- Marcel Proust

I. Objectives

This course introduces you to:

The study of American government -- its institutions, policies, and politics;

Ways of thinking about existing and, possibly, preferred, relationships among governmental institutions, policy making processes, and political activities; and

Contemporary public issues.

As a result of this course, you, hopefully, will become more astute as political analysts and, potentially, more skilled as political actors.

II. Approach

This course places a premium on the integration of material. Integration will come about by relating:

Assigned reading;

Current events;

Classroom simulations; and

Case studies.

This course relies on a Socratic method; i.e., through our study of specific cases and through our interaction in class, we will inductively arrive at, test, and apply fundamental principles about the nature and operation of the American political system. (As Sam Goldwyn said: "For your information, let me ask you a few questions.")

In other words, you will have to "think on your feet." This is a learnable skill and, even if you don't think you're good at it, you can learn to be. (In the fight business, they say you have to "let go of your hands.")

III. Course Requirements:

Each of the following is a course requirement; its weight towards your final grade is given in [brackets]:

1st Examination [10%]

2nd Examination [20%]

3rd Examination [20%]

Term Paper [20%]

Final Examination [30%]

Congressional Workshop [about 1/2 a step; e.g., from a B+ to an A-; the equivalent of 10% of your grade]

Class Participation: Your active and effective participation in classroom discussion and negotiation simulations can affect your final grade by up to one letter grade. In addition to your regular participation in class discussion, you may be called on to sum up a preceding discussion or to present a case out of a previous issue of The New York Times (See Attachment I). In addition to participating in a negotiation, you also may be called on to draw on the Fisher and Ury text to critique a negotiation.

NOTE ON PARTICIPATION: If you want to know how you're doing (in class participation) or if you want to know how to do better, seek me out. I also will place a "Discussion" grade on your exams to indicate my evaluation of your progress.

NOTE ON EXAMINATIONS: The format for all the exams is the same. There is one main question; namely "What, if anything, should government do about X, why, and so what?" Where ... "X" is some case (or situation) drawn from the newspaper. ... "What" refers both to a policy towards X and to a process for making the policy. ... "Why" calls for an explanation that is based on course material. .. and "So what?" calls for you to draw out the significance of your answer (to the "what" and "why" parts of the question) by making inferences about American governmental institutions, politics, and policy making.

These also are closed-book, no notes exams. In both, the emphasis and the reward is on well-supported answers that draw, systematically, on course material and, especially, that use course concepts appropriately and insightfully. [To make this easier for you, I've attached a list of course concepts (See Attachment 3: Key Course Concepts) and some advice on how to do well on exams (See Attachment 4: Things to Do\Mistakes to Avoid)]

IV. Required texts:

Lowi and Ginsburg, American Government

Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes

The New York Times, M-F.

V. Class Rules: [NOTE: Class rules are not designed for my convenience or gratification. They are intended (1) to make clear to you expectations you will encounter in college and (2) to help you make a successful transition from high school to college.]

0. The first word out of your mouth is your name. (Until we all know everyone's name.)

1. You are in charge of your body; i.e. ...;

2. One person at a time speaks; i.e. ...;

3. You are at risk at all times; i.e. ...; and

4. Only losers sleep in class. [To help you avoid making this impression, I will give those who appear to be about to fall asleep -- head back at an unnatural angle, jaw slack, drool -- a free pass, entitling them to a trip back to the Tank where they can ask for help in learning how to manage their time. These persons also will be called on the next day to summarize the class they missed.]

5. If you're late to class, as defined by my watch, you must graciously pay $ 1 as you enter.

6. In general, we play by law school rules.

VI. Class Procedures

The procedures we will follow in class every day are intended to help realize our central purposes: (1) to understand the key concepts⁽²⁾ of the textbook; (2) to understand significant current events; (3) to relate concepts to current events; and (4) on the basis of (1) - (3), to w inferences about the nature of American government, politics, and policy making.

This course relies on a Socratic method; that is, through our study of the text and The New York Times and, more importantly, through our interaction in class, we will inductively discover, test, and then apply fundamental principles about the nature and operation of the American political system.

Thus, in every class you will be called on (1) to present your understanding of key text concepts; (2) to present current cases of American government in action*; (3) to analyze these cases by applying the concepts from the current chapter (and all previous chapters and classes) to that particular case; and (4) to discuss the significance of the case.

* (For guidance on how to "present a case," see Attachment I.)

Or, more simply, in every class I will ask:

1. What are the key concepts and central propositions of the text?

2. What was the case of x (from The New York Times) about?

3. What's the connection between the concepts, the propositions, and the case?

4. Why do we care? (That is, what do your answers to steps 1-3, above, imply about the nature of American government?)

In other words, you will have to "think on your feet." This is a learnable skill and, even if you don't think you'll be good at it, you can learn to be. (In the fight business, they say you just have to "let go of your hands.") (Or, as they say in the surfing business, catch the wave -- or be buried by it.)

