Understanding and Evaluating American Politics


I. Introduction

We in the United States are participants in the world-wide struggle for democracy because American political ideas and
institutions often have provided inspiration for democratic movements around the world. Even in the U.S., however,
democracy has not been fully realized. The focus of chapter 1 is to describe how American politics works and to develop a
way to think more clearly about the nature of democracy.


II. To Understand and Evaluate

Many Americans are overwhelmed and confused by the avalanche of political information reported by the news media. Chapter 1 helps students make sense of a complex political world by providing a framework for understanding why political events occur and developing a definition of democracy that can be used as a standard for evaluating the quality of political
life in America. 

III. The Collapse of Jim Crow

The rigid system of racial segregation known as Jim Crow developed in southern states near the beginning of the twentieth century and remained firmly in place for over fifty years. This legalized system of segregation provided for the separation of the races in schools, restaurants, public transportation, and residential neighborhoods. Blacks were denied access to the protection and services provided by government and barred through various means from the right to vote.

In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the legally sanctioned system of racial segregation in public schools in the famous case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. This decision reversed the judicial doctrine of separate but equal which had been established in 1896 in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson. Nonetheless, the Brown case did not bring an immediate end to legalized segregation in public schools nor in other public facilities. Despite Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, segregation remained firmly in place throughout the early 1960s.

It was not until Congress adopted the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act that significant advances took place in the area of civil rights. These pieces of landmark legislation swept away legalized segregation in public accommodations and provided for strict federal monitoring to protect the voting rights of blacks.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act banned legalized segregation in public accommodations (hotels, restaurants, terminals, movie
theaters, etc.) and made it possible for the national government to protect citizens from discrimination in voting, education, and employment. The act also empowered the federal government to sue states that did not comply with these new federal guidelines.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act provided for the suspension of literacy tests and the assignment of federal voting registrars to register citizens in those states and counties where less than half the voting age population had voted in the 1964 election.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act profoundly affected the political and social environment of the South. Legalized segregation was swept away, large numbers of blacks and other minorities began voting, and more blacks were elected to public office than ever before.

Nevertheless, these laws were unable to sweep away all the informal forms of segregation that existed in housing, education, and the job market. These laws also failed to significantly improve the economic well-being of blacks and other minorities.


IV. A Framework for Understanding American Politics

Why were the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed? What factors accounted for the passage of this legislation or any legislation for that matter? The textbook develops a framework for answering these questions by examining the different actors and influences which can have an impact on what government does. The first step in understanding why something happened is to look at the different actors and influences involved in the process to
determine the effect that each had on a particular outcome.

The individuals, organizations, processes, and institutions that are involved in American politics can be grouped into a limited number of categories of political actors or influences, such as "political parties," "interest groups," "Congress," and "the economic system." Political actors and influences interact with each other in somewhat different ways, depending on the their level within the political system.

The textbook categorizes actors along three different levels: the governmental level, the political level, and the structural level. The governmental level includes public officials and public institutions (such as Congress and the president) which have formal roles in making policy. The political level includes such things as public opinion, political parties, interest groups, elections, the media, and social movements which are involved in transmitting the preferences of individuals and groups to the government.

Finally the structural level includes factors such as the economy, population, Constitution, political culture, and the place of the United States in the international system. Structural factors are beyond the direct control of government officials but have a profound effect on what actions the government takes. For example, the fact that the United States is currently the preeminent military power in the world greatly influences its foreign policy decisions. 

All of these factors must be considered when developing explanations for political phenomena. All three levels and the interrelations among them must be understood in order to develop an integrated view of what goes on in government. It 
is important to understand, for example, that the actions of public officials are not simply the product of personal desires of the officials but are also the product of influences from political institutions, factors on the political level, and the context of the political structure.

The textbook's framework is useful for explaining the passage of civil rights legislation during the mid-1960s. Governmental influences include public officials and institutions, particularly the president and the U.S. Congress. Both Presidents Kennedy and Johnson as well as majorities in both houses of Congress supported passage of civil rights legislation.

However, the efforts of these officials in enacting such measures were hampered by other officials (particularly members of Congress from southern states) who wanted to block the legislation.

