyaround the WorldWorldwide progress toward freedom over the pasthalf-century has been impressive. In 1950 there were22 democracies accounting for 31 percent of theworld population that were said to be “free.” An-other 21 nations with restricted democratic practiceswere labeled “partly free”; they accounted for an ad-ditional 11.9 percent of the world population. By2000, democracy had spread to 120 “free” countriesthat constituted 58 percent of the world population;an additional 5 percent lived in nations labeled“partly free.” In all, about 63 percent of the worldpopulation were living in democracies. Nonetheless,“not-free” authoritarian and totalitarian regimesgoverned more than one-third of the world’s popu-lation.*

Worldwide progress toward freedom and democ-racy has been evident since 1989 notably as a resultof the collapse of communism in Eastern Europeand the demise of the Soviet Union.

One way to assess the degree of democracy in agovernmental system is to consider its record in en-

suring political freedoms—enabling citizens to par-ticipate meaningfully in government—and individ-ual liberties. A checklist for political freedoms mightinclude whether the chief executive and national leg-islature are elected; whether elections are generallyfair, with open campaigning and honest tabulationof votes; and whether multiple candidates and par-ties participate. A checklist for individual libertiesmight include whether the press and broadcastingare free and independent of the government;whether people are free to assemble, protest, andform opposition parties; whether religious institu-tions, labor unions, business organizations, andother groups are free and independent of the gov-ernment; and whether individuals are free to ownproperty, travel, and move their residence.

The Freedom House is a NewYork-based thinktank that regularly surveys political conditionsaround the world (see map).

*Freedom House, Democracy’s Century (New York: Freedom House,2001).

COMPARED TO WHAT?

2001

Free

Partly free

Not free

60°

40°

20°

0°

20°

40°

180°160°140°120°100°80°60°40°20°0°20°60° 40°80°100°120°140°160°

40°

20°

0°

20°

40°

Kashmir(Indian territory:Not Free)

Kurdistan(Iraqiterritory:Partly Free)

DEM.REP.

OF THECONGO

TUVALU

WESTERNSAMOA

FIJI

TONGACALEDONIA

NEWZEALAND

AUSTRALIA

SOLOMONISLANDS

PAPUANEW GUINEA

VANUATU

KIRIBATI

MARSHALLISLANDSFEDERATED STATES

OF MICRONESIA

PALAU

NAURU

JAPAN

N. KOREAS. KOREA

KAZAKSTAN

MONGOLIAUZBEKISTAN

KYRGYZSTAN

OMAN

PAKIST

AN

AFGHANIS

TAN

PEOPLE'SREPUBLIC

OFCHINA

NEPAL BHUTAN

TAJIKISTAN

IRAN

MALAYSIA

BRUNEI

I N D O N E S I A

SINGAPORE

CAMBODIASRILANKA

VIETNAM

PHILIPPINES

TAIWAN, REPUBLIC OF CHINA

INDIA

BANGLADESHLAOS

THAILAND

MY

AN

MA

R

MAURITIUS

MADAGASCAR

SOUTH

AFRICA LESOTHO

SWAZILAND

NAMIBIA

BOTSWANA

MOZAMBIQUE

ZIMBABWE

ZAMBIA MALAWI

MALDIVES

SEYCHELLES

COMOROS

TANZANIA

SÃO TOMÉ& PRINCIPE

RWANDA

BURUNDI

KENYA

ANGOLA

GABON

CONGO

EQUATORIALGUINEA

UGANDACAMEROON

SOMALIA

C. A. R.ETHIOPIA

DJIBOUTI

ERITREA

SUDANCHAD YEMEN

KUWAIT

NIG

ERIA

NIGER

BENINCOTE DL'VOIRE TOGO

MAURITANIA

SENEGAL

GAMBIA

GUINEA-BISSAUGUINEA

SIERRA LEONE

LIBERIA

MA

L I

BURKINAFASO

CAPE VERDE

SAUDIARABIA

EGYPT

LIBYA

U.A.E.

ALGERIAWESTERN

SAHARA

MO

ROCC

O

ESTONIALATVIALITHUANIA

ALB.

