Defining Relevant Terms

GOVT 2306

As we did in 2305, I want to clarify – broadly – what is meant by some of the key terms and concepts we

will be using in this class.

The purpose is to ensure that we can have an efficient conversation about the subject matter at hand.

The terms are

Government Politics

SovereigntyPublic Policy

Here are some simple definitions of each

Notice that there are multiple possible definitions for each of

them.

Here are three definitions of “sovereignty”

1 - supreme power, especially over a body politic

2 - the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a territory

3 - the power to do everything in a state without accountability

Here are two, of the many, definitions of “Government”

- The institution, or institutions, with the monopoly on the legitimate use of coercion in

society.

- The institutions and procedures through which a land and its people are ruled.

And here are three of the many definitions of “Politics”

1- The authoritative allocation of values in society.

2 - The struggle over who gets what when and how.

3 - Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit in order to gain control or power

And a couple for Public Policy:

1 - Public policy is a course of action adopted and pursued by a government.

2 - Public policy is a purposive and consistent course of action produced as a response to a

perceived problem of a constituency, formulated by a specific political process, and

adopted, implemented, and enforced by a public agency.

- click here for the source.

Try committing these to memory

Let’s unpack these a bit more.

Again, this should help you make sense of some of the upcoming

material.

What is Sovereignty?

This is simply the concept that refers to where legitimate power

lies in a community.

It refers to whatever entity in fact has the power to rule.

In the United States, and Texas – along with the other states –

governmental power rests with the people.

This is referred to as popular sovereignty.

We can find proof by reading the preamble of the U.S. and Texas

Constitutions.

The U.S. Constitution

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the

common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Texas Constitution

Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the

State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

The authority of the government of each level rests on the population.

There is an interesting reason for this. It has to do with the problem posed by the assumption that people in the U.S. and

Texas are equal before the law. If everyone is equal, no one has the authority to rule

over anyone else.

A monarchic system does not have this problem. If power rests with the monarch,

he/she gets to rule.

But if everyone is equal then an alternative must be established. That alternative is the

consent of the governed, and it matters because it is their authority which grants governments the power to do what they

do.

Here’s the key part from the Declaration of Independence, if

you recall:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they

are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their

just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Here is a key problem with the concept of popular sovereignty.

How close a connection exists between the government and governed? How much direct

control does the sovereign have?

Does the sovereign have immediate, direct control over the operations of the government or is it indirect? Does the sovereign only

have the ability to impact government by electing, and

holding accountable in periodic elections, officeholders?

And in a federal system like the United States, where people provide the basis for both the national and state governments, sovereignty can be a bit confused. Which

level takes priority over the other?

A lot of the conflict we will cover this semester between the US and Texas governments stems from

the concept of dual sovereignty. The national and state governments – to a degree – have equal status. This

allows for conflict when one attempts to interfere with the activities of the other.

This is a central fact of American government and will occupy much

of what we cover this semester.

What is Government?

This is the term used to define the institutions that have evolved to

establish, implement, and adjudicate rules that determine how a group of people will live

together in some agreeable way.

Here are the definitions listed above.

- The institution, or institutions, with the monopoly on the legitimate use of coercion in

society

- The institutions and procedures through which a land and its people are ruled.

The simplest way to think of a government as the institution that

can compel you to do stuff.

What that stuff is, is a function of the political process, which we will

discuss below.

Governments - at their best – are the institutions that allow groups of people to live together in some

peaceable manner.

They establish the rules which allow for transactions between people – often strangers – to

proceed smoothly.

Think of how you share the road with people you do know. If

everyone knows the rules and abides by them – no one gets hurt.

Governments have problematic aspects as well.

By controlling the powers of government, certain groups or individuals can dominate others. So the big trick has always been to

design governments strong enough to implement what is necessary in order for a

society to function, but limit it so that it does not undermine individual rights and freedoms.

The problem is that people are not always in agreement over what

government ought to do, and what it means for rights and liberties to

be unduly undermined.

This is the stuff of political conflict – which we will hit in a moment.