Passage was also impeded by the organization of Congress and its committees. Southern whites who chaired powerful
committees within both houses attempted to kill such legislation before it ever came up for a vote. In the Senate, southern senators used the filibuster to prevent civil rights legislation from coming to a vote.

After he became president in 1963, Lyndon Johnson was able to transform the country's grief over the assassination of
President Kennedy into support for many of Kennedy's programs, including civil rights legislation. Johnson used his well-honed legislative skills in developing compromise civil rights legislation that was acceptable to Congress. He succeeded in mustering the necessary two-thirds vote for cloture in the Senate to end the southern filibuster and won the support of majorities in both houses of Congress.

Political pressures also had an impact on the passage of this legislation. Civil-rights organizations such as the NAACP, 
CORE, and the National Urban League protested against many of the inequalities that existed in society, organizing
boycotts, sit-ins, and protest demonstrations. Their efforts swayed public opinion behind the cause of civil rights and
pressured national leaders to support civil rights legislation. Individuals such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, and Rosa Parks gained fame as leaders of the civil rights movement.

The civil rights movement had two main effects. First, the movement aroused sufficient turmoil to force government officials to act, fearing blame for a failure to keep order. Second, the movement helped reinforce and strengthen support for civil rights which was building among other political level actors. For example, public opinion began gradually to support equality for black Americans. The mass media also began to publicize the civil rights struggle in a sympathetic fashion. Finally, large numbers of labor unions, business corporations, religious organizations, and civic groups joined the cause.

Structural influence is the third type of factor that can affect what government does. The underlying causes of a particular governmental decision or policy can be traced to developments in society and the economy, the international system, and the set of ingrained ideas that we call political culture.

The passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act can only be understood in the context of important structural
changes in American life. The changing economic condition of the U.S. had a major impact on the ability of civil rights legislation to pass the Congress. The growth of industry in the North and the deteriorating job market in the South led
to the migration of large numbers of black Americans from South to North.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, most American blacks lived in the South and lived on farms. By the late 1950s, almost half of all blacks in America lived outside the South, with a majority working in industrial occupations and living in cities. Because of these migratory and economic changes many blacks became economically successful. This success convinced many whites to discard old racist theories about blacks and support equal opportunity. Also, blacks in the North became politically active, thus gaining the attention of those in public office as a potential source of votes.

Another structural factor affecting the passage of civil rights legislation was the involvement of the United States in World War II and the Korean conflict. Black Americans who served in combat during these wars gained self-confidence and earned respect from other Americans. Moreover, blacks who fought racism abroad grew increasingly impatient with their treatment as second-class citizens at home. 

These structural changes fed into the political-level shifts in public opinion, interest groups, and political parties, and to the rise of the civil rights movement. All of these factors moved government officials to action on behalf of black civil rights.
 
From this example, we can see that the governmental, political, and structural levels of analysis must be considered together if we are to understand what goes on in American political life. Actions by public officials and institutions can only be understood if they are seen in the context of other political influences such as the actions of interest groups, social movements, and voters. These in turn can only be understood if they are seen in relationship to such structural factors as the economy, the culture, and the international system.

There is seldom one single cause that explains a governmental decision or policy, but there are usually multiple causes. This is not to say that all factors equally influence political outcomes. On the contrary, one of the major goals of the textbook is to point out the factors which have the greatest impact on government decisions or policy outcomes.

One of the most powerful explanations that will be pointed out throughout the text is that of structural influences. The lines of influence flow from the structural to the political to the governmental level. Without changes in structural factors such as the nation's economy, black migration from South to North, changing cultural perceptions about black people, and America's new and important role in the world, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would have never occurred.


V. Democracy as a Standard for Evaluating Political Life

While it is important to understand the factors that influence what government does and the policies government produces, we also need a way in which to evaluate government's performance. In order to evaluate, it is essential that we have some standard by which to compare how the political system functions with how we think it ought to function.

