American Democracy in Context. Joseph A. Pika

of political science at the University of Minnesota and has also served on the faculties of Yale University, the University of Oregon, and Oslo University, Norway. He has served as editor of the American Journal of Political Science, as program chair for the national meetings of the American Political Science Association, and as principal investigator and chair of the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems project (CSES). At the University of Minnesota, he has been inducted into the Academy of Distinguished Teachers for his work with students. His research centers on the comparative study of elections and statistical methods of research. Besides political science, Professor Shively’s other main loves are natural history and classical music.

      From left to right: Phil Shively, John Maltese, and Joe Pika.

      1 Democracy and American Politics

      UniversalImagesGroup / Getty Images

       After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

       Understand the nature of politics, government, and citizenship.

       Differentiate among the types of democracies that exist in the world and identify the qualities that make a government truly democratic.

       Examine the functions of government as well as some of the challenges and controversies that affect its ability to perform each function effectively.

       Identify the four basic American values and describe how these values help to define the character of American politics.

       Explore the primary political ideologies that have helped to inform contemporary political discourse in the United States.

       Understand how comparison and historical analysis can deepen our understanding of American politics.

      Perspective: What Difference Does Democracy Make?

      In the United States, trains covered with bright, fanciful graffiti are often seen rolling down the tracks. The graffiti constitutes vandalism, but while vandalizing property by painting graffiti is illegal in most states and cities, authorities do not usually enforce the laws against it very strictly. In fact, some Americans admire graffiti as an elevated art form, romanticizing graffiti artists as individuals who thumb their noses at the government.

      It is different in Singapore. In 1994, 18-year-old American student Michael Fay ran afoul of Singapore’s stringent laws protecting order and cleanliness. Singaporean police arrested Fay for stealing highway signs and vandalizing a car by scratching its paint. His court sentence: four months in jail, a fine of over $2,000, and four strokes with a cane. The caning—a common punishment in Singapore—was administered with a six-foot long, one-inch-thick cane that can cause serious injury. Other acts that are not necessarily considered crimes in the United States but can draw similarly serious punishments in Singapore include spitting in public, selling chewing gum, or failing to flush the toilet in a public restroom.

      Singapore was a British colony until it became independent in 1965. Today, it is a prosperous financial center and technology exporter. Average incomes in Singapore are somewhat higher than those in the United States; crime rates are low; and the country is very clean, partly because of its stringent punishments for graffiti and similar offenses that other countries would consider minor. Its government is one of the least corrupt in the world.

      Although efficient and prosperous, Singapore is not a democracy. Its government regulates citizens’ behavior tightly. Elections are held regularly, but the People’s Action Party, which has governed without interruption since it led the country to independence more than 45 years ago, does not allow a significant opposition party to develop or function. It requires all political organizations to register with the government, and organizers of any public gathering of more than five people must obtain a special permit. This allows the government to regulate opposition activity. The Party also controls the media, all of which are owned by government-linked companies. Such control includes the banning of all political films and political television programs. In the 2015 election, the Party got 70 percent of the vote, winning 83 of the 89 seats in Singapore’s Parliament.

      By contrast, the United States is less efficient and less tightly organized than Singapore, but it is a democracy. The media are not controlled by the government. The right of groups to organize and gather publicly is guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution. And citizens who criticize public officials are protected against harassment. But the government in a democracy is not as free as a government like Singapore’s to put laws in place that lack broad support. Harsh anti-littering laws with physical punishment and jail time would not be tolerated by the public, even though such laws might produce a very clean country.

      Actually, Singapore probably presents the most attractive instance of a non-democracy that we can come up with, since most non-democracies are not particularly well organized or well run. Singapore’s government avoids corrupt practices, it runs efficiently, and it has helped the country to prosper economically. But the lack of political freedom in Singapore has its costs. The people of Singapore are much more politically passive than Americans. While 17 percent of Americans discuss politics frequently, only 4 percent of Singaporeans do. Forty-one percent of them say that they never discuss politics at all. As far as political participation is concerned, 76 percent of Americans say that they would be willing to attend a lawful demonstration, whereas only 24 percent of Singaporeans would.¹

      Government and Politics

      When the people in a country need to consider changing the way things are done, they engage in politics, the process by which collective decisions—decisions that are binding for everyone in the country—are made for a country.² Collective decisions include such things as a law, a system of taxes, or a social program. We use process in this definition very broadly to include not only the actions of government officials but also all of the considerations that influence them, such as elections, public opinion, and the media. Politics consists of all the factors that contribute to collective decisions.

      politics The process by which decisions that are binding for everyone in the country are made, such as a law, a system of taxes, or a social program.

      For example, in 2017, when President Trump called for repealing the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), many voices contributed to that debate and to the political process that followed:

       policy schools, which provided scholarly assessments of various sorts of health care delivery systems

       the AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons) and labor unions, which ran advertisements opposing the repeal

       insurance groups and business organizations that lobbied for or against the repeal

       the cable news channel MSNBC, which provided anti-repeal press coverage, and Fox News, another cable channel, which offered pro-repeal coverage

       opponents of repeal, who conducted raucous protests at town hall meetings held by members of Congress

       ordinary citizens, who talked to one another about the merits of the proposals

       parents who brought disabled children to Washington to ask Congress to keep their health benefits intact

       members of Congress who engaged in arm-twisting, deals, and bargaining as they attempted to craft and pass, or persuade colleagues to vote for or against, the legislation

      All of these voices were part of the politics associated with the decisions about whether, and how, to reform the U.S. health care system.

Скачать книгу