FINLAND

SWEDEN

ST. VINCENT

ME

XI C

O

BAHAMAS

TRINIDAD & TOBAGO

ANTIGUA AND BARBUDADOMINICA

ST. LUCIABARBADOS

GRENADA

GUYANA

FRENCH GUIANASURINAME

BO

LIVIA

PA

RA

GU

AY

AR

GE

NT

INA

CO

LO

MB

I A

B R A Z I L

PE

RU

URUGUAY

CHILE

ECUADOR

HAITIJAMAICA

NICARAGUA

CUBA

DOMINICANREPUBLIC

GUATEMALA

EL SALVADOR

BELIZEHONDURAS

COSTA RICA

PANAMAVENEZUELA

PUERTO RICO

U.S.

U.S.

UNITED STATESOF

AMERICA

C A N A D A

ICELANDGREENLAND

NORWAY

DENMARK

GREATBRITAIN

IRELAND

MALTA

JORDAN

IRAQ

BAHRAINQATAR

ISRAELLEBANON SYRIA

TURKEYTURKMENISTAN

AZERBAIJAN

ARMENIA

GEORGIA

UKRAINEMOLDOVA

BELARUS

GREECE

POLAND

ROM.

BUL.

HUNG.

YUGO.

CZECH.

CYPRUSTUNISIA

PORTUGAL

GERM.

NETH.

BEL.LUX.

SWITZ.ITALYFRANCE

AUS.

SPAIN

HONG KONGMACAO

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Source: Reprinted by permission of Freedom House, 2002.



Freedom House

A think tankmonitoring the ongoingevolution of global humanrights and liberty; provides anannual world survey coveringfreedom’s progressthroughout the state system.www.freedomhouse.org/

Should important decisionsin a democracy besubmitted to voters ratherthan decided by Congress?

National

Endowment for

Democracy

Private advocacy group forworldwide democracy andhuman rights. www.ned.org

lic decisions; and decision making by majority rule, with one person having onevote.

Individual Dignity The underlying value of democracy is the dignity of the in-dividual. Human beings are entitled to life and liberty, personal property, andequal protection under the law. These liberties are not granted by governments; theybelong to every person born into the world. The English political philosopherJohn Locke (1632–1704) argued that a higher “natural law” guaranteed liberty toevery person and that this natural law was morally superior to all human laws andgovernments. Each individual possesses “certain inalienable Rights, among theseare Life, Liberty, and Property.”4 When Thomas Jefferson wrote his eloquent de-fense of the American Revolution in the Declaration of Independence for the Con-tinental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he borrowed heavily from Locke(perhaps even to the point of plagiarism):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are en-dowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Lib-erty and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments areinstituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed,that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is theRight of the People to alter or to abolish it.

Individual dignity requires personal freedom. People who are directed by gov-ernments in every aspect of their lives, people who are “collectivized” and madeinto workers for the state, people who are enslaved—all are denied the personaldignity to which all human beings are entitled. Democratic governments try to min-imize the role of government in the lives of citizens.

Equality True democracy requires equal protection of the law for every indi-vidual. Democratic governments cannot discriminate between blacks and whites,or men and women, or rich and poor, or any groups of people in applying the law.Not only must a democratic government refrain from discrimination itself, but itmust also work to prevent discrimination in society generally. Today our notionof equality extends to equality of opportunity—the obligation of government toensure that all Americans have an opportunity to develop their full potential.

Participation in Decision Making Democracy means individual participa-tion in the decisions that affect individuals’ lives. People should be free to choosefor themselves how they want to live. Individual participation in government is nec-essary for individual dignity. People in a democracy should not have decisionsmade for them but by them. Even if they make mistakes, it is better that they bepermitted to do so than to take away their rights to make their own decisions.The true democrat would reject even a wise and benevolent dictatorship becauseit would threaten the individual’s character, self-reliance, and dignity. The argumentfor democracy is not that the people will always choose wise policies for them-selves, but that people who cannot choose for themselves are not really free.

Majority Rule: One Person, One Vote Collective decision making indemocracies must be by majority rule, with each person having one vote. That is,each person’s vote must be equal to every other person’s, regardless of status,money, or fame. Whenever any individual is denied political equality because ofrace, sex, or wealth, then the government is not truly democratic. Majorities are



In a democracy should“majority rule” be able tolimit the rights of membersof an unpopular ordangerous minority?

paradox of democracy

Potential for conflict betweenindividual freedom andmajority rule.

