Marcus A. Stadelmann

Article / Updated 08-10-2023

From the beginning, the Trump administration was mired in scandals that have undermined his presidency. The constant wave of scandals has resulted in negative coverage of his presidency, overshadowing his economic and foreign policy successes. Instead of being able to focus on domestic and foreign policy, President Trump has constantly dealt with putting out fires often caused by his own actions. The two biggest scandals were the Russia and the Ukraine scandals. The Russia scandal Almost as soon as Donald Trump had assumed the presidency, the Russia scandal broke out. It involved some of the president’s closest aides, including his national security advisor. During the 2016 presidential election, Russian operatives hacked Hillary Clinton’s server and later also the server for the Democratic National Committee. U.S. intelligence would later find out that the Russian government was actively trying to interfere in the U.S. presidential election by creating dissent among the U.S. public and trying to undermine Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. In May 2017 Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, who had been leading an investigation into links between the Russian government and Trump associates. Comey later testified that he was fired after he refused to drop the investigation of President Trump’s National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who had resigned after only 24 days in office after it was discovered that he had lied to Congress about meetings with the Russian Ambassador to the United States. Former FBI Director Robert Mueller was appointed in May of 2017 to investigate whether there was any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether the Trump campaign had attempted to obstruct justice. The findings of the investigation were released in April 2019 and stated that while there was clear interference by the Russian government in the 2016 presidential elections, there was no clear evidence that the Trump campaign had conspired with the Russian government. The report does note that while there was no evidence the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government, it clearly did benefit from Russian interference. The findings on obstruction of justice were less clear. Mueller concluded that he could not charge a sitting president with a crime because a sitting president cannot stand trial. Only Congress can charge and then impeach and even remove a president. According to the report: “The investigation does not conclude that the president committed a crime; however, it does also not exonerate him.” In other words Mueller took the easy way out and left it up to Congress to take the next or no steps. The Ukraine scandal After having weathered the Russia scandal, it looked like President Trump’s presidency was safe until the 2020 election. However, in September 2019, the Ukraine scandal broke out. The scandal involves President Trump’s alleged attempts to coerce Ukraine into providing information on his possible democratic challenger Joe Biden and his son Hunter. According to the charges, President Trump threatened to withhold $400 million in military aid from Ukraine, unless it reopened an investigation into Hunter Biden’s activities in Ukraine. An anonymous whistle blower brought this to the attention of Congress and the media, and in September 2019, the House of Representatives began hearings on whether President Trump solicited foreign intervention in the 2020 campaign. This would be an impeachable offense. Full impeachment hearings were started on October 31, 2019. These were open to the public and were nationally televised. On December 18, 2019, the House of Representatives voted 230 to 197 to impeach President Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. President Trump was the third president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were the other two. After being impeached by the House of Representatives, the Senate started on January 16, 2020, to debate whether to remove President Trump from office. On February 5, 2020, the Senate acquitted President Trump by a 52 to 48 vote. It is now up to the U.S. electorate to decide whether he deserves a second term.

Cheat Sheet / Updated 06-21-2023

This Cheat Sheet focuses on 50 key dates in the history of first ladies of the United States. These events mark the unique and continuing evolution of the office of First Lady and the first ladies themselves.

