Liberalism in the Post-War Era

One of the major themes of 20th century American politics has been the growth of government and the fusion of politics and economics. This expansion really means the expansion of Executive power over the Legislature.

After the Civil War, and especially after the impeachment of 17th President Andrew Johnson, Congress tended to dominate government during this time. Congress has always been the more manipulable branch of government, the branch of government that is easier to capture by special interests and factions, but it is also the branch of government where reason and persuasion play a larger role in making decisions The executive branch, as intended by the Constitution, is to be more independent and further removed from the influence of powerful social groups.

It should be no surprise then that progressive Presidents like Woodrow Wilson favored the expansion of executive power at the expense of the legislature. Wilson had this to say about the House of Representatives (the more democratic house of Congress):

divided up, as it were, into forty-seven seignories, in each of which a Standing Committee is the court-baron and its chairman lord-proprietor. These petty barons, some of them not a little powerful, but none of them within reach [of] the full powers of rule, may at will exercise an almost despotic sway within their own shires, and may sometimes threaten to convulse even the realm itself.

Notice how Wilson compares them to feudal institutions which implies that they are corrupt systems of privilege that work against the public interest. This marks a huge shift in the functioning of government. Where previously 19th century politics characterized by a strong Congress was based much more on reason and persuasion; 20th century politics is characterized more by force and coercion. That's what expanding the power of the presidency over the Congress means, government will be based more on force than on persuasion, that politics based on persuasion is antiquated, that certain groups and interests cannot be persuaded and must use force, but if it is done in the public interest is it a bad thing? Progressives like Wilson and FDR would say no.

The largest expansion of government power in U.S. history happened under the New Deal program of Franklin D. Roosevelt. There is still debate over the effectiveness of the New Deal program in American history. Here is a negative evaluation of it from the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html

The historical legacy of the New Deal is crucial in understanding politics today. If it was successful, then it validates the progressive argument that economic growth and stability are best achieved when the government regulates market forces and corporate oligopolies. If it was not successful as the article argues then it strengthens the conservative argument that the market is the best way of generating growth and creating stability, and that any government interference will distort this.

The article only looks at the immediate period of the New Deal in the 30s and 40s and doesn't look at it as it continued to be the driving force behind government into the 50s and 60s. No surprise there, since that period of time is considered a "golden age" in American history (although as we talked about in class, this golden period was possible because most of the rest of world was bombed out from WWII). The legitimacy of the fundamental aspects of the New Deal was not really questioned during this early period (late 40s into the 60s) debate at the establishment level was not over whether or not government should intervene in the economy, but to what extent. The textbooks uses the terms corporate liberals and welfare liberals to emphasize the difference between Republicans and Democrats during this period of time. Both accepted government management of the economy but Republicans emphasized growth more and sided with corporations more; Democrats emphasized the social welfare aspects of the government. Probably the most lasting legacies of the New Deal are Social Security and Medicare (which came into effect in the 60s but was clearly inspired by the New Deal program and if you recall FDR's Economic Bill of Rights, healthcare is clearly marked as one of the goals).

This golden age period forms the background of the Kennedy administration, and is a big reason why JFK is remembered well. However, views on Kennedy tend to fall along generational lines, in other words, people who were actually alive during his presidency remember him better than people who came afterwards. A big reason for this is that lot of the "Kennedy mystique" has worn out. Kennedy's persona was that of a young intellectual president, yet it turned out that books that he authored like Profiles in Courage were written by someone else, and although educated at Harvard, his father helped pay his way through.

Kennedy was a WWII veteran, and a war hero too, and this part of him may have been more authentic and reflected the mood of the country at the time. Optimism in America was at an all time high (if you were a white heterosexual male), having won World War II and having a thriving economy at home (which according to the Wall Street Journal had nothing to do with the New Deal), many Americans felt strongly about their liberal ideals of freedom, justice, and human rights. That combined with "socialistic" programs like the G.I. Bill that allowed veterans to go to college for free, and the Federal Housing Authority that gave people cheap mortgages, helped keep the economy growing that translated into actual increases in the incomes of working Americans. At the same time, the civil rights movement is gaining steam and other marginalized social groups are beginning to become more confrontational with the status quo. By Kennedy's election in 1960, Martin Luther King Jr. had already been on the national stage for about five years, and civil rights did become one of the focuses of the Kennedy administration. Many of the big civil rights bill of the mid 60s were initiated by the Kennedy administration but completed by the Johnson administration who became president after Kennedy was assassinated.

