UNIT 3C: REPRESENTATIVE PROCESS IN THE USA

SECTION 1: ELECTIONS & VOTING

Primaries: * Election to select a parties candidacy for president * Open primary: A primary for any registered voter, democrat or republican. E.G. Texas * Closed: A primary for democrats and a primary for Republicans. (Separate one’s) * Invisible primary: candidates try to gain support and finance in the year before the primary * Proportional primary: awarded delegates in proportion to votes they get * Winner-takes-all: Win the most votes and you take all the states delegates
Advantages:
* Increased level of participation from ordinary votes (30% in 2008) * Increased interest from people * Increased choice of candidates (14 in 2008) * Removing power from party bosses
Disadvantages:
* Turnout is usually low * Voters are usually unrepresentative of normal voters (tend to be wealthier, old and better educated) * Process is far too long and expensive (Obama in 2008 announced his running 332 before the first primary * Fails to test presidential qualities
Increased importance of primaries: * Really the only route to become a parties President
Caucuses:
* A meeting for the selection of a candidate * Usually held in states that are geographically large but thinly populated (Iowa, North Dakota, Nevada) * Turnout is usually pretty low, and usual favour ideological candidates

National party conventions:
Formal functions: * Choose presidential candidate. (Need majority of delegates) * This function has been lost to primaries * Now just merely confirm the candidate * Choose VP, usually a balanced ticket so VP brings what President can’t (McCain + Palin 2008, Old & young, male & female)
Informal functions: * Enthuse the party (they organise the campaign and enthuse voters * Promote party unity (heal divisions created in the primaries) * Enthuse ordinary voters (through tv and the acceptance speech)

Campaign finance:
Before 1970 reforms: * Personal wealth was important (JFK) * Not limited in what you could donate to a candidate * Could spend any sum of money on your campaign * Left room for corruption
2002 Financial Reforms * Banned contributions from foreign nationals (Charlie Tree & Clinton) * Corporate groups could no longer directly fund * Limited to donations of $2300
The Media: * Televised debates, usually just Republicans & Democrats (1992 start of ‘town hall’ style debates * TV ads ‘approved’ by the candidate * Use of newspapers

Electoral college: * Each state gets a certain number of Electoral College Votes (ECV) * Equal to representation in congress (2 senators + house of representative members) * 538 ECV’s available, need majority of 270 to win * If no majority, house of representatives choose President & senate choose VP * Candidate that wins the popular vote gets all ECV’s in 48 states. * Maine and Nebraska use a different system
Advantages:
* Preserve the voice of the small population states * Promotes a 2 horse race and doesn’t get complicated
Disadvantages:
* Small states are overrepresented * Winner takes all distorts the vote (2008, Obama won 52% popular vote, but 68% ECV) * Can win popular vote but then lose ECV (Gore, 2000) * Unfair to national 3rd party
Possible reforms: * Abandon winner takes all, for a more proportional one like in Maine & Nebraska * Create state laws to stop rogue voters * Abolish ECV & go on popular vote, however could encourage multicandidate result

Party affiliation:
Find gender, race etc… figures for 2012 election & geographical locations

Congressional elections: * Take place every 2 years (mid-terms) * Whole of HoR & 1/3 of senate are elected

Trends in congressional elections: * Incumbents (currently hold the seat) are usually not defeated. (2004, 93% of seats were safe seats) * Coat –tails effect: Strong candidate for a party at the top (i.e. president) helping congressional candidates of the same party get elected (2008, Obama gained his party 29 seats in congress) * Split ticket voting: Voting for 2 or more parties for different offices in the same election * President usually loses seats in mid-terms, shows people are reacting angrily to his lack of success. (Obama lost 63 in HoR & 6 in senate)

Propositions: * Citizens can place proposed laws, some cases constitutional amendments on the state ballot * Direct: Qualify to go directly on the ballot * Indirect: Submitted to state legislature, which decides on further action * Needs to be circulated to gain the required number of signatures from registered voters * Example: Same sex marriage banned in 7 states. (California, 2008)
Advantages:
* Provide a way to act on controversial reforms that state legislatures are unwilling to touch * Increase responsiveness and accountability of state legislatures * Can help increase voter turnout
Disadvantages:
* Lack flexibility of legislative process * Vulnerable to manipulation by special interests