Article / Updated 06-06-2023

Today, the president performs many roles in society. The president has become the preeminent politician in the United States. Some of his presidential duties and roles include: Head of state: The president symbolizes the United States. Other countries judge the United States by what kind of president the U.S. public elects. Commander in chief: The president heads the U.S. military. The public looks to him to commit troops into combat. The public also holds him accountable for the successes or failures of military operations. Chief foreign policy maker: The president is expected to make foreign policy, meet foreign leaders, and negotiate treaties. The public holds him responsible for successes and failures in foreign policy. Chief executive: The president is in charge of the federal bureaucracy, which includes the cabinet departments, the Office of Management and Budget, and the military — more than 4 million people altogether. Chief legislator: Today, the president is responsible for most major legislation. He proposes the budget and uses his veto power to shape policy. The president acts, and Congress usually reacts to his policies. Crisis manager: Whenever crisis strikes the country, the U.S. public looks to the president to act. After the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001, the public expected the president, not Congress, to react. It was George W. Bush and his advisors who explained to the public and Congress what had happened, as well as what measures the government would take. Leader of his party: The public, as well as party supporters, look at the president as the leader of his party. If the president does well, the public will usually reward his party in the elections. If he performs poorly, the public will usually punish his party, especially in off-year (non-presidential) elections. Today, the president is the chief politician in the United States. However, he still has to share his powers with Congress on many occasions, and Congress can keep his power in check, if necessary. The president’s power of shaping public opinion The greatest power a U.S. president has is not found in the Constitution. It is the power to persuade and convince the U.S. public. If the president can get the public behind him, he becomes unstoppable. Congress cannot and will not oppose him if he can show Congress that the public supports him on a certain issue. For this reason, the power to shape public opinion is a great one. Persuading the people Theodore Roosevelt was the first U.S. president to take advantage of the power of public opinion. He used the presidency as a bully pulpit — a forum to use his influence to promote his causes — and preached to the U.S. public in an attempt to gather public support. When Congress began to stifle his progressive reforms, he toured the United States and attempted to convince the public of the integrity of his programs. With the public behind him, Congress had a tough time not agreeing to his agenda. Woodrow Wilson, a political scientist, recognized this power and continued in Roosevelt’s tradition. He, too, traveled around the country to rally support for his policies. In addition, Wilson established the tradition of holding regular press conferences, and addressed Congress directly by giving his State of the Union address in person to Congress. Wilson transformed the State of the Union address into the public spectacle it still is today. He set the precedent of using the media to disseminate his speeches to the U.S. public. Making use of the media With the invention of the radio, and later television, the power to persuade, or shape public opinion, gained new importance. Radio made it possible to reach the U.S. public easily, without ever leaving the White House. The first president to take advantage of this was Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s. A week after presenting his first inaugural address, FDR began addressing the U.S. public directly over the radio with his famous fireside chats, which he used to explain his policies and foster trust and confidence in the public. Roosevelt continued this practice throughout his presidency, delivering a total of 27 fireside chats. John F. Kennedy used television for similar purposes. He became our first television president. Kennedy and his advisors had figured that the best way to reach the public was through television appearances heavily laden with political messages. Nothing was more successful in gaining the support of the U.S. public than a well-timed, well-written, and well-delivered speech. Kennedy was also the first president to allow his press conferences to be covered on live television. (Eisenhower had his press conferences taped and reserved the right to edit them before they were broadcast.) Kennedy delivered 64 live press conferences before he was assassinated. Today, using television to reach the public is common. Inaugural addresses, State of the Union addresses, and press conferences are all designed to reach out to the U.S. public and convince people that the president’s policies merit their support. Clearly, a well-written and well-delivered speech can sway public opinion in a president’s favor. This in turn facilitates his dealings with Congress. While television is still the major tool to communicate with a majority of Americans, social media has become more prevalent. It was first widely used by President Obama, who started an AMA (ask me anything) thread on Reddit to target young and minority voters. The strategy was so successful in both the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections that it has been copied by every candidate running for higher office. Who could imagine President Trump not using Twitter? Today, campaigns use social media, such as Twitter, Facebook, and even Instagram and Snapchat, to target specific groups of voters. Studies have shown that the use of social media can increase voter turnout and impact political opinions especially for millennials (18 to 24). Older voters are more immune to social media messages. With social media being so successful and so much cheaper compared to television, it would not be surprising to see it overtake television as the major campaign tool in the future.