NOTES ON DISCUSSION

Classroom discussion plays a very large role in this course, both as a component of your final grade and as a way of learning the material (and, hopefully, learning it in a way that has some enduring value for you). You, therefore, need to know something about (a) my approach to discussion and (b) the kinds of discussions we will have.

My Approach

I do not assume that anyone has any prior skill in classroom discussion. I also do not assume you are particularly comfortable in group discussion. I, however, from experience, know that you can become both skilled and relaxed. It's like swimming. And I'm the coach; just be willing to work with me. Or, it's like surfing ...

You can limit your own effectiveness in discussion, mostly by assuming that everyone else in the room has been reading the newspaper forever, has memorized the U.S. Constitution, often debated politics at the dinner table, etc. These assumptions are usually too generous. You might also be reluctant to participate in class discussion if you haven't spent many of your formative years inside the United States. Again, it's very easy to over-estimate the knowledge that American citizens (and "mainlanders") have of their government.

Kinds of Discussions

There will be four basic kinds of classroom discussions:

1. NYT-Based Discussions

When, in class, I call on you to discuss a story in the newspaper, your presentation should answer the following questions:

a. What are the facts of the case? (That is, what are the aspects of the case that everyone accepts as true -- that people do not disagree about?)

b. What the issues? (That is, what is it that people do disagree about? NOTE: Issues are best stated as questions: "Should there be a balanced budget amendment?", for example.)

c. Who are the actors - the key players in the case?

d. What are their positions? (That is, in what way do they think the issue should be resolved?)

e. What are their underlying concerns? (That is, what do the actors really care about, or value?)

f. What's the future; that is, what's likely to happen? (That is, forecast a likely scenario for the way this story might develop.)

g. So what? (That is, what is the significance of this story; from it, what insights or lessons do you draw about American government, politics, and policy making?)

2. Term Paper-Based Discussions

When, in class, I call on you to discuss your on-going term paper research, follow the same, above, format.

3. Case Discussions

In addition, you may be presented with a particular case and asked what government should do about it. There is the case, for example, of wild burros that harm the environment of the Grand Canyon. Should the National Park Service shoot them? Sell licenses so that private citizens can hunt them? Help voluntary organizations round them up and put them up for adoption by private citizens? Would you adopt one? Or should government do nothing in this situation?

In your discussion of such a case, you need to do two things: (a) First, state a position, that is, describe what, if anything, should be done; (b) Second, construct a scenario or a description of a process by which the political system might formulate a policy; and (c) Third, construct and present an argument that justifies the position you have taken.

[As we proceed, you'll come to see why you will want to switch the order of steps one and two.]

To construct an argument, you simply draw on course material. There's also a simple formula for doing so. Just use the course topics as a check list to ask yourself, for example, In what ways does the Constitution bear on this case? In what ways does Federalism, or Civil Liberties, or Political Culture, etc... bear on this case? For example ... [This classroom activity also will pay off at examination times, because, at these times, you will be presented with some new case and asked to do exactly the same thing.]

4. Review Discussions

Also, from time to time, class will start with the questions: (a) "What have you learned so far?" and (b) In what ways has what you've learned furthered your understanding of what you've been reading in the New York Times?"

For our classroom discussions you will need to prepare in advance. To prepare, form study groups of 6-7 people, divide up specific reading assignments for the daily New York Times, meet 2-3 times a week to discuss significant stories (over dinner, perhaps). In these discussions, review what you have learned thus far and to apply it to current cases. [Doing this is practice for class discussion and for your examinations; such practice, therefore, will help ensure success in both.] Form your study groups and begin meeting soon.

VII. Term Paper

For a description of the term paper assignment, see Attachment II.

VIII. Course Format:

Class Session #: Topics and Assignments

[NOTE: Some changes may be made to accommodate speakers.]

Week #1/Class Session # 1 What can government do?

Cases:

0. The Preamble's implied question

1. Welcome to the Island of Despair!

2. Design a Resource Allocation Mechanism (RAM)! First, design an automobile traffic control system that assumes (a) that people do not know where they're going; (b) do not know how to get there; (c) do not care whether or not they get there without accident; and (d) there are no profit-making businesses involved in traffic control. Second, figure out: What are the governmental and political implications of your RAM?

Lecture/Discussion:

1. Mandatory resource allocation decisions (MRADS)

2. Alternative resource allocation mechanisms (RAMS)

3. What makes a good leader?

Reading:

Garry Wills, "What Makes a Good Leader?" (Attached xerox).

In addition to the specified assignments, you are required to read the New York Times daily.

This Syllabus. (It's your road map to sucess in this ocurse; study it!)

NOTE ON READING ASSIGNMENTS: Beginning tomorrow, the assignment that is listed for a particular class day is to be read before class that day.