Since the 20th century has been marked by the growth of the politics of force, and the expansion of presidential power, it makes sense that our last section we cover three American presidents: Kennedy, Reagan, and Obama. These presidents are influential in themselves but also represent a specific period of time. This is a good opportunity to talk about dialectical thinking again since this approach grew out of historical studies. Thinking dialectically means understanding development or evolution as a conflict or tension between opposites. The move from Kennedy to Reagan to Obama illustrates this process. The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 was seen as a reaction against the revolutionary energy of the 60s. Many Kennedy Democrats in 1960 became Reagan Republicans in 1980. So the revolutionary 60s gives way to the conservative 80s, and this period creates the conditions for the election of Obama in 2008, another change into opposites. And by the way that means that election of Obama also marks the end of a conservative period of politics stretching from 1980-2008 (which encompasses all of our lifetimes). Had George W. Bush not wrecked the country as much as he did, it is unclear that Barack Obama would have become president, and really can you think of two more opposite people than W. and Obama?

That brings out another important point about dialectical thinking, the interaction between opposites does not mean balance but means one extreme turning into another. The conservative backlash of the 80s was not a balancing out of the 60s, but an extreme reaction against it, just as much as the election in 2008 was an extreme reaction against the Republicans under Bush. To go even further back, the 60s were a reaction against the conservatism and conformity of the 50s. What this does is call your attention to things in relation to each other: you can't understand how Obama won without understanding how the Republicans fell apart; and just as you can't understand the "Reagan Revolution" without understanding how the New Deal system decayed.

There are no assignments for Wednesday just do the readings. Here is a video of JFK's inauguration:

Lectures on DuBois

These are audio recordings from one of my old professors on W.E.B. DuBois. At the end I have added the link for the website where all the recordings are. Anyone who is doing their topic on anything after the Civil War might want to use this as a resource.

http://www.haverford.edu/politicalscience/faculty/mcwilliams/pols268/mp3_files/11-Feb21_32kbps.mp3

Skip to about 32:oo in for DuBois

http://www.haverford.edu/politicalscience/faculty/mcwilliams/pols268/mp3_files/12-Feb23_32kbps.mp3

http://www.haverford.edu/politicalscience/faculty/mcwilliams/pols268/mp3_files/13-Mar02_32kbps.mp3

http://www.haverford.edu/pols/faculty/mcwilliams/pols268/

Online Assignment: John Marshall and the Supreme Court

John Marshall (1755-1835)

4th Chief Justice of The United States (1801-1835)

The longest reign as Chief Justice in U.S history

Marbury v. Madison 1803

McCulloch v. Maryland 1819

The importance of the court: We have already discussed in class several times both the importance of the Judicial power in the Constitution, but also how important the court was to the Federalist agenda. Business and commerce depend upon the predicability of law and the enforcement of contracts for their stability and success. The court would also be a weapon against attempts to pass legislation that would hurt the interests of the property-owning classes. See Federalist # 78 for Hamilton's description of the importance of the judicial power.

What we are reading in this case, is two Supreme Court judgements by Chief Justice Marshall. All cases proceed like this, after the judges make a decision, they deliver their decision through their opinion statement. This is where the judges summarize the details of the case and how they came to their judgement. It is supposed to map out their thought process. So as important to focus on these cases themselves for their impact, it also helps you understand how the court actually functions.

The text: I want to say something about the text of the reading itself because it is significant. I should almost say sorry for making you reading something like this, except for the fact that this is done intentionally by those who write documents like this. By the way, this is what you do in law school, you learn to talk and write like this till it becomes more or less natural. Now obviously to some extent this is done to make the administration of justice as rational as possible by eliminating human bias. On the other hand, Hamilton the lawyer and deliberately intending to make government an elitist enterprise, stressed the centrality of the Constitution and the courts, and ensured that lawyers and judges (experts) could be the only ones to manage a system like this. So the language itself is a mechanism, just like the electoral college or something like that, to leave government in the hands of experts. Does this mean that language that is clear and easy to understand is democratic?

The rule of law, as it is sometimes refereed to as a concept, is not the same thing as democracy. In fact rule of law (which descends mainly from the Roman and English influences in American thought) is sometimes seen as a check on democracy. Again, Hamilton saw the court as protecting private property from laws which are made by people voted into office. So just take notice of some of the features of the text, the obviously complicated vocabulary but also notice how things are numbered. This is the law passed part of which Marshall struck down as unconstitutional. I don't expect you to read it, but just skim through it and take notice of the text itself how it is structured and how it is presented.