In 2305 we discussed the factors related to the development of

governments, its major components and different types of

governing systems.

The constitutional democratic republic that the U.S. is governed by is just one of a variety of different governing systems.

A few things worth remembering from that section:

First, Governments, historically, have evolved either due to coercion or consent. The historical record provides more evidence of governments

established by coercion, but the American system is based on the idea that governments

actually evolve due to agreements people enter into voluntarily in order to better provide for mutual security. In this arrangement, people

consent to rule rather than being coerced into it.

Second, in order to in fact rule, government shave to be able to do

two things: collect revenue and coerce people to follow the law.

If a government can do neither, then its not really a government.

Third, governments can be arranged in one of three basic

ways depending on where sovereignty is located: Autocratic,

Oligarchic and Democratic. Respectively these are referred to as the rule of the one, the few and

the many.

Fourth, we mentioned that governments tend to do three things. They make,

implement and adjudicate the law. These powers are vested in each of three

separate institutions in order to limit governmental power. Recall that James

Madison argued that the concentration of these three powers in one person or institutions is the very definition of

tyranny.

Separated Powers

The term “government” specifically – and in a general

sense – refers to the institutions created in the three branches of

government that each respond to the three unique powers of

government.

These are the legislative, executive and judicial.

They are separated because any one person or entity that possesses all of these can

essentially do what they choose.

In the case of Texas:

The legislative power is vested in a bicameral legislature composed of

a 150 person House of Representatives and a 31 person

Senate.

The executive is vested in plural executive consisting of a governor and a handful of other separately

elected executive officials with certain defined functions.

The judiciary is composed of independently elected judges and justices for a variety of positions in

courts with certain defined functions throughout the state.

Each has the ability to negate what the others do.

This is the heart of the theory of the separated powers.

When we discuss each of these institutions more thoroughly later on, the nature of their powers will

expanded.

Constitutions

Before we go to much further, let define one more term:

Constitution

What is a Constitution?

Here are some definitions:

- The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits

of a government or another institution.

- a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a

state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed.

The term can be defined in many ways, but in essence a Constitution

establishes basic governing institutions, defines their powers and limitations, and clarifies the

relationship between the government and the people.

In 2305 we spent time discussing the nature of the US Constitution,

in 2306 we look at state constitutions and the Texas

Constitution.

We will note distinctions between the two as we go forward.

Here is a crucial point, one that helps us understand what makes

the constitutional structure of Texas – and other similar states –

different than that of the US.

It’s a point we will make repeatedly throughout the

semester

While the US Constitution was designed to place barriers between the people and the government in

order to give the government leeway in performing its functions, the Texas Constitution is designed

to constrain it.

Recall that the US Constitution replaced the confederated system established in the

Articles of Confederation which the Federalists judged to be too weak to

govern the newly formed nation.

The Anti-Federalists – if you recall – disagreed.

The US Constitution features centralized executive power, appointed positions and long

terms lengths where the Texas Constitution divides power and

establishes a sizeable number of elected position with short term

lengths.

This seemingly simple distinction matters.

The former design allows for more government power, while the

latter limits it.

The design of the Texas Constitution gives the general population –

specifically the majority – the ability to control it.

It is a far more democratic constitution – at least in terms of majority, not

necessarily minority rights.

Its probably not a bad idea to think of the Texas Constitution and

government as being designed and run by people who are more in line with

the legacy of the Anti-Federalists than the Federalists.

Keep this in mind as we go forward.

We will look at this more deeply as we look at each institution

separately.

Autocracy,Oligarchy,

Democracy,and the Separated Powers

We mentioned in 2305 that each of these systems had advantages

and disadvantages.

And that each is – to some degree – written into the governing system on the national level.

Here’s a brief preview:

Autocracies are efficient, but arbitraryOligarchies are knowledgeable, but biasedDemocracies are legitimate, but unstable

Autocracy

Autocracies – where one person is in charge - are efficient. They are the best

systems for getting things done.