Study/Discussion Groups: You are encouraged to form study groups to relate classroom and newspaper material.

#s 1/2 [Week 1/Class Session 2] What should government do?

Reading:

Lowi and Ginsberg, Chapter 1.

Cases:

a. What did you learn last time?

b. The Traffic Control Exercise: If people refuse to act in their own self-interest, what sort of government is necessary? (What is your image of such a government?)

c. Why do we treat murderers differently from polluters?

d. Why charge someone for being late to class?

e. What should be done with the late fees?

f. Course syllabus: What questions do you have of it?

[NOTE: All reading assignments are to be completed before the class for which they are assigned. Got it?]

Next class: What were the Federalist Papers?

#s 1/3 The Constitution

Reading:

Lowi and Ginsberg, Chapter 2 and, in the Appendix, Federalist Papers No. 10 and No. 51

Cases:

a. The Founders as problem solvers: What was the problem?

b. The Constitution as the solution: Why was it?

c. Madison's insight and remedy

Discussion Topics:

a. What is Madison's argument?

b. What are the policy implications of Madison's argument?

#s 1/4 Federalism

Reading:

Lowi and Ginsberg, Chapter 3

Cases:

1. Take me to your leader!

2. Do you want to adopt a burro?

3. What should be done with the class treasury?

Discussion Topics:

a. Should the federal government issue, without paying for them, mandates to state and local governments?

b. Is the U. S. Constitution an unfunded mandate?

c. Are Supreme Court decisions unfunded mandates?

Simulation:

What are the consequences of resource allocation mechanisms in which power is limited and fragmented?: Peanut Butter & Jelly I

Negotiation Proposals: Discussion of required format [No trivial subjects; that is, no cars, curfews, dating policies, phones, pagers, etc.]

Pre-exam sermonette: What do college students do wrong on exams?

1st Sat. Exam

Negotiation Proposal Due

#s 2/1 Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

Reading:

Lowi and Ginsberg, Chapter 4

Fisher and Ury: Acknowledgements; Contents; Pp. 151-161; Introduction; Part I (The Problem) Pp. 3-14.

Chronicle-Telegram, "Despite controversy, 12 line up to toss dwarf"

Cases:

1. Would you rather set free a guilty person or lock up an innocent one? Why?

2. Should government ban dwarf tossing?

3. Negotiations

Discussion:

1. In what sort of a political system does almost everything have to be negotiated?

2. Discussion of TERM PAPER ASSIGNMENT: Description and discussion (See Attachment 2)

Simulations:

Individual Negotiations. (Everyone will negotiate, during scheduled negotiation sessions or, if time is available, during other class periods.)

Next Class:

For Tuesday, who will bring a musical instrument?

#s 2/2 Public Opinion

Reading:

Lowi and Ginsberg, Chapter 8

Cases:

1. Why don't you know the words to "Solidarity Forever?"

2. Who are your heros?

Simulation:

Does classical liberalism always work?: The dollar bill auction.

#s 2/3 Political Parties and Interest Groups

Reading:

Lowi and Ginsberg, Chapter 10 and 11

Cases:

1. The stag and the hare

2. Spatial models of party competition: Comparing the Republicans and the Democrats with Burger King and McDonald's

3. Differences between Republicans and Democrats

4. Bloom County's special interests

5. Mike Doonesbury's stand against the "irritating patriotism" of Americans

Simulation:

Why do the environmentally conscious ignore litter?

#s 2/4 The Media and Elections

Reading:

Lowi and Ginsberg, Chapter 8 (review) and 9

Cases:

1. The Pogo Problem

2. All the news that fits?

3. Art and election campaigns

4. The 1992 presidential election: A short honeymoon in the heartbreak motel

4. The 1994 congressional elections: All politics isn't local.

5. The 1996 presidential election: The best time to beat someone is before they climb in the ring

Simulation:

The election campaign: Mr. Goodbar vs. Ms. Krackle

#s 2/5 Policy Making Processes

Reading:

Lowi and Ginsberg, Chapter 12 and 13

Charles Lindblom, "Making the Most of Analysis." From The Policy-Making Process. [Xerox Handout]

Cases:

Rational-comprehensive vs. incremental policy making

Simulation:

Bridging the Long Island Sound

Negotiations:

a. Fisher and Ury: Part II (The Method) Pp. 17-98.

b. Negotiation Simulations

Review of week's material:

a. What have you learned?

b. Is it relevant?

c. Is it significant?