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm

The background: The background to these cases is probably the most critical thing, in short Marbury v. Madison established the power of judicial review which gives the court power to strike down laws. McCulloch v. Maryland defended the interests of the national bank (another central Hamiltonian idea) and in the process reduced the powers of the state governments even more. Although Jeffersonian Republicans had captured the Presidency and the Congress, the Supreme Court (the only branch that is not elected, remained in Federalist control). By far the more important case is the first one. Marbury was appointed to become a federal judge by John Adams, except that no one ever actually gave the commission, the actual documentation, to Marbury. The person supposed to deliver it, was actually John Marshall (!) who at the time was Secretary of State. When Jefferson became president, seeing that this commission was undelivered and realizing that it was a political power move by the federalists, he simply refused to deliver it, or instructed his secretary of state, James Madison, not to deliver it. So Marbury went directly to the Supreme Court and tried to get the court to order Jefferson and Madison to appoint Marbury a judge. Here is where the political context in the background becomes important: if Marshall ordered Jefferson to make Marbury a judge, Jefferson could simply refuse and then the court would look weak. If Marshall sided with Jefferson it would also make the court look weak since Marbury did have a legitimate claim. He was duly appointed a judge, it was literally was a clerical error that prevented it, they just forgot to send him the paperwork. So what Marshall does is to strike down part of a law, the Judiciary Act of 1789, that gave the courts the power to command other branches of the government. Specifically this passage:

The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after specially provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.--Judiciary Act 1789

A writ of mandamus (which means "we command" in Latin) is a formal order from the court. The phrase "or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States" is the key phrase: Marshall ruled that this was unconstitutional because it would expand the jurisdiction from what is laid down in the Constitution under Article III, which says: "the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.”--Article III Sec. 2

Original jurisdiction refers to areas where the Supreme Court would hear a case first, they are cases that involve ambassadors, ministers and consuls, and cases where a state would be a party. All other cases it has appellate jurisdiction, in other words you appeal a lower court's decision to the Supreme Court. Well Marbury never went to a lower court,because no lower court could have jurisdiction over something like this so there is nothing to appeal. He is also not an ambassador and he is definitely not a state, so this can not apply to the court's original jurisdiction, so Marbury cannot get a writ of mandamus from the court. The part of the Judiciary Act that seems to give the court this power is thus in violation of the Constitution. So Marshall does three things here: 1) He establishes without doubt the centrality and the supremacy of the Constitution over any other legal form; 2) He exercises judicial review for the first time in the Supreme Court and rules a law unconstitutional; 3) By limiting the power of the Court--he takes power away from the court to command other government officials--he guarantees that his ruling will be followed. Thus, the legitimacy and the strength of the Supreme Court and the Constitution are secured in the long term, even though in this specific case Marshall is actually limiting the power of the courts.

Here's another summary of the case:

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/marbury-madison.html

McCulloch v. Maryland: Here is a case where the Supreme Court could exercise original jurisdiction since of the parties was a state. As it happened this was an appeal of a decision made in Maryland state court. Notice also that this case is tried in 1819 way after Jefferson (President until 1809) and even past James Madison (4th President, 1809-1817), this is occurring during the administration of the 5th President James Monroe (another follower of Jefferson).

The case: The state of Maryland tried to impose taxes on the 2nd National Bank of the United States with the intention basically of shutting it down or making it unprofitable to stay operating. McCulloch was a banker who issued bank notes to customers without adding in the taxes. The state sued McCulloch, who then appealed to the Supreme Court. The court found in favor of McCulloch. Chief Justice Marshall's opinion paper emphasized: 1) the constitutionality of the bank, a bitter topic dividing Federalists and Republicans; 2) re-emphasized the "Necessary and Proper Clause" of the Constitution Article I Sec. 8, which Hamilton had used to establish the bank in the first place: The Congress shall have power [...] To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

3) It further reduced the powers of the states by taking away their authority to regulate the bank.

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/mcculloch-maryland.html

Assignment: Summarize and interpret one of the supreme court decisions listed below. Post your summary on your blog. Again, I don't expect you to understand all or even most of the texts, secondary sources will be a big help here, but it wouldn't hurt to familiarize yourselves more with the language of the legal system and how procedures work in the justice system, all of which falls under what we refer to as "due process".

Gibbons v. Ogden

Plessy v. Ferguson

Brown v. Board of Education

Dred Scott v. Sanford

Roe v. Wade

New York Times v. Sullivan

Yick Wo v. Hopkins

Santa Clara Co. v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.

Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Louis R.R. v. Minnesota

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Here are some resources that might help:

http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark.aspx

http://library.thinkquest.org/11572/cc/

http://www.lawnix.com/

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/supreme_court/supreme_court.cfm

The Continuing Legacy of the French Revolution and How to do Content Analysis

So we've spent some time in class talking about early foreign relations between the U.S., Great Britain, and France. Remember that the Federalists were for trade and good relations with Britain; the republicans under Jefferson and Madison favored France. The direction the country went in, despite Jefferson's influence, was towards Britain. Part of the reason why there was a preference for Britain, was that France was seen as a dangerous influence because of the French revolution and the radical forces it unleashed. Even to the present, French politics have been much more volatile as these videos show. This just illustrates the importance of political history once again, the French revolution started a pattern of political development that continues into the present, and it also shows why conservatives like Hamilton were afraid of the French influence. By the way, which social groups are protesting? What tactics are they using? What are they fighting about?

Now reason #2 for watching these videos. This gives you an example first of the political function of news in society (in other words how political messages are delivered through the news), and how news content is analyzed (this is for you communication majors out there especially but it applies to all social science disciplines). Content analysis, is the name of the method and basically it is a means of unearthing messages that are sometimes obvious, sometimes more hidden in content or texts. Texts themselves, although the name suggests written documents, can be almost anything, in this case we are looking at televised news reports. Answering the questions above is one way of analyzing the content, or what is called the manifest content, what is immediately apparent or noticeable about a text.

Content analysis as a method is usually used to bring out the latent content or the more hidden messages in the text. For example, notice how in both reports the journalist starts off saying "just a two year increase in retirement age". You could interpret that to signal a lack of sympathy for the protesters, it would then be coded as a negative statement. A very simple content analysis would look for that same phrase in several samples. If there was a distinctive pattern of that phrase showing up you could infer from that evidence that the media is unsympathetic to the French protesters. Now a real content analysis would basically follow the same principles, except you would be looking for several phrases not just one, and you would apply this process to hundreds or even thousands of samples. You would then aggregate or combine your results to see if any patterns of behavior emerge, in this case a pattern of bias. If you can do that, then you can write a book on media bias towards French radical politics or something like that.

Can you pick out anything else that could be interpreted as a message? Content itself can be almost anything, it can be what the reporter says (how does she compare American workers with French workers?), the headlines (age of entitlement sounds negative as well), interviews, visual imagery, the sequencing of images, etc. You can analyze all of these categories, or one of them depending on how relevant it is.

Just to bring everything full circle: we know the importance of the press. Freedom of the press is protected in the Constitution, we know from the battles over the Alien and Sedition Acts that control over the press and control over information is crucial. It was crucial for Jefferson's victory which relied on the press, and crucial for the Federalists who were trying to censor the press. We should almost envy the simplicity of the tactics of the Federalists and how obvious they were (although don't forget there was an undeclared war with France going on at this time, crises are used to justify extraordinary laws). Now you have to apply content analysis in order to understand how information is manipulated in today's society. But even content analysis as a method can only tell you what is in a text, it cannot tell you about things which are excluded from the text in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_analysis

Notes on Jefferson

Election results for the Presidential Election 0f 1800. Notice how most of the Northeast part of the country is for Adams and the rest is for Jefferson. The orange circles mean that Adams received that number of votes from that state, but Jefferson still won the state overall. Notice also by the way that now Vermont (VT 4 votes); Kentucky (4 votes); and below it Tennessee (3 votes) are added to the original 13 states. Notice also that Maine is not a state, but is considered part of Massachusetts (MA 16 votes)

This shows the breakdown of Congressional elections 1788-1806. Notice again how after 1800 the Republicans pull away from the Federalists and the difference only increases every election

	Election Year
House	1788	1790	1792	1794	1796	1798	1800	1802	1804	1806
Federalist	37	39	51	47	57	60	38	39	25	24
Republican	28	30	54	59	49	46	65	103	116	118
Percentage Republican	43	43	51	56	46	43	63	73	82	83
Senate
Federalist	18	16	16	21	22	22	15	9	7	6
Republican	8	13	14	11	10	10	17	25	17	28
Percentage Republican	31	45	47	34	31	31	53	74	71	82

Once of the biggest reasons for the Republicans dominance over the Federalists in elections was the highly unpopular alien and sedition acts of 1798. At this point the U.S. was in an undeclared war against France: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War. This helps explain why laws that make it a crime to speak against the government could be passed. As they had already done in the past, the Federalists used the pretext of a crisis or a national emergency to put through controversial measures. In this case however it backfired on them and helped lead to the devastating electoral victories of Jefferson's Republicans.

