USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
This is only for yhtomit
Comment pol-04 ( add 5)So if the time of the Members gets more and more reduced by fundraising duties, does the power shift to the full-time staff? Any thoughts?
Response one pol-04
As we begin our focus on Congress in this class, I find it to be interesting timing. Many of the categories discussed in this week’s lesson are happening right in front of us. I could not help but have examples streaming through my head while reading this week’s lesson and assigned reading. Possible the most interesting category was plebiscitary politics. I say this due to all of the direct contact politicians from Congress are having with the American people. Last night I just began flipping through the news outlets on television and every show had at least one sitting member of congress on the show. Then I searched a few popular political hashtags on twitter and it was filled with congressional members’ accounts. As posed in this week’s lesson, is all of this “camera time” causing things in Congress to be at a stalemate? No more is it the compromising body (Grulke, 2018). I feel that this is an area where things could be genuinely discussed and debated between Congress and constituents, however the constant state of campaigning (which is another category but I believe these two are linked) does not lend the interaction to be genuine and mutually beneficial, rather it is used to maintain and garner more votes. Much like how town hall meetings were used before the age of 24 hour news and social media, politicians have the ability and opportunity to reach out to more people than ever before through these “tools”; I just do not believe they are using them properly, rather just for self-gain.
As I mentioned above, I believe the categories plebiscitary politics and governing as campaigning have become intrinsically linked. The constant state of campaigning by congressional members, specifically in the House of Representatives, means less time actually governing (Grulke, 2018). Utilizing the “tools” mention above in the plebiscitary category, members are always seeking more contributions from donors and making sure they are saying whatever they need to, to achieve more votes; not focused on making the best decisions for the majority or protecting the minority. With the having a two year term cycle for members of the House, the minute they have secured another term they are out campaigning immediately for the next election. That is just ludicrous! I do not believe in “career” politicians, especially in the House of Representatives since the Framer’s intended the House to be comprised of the “common citizen”.
Perhaps it is time to impose term limits for members of Congress? You get two years to work to make a difference, that is it; make those two years count! Having term limits would also allow for more citizens to be in Congress, mixing it up (Morgan, 2017). This way there is more diversity working its way through congress, not just attorneys and wealthy business people (speaking in general).
A third category discussed this week was changing membership and control of Congress. Major shifts have occurred several times throughout the last century, but possibly the most interesting shift was after the election of Barack Obama. The Republican Party began to fracture as upset conservatives, specifically middle-class white Americans, became energized and formed the Tea Party (Williamson, 2011). This movement had some momentum going into the mid-term elections in 2010 and beyond, but recently does not seem to be as robust as they once were. It will be interesting to see if a major change will occur in the 2018 mid-term elections as Democrats have become energized following the election of President Trump.
References
Grulke, Eric, “Week 4: The Modern Congress: Trends”, American Military University,
accessed January 22, 2018,
https://edge.apus.edu/portal/site/366584/tool/ac046166-37b2-492d-8e6e-b208146732e9
.
Morgan, Tom. 2017. “It’s Time for Term Limits in Congress.” The Business Journal – Central New York 31
(2): 13.
https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/docview/1866535345?accountid=8289.
Williamson, Vanessa, Theda Skocpol, and John Coggin. 2011. “The Tea Party and the Remaking of
Republican Conservatism.” Perspectives on Politics 9 (1). Cambridge University Press: 25–43. doi:10.1017/S153759271000407X.
Response Two
The modern face of Congress has become complex, constantly evolving and ever more diverse, “The evolution of the U.S. Congress is a narrative of institutional transformation set in the larger context of the political development of a modern administrative state” (Harris 2010, 256). The changing membership and party control within Congress has shifted between the major parties numerous times, constantly changing policies and public opinion. Within these continuous control shifts arises the idea of governing as campaigning, in order for members of Congress to gain election or reelection they must engage in a never ending cycle of campaigning.