Democracy provides a standard for evaluating America's political system. The fundamental meaning of democracy is "rule by the people". The idea that ordinary people might rule themselves represents an important departure from traditional beliefs which held that people should be ruled by the few (as in an aristocracy, theocracy, or meritocracy) or by the one (such as a philosopher king, divinely appointed monarch, or military chieftain). At the heart of democratic theory is the belief that humans have it within their power to govern themselves wisely and that power in any other hands besides those of the people can lead to tyranny.

Democracy originated in certain Greek city-states during the fifth century B.C. For the Greeks, democracy meant direct rule by the people in open assemblies, direct democracy. People in such societies were directly involved in the decision-making process of the government without intermediaries, representatives, or leaders. However, such societies were generally small and citizens usually had a great deal of leisure time to take part in public affairs.

Although direct democracy may be the most appealing form of government, it is not always the most practical. Even the strongest advocates of self-rule such as Thomas Jefferson noted the difficulties with this type of government. He said that while direct democracy is the ideal form of government, it is "restrained to very narrow limits of space and population." The U.S. is too large and its population too great for all Americans to meet in giant assemblies and make decisions. Consequently, the Framers of the Constitution created a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy.

The concept of democracy has three fundamental, interrelated attributes: popular sovereignty, political equality, and political liberty. The existence or absence of these attributes determines how closely a society approximates the democratic ideal. Popular sovereignty means that government does what the people want. The ultimate source of public authority rests with the people who may delegate their authority to representatives and may reclaim authority at any time.

There are several conditions under which popular sovereignty exists. First, government policies must reflect the will of the people. In other words, the government does what the people want. Observers disagree as to how to determine the popular will. Is the popular will what the people desire in the long run or what people want in the short run? Are governments to react to every passing whim of the people, or should they act on what they believe to be the deliberative will of the people (that is, the will of the people arrived at after a period of reflection and discussion with others)?

A second condition for popular sovereignty is that people participate in the political process. Widespread participation in politics is a sign and a guarantee that the popular will is expressed and enforced. Without participation it becomes difficult for representatives in government to determine what the people want. It also become impossible to guarantee that officials will respond to the popular will even if they can determine what the popular will happens to be. Participation is therefore necessary in order to ensure that representatives will be responsive and that they will have incentive to pay attention to the people.
 
The existence of high-quality information and debate is a third condition of popular sovereignty. Unbiased information
which is freely challenged and openly debated is necessary to facilitate peoples' ability to form opinions about issues and
candidates which are in accord with their own values and interests.

Finally, majority rule is a necessary component of popular sovereignty. Majority rule is the only mechanism through which government can respond to all citizens and have the views of each citizen counted equally.

Majority rule has many advantages. One is that majority rule is the only decision-making process that recognizes the intrinsic worth and equality of human beings. A second advantage is that it maximizes the number of people involved in decision-making. A third advantage of majority rule is that decisions made through majority rule enjoy greater acceptance because they are based on the pooled judgment of the people, taking into account a broad range of opinions and information.

Political equality is a second fundamental principle of democracy. This means that people deliberate about their common problems and concerns as equals. Without political equality, we would have no way to accurately gauge or to enforce the popular will. Whether or not political equality extends to material equality (or if there is even a difference between the two) are questions which are still  subject to debate.

Political Liberty is a third basic element of democracy. This concept refers to certain basic freedoms that are essential to the formation and expression of the popular will and to its translation into policy. Political liberties include the freedoms of speech, conscience, press, and association. Without these liberties, the other fundamental principles of democracy (popular sovereignty and political equality) could not survive. Although some political philosophers have argued that liberty is in some ways
threatened by democracy, the authors of your text believe self-government and liberty are inseparable.

Democracy has many virtues, but it will not necessarily lead to good policy decisions. Critics of democracy warn against the "tyranny of the majority." A majority, similar to a minority, can be unwise; it can be cruel and uncaring; it can get carried away by fads and fashions; and it can be misled by unscrupulous or incompetent leaders. The nation's Founders feared that majority rule would undermine freedom and would threaten the "inalienable rights" of individuals. They feared that popular passions of the masses would stifle the freedoms of groups and individuals who were different. The authors of the U.S. Constitution structured the nation's government to avoid the ill effects of majority rule.