Referendums: * Voters can effectively veto a bill * In 24 states (Alaska, New Mexico) gather signatures to demand a referendum, known as a popular referendum * Usually needs to be within 90 days of the law being passed

Recall elections: * Remove someone from office before term is up, direct form of impeachment * 2003-Gray Davis removed from office & Arnie was appointed

SECTION 2: POLITICAL PARTIES

National organisation: * Each party has a national committee * Party chairman, day-to-day running of the party * Meet in full twice a year * National convention every 4 years
State organisation: * State party convention * State party committee (headed by state party chairman) * County committees * District committees * City committees * Ward committees * Precinct committees * NO REAL PARTY LEADER * Power of state parties in selecting candidates for elections to congress * (Senate seat of Delaware 2010, national party wanted Mike Castle. But lost to Christine O’Donnell, tea party backed conservative

Party history 1. Form of government * Federalists (republicans) commercial & business interests, wanted centralised government * Anti-federalists (democrats) agriculture & land owners, wanted de-centralised government 2. Democracy * Anti-federalists wanted to expand democracy * Serve the interests of the poor, immigrants & minorities 3. Slavery * Democrats party of the south, believed in the economic virtues of slavery * Lost the civil war * Became the solid south 4. The economy * Great depression of the 1930’s did for Republicans what the civil war did to the Democrats * Democrats, FDR’s new deal
Coalition of: * Southern white conservatives * Northern-eastern liberals * City people * Catholics * Jews * Ethnic minorities
Republican support came from WASPS (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) 5. Civil rights * Democrats favoured civil rights * Used federal resources to support * Brought an end to the solid democratic south 6. Role of the federal government * 1930’s reversed earlier positions * Republicans now favoured decentralisationsed government * Democrats favoured centralised government
Party ideologies: * Democrats, liberal. Change status-quo, favour’s the disadvantaged * Republicans, conservative, maintain status quo * States like New York, Massachuses would find ‘liberal democrats’ & ‘moderate republicans’ * Parties are now much less diverse

Average Stereotypes | Democrats | Republicans | Political leanings | Left-leaning/liberal | Right/conservative | Geography | North East & West coast | South & Mid-West | Economy | Economy needs managing for interests of the people | Free market – benefits everyone | Big government? | More in favour of tax for government programmes | Low taxes, mistrust of government | Race & Sex relations | Government can improve position of minorities and women | Government should not worry too much about race relations and sexism (because of mistrust of government) | Guns & Abortion | Anti-Gun, pro gun legislationPro-choice | Pro Gun rightsPro-life | Religion | Secular state | More faith-based/religion plays bigger part in government and life |

Increased Partisanship: * Previous ‘solid south’ associated with the Democrat party * 1960-90, slow breakdown of the south, mainly due to Nixon’s southern strategy in 1972, in 1980 took 10 out 11 southern states * 1960 House of the south, 99Democrats-7Republicans * 2012 House of the south, 77Democracts-48 Republicans
This has caused: * Wider difference between the 2 parties * More ideologically cohesive * Lessen difference within party and more partisanship

Twentieth-century, 50-50 nation * 2000, 49%ish per party, ECV 271-267, HoR 221-212, Senate 50-50 * 2012, 51%-48%, HoR 195-233, Senate 53-45

Two-party system: * 2012, 99% of vote was split between republicans and democrats * 2012, 428 HoR split between republicans and democrats * 2012, 98 members of senate split between republicans and democrats
Reasons:
* Due to winner takes all, nearly impossible for anyone else to have a say * The 2 main parties cover all policy areas, nothing left

Differences within and between parties * Differences within Republican * Social vs. fiscal emphasis * Exporting of democracy vs. ‘realist’ approach (e.g. Iraq – exporting) * Differences within Democrats * New Deal Demorats (unions, blue-collar etc.) vs. Blue Dog Democrats (more socially conservative, balanced budget, stress bipartisanship) * Differences between or within more important? * Formally within – with each party having a broad coalition of interest * But Clinton had trouble with healthcare reform despite united government * Now between – since 60s partisanship has become increasingly clear * Even vaguely liberal Republicans are a dying breed * Impeachment of Clinton – not a single Democrat in Senate voted against him, while only 10 Republicans voted to acquit him