Article / Updated 05-03-2023

President Donald Trump has been known for being controversial at home and abroad. Take a brief look at how these controversies helped shape Trump’s presidency. Being Controversial at Home Controlling both houses of Congress, Trump tried to move quickly to have his agendas secured. However, he became frustrated with how slowly Congress operates and has relied heavily on executive orders to implement or change policies. Implementing domestic policies Some of his most important domestic policies include: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017: This act was the largest tax cut since 1986. It cut the corporate tax rate permanently from 35 percent to 21 percent and reduced individual income taxes until 2027 for all tax brackets. The act further increased the standard deduction and increased tax credits for families. Cutting back Obamacare: The Trump administration eliminated the individual mandate from Obamacare that required everybody under 65 years of age to get health insurance or pay a fine. It further cut Obamacare’s advertising budget and cut the enrollment period in half. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), this will increase the number of uninsured by about seven million by 2026. Reshaping the federal courts: Up until November 2019, President Trump had appointed two Supreme Court justices and a record 183 federal justices (district court and appeals court). This amounts to 25 percent of all federal justices. Most of his appointees are young and conservative and will move the federal courts to the right for the foreseeable future. The Muslim travel ban: President Trump imposed a travel ban on travelers from mostly Muslim countries (it also included North Korea and government officials and their families from Venezuela) that experienced terrorist activities. On June 26, 2018, the United States Supreme Court upheld the ban, which now excludes legal permanent residents, dual citizens, and the country of Iraq. Succeeding economically Since President Trump assumed office in January 2017, the U.S. economy has been booming. The economy grew by 3.1 percent in 2018, and 2.2 percent in 2019. The stock market (Dow Jones Industrial Average) has seen an increase of over 9,000 points. The unemployment rate is at the lowest level in 50 years, and unemployment for African-Americans and Hispanics is at a historic low. Being Controversial Abroad While President Trump has been successful dealing with the United States economy, foreign policy has been a mixed bag. There have been successes in the Middle East and in the fight against terrorism, but at the same time President Trump’s emphasis on an “America First” policy has alienated many U.S. allies. His major foreign policy include the following: Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord: By 2019, 195 nations had signed on to the Paris Treaty, known as the Paris Climate Accord. The treaty stipulates that all signees have to initiate policies to limit global warming and then report on their efforts. The objective of the treaty is to mitigate global warming and to limit the increase of global temperatures to below 1.5 degrees Celsius. The Trump administration declared its intentions to withdraw from the treaty in June 2017, but the United States cannot fully withdraw from the treaty until November 2020. So far none of the signees have adhered to the treaty, and the treaty contains no mechanism to enforce its goals. Getting tough with Allies: Beginning in 2017, President Trump demanded that NATO allies pay more for their military defense. In 2014, NATO members had agreed to spend at least two percent of GDP on their militaries, but most just ignored the obligation. Out of 28 NATO members, only 5 countries had met the mark by 2017. The United States, on the other hand, spent close to 4 percent of GDP on its military. Overall, the U.S. outspent the other 27 NATO members two to one. Germany, for example, actually cut military spending to 1.1 percent while running big budget surpluses. After Trump’s complaints and even threats of being unwilling to continue to protect NATO members if they refused to protect themselves, NATO, including Germany, begrudgingly agreed to increase defense spending and meet the 2 percent obligation by 2024. Declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel: The Trump administration declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel despite objections from the United Nations and most European allies. The American embassy was moved in May 2018 from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Withdrawing from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP): The Trump administration withdrew the United States from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free trade agreement negotiated by the Obama administration. Trump prefers bilateral agreements, namely trade agreements between two countries. Implementing tariffs against China: Claiming that China was using unfair trade practices against the United States and was further illegally obtaining U.S. technology, President Trump imposed tariffs on Chinese goods. China retaliated, but on January 15,2020, a Phase I deal was reached. China agreed to buy more American farm goods and allow the United States to bring criminal charges against Chinese companies for stealing U.S. technology. The U.S. in turn agreed to not impose further tariffs. Negotiations on a Phase II deal started right away. Renegotiating NAFTA: President Trump successfully renegotiated NAFTA. The treaty is now called The United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA). It includes new labor and environmental standards as well as intellectual property protections. It is estimated to create 176,000 new jobs in the United States. Cutting troops in Afghanistan: President Trump announced that he will withdraw most U.S. troops from Afghanistan but keep a small contingent of about 8,600 in the country. Destroying ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham): By 2019 ISIL had been defeated on the battlefield, and its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had been killed in a U.S. raid. Need further reading? Learn more about the scandals that have defined Trump’s presidency.

