Gov Notes_Final.docx PDF

**Contents** {#contents.TOCHeading} ============ [10/14 -- Lecture 12 Political Parties 4](#lecture-12-political-parties) [Political Parties 4](#political-parties) [Why parties 1: "Party in government" 4](#why-parties-1-party-in-government) [Why Parties 2: "Party Organization" 5](#why-parties-2-...

**Contents** {#contents.TOCHeading} ============ [10/14 -- Lecture 12 Political Parties 4](#lecture-12-political-parties) [Political Parties 4](#political-parties) [Why parties 1: "Party in government" 4](#why-parties-1-party-in-government) [Why Parties 2: "Party Organization" 5](#why-parties-2-party-organization) [Why Parties 3: "Party in the Electorate" 5](#why-parties-3-party-in-the-electorate) [Why Parties 4: "Party in Society" 5](#why-parties-4-party-in-society) [The First Party System (1792-1824) 6](#the-first-party-system-1792-1824) [The Second Party System (1824-1854) 6](#the-second-party-system-1824-1854) [The Third Party System (1854-1896) 7](#the-third-party-system-1854-1896) [The Fourth Party System (1896-1928) 8](#the-fourth-party-system-1896-1928) [The Fifth Party System (1932-1968) 8](#the-fifth-party-system-1932-1968) [The Flip 9](#the-flip) [The Sixth Party System (1968/80 -- present) 9](#the-sixth-party-system-196880-present) [America's Two Party System 9](#americas-two-party-system) [Proportional Representation 10](#proportional-representation) [Other Reasons Third Parties Fail 10](#other-reasons-third-parties-fail) [10/16 -- Lecture 13 Polarization 11](#lecture-13-polarization) [Ideological Polarization 11](#ideological-polarization) [Mass Ideological Polarization: NO? 11](#mass-ideological-polarization-no) [Elite Ideological Polarization: YES 11](#elite-ideological-polarization-yes) [Coalitional Polarization 11](#coalitional-polarization) [Ideological Sorting 12](#ideological-sorting) [Demographic Sorting 12](#demographic-sorting) [Geographic Sorting 12](#geographic-sorting) [Affective Polarization 12](#affective-polarization) [Consequences of Polarization 12](#consequences-of-polarization) [First Causes: Elites 13](#first-causes-elites) [Later Causes: Culture Wars 13](#later-causes-culture-wars) [Later Causes: Sorted Polarized 13](#later-causes-sorted-polarized) [Later Causes: Television Media 13](#later-causes-television-media) [Later Causes: Social Media 14](#later-causes-social-media) [10/23 -- Lecture 14 Political Psychology 15](#lecture-14-political-psychology) [Understanding Ideology 15](#understanding-ideology) [We Are Not Ideological 16](#we-are-not-ideological) [UNF Students and "Ideology" 16](#unf-students-and-ideology) [Use of the term "Moderate" 17](#use-of-the-term-moderate) [Why aren't we "logical" 17](#why-arent-we-logical) [Moral Dumbfounding 17](#moral-dumbfounding) [Moral Foundations Theory 18](#moral-foundations-theory) [Where does partisanship come from? 18](#where-does-partisanship-come-from) [The Zaller "R-A-S" Model 19](#the-zaller-r-a-s-model) [Persuasion? 19](#persuasion) [Implications from Mass Behavior 19](#implications-from-mass-behavior) [10/21 -- Lecture 15 The Media, Old and New 20](#lecture-15-the-media-old-and-new) [The Media: Basic Facts 20](#the-media-basic-facts) [The Media: Individual Incentives 20](#_Toc184683313) [The Media is Partisan-Oriented 20](#the-media-is-partisan-oriented) [Media Effects: Informing the Public 20](#media-effects-informing-the-public) [Media Effects: Persuading the Public 21](#media-effects-persuading-the-public) [Persuasion with Multiple Messages 21](#persuasion-with-multiple-messages) [Media Effects: Agenda Setting 22](#media-effects-agenda-setting) [Media Effects: Conferring Status 22](#media-effects-conferring-status) [Media Effects: Priming and Framing 22](#media-effects-priming-and-framing) [New Media: Cable & Social Media 22](#new-media-cable-social-media) [Tips for Consuming News Media 22](#tips-for-consuming-news-media) [10/28 -- Lecture 16 Attitudes and Polling 24](#lecture-16-attitudes-and-polling) [Polling and Politics 24](#polling-and-politics) [Is Polling accurate 24](#is-polling-accurate) [Polling Accuracy: Response Rates 24](#polling-accuracy-response-rates) [Polling Accuracy: Sample Size? 24](#polling-accuracy-sample-size) [Polling Accuracy: Evidence 25](#polling-accuracy-evidence) [Challenges in Polling 25](#challenges-in-polling) [Meaningful Attitudes 25](#meaningful-attitudes) [Stable Attitudes? 26](#stable-attitudes) [Robust Attitudes 26](#robust-attitudes) [Question Order 26](#question-order) [Attitudes are Under-informed 26](#attitudes-are-under-informed) [Attitudes are based on false premises 27](#attitudes-are-based-on-false-premises) [10/30 -- Lecture 17 Voting, Campaigns and Elections 28](#lecture-17-voting-campaigns-and-elections) [Voting, 1800s Style 28](#voting-1800s-style) [Other changes to voting 28](#other-changes-to-voting) [Voter Turnout 29](#voter-turnout) [Direct Benefits of Voting 29](#direct-benefits-of-voting) [Costs of Voting 30](#costs-of-voting) [Determinants of Turnout 30](#determinants-of-turnout) [Increasing Voter Turnout 30](#_Toc184683343) [Voter ID Laws 31](#voter-id-laws) [Voter Fraud? (No.) 31](#voter-fraud-no.) [Determinates of the Vote 31](#determinates-of-the-vote) [Campaign Effects 32](#campaign-effects) [Problem with Election Timing 32](#problem-with-election-timing) [11/4 -- Lecture 18 Race and Ethnicity 33](#lecture-18-race-and-ethnicity) [Definitions 33](#definitions) [Race as a Social Construct 33](#race-as-a-social-construct) [Source of racism: psychological 33](#source-of-racism-psychological) [Sources of racism: institutional 34](#sources-of-racism-institutional) [End of Slavery NOT End of Problems 34](#end-of-slavery-not-end-of-problems) [Redlining 35](#redlining) [Lack of Accumulated Wealth 35](#_Toc184683356) [The New Jim Crow 36](#the-new-jim-crow) [Mass Incarceration: 36](#mass-incarceration) [Unarmed Police Fatalities and Race 36](#unarmed-police-fatalities-and-race) [Implicit Bias Issues 37](#implicit-bias-issues) [Prosecution of Police 37](#prosecution-of-police) [11/6 -- Lecture 19 Immigration 38](#lecture-19-immigration) [Immigration to the United States 38](#immigration-to-the-united-states) [American views on immigration 38](#american-views-on-immigration) [Asian Immigration 38](#asian-immigration) [Latino Immigration 39](#latino-immigration) [Illegal Immigration 39](#illegal-immigration) [Contemporary Issues in Immigration 40](#contemporary-issues-in-immigration) [11/20 -- Lecture 20 American Political Culture 42](#lecture-20-american-political-culture) [American Political Culture 42](#american-political-culture) [Rule \#1: The "Meta" belief 42](#rule-1-the-meta-belief) [Alexis de Tocqueville 42](#alexis-de-tocqueville) [The American Creed 43](#the-american-creed) [Contested: English? 43](#contested-english) [Contested: Born in the USA? 44](#contested-born-in-the-usa) [Contested Multiculturalism? 44](#contested-multiculturalism) [Contested Christianity? 44](#contested-christianity) [American Exceptionalism 45](#american-exceptionalism) [11/25 -- Lecture 21 Organized Politics 46](#lecture-21-organized-politics) [Organizing is crucial 46](#organizing-is-crucial) [Organizing is Difficult 46](#organizing-is-difficult) [Which groups do well 46](#which-groups-do-well) [Interest Groups vs. Social Movements 47](#interest-groups-vs.-social-movements) [Tools of Interest groups 47](#tools-of-interest-groups) [Case Study 1: U.S. Business Community 48](#case-study-1-u.s.-business-community) [Case Study 2: National Rifle Association 48](#case-study-2-national-rifle-association) [Case Study 3: American Civil Liberties Union 48](#case-study-3-american-civil-liberties-union) [Tools of social movements 49](#tools-of-social-movements) [Case Study 1: Occupy Wall Street 49](#case-study-1-occupy-wall-street) [Case Study 2: Identity Movements 50](#case-study-2-identity-movements) [Masses vs. Elites: Who Wins? 50](#masses-vs.-elites-who-wins) [Who Benefits Now? Biased Pluralism 51](#who-benefits-now-biased-pluralism) [When business power is successful 51](#when-business-power-is-successful) [12/2 -- Lecture 22 Money in Politics 52](#lecture-22-money-in-politics) [History of regulating Political Money 52](#history-of-regulating-political-money) [Basic FEC Rules 52](#basic-fec-rules) [History of Regulating Political Money 53](#history-of-regulating-political-money-1) [Enter the Super PAC 53](#enter-the-super-pac) [Impact of Super PACs 53](#impact-of-super-pacs) [Does money buy policy? 53](#does-money-buy-policy) [Political Donations Buy Lobbying Time 54](#political-donations-buy-lobbying-time) [Lobbying Is Important 54](#lobbying-is-important) [Lobbying: Spending 54](#lobbying-spending) [Lobbying: Spending by Party 54](#lobbying-spending-by-party) [Revolving Door Politics 55](#revolving-door-politics) [What Can be Done? 55](#what-can-be-done) [12/4 -- Lecture 23 Economic Inequality 56](#lecture-23-economic-inequality) [Why care about inequality? 56](#why-care-about-inequality) [State of Inequality 56](#state-of-inequality) [Wealth 56](#wealth) [Revisiting racial wealth inequality 56](#revisiting-racial-wealth-inequality) [Global comparison 56](#global-comparison) [Explaining Inequality 56](#explaining-inequality) [Globalization 57](#globalization) [Technology 57](#technology) [Political Inaction 57](#political-inaction) [Political Action 57](#political-action) [Decline in Unions 57](#decline-in-unions) [Public Opinion 57](#public-opinion) [What can be done 58](#what-can-be-done-1) [Lecture 24 -- Democratic Accountability 1 59](#lecture-24-democratic-accountability-1) [Elements of Accountability 59](#elements-of-accountability) [The public Knows something is wrong...but the public is inattentive 59](#the-public-knows-something-is-wrong-but-the-public-is-inattentive) [The public has unclear preferences 59](#the-public-has-unclear-preferences) [The Miracle of Aggregation 60](#the-miracle-of-aggregation) [But politicians often don't know 60](#but-politicians-often-dont-know) [...and politicians may just not care 60](#and-politicians-may-just-not-care) [Solution 1: Heuristics 60](#solution-1-heuristics) [Problems with Heuristics 60](#problems-with-heuristics) [bad shortcuts? 