Is government trying to dotoo many things that shouldbe left to individuals?

The paradox of democracybalances the principle ofmajority rule against theprinciple of individualliberty. When the Germanpeople voted Adolf Hitlerand the Nazi Party intopower, did majority rulegive the Nazis free rein torestrict the individualliberties of the people? Ordid those who abborred thetrespasses of theirgovernment have the rightto fight against its power?

not always right. But majority rule means that all persons have an equal say in de-cisions affecting them. If people are truly equal, their votes must count equally, anda majority vote must decide the issue, even if the majority decides foolishly.

The Paradox of DemocracyWhat if a majority of the people decide to attack the rights of some unpopular in-dividuals or minority groups? What if hate, prejudice, or racism infects a majorityof people and they vote for leaders who promise to “get rid of the Jews” or “putblacks in their place” or “bash a few gays”? What if a majority of people vote to takeaway the property of wealthy people and distribute it among themselves.5 Do weabide by the principle of majority rule and allow the majority to do what it wants?Or do we defend the principle of individual liberty and limit the majority’s power?If we enshrine the principle of majority rule, we are placing all our confidence inthe wisdom and righteousness of the majority of the people. Yet we know thatdemocracy means more than majority rule, that it also means freedom and dignityfor the individual. How do we resolve this paradox of democracy—the potentialfor conflict between majority rule and individual freedom?

Limiting the Power of Majorities The Founders of the American nationwere not sure that freedom would be safe in the hands of the majority. In The Fed-eralist Papers in 1787, James Madison warned against a direct democracy: “Puredemocracy . . . can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. . . . There is noth-ing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious indi-vidual.”6 So the Founders wrote a Constitution and adopted a Bill of Rights thatlimited the power of government over the individual, that placed some personal



Political sociologists haveobserved that the military intotalitarian societies has adistinct body language.Soldiers in Nazi Germanyand, as seen here,communist North Koreaused a “goose step” whenon parade—a march inwhich the knee is unbentand the foot, encased in aheavy boot, is stamped onthe ground, providing apowerful image of authorityand force. In democraticsocieties, the goose step isnot empolyed, indeed, it isregarded as somewhatridiculous.

limited government

Principle that governmentpower over the individual islimited, that there are somepersonal liberties that even amajority cannot regulate, andthat government itself isrestrained by law.

totalitarianism Rule by anelite that exercises unlimitedpower over individuals in allaspects of life.

Should important decisionsin a democracy besubmitted to voters ratherthan decided by Congress?

liberties beyond the reach of majorities. They established the principle of limitedgovernment—a government that is itself restrained by law. Under a limited gov-ernment, even if a majority of voters wanted to, they could not prohibit commu-nists or atheists or racists from speaking or writing. Nor could they ban certainreligions, set aside the rights of criminal defendants to a fair trial, or prohibit peo-ple from moving or quitting their jobs. These rights belong to individuals, not tomajorities or governments.

Totalitarianism: Unlimited Government Power No government can betruly democratic if it directs every aspect of its citizens’ lives. Individuals must befree to shape their own lives, free from the dictates of governments or even ma-jorities of their fellow citizens. Indeed, we call a government with unlimited powerover its citizens totalitarian. Under totalitarianism, the individual possesses nopersonal liberty. Totalitarian governments decide what people can say or write;what unions, churches, or parties they can join, if any; where people must live; whatwork they must do; what goods they can find in stores and what they will be al-lowed to buy and sell, whether citizens will be allowed to travel outside of theircountry; and so on. Under a totalitarian government, the total life of the individ-ual is subject to government control.

Constitutional Government Constitutions, written or unwritten, are theprincipal means by which governmental powers are limited. Constitutions set forththe liberties of individuals and restrain governments from interfering with these lib-erties. Consider, for example, the opening words of the First Amendment to theU.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment ofreligion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This amendment places reli-gious belief beyond the reach of the government. The government itself is re-strained by law. It cannot, even by majority vote, interfere with the personal libertyto worship as one chooses. In addition, armed with the power of judicial review,the courts can declare unconstitutional laws passed by majority vote of Congressor state legislatures (see “Judicial Power” in Chapter 13).