Although the danger of majority tyranny is real, it is important to understand that there are many threats to liberty. Threats to liberty are just as likely to come from powerful minorities or individuals as they are from the majority. Indeed, majority rule and liberty are inseparable. The critics of democracy are also concerned about the competence of the people to rule themselves. Research has shown that individual Americans do not care a great deal about politics, are poorly informed, sometimes hold unstable political views, and are often uninterested in participating in the political process. How can a democracy work if the people aren't interested enough to contribute to its existence?

Another basic concern over democracy involves the fear that democracy and majority rule threaten minorities. Critics warn that unbridled majority rule leaves no room for the claims of minorities. There is no evidence, however, to support the belief that minority rights are better protected under alternative forms of political decision-making. Indeed, the protection of minority rights is a fundamental component of democracy.

A final objection to democracy is that because each citizen has an equal voice in decision-making democracy overrides the
wishes of those citizens who feel most strongly about their policy preferences. In other words, critics argue that democracy fails to take intensity of opinion into account. It should be understood, however, that majority rule does not merely involve counting heads on single issues. Majority rule allows the opportunity for those who feel strongly about an issue to persuade others to adopt their position.

Pluralist notions of democracy emphasize the idea that competition among organized political groups takes intensity into account better. Pluralism, however, falls short of majority rule because it legitimizes unequal advantages for people who have the most money, skill, and organizational power.

Democracy may not be the only available measuring rod for evaluating a political system. Nonetheless, democracy-- understood as popular sovereignty, political equality, and political liberty--holds a special place in our nation's pantheon of values and is particularly relevant for judging political processes. For this reason, democracy serves as the main standard of evaluation used throughout the book.


VI. Conclusion

To effectively analyze government decision-making it is important to have a simplified framework or conceptual s cheme of the way the world works to help sort the endless facts into coherent patterns. The framework presented in Chapter 1 should facilitate the way you go about finding explanations for what goes on in government. By using the ideal of a democracy as a measurement tool, it becomes possible not only to explain what government does, but also to evaluate its performance.

Structure: The Development of the United States


I. Introduction

The decline of the American automotive industry illustrates the influence of structural factors on American politics. Rapid increases in the price of petroleum, first in 1973 and then again in 1979, turned the automotive world on its head. As the price of gasoline rose, consumer interest in purchasing low-mileage, high-priced American cares waned and Japanese and European auto makers stepped in to fill the gap.

Even though energy and automobile analysts had been warning American auto makers of an impending problem for years, the auto manufacturers failed to retool in order to produce less expensive, more fuel efficient cars. They believed that change was expensive and risky, so they continued to make the same types of cars they always had. As a result, America's Big Three auto makers lost sales to foreign competition and have yet to regain their former position in the market. By 1991, imports made up nearly 40 percent of the U.S. car market, with the Japanese accounting for roughly three out of four imports.

The decline of the U.S. automobile industry has had a wide- ranging impact not only on the car companies themselves, but also on the industries that supply the automotive industry with parts and raw materials. Moreover, many people who lost their jobs in the rust belt region have migrated to the Sun Belt to find work. The decline of the U.S. automotive industry is part of the general decline of the United States as the world's leading manufacturer.

As this illustration shows, developments that occur in the economy and in society--well away from the White House, the halls of Congress, and the chambers of the Supreme Court--can affect the quality of our lives, the kinds of problems we have to grapple with, the issues that eventually become part of the American political agenda, and the distribution of political power.

The economy, the Constitution, and basic characteristics of the nation's people are major structural influences on government and politics in America. Structural factors provide the context or environment within which politics and governing take place. If we want to understand politics and governing, we first need to know what kinds of individuals, groups, and classes populate the United States. This chapter concerns the characteristics of the American people, the economy, and the political culture, as well as the U.S. position in the world.


II. The American People

The first U.S. census which was conducted in 1790 showed that the population of the 13 states was about 3.9 million people,
of whom 80 percent were white and 20 percent were black (Native Americans were not counted). Most of the population
live in rural areas (only 5 percent lived in cities), had come from western and northern Europe, and were Protestant. The black population had been brought to the U.S. from West Africa. The total Native American population was estimated at about 1.5 million.