60](#bad-shortcuts) [Signal Decay 61](#signal-decay) ["Hollowing" 61](#hollowing) [Follow the Leader 61](#follow-the-leader) [Lecture 25 -- Democratic Accountability 2 62](#lecture-25-democratic-accountability-2) [Retrospective problems 62](#retrospective-problems) [Accountability 62](#accountability) [Myopia 62](#myopia) [Selective perception and attribution 62](#selective-perception-and-attribution) [Irrationality 62](#irrationality) [Who is getting represented? 62](#who-is-getting-represented) [Solution 3: Organized politics 63](#solution-3-organized-politics) [Why do they do so well? 63](#why-do-they-do-so-well) 10/14 -- Lecture 12 Political Parties ===================================== Political Parties ----------------- Missed or underestimated by Founders - **Madison:** considered "factions", but not necessarily in the form of a political party - **Washington:** in farewell, warned against "baneful effects of the spirits of party" - **Hamilton:** "Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has at all times characterized political parties." - **Jefferson:** "If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Parties begin to matter almost immediately - Federalists (formed by *Hamilton*) - Democratic-Republicans (formed by *Jefferson*) Bill 1 (Big Tax Cut) Bill 2 (School Prayer) Bill 3 (Border Control) -------------- ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------- Mr. Business 10 -1 -1 Ms. Religion -1 10 -1 Mr. Security -1 -1 10 Ms. Worker -10 -1 -1 Mr. Freedom 1 -10 -5 Why parties 1: "Party in government" ------------------------------------ Parties allow legislators to form **long coalitions** in gov't Imagine these five work alone - Result: All three bills fail - Red legislators get 0 total - Blue legislators get 0 total Imagine red legislators choose to work as a long coalition - Each takes short-term hits - Result: All three bills pass - Red legislators get 8 each - Blue legislators get over -10 If Mr. Business is totally self-interested, what he might he do once Bill 1has passed? - BETRAYAL! If this happens even a couple times, the coalition is ruined Long coalitions (parties) thus have 2 important goals: - Ensure members continue\ to vote together - Avoid *votes that will split your members* Why Parties 2: "Party Organization" ----------------------------------- - Parties improve the likelihood of individual members winning election - **Branding:** instantly unites candidate under common umbrella of ideas with other politicians - **Mobilization:** minimizes transaction costs for activists and volunteers to promote candidates they like - **Structure:** used to offer career incentives to activists - **Fundraising:** money flows from popular members to new challengers Why Parties 3: "Party in the Electorate" ---------------------------------------- Parties help to clarify politics and stimulate action among the public: - Yes, functions as a **heuristic:** a shortcut for decision-making - But, [PRIMARILY functions as a real **identity:**] **\ **90% (!) of Americans have a clear preference if asked correctly - From my UNF Poll: 35% Democrat, 20% Republican, 45% "Ind" - Reality: 50% Democrat, 30% Republican, 20% true Independent Why Parties 4: "Party in Society" --------------------------------- Parties are vehicles for **intense policy demanders** (organized labor, interest groups, social movements, the wealthy) Two views on goals of party - Realize values/ideology - Get stuff for members - Political scientists mostly support the latter view Principal-Agent problem: who do representatives primarily serve? - Organized interests,\ or individuals? - The well-off and attentive,\ or all constituents? - In both cases, scientists mostly support the former view History of U.S. Political Parties Parties change greatly over course of history, in terms of name, extremity, strength, and issues represented The First Party System (1792-1824) ---------------------------------- **Federalists:** - *Region*: Northern, urban - *Industry*: Merchants, bankers - *Players*: Adams, Hamilton - *Issues*: Support for national bank; strengthening power of nat'l govt **Democratic-Republicans:** - *Region*: Southern, rural - *Industry*: Farmers, workers - *Players*: Jefferson, Madison - *Issues*: Opposition to national bank; strengthening power of local govt *Control*: Democratic-Republicans dominate *Collapse*: Federalists collapse after War of 1812, "Era of Good Feelings" until 1824 The Second Party System (1824-1854) ----------------------------------- **Whigs:** - *Region*: Urban, lean northern - *Industry*: Merchants, bankers - *Demographics:* Protestants, wealthy - *Players*: JQ Adams, Webster, **Clay** - *Issues*: Modernizing the economy;\ pro-temperance, anti-immigrant **Democrats:** - *Region*: Rural, lean southern - *Industry*: Farmers, workers, slavers - *Demographics:* Catholics, poor - *Players*: **Jackson**, Van Buren, Calhoun - *Issues*: Agrarian economy; pro-slavery *Control:* Democrats dominate w/ Jackson *Collapse:* Whigs split by slavery The Third Party System (1854-1896) ---------------------------------- **Republicans:** - *Region*: Urban, heavily northern (at first) - *Industry*: Businessmen, [laborers] - *Demographics:* \$\$; black people; protestants - *Players*: Lincoln, Grant, **McKinley** - *Issues*: pro-govt, protectionist; pro-urban **Democrats:** - *Region*: Rural, heavily southern (at first) - *Industry*: Agriculture, laborers - *Demographics:* Poor; Catholics; i[mmigrants] - *Players*: Cleveland, **Bryan** - *Issues*: anti-govt, anti-corps; pro-agrarian *Control:* Split between parties; [high polarization] *Collapse:* Cities thrive, Reps win "middle class\" The Fourth Party System (1896-1928) ----------------------------------- **Republicans:** - *Region*: Heavily northern - *Demographics:* Upper & [middle class]; [black people]; protestants - *Players*: McKinley, **Roosevelt**, Coolidge - *Issues*: pro-big business; anti-union **Democrats:** - *Region*: Dominant in South, northern cities - *Demographics:* Poor & working class;\ European immigrants; catholics - *Players*: Bryan, **Wilson** - *Issues*: pro-union; populist *Control:* Republicans dominate, [parties weak] *Collapse:* the Great Depression The Fifth Party System (1932-1968) ---------------------------------- **Northern Republicans:** Weak throughout period - *Demographics:* Upper-middle class; WASPs - *Players*: Rockefeller, Eisenhower - *Issues*: Anti-segregation; pro-business; centrism **Southern Republicans:** *Almost non-existent* - *Demographics:* Wealthy southern whites - *Issues*: Pro-segregation, pro-business; elitism **Northern Democrats:** Weak part of dominant party - *Demographics:* Progressives; minorities; unions - *Players*: Roosevelt, Kennedy - *Issues*: Anti-segregation; pro-union; liberalism **Southern Democrats:** Dominant until end of period - *Demographics:* Non-wealthy southern whites - *Players*: Thurmond, Johnson (weirdly) - *Issues*: Pro-segregation, pro-union; populism *Control:* Democrats dominate, but [split regionally] *Collapse:* the Civil Rights Act shifts party loyalties The Flip -------- **** **** The Sixth Party System (1968/80 -- present) ------------------------------------------- **Republicans:** - *Region*: Rural; South and Midwest - *Demographics:* Middle/upper class; whites; **conservatives**; protestants - *Players*: Reagan, Gingrich, Trump - *Issues*: pro-business, anti-govt; cultural conservatism **Democrats:** - *Region*: Urban; Coasts and Lakes - *Demographics:* Poor/working class; POC; **liberals**; non-protestants - *Players*: Clinton, Obama - *Issues*: pro-union, pro-govt; cultural liberalism *Control:* split control, high polarization *Collapse:* imminent (demographics) America's Two Party System -------------------------- **Duverger's Law:** a multiparty system\ *cannot occur* in winner-take-all systems. Proportional Representation --------------------------- In a **proportional** system, parties get seated proportional to the percent vote they get, rewarding small parties. (5% of the vote, 5% of the seats) - Small parties are often "kingmakers" that get what they want In a **pluralist** system, *winners take all*. Minor parties get *no reward*, and there is therefore little incentive to vote for them. (5% of the vote results in 0% representation) Other Reasons Third Parties Fail -------------------------------- What other disadvantages exist for 3rd parties? - Existing two-party dominance reinforces barriers to entry - Low name recognition - Lack of financing - Lack of connections - Any good ideas can be "stolen" Advice: Don't vote/advocate for third parties. Choose an existing major party and reform it instead. 10/16 -- Lecture 13 Polarization ================================ Ideological Polarization ------------------------ **Ideological polarization:** **polarization as extremity** - People want extreme things - Each party wants extreme things in different directions Ex: "Romneycare" median position in 1994, now Rs more private, Ds more public Little evidence this is happening among public... Mass Ideological Polarization: NO? -------------------------------------------------------- - Moderate responses are still the most common - "Don't Know" is usually 2nd/3rd most common - Millennials and Gen Z showing recent evidence of polarization Elite Ideological Polarization: YES ----------------------------------- - Since \~1970, members of Congress have polarized significantly - Northern Democrats have barely changed over the period - Polarization is ***asymmetric*** -- Republicans have shifted far more than Dems - Scores created automatically by algorithm -- uses voting data to determine where members on one dimension of ideology - Does not reflect non-voting behavior - Political actors who don't make it to Congress; rhetoric by pundits and activists; legislation that never gets voted on the floor Coalitional Polarization ------------------------ **Coalitional Polarization: polarization as team identity** - - **Ideological sorting:** - - Ideological Sorting ------------------- Demographic Sorting ------------------- - **Race, religion, religiosity, and sexual orientation** are powerful predictors of partisanship Geographic Sorting ------------------  A Affective Polarization ---------------------- - **Affective Polarization:** Partisans increasingly distrust\ and dislike one another - Consistent decline in affect since 1980, but especially since 2000 - Affect now equally low among Dems and Reps Consequences of Polarization ---------------------------- - **Gridlock:** compromise becomes impossible - **Venue