50 Party system: * Individual states are important * 2000 election hinged on Florida, result took a month of recounts * 2012 hinged on Florida for a while * Parties are very decentralised * Only become united at election time * Even the election is at state level and under state laws
However there is a national party platform that they vaguely follow

Shades of Purple – Mixed * Red vs. Blue is somewhat simplistic * 2008 – 9 states that had voted for George W. Bush voted for Obama (including Indiana, in which Bush had won by 21% just 4 years earlier) * West Virginia is a red state, and yet has Democratic Senators, two out of three Representatives, governor and both houses of the state legislature * Similarly, Maine is a blue state with Republican Senators * Party votes in Congress might have increased under Bush, but still nothing like the partisanship in 1995 (Clinton’s first year against a Republican majority in Congress) – not as partisan as portrayed
Theories of party decline: * 1970 book by David Broder, ‘The Party’s Over’ * Parties have lost control over presidential candidate selection, now done in primaries, still technically need party acceptance * Funding largely comes from private donation * Party was once an important means of communication, however this is now done through the media * People are becoming more attached to a candidate than a party, this has led to ‘Split-ticket’ voting
Theories of party renewal: * Theories of party decline exaggerated – first came out after Watergate * Two major parties still control virtually all of the political system – Congress, White House, governorships… * ‘Super delegates’ – uncommitted delegates from the party (in 2000, nearly 20% of delegates at the Democrat national convention were super delegates, showing how much influence they have) Important in Obama beating Clinton. 2012 126 Republican, 1/5 Democrat delegates were super delegates * Party structure has been modernised – with permanent headquarters and party-based direct mail facilities the parties may return to role of ‘communicator’ * Soft money’ – while matching funds go directly to candidates, money for ‘party building’ and ‘get-out-the-vote’ activities remained unregulated; soft money allowed parties to take a much more active part in national campaigns * Increase in national campaigns (e.g. Gingrich’s Contract with America, Democrats’ Six for 06, which retook both house & republican 1994 ‘Contract with America’) * Increase in partisanship in Congress – doesn’t hold with decline in cohesion and party
Third Party difficulties: * Electoral system winner-takes-all * All elections – presidential, congressional or state – use this system * Can work for regional parties – Wallace won 45 EC votes with 13% of the vote * But Perot (1992) won no EC votes with 19% of the popular vote – spread across the country * Matching funds * Major party candidates only have to secure at least $5,000 in contributions of $250 or less in at least 20 states * But third party candidates have to have won at least 5% of the popular vote in the last election * Two problems with this * Firstly, few candidates achieve this – in 50 years, only three have (Wallace in 1968, Anderson in 1980 and Perot in 1992 and 1996) * Second, many third parties are temporary and only contest one election (such as Anderson in 1980) * Ballot access laws * Some are easy – Tennessee needs only 25 signatures on a petition, and had 6 third party candidates for the Senate seat in 2008 * But in California (for example) the number of signatures requires is equivalent to 1% of the state electorate * Anderson estimated that he needed 1.2m signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states – requiring he spend $3m just for that! * Lack of resources * Contributed to by previous 2 points * Also, people are unwilling to get their money to candidates they know will lose * Lack of media coverage * Not considered sufficiently newsworthy * Can rarely afford to make (let alone air) TV commercials * Usually barred from appearing on both state and national televised debates * 2000: only Bush and Gore appeared in the 3 presidential debates – Nader was excluded * Running mates * Lack of well-known and well-qualified candidates * Politically speaking, running mates tend to be so unknown as to not stand a chance * Major parties’ depiction * Tend to have little difficulty in portraying independents and third parties as ideological extremists – many are * Republicans smeared pro-segregationist Wallace with “if you liked Hitler, you’ll love Wallace” * Candidates from the Constitution, Libertarian or Socialist parties are not different to paint as ideologues * Given the fear of political extremism (particularly on the left), this is the end of many candidates * Co-optation * When a third party candidate overcomes all the other issues and does well… * Major parties can simply adopt their policies and leave them with nothing left to change * E.g. ‘Southern strategy’ to woo Wallace voters * E.g. Perot’s flagship policy was federal budget deficit; by 2000 it was in surplus and his vote had gone from 19% in 1992 to 0.4% in 2000
Are Third Parties Significant?