Article / Updated 12-23-2022

Political science is the study of power. The discipline is enamored with the concept of power, namely how A gets B to do what A wants. Therefore, political science studies who holds power and how it’s being used. Political power is the ability to get others to do what you want. It can take force or peaceful means, such as persuasion, to achieve this. Political power is exercised over people in many ways. In the U.S., for example, the federal government exercises political power over its population by forcing its citizens to pay taxes. Who would volunteer to pay taxes once a year unless the federal government had the power to force someone to pay up! Most importantly, this use of power of the U.S. government is considered rightful by its population. Therefore, the federal government possesses the legitimate use of power over its population. Exercise of political power In the U.S. and other federal societies, such as Germany, states, or regions also exercise political power over their population. In the U.S., the states set speed limits on their roads, and in Germany, states have the power to set tax rates. Finally, specific people, such as teachers, can also exercise political power. Whenever teachers assign homework, they’re exercising political power over students. Students consider teachers to have authority and their use of power legitimate and therefore will do something, such as homework, they wouldn’t normally do for fun. Authority refers to a general agreement that a person has the right to make certain decisions and that these decisions should be complied with. Different thoughts on political power Both ancient and modern political scientists were concerned with how power is used in societies. The famous Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle believed that political power should be held by the best educated in society and should be used for the good of society. Niccolo Machiavelli disagreed in his seminal work The Prince. He argues that power is needed to maintain the security of the state both at home and internationally. His work focuses on how to acquire power and then use it for the good of the state. Fellow political philosopher Thomas Hobbes not only agrees but also claims that political power shouldn’t be used for ethical governance but to prevent conflict both domestically and internationally. The more modern theorists such as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau argue differently. They believe that the people should exercise political power in a nation-state and need to be able to hold their leader accountable. For Locke, whose work became the foundation for the American political system, a contract exists between leaders and citizens on how to exercise political power. If leaders violate the contract, the people can remove them from their positions. More recent thinkers such as John Rawls have added the components of social justice and economic equality to their theories. Views on who holds the political power One of the ongoing questions in political science is how can the researcher determine who holds power in a society. Over time, six different explanations were developed. Bureaucratic theory Bureaucratic theory assumes that bureaucracies in countries hold power and make the most important decisions for society. It’s therefore not politicians nor other leaders but top-level bureaucrats who run a country. They work for the good of the country, not to amass wealth, and their policies are based on what’s best for a country. When studying France or Japan, two countries with powerful bureaucracies, bureaucratic theory can be used to study political power. Pluralism Pluralism, as developed by James Madison in Federalist Paper Number 10, believes interest groups will be created as societies become more economically and socially complex. People will join together to push for their own interests and for government benefits. These interests can be economic, professional, ideological, environmental, or even religious. All these diverse groups will now compete for public benefits, ensuring that public policy will benefit not only a few people but a majority in the country. Political power is therefore held by interest groups, representing the people. As soon as one group of citizens feel disadvantaged, they’ll begin to organize and compete for benefits. Suddenly, many interest groups are competing for political benefits and hopefully balancing each other out overall. Pluralism assumes that everybody will get a little bit from policymakers, but nobody will get everything he asks for. This balance makes every interest group accept lawmakers’ policy decisions without complaining or, more importantly, without taking action against policymakers. Corporatism Corporatism also deals with interest groups. However, there are not tens of thousands as in the U.S. but a lot less. There may be only three. These groups are large and powerful and directly deal with the government when it comes to policy making. Therefore, a few but very powerful interest groups hold power in a society . The political scientist needs to study these to find out who holds power in a society. Examples of corporatist countries include Germany, Austria, and most of Scandinavia. Elite theory Elite theory, as created by the great Italian social scientists Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca, states that every society has an elite that holds political power. That elite differs from society to society. In some societies, it’s blood based, meaning you have to be born into it. A monarch with a ruling aristocracy comes to mind. In other places, wealth puts you into the elite. The more money you have, the more influential you’ll be. This is often the case in capitalist countries like the U.S. or Great Britain. Another determinant of power is religion; Iran is governed by a religious elite. Membership in organizations such as an elite political party, for example, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, or the military can put someone in the elite. A military dictatorship such as found in Chile from 1973 until 1990 under General Pinochet is an example. In a nutshell, elite theory states that in every society an elite holds political power. Marxism A Marxist believes that whoever holds economic power also hold political power. In other words, control of the economy equals control of government. In a capitalist society, the economy is controlled by the upper and middle classes, and therefore they control government. In a feudal society, the king and his aristocracy control the economy and therefore government. Sources of political power Two models explain where political power comes from. First is the percolation-up model. It assumes that power rests with the citizens of a country. The citizens in turn elect leaders and give them political power to run the country on their behalf. If the citizens are satisfied with their leaders, they can reelect them. On the other hand, if they’re dissatisfied, they can replace them. An example is a representative democracy. The second model assumes the exact opposite. It’s called a drip-down model. Here, ultimate power doesn’t rest with the citizens but with the leadership of a country. For example, in authoritarian and totalitarian systems, the leader has ultimate power and makes policy for the country. The citizens have no input and can’t hold the leadership accountable. Historically, this type of power model was the most widespread of the two. Examples include the monarchies of the past, totalitarian systems such as the Soviet Union, and more modern dictatorships such as Belarus or Iran.

Cheat Sheet / Updated 02-24-2022

From early Greek political philosophy to current international conflicts, political science is a study in how people come together, interact, become informed, and make decisions that affect everyone. Studying political science allows you to become educated on political issues, make decisions, and discover how politics is made at the local, national, and international level. Take a look at the list of important political scientists and their major works to guide you through the evolution of political science. Also, read through major political science concepts to give you a well-rounded view of political science as a vital discipline.

Cheat Sheet / Updated 03-14-2021

Over the last 231 years, 44 men have dominated U.S. politics and history. Although almost every American can name the current president, less than half can tell you the name of the vice president or the Senate majority leader. No other office within the U.S. government has received as much attention as the presidency. The successes and failures of the chief executive have become a staple of U.S. culture. Every year, the media spends thousands of hours disseminating information on their virtues and shortcomings. Their biographies become best sellers. The public marvels at their childhood plights and adult accomplishments. Stories about their personal lives and office conduct have become ingrained in American culture and literature. The public revels in the presidents’ personal shortcomings and failures, and eagerly laps up scandals involving them.