shifting:** law-making efforts go to states - Accountability: bad ingroup members likely to go unpunished - Decreasing trust in society and government - Negative social/psychological outcomes (stress, alienation, conflict) - What caused polarization? First Causes: Elites -------------------- The first 20 years of polarization are clearly attributable to elite actions: - *Interest groups* (especially business groups) ramp up lobbying of parties (both,\ but especially Republicans) - care less about winning, more about "good" policy - *Party politicians* responded by accentuating differences between parties - Issue differences - Scandals and morality - Legislative productivity - Republicans at first, then eventually both parties Later Causes: Culture Wars -------------------------- - **The Case:** Over time, the major issues of the day went from economic to social/racial, and these cultural divides are much deeper than economic ones. - Political scientists think there is a strong case for this: - Many issues arise 1990-present that fit bill: LGBTQ+ rights; racial injustice and equality; immigration; abortion; gun laws; political correctness; etc. Evidence does suggest social issues cause more polarization than economic ones Later Causes: Sorted Polarized ------------------------------ Theory: - We started out by simply sorting into the parties - Multiple overlapping, consistent identities leads to emotional attachment Party ID didn't use to mean very much (wasn't even clearly ideologically different) When party means race, class, geography, religion, etc., it means much more We act, feel and care more when we have more to defend Later Causes: Television Media ------------------------------ **The Case:** Starting with Fox News in 1998, partisan media on TV only reinforces one side of politics, leading the public to disagree not just on values but even basic facts Political scientists think there is a strong case for this: - Rise of partisan news tracks very well with rise of affective polarization and mistrust - Research suggests networks are more ideological than what would even maximize profits - Research shows exposure to cable news increases hostile partisan attitudes/behavior Later Causes: Social Media -------------------------- **The Case:** The rise of social media around 2005 exposes citizens to the nastiest and most extreme voices on the other side, increasing perceived extremity and hostility Political scientists think there is a strong case for this: - Research shows social media is a shockingly terrible venue for political discourse - The rise of social media tracks well with the biggest period of affective decline - "Echo chambers" reinforce people's existing views and increase misinformation 10/23 -- Lecture 14 Political Psychology ======================================== Understanding Ideology ---------------------- **Ideology:** A set of values/principles that informs one's desired political outcomes Ideological "types" are thought to exist - **Liberal**: - progressivism, equality,\ interventionist, communalistic - **Conservative**: - traditionalism, proportionality,\ laissez-faire, individualistic - In other countries, **"leftist"** is often used to distinguish "left" from "middle" (liberal) Ideology is dimensional (social, economic, racial, international) - This 2x2 grid show voters mapped onto economic (X-axis) and social ideology (Y-axis) **Common ideological labels:** - Liberals/leftists (bottom-left) - growing - Conservatives (upper-right) - shrinking - Populists (upper-left) - socially conservative, economically liberal - dying - Libertarians (bottom right) - socially liberal, economically conservative - growing For comparison, here's all of you from the poll: - Fully Liberal: 31% - Fully Conservative: 25% - "Fully Centrist": 16% - Libertarian: 10% - Populist: 3% - "Something Else": 15% We Are Not Ideological ---------------------- People don't understand ideological terms - **Symbolic:** the label you choose to describe yourself - **Operational:** Your policy preferences - Someone who describes themselves as "conservative" is not necessarily so. Converse: Most people don't think in ideological terms - People more likely to think of politics as competition between "types of people",\ or about individual politicians Ideology does little to explain voting behavior UNF Students and "Ideology" --------------------------- POS2041: Most representative sample I've ever had - Party ID: 45% Democratic, 36% Republican, 19% true Independent - Ideology: 40% Liberal, 34% Conservative, 26% Moderate - Social: 46% Liberal, 29% Conservative, 25% Moderate - Economic: 31% Liberal, 44% Conservative, 25% Moderate Social Issues: **You are all generally very socially liberal.** - Abortion: 61% pro-choice, 23% pro-life, 16% undecided - For Any Reason, Prior to 3rd Trimester: 44% yes, 35% no - Immigration: 54% "permissive", 18% restrictive - Pathway to Citizenship for all: 76% support, 15% oppose - Build the wall: 31% support, 49% oppose - Gun Control: 45% "pro-regulation", 33% "pro-gun" - Majority support all proposals made (59%-93%) - End 2nd Amendment? 20% support, 63% oppose - LGBTQ Issues - Overall levels of support: 64% "supportive", 16% "oppositional" - Support for same-sex marriage: 82% support, 9% oppose - "Gender does not equal Sex": 48% agree, 35% disagree - Race: Support for affirmative action -- 43% support, 26% oppose - Marijuana: Support for legalization -- 65% support, 17% oppose Economic Issues: - Government Services: 60% high support, 29% medium, 11% low - Increase taxes on \$250k+: 52% support, 25% oppose - Increase federal minimum wage: 68% support, 18% oppose - Environmental regulation: 68% pro-regulation, 6% anti-regulation - Increase offshore drilling: 16% support, 46% oppose - Climate change real/caused by us: 80% agree, 7% disagree - Healthcare run by govt or private: 41% govt, 17% private, 42% mid - Offer a public healthcare option: 80% support, 7% oppose - Free college tuition: 63% support, 26% oppose - Student loan forgiveness: 75% support, 16% oppose - REPARATIONS: 41% support, 30% oppose - UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME: 39% support, 25% oppose Use of the term "Moderate" -------------------------- - "Moderates" are more often than not people who have conflicting views on both sides of the spectrum ("confused extremists") - Moderates are *typically* less knowledgeable and engaged - Moderation may be a useful heuristic, but not consistent ideology - Symbolic moderates are all over the place in terms of actual, operational ideology - Why? - "Moderate" sounds reasonable - They think their "reasonable" views must be moderate Understanding Mass Politics THE GOLDEN RULE OF POLITICAL BEHAVIOR:\ **"Much less logical...than *psychological* -- and less psychological than *social*"** \- Philip Converse Why aren't we "logical" ----------------------- We have two systems for thinking - System 1: fast, automatic - System 2: slow, effortful - System 2 produces fewer errors, but we prefer to live in System 1 We are **cognitive misers**, and we prefer to use **heuristics** - Common heuristics: availability heuristic, social/partisan identities - Better than the alternative (nothing) - Our attitudes and beliefs largely result from automatic moral reactions determined by our genetics and environment Moral Dumbfounding ------------------ People *feel first,* then come up with rationalizations for their feelings - "One day, a brother and sister decide to have sex together... - Neither feels coerced by the other - Neither feels harmed afterwards - Both feel closer as siblings - Neither has STD, no pregnancy - No one else ever finds out - It does not ever happen again...so was their decision to sleep together moral or immoral?" - Most people have strong intuitive belief this is wrong, but cannot say why - Even after coming up blank, most people hold fast to belief that this is wrong Moral Foundations Theory ------------------------ - Where do these moral intuitions come from? Our **moral foundations**, which in turn are determined by a variety of genetic/environmental factors**:** - Six Moral Foundations - **Care/Harm**: prosocial adaptivity;\ *taking care of and preventing harm to others* - **Fairness/Cheating**: prosocial adaptivity; *equality, proportionality, honesty* - **Liberty/Oppression**: deviation adaptivity;\ *need for personal autonomy* - **Loyalty/Betrayal**: in-group adaptivity;\ *duty to privilege ingroup members* - **Authority/Subversion**: in-group adaptivity; *duty to accept existing hierarchies* - **Sanctity/Degradation**: group health adaptivity;\ *duty to avoid contamination/disgust* - All people share the first three foundations (care/fair/liberty) - Liberals do not tend to react much to the latter three foundations ("binding intuitions") - Libertarians similar to liberals, but outsized response to liberty - Liberals more likely to understand "fairness" as "equality", Conservatives as "proportionality" Where does partisanship come from? ---------------------------------- - 90% of us have clear partisan preferences, and these partisan preferences determine most of the rest of our attitudes. - But where does partisanship come from? - Logic? Very little. - Ideology (few people) - Issue publics (some) - Nature? Some. - Physiology/neurology - Traits (but some nurture) - Morality (but some nurture) - Socialization? A lot. - Heavy influence from\ friends, family, community - Mostly determined ages 16-25, "Impressionable Years" The Zaller "R-A-S" Model ------------------------ - People mostly don't think about politics. They **RECEIVE** messages. - They can choose whether or not\ to **ACCEPT** these messages. - [Apolitical citizens] will *receive few, but* *accept most messages* - [Strong partisans] will *receive many, but accept few messages* - When asked their opinion, people **SAMPLE** considerations from the *top-of-the-head (working memory)* NOT long-standing, stable views! #### Type 1: True Independent (low partisanship, low attention) #### Type 2: Enlightened Mod (low partisanship, high attention) #### Type 3: The Partisan (high partisanship, high attention) #### Type 4: Typical Person (medium partisanship, low attention) Persuasion? ----------- - Can people update their views in light of new evidence? - **Motivated Reasoning:** if they are emotionally invested, *not very likely* - People reject conflicting info by believing it is false, or rationalizing it away somehow - **Backfire effect:** giving new info can actually *strengthen* old belief Implications from Mass Behavior ------------------------------- - Most people don't think about or care about politics - Most political views are simply determined by party attachments and attention to the media - Therefore, we should take a look at the media. 