I forgot to mention this in class, but the election of 1800 also revealed another flaw in the electoral college. In 1796 members of opposing political parties became president and vice-president, Adams and Jefferson respectively. In 1800 now you had a tie for president between Jefferson and Aaron Burr, who was supposed to be Jefferson's vice-president and everyone knew that was the intention, but he ended receiving as many votes as Jefferson. Burr seemed to have second thoughts about stepping down This dispute was resolved obviously in Jefferson's favor, but due in part to the influence of Hamilton, who though disagreeing with Jefferson personally disliked Burr. Burr never forgave Hamilton over this and along with other incidents helped lead up to the duel between Hamilton and Burr. Aaron Burr was the other guy in the duel, he was the one who shot Hamilton. He's not someone that we usually talk about much, but he is an interesting person so here's a little profile on him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Burr

Adam Smith

Since 'capitalism' is going to become one of the main themes of the course from now on, I thought I would put up this video by a Cambridge professor of anthropology on Adam Smith, the thinker most associated with the development of capitalism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z92pjQVgqmY&p=38FD506E3DDBD454&playnext=1&index=2

I'd recommend watching the whole thing, but if you want to just skip ahead to his economic theories, skip through the first 20 minutes.

Online Assignment

Monday 9/27

The Federalist Papers 1787-1788

-85 articles written for the New York public to persuade them to ratify the Constitution

-Of the 85 James Madison wrote 29, Alexander Hamilton wrote 51, and John Jay wrote five (he was ill at the time)

Madison’s contribution we went over last class. This class is devoted to Hamilton’s contribution (We will spend more time discussing Hamilton himself in a few weeks)

-Four of Hamilton’s articles are included: no.’s 15, 21, 23, 78

-#‘s15, 21, 23 are focused on pointing out the weaknesses of the present government under the articles of Confederation, and advocating the stronger national government, or in Hamilton’s terms, energetic government, that is designed in the Constitution.

-#78 is an early defense of the principle of judicial review which gives power to the Supreme Court to strike down laws or other actions that contradicts the Constitution

-The Federalist Papers is still regarded as the authoritative interpretation of the Constitution, or in other words, it gives you the best glimpse of what the intentions were of the people who made the Constitution (especially Madison and Hamilton). This is important because in contemporary debates there is still dispute over ideas like judicial review and whether or not it should be allowed because it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Reading the Federalist Papers (or simply just The Federalist) shows that it was obviously intended by the architects of the Constitution

Questions: What were the flaws of the government under the Articles of Confederation that Hamilton was specifically concerned with? Why was a strong national government the solution to the problems that Hamilton saw?

Consider the following quote by Hamilton from no. 15 (p. 112), “Power controlled or abridged is almost always the rival and enemy of that power by which it is controlled or abridged”.

-Hamilton was saying this about state governments disobeying the central government, what point was he trying to make?

In Federalist 23, (p. 116) Hamilton says this about the union, the term used to describe the national government as representing all the states together: “The principal purposes to be answered by union are these--the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries”.

-Hamilton defines four purposes for the union, what are they and how is the union supposed to make good on its purposes? What are the weaknesses that make the present system of government unable to fulfill these goals?

-“Internal convulsions” is most likely a reference to Shay’s Rebellion, what was this incident about and does it justify Hamilton’s fears? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shay%27s_Rebellion

Hamilton was much more comfortable using military force than most of the other founders, even George Washington. Consider this quote also from Federalist 23: “The authorities essential to the common defense are these: to raise armies; to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government of both; to direct their operations; to provide for their support. These powers ought to exist without limitation, because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent and variety of the means to which may be necessary to satisfy them” [Hamilton’s italics].

-What is the point Hamilton is trying to make here, and how would you evaluate this argument. In other words, do you agree or disagree, how does he make his point, etc? Again how is the government under the Articles of Confederation unable to meet these kinds of challenges?

In Federalist 78, Hamilton gives his argument for judicial review. He says, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do no authorize, but what they forbid”.

Also: “A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents”

-How does this relate back to the idea of separation of powers and checks and balances, which define the American system?

-Although Hamilton invokes “the people” to justify the power of the courts over the legislature, the courts were often times used to strike down laws that were seen as hurtful to business interests. Since the legislature was more democratic there were fears that popular interests would pass laws to redistribute wealth or tax profits more.

In current debates the role of courts in protecting moneyed interests against the rest of the population still seems to be strong, like this editorial in the New York Times says: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Plus Hamilton’s strict adherence to the Constitution guarantees the superiority of lawyers in virtually all branches of government, thus making government more elitist (Hamilton was a lawyer also).

Assignment: Read the Constitution and summarize on your blogs one of the seven articles that make up the Constitution or the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights (added to the Constitution in 1791, which Hamilton opposed btw). This will take the place of your reflection paper for the week.