Throughout this book we examine how well limited constitutional governmentsucceeds in preserving individual liberty in the United States. We examine free



New Rules Project

An organizationadvocating local governmentsolutions and “directdemocracy,” including theNew England town meeting.www.newrules.org

direct democracy

Governing system in whichevery person participatesactively in every publicdecision, rather thandelegating decision makingto representatives.

representative democracy

Governing system in whichpublic decision making isdelegated to representativesof the people chosen bypopular vote in free, open,and periodic elections.

speech and press, the mass media, religious freedom, the freedom to protest anddemonstrate, and the freedom to support political candidates and interest groupsof all kinds. We examine how well the U.S. Constitution protects individuals fromdiscrimination and inequality. And we examine how far government should go inprotecting society without destroying individual liberty (see Up Close: “Terrorism’sThreat to Democracy” on page 18).

Direct versus Representative DemocracyIn the Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln spoke about “a government of thepeople, by the people, for the people,” and his ringing phrase remains an Ameri-can ideal. But can we take this phrase literally? More than 281 million Americansare spread over 4 million square miles. If we brought everyone together, standingshoulder to shoulder, they would occupy 66 square miles. One round of five-minute speeches by everyone would take over 2,500 years. “People could be born,grow old, and die while they waited for the assembly to make one decision.”7

Direct democracy (also called pure or participatory democracy), where every-one actively participates in every decision, is rare. The closest approximation todirect democracy in American government may be the traditional New Englandtown meeting, where all of the citizens come together face to face to decide abouttown affairs. But today most New England towns vest authority in a board of of-ficials elected by the townspeople to make policy decisions between town meet-ings, and professional administrators are appointed to supervise the day-to-daytown services. The town meeting is rapidly vanishing because citizens cannotspend so much of their time and energy in community decision making.

Representative democracy recognizes that it is impossible to expect millionsof people to come together and decide every issue. Instead, representatives of thepeople are elected by the people to decide issues on behalf of the people. Electionsmust be open to competition so that the people can choose representatives whoreflect their own views. And elections must take place in an environment of freespeech and press, so that both candidates and voters can freely express their views.Finally, elections must be held periodically so that representatives can be thrownout of office if they no longer reflect the views of the majority of the people.

Direct democracy still livesin many New Englandtowns, where citizens cometogether periodically topass laws, elect officials,and make decisions aboutsuch matters as taxationand land use.



Is the government run by afew big interests lookingout for themselves?

Is the government run by afew big interests lookingout for themselves?

elitism Theory that allsocieties, even democracies,are divided into the few whogovern and the many who donot.

No government can claim to be a representative democracy, then, unless

1. Representatives are selected by vote of all the people.

2. Elections are open to competition.

3. Candidates and voters can freely express themselves.

4. Representatives are selected periodically.

So when we hear of “elections” in which only one party is permitted to run can-didates, candidates are not free to express their views, or leaders are elected “forlife,” then we know that these governments are not really democracies, regardlessof what they may call themselves.

Throughout this book, as we examine how well representative democracy worksin the United States, we consider such issues as participation in elections—whysome people vote and others do not—whether parties and candidates offer thevoters real alternatives, whether modern political campaigning informs voters oronly confuses them, and whether elected representatives are responsive to thewishes of voters. These are the kinds of issues that concern political science.

Who Really Governs?Democracy is an inspiring ideal. But is democratic government really possible? Isit possible for millions of people to govern themselves, with every voice havingequal influence? Or will a small number of people inevitably acquire more powerthan others? To what extent is democracy attainable in any society, and how de-mocratic is the American political system? That is, who really governs?

The Elitist Perspective “Government is always government by the few,whether in the name of the few, the one, or the many.”8 This quotation from po-litical scientists Harold Lasswell and Daniel Lerner expresses the basic idea ofelitism. All societies, including democracies, divide themselves into the few whohave power and the many who do not. In every society, there is a division of labor.Only a few people are directly involved in governing a nation; most people are con-tent to let others undertake the tasks of government. The elite are the few whohave power; the masses are the many who do not. This theory holds that an eliteis inevitable in any social organization. We cannot form a club, a church, a busi-ness, or a government without selecting some people to provide leadership. Andleaders will always have a perspective on the organization different from that ofits members.