** BRING A [COLD] CAN OF REGULAR [NOT DIET] COKE, OR REGULAR PEPSI, OR REGULAR RC TO CLASS ON MONDAY.

2nd Sat. 2nd Examination

#s 3/1 The Presidency

Reading:

Lowi and Ginsberg, Chapter 6

Cases:

1. The instability of the plebiscitary presidency

2. The strategic management of political capital

Simulation:

The Pepsi vs. Coke vs. RC Taste Test

#s 3/2 Congress and the Bureaucracy

Reading:

Lowi and Ginsberg, Chapters 5 and 6 (review)

Cases:

Serial vs. iterative policy cycles

Simulation:

Peanut butter and jelly sandwich: II

Discussion:

1. Why don't policies "work?"

2. Is it "a whole new world" only in Disney movies?

3. How do bureaucracies fight back?

#s 3/3 Courts

Reading:

Lowi and Ginsberg, Chapter 7

#s 3/4&5 Negotiations

Reading:

Fisher and Ury: Part III (Yes, But ... ) Pp. 101-149; Review Part IV (In Conclusion) Pp. 151- 162.

Simulations:

Negotiations

3rd Sat. 3rd Examination

Sunday:7/20 TERM PAPERS DUE

#s 4/1 Negotiations (Cont.)

#s 4/2 Course Review and Wrap-up

Reading:

Lowi and Ginsberg, Chapter 15

Fisher and Ury: Review entire text

Simulations:

0. Futile escalation games: The dollar bill auction

1. Mutual destruction games: Chicken

2. Conflict and cooperation games: The prisoner's dilemma

3. Cooperation games: Principled bargaining

4. Unstable reward structures: The potential for chaos

a. "Fire!"

b. Civil war

c. Trade wars

d. Spill the Beans

e. Richardson process models

f. Turbulence in nonlinear systems

Cases:

1. "Find your own oil!"

2. Will your life be better, or worse, than mine? What will it depend on?

3. Welcome to Oz!

4. TR and the only game in town

Course Review

#s 4/3 Final Examination (8:45-11:45 AM)

Friday, July 25 Graduation

From time to time, you will be called on to present a case -- out loud, to the rest of the class.

A case is any story in the newspaper.

There are two kinds of cases you may be asked to present:

A story that you have found to be particularly interesting. (You should always have a current case ready.)

A story that I find particularly interesting (Some of these your I might call to your attention to ahead of time.)

In making your oral presentation, answer the following questions (in the following order):

Questions to be answered in presenting a case (CASE QUESTIONS)

1. What is the issue? (Best expressed as a question.) Usually, the issue will be some specific version of the general concern: "What should the government do about (some problem)?"

2. Who are the actors?

3. What are their positions?

4. What are their values or underlying concerns?

5. So what? What's the political significance of this story? (That is, "Why might we care?")

How to make good presentations:

Making a good presentation is a skill. That's the good news, because skills can be acquired.

To make a good presentation, you have to practice. Imagine that you're going to get married -- before hundreds of people. Would you have a rehearsal? Similarly, you will want to practice presenting a case -- before you're called on.

Practice in presenting a case will make you more comfortable. It also will improve your comprehension of what you read.

When you just read over a story on your own, it's very easy to convince yourself that you really understand it -- when you may not. But, when you have to present the case to someone else -- out loud -- you get a chance to find out whether or not you really understand the story.

When you practice presenting a case -- out loud, to someone else -- you may find out that you haven't yet quite mastered the case. You'll find this out, for example, when one of the above CASE QUESTIONS causes you to stop or when your presentation causes a member of your audience to frown or ask you a question of their own.

So, practice making presentations. Doing so will improve your presentation skills. More importantly, by making presentations (and especially in preparing for presentations) you will improve your political analysis skills.

Improving political analysis skills

Analyzing American government is a little like conducting an autopsy -- you lay something out on the table, cut it up, examine its various parts, and try to figure out what makes it tick (or, I suppose, stop ticking).

The newspaper includes live cases of American government, politics, and policy making.

When you use the above CASE QUESTIONS to cut into one of these cases, you are analyzing it -- you are breaking the case down into smaller parts so that you can examine each of them more carefully so that you can better figure out what's going on so that you can better understand American government.

The CASE QUESTIONS are your scalpels. (Oddly enough, the more you use them the sharper they -- and you -- get.)

By using the CASE QUESTIONS, therefore, you will improve your political analysis skills.

In addition, using the CASE QUESTIONS will help you with your reading of the newspaper; using them will help you decrease the time it takes to read a story and increase your comprehension (and retention) of the story.

[Finally, using the CASE QUESTIONS to analyze newspaper stories will help prepare you for the examinations.]

DUE DATE: TBA (In my drawer in the TANK by 10 p.m.)

DIRECTIONS:

1. Papers must be typed, double-space, and left-justified in dark ink. [Faint, difficult to read printing will not be read. If you're using a word processors, the rule-of-thumb is: Only fail to save what you won't mind losing.]

2. Use one of the hearings that has been set out for you on the "Dawson Desk" in the Library. [USING ANY OTHER HEARING WILL RESULT IN A GRADE OF "F" ON THE PAPER.]