No * All third parties combined in 2008 polled below 1% * Never won a presidential election * Largely ignored by the media – not in presidential debates; poor media coverage; insufficient funds for TV campaigns * Difficult to get on ballots * Republicans and Democrats catch-all parties – little room for third parties * Primary system limits the need for ‘protest voting’ and third parties as minority interests can find a place in the main parties – e.g. Ron Paul, libertarian Republican * US parties can be influenced by ‘grass-roots’ movements – Tea Party; Romney ought to be the main man and in a top-down system he would be, as he is more electable * Most successful 3rd party, Ralph Nader & Green Party, 0.32% popular vote
Yes
* Ralph Nader (2008) played a significant role in Al Gore’s defeat by taking votes in important states. Eastern Tennessee (5.2% of vote) * 2012, gained 2 senators and 7 HoR * Third parties can affect the policy-direction of the main parties – Clinton nicked Perot’s federal budget deficit policy; by 2000 it was in surplus * Can also impact upon the nature and direction of the main parties – Southern Strategy took GOP in to the South as a result of George Wallace’s 1968 campaign * Can change outcome of elections without actually being elected – Ralph Nader polled 2.7% in 2000 and lost Al Gore the election * Provide an outlet for voters not satisfied with the two parties, preventing more violent or extreme protest