Article / Updated 07-23-2020

Readers who want to learn more about political science than they’d find in a regular textbook should take a look at the ten books listed in this article. They’re not only classics in the field but also still relevant today. My hope is that you pick one or more of the books and decide to not only read it but afterward come to the conclusion that it still matters today. For example, after reading Aristotle’s Politics, written in the 4th century BCE, you may realize that the book written more than 2,000 years ago is still applicable to politics today. Or after reading The Prince written by Machiavelli in 1513, you may be surprised that Machiavelli’s ideas and conclusions on power can be used to explain Russia’s or China’s foreign policy in the 21st century. Therefore, in each of the books listed here, you’ll find interesting, often eye-opening or shocking revelations still applicable to today’s world. Do keep in mind that the ten book choices are personal suggestions. Feel free to disagree with my choices. You may even disagree with the conclusions I draw from the books or may find new observations and draw your own conclusions. I hope that you’ll discuss the books with friends or classmates or even recommend them to your book club for future reading materials. Without further ado, here’s my list of the ten political science books everyone should read. Politics (335–323 BCE) Most political scientists consider Aristotle’s book Politics the first real political science book. In this seminal work, Aristotle discussed why people create communities and later on the polis (state). Aristotle argued that, as members of a community, people enjoy economic and political security and can focus on advancing personally, focusing on more abstract ideas such as what type of political community is best. Suddenly, politics was born. For Aristotle, the ability to think and philosophize is what makes people happy, not personal wealth or power. People have to take the pursuit of knowledge into politics to be truly happy. This way their thoughts and beliefs can impact actual decision making in the polis. Philosophy and politics have to be fused, and knowledge has to result in action. A good ruler needs to know what’s right and then have the ability to put these policies into place. Finally, Politics was the first political science work that classified different types of governments. Aristotle wanted to know which type of government was best — a monarchy, an aristocracy, or a democracy. So he created a typology of various forms of governments found in Greece at the time. His conclusions were controversial. Instead of making a case for democracy, Aristotle decided that all forms of governments have merit as long as the ruler is wise and just. So for Aristotle, the best form of government depended on the type of ruler. The Prince (1513) The Prince was written by Niccolo Machiavelli in 1513 but wasn’t published until after his death in 1532. It has become one of the most controversial books in the history of political science. The Prince is basically a how-to guide for a ruler on coming to power. For Machiavelli, it’s all about power, and every action that contributes to the acquisition of more power is ethical and moral. Therefore, ethics and justice aren’t what matter for a ruler but the acquisition of power. Leaders should be concerned about power because only it can guarantee their survival and the survival of the state itself. The best way to maintain power is through the use of force or the threat of the use of force. In addition, the book discusses the characteristics a successful ruler has to have and the specific policies he needs to follow to maintain himself in power. Leviathan (1651) Leviathan, written by Thomas Hobbes and published in 1651, is another must-read for anyone interested in political theory or philosophy. In the work, Hobbes tried to explain why people desire the creation of a strong centralized state. Hobbes agreed with Machiavelli that life is a pursuit for power. For him, people are self-centered, egotistical, and on a constant quest for power. This results in conflict, and without a strong state, only the strong will survive. Therefore, in a state of nature, with no government present, constant conflict and violence occurs. For this reason, people willingly give up their freedoms for the creation of a state that provides them with security. Hobbes further argued that the most secure society for a people is an absolute monarchy, where the monarch herself is above the law. For Hobbes, the purpose of a government was to provide security for its citizens and not to advocate for notions such as justice or equality in a society. Two Treatises of Government (1690) In many ways, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were the exact opposites. Hobbes believed in a strong centralized form of government, while Locke advocated for the opposite. In his work Two Treatises of Government, Locke argued that people are actually rational, they want to better their lives, and they want to own property. People are, therefore, peaceful and want to become prosperous. They’re capable of self-rule and self-government. This allows for weak, limited government, providing people with personal freedoms. Locke argued that people form communities or a state only because of foreign threats and the need for domestic laws and their subsequent enforcement. Only a state, weak and limited in nature, can provide for external and internal security to guarantee against any legal violations and injustices. Locke even described the government structures that should be in place. He advocated for a legislative to make laws, an executive to enforce the laws, and a judiciary to mediate conflict. In his conclusion, Locke went as far as calling upon people to revolt against any government that’s unable or unwilling to stay true to its purpose. The Wealth of Nations (1776) The Wealth of Nations was written by Adam Smith, a Scottish economist, and published in 1776. It has become the bible for people believing in laissez faire (hands-off) capitalism. Smith argued in his work that the free market should regulate a country’s economy, and government needs to stay out of the economy. Smith believed that, in a few instances, government has a role to play in the economy, but these are very limited. Government functions include protection from foreign nations; therefore, government needs to establish a military force. In addition, government needs to provide for an infrastructure, such as roads and canals, to facilitate economic transactions. Finally, a legal system has to be put in place to make and