But they are prone to arbitrary rule. Autocrats can do what they please

because there are no meaningful limits on what they choose to do. They are by

definition tyrannical.

But – again – they can ensure that things get done, laws get

implemented.

Executive branches in the US tend to have an autocratic character in order to ensure that laws are implemented

effectively.

In the American system of checks and balances,

there are limits that are imposed on executive power, but Alexander Hamilton argued that

having a single person on top of the executive

branch would ensure the efficient operations of the

government.

“A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill

executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad

government.”

- Federalist #70

We will define executive power in the state of Texas more thoroughly in later sections, but on the state

level the chief executive is the governor, but other functions of the state executive are held by

offices that are separately elected.

On the local level the chief executive of cities is the mayor – or

city manager depending on the nature of the specific design of the

government.

Counties are headed by a county judge, who heads the county

commissioner’s court.

Again, more on these soon enough.

Oligarchy

The simplest definition of oligarchy is government by the few.

This can take many different forms depending who those “few”

happen to be and why they are in charge.

Perhaps the most commonly recognized oligarchy is an aristocracy where governing is

deliberately restricted to a ruling class which is generally selected by birth. The

British aristocracy is the best example, and was part of what the American colonists rebelled

against in the late 18th Century. This social class had special governing privileges including a birth

right to membership in the House of Lords.

See this section on the landed gentry.

This form of aristocracy was established by primogenitor and

entail.

Both policies are prohibited in states constitutions – including

Texas’ Here’s a bit from the History Channel on Georgia abolishing the

practice in 1777.

A more contemporary type of oligarchy is a plutocracy, which is a

governing systems that is dominated by a nation’s wealthiest citizens.

Usually the wealthy are able to use existing rules to increase their

influence over a government, this includes campaign finance and

lobbying rules.

The United States – and especially Texas – is argued to be increasingly

plutocratic.

For an example: Millionaires' Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus

.

Plato – among other philosophers – have argued that society works

more smoothly if people are divided into groups based on their

abilities.

Some are meant to rule, others to hold skilled positions, others to be

laborers.

Leaders must promote The Nobel Lie to convince people

that social stratification is the best way to organize society.

The question of whether the US is in fact a class based system –

despite the fact that it is not legally so – is ongoing.

The point is that oligarchies are argued to have advantages

despites the fact that it violates basic principles of political

equality.

Oligarchies allow for knowledgeable rule, but are

subject to bias.

The courts in the US tend to have an autocratic design so that we

have judges who have the knowledge to be able to make just decisions on the controversies that

come before them.

They are the system designed to be insulated the most from public

pressures.

This is to ensure that judges rule fairly, based on the facts at hand,

not subject to public pressure.

Democracy

The simple definition of democracy is rule by the many, but there are

many different types of democracy.

We’ll just look at two: Direct

Indirect

In a direct – or pure – democracy people rule directly, meaning that the general population has the opportunity to vote

directly on public matters

In an indirect – or representative – democracy people select representatives

that then vote on public matters.

The US and Texas are the latter type of democracy.

This is what it means to be a republic. One difference between the states is whether they allow

opportunities for the electorate to vote directly for some items.

When we cover this further in a future lecture we will make a

distinction between states that were impacted by the progressive

movement in the early 20th Century and those that were not.

Those states altered their constitutions to allow for

statewide initiative, referenda and recall elections.

While local government in the state allow for them, they are not

allowed statewide.

For more detail click on the site on the website of the National Conference of State

Legislatures.

In 2305 we spent time discussing different ways to define

democracy – the simplest being majority rule. A more expansive

definition also includes the requirement that democracies include universal adult suffrage

and protection for minority rights.

Universal Adult SuffrageMajority Rule

Minority Rights

We will discuss aspects of each over the course of the semester.

Suffrage has expanded over the course of U.S. history and has

generally involved the national government compelling the states to expand who they allow to vote.

Tension exists between the values of majority rule and minority rights.

Majorities commonly attempt to minimize the rights of minorities through the democratic process.

Majorities can control democratic institution and turn them – effectively

into tyrannies.