SECTION 3: PRESSURE GROUPS

Definition
A pressure group is an organised interest group in which members share and actively pursue common views and objectives to influence government. Pressure groups are therefore quite distinct from political parties.
Pressure groups vary considerably in terms of size, wealth and influence. Pressure groups in the USA operate at all levels of government - federal, state and local - and seek to bring their influence to bear on all three branches of government - the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.
Types of Pressure Groups * Business/trade * American Business Conference * National Association of Manufacturers * National Auto-mobile dealers Association * Agriculture * American Farm Bureau Federation * National Farmers' Union * Associated Milk Producers Inc. * Unions * American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organisations (AFL-CIO) * Untied Auto Workers * Professional * American Medical Association * National Education Association * American Bar Association * Single Issue * Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) * National Rifle Association (NRA) * National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League * Ideological * American Conservative Union * People for the American Way * American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) * Group rights * National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) * National Organisation for Women (NOW) * American Association of Retired Persons * Public interest * Common Cause * Friends of the Earth
Functions of Pressure Groups * Representation - They represent the interests of various groups in society. * Citizen participation - They increase the opportunities for ordinary citizens to participate in the decision-making process between elections. * Public education - They attempt to educate public opinion, warning them of dangers if issues are not addressed. This can be seen as being done by pressure groups operating in such issue areas as the environment and gun control. * Agenda building - They attempt to influence the agendas of political parties, legislators and bureaucracies to give prominence and priority to their interests. They will attempt to bring together different parts of American society - For example business groups, religious groups, state governments, professional organisations - to work together to achieve a common interest. * Programme monitoring -They will scrutinise and hold government to account in the implementation of policies to try to ensure that promises are fulfilled, policies are actually 'delivered' and regulations are enforced.
Reasons for joining Pressure Groups * Material Benefits * People join pressure groups because they think that either they personally, or society as a whole, will gain some material benefit as a result. Material benefits range from the personal ones a member gains from joining a group to the policy changes it offers. * Purposive Benefits * People join pressure groups to be part of a movement or a cause to try to make society, or even the world, a better place. Membership of this kind has a certain 'feel good' factor about it for those joining. * Solidarity Benefits * People join pressure groups to interact with line-minded people, taking part in group activities.
Methods used by Pressure Groups Electioneering and endorsement * Campaign finance reform has meant that significant changes have taken place in the electioneering and fundraising roles of pressure groups. * The 1970s reforms encouraged the setting up of Political Action Committees (PACs) - organisations whose purpose is to raise and then give campaign funds to candidates for political office. * There is a clear trend that incumbents attract more PAC money than challengers. * Pressure groups endorse or oppose candidates for political office based on the candidates' position on the policy areas of concern to them. * At election time, groups will often publish vote guides on their websites showing which candidates most closely support the group's stand on issues. Lobbying * Lobbying is an attempt to exert influence on the policy-making process, in any of the three branches, by individuals or organised groups. * In order to facilitate lobbying, many groups have offices in Washington DC, state capitals and other major US cities. * In Washington DC, the lobbyist firms are collectively know as the 'K Street corridor' - named after the street in the city where many lobbyists have their offices. * Lobbyists provide policy-makers with information. And for members of Congress, they may also provide them with important voting cues. * Many lobbying firms recruit former policy-makers through what is know as 'the revolving door syndrome'. Publicity * Lobbying firms launch public relations campaigns to influence the policy-making process. * Both the Clinton and Bush Presidencies felt the effect of powerful lobbying firms launching publicity blitzes against some of their flagship policies - healthcare and social security reform. * Publicity campaigns are wages through a number of different means such as television advertisements, journal advertising, roadside hoardings, bumper stickers or badges. Organising grassroots activities * These include such activities as postal blitzes on members of congress, the White House or a government department, marches and demonstrations. Most are peaceful, but some may resort violence.
Importance of Pressure Groups * America is a very diverse and heterogeneous society: * The more diverse a society is, the greater will be the variety of special interest to represent. * This can be seen immediately in the racial mix of American society. Another term used to refer to America is that it is the 'hyphenated society'. * There are said to be almost 100 different religions that claim at least 50,000 members each. Again, here are more interests and groups to represent. And America is a vast country spread over different regions, all with their own cultures and traditions. * The American political system has many access points: * In the UK, political power is quite highly centralised. There are few access points for the ordinary citizen to influence government. * The executive branch largely controls the legislature. * Parliament is made up of only one truly effective chamber. * The Prime minister, it could be argued, exercises a good deal of relatively unchecked power. * Hence there are few points at which real political decisions are made and there are, therefore, few access points. * But in the USA there is a doctrine of 'shared powers' - shared between the three branches of the federal government as well as between the federal government and the state governments. * Even an institution like congress is very fragmented. It is not just on the floors of the two chambers where decisions are made, but in the numerous committee rooms as well. * Hence there are many points at which real political decisions are made. * The weakness of political parties in America mean that citizens turn more to pressure groups: * In a country such as the UK, which has strong, centralised, disciplined political parties, these parties are seen as the principal vehicles for political activity. * Also in the UK, where one part will dominate the government by controlling both the executive and legislative branches of government, parties are seen as more able to deliver their promises and policy proposals. * In a country such as the USA, which has relatively weak, decentralised and undisciplined political parties, parties are not seen in this light. And as we know, these days it quite unlikely that any one party will control both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. Democrat Bill Clinton enjoyed party control of congress for only 2 of his 8 year in office; Republican George W. Bush for 4 and a half of his 8 years.