enforce laws protecting mostly economic transactions in the free market. The Communist Manifesto (1848) The Communist Manifesto was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848. In it, the authors outline their concept of historical materialism in which they trace history from feudalism to capitalism and finally Communism. They discuss the concept of class struggle, showing how the working class is consistently exploited by the bourgeoisie and how it becomes impoverished. That, in turn, results in a violent class revolution where the working class will overthrow capitalism and become the ruling class and outlaw private property. The second section of the work contains demands by the two authors, such as a progressive tax, the nationalization of all property, the abolition of private property, the abolition of child labor, and the right to a free education for all classes. The final section of the work then distinguishes Communism from other forms of socialism. The American Voter (1960) The American Voter was written by Angus Campbell, Philip Converse, Warren Miller and Donald E. Stokes, four professors from the University of Michigan. The book was based on the first large-scale study of American voters in the 1950s. The authors wanted to know what Americans based their vote on — issues, candidate images, or something else. The results were surprising and established the Michigan model of voting. The Michigan model found that most Americans based their vote on partisan identification and not knowledge of candidates and issues. Partisan identification refers to people having an emotional attachment to a political party, which they usually inherit from their parents through a process called political socialization. In other words, voters voted for the Democratic Party candidates because they were Democrats and not because they knew about issues the Democratic Party favored. The Michigan model was the first voting behavior model to discover this. The model further discovered a group of voters called independents, or people who have no attachment to a political party. According to the study, these independents have the least knowledge of all voters but often decide elections. The study was later duplicated by Donald Stokes and David Butler in Great Britain with similar results. Man, the State, and War (1959) Man, the State, and War was published in 1959. In the book, Kenneth Waltz creates the three image or levels of analysis approach to explain causes of war in the international system. Using this approach, Waltz focuses on individuals, nation-states, and the international system itself, in that order. He studies each image and gives explanations of how each can tribute to the outbreak of war. First-image explanations involve individuals such as major leaders or top-level diplomats. Waltz examines how first-image explanations can be used to explain the outbreak of war. Second-image explanations involve nation-states. Here, Waltz studies a country to discover how domestic factors, such as political culture or economic structures, can contribute to conflict in the international system. Third-image explanations focus on the international system. The international system is dominated by anarchy and all nations’ thirst for power to acquire security. This results in conflict between states. Therefore, the international system, anarchic in nature and without a world government to enforce laws and punish aggression, is the major source of conflict for Waltz Who Governs? (1961) Who Governs? is one of the best-known books in American political science. It was written by Robert Dahl and published in 1961. In the book, Dahl attempts to rebut elite theorists who claimed that political power in the United States was centralized in a small power elite, which is interconnected and which occupies all positions of power, while most people lacked political power. To disprove elite theorists, Dahl studied political power distribution in New Haven, Connecticut, to see whether a small elite was running the city and holding all power. He was surprised to find that there wasn’t just one elite but a number of elites or groups competing for political power. One group dominated certain aspects of city politics, such as trash collection, while another one was in charge of another part of the city. This resulted in these elite groups constantly competing for political power and having to bargain and compromise with each other. This is the definition of pluralism as envisioned by James Madison. Therefore, pluralism was at work in New Haven, Connecticut, and there wasn’t one dominant power elite to be found. Dahl later on coined the term polyarchy, which refers to political systems, such as the U.S. system, that are open and inclusive. Everyone can join elite groups, and their power is limited by the people through free elections. Who’s Running America? (8th Edition, 2017) Who’s Running America?, now in its 8th edition, was written by Thomas R. Dye. The book is an example of elite theory, which claims that a small power elite runs the United States. For Dye, however, the position a person holds in an institution puts that person into the elite. In other words, institutional positions are the sources of power. For example, the position of Secretary of State has power attached to it, and whoever holds the position is suddenly a member of the power elite running the U.S. Therefore, all political scientists have to do is identify the institutional power positions in the U.S., and then it’s possible to know not only how many positions exist but who currently holds them. Dye further argues that some members of the elite can hold more than one position at a time and that the power elite is interconnected through family background, schooling, and even race, religion, and gender. In the work, Dye finds that there isn’t just one coherent elite in the U.S. but two. They are the conservative Sunbelt Cowboys, for example, George W. Bush, and the more liberal Establishment Yankees, for example, Barack Obama. The two elites agree on major issues such as form of government (democracy) and economic system (capitalism). However, they differ on smaller issues such as tax rates, military spending, and the legality of the death penalty. Sunbelt Cowboys are conservative on economic, social, and foreign policy issues, while Establishment Yankees tend to be liberal on these issues. The two elites usually corelate with political party affiliation, Sunbelt Cowboys being Republicans and Establishment Yankees being Democrats but do not have to. The two elites constantly compete for power and alternate holding positions of power in the U.S.