3. Complete each of the steps below.

4. Each step equals a section of your paper. Use the name of the step as a heading for that section of your paper.

5. Steps 6-9 are more important, and should require more thought and pages, than Steps 1-5.

6. No formal references or citations are necessary. Instead, simply securely attach a xerox copy of the cover of the hearing and a copy of each page from which you draw a quotation or fact. Also, highlight the relevant quotation or fact.

7. To complete Step 9 well, it will be necessary for you to finish the paper at least 24 hours in advance of the deadline, so that the "So what?" question can percolate in mind before you try to answer it. (If you don't do this, your conclusion will be, and will appear, rushed. It also probably will be inadequate, thereby distinguishing an "A" from a "B", at best, paper.)

STEPS (SECTIONS)

1. Identification of Actors. In this step, identify the key policy actors in the particular hearing you have selected. To do this, simply list them, by name and title. These actors, for example, may include individual members of the congressional committee, some subset of the committee (such as all Democrats or those who vote in favor of a majority or minority report), and all those who testify before the committee, including, for example, elected members of the "other body" (the House, if you're dealing with a Senate Committee; the Senate, if you're dealing with a House Committee), lobbyists, i.e. the Washington representative of some private or "public" interest group, and any person who purports to speak for some other organization (such as state governments, or class of persons (such as the elderly) or cause (such as protection of black-footed ferrets). NOTE: "Key" is less than all. Therefore, you have to decide which actors are key actors. And you have to say why you think so.

2. Identification of Problem(s). As you (will soon) know, the American political system tends to operate on the strong presumption that "if it's not broke, don't fix it." Getting government involved, therefore, usually requires a process of agenda-building; that is, of convincing somebody that something is a problem -- that is, that it's "broken." Clearly, however, different people may have different views of what the problem is -- or even of whether or not there is a problem. Indeed, some people may believe that others' proposed solutions are potential problems. In this section of your paper, identify all of the various problems that are brought before the committee. This may require some thought and analysis on your part, since actors may not clearly articulate a well-focused definition of what they take to be the problem. You, however, need to do so. Moreover, you need to find some way of categorizing (or conceptualizing) all the different views of "the problem" that appear in the hearing. NOTE: The emphasis here is on your seeing the different ways in which different actors define "the problem" and on your being able to express those differences.

2.1 Illustration of Problem Definitions. For each "definition of the problem" in the above section, provide some examples that illustrate the nature of the problem. Some of these illustrations should be drawn from the actual words of the actors in the hearing.[As a matter of formatting your paper, these illustrations should appear along with each of the problem definitions.] Other illustrations might be drawn from class, the text, The New York Times, or your background knowledge.

3. Clarification of Issue. In this step, describe the major issue or issues before the committee. For our purposes, major issues usually are those that are concerned with what government should (or should not) do about some problem. As you also (will soon) know, an "issue" is best expressed as a question: For example ... "Should the federal government require automobile manufacturers to reduce emissions?" "Improve fuel economy?") Again, those who speak before the committee may not clearly crystalize the issue or issues before the committee; that also may some thought and analysis on your part. NOTE: There may be many issues; if so, identify the major ones and explain why they are "major."

4. Specification of Positions. In this step, specify the position or positions that each actor takes on the various issues before the committee. Again, use quotes to illustrate! [Regarding formatting, organize this section by actor, keeping the order first used in Step 1, above.] NOTE: For this step, simply be clear and concise.

5. Clarification of Underlying Concerns. In this step, clarify (what you take to be) the actor's underlying concern, that is, what they really want or what they really are afraid of. Often, you may want to think about "underlying concerns" as values. (For the nature of values, use the text's index: review the references to "Values" and "Personal Values.") Again, use quotes to illustrate! [Regarding formatting, put this after each "specification of position."] NOTE: Think about this before you write.

6. Explanation for Position Taken. In this step, provide your explanation for each position taken by each actor. That is, for each actor's position, answer the question: "Why did they take this position?" There are many different possible answers, including, for example, personal conviction, electoral advantage, image cultivation, campaign obligations, etc. Clearly, completion of this step requires you to speculate. Do so, but ground your speculations in course concerns and in the empirical record provided by the hearing. [Regarding formatting, put this after each "clarification of underlying concern."] NOTE: Think harder.

7. Speculation on Outcome. In this new (separate) section, speculate about what you think will be the likely or possible outcome of the matter that is before the committee. Your speculation should answer such questions as ... "What will happen in the short run?" "What alliances may form?" "What new issues may arise?" "In what ways might those alliances or issues affect what will happen?" "How might this matter be affected by the electoral cycle?" "By media coverage?" "By the economy?" "By foreseeable events -- domestic and foreign?" [Regarding the nature or format of your speculations ... for this section, you basically have to draft a likely scenario, or a number of likely scenarios. (You might find it useful to visualize these "scenarios" as though they were strategies in a chess match, or branches in a decision tree, or scripts for a film, etc.)] NOTE: Think long and hard.