Pressure Group activity
Environmental protection * Towards the end of the 19th century, as both industrialisation and 'westward expansion' were well under way, the matter of environmental conservation became important. * This is when the Sierra Club was formed, The Wilderness Society and the National Wildlife Federation followed this in the early 20th century. * Such groups have been behind the push towards stricter laws for environmental protection.
Civil rights for African-Americans * The NAACP was the force behind the landmark Supreme Court decision of Brown V. the Board of Education of Topeka 1954, as well as the subsequent passage of much civil rights legislation. * The NAACP would use its money and profession expertise to bring cases to court for people who could not otherwise afford it. * These would be cases that the NAACP believed it could win and which would benefit the interests of African-Americans. * The NAACP had continued to at the centre of political debate in America over affirmative action programmes.
Women's rights * Groups such as the League of Women Voters and the National Organization for Women pushed - unsuccessfully - for the passage of an * Equal Rights Amendment to the constitution during the 1970s and 1980s. * But that have remained very active in American politics, campaigning on such issues as equal pay and job opportunities for women. * They have also been involved in the debate over attempting to root out sexual harassment in the workplace, with some high-profile cases in the United States Military. * This latter issue also received much public debate concerning President Clinton's relationships with women such as Paula Corbin Jones. * Some criticised women's groups for not being more critical of the President. Women's groups have also been very much involved in the abortion debate, as well as trying to increase the number of women elected to Congress. * The pressure group EMILY's List supports female candidates, helping them to raise money early on in the electoral cycle.
Abortion rights * Both the pro-choice and pro-life lobbies have been very active in American politics during the past 3-4 decades. * Since the 1973 Roe V. Wade decision by the Supreme Court, pro-choice groups have fought to preserve the constitutional right of women to have an abortion, whereas the pro-life groups have fought to have it both narrowed and overturned. * Most recently, they have been involved in the debate concerning the practice so called 'partial birth abortions'. When Congress tried to ban such types of abortion, President Clinton vetoed the bills, once in 1996 and again in 1997. In 2000, the Supreme Court refused to allow states to ban these types of abortion. But in 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the ban, declaring it be constitutional.
Gun control * The NRA is arguable one of the most powerful interest groups in American Politics, with a membership of some 3 million. It was formed in 1871 as a group dedicated to teaching people how to use guns. * But since the 1960s, it has been very influential in stopping what it sees as encroachments on citizens' rights to own and use legal firearms. * It seeks to uphold the strictest interpretation of the Second Amendment right to 'keep and bear arm'. It also works to oppose tougher gun control laws put forward at any level of government. * The NRA has opposed the passage of the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban, as well as laws requiring background checks on those purchasing guns and the mandatory sale of trigger locks with handguns. * The NRA also played an important role in the Supreme Court case of District of Columbia V. Heller 2008, in which the court declared unconstitutional the law banning the ownership of handguns in the district.
Influence on the Federal Government
Influence on the legislature * Direct contact with House and Senate members and their senior staff * Direct contact with the relevant House and Senate committee members and their staff. * Organising constituents to write to, phone, fax, e-mail or visit their House and Senate members to express their support for or opposition to a certain policy initiative. * Publicising the voting records of House and Senate members * Endorsement of supportive members and opposition to non-supportive member in forthcoming re-election campaigns. * Fundraising, campaigning for or against members of congress - paying for radio/television advertisements etc. * Pressure groups may also launch high-profile campaigns in the media when a significant piece of legislation is about to come up for a crucial debate and vote in Congress. Recent examples include Congressional debates and votes on healthcare reform, welfare reform, gun control and international environmental agreements.
Influence on the executive * Pressure groups will seek to maintain strong ties with relevant executive departments, agencies and regulatory commissions. * This is especially the case when it comes to the regulatory work of the federal government - regulations, for example, regarding health and safety at work, business, the transport and communications industries or the environment. * Problems can emerge when regulatory bodies are though to have too cosy a relationship with the particular group they are meant to be regulating. 'Watch dogs' or 'lap dogs'?
Influence on the judiciary * Pressure groups can hope to influence the courts by offering 'amicus curiae' (friends of the court) briefings. * Through these, pressure groups will have an opportunity to present their views to the court in writing before oral arguments are heard. * Pressure groups have certainly used this to great effect in recent decades in such areas as the civil rights of racial minorities, abortion rights and First amendment rights. * They may also sponsor cases to come before the courts, as the NAACP did in the 1954 Brown V. Topeka case. They may actually bring cases themselves, such as the 2005 McCreary V. American Civil Liberties Union case. * In the last 20 years, pressure groups have also been very active in supporting or opposing the nomination of judges, especially those to the Supreme Court. They were certainly very active in the Senate confirmation hearings surrounding Rober Bork (1987) and Clarence Thomas (1991), as well as those of John Roberts (2005) and Samuel Alito (2006).
Arguments for and against pressure groups
Arguments in favour of pressure groups having an important role to play in American politics stress that pressure groups provide useful functions, by acting as: * Information-givers - to members of congress, government departments, the courts and the electorate as a whole, for whom they play an 'educating' role. * Policy formulators * A 'sounding board' for members of congress and government departments * Enhancers of political participation, especially between elections and on specific issues