10/21 -- Lecture 15 The Media, Old and New ========================================== The Media: Basic Facts ---------------------- - Classic media: major networks (ABC/CBS/NBC), major papers (NYT; WaPo; WSJ) - Partisan media: cable networks (MSNBC/CNN/FOX), radio (NPR; right talk) - Online media: academic (Vox; Five Thirty Eight), partisan (HuffPo; Breitbart), memes :( - Most people don't get *political news* (less than 5% watch partisan media on any given day; most news consumption isn't political, but sports, weather, etc.) The Media: Individual Incentives -------------------------------- - Just like all other players, media orgs have goals. - [Primary Goal: Profit] - To raise revenue, increase viewership - To cut costs, minimize heavy journalistic work, borrow from elsewhere - [Secondary goal: Partisan?] - Journalists lean strong left - Editors/owners lean right - Many outlets explicitly partisan now - Partisanship about profit? Who influences who? - Profit \> partisanship [**Accuracy** Bigger Problem Than **Bias**] The Media is Partisan-Oriented ------------------------------ - Many outlets unambiguously, consistently pick one side or\ the other - Wall Street Journal is only source trusted by all sides (even this is debatable...) - Key fact to understanding American politics: **we no longer all share the same factual reality.** Media Effects: Informing the Public ----------------------------------- - **Horse-race Coverage:** - We focus on "who's ahead, who's behind", "politics as sports" - We spend far less time explaining policies, procedures, etc. - **Soft News:** People often learn about stories from "soft media", not more credible, dedicated media outlets - Examples: daytime talk shows, late nite shows, social media influencers - **Opinion Coverage:** Media attention increasingly paid to opinion pundits,\ not "fact-based" news reporting - Pre-1990, mostly the opposite - Long-term learning rare;\ memory decay is common Media Effects: Persuading the Public ------------------------------------ Persuasion is uncommon - People are hard to persuade - Media wants to cater to audience - People without strong priors *accept, but do not receive* - People with strong priors *receive, but do not accept* - Persuasion most likely amongst those with *moderate* political knowledge/info Some areas with weak priors: - foreign policy - primary races - procedure Persuasion with Multiple Messages --------------------------------- - **One message environment:** consistency across sources leads to persuasion as exposure increases - **Two message environment:** same as before, but inconsistency means valence dependent on partisanship - Applications: Rally Effects - Positive one message environment gives way to divisive two message environment Media Effects: Agenda Setting ----------------------------- - Media allots coverage to subjects of their choosing - Determined by combination of public and private interest - Coverage greatly impacts salience of issues considered by public Media Effects: Conferring Status -------------------------------- - Media determines the viability of candidates for office - What matters more, approval or attention? - Attention key; approval mattering less and less... - Media can also confer status to groups and individuals Media Effects: Priming and Framing ---------------------------------- - **Priming:** a political figure becomes associated strongly with a person, trait, event, or idea - **Framing:** the media emphasizes the context or angle from which a story should be considered - could be moral - could be informational (qualitative versus quantitative) New Media: Cable & Social Media ------------------------------- - Content volume increases - Quality drops? - More heuristics (people read headline/comments, not story) - Ability to select preferred media increases; echo chambers form - Exposure to mass partisans rare before, now common and negative - Loss of gatekeeping ability - FAKE NEWS - Framing, priming, agenda setting, conferring status now matter less Tips for Consuming News Media ----------------------------- - [Read the CONTENT.] - Not just the headline. - Not just the comments. - This is your entry ticket for discourse. - [Recognize the difference between NEWS REPORTING and OPINION.] - If it's popular, loud, emotion-driven, and/or pointed, it's almost certainly opinion. - Seek out in-depth/long-form journalism, investigative reporting - [CONSUMPTION does not equal BELIEF.] - Read across the spectrum. - Acknowledge the biases. - Note similarities and differences. - Be skeptical of what makes you *feel better*. - [Listen to TRAINED EXPERTS.] - Ignore those paid for entertainment, personality, charm, outrage, etc. - The more your source is subsidized by ads, the more that you are the product. - Therefore, be *extremely skeptical* of individuals on TV, radio, YouTube, TikTok, etc. - Experts include: - Journalists (NOT OPINION COLUMNISTS OR FIGURES); - People with a research or professional degree in a given field (*for that field*) People with a significant amount of real-world experience (*in that area of experience*) 10/28 -- Lecture 16 Attitudes and Polling ========================================= Polling and Politics -------------------- - How do we know what the public wants (*if it wants*)? - We poll the public based on random sampling - **Highly accurate**, especially when aggregated Is Polling accurate ----------------------------------------- - **...let's address the elephant in the room:** polling was off in 2020. - Average *state* polling error = \~4% - Industry goal = less than 2% - Polling in 2016/2020 systematically underestimated support for Republicans. Why? - **Non-Response Bias** - **Underweight less educated?** - **"Shy" Trump voters?** - Likely worsened by pandemic For next several elections, add +1.5 to Republicans' column Polling Accuracy: Response Rates -------------------------------- - Response rates have declined significantly over time - Ability to screen calls - Unwillingness to talk on phone - Key concern: those who respond are different from those who don't - Respondents are more political, but otherwise still look fairly similar to electorate in most ways - Difference between responders and non-responders likely growing Polling Accuracy: Sample Size? ------------------------------ "Can 800 people really represent 330 million?" - Yes!!!!!! Yes. YES. - Size of population is actually mathematically meaningless - Size of sample simply determines margin of error - A typical poll has an MoE around 3% Polling Accuracy: Evidence -------------------------- **Generally speaking, polls are very accurate and our best guess as to what the public thinks and will do.** - Polls miss the final results by about 5-6% on average - More accurate later - Some considerably less - No clear bias towards party or incumbent - National POTUS polls\ are about 3%; state 5% - Polls predict the winner about 75-80% of the time - Poll aggregators produce much more accurate models than individual polls - FiveThirtyEight's model... - 2012: predicted 50/50 state presidential outcomes - 2016: predicted popular vote within 1pt, state polls in upper midwest off - 2018: predicted House vote within tenth of a percent, winner 97% of the time, 87% of all contested races Challenges in Polling --------------------- - **Social Desirability Bias:** People will often tell you what they believe is socially acceptable rather than what is true - Ramifications: - **Bradley Effect:** Controversial candidates may have undercounted support - still not clear if real (?) - Difficult to get accurate opinion on major identity issues - racism - \% LGBTQ+ Meaningful Attitudes -------------------- - When pollsters ask questions, people offer answers. But this [does not] mean the attitudes expressed are **meaningful.** - **Meaningful Attitudes:** beliefs about parties, candidates, groups and/or policies that feature: - **Stability:** attitudes do not change over time (generally) - **Robustness:** attitudes not fragile to superficial elements - question wording - question order Stable Attitudes? --------------------------------------- Stability increases with **interest in politics, stronger identification with a party,** and **greater knowledge of where parties stand on an issue.** Robust Attitudes ---------------- Attitudes on abortion shift by 18 points by slightly changing the way the question is asked to subjects. Attitudes on healthcare shift by 18 points by changing the label presented to subjects. Question Order -------------- Framing experiment from 1950: - Version 1 - Q1: "Do you think the United States should let Communist newspaper reporters come to our country and let them report the news as they see it?" - **36% say yes** - Version 2 - Q2: "Should a Communist country like Russia let American newspaper reporters come in and let them report the news as they see it?" **(90% say yes)** - Q1 is now asked after Q2 **(73% say yes)** Attitudes are Under-informed ---------------------------- - People often fail to take **tradeoffs** into account - Do people support tax cuts? Yes! - They also support spending increases! - They also support decreasing the debt! - People have unstable and contradictory attitudes\ when forced to consider these objects as tradeoffs Attitudes are based on false premises ------------------------------------- - Americans believe crime is always rising, when it usually falling - Beliefs about crime are linked to provocative events (e.g. 9/11) - People wildly overestimate odds of violent events... -...and underestimate odds of mundane, but severe events. 