8. Justification of Scenario. In this new (separate) section, provide a well-reasoned, tightly argued justification of the speculation(s) provided in the previous section. [This justification should draw on each of the above steps. To write this section, review and study what you have written in steps 1-7. Spend some time reflecting on what you have written. Then simply answer the question: "Why do you think that (your scenario) will happen?"]

NOTE: This is the second most important section of the paper; it should be at least 3 pages in length. Also, your scenario should draw on what you've been learning in class.

9. Significance. So what? That is, so ... "What has this exercise taught (revealed or suggested to) you about American government?" "Public policy?" "Politics?" In this new, concluding section, answer each of these three questions about the significance of what you have done in steps 1-8. NOTE: This is the most important section of the paper; it should be at least 5 pages in length. Reflect before you write. Be creative, original.

[A CAVEAT ABOUT GRADING: You can't get an "A" unless you do steps 6-9 very well. This is important to realize ahead of time, so you don't use all your time completing steps 1-5 and then, at the last minute, rush through steps 6-9 in a very superficial manner. If you do, it will be apparent to me and you will, at most, earn a grade no great than a "B." Moreover, to do steps 6-9 well, you must complete steps 1-5 ahead of time, so you will have 2-3 days to think about what you have written. Only then, after thinking, will you be able to write do steps 6-9 well. (The the case of these steps, as is often true of politics, lead time counts a lot!]

[SUGGESTION: As the course proceeds, you might want to use this listing to keep track of concepts encountered up to that point in the course. These are on ones I expect you to use, appropriately, on exams, in class discussion, in your term paper, etc.]

agenda building (as a pre-condition for effective policy making)

ambition

discrete

static

progressive

anticipatory feedback

approval voting

blocking (or negative or veto) power

calculus of inaction

civic education

civil liberties

civil rights

classical liberalism

cleveages

cross-cutting

cumulative

collectivism

compensatory mechanisms

conflict

types of

zero sum

non-zero (positive) sum

mixed motive (see Prisioner's Dilemma)

among alternative choices

among values

conflict resolving mechanisms

force (bullets)

politics (ballots)

constraints on policy making

constructive (or positive) power

costs

opportunity

enforcement

legitimacy or responsibility

transaction

cover

political

air

damage control

decentralization (of power)

decisions

first order

second order

democratic imperative

dissatisfaction (see expectations)

dissensus

distributional principles

need

contribution

Rawlsian (least well-off)

fairness

horizontal equity

vertical equity

due process (of law)

efficiency (economic)

electioneering

electoral imperative

entitlements

equity (fairness)

horizontal

intergenerational

vertical

expectations

externalities

negative

positive

factions

federalism

feedback

force

fragmented governmental authority

free-rider problem

freedom vs. control

frontloading (in policy making)

globalization

social check on

Goldilocks' "Condition"

governing

governmental institutions

government's proper role

image (appearances)

implementation

incremental decision making (incrementalism)

individual responsibility

individualism

institutions, governmental

interest articulation

interest aggregation

intermediary institutions

(and mediation functions)

issue definition (problem definiton)

compare with triagulation

issues

carrier

positional

valence

wedge

iterative policy processes (contrast with serial policy making processes)

leadership

plebiscitary

transactional

transformative

legitimacy

libertarianism

liberty

individual

negative

positive

limited governmental authority

Madison's remedy (to the evils of factions)

market failure

pre-condiitons for

absence of information

lack of competition

non-production of public goods

non-equitable distribution of goods

non-production of other desirable social values

maximizing

contrast with satisficing

media

post-merger media

mixed motive coalitions

moral hazard

negative campaigning

negotiation

positional

principled

non-market failure

non-profit RAMs

opportunity costs

permanent campaigning

and political strategy

contrast with public service (?)

personal values

personal preferences

perverse incentives

pluralism (as a descriptive term, e.g. pluralistic society)

Pogo problem

policy enterpreneur

policy sanctions (sticks)

policy making processes

incrementalism

maximizing

mixed scanning

muddling through

rational-comprehensive

satisficing

policy inducements (carrots)

policy outcomes

political capital

as flow

management of

political culture

political interest groups

political parties

political strategy (contrast with political tactics)

political tactics (contrast with political strategy)

politics

popular sovereignty

jury nullification

power

blocking

positive

pivital

possible role of government (contrast with proper role of government)

Prisioner's Dilemma

privacy rights

private market

private market forces

globalization of

social checks on

private bads

private goods

privatization

problem definition, or issue definition (as a political act)

proper role of government (contrast with possible role of government)

public bads

public goods

pure, and less than

non-excludability

exclusion technologies

exclusion principles

jointness of supply

public policy

types of

distributive

redistributive

regulatory

command and control

tail pipe

iconographic

public service

contrast with political strategy (?)