This is called tyranny of the majority.

Enhancing the rights of minorities often involves limiting the majoritarian democracy.

This is one of the ways that we see tension between the government f the state of Texas and the national

government. We’ll discuss this further later in the semester.

In 2305 we read through Federalist #10, which was Madison’s attempt to explain how the US Constitution addresses the problem of tyranny of the majority by

allowing for the establishment of a republic over a large territory, which

includes many interests and reduces the change that a majority group can rally around a single interest and control all

branches of government.

Permanent majorities will be unlikely to form at the national

level since they can be easily broken apart.

The story is different when it comes to states and local

governments.

A question we will ask throughout this semester is whether same

dynamic works in Texas.

Madison thought that tyrannical majorities were more likely to form

at the state, and especially the local level.

One party can more easily control a state or local government.

Texas has a history of one party rule. Does that make Texas prone

to majority tyranny?

“The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party,

not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in

carrying elections.” – Lord Acton.

Democratic Legitimacy

Its suggested that the principle benefit of democracy is that it allows for a direct connection to be drawn between the

electorate and the government.

This makes the government – at least in theory – more susceptible to the

preferences of the general population, which means that it is more likely to be

considered to be legitimate.

But while democracies offer legitimacy, but can be unstable

and prone to mob rule.

Legislatures are the institutions designed to provide that

connection between the people and the law.

So it becomes the democratic branch of government.

Legislatures are intended to be where diverse viewpoints are heard publicly and policies are debated and – if the majority

accepts them - adopted.

But legislative assemblies are also where conflicts over policy are most likely to

come to a head.

They can appear remarkably unstable due to the debate that is commonly heard in them – but remember that this is part of

what they are all about. This is what legislatures are for.

That should be enough to outline how we will be using the term

“government.”

Again, it will refer to the legislative, executive, and judicial institutions

on the national, state and local levels.

Several segments in this class are focused on Texas’ governing

institutions, specifically how each is outlined in the Texas

Constitution and how they have evolved over time.

Now we’ll turn to the institutions responsible for determining what governments do – these are the

political institutions.

What is Politics?

Now let’s switch to the term

“Politics.”

Earlier it was defined as follows:

1- The authoritative allocation of values in society.

2 - The struggle over who gets what when and how.

3 - Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit in order to gain control or power

Simply put, it’s the battle over what the governing institutions will

do, how they will do it, and who will do it.

These can be struggles over what people can be allowed to do (have abortions, use contraceptives, enter into gay marriages),

what benefits people or groups can receive (where does the tax burden fall, what

businesses receive incentives and subsidies) and what activities help certain

groups and parties control governing institutions.

Politics refers to the external forces that influence what the

people in governing institutions do.

Notice that each definition above touches on conflict of some type.

Values – what sorts of things are right and wrong.

Think of poverty programs, abortion, gay marriage, etc . . . .

Interests – where and how is revenue collected where and how

is that revenue spent.

Think of this as a pocketbook issue. Whose interests are served – and whose are not – by government

programs, both real and proposed?

And perhaps the most important aspect of politics is the ongoing

struggle to control the institutions that then make decisions on values

and interests.

Generally this involves competing in elections to win control of the legislative, executive and judicial

branches.

Here is a key point:

The political process is where people offer – or withhold -

consent to what governments do.

Politics – the political world in general - exists because our

constitutions establish elections. People are then allowed the ability to participate in them. Consent is

offered or denied through elections.

In a more direct sense, politics exists because people are free.

We should reflect on this because not all governments are based on the people.

Authoritarians and totalitarian systems do not allow popular input – and can even make it

illegal.

We can engage in political activity because we live in a system that allows for individual

freedom, including the ability of people to speak, use the press, form groups and petition

for a redress of grievances.

Think about that the next time you complain about politics.

It could be worse – you could live in a system that does not allow

political participation.

In the US and Texas, various institutions have evolved over time in order to influence governments.

Many of which have roots that go back to colonial and British times.