Many population changes have taken place in the U.S. since that first census. Between 1790 and 1990, the U.S. population increased by about 250 million people. This enormous population increase was fueled not only by high birth rates, but also by successive waves of immigration. Immigration has come at different times from many areas of the world. Such influxes of people have contributed to the diverse nature of our society in terms of ethnicity, religion, and race.

The arrival of immigrants who are very different from the native majority has sometimes sparked anti-immigration agitation. For example, nativist reactions to Catholic migrants were common throughout the nineteenth century as were anti-Chinese agitations which swept the western states in the 1870s and 1880s. These reactions led to the passage of national laws to restrict immigration. The diversity of the U.S. seems to be an important factor explaining the relatively low level of class consciousness and unionization in the U.S. Diversity multiplies interests and makes it difficult for people from different backgrounds to organize coalitions, parties, or unions along class lines.

Although the U.S. began as a country made up of rural and small-town people, it has rapidly become an urban nation. The process of urbanization resulted primarily from the industrialization of the nation. The rise of large manufacturing firms required many industrial workers, while at the same time, the mechanization of farming meant that fewer agricultural workers were needed. Urbanization continued unabated until the mid-1940s.

After World War II, massive federal and state road building programs and government-guaranteed home loans for veterans (the G.I. bill) started the process by which the U.S. became an overwhelmingly suburban nation. This shift in location of
the population from rural areas to cities, and from cities to suburbs, had important ramifications.

First, migration to cities and suburbs sapped the vitality of small-town life. Second, central cities suffered shrinking tax bases because many wealthy residents moved to the suburbs, leaving behind those who needed government help the most. Finally, population shifts had the political consequence of making central-city populations more liberal and more Democratic while making suburbs more conservative and more Republican.

After 1790, the U.S. population steadily moved West and South. The acceleration of this movement since World War II was due, in one way or another, to the changing location of employment. Heavy manufacturing, traditionally located in the East and upper Midwest, suffered serious setbacks and people looking for work had to go elsewhere. Many companies shifted their activities to the anti-union and low-tax Sun Belt. Moreover, heavy flows of federal government defense dollars and associated jobs shifted to the South, Southwest, and West. Population movements have important political consequences, not the least of which has been a shift in political power between the states.

In 1790, about three-quarters of all Americans were engaged in agriculture. This way of life, however, was drastically changed by the industrial revolution which brought large mass production industries, characterized by the assembly line, semiskilled labor, and the weekly paycheck. By 1910, the proportion of the nation's labor force engaged in agriculture dropped to only 32 percent.

In 1950, America became the first nation in the world in which white-collar workers (clerical, technical, professional, managerial, service, and sales) were in the majority. The decline of certain manufacturing industries, the disappearance of the small family farm, and the rapid rise of the high technology and information sector, accelerated the shift of employment from factory and farm to office.

Changes in the American occupational structure produced changes in politics. The shift from manufacturing to service 
occupations, for example, affected the fortunes of labor unions, which, in turn, affected the balance between the political parties. The depletion of jobs in manufacturing produced lower numbers of union workers, thus weakening an important support group for the De mocratic Party. The decline in union strength diminished support for the Democratic Party in national elections and for a liberal policy agenda in the nation.

Meanwhile, the expansion of service, clerical, technical, and other kinds of white-collar jobs coincided with an increase
in female employment. The entry of women into the job market will continue to have a major impact on support for
government programs affecting child care and comparable worth.

Another significant trend in the United States and in other industrialized countries is the aging of the population. The proportion of the population over the age of 65 continues to expand. More than 10 percent of the nation's population
today is over 65 and that proportion is expected to reach 20 percent by the year 2030.

The political consequences associated with this trend are likely to be continued attention to such issues as social security and health care. A large elderly population, which is characterized by a relatively high voting turnout in elections at all levels, is likely to press political decision-makers to transfer public expenditures from programs that serve the young to those that serve the old.