Arguments against pressure groups having as much power as they currently seem to have in American politics: * Money becomes the all-deciding factor - you have to 'pay to play' * They work too much for 'special' interests and against the 'national' interests * They tend to be elitist and largely unaccountable, and their power thereby detracts from elected (congress) and accountable (executive) officials * They lead to inequalities of power, for example in policy debates relating to healthcare, tobacco and gun control. * The 'revolving door syndrome' allows former members of Congress or the executive branch to take up highly paid jobs as lobbyists. This may mean that federal officials use their position to do favours in exchange for an attractive post when they leave office. * They sometimes use methods of 'direct action' that are deemed by others to be inappropriate; for example methods used recently by animal rights groups, pro and anti-abortion groups, environmentalists and anti-capitalists.

SECTION 4: RADICAL & ETHNIC POLITICS

Changes in the US population: * End of the civil war (1965) brought the emancipation of the slaves * Large immigration rates * 2010 census: Hispanics (16.3%) African Americans (12.3%) * Vermont 95% white, Hawaii 24 % * 2025: Hispanic and Asian community will make up 25% of America
Civil rights movement: * Grew in the 1950’s * Amendments to the constitution wee not upheld in the deep south (schools, public transport, toilets) * Separate but equal ruling (1896 plessy v ferguson) was not working * Initially peaceful protest
Import parts: * Brown vs Topeka (1954) * Bus boycotts and freedom rides, Rosa parks (1955) * I have a dream speech (1963) * Assassination of MLK (1968)

Affirmative action:
Definition: a set of procedures that attempts to correct the effects of past discrimination against minority groups and that includes specific goals and quotas for hiring minority applicants * Many believe that it is just reverse discrimination * Many believe it to be patrionising to minority groups
Brief history of affirmative action: * March 1961, JFK created Equal Employment Opportunity Council (EEOC) * Republican Richard Nixon played a significant role in affirmative action success * Set up scheme that reserved certain numbers of jobs on federally funded construction projects for minorities
Criticism from US Supreme Court: * Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke (1978), School reserved 16 out 100 places for minorities. Yet white applicant with higher test scores was rejected. Ruled that it violated ‘Equal Protection Clause’ * Adarand Constructors Vs. Peña (1995) road building contractors got bonuses from dept. of transport if they employed minority workers. In Colorado, a firm employing white workers put in a cheaper bid for work but was unsuccessful due to no minorities. Court would not rule if it was unconstitutional * Led to Clinton calling for an end to programmes that created a quota, preference, reverse discrimination * (2007) Parents involved in community school inc. vs. Seattle school district & Meredith vs. Jefferson county Board of education. Court struck down affirmative action programmes by them because they assigned students to public schools to achieve a racial balance
History continued: * 1997, voters in California voted in favour of ‘proposition 209’ banning all forms of affirmative action, supreme court refused to review it * As a result number of minorities entering good universities in California dropped * Florida and Washington followed with similar votes
Arguments for affirmative action: 1. Leader to greater levels of diversity 2. Rights previous wrongs 3. Opens up areas of employment and education for minorities 4. A diverse student body creates a better environment and racial tolerance 5. Best policy so far to create equal opportunities 6. It works. (black people graduating from uni between 1960-95 rose from 5% to 15%)
Arguments against affirmative action 1. Advantage/preference for one group leads to disadvantage for another (reverse discrimination) 2. Can put minorities in jobs they cannot cope in 3. Can be considered condescending to minorities, insinuating they need extra help 4. Creates a society based on colour and race, encouraging prejudice 5. Just another quota system 6. Focuses on groups rather than individuals
Has affirmative action been a success? * Based upon what it was first meant to achieve * A 25 year limit put on it to achieve success * Many believe it was destined to fail as it’s a programme based upon race, so it can never lead to a point where race doesn’t matter * ‘Michigan Mandate’ 1. Leadership of the state should look like population 2. University graduates should meet the above goal 3. Needs to admit minorities to achieve this * However many affirmative action programmes have lost sight of their intended goal * Meant to be a means to end, not an end themselves * The aim is to fully integrate society, if that doesn’t happen its failed * However if minorities end up jobs they cannot handle this is not effective (many American’s refuse to visit black doctors etc.) * 2008 saw the election of the first black president but also Nebraska voted for a ban on affirmative action programmes * Poor representation in the senate * Roughly 16% in Hor * Obama’s diverse cabinet (black, women, Hispanics, Chinese, Japanese)
Minority representation in government * Bill Clinton: ‘to have a government that looks like America’
Minorities and congress: * Jesse Jackson ran for President in 1984 (21 Blacks in congress, all in HoR) * When Obama ran in 08 (41 in congress, 40 in HoR and Obama in senate) * Due to new boundaries (1992) for election number of minorities in HoR increased * Hispanics 9 in 1992 and 27 in 2009 (2 in the senate) * 2007 under democrats James Clyburn became first Black member of congress to hold a senior leadership post (majority whip) in HoR * 1971 – Black Caucus formed by Charles Rangel, still in existence today * Barack Obama was the 3rd black person to be elected into the senate, all held Illinois * Hawaii has elected 4 Asian senators, current 2 * 2 Hispanic senators
Minorities and Presidential elections: * Even though minorities had the vote, southern states found ways to stop them (literacy tests) * Not till the 1960’s that they could really vote * Since the 1930’s black people usually sided with democrats (due to Roosevelt) * 1972 Shirley Chisholm – First major black candidate for presidency * 1984 Jesse Jackson – ran for democrat presidential candidacy, winning primaries in Washington, Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia and Mississippi * 95% of African American’s voted for Obama in 2008 * However Hispanic vote is less clear, usually sided with Democrats, but not completely (are becoming an increasing percent of the population) * Major contributing factors in Romney loss was his strong policy on immigration that alienated Hispanics