In 2305 I argue that the political world began to expand

considerably once the arbitrary power of the monarch was

contained following the signing of the British Bill of Rights and the

imposition of limits on governing power.

The executive power was no longer able to use arbitrary power to

punish people who disagreed with the government.

People became free to hold and articulate their own points of view,

and to engage in activities that allowed them to promote

preferred policies.

As we will see, this is a simplification. Limits still existed, but they began to be eroded.

Just who is able to participate politically – effectively – is an

ongoing question.

There are three dominant political institutions:

political partiesinterest groups

the media

I’ll introduce each below, but first a word or two on public opinion,

Texas, like the other states and the nation as a whole, is a democratic

republic which rests on the general population.

The policies Texas adopts are assumed to be based on the general preferences of the public.

But governing officials are actually more attuned to the interests of those

who participate actively in politics. This isn’t necessarily the same as the

majority.

This is an important point that we will touch on repeated throughout the class. Its not “the people” that

count when it comes to determining what Texas

government does, its what “the participants” want that really

matters.

As we will see in an upcoming set of slides, Texas – statewide –

contains majorities that tend to support conservative policies. And even when clear majorities do not

support these policies, the dominant political institutions do.

Texas tends to be a low tax, low services state, that also supports

conservative social policies.

But there is no consensus on this.

A quick comment on ideology.

In 2305 we defined ideology as a set of issue positions based on an

underlying value.

A value being a sense of right and wrong and an issue position being

an opinion on a topical issue.

We focused attention on the importance on the importance of three dominant values: Liberty,

Equality, and Tradition.

In Texas, the values of liberty and tradition tend to dominate the value

of equality.

This isn’t the case in other states or, depending on who controls national

institutions, the national government. As we will see, this is the source of the

bulk of political conflict in the US.

Many people do not spending too much time figuring out how they should be positioned on different

issues and therefore adopt a primary value and use cues received from trusted sources to determine how

they should position themselves on specific issues.

They often adopt a primary media source because is confirms their value system and

allows them to interpret events in a manner that conforms to that value.

Again, this creates conflict. People who watch – for example – Fox News have a

different world view than those who watch the mainstream media.

At this writing (5/20/12) gay marriage is a dominant issue due

to President Obama’s recent statement of personal support for

it.

People whose primary value is equality or liberty are generally in

favor of gay marriage.

It allows different people to be treated equally before the law, as well as the freedom to enter into

relationships they chose.

Traditionalists – which also refers to the religious – see this as an

affront to the traditional definition of marriage.

They are all correct within their own spheres. The question is, how have a given value system and how many then come to the conclusion about the policy due to their value

system?

To complicate things further, not all local areas – especially the large metropolitan areas – share these positions, so areas of

conflict do exist. The cities of Austin, Houston and Dallas tend to be more liberal

than the state as a whole.

We will also dig into the conflict this creates later.

More on this conflict later.

Interests also matter.

As with other states, certain issues are more important in Texas, based on which interests are

dominant within the state, and the content of the political culture –

which we cover more fully elsewhere.

No surprise, but energy, commerce, aerospace and a handful of other issues are

especially important in the state and local areas.

In the local area, this includes medical and high tech research.

Now let’s introduce ourselves to some of the dominant political

institutions in the state and local areas.

The goal is to become familiar with these terms so you can use them

fluently as we proceed.

Political parties are groups of individuals organized formally who unite to compete in elections. By winning office they can control

governing institutions and are in a good position to implement their

desired policies.

As is the case nationally, and in each of the states, the two dominant parties in

the state are the Democratic and Republican parties. But the state

parties are very different than the national parties and can compete with it to determine what the party really

stands for.

Whereas each party competes with each other relatively evenly

nationally, Texas has a tendency to be controlled by one party.

Until the 1960s, the Democratic Party dominated politics utterly,

but shifts in the national Democratic Party led conservative members to gradually leave and

join the Republican Party.

By the early 1990s, the Republican Party became the dominant force in

the state. They are not as strong as the Democrats were at their peak, but

they dominate state wide offices like the governor, and other executive

offices, the US Senator. They have also recently had comfortable majorities in

the Texas Legislature.