In any large, complex society, then, whether or not it is a democracy, decisionsare made by tiny minorities. Out of more than 281 million Americans, only a fewthousand individuals at most participate directly in decisions about war and peace,wages and prices, employment and production, law and justice, taxes and benefits,health and welfare. Even the people themselves have doubts about the accuracyof Lincoln’s words, “a government of, by and for the people.” (See What Do YouThink? “Is the American Government ‘Of, By and For the People’?”)

Elitism does not mean that leaders always exploit or oppress members. On thecontrary, elites may be very concerned for the welfare of the masses. Elite statusmay be open to ambitious, talented, or educated individuals from the masses or maybe closed to all except the wealthy. Elites may be very responsive to public opin-ion, or they may ignore the usually apathetic and ill-informed masses. But whether



C.Wright Mills

Web site devoted toMills, with photos, books,and writings.www.cwrightmills.org

pluralism Theory thatdemocracy can be achievedthrough competition amongmultiple organized groupsand that individuals canparticipate in politics throughgroup memberships andelections.

elites are self-seeking or public spirited, open or closed, responsive or unrespon-sive, it is they and not the masses who actually make the decisions.

Contemporary elite theory argues that power in America is concentrated in asmall institutional elite. Sociologist C. Wright Mills popularized the term power elitein arguing that leaders of corporations, the military establishment, and the na-tional government come together at the top of a giant pyramid of power.9 Othersocial scientists have found that more than half of the nation’s total assets are con-centrated in the 100 largest corporations and 50 largest banks; that the officers anddirectors of these corporations and banks interact frequently with leaders of gov-ernment, the mass media, foundations, and universities, and that these leaders aredrawn disproportionately from wealthy, educated, upper-class, white, male, Anglo-Saxon Protestant groups in American society.10

Most people do not regularly concern themselves with decision making inWashington. They are more concerned with their jobs, family, sports, and recre-ation than they are with politics. They are not well informed about tax laws, for-eign policy, or even who represents them in Congress. Since the “masses” arelargely apathetic and ill informed about policy questions, their views are likely tobe influenced more by what they see and hear on television than by their own ex-perience. Most communication flows downward from elites to masses. Elitism ar-gues that the masses have at best only an indirect influence on the decisions ofelites.

Opinion polls indicate that many Americans agree with the elitist contentionthat government is run by “a few big interests” (see Figure 1.2).

The Pluralist Perspective No one seriously argues that all Americans par-ticipate in all of the decisions that shape their lives; that majority preferences alwaysprevail; that the values of life, liberty, and property are never sacrificed; or thatevery American enjoys equality of opportunity. Nevertheless, most American po-litical scientists argue that the American system of government, which they describeas “pluralist,” is the best possible approximation of the democratic ideal in a large,complex society. Pluralism is designed to make the theory of democracy “morerealistic.”11

Pluralism is the belief that democracy can be achieved in a large, complex so-ciety by competition, bargaining, and compromise among organized groups and

Big Interests 70%

Benefit of All25%

No Opinion 5%

FIGURE 1.2 Public Opin-

ion about Who Runs the

Country

Would you say thegovernment is pretty muchrun by a few big interestslooking out for themselves orthat it is run for the benefit ofall the people?

Source: The Gallup Poll, July 6–9,2000. Copyright © 2001 by TheGallup Organization.



Terrorism’s Threat toDemocracyThe horrifying images of “9/11” will not be easilyforgotten—America’s tallest skyscrapers explodingin flames and crumbling to earth—images projectedover and over again on the nation’s televisionscreens. Commercial airliners, loaded with fuel andpassengers, flown at high speeds directly into thesymbols of America’s financial and military power—the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagonin Washington. Within minutes, thousands of livesare lost on American soll—more than at any timesince the Civil War. After September 11 Americafound itself in a new war, a war against worldwidenetworks of terrorists.