Historically membership and party control has changed hands between Republicans and Democrats. Prior to the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Republican Party had controlled Congress for the majority of years following the civil war. Soon after Roosevelt took office the Democrats would take control for the next 14 years (Grulke 2018). The Democratic Party would go on to control Congress for 26 years during the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower until Ronald Reagan, at which time the Republicans controlled the Senate (Grulke 2018). When Ronald Reagan won the election there began to be a shift in the Democratic Party, Reagan was able to appeal to conservative democrats while also retaining economic conservatives and independent voters which agreed to his standard of lower taxes and deregulation (Harris 2010, 254). Due to the Democratic turn towards liberal social issues, Reagan was able to ally Republicans with fiscally and socially conservative Democrats, inevitably leading to the loss of traditional Democratic supporters in future elections (Harris 2010, 254). The Republicans would surge Congress in 1994, winning 54 seats in the House and eight seats in the Senate, effectively taking control of congress (Grulke 2018). The Republicans had won a majority of the vote for the first time since the 1946 postwar election, “Even more tellingly, they won a majority of Southern congressional seats for the first time since Reconstruction” (Harris 2010, 255). This major shift was made ever worse for the Democratic Party when Richard Shelby switched parties, a conservative Democrat from Alabama (Harris 2010, 255).
Republican control of Congress would continue through Bill Clinton’s presidency and much of the Bush presidency as well, until 2006 when the Democrats would gain the majority due to large deficit spending and unpopular wars (Grulke 2018). The “Tea Party” would soon emerge after the election of President Barrack Obama, due to hostilities over his economic agenda and the Obama Administration’s nascent mortgage plan (Williamson et al. 2011, 26). Conservative Republicans and the Tea Party gained ground with the inception of the Affordable Care Act, opposition was concentrated against the perceived notion of federal government “handouts” to “undeserving” groups (Williamson et al. 2011, 26). Changing membership and party control is extremely important when analyzing policy outcomes and legislation. The majority party in congress tends to sway policy away from the median position between Democrats and Republicans and into the median position of the majority party (Aldrich et al. 2012, 247).
The constant struggle for seats in Congress has led political leaders into a cycle of campaigning referred to as “permanent campaigning”. Pat Cadell advised President Jimmy Carter in 1976 that, “campaigning could no longer cease with election victory but that there was a need to court the American voter throughout a presidency” (Lilleker 2006). The need to sustain support of the electorate over each and every policy decision has embedded the permanent campaign as a key feature of modern government, “therefore we find terms of government to consist of a series of campaigns, each pitting party against party, or in some systems president versus prime minister or one house of government, in a battle for public support” (Lilleker 2006). Public support is important, yet it can be argued that focusing on public opinion and permanent marketing strategies is weakening political management. Critics would argue for a style of government in which opponents take a more constructive role in policy development, one which is consistent with coalition governments. Unfortunately there is not much of a middle ground on the subject, with agreements between Democrats and Republicans usually leading to criticisms of the parties being ineffective in representing public opinion (Lilleker 2006).
Power struggles are inevitable, campaigning through the use of technology has become second nature; perhaps too little time is being spent actually politically managing while too much time is being spent changing public opinion. It’s hard to say in a system of government which perpetuates the idea of a governing body led by the people.
Works Cited
Aldrich, John H., Brittany N. Perry, and David W. Rohde. “House Appropriations after the Republican Revolution”. Congress & the Presidency 39 no. 3 (2012): 229-253. Accessed January 25, 2018.
http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1118875455?accountid=8289
.
Grulke, Eric. “Week 4: The Modern Congress: Trends”. APUS, Course Lesson Week 4 (2017). Accessed January 23, 2018.
https://edge.apus.edu/portal/site/366584/tool/ac046166-37b2-492d-8e6e-b208146732e9/ShowPage?returnView=&studentItemId=0&backPath=&errorMessage=&clearAttr=&source=&title=&sendingPage=1493985&newTopLevel=false&postedComment=false&addBefore=&itemId=4284552&path=push&addTool=-1&recheck=&id
=.
Harris, Richard A. “The Congress: The Making of the Modern Congress”. In A History of the U.S. Political System: Ideas, Interests, and Institutions (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2010): 221-257, EBSCOhost. Accessed January 24, 2018.
http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=318771&site=ehost-live&scope=site
.
Lilleker, Darren G. “Permanent Campaigning”. In Key Concepts in Political Communication. Sage UK, 2006. Accessed January 25, 2018.
http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?url=http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sageukpc/permanent_campaigning/0?institutionId=8703
.
Williamson, Vanessa, Theda Skocpol, and John Coggin. “The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism”. Perspectives on Politics 9 no. 1 (2011): 25-43. Accessed January 23, 2018.
http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S153759271000407X
.