Article / Updated 07-23-2020

No study of political science is complete without looking at political socialization. Political socialization is the process of how people acquire their political values. The political values people possess in turn will shape their political behavior within the state. Political socialization teaches children political values and norms that will later impact their political behavior. The objective of political socialization is the same for every government: to create a populace that is well socialized and supports the current form of government. For this reason, many governments directly intervene in the socialization process. This can be done through educational structures and even religion. Goals of political socialization Studies have shown that successful political socialization has to create loyalty to the political system in the following areas: Loyalty to the state This is the most important because, without it, states will collapse at some point. If a majority of the people opposes the existence of the state they live in, there’s no future for the state. Recent examples include Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, both states that collapsed because a majority of the people opposed the state itself. Loyalty toward the state is created through nationalism and patriotism. The goal is to instill pride into a people through patriotic activities, such as singing the national anthem before sports events and pledging allegiance to the flag of a country. Loyalty to the political structure: Loyalty toward the state is important but not sufficient for the survival of a government. Besides supporting the country, the populace also has to support the current government structures and the ideas they’re based on. In the U.S., the government is based on democracy and capitalism. For this reason, the government has to artificially create loyalty toward these two. In civic education classes, mandatory in most states, children are taught about the virtues of democracy and how great capitalism works for the well-being of most Americans. At the same time, the evils of authoritarianism and communism are imprinted into children’s minds. Polls show that a vast majority of all Americans support and are very proud of their form of democracy, while a smaller majority also supports various forms of capitalism. Loyalty toward the current government: Loyalty toward the current government in power is a necessity. A populace has to be socialized to accept their favorite candidate losing and still supporting the new government elected. Even though a favorite candidate may have lost, people still have to consider the new government legitimate. If they don’t, they could turn against government and political violence can result. When Hillary Clinton lost the presidency to Donald Trump in 2016, many American were shocked and dismayed. However, nobody took up arms and initiated political violence to overthrow the newly elected Trump administration. This signals that Americans are well socialized into accepting losing elections and living with a president they didn’t support. In other countries, such as Kenya, this wouldn’t have happened. The losing side would have initiated political violence, and civil war would have broken out. Agents of political socialization How do citizens of a nation become socialized? In other words, what and who are the institutions that transmit political values to people? Agents of political socialization refer to the various institutions and people that will have an impact on a person’s learning of values and norms of political behavior. The following sections explore these questions. Trusting family The family is still the most important agent of political socialization today. Parents are who children see the most in early life, and this allows for parents to imprint children politically. Even if governments attempt to indoctrinate children through school or youth organizations, as the Soviet Union did, they fail. While schools preached socialist messages in the Soviet Union, the Russian grandmas back home would tell children stories about the czars and teach them about religion. Lenin considered Russian grandmas among the most dangerous group of people during the Russian Revolution. Therefore, families do matter, and parents influence political behavior. A majority of all people perceive politics as their parents did and also base their voting behavior on their parents’ voting behavior. Even a like or dislike for government can be transferred as can trust and distrust. It’s important to point out that most parents act as an unconscious agent of political socialization. All this means is that parents don’t consciously attempt to indoctrinate their children, but children overhear parents discussing political issues and model their political behavior on their parents’ political behavior. Studies have shown that young men who grow up in single-parent households tend to be more authoritarian than other males. The reason is that they must often assume the role of the man in the household early on in life, which changes their behavior. On the other hand, if children are allowed to have a say in family decision-making, they tend to be more democratic later in life. Going to school During school years is when the government can attempt to influence political socialization. Often, governments will make a conscious attempt to indoctrinate children and create citizens loyal to their country and government. This is accomplished through a curriculum that emphasizes history and civic education classes in such a way as to instill nationalism, pride in the country, and patriotism in children. Creating a political culture curriculum has an added benefit. In many countries, subcultures exist, such as ethnic minorities, and many immigrants may have arrived recently. They still practice their native cultures. Through government-guided education, they can learn a unifying language and a common history. In other words, the educational structure can make sure they’ll become good citizens. Studies have shown that government attempts to socialize children can have the most impact in middle school. Before middle school, children are too young to understand complex political concepts such as separation of power in the U.S. or scientific communism in the Soviet Union. One of the few things young children understand is the concept of authority and loyalty to one person. So early on, loyalty to a political leader can be taught. This in turn enhances legitimate authority in a nation. Many American schools teach the idea that the police have legitimate authority over people, and for this reason, young children are more likely than teenagers to support police. At the high-school level, conscious political socialization is too late. By the time students enter high school, their political values have been fully formed. Even if the government attempts to indoctrinate at this time, it’s too late. Political opinions can rarely change at this age. Therefore, political socialization needs to happen at the middle-school level. Finding friends Friends can be very influential in socializing a person politically. Especially in cases where a young person is apolitical, a friend, who is very much interested in politics, can make a difference. The friend may drag the youngster along to political rallies and constantly talk politics. This will make a difference. Another example involves peer groups. If a person moves to a new neighborhood, say, a country club suburban area, he may change his political beliefs to fit into a new peer group. Going to church Religion can become an important agent of socialization. If a person is deeply religious and her religion takes many political stances, the person will adopt these issue stances as a part of her political values. For example, the Catholic Church opposes abortion, and many devout Catholics do so for that reason. Listening to the media Today, the media is becoming more important in political socialization. More and more American children grow up in one-parent households, and after school, they’re alone at home watching television or engaging in social media. The absence of family has given the media an opening to socialize children. It’s not just news programs, rarely watched by children, that can impact a child’s belief systems, but just about any show on television that portrays certain behavior, a certain lifestyle, or analyzes events in a certain way. In most societies, the government regulates parts of the media and thereby controls the flow of information to the public. In authoritarian and totalitarian societies, the government assumes direct control over the media and allows only certain information to be dispersed to the public. This allows the government to politically socialize people and manipulate their political values. Belonging to a minority group Most societies contain minority ethnic groups. In the U.S., for example, African Americans constitute a minority and have developed certain political traits. For example, African Americans tend to be more liberal than American whites and are more likely to vote for the Democratic Party. They’re also more likely to perceive police as racially biased. These ideas are socialized into young black children and will stick with them for the rest of their lives. Today, more than 90 percent of all African Americans vote consistently for the Democratic Party in the United States. Living through major political and economic crises A certain catastrophic event can change people’s political values and their political behavior. For example, the Great Depression changed American values and, in turn, voting behavior. Before the Great Depression, most American believed in small government and voted Republican. The Great Depression changed all of this. Suddenly, people favored government intervention in the economy through a welfare state and began to vote Democratic. This lasted until the late 1960s, when the war in Vietnam and race relations changed Americans again. Changing later on in life Although most people won’t change their political attitudes and behavior during their lifetime, a few do. There are two ways that can happen. First, there is adult socialization. This can be brought about by economic changes in a person’s life. A person can grow up poor and a staunch Democrat. However, later in life, he grows wealthy, moves to a nice neighborhood, and is now surrounded by conservative peers. This can change his political attitudes. He becomes conservative, especially on economic issues. The second way a person can change his political attitudes is through a process called elite socialization. This can happen if a person makes it into an elite group, such as a business group or a political group. A good example are new members of the U.S. Senate. They start out rebellious, wanting to change things around in the Senate. They may want to change the rules of conduct or propose radical policies. Over time, they figure out that unless they change their political attitudes and behavior, they’ll be very unsuccessful Senators never passing any bills. This can cost them reelection. To be a successful Senator, they’ll have to work through the system and adapt. As soon as they do, elite socialization has happened, and it has changed their political attitudes and behavior.