The Goal of Terrorism Terrorism is violence directedagainst innocent civilians to advance political goals.As barbaric as terrorism appears to civilized peo-ples, it is not without a rationale. Terrorists are not“crazies.” Their first goal is to announce in the mostdramatic fashion their own grievances, their com-mitment to violence, and their disregard for humanlife, often including their own. In its initial phase thesuccess of a terrorist act is directly related to thepublicity it receives. Terrorist groups jubilantly claimresponsibility for their acts. The more horrendous,the more media coverage, the more damage, themore dead—all add to the success of the terroristsin attracting attention to themselves.

A prolonged campaign of terrorism is designedto inspire pervasive fear among people, to convincethem that their government cannot protect them,

and to undermine their confidence in their politicalsystem. If the government falls to suppress terror-ism, people become ever more fearful, more will-ing to accept restrictions on liberties, and more opento the appeals of demagogues who promise to re-store order to protect people at any cost. Or a weak-ened government may resort to “negotiations” withthe leaders of terrorist groups, implicitly grantingthem legitimacy and providing them the opportu-nity to advance their goals.

America’s Response But America’s response to theterrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was preciselythe opposite of the intention of the terrorists. Na-tional pride, confidence in national leadership, andfaith in human nature, all soared among the Amer-ican people in the aftermath of the attack. Patriotismflourished. Flags flew from businesses, homes, andautomobiles. The attack united the country in a waythat no other event since the 1941 Japanese attackon Pearl Harbor had done. Trust in government roseto highs not seen since the 1960s. Popular supportfor military action was over-whelming.

Security vs. Liberty However, threats to nationalsecurity have historically resulted in challenges toindividual liberty. Abraham Lincoln suspended thewrit of habeas corpus (the requirement that author-ities bring defendants before a judge and showcause for their detention) during the Civil War. (Onlyafter the war did the U.S. Supreme Court hold thathe had no authority to suspend the writ.*)

*Ex parte Milligan (1866).

UP CLOSE

See Robert A. Pape, “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism,” American Political Science Review 97 (August 2003): 343–361.

Democracy Net

Democracy site ofthe League of Women Voterslinking ZIP codes to yourfederal, state, and localrepresentatives. www.dnet.org

that individuals can participate in decision making through membership in thesegroups and by choosing among parties and candidates in elections.

Pluralists recognize that the individual acting alone is no match for giant gov-ernment bureaucracies, big corporations and banks, the television networks, laborunions, or other powerful interest groups. Instead, pluralists rely on competitionamong these organizations to protect the interests of individuals. They hope thatcountervailing centers of power—big business, big labor, big government—willcheck one another and prevent any single group from abusing its power and op-pressing individual Americans.

Individuals in a pluralist democracy may not participate directly in decisionmaking, but they can join and support interest groups whose leaders bargain on theirbehalf in the political arena. People are more effective in organized groups—for



In February 1942, shortly after the Japanese at-tack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Rooseveltauthorized the removal and internment of JapaneseAmericans living on the West Coast. The U.S.Supreme Court upheld this flagrant violation of theConstitution,† not until 1988 did the U.S. Congressvote reparations and make public apologies to thesurviving victims.

†Korematsu p. U.S., 323 U.S. 214 (1944).

New Restrictions on Americans The “9/11” terroristattack on America inspired Congress and the presi-dent to enact and enforce greater restrictions on in-dividual liberty than the nation had experiencedsince World War II. Congress passed the Patriot Actthat, among other things, allows searches withoutnotice to the suspect; grants “roving” wiretap war-rants that allow government eavesdropping on anytelephones used by suspects; allows the intercep-tion of e-mail; allows investigators to obtain infor-mation from creditcard companies, banks, libraries,did other businesses; authorizes the seizure of prop-erties used to commit or facilitate terrorism; and al-lows the detention of noncitizens charged withterrorism. President George W. Bush created a newDepartment of Homeland Security reorganizing De-partment more than forty federal agencies that havea role in combating terrorism. All of these measuresenjoyed widespread popular support.