Response three pol-4
The two topics that I would like to discuss are plebiscitary politics and governing as campaigning. First, we need to get an understanding of what plebiscitary politics consist of. Plebiscitary politics are a form of politics in which political leaders will offer both opinions, decisions before the people, and invite their approval. Urbinati notes that while plebiscitary politics seeks approval of the people it should not be confused with populism, which directly appeals to the people. What plebiscitary politics is doing is reducing the public to mere spectators and not participants (Runciman 2015). The idea of looking at politics as being more spectators than participant is very evident in today’s environment. A great example of this can be the trial of President Clinton. During the trial Congress and President Clinton were able to give a vision of what they had planned for the country. Additionally, the idea of plebiscitary politics is also seen through social media and even presidential press conferences. During press conferences, the speakers are televised and generally speaking directly to the public letting, them know exactly what Congress or president wants to accomplish (Apostolidis 2013). The concept of plebiscitary politics has risen even more with Twitter and Facebook becoming a way that politicians can now speak directly to public and even bypass normal media outlets. By speaking directly to the public through social media, politicians are able to get a quicker grasp over whether or not a policy they are considering is popular. A recent example of this could be President’s Trump Twitter message about the military and the transgender ban. When this was first broadcast, there were responses from both sides and this would allow the president and Congress to gauge what the public thought.
The next topic of permanent campaigning seems to have become more evident with each new election and how media coverage has evolved. Modern media has brought about 24/7 media coverage and we have seen presidents and members of Congress use this to their advantage and/or disadvantage. One large benefit we have seen with permanent campaigning is the ability of the member of Congress to stay in the spotlight and then turn that to either generate more power within Congress or for fundraising and increasing their pot for the next election (Karol 2015). This idea of permanent campaigning does not only apply to members of Congress but to presidents as well. The presidents have used the form of polling as a way to campaign on a permanent basis. The idea of polling has allowed presidents to form policies that they believe will assist in getting them and their party reelected. This form of campaign has become more and more popular with the rise of the media. The most recent presidents that have done this have been presidents Carter, Reagan, H. W. Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama. While Trump has consistently campaigned while pushing an agenda, it has helped members of Congress on the Republican side to ensure that seats that were once filled by republicans are still filled by republicans (Tenpas 2007).
Overall, the uses of plebiscitary politics and permanent campaigning have seen to become the norm among members of Congress and the presidents. By using the media to their advantage, they have been able to stay in Congress and judge policies as they are seeking to pass them.
References:
Apostolidis, P. (2013). The eyes of the people: Democracy in an age of spectatorship, by Jeffrey Edward Green. Contemporary Political Theory, 12(1), e1-e4. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/10.1057/cpt.2011.37
Karol, David. 2015. “Forcing Their Hands? Campaign Finance Law, Retirement Announcements and the Rise of the Permanent Campaign in U.S. Senate Elections.” Congress & The Presidency 42, no. 1: 79-94. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed September 1, 2017).
Runciman, D. (2015). Rescuing democracy in the age of the internet. Ethics & International Affairs, 29(3), 331-344. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/10.1017/S0892679415000271
Tenpas, Kathryn Dunn, and James A. Mccann. 2007. “TESTING THE PERMANENCE OF THE PERMANENT CAMPAIGN.” Public Opinion Quarterly 71, no. 3: 349-366. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed September 1, 2017).
Response four pol-04
Changing Membership
I would like to continue looking at the Changing Membership of Congress.
In 2006, the Democrats won thirty house seats. Then in the next election cycle, the 111th Congress (2009 – 2011), some very interesting events took place. They won eight senate seats and twenty-one house seats. Once President Obama (IL) had been elected, he resigned his seat. The next step was for President Obama to start naming his cabinet. He chose Hillary Clinton (NY) for Secretary of State and Ken Salazar (CO) for Secretary of the Interior. They had to resign their seats once they had been confirmed by the Senate. Three different states (lead by Democrat governors) had to replace these members. That meant that the replacements had to be democrats. David Paterson, governor of New York replaced Hillary Clinton with Kirsten Gillibrand and Michael Bennet became the replacement for Ken Salazar. Senator Joe Biden had been reelected but he gave up his seat to assume the vice-presidency under Barack Obama and so that seat was filled by Edward Kaufman, Biden’s aide.[1] Talk about musical chairs, one had to have a scorecard to keep up with the changes.
