Evolution of Civil Rights and Liberties

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.

End 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.

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.

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.