The United States enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world and has done so almost from the nation's birth. By the mid-1960s, the United States was the world's richest nation by far with a higher gross national product per capita than any other country. By the late 1970s, however, the American standard of living began to stagnate with GNP per capita rankings slipping to tenth among the nations of the world. Furthermore, median family incomes also stagnated throughout most of the 1970s and 1980s.

Inequality in income and wealth among Americans has been high for a long time and is becoming more pronounced. During the postwar era, the wealthiest fifth of all families consistently received about eight times more income than the poorest fifth. During the 1980s, inequality became more pronounced as the gap between the richest and poorest families widened. Compared to the countries of Western Europe, income inequality in the U.S. is relatively high. Moreover, the trend is toward increasing rather than decreasing inequality.

No discussion of inequality is complete without a discussion of poverty. In 1955, almost 25 percent of Americans fell below the government's official poverty line. By 1973, however, the figure fell to 11.6 percent. Beginning in the late 1970s this percentage began to inch upward again, and after receding a bit in the mid-1980s, began to rise once more. Poverty is concentrated among racial minorities, female-headed households, and children. There is more poverty in the U.S than in other Western democratic nations.

What effect does poverty have on politics? First, inequalities in living standards help determine the nature of ocial problems in the United States and eventually demand the attention of government. A society with significant levels of inequality and widespread poverty must pay attention to the discontents and disruption that are its natural consequence.

Second, inequality is also important for how democracy works. Extensive material inequality may undermine the possibility for political equality, one of the foundations of democracy. Those with access to financial resources can use those resources to enhance their political voice and their ease of access to public officials. Those with less money vote less often than others, usually because of such overriding concerns as the need to put food on the table. This is one of the reasons why Thomas Jefferson feared that democracy couldn't survive in a society with a high level of income inequality.


III. The American Economy

The U.S. economy plays a large part in shaping the nation's political environment. A capitalist economy is defined by two characteristics: private ownership and the existence of markets to coordinate economic activity. These characteristics play an important part in the political and social development of our nation. 

The nature of the U.S. economy has changed a great deal since the country's inception. Up until the Civil War (except the slave South), American capitalism was defined by numerous small competitive enterprises. Initially, most of these small enterprises were tied to agriculture; in later years,  the number of small industrial enterprises grew. After the Civil War, the economy became increasingly industrialized and concentrated in giant enterprises. 

The Civil War helped spur the Industrial Revolution as the Union geared up for war and manufacturing became an important 
part of national security. During the Civil War, the national government enacted policies that were favorable to the development of free enterprise. By the turn of the century, the U.S. was the world's leading industrial power, accounting for almost 24 percent of the world's total manufacturing output. Technology made industrial enterprises grow even more and a wave of mergers between 1896 and 1904 ashioned the corporate-dominated economy familiar to us today.

The steady growth in the size of corporations, their consolidation into ever larger units, and their increasing importance in the economy continued virtually unabated until the early 1970s. By 1973, the largest corporations accounted for 42 percent of total U.S. assets and over 35 percent of total U.S. revenues. Many economists and politicians worried that the sheer size and domination of markets by these large companies would make the economy less competitive than it ought to be. Others observers worried that the concentration of economic power can be, and often is, translated into political power.

After World War II, the largest American corporations became overwhelmingly multinational in character. Although 
corporations remained American owned and controlled, their activities became worldwide in scope. Multinationalization
inevitably affected U.S. foreign policy because American political leaders had no choice but to be attentive to developments and events in the far corners of the world.

A transformation of the American economy is now underway that is producing problems and opportunities that will affect American politics. During the 1980s, business consolidation accelerated, fueled by developments in the international economic environment and by the Reagan Administration's hands-off stance toward corporate mergers. American corporations also became more closely entwined with corporations from other countries, either through outright purchase of stock or joint ventures.

The U.S. is undergoing a relative decline from its lofty position as the world's foremost economic power, particularly in the area of manufacturing. Moreover, the U.S. is no longer the preeminent power in world finance. Although the U.S. became the leading creditor nation in the world at the end of World War I, by 1987 it had become the world's largest debtor nation.