Minorities and the executive: * 1966 – Robert weaver became first black to head a federal executive department and therefore a member of the cabinet * 2001 – Colin Powell appointed as secretary of state to Bush, first black to get a ‘top tier’ job
Minorities and the judiciary: * 1967 – Thurgood Marshall, first black judge (noted liberal) * Replaced by another black judge Clarence Thomas * 1986 – Antonin Scalia first Italian American * 2000 census showed that of all judges: * 83% white (only 75% of the population was white) * 9% black and 5% Hispanic * Lawyers: * 89% white, 4% black and 3% Hispanic * 20% of Carter’s judicial nominees were from minorities * 10% of GW Bush’s judicial nominees were Hispanic
Minorities and state and local government: * 1990 – Douglas Wilder, first African American state governor * 2008 – 8% of state legislators were black * 1967 – First black mayor of a major city (Cleveland)
The protection of the rights and liberties of racial and ethnic minorities:

By the Supreme Court: * Likely to play the most significant role as it interprets the constitution and protects the laws * History shows numerous landmark cases concerning civil rights * 1954 – Brown vs. Tapeka ‘separate but equal’ was not working in education * 1971 – Swann vs. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, ruled that segregation due to neighborhood schooling was unconstitutional * 1971 – California vs. Bakke * 1995 – Adarand constructors vs Peña
Protection of Ethnic Minorities rights by Congress * Large amount of civil rights legislation passed after the 1954 Brown v Topeka. E.g. in 1957 the Civil Rights Commission made it a federal crime to prevent a person from voting in an election. * 1964 – Civil Rights Act (voting, public accommodation, schools, employment, and the allocation of federal funds) * 1965 – Voting Rights Act – ended the use of literacy tests to stop minorities from voting * In March 1972, Congress initiated the Equal Rights amendment, which barred discrimination on the bases of gender. However, in 10 years only 35 states had voted to change this.

* 1972 - education amendment act prohibiting gender discrimination in schools or universities’ that are receiving federal funding. * In 1990, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act which required ‘reasonable accommodations to be made in the workplace and public facilities e.g. train stations. This has proved to be a significant step forward in bringing disabled people forward to the mainstream of US life.
Protection of Ethnic Minorities’ rights by the President * Commander in Chief of the armed forces so they can use troops to enforce legislation. E.G. President Eisenhower sent troops to Arkansas in 1957 to back up the Supreme Court order to desegregate schools. * They can publicly support civil rights legislation in congress and praise Supreme Court decisions. E.G. Johnson’s complete support for civil rights acts passed in 1964 and 1965 and George W Bush praising Supreme Court decision in Gratz v Bollinger where Affirmative Action admissions policy was upheld. * They can use their political authority against developments they are opposed to. E.g. Nixon clearly in opposition to the ‘busing’ decision by the Supreme Court in the Swann case. Reagan oppose the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment * They can affect Government Policies through the appointments they make to government groups and if they appoint people from a diverse background to their cabinet. E.g. Clinton wanted a cabinet that ‘looked like America’ (diverse). Reagan sought to replace members of the Civil Rights commission who had been critical of his government’s policies.