But, wait! What about Obama’s senate seat? Something interesting happened with these changes. When newly elected President Obama vacated his seat, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, was charged and arrested for an allegation of “trying to sell the Senate post vacated by President-elect Obama to the highest bidder for personal and political profit.”[2] In a daring move, Blagojevich appointed Roland Burris, a former attorney general for the state of Illinois, to replace President Obama in the senate. He claimed that he still had the authority to do so. The senate moved to not seat Burris. What this did was call into question the constitutionality of seating a senator when the governor was blemished. Eventually, the hubbub died down and Burris was seated.[3]
But, wait! That is not all. We have Minnesota’s senate seat to talk about. The day before the 111th Congress was to start, Minnesota’s senate race finally had a winner declared. That was Al Franken. So, O have a question for you. “Does your vote really count?” I think that the results of this race will prove that to be true. There were 2.4 million votes cast and in a recount, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. But the legal battles droned on for another eight months and again Franken was declared the winner. Here was the outcome for the start of 111th senate: “four appointed members and one unresolved contest.”[4]
But, wait! That is not all. William Jefferson(D-LA), who had served nine terms, was defeated by a newcomer, Joseph Cao (R-LA). You might remember that the FBI found $90,000 in Jefferson’s freezer in his house and that he was under a federal indictment for corruption. This was an upset that the pundits and voters did not see coming.[5]
But, wait! That is not all. A delegate from the Northern Mariana Islands was elected to serve as a congressional delegate for the very first time.
The 111th congress had many interesting things happen, to say the least.
Plebiscitary Politics
Plebiscitary Politics is also known as direct democracy or “participatory democracy.”[6] This type of rule of law is one where everyone participates. Participatory democracy contains three elements: “universal participation, political equality, and majority rule.”[7] Imagine the following: having an election for governor take place at the state capital with every voter of that particular state show up on the second Tuesday of November to raise their hand to signify their vote. What an undertaking. This is why the framers established a representative democracy or an indirect democracy.[8]
Along come the progressives (1900 until 1925) who were not happy with party chosen candidates. What they wanted was to be able to choose directly those they thought would be effective in office. That is how the direct primary came to be on the state level.[9]
What if an elected representative does not represent your interests in Washington? The progressives supported the recall election. This is a process where you can have an elected official removed from office. A recall election is one in which it takes a certain number of signatures on a petition to recall an elected official. In a very interesting turn of events, there was a recall election in California in 2003 that recalled Gray Davis as governor and elected Arnold Schwarzenegger in his place.[10]
The very foundation of direct democracy is involvement of citizens in making laws and policies. The progressives came up with two ways to do just that: the referendum and the initiative. A referendum is “direct vote by the people on a proposed law or on an amendment to a state constitution.”[11] In most cases, referenda are not placed on the ballot by voters but by legislatures. The referenda that are voted on by the citizens are called propositions.[12]
Then we have the initiative. Voters are the ones to propose a specific subject to be decided by the people in a referendum or by the legislature. You must collect a specific number of signatures to get these on the ballot. A good example of this would be the vote on legalizing medical marijuana here in Florida. I don’t condone smoking marijuana but I believe that medical marijuana has its place, so, I signed a petition. The first time it was voted on, it did not pass by a vote of 42% to 57%. It required a supermajority of 60% to pass.[13] The next time it was on the ballot, it passed 71% to 28%.[14]
Janda finds this interesitn in that intitiaves and referenda on the ballot have become big business to the tune of $25,8 millinon in Californaia spent in opposition to casino gambling on Indian reservations and $66.2 million spent by the different tribes to get this passed. Janda’s question is does this improve our democracy or the policies proposed?[15]
Trish
Bibliography:
Ballotpedia.org,
https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Right_to_Medical_Marijuana_Initiative,_Amendment_2_(2014)
(accessed January 24, 2018).
Davidson, Roger, Oleszek, Walter, and Lee, Frances, Congress and Its Members, 12th ed., (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, a division of Sage, 2009), 39.
Janda, Kenneth et al, The Challenge of Democracy: American Government in a Global World, Brief Edition, 7th ed., (Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2009).