Because of the relative decline of the U.S. economy, the American standard of living has stagnated, workers' wages are falling or barely holding their own, American companies are vulnerable to takeover, foreign central banks and companies are making decisions that affect the overall health of the American economy, and the status of the U.S. as a world superpower is eroding.


IV. The United States in the World System

Historian Paul Kennedy believes that the military and diplomatic power of a nation is based on its relative economic standing in the world. Kennedy asserts that it is not how much wealth a nation has that is important but how much it has compared to its rivals. If Kennedy is correct, the rise of the United States as a world political and military power in this century is entirely expected, given the growth to dominance of its economy. 

Until the late nineteenth century, the attention of the United States was focused mainly inward, on the task of filling in the continent. Although the U.S. purchased a great deal of territory from other countries, conquest played a role as well. The movement west required the removal of Native American populations from the lines of advance. Military pressure on Mexico supported Texas's bid for independence and the Mexican War led to the addition of vast territories, including California and much of the American Southwest.

The war with Spain in 1898 first launched the United States onto the superpower stage. With its easy victory, the United States gained the former Spanish colonies of Cuba and the Philippines. World War I confirmed America's status as a superpower. America's great industrial capacity and financial leverage along with its military might proved to be decisive in winning the war for the Allies. After World War I, however, America turned inward again, taken over by strong isolationist sentiments among elites and masses alike.

World War II propelled the United States into a leadership position in the world again. As the industrial infrastructure of the U.S. expanded during the war, the infrastructures of the other leading nations, particularly Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan, were devastated.

By the end of World War II, the U.S. was responsible for one-half of the total manufacturing, shipping, and exporting of the entire world. The war also solidified the position of the U.S. as the leading creditor nation of the world. By the end of the war, the U.S. held two-thirds of the gold reserves of the world in its vaults, and the American dollar became the principle reserve currency in world trade.

Finally, at war's end the U.S. had a large military establishment and military superiority in most areas. Within a decade of the end of World War II, then, the U.S. stood as the unchallenged economic, political, and military power among the Western nations. For the first time, the U.S. was both willing and able to exercise leadership on the world level.

Although badly crippled by the war, the Soviet Union entered the postwar era with the world's largest land army, superpower ambitions of its own, and a strong desire to keep the nations on its periphery in eastern Europe and Asia in hands it considered friendly. During the ensuing Cold War, the U.S. and Soviet Union came to face each other as leaders of conflicting political, economic, and ideological alliances.

America's superpower status with its forces arrayed against the Soviet empire had implications for its foreign policy. Superpower status required that large amounts of resources be spent on maintaining a military presence around the world.
Superpower status also enhanced the role of the president in policymaking and diminished the role for Congress in foreign
affairs.

The 1980s and 1990s saw major changes in the world economic, military, and political systems. The collapse of the Soviet
empire seemed to indicate the emergence of the United States as the world's single greatest military power. In contrast,
the U.S. is no longer dominant economically.

Whether this diminished dominance will lead to reduced international policymaking influence and military decline remains to be seen. What can be said is that the bipolar world of the post-World War II years has given way to a world with multiple centers of power--a pluralistic world with the U.S. as the most powerful nation.


V. The American Political Culture

The kinds of choices America makes in meeting the challenges and opportunities in the world will depend a great deal on the fundamental beliefs that Americans hold about human nature, society, economic relations, and the role of government. These fundamental beliefs that have political consequences make up the American political culture. 

Observers of the American scene have always been struck by the degree to which a broad consensus seems to exist on many of the fundamental beliefs that shape our political life. The foundation of our political culture is classical liberalism. This term does not refer specifically to the liberalism we associate with the Democratic Party which favors an expanded role for government in society and greater controls on business.

It is important to recognize that boh modern liberals and modern conservatives are part of the same classical liberal tradition; they are two tendencies within a single tradition. Thus, although modern liberals and conservatives disagree on most issues of public policy, they share certain fundamental beliefs.