Terrorism and Democracy Terrorism has broughtmixed blessings to American democracy. It has suc-ceeded in uniting Americans, inspiring patriotism,and increasing their trust in government. But it hasalso inspired a greater willingness to accept new re-strictions on individual liberty. In the past, restric-tions on individual liberty have been relaxed whenthe perceived crisis has subsided. How long will the“war on terrorism” last? Will Americans be asked tosacrifice additional liberties in this war? How far areAmericans willing to go in sacrificing individual lib-erty to achieve national security?

The horrifying images of “9/11” will not be easilyforgotten—America’s tallest skyscrapersexploding and crumbling to earth—imagesprojected over and over again on the nation’stelevision screens.

The Terrorism

Research Center

News and information onterrorist attacks around theworld and list of terroristorganizations.www.terrorism.com

example, the Sierra Club for environmentalists, the American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU) for civil rights advocates, the National Association for the Advancementof Colored People (NAACP) and the Urban League for African Americans, theAmerican Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars for veterans, and the NationalRifle Association (NRA) for opponents of gun control.

According to the pluralist view, the Democratic and Republican parties are re-ally coalitions of groups: the national Democratic Party is a coalition of unionmembers, big-city residents, blacks, Catholics, Jews, and, until recently, south-erners; the national Republican Party is a coalition of business and professionalpeople, suburbanites, farmers, and white Protestants. When voters choose candi-dates and parties, they are helping to determine which interest groups will enjoya better reception in government.



Is the American Government“Of, By and For the People”?Do you think of the government in Washington asOUR government or as THE government? If a de-mocratic government is truly “of, by and for the peo-ple,” we would expect that the people would think ofit as their own. But national opinion polls indicatethe majority of Americans do not believe that thegovernment belongs to them:

Q. When you think and talk about government, doyou tend to think of it more as THE governmentor as OUR government?

THE government 55%

OUR government 42

Not sure 3

Indeed, a majority do not believe that we have agovernment today that is “of, by and for the peo-ple.”

Q. One goal that Americans have traditionally con-sidered important is to have a government that is“of, by and for the people”—meaning that it in-volves people and represents them. In your opin-ion, do we have a government today that is “of,by and for the people”?

Yes 39%

No 54

Not sure 7

Source: Council on Excellence in Government, as rejected in ThePolling Report, June, 1999.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Pluralists contend that there are multiple leadership groups in society (hence theterm pluralism). They contend that power is widely dispersed among these groups;that no one group, not even the wealthy upper class, dominates decision making;and that groups that are influential in one area of decision making are not neces-sarily the same groups that are influential in other areas of decision making. Dif-ferent groups of leaders make decisions in different issue areas.

Pluralism recognizes that public policy does not always coincide with majoritypreferences. Instead, public policy is the “equilibrium” reached in the conflictamong group interests. It is the balance of competing interest groups, and there-fore, say the pluralists, it is a reasonable approximation of society’s preferences.

Democracy in AmericaIs democracy alive and well in America today? Elitism raises serious questionsabout the possibility of achieving true democracy in any large, complex society.Pluralism is more comforting; it offers a way of reaffirming democratic values andproviding some practical solutions to the problem of individual participation in amodern society.

There is no doubt about the strength of democratic ideals in American society.These ideals—individual dignity, equality, popular participation in government, andmajority rule—are the standards by which we judge the performance of the Amer-ican political system. But we are still faced with the task of describing the realityof American politics.

This book explores who gets what, when, and how in the American political sys-tem; who participates in politics; what policies are decided upon; and when andhow these decisions are made. In so doing, it raises many controversial questionsabout the realities of democracy, elitism, and pluralism in American life. But this



book does not supply the answers; as a responsible citizen, you have to provideyour own answers. At the completion of your studies, you will have to decide foryourself whether the American political system is truly democratic. Your studieswill help inform your judgment, but, in the end, you yourself must make that judg-ment. That is the burden of freedom.

SUMMARY NOTES

■ Politics is deciding who gets what, when, and how. It oc-curs in many different settings, but political science fo-cuses on politics in government.

■ Political science focuses on three central questions:Who governs?For what ends?By what means?