Rule of thumb: There is a party organization in every level of

government where there is an election.

This is true down to the precinct.

Point to remember: Each party is not only organized at the state

level, but also at the county and precinct levels. Conflict between

each is common.

In addition to looking at the state Democratic and Republican

Parties, we will be looking at area county parties as well as local

clubs.

While state elections – including county elections – are partisan

(meaning that candidates run with party labels), city elections are not.

City and single purpose government elections (ISD’s, etc…)

are non-partisan.

Interest groups are also defined as groups of people organized to

pursue a shared policy goal, but interest groups are narrowly

organized to obtain that goal – not to contest in elections.

While diverse groups operate within the state, business groups

and those affiliated with social conservatives – the Christian Right – are especially influential within

the state.

The power of those affiliated with liberal causes – unions, trial

lawyers, the public sector – have been minimized in recent decades.

But they are still influential.

Two dominant think tanks also exist which churn out ideas, policy

proposals and talking points for other political organizations.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a source for conservative policy

proposals.

The Center for Public Policy Priorities

is a source for liberal policy proposals.,

The press in Texas is dominated by a handful of newspapers, none of

which has a huge impact nationally.

Austin American StatesmanDallas Morning News

Houston Chronicle

A recent entry in the market is the online newspaper The Texas

Tribune.

As with all newspapers and media sources, they contain editorial boards that take positions on

policy issues and make recommendations for candidates

for various elected offices.

Public Policy

No surprise, but there are several definitions of public policy.

Here are a couple

And a couple for Public Policy:

1 - Public policy is a course of action adopted and pursued by a government.

2 - Public policy is a purposive and consistent course of action produced as a response to a

perceived problem of a constituency, formulated by a specific political process, and

adopted, implemented, and enforced by a public agency.

- click here for the source.

Public policy is the stuff government does (or chooses not to do) to deal with a problem that

has emerged on the public’s agenda.

Here are examples

Energy PolicyEducation PolicyDefense PolicyHealth Policy

Criminal Justice Policy

Another way we can define “government” is those institutions

that are responsible for establishing and implementing

those policies.

In 2305’s discussion of federalism, we mentioned that certain policies tend to fall more squarely on the

national, state or local level.

National policies tend to be those that are delegated to the national government in the Constitution.

These are mostly commercial and military in nature. Foreign policy is

almost fully controlled by the national government.

The constitution also contains the Tenth Amendment which

establishes that powers (policies) not restricted to the states are

reserved to them – which carries the assumption that the national

government cannot pass laws about them.

These are often referred to as the police powers.

The power to regulate the health, safety, welfare and morals of a

community.

Sometimes these policies impact commerce, which the national government has used to justify passing laws that affect

police powers.

Crime, for example, impacts the flow of commerce. The national government has

been able to justify getting involved in interstate crime on that basis.

The point being: the public policy process in the United States (like

all aspects of American government) is very complex and

involves multiple actors motivated with often competing goals.

Nevertheless, there are certain types of policies that are mostly contained within Texas. We will

look at some of these. Especially:

Education PolicyCriminal Justice Policy

Economic Development Policy

Part of what we will be looking at is the public policy process which outlines what it takes for a policy

item to be passed into law and implemented.

There are five steps in the process – which we will illustrate in more

detail soon enough.

Agenda SettingPolicy Formulation

Policy AdoptionPolicy Implementation

Policy Evaluation

Not surprisingly, since new issues emerge and one solution to a

policy can create other problems, the public policy process in never

ending.

Some problems – poverty, crime, etc… - seem to never have

solutions.

The public policy process is where all the different governing and

political institutions come together to address – with various degrees of success – the problems of the

state.

Summary

The simple purpose of this section was to get you comfortable with

the basic terminology and concepts we will be using

throughout this class.

This provides a taste of what we will be hitting harder over the next

few weeks.

Try to memorize as many of these terms and concepts as you can.

The better you do so, the easier the rest of this class will be to

follow.