At the heart of classical liberalism is the belief that people are self-interested and competitive. Most Americans believe that an individual's fate is, and should be, tied to his or her own efforts. This belief is called individualism and means that people are naturally competitive, always striving to better themselves in relation to others. The belief in individualism affects the way we think about many politically relevant issues, including inequality. Americans overwhelmingly endorse the idea of equality of opportunity but reject the notion that people should have equal rewards.

The American view of equality can be contrasted with political attitudes found in Sweden, where citizens generally believe that equality of condition is an important value and support government policies to redistribute income. The strong sense of individualism so central to the American political culture is not found in most other modern capitalist nations.

Another important component of classical liberalism is the idea that human begins have a natural right to accumulate, enjoy, and transfer private property as they please. By mixing their labor with the naturally occurring abundance of the earth, people are justified in taking the product of that  effort for their own private use. Because people are different in their abilities and their willingness to work, this process will always result in inequality because some people will inevitably end up with more property than others.

Limited government is another component of classical liberalism. The nation's Founders believed that the main purpose of having a government is to protect rights, particularly property rights. The proponents of classical liberalism believed that when government does more than merely protect rights, it almost invariably interferes with rights.

When government does interfere with rights, people have a right to dissolve their government and to form a new one. This belief is not widely shared by people in most other democracies where government has always been powerful and has played an important role in directing society and the economy.

Classical liberals also believe that if the market were left alone to operate in its natural fashion, it would coordinate the multitudes of complex exchanges and interaction of the economy in a nearly perfect fashion following the laws of supply and demand. The market works best when people pursue their individual interests and government does not interfere.

Though few Americans today accept the pure free market ideal, most Americans today believe that the private sector (the markets) are usually more effective and efficient than the public sector. An indicator of the general high regard in which the economic system is held by Americans is the almost complete lack of support for movements in favor of alternatives to it. Although socialism and communism have enjoyed substantial support in most European countries, these movement have had almost no following in the U.S.

The nation's founders had strong reservations about democracy. During our history, however, the practice of democracy was enriched and expanded, and the term democracy is now honored. Democracy first became widely popular at the time of the presidency of Andrew Jackson. It was further popularized by Abraham Lincoln's praise of majoritarian democracy. The Populist movement championed the peoples' right to regulate and control government. Later, the progressive movement advocated the direct election of senators, the direct primary for nominating candidates, and the right of the people to recall their elected representatives and to legislate through the referendum. Today, democracy is a bedrock of the American belief system.

Freedom and liberty are values that are at the top of the list of American beliefs that have an effect on the type of political order present in the U.S. From the very beginning, what attracted most people to the United States was the promise of freedom. The majority of those who came to this country from overseas seem to have done so in order to taste freedom, to speak and think as they choose, to worship as they please, to read what they wish, and to assemble and petition the government if they have a mind to do so.

Populism is another prominent value in American political culture. The term populism refers to the hostility of the common person to power and the powerful. One of the targets of populist sentiments over the years has been concentrated economic power and those who exercise it. Contemporary public opinion polls show that although Americans express strong support for free enterprise, they often hold negative feelings about corporations and corporate leaders.

By any measure, the United States is a strikingly religious society. Polls conducted over the decades show that around 40 percent of the American people claim to have a personal experience with the Lord. The American people are clearly more religious than people in any other western society. The U.S. is an outlier in that it does not fit the normal pattern in which the more developed a society becomes, the more secular it tends to become.

Piety affects politics. While churches and religious believers often find themselves on the liberal side of the political divide, the overall effect of religion on politics is probably conservative. This is another reason why socialists and social democratic parties have little success in America. The highest levels of piety found in the United States are among nonwhites, people with the least amount of education, and individuals with lower incomes--precisely the population groups that are the strongest supporters of leftist political parties in Europe.


VI. Structural Influences on American Politics

The Constitution, the nature of the American population, the economy, the political culture, and the government's place in the world are all structural factors which influence important aspects of politics and government in the United States. Each of these structural factors is interrelated and helps define the others in important ways. One of the major recurring themes that appears throughout this text is the substantial growth in the size, reach, and responsibilities of the federal government. As we shall see, much of this growth is because of changes in the structural factors described in this chapter.