10/30 -- Lecture 17 Voting, Campaigns and Elections ========================================================================= Voting, 1800s Style ------------------- - Private, written ballot still rare; vote by voice or ball - Many states adopt paper voting, but highly informal - From 1800 onward, partisan slate ballots gradually became norm, but\ not provided at polls - Modern ballot (**Australian Ballot**) not common until after Civil war - comprehensive, government-provided, and secret Other changes to voting ----------------------- - Choosing POTUS electors (100% by 1880) - Choosing senators\ (17th Amendment)\ (100% by 1913) - Presidential primaries - balloting rare in 1900 - non-binding until 1968 - Ballot measures (initiatives, referendums, propositions) - Began in early 1900s - Allows public to vote directly on issues Types of Elections - **[Primary election:]** parties nominate their candidate for the general - Can anyone participate? Party requirements vary by state - **Invisible Primary:** party elites attempt to control outcomes using money/endorsements based on early performance - **[General election:]** elections that result in being awarded a position in government. - can result in **runoffs** in certain states (e.g. GA and Warnock/Loeffler, Ossoff/Perdue) - **[Midterm election:]** between presidential election years (e.g. 2022) - turnout lower than general Voter Turnout ------------- - Anemic in US relative to other countries - Why? - No compulsory voting - Voter registration isn't automatic - Electoral college? - Too much voting - Lack of choice? - Lack of trust? - Lack of representation? Question is not *why don't* people vote, but *why do they?* - Rational choice theory: voters face significant free rider problem - p = probability of decisive vote - B = direct benefits of preferred candidate winning - D = direct benefits of *voting* - C = costs of voting - p = 0, so... - pB = 0, D term all that matters Direct Benefits of Voting ------------------------- - Extrinsic Benefits - Virtue signal ("I voted" sticker/button) - **[Peer pressure]** - Citizen interactions - Intrinsic Benefits - **[Party cheerleading]** - **[Civic duty]** - Abatement of guilt - Need for evaluation Costs of Voting ------------------------------------- - *Opportunity costs* - missing work - waiting time often high - time spent researching - *Informational costs* - effort spent researching - administrative details - *Physical costs* - registration - transportation Determinants of Turnout ----------------------- - Biggest inequalities: - education - income - age - Lower voting demographics tend to be Democrats - Latinos and Asians - Young people - Poorer people []{#_Toc184683343.anchor}[Increasing Voter Turnout] - Get out the vote efforts - Celebrity engagement - Texting/knocking campaigns - Convenience Voting - Automatic registration (motor voter, etc.) - Same-day registration - Election day holiday (or change of day) - Absentee voting (VBM, internet voting?) - Minimize ID requirements - Other inputs - Instant Runoff Voting? - Compulsory voting? Voter ID Laws ------------- - Since 2000, more states have required an ID along with your voter registration card for voting - Voter ID laws have generated controversy. The debate centers around two opposing problems: - **Voter fraud:** Illegally cast ballots get counted - **Voter suppression:** Legally eligible voters don't get to vote, or ballots not counted - can be intentional or not - **[Election experts generally oppose voter ID laws because the suppression caused vastly outweighs the fraud prevented.]** Voter Fraud? (No.) ------------------ - Voter ID laws only prevent cases\ of voter impersonation (less than 50 cases in the last twenty years). - Other forms of fraud are rare too. - Almost no one interested - Likely to be caught - Penalties are steep (3-5 yrs) - Unlikely to change results - Out of 800 million ballots cast in the United States, 1982-present, there have been less than 3,000 cast fraudulently (0.0000025%). - **VOTER FRAUD IS NOT MEANINGFUL IN THE UNITED STATES.** - But the suppression is: ID laws decrease eligible voter access by 1-2% Determinates of the Vote ------------------------ - Party determines everything: 90% of vote just about party - Other key inputs - Ideology (small) - Issues (small) - Personality assessments (small to nonexistent) - Scandals (usually only if timed correctly) - [Facial competence](http://tlab.princeton.edu/demonstrations/) - What matters more as a strategy for campaigns -- turnout or persuasion? Campaign Effects ---------------- - In presidential elections, campaign effects weak. - Most voters not persuadable (not paying attention, rejecting if they are) - Campaigns equally skilled - Lower level elections might have imbalance, therefore bigger effects Debates (outside of primaries), conventions matter very little also Problem with Election Timing ---------------------------- - To pass almost *any* major legislation as a party in the present era, you must: - **control the Presidency**\ (reelected every four years) - **control the House**\ (reelected every two years) - **control the Senate**\ (only 1 in 3 up each year) - **probably need 60 seats** (extremely unlikely) - have **no defectors** on your congressional team\ (unlikely, given wave elections) - **Virtually impossible.** 11/4 -- Lecture 18 Race and Ethnicity ===================================== Definitions ----------- **Ethnicity:** commonality of culture, language, nationality and/or race - "cohesive and self-conscious, sharing a sense of peoplehood" -- Rambaut **Race:** grouping designation based\ on genetic *observables* - "a social status, not a zoological one; a product of history, not of nature; a contextual variable, not a given...'race' is an ideological construct linking supposedly innate traits of individuals to their rank and fate in the social order" -- Rambaut Race as a Social Construct -------------------------- - Ethnicity real, race "imagined" - Historically, "whiteness" has acted as a resource in the US - ***De Jure* Racism:** legal provisions expressly written on racial lines - e.g. Black Codes, White Primaries, Southern segregation - ***De Facto* Racism:** racism practiced outside the law, or law that uses proxies to discriminate - e.g. Northern "segregation", "grandfather clause" - Who gets to be white? - Irish? Italians? Polish? - Biracial individuals? - **One-drop Rule:** No. - Many attempted passing Source of racism: psychological ------------------------------- - Humans deeply moral... - Natural pack animals - Mirror neurons - Oxytocin - *...towards those we grant human status.* - Ingroup-outgroup distinction often drawn on ascribed characteristics - Outgroup stereotyping - Differences magnified - Differences salient - Heterogeneity shrunk - Negatively focused Sources of racism: institutional ------------------------------------------------------- - Racism useful to early elites - Slavery is profitable - \"Divide and conquer" - Early tools for "midwifing" racism in society - Science (phrenology) - Religion ("Philemon") - Ethics ("civilizing force") - Media: Hearst and southern papers routinely play up racial fears for profit, politics End of Slavery NOT End of Problems ---------------------------------- - Newly freed slaves faced many problems, *especially* after Reconstruction ends 12 years after Civil War - **No 40 Acres & Mule:** Early end of Reconstruction loses freed slaves only chance at beginning with wealth - **Sharecropping:** Similar work to slavery, highly unfair arrangements guaranteeing poverty/indebted work - **Black Codes:** laws to lock freed slaves up for nuisance violations - **"Worse Than Slavery":**\ in many states, imprisoned black people would perform tasks similar to slavery, but often with even worse conditions Redlining --------- - Even outside the South, people of color faced intense de facto discrimination in housing - **Redlining:** - Systematic denial\ of housing/underwriting for certain "areas" ( = people) - unqualified for mortgages - disallowed key subsidies - no ability to improve existing housing - Often reflected both private *and* public racism - Without a house, a family cannot easily accumulate wealth. []{#_Toc184683356.anchor}[Lack of Accumulated Wealth]  - CAN'T ACCUMULATE WEALTH IF ALL INCOME GOES TO SPENDING - Racial Income Gap: - 2x diff in 1960 - 1.5-2x diff now - Racial Wealth Gap: - **War on Poverty:** dropped from 25x to 10x 1960-80 - **[No improvement since 1980]** - Other asset differences: - Home Ownership\ (73% white, 47% non-white) - White housing wealth double that of non-white - Vehicle Ownership\ (90% white, 75% non-white) - Retirement Accounts\ (60% white, 34% non-white) - Family Business Equity\ (16% white, 7% non-white) - Stock Ownership\ (61% white, 31% non-white) The New Jim Crow ---------------- - **Mass Incarceration** in the United States outpaces every other developed country by an enormous amount. - This is sometimes referred to as "**the New Jim Crow**" given how much our rise in incarceration has affected black men. ### Mass Incarceration: - this is a relatively new development. Incarceration rates explode in\ the 1980s. - Increase largely attributable to non-violent drug arrests/prosecutions - Ramps up as high crime rates are plateauing - Continues to grow rapidly even as violent crime rate steadily decreases post-1990 - This increase largely impacted black men - but whites just as likely to break drug laws. - "black drugs" treated differently from "white drugs" - similar cases receive disparate racial treatment... Unarmed Police Fatalities and Race ---------------------------------- - Black Americans much more likely to be killed by police while unarmed - Incidents are decreasing over time, but racial disparity remains Implicit Bias Issues -------------------- - **Implicit Bias:** - many biases are [**not conscious**](https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html), but may instead exist in automatic associations - almost everyone shows some signs of implicit in-group bias - does not necessarily reflect *attitudes* -- may just reflect *societally-reinforced correlates* - Important because implicit biases influence important snap judgments we make: - Threat assessment - Age estimation Prosecution of Police --------------------- - Police convictions unlikely - Jury deference - Prosecution deference - Med examiner deference - Union/dept. involvement 11/6 -- Lecture 19 Immigration ============================== Immigration to the United States -------------------------------- - Immigration spikes in mid 19th century - **National Origins Act (1924):** Quotas prevented non-Northern European immigration - **Immigration and Nationality Act (1965):** Quotas removed,\ family and work migration becomes much easier American views on immigration ----------------------------- - **"***Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."