public market failure (policy failure)

public goods

RADs (Resource Allocation Decisons)

RAMs (Resource Allocation Mechanisms)

Individual

autonomous

cooperative

adversarial

Collective

private market

government

private (voluntary) non-profit

mixed mechanisms

rational (comprehensive) decision making (contrast with incremental)

reactive campaigning

reinventing government

resources

reward structures (incentive systems)

roll-out (as an aspect of policy adoption)

satisficing (suboptimizing or submaximizing)

scarcity

self-interest

sequential (or serial) policy processes

serial box

spatial model of electoral competition

spin (negative, positive, inoculation)

stages of the policy process

statism (contrast with libertarianism)

strategic public management

Thatcherism

time preferences

tragedy of the commons

transaction costs

transactional leadership

transformative leadership

tiangulation

values

instrumental and terminal

personal and social

waste

* Note that some concepts, or their qualification, are listed more than once.

Ideally, the exams in this course are experiences that confirm your sense of your ability to make sense out of your political world. To make these experiences more likely, it's helpful to keep in mind the following things to do, and not do.

Things to Do (Initial Suggestions)

Before deciding on a particular course of (governmental) action, think about the possible consequences.

In particular, think about the possible consequences of alternative courses of action. (In actuality, you will tend to focus on your preferred course of action; that is, the one you're already leaning towards, even though you haven't thought it through. That's fine; but make yourself think critically about the possible political reactions to and consequences of this course of action. Moreover, after you've indulged your fancy, think about alternative courses of action.)

To help alert you to the risks of possible actions, ask, of each possible action, the following questions.

Questions About

Waste. Is there waste? That is, are resources being used in ways that are personally or socially wasteful? Might, therefore, resources be reallocated in ways that are personally and socially beneficial?

Politically apparent problems. Objective situations may be distasteful to you; that doesn't make them a politically apparent or relevant problem. Ask and answer the questions: "Who cares? Why might they care? What might be done, politically, to make them care?"

Negative Externalities. Are private benefits being pursued in ways that create negative externalities?

Market Failure. Has the private market failed? Badly enough? Might some people want it to try to fix itself, again, if necessary, before government gets involved? Even if the private market has failed, might government also fail?

Public Goods. Are there desirable public goods that are being under-produced?

Values. What's at stake? What's the impact of more or less government on underlying personal and social values? Is liberty threatened? Efficiency? Equity?

Power. Is the government strong enough (to pursue a particular course of action)? And ... (In pursuing a particular course of action) would government become too strong?

Legitimacy. Will more (or less) governmental action be seen by the public as legitimate?

Mistakes to avoid (On previous midterms, some students -- no doubt less able than you -- have made the following mistakes.) [Key words, in bold, may re-appear as comments in the margin of bluebooks.]

1. Pet prejudices? Writing an answer that could have written before the course began. When people make this mistake, they write as though they never heard of the course concepts. Thus, they can pontificate, say what they think should be done, as though they have unlimited power, everyone will do what they say, etc. To avoid this mistake, remember that the discretion of all policy makers is constrained by political realities; recognize the constraints and deal with them.

2. Format? Writing without a sense of direction. When this mistake occurs when people start writing too soon, before they have thought about the question and considered ways of dealing with it. If this happens, they get 2 or 3 pages into their answer before they figure out where they're going. The reader, meanwhile, is equally lost. To avoid this mistake, start with a paragraph that provides a format for your answer. This, the formatting paragraph, tells the reader where you're going and how you propose to get there. [Hint: If you don't know, skip the first page and come back once you figure it out.]

3. So what? Writing an answer that has no apparent political significance. This mistake occurs when people don't leave enough time to ask and answer the "So what?" question. If this happens, it's unlikely the answer will earn more than a "B." To avoid this mistake, save 20 minutes, re-read your answer, and speculate about what your answer implies about the political system: its governmental institutions, its public policies, and its politics. (It's a mistake to simply summarize; draw out, inductively, some new insight! And then, if there's time, build on it.)

4. Why? Writing an answer that is full of assertions but mostly devoid of analysis. Assertions are things that you say are true. Analysis is your answer to the question: "Why is something true?" You can't help but make assertions; that's fine. But follow every major assertion with an explanation that says why that assertion is true.

5. Adopting a "command and control" approach to policy making. Command and control approaches are full of imperatives: Do this! Don't do that! "Outlaw this; ban that," etc. Such imperatives assume that there is a unitary form of government with unlimited, unfragmented, and unconstrained power. Such answers, typically "pontificating," reflect a total lack of understanding of course material. To avoid this mistake, do more than mere advocacy; construct a political scenario for making something -- more or less government -- likely to happen.

6. Maxmizing? Taking a maximizing approach. Avoid this mistake by remembering and employing the notion of satisficing. [Note: You may be satisficed at a high or low level.]