Article / Updated 07-23-2020

When studying political science, you will learn about the formation of the United Nations and its mission to protect human rights throughout the world. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the three most important pieces of international legislation in regard to human rights. They are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) The most comprehensive definition of what human rights actually entail was given to us on December 10, 1948, when the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. After World War II had ended, the international community was shocked by the atrocities committed during the war. The United Nations decided that human life had to be protected and human rights mattered. For this reason, the United Nations created the Human Rights Commission in 1947. It was chaired by former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. Under Eleanor Roosevelt’s able leadership, the commission created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or UDHR. International experts on human rights from all over the world and belonging to many different religions came together to work on the declaration. The committee decided that human rights were indivisible and that all the rights listed in the UDHR were linked to each other. The UDHR lists basic principles, such as dignity, liberty, and equality in the first two articles, while the latter articles address issues such as political, economic, cultural, and social rights. All signatories agreed that human rights were guaranteed in their respective countries. Like all other United Nations General Assembly resolutions, the UDHR wasn’t binding on any nation in the world but just a recommendation on how to treat human beings. For this reason, the United Nations decided to turn it into international law through a series of treaties, binding on all signatories. These treaties created the International Bill of Human Rights. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a multilateral treaty passed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966. It went into force in 1976. The treaty mandates that all signatories guarantee civil and political rights of individuals. Examples include freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. In addition, the right to due process and fair trial are included. The final right is the right to be able to participate in policy making through free electoral processes. As of 2019, 173 nations have signed and ratified the treaty. Twenty nations, including, Cuba, China, and Saudi Arabia, have not yet ratified the treaty. The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) The same year, 1966, the United Nations also passed the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). It also came into force in 1976. All signatories to the treaty have to provide their citizens with economic, social, and cultural rights. Examples include the right to unionize, the right to receive an adequate education, and the right to an adequate standard of living. Therefore, the treaty deals with second- and third-generation human rights. As of 2018, 169 countries have signed and ratified the treaty. The U.S. hasn’t ratified the ICESCR because it believes that second- and third-generation human rights aren’t inherent rights of people but rather desirable social goals, which have to be implemented by respective states, with America’s help if so desired. Today, most countries agree on first-generation human rights, however, there’s a split in the international community on whether second- and third-generation human rights are actual rights or desirable social goals.