\ - **Emma Lazarus, 1883*** - **"***Whereas, in the opinion of the United States the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory thereof... the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States is hereby, suspended."\ - **Chinese Exclusion Act, 1882*** - Anti-immigration views grow gradually follow 1965 law - **IIRIRA 1996**: deportation for *legal* immigrants for non-violent crimes,\ made it harder to become legal citizen - Over the 2010s, shift in Democratic opinion leads opinion to currently remain completely split between the three positions Asian Immigration ----------------- - Chinese migrants largely came over in 1860s to build Transcontinental Railroad - Early Japanese migrants mostly arrived 1900-1910 in Western United States - Placed in internment camps during WW2 - Asian immigration, especially Chinese, has expanded significantly in the last twenty years Latino Immigration ------------------ - Mexicans *legally* brought in through Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) and largely post-1910 immigration - decades of recruitment for cheap labor, but highly segregated - Puerto Rican influx to New York and Chicago after Spanish-American War - Cuban influx post-Castro, largely settled in Florida - Central/South American influx only in last several decades Illegal Immigration ------------------- - Rise throughout 1980s, 1990s - **IRCA 1986:** criminalizes hiring\ of undocumented immigrants - Decline, 2000-2020. Why? - Stricter enforcement - Better Mexican economy - More guest worker visas - Now, the vast majority of undocumented immigrants have resided in the US for 10+ years - **Sanctuary Laws:** State/local governments may pass laws... - limiting local officers from enforcing immigration laws - actively limiting partnership with federal actors (e.g. ICE) - Why? - Officers have many other priorities - Local communities may wish to protect immigrants - In some states, enforcement could have major negative economic effect Contemporary Issues in Immigration ---------------------------------- - **[Path to Citizenship:]** Allowing undocumented immigrants in the United States to become citizens, with conditions - Issues: - Should there be a pathway at all? - Pre-conditions? - Pass criminal/security checks - Pay back taxes - Permanent Residence after 5 yrs - Green Card holders can then apply for citizenship after 3 yrs - Post-pandemic: massive spike in immigration on southern border (legal and illegal) - Why? - Migrants fleeing increased violence, poor economic conditions - Post-pandemic surge (particularly Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia) - Belief Biden would be more permissive than Trump - Actual Biden/Trump differences (caseload handling) - **Caseload Handling:** How should migrants be processed when arriving at the border for asylum? - **Catch-and-Release:** Migrants allowed to stay at temporary residence within US to await case - Obama admin solution to problem - **Detainment:** Migrants wait in detainment center for case. - Trump admin policy required parent/child separation - Biden admin policy temporarily separates non-parental relations - **[Refugee/Asylum Policy:]** How many refugees should the United States admit in a given year? - Number admitted increased briefly above 80k under Obama, then dropped to about 10k under Trump - Biden restored pre-Trump levels of admissions - Refugee system is well vetted, low security risk (and *very hard* to qualify for) - **[Build the Wall:]** Should a wall be built to limit undocumented border crossings? - Border is about 1,950 miles long - During the Trump administration: - Built 80 new miles of wall - Replaced 370 miles of old wall - Total stands at about 730 miles or little over a third of border - Issues - Majority of undocumented immigrants simply fly in - Logistical challenges - Added security more effective? 11/20 -- Lecture 20 American Political Culture ============================================== American Political Culture -------------------------- What is **political culture?** - A set of beliefs/policies that describes the politics of a [group of people] - - - - Particularly focused on *distinguishing* characteristics from other groups American political culture constitutes the ways in which the social attitudes, behaviors, and expectations differ from those who live in other countries Rule \#1: The "Meta" belief --------------------------- We [believe] we are bound primarily by our culture - "America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. [We **are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds**,] lift us above our interests, and teach us what it means to be citizens. Every child must be taught these principles. Every citizen must uphold them. [And **every immigrant, by embracing these ideals, makes our country more, not less, American."**]\ *-- George W Bush (2001)* - "We \[will\] not neglect the support of the **[embedded ideals and aspirations of America].** These ideals and aspirations are the touchstones upon which the day-to-day administration and legislative acts of government must be tested. The attainments of these ideals should be: the **[preservation of self-government]** \... the **[perfection of justice]** \... the **[denial of domination by any group or class]** \... the building up and preservation of **[equality of opportunity]** \... the **[stimulation of initiative and individuality]** \... [the **growth of religious spirit and the tolerance of all faiths**] \... the advancement of peace."\ -- *Herbert Hoover* *(1929)* Alexis de Tocqueville --------------------- Early observer of America (1831) Findings: - Common culture formed mostly from those who left home due to religion/class - Therefore no real aristocracy - Culture geographically split: - **Southerners:** came earlier -- fortune-seekers and entrepreneurs - **Northerners:** came later -- craftsmen and academics - Americans are hopeful, prosperous, free, model for the rest of the world The American Creed ------------------ - The core set of ideological beliefs that Americans are generally *expected* to share -- NOT traditionally contested - Widely accepted components: - **Classical Liberalism:** Property rights, individual self-determination - **Civil Liberties:** Gov't backs off - **Civil Rights:** Gov't protects for all - **Egalitarianism:** Equal treatment and opportunity, but not outcomes - **Popular Sovereignty:** "Gov't of the people, by the people, for the people" - **Minority Rights:** Numerical minorities protected from majorities by gov't - **American Exceptionalism:** - America is *different* from world (!) - America is *better* than world (?) Contested: English? ------------------- **English Language:** Is English an essential part of being American? - On English-speaking: - 1 in 5 speak language other than English at home (growing) - Majority (60%) of those who do speak fluent English (growing) - Areas with high levels of non-English speakers: - Southwest - Florida - New York metro area - Hawaii - Americans differ on whether English is important for identity - Overall, 70% say it is very important to being "truly American" - Majorities all over, but less likely if... - younger - educated - non-religious - Democrat/liberal - Government policy: - Naturalization: required test - ESL: programs receiving funding throughout most states Contested: Born in the USA? --------------------------- - **Birthright Citizenship:** - Guaranteed in the Constitution under the 14th amendment - You are an American citizen if: - Born on American soil - Born on foreign soil to at\ least one American parent - Naturalized through statutory process - Public opinion on changing the Constitution to end birthright citizenship: - 30% yes, 41% no, 29% undecided - Republicans support 2:1 - Democrats oppose 3:1 - **Nativism:** Belief, especially popular in late-19th century, in superiority of\ non-immigrants in United States - In many cases was proxy for anti-Irish, anti-Italian sentiments by English/German natives - Political linkage - Most major US cities before mid-20th century were run by **political machines** - often corrupt system where "bosses" controlled voters *and* elected officials - usually Democratic party - Bosses depended on poor immigrants for votes; nativists set against them Contested Multiculturalism? --------------------------- - **Multiculturalism:** The idea that a nation can successfully consist of a variety of retained cultures sitting alongside a mostly shared culture - The expectation of **assimilation** is what allowed many to support idea of "anyone" being American - Multiculturalism grows as an alternative in creed in 20th century: - Rise of immigration - Social liberalism increases - Increasingly seen as attractive feature (food/music/culture/etc.) Contested Christianity? ----------------------- - Respect for religious faith thought to be major aspect of US from beginning - Early settlers were often religious separatists (Quakers, etc.) - 1st Amendment protections - Many see Protestantism as dominant: - **Know Nothing Party:** Mid-19th century party, along with Whigs, skeptical of Catholic influence - 19th century SCOTUS decisions - Commerce closing on Sundays - Today, the idea that Christianity is an essential component to American identity is unpopular (32%) American Exceptionalism ----------------------- In what ways is America exceptional (*different*)? - High religiosity relative to most other advanced democracies - Significantly more individualistic - More free speech protections - More diverse than countries with similar GDP (most European and Asian nations) - Higher levels of patriotism? - - - - Weaker class consciousness, fewer union members 11/25 -- Lecture 21 Organized Politics ====================================== Organizing is crucial --------------------- Individual citizens limited - Voting, donating, volunteering, advocating - You and what army? Advantages of groups - Politics is *social* - Pooling of resources - Sharing of expertise - Implies power - Creates identity - Forces attention Organizing is Difficult ----------------------- - Free-rider problem: individuals get collective benefit without contributing - Coordination problem: groups must work well internally, uncontested rules/norms/leaders - Meeting/communicating costly or impossible - Early stage of organizing invite resistance, violence Which groups do well ------------------------------------------- - **Concentrated Groups:** Small, intensely interested, specific - Ex: Peanut Farmers - Costs for organizing are low - Easy to monitor each other - [Surprisingly successful] - **Diffuse Groups:** Large, broad - Ex: Taxpayers, parents - Costs for organizing are high - Hard to monitor each other - Attention is limited - [Surprisingly unsuccessful] - **Wealthy Groups:** Have the resources, professionalization to have great influence - **Group Consciousness:** Condition of group identity that leads to forceful participation - Ex: Civil Rights Movement - Linked fate: members share outcomes - Present threat: survival in danger Interest Groups vs. Social Movements ------------------------------------ **Interest Groups** - Often materialistic, single-issue - Types: corporate, industry, professional, labor union - Small or wealthy - Professionalized **Social Movements** - Sometimes materialistic, often ideological, multi-issue - Large, often resource-poor - Group consciousness dependent - Volunteers; may receive elite support Tools of Interest groups ------------------------ - Money (can fund or threaten) - Lobbying (meeting with elites) - Persuasion (*limited*) - Awareness (*strong*) - Assistance (*strong*) - Outside lobbying - Advertising - Astroturfing - Rallies base - Legal action - Force new precedents - Delay opponents - Recruitment Case Study 1: U.S. Business Community ------------------------------------- - Goals: pro-business,\ anti-regulation, anti-tax - Pre-1970s: business and government coexist; US Chamber of Commerce: "an established and useful reality" - 1970s: Business community pools resources to fight gov't expansion - Strategies - Funding think tanks - Funding pro-business candidates - ALEC lobbies, writes legislation - Staffing (Congress, White House) - Lawsuits (ex: overseas HQs) Case Study 2: National Rifle Association ---------------------------------------- - Origins: sportsman's club - Gun Control Act of 1968: - Supported by NRA, Reagan - Framed against Black Panthers - 1977 coup by hard-liners resets organization's main goals - "We can win on a single concept - *No compromise. No gun legislation."* - Strategies - Growing membership base - Threaten politicians - Stoke controversy - Simple, forceful message Case Study 3: American Civil Liberties Union -------------------------------------------- - Formed out of the CLB, which opposed the Espionage Act of 1917 (censorship of wartime protests) - Continued through 1920s and\ 1930s fighting obscenity laws - Associated with socialists in beginning, but now nonpartisan - Strategy: litigation mixed with some advocacy - Victories: - Teaching evolution (*Scopes*) - Japanese internment *\ *and *Brown v. Board* - School speech (*Tinker*) - Abortion *(Roe v. Wade*) - 60+ lawsuits against Trump Admin Tools of social movements ------------------------- - **Mass petitioning:** Largely ineffective -- easy, but creates little attention, easy for politicians to ignore - **Public Demonstration:\ **Protests, strikes, rallies, etc. - Raises awareness,\ attracts members - Can move public opinion\ *either direction* - **Civil Disobedience:** Passive, public non-violent resistance - Attracts attention, creates administrative difficulties - Can be hard to attract participants Case Study 1: Occupy Wall Street -------------------------------- - Arose organically, influenced by Arab Spring - Goals: reduce corporate political influence and economic inequality - Problems? - Lack of unified message - Freedom \> coordination - [Frustrated opportunities for elite partnership](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaBFhRsi4Gw) - Group cohesion too low to "weather the weather" Case Study 2: Identity Movements -------------------------------- - Each arose out of a single\ or series of critical events - BLM: Police shootings - Me Too: Weinstein, Trump - March For Our Lives: School shootings - Goals: - awareness (*all*), - social change (*BLM, \#metoo*) - voter persuasion (*\#metoo*), - legislation (*BLM, MFOL*) - Tactics: - high-profile events, figures - political pressure - civil disobedience Masses vs. Elites: Who Wins? ---------------------------- - **Pluralism:** The "old view" -- group resources equally balanced: - Some groups lack resources - Some groups lack people - Implies that elites and masses\ need each other - *Everyone wins sometimes* - **Biased Pluralism:** The "new view" -- [elites generally beat masses]. - Power + \$\$\$ = access - Access = influence - Elites do worse when... - Public pays attention - Public is unified Who Benefits Now? Biased Pluralism ---------------------------------- - **Biased Pluralism:** Groups representing economic/cultural elites dominate - Schattschneider: "The heavenly chorus sings with an upper class accent" - Even within groups representing minorities, wealthy *subsets* of *those groups* overrepresented - Result: wealthy set the agenda - Sometimes on side of public - Most of what they want narrow, relatively costly to public When business power is successful --------------------------------- - Three models for business group political activities: - **Particularistic:** few groups involved, low public salience, low partisanship - **Conflicted:** many groups involved, high public salience, high partisanship - **Unified:** many groups involved, high public salience, bipartisan opposition to business groups - Business groups largely successful only in **particularistic** cases... - But are successful in making sure most of what they do is **particularistic** 12/2 -- Lecture 22 Money in Politics ==================================== History of regulating Political Money ------------------------------------- - Prior to 1907, there were no restrictions whatsoever on how political money could\ be given, received, or spent. - In 1907, the **Tillman Act** forbade corporations/banks from giving their treasury money to campaigns - This was ineffective. - - - In 1947, the **Taft-Hartley Act** placed restrictions on the amount of money that parties and candidates could spend on campaigns - This was ineffective. - - - In the early 1970s, the **Federal Election Campaigns Act** finally regulated political money Basic FEC Rules --------------- - **Political Action Committees (PACs)** - Legal vehicles for giving, receiving and spending political money - Corps/unions must advocate exclusively through these - Money is bundled from employees, *not general treasury funds* - Campaigns can only receive and spend money in their PACs - Individuals can contribute money directly to candidates' PACs - Limits on donations for individuals? - \$2800/candidate/election, - \$5000/PAC/election, - \~\$150,000/party - Reporting requirements: - Donations above \$50 require partial identification to FEC - Donations above \$250 require full identification to FEC - Spending limits: Overturned by SCOTUS as violating free speech rights History of Regulating Political Money ------------------------------------- - In 2002, the **Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act** made it harder for non-candidates to spend campaign money - Within 30-60 days of an election, outside groups can't make ads about *candidates*, only *issues* - Citizens United: conservative group wants to run anti-Hillary movie on TV, but blocked for violating BCRA rules on candidate-focused media - Citizens sues, and SCOTUS ends up overturning the BCRA entirely! Enter the Super PAC ------------------- - Advantages of Super PACs - Unlimited spending - Unlimited ability to receive - Donor anonymity - Independent control - Disadvantages - No coordination with parties/candidates in \$\$\$/help/etc. - Steep penalties for violation (often broken, rarely enforced) - Super PACs very quickly lend support to outsider ideological forces, especially on the right Impact of Super PACs -------------------- - Did corporations increase their spending? No. - Rich individuals step up their spending (above: the share of\ political donations contributed by the top 0.01% of earners) Does money buy policy? ---------------------- - Does money buy votes in Congress? - Most Americans think so! - Note: accepting money/gifts directly is *incredibly illegal* - **Tullock's Puzzle:** There's maybe *less money* than we'd expect in politics! - US policy has HUGE industry effects, but... - Only 60% of Fortune 500 corps have PACs - Only 4% max giving - Suppose you're the NRA, and a major gun bill is coming up for a vote in Congress. You have \$1 million dollars to give to elected officials. Who do you give your money to -- a) *members expected to vote AGAINST you*, b) *members expected to vote WITH you*, or c) *members who may be sitting on the fence*? - **Spoiler:** The NRA gave 99% of its money to\ Republicans with "A" ratings from the NRA - **Lesson:** Giving to allies is probably not about persuasion. - The empirical support for money buying votes is simply very weak, and political scientists have been searching for evidence for decades. - From a review of dozens of studies, political scientists conclude there is generally little to no relationship between donations received and votes made. - What's going on? Political Donations Buy Lobbying Time ------------------------------------- - Donations don't appear to have a relationship with vote behavior because donations are only the first step in something bigger! 