■ Government is distinguished from other social organi-zations in that itExtends to the whole societyCan legitimately use force

■ The purposes of government are toMaintain order in societyProvide for national defenseProvide “public goods”Regulate societyTransfer incomeProtect individual liberty

■ The ideals of democracy includeRecognition of individual dignity and personal freedomEquality before the lawWidespread participation in decision makingMajority rule, with one person equaling one vote

■ The principles of democracy pose a paradox: How canwe resolve conflicts between our belief in majority ruleand our belief in individual freedom?

■ Limited government places individual liberty beyond thereach of majorities. Constitutions are the principal meansof limiting government power.

■ Direct democracy, in which everyone participates inevery public decision, is very rare. Representative democ-racy means that public decisions are made by represen-tatives elected by the people, in elections heldperiodically and open to competition, in which candi-dates and voters freely express themselves.

■ Threats to national security have historically reduced thescope of individual liberty in our nation. The terrorist at-tack on America of September 11, 2001, inspired greaterunity, patriotism, and trust in government among thepeople. But it also brought greater restrictions on indi-vidual liberty.

■ Who really governs? The elitist perspective on Ameri-can democracy focuses on the small number of leaderswho actually decide national issues, compared to the massof citizens who are apathetic and ill informed about pol-itics. A pluralist perspective focuses on competitionamong organized groups in society, with individuals par-ticipating through group membership and voting for par-ties and candidates in elections.

■ How democratic is American government today? De-mocratic ideals are widely shared in our society. But youmust make your own informed judgment about the re-alities of American politics.

KEY TERMS

politics 4

political science 4

government 4

legitimacy 5

social contract 7

public goods 8

free market 9

gross domestic product

(GDP) 9

externalities 9

income transfers 9

democracy 9



democratic ideals 10

paradox of democracy 13

limited government 14

totalitarianism 14

direct democracy 15

representative democracy

15

SUGGESTED READINGS

Barker, Lucius J., Mack H. Jones, and Katherine Tate. African-Americans and the American Political System. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ.: Prentice Hall, 1999. A dynamic analysis ofhow African Americans fare within the prevailing theo-retical, structural, and functioning patterns of the Amer-ican political system.

Cronin, Thomas J. Direct Democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: Har-vard University Press, 1989. A thoughtful discussion ofdirect versus representative democracy, as well as a re-view of initiative, referendum, and recall devices.

Dahl, Robert A. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, Conn.:Yale University Press, 1989. A defense of modern democ-racy from the pluralist perspective.

Dye, Thomas R., and Harmon Zeigler. The Irony of Democ-racy. 12th ed. New York: Wadsworth, 2003. An inter-pretation of American politics from the elitist perspective.

Fukuyama, Francis. Trust. New York: Free Press, 1995. Ar-gues that the breakdown of trust in America—not onlyin the government but at a person-to-person level—isburdening the nation with formal rules and regulations,lengthy contracts, bureaucracy, lawyers, and lawsuits.

Lasswell, Harold. Politics: Who Gets What, When, and How.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1936. Classic description of

the nature of politics and the study of political science byAmerica’s foremost political scientist of the twentiethcentury.

Mills, C. Wright. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press, 1956. Classic Marxist critique of elitism inAmerican society, setting forth the argument that “cor-porate chieftains,” “military warlords,” and a “political di-rectorate” come together to form the nation’s power elite.

Neiman, Max. Defending Government: Why Big Government Works.Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2000. A spiriteddefense of how big government can improve lives of peo-ple.

Page, Benjamin I., and Robert Y. Shapiro. The Rational Pub-lic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. An ex-amination of fifty years of public opinion polls convincesthese authors that American government is generally re-sponsive to the views of the majority.

Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of theAmerican Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001.An argument that Americans are increasinglydisconnected from one another, harming the health ofdemocracy.

elitism 16

pluralism 17



MAKE IT REAL

THE MAP OF FREEDOM

Freedom and democracy are not absolutes, they can developin stages. No country allows its citizens complete freedomand no country can completely eliminate it. The map in thissimulation describes countries as free, partly free, or not

free, based on the criteria of political rights (right to vote,free and fair elections, participation of minorities, etc.). Youwill be asked to finish the map by describing the countriesas “free,” “partly free,” or “not free.”


Politics- Who Gets What... Laswell

Documents

gross domestic product

upper saddle river

martin luther king

england town meeting

nations television screens

political science focuses

birmingham city jail

communist north korea