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.

Some General Questions

Was Jefferson misleading us when he wrote 'The Declaration of Independence'? Since early liberals like Jefferson thought that 'interdependence' created by social relations would provide necessary order, making us dependent on each other. How can we be independent and interdependent at the same time? Were people in Jefferson's day more independent than we are now?

Generational conflict (old v. young) seems to be one of the strongest themes in Thomas Paine's writing. Since there are more generations alive now than ever before (about 5 living generations in U.S. right now), is generational conflict becoming, or has already become, the main source of division in American society today? If this is true, you would have to consider to what extent do other forms of conflict like class conflict (rich v. poor), ethnic conflict, racial conflict, gender and sexuality conflict, all fall under conflict between older and younger generations?

A lot of Paine's writing is devoted to attacking tradition which is obviously related to conflicts between generations. For conservatives, traditions are very important, in fact the term 'conservatism' itself comes from conserve, as in conserving or preserving traditions. The founder of 'conservatism' is Edmund Burke who was writing during the French Revolution which he condemned because it marked the ultimate destruction of tradition (remember the French even restarted their calendars so much did they want to wipe out traces of the past). Paine's book The Rights of Man, part of which is included in the coursepacket was written directly in response to Burke. For radicals like Paine, the past was only holding us back since the past for them was just a history of oppression and domination by kings and other forms of hereditary succession. The American Revolution in the eyes of radicals marked a break from the past, in a literal sense, that breaking away from England was breaking away from the past. In many ways that may have been true in 1776 or 1783 or even 1789 (when the Constitution is ratified), but the past is a presence for people living in 2010, so what kind of relationship should people have to the past and to traditions today?

Religion and Political Rights

Religious toleration was the primary concern of early colonial leaders like Roger Williams, the legacy of debates like this continue into the present. Still it is not always easy to distinguish those who are tolerant and those who are intolerant, many times these conflicts are played out within the same person. Take John Locke for example who besides being the great champion of human rights and government by consent of the people, also thought that Catholics should be denied the right to vote. Part of this is because of the unique dynamics of English political life, the political battle lines were basically drawn between Catholics and Protestants (Locke was a Puritan).

But on another level, this distrust of Catholics stems from Locke's belief that they were unfree people. They were subservient to the Catholic Church and they were subservient to the local authorities and political bosses, so the argument went. The fear was that they would bring their unfree ways of doing things with them, corrupting good political institutions and ruin things for those who are truly free. In many ways this idea carries into the present on contemporary debates on immigration. Not coincidentally the immigrant groups that have received the most attention and controversy, past and present, have been from Catholic countries or regions--Ireland, Italy, and now Latin America. So that problems like the mafia for example were believed to be directly caused by the Italians lack of political freedom and dependence on local power brokers for protection and advancement. As recently as the 1960s when John F. Kennedy was running for President, conservatives warned that he would swear his allegiance to the Pope (The modern version of this is calling President Obama a Muslim).

How would you evaluate this claim that unfree people bring their unfree ways of doing things with them? If people come from a background that is not democratic is it harder for them to learn the ways of democratic political life?

Natural Rights

Sometimes it is good to consider things from an outside perspective because they notice things that those who are brought up from the inside take for granted. Consider this statement from Liang Qichao, an early 20th century Chinese scholar on the idea of 'sticking up for your rights':

If an Englishman traveling to the European continent is one day asked to pay an irrational charge by the hotel's carriage driver, in every case he will resolutely scold the driver. If the driver will not heed his scolding the Englishman will struggle for justice without tiring always preferring to extend his stay; even if his room charges were to increase as much as tenfold he would not cease. Unknowing people all laugh at this great fool but none of them understand that this person's struggle over a few schillings is in fact a vital part of what allows the nation of England to stand tall by itself in the world.

What do you think the meaning is of Liang's statement? What kind of commonsense practical value does he see in human rights? How does a strong 'culture of rights' contribute to a strong public? These are just some things you might want to consider as we get things going. The idea of natural rights was something we spent a lot of time discussing last class and as you will see it will continue to be an important theme in class. Remember at the most fundamental level the purpose of the Lockean inspired American political system as designed by the founders was to protect natural rights. It is impossible to understand American politics without understanding the importance of natural rights.