1. Interest group maxes out their donations to candidate to get "foot in the door" 2. Once in office, group signals that it would like member to meet with lobbyists soon 3. The lobbying, which is unobserved, is what actually impacts the member's behavior - Once lobbyists get inside, they can: - Assist in writing legislation - Engage in agenda setting - Persuade members on voting Lobbying Is Important --------------------- - Effects of lobbying: - **Information:** Lobbyists are experts, and genuinely help Congress craft legislation. - **Persuasion:** Limited ability to shift positions (mostly technical); [main effect is to shift attention] - **Legislation:** Outside organizations write bills for members of Congress, who\ then pass them on their behalf Lobbying: Spending ------------------ - The amount of money spent on lobbying more than doubled from 1998-2008 - Don't believe the official numbers -- lobbying spending has NOT leveled off - Experts think firms are just getting better at finding ways to not disclose spending Lobbying: Spending by Party --------------------------- - Lobbyists care about access, so they generally target both parties about equally - In early parts of election cycle, they spend more attention on the party currently in power - Closer to the end of the election cycle, they shift focus to the party they think will be in power soon Revolving Door Politics ----------------------- - **Revolving Door Politics:** Lobbyists persuade politicians (legislators, bureaucrats) to help them by offering them a job *after they leave office* - Members can nearly double their congressional salary, on average, through lobbying What Can be Done? ----------------- - Spending tied to 1st amendment: most\ changes would require constitutional amendment - Politicians *hate* having to raise money...but it gives the incumbents a major advantage - Publicly financed campaigns? - Gov't financed "speech dollars" to all Americans? 12/4 -- Lecture 23 Economic Inequality ============================================================ Why care about inequality? -------------------------- - Moral concerns (utility, fairness, freedom) - Economic inequality = political inequality - Economic inequality = political instability - Economic inequality = economic instability - Poverty as a negative externality State of Inequality ------------------- ### Wealth - Incomes are *heavily concentrated* towards the top 1%.... -...and beyond ### Revisiting racial wealth inequality - Put in terms of the racial wealth gap, the difference is obscene. - 2024: Forbes 400 = \$3.2 trillion - Put in terms of the racial wealth gap, the difference is obscene. ### Global comparison - **Gini Coefficient:** Measure of relative inequality within a population - United States ranks a consistent outlier compared to OECD - By the most basic measures, the United States falls behind Explaining Inequality --------------------- - **THE ARGUMENT:** Increasing ethnic diversity responsible for growing inequality - Undocumented immigrants depressing local wages - Support for welfare policies low compared to Europe due to high US ethnic heterogeneity - **The evidence:** - US is unusually diverse compared to OECD countries - **...**But between-state correlations of immigration/inequality *don't match this argument* ### Globalization - **ARGUMENT:** *Globalization* leads to increased competition, eliminating US working/middle class jobs and lowering wages - May be true, but change largely results from US losing its "exorbitant advantage" from 1950-1980 - Shifting away from globalization not necessarily better -- greater instability, much higher prices ### Technology - **ARGUMENT:** The gains of the past 40 years have largely been technological; worker wages have not risen because worker productivity has not risen - May be true, but especially as automation rises, this suggests a major collective action problem ### Political Inaction - This and next several slides -- what political scientists think *really explain it*. - **Gridlock:** Failure to pass legislation due to lack of ability to agree/compromise - United States has many more **veto points** (ways for legislation to die) - **Drift:** Inequality due to inability of government policy to keep up with changing world - Major policies often not **indexed to inflation** ### Political Action - **Policy Influence:** Government policies allow the wealthy to keep or make increasingly large amounts of money - **Lobbying** - most of what they want is narrow - low political cost of implementation ### Decline in Unions - Unions function as a counterbalance to business interests - Decline in membership since 1960 - Decreasing influence within Democratic party ### Public Opinion - Americans generally know that inequality is growing - Americans generally support efforts to reduce the inequality gap - Support for taxing the rich increases over time... -...but these policies are not put into place. What can be done ---------------- - Reduce existing inequalities in educational attainment - Moving away from property taxes as school finance system? - Increasing minimum wage and/or indexing to inflation? - Tradeoff between jobs/pay exists - Restructuring US tax system - Increasing top marginal tax rates - Increasing \# of tax brackets (to separate 1%) - Wealth tax? - Restructuring US healthcare system (major source of debt) - Restructuring US housing system (too difficult for younger people?) **Universal Basic Income:** a major policy battle for the future ### Lecture 24 -- Democratic Accountability 1 ========================================= Elements of Accountability -------------------------- - When the public wants something, the government should provide it - When a clear majority doesn't want something, the government shouldn't do it - When government representatives do something bad, they should be removed from office The public Knows something is wrong...but the public is inattentive ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - How can politicians get away with unrepresentative decisions? - Voters can't distinguish between good and bad representation - Especially if they don't know who their representatives are, or what they are doing The public has unclear preferences ---------------------------------- - Hard to detect bad representation if *you don't know what you want* - Most opinions only weakly correlated across time - 20-40% of public have stable political attitudes - Social issues *somewhat* more stable than economic issues The Miracle of Aggregation -------------------------- - Signal/noise ratio: Does public opinion mean anything? - Let's say 30% of public opinion at a given time is **signal**, the rest is **noise** - Noise = random - On average, noise cancels out; remaining signal should reflect meaningful opinion - Therefore, over time, *aggregated* public opinion should be usable and stable But politicians often don't know -------------------------------- - Politicians tended to overestimate opposition to these issues - Campaigning and meeting with public *didn't help* - **Local polling is not often utilized by representatives**...and politicians may just not care ------------------------------------ - There is an increasing disconnect between public opinion and action taken by politicians - Elected officials seem increasingly willing to take actions that would have previously endangered their chances for reelection Solution 1: Heuristics ---------------------- - People don't need to know much! Shortcuts get them to the same place - Party ID used for general voting, endorsements for primaries and ballot measures - Plenty of evidence that this works pretty well Problems with Heuristics ------------------------ ### bad shortcuts? - Heuristics don't necessarily get the uninformed to look like the informed - What if all voters voted as the informed did? - Uninformed voting heavily benefits incumbents - **Attribute substitution:** we "answer" a hard question by answering an easier one instead. - Hard question: - Who's the best candidate? - Easier questions: - Who looks [competent](http://tlab.princeton.edu/demonstrations/)? - Who looks familiar? - Who's a good person? - Applying PID/ideology when it makes no sense (ex: comptroller) ### Signal Decay - Value of heuristics depends on number of people *sending* signals vs. *passing along* signals - *Universe 1*: 90 evaluate, 10 shortcut. **Strong signal** - *Universe 2:* 10 evaluate, 90 shortcut. **Weak signal** - Use of heuristics likely increasing with internet, volume of news content, **[over-reliance upon AI]** ### "Hollowing" - Overuse of heuristics contributes to polarization - Taking cues frequently means losing the ability to talk deeply about politics - Cross-partisan interaction will result in each side concluding other is ignorant (*they both are*) ### Follow the Leader - Biggest problem: our best heuristic is our political party... -...but the politicians are the ones we are supposed\ to be telling what to do in the first place! - Eliminates most accountability - implies electoral blind spot is massive Lecture 25 -- Democratic Accountability 2 ========================================= Solution 2: Retrospective Voting - What if voters just vote based on what the incumbent has done? - **Simple:** citizens "typically have one comparatively hard bit of data: They know what life has been like during the incumbent's administration." - **Unfair but Effective:** The Godfather - "if some unlucky accident should befall \[my son\]...\ if he\'s struck by a bolt of lightning, then I\'m going to blame some of the people in this room." - **True:** Voters vote on economy Retrospective problems ---------------------- ### Accountability - Who is to blame? - Different levels: *federal, state, local* - Different branches: *executive, legislative* - Government frequently divided - The Godfather method means losing a lot of *good people* ### Myopia - People only tend to evaluate *recent* economic performance - Theoretically allows incumbents to do poorly until 4th year in office - Some evidence *they actually do that* - Works for police hiring too ### Selective perception and attribution - Perceptions of the economy will reflect what people *want* to be true - Great economy from my party? **Party was responsible!** - Great economy from *their* party? **They just got lucky!** ### Irrationality - Evidence that people vote retroactively on things that *people have no control over* - - Who is getting represented? --------------------------- - We now know citizens' ability to hold politicians accountable is extremely limited - The median voter? - The politicians? - Intense Policy Demanders? - Wealthy individuals - Business interests - Ideological interests - The results are depressing. Solution 3: Organized politics ------------------------------ - If even 1% of American voters are politically active or knowledgeable, that's still millions of citizens - Politics is mostly about who shows up - When social movements fight, what happens? - More powerful than voters, but weaker than interest groups and wealthy Why do they do so well? ----------------------- - The Wealthy... - - - - - - - - - -