7. Muddling through? Simply responding to political pressure. Yes, they do it; you are supposed to do better.

8. Vague answers. To avoid being vague, it helps to avoid the passive voice. It also helps to specify which level or agency of government; to say why a "bad" thing is viewed as a political bad; etc.

9. Rehash. Restating the facts of the case. This only wastes time. Don't restate the facts; get onto the analysis.

10. The 800 pound gorilla? A fundamental hostility to private market forces. This is a political system in which most people defer to the private market; that is, they tend to think that the private market does a pretty good job of producing and distributing goods and services. The private market, in other words, is the 800 pound gorilla that gets to do what it wants. For this reason, the market is a bit of a conceptual prison that constrains policy options, at least until many conclude the market has "failed." Moreover, to carry out its policies, government may need to rely on market forces, especially the willingness of businesses to produce what government wants, such as tanks, food, day care, etc. Thus, any policy approach that is based on a fundamental hostility to private market forces is probably doomed. To avoid this mistake, make sure you create a political scenario that helps lead to the conclusion that the market has failed, or think creatively about ways in which some level of government might form some kind of partnership with a private business concern (or a not-for-profit voluntary organization) and about ways one might be able to create a link, in people's minds, between their private interests and broader public purposes (e.g. people who don't want to be accosted on the street by mentally ill people might conclude that they are in favor of public mental health programs).

11. Elitism. Statism. It's a democracy. It is not the case that everyone else died and left you in charge. Elitist answers tend to be preachy, full of imperatives. Elitism, in liberal colleges, is often coupled with statism, the unquestioned belief that governmental intervention is always better than private market remedies and that governmental intervention is always successful. (Remember: That didn't work for Moses ... or your parents. Why do you suppose it would work for government?)

12. Federalism? It's a mistake to think and write as though ours is a unitary form of government or that government has unlimited power. Rather, it's a federal form of government; therefore, you have to justify the involvement (or non-involvement) of particular levels of government. And, it's a limited form of government; therefore, you have to find ways of leveraging limited power, with, for example, personal, cultural and market forces.

13. Non Sequitur. Rhetoric isn't argument. It's a mistake to rely on rhetorical devices that appear to present an argument but don't. For example, rather than actively building an argument, piece by piece, some will tend to rely on rhetorical devices, such as the words or phrases: "Thus," "Therefore," "Clearly," "Obviously," "In order to ..." "Due to ..." To the aware reader, these words are RED FLAGS that say: "I don't want to think hard about why this might be true so I'm just going to pretend that I've constructed an argument."

14. Obstacles or Constraints? It's a mistake to lay out a course of action as though there are no obstacles in the way. Policy making is always constrained, in various ways. The trick is to figure out ways of overcoming, or circumventing obstacles. (Or, even better, turning political obstacles into political resources.) Remember: The problem probably has been around for a while. The status quo is not an accident. It has defenders; those who derive power, profit, and prestige. These people are not prepared to give up these advantages voluntarily. (It's not "a whole new world," no matter who was elected.)

15. Wordy. (As in "wordy and repetitiousness.") It's a mistake to repeat yourself. If you don't know what else to say, stop and think of something new.

16. Concepts? It's a mistake to not use the course concepts. It's also a mistake to not really use them, but rather to just stick them in your answer, like gloves in a ham.

17. "However." If you don't mean to, it's a mistake to misuse the word in a manner that refutes, rather than qualifies, the previous sentence. ["However," at the beginning of a sentence refutes. See Strunk and White, The Elements of Style.]

18. Process? Good ideas are absolutely essential in the formulation of good public policy. Good ideas, however, are not sufficient. You, therefore, must describe a political process that will lead people to see something as a "problem" as politically relevant; that is, one that government should do something about and see a proposed course of action as desirable and worth supporting, politically.

19. Who cares? (See above.) Public polices require political support, if enforcement costs are to be kept down, if governmental legitimacy is to be maintained, and if politicians are to keep or increase their political power. If no one cares, statist prescriptions will produce negative political reactions that may be adverse to the political health of policy makers. If political support isn't present, create it, or devise some private market remedy, or become more accepting of what may be an intractable problem.

20. Opportunity costs? It's a mistake to write as though addressing the problem at hand is the only thing that government has to do, or could be doing. Whenever a governmental official intervenes into x, some will wonder: "Doesn't she have something better to do? Why isn't he doing y?"

c:\courses\\jsa\syll.doc [June, 1997]

1.

¹ Oberlin addresses:

Department of Politics/Oberlin College/Oberlin, OH 44074

e-mail: FDawson@Oberlin.edu

Oberlin College Web Site: http://www.oberlin.edu (see links to Department of Politics/Paul Dawson home page, etc.)

2.

² For a listing of key course concepts, see Attachment 3.