Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

American Government Lecture Nine

13,530 bytes added, 23:02, December 6, 2012
{{InuseGovernment Lectures}} '''American Government''' '''Ninth Lecture - Interest GroupsPolitical Parties, and a Look at Famous Trials'''
== Introduction ==
The public We have learned that there are many key components of government and politics. Government consists of three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. Government also has flexed its [[muscle]] several different types: federal (national), state and local. It is easy to think that government officials are the past leaders, and the people follow. But as we have seen, there are many other players in this "game" that are as important, if not more so, than government officials, such as: *the media*interest groups*lobbyists*big financial donors to "Super PAC"s What is missing from the above list? Political parties, which have an enormous influence on elections. And there is another category in shaping our society that is sometimes more important than elections: trials in court. We look at those two very different pieces of the overall puzzle in this lecture. == Political Parties == Remember that politics is a team sport, and the biggest teams are the political parties: Republicans and Democrats. There are third parties too, such as the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and others. But they seem to be losing strength as time goes by. The Republican and Democratic Parties are controlled by a small group of people who meet in what was once called the "smoke-filled room," which in the old days consisted of a few weekspowerful men smoking cigars as they made all the important political decisions within each political party. Public outrage forced [[CBS]] Then the orders go out to withdraw everyone else in the party to obey, or else lose support from the party for reelection. Today most people do not smoke, but the political parties still are controlled by very few people. At the top of the party structure is its [[network]] its [[bias]]ed [[film]] national committee. For the Republicans, it is the Republican National Committee, which raises enormous sums of money and otherwise sets direction for the party. Its Chairman, Reince Priebus, can be seen frequently on television news programs stating the views of the Republican Party. Whom the party decides to "back" (support) can have a big effect on who wins. There are some exceptions, however. The folks in control of the Republican Party never liked Ron Paul, and tried to defeat him when he ran every two years for reelection in Congress. But Ron Paul has always been very popular among his "constituents" (the people whom a politician represents, such as residents in the congressional district represented by the congressman). In most cases, however, when a political party's leaders decide a particular candidate should win the party's nomination rather than someone else, then that person favored by the party insiders typically does win. That is because he usually wins more endorsements and obtains more financial support for his campaign if his party "bosses" support him. Let's learn more about former [[President]] [[Ronald Reagan]]the Republican Party Committee, which is the formal structure of the Republican Party. (The Democratic Party Committee works in a similar way.) === RNC procedures === The Republican National Committee (RNC) has its own set of rules that govern how it operates and picks its leadership. Each of 56 states and American territories has three representatives who are members of the RNC, and they meet twice a year. Their next meeting is in January 2013, when they will elect the Chairman for the next two years, until January 2015. Its current Chairman recently announced that he is running for reelection. The nomination and election procedures are governed by the RNC's "bylaws", which is the name given to the rules that govern how any organization or corporation is run internally. In this case, nominations for the office of Chairman are made by the vote of a majority of the delegates from at least 3 states or territories. Several candidates for the office are typically nominated, and then the RNC members vote on whom they prefer. It often requires multiple ballots to reduce the number of candidates to two or three, whereupon one candidate finally wins the race by receiving a majority of 168 votes (85 total votes). For example, on the first ballot there may be five candidates who win 50, 40, 25, 20 and 15 votes, with some members absent and therefore not voting. The candidates who received only 20 and 15 votes may then drop out, such that on the second ballot the other three candidates receive more votes each. This process is repeated until a candidate receives a majority of the votes. === When Are the Next Public outrage also forced Elections? ===One aspect of politics that many people like, while others dislike it, is that politics never stops. The day after an election, the [[Florida]] legislature focus begins on the next election. Most politicians never take their eye off their approval ratings or the next election. Already the RNC and DNC (the committees for the two major political parties) are planning ahead for the next elections in 2013, with the hope of winning them. New Jersey and Virginia are unusual in holding major elections in odd-numbered years, so in 2013 there will be campaigns and elections in these states. Why do New Jersey and Virginia do this? Probably to pass give greater power to the political machines, keeping them influential all the time. Governor Chris Christie's stands for reelection in 2013, and the massive Democrat majority in New Jersey makes it difficult for him to win. His opponent may be Newark mayor Cory Booker, a rising star among Democrats who may one day run for president himself. Christie and Booker must first win their party's primary in June in order to qualify for the ballot in November. There will almost certainly be other Democrats who oppose Booker for that party's nomination. Will anyone run against Christie in his primary? There will be other state races of importance in 2013 in New Jersey. There will also be special [[law]] elections as congressional seats open up around the Nation. It is expected that Obama will appoint John Kerry to save be the [[life]] new Secretary of [[Terri Schiavo|Terri Schiavo-Schindler]]State after Hillary Clinton resigns, and that will create an open U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts. Republican Scott Brown, who recently lost reelection for his U.S. Senate seat, would then likely run to replace John Kerry. Already congressmen must begin thinking about their races for reelection 2014, and the race for the next presidential election in 2016 has quietly begun too. On the Republican side, it is expected that Jeb Bush will seek and win the nomination, while Hillary Clinton seems likely to be the Democrat nominee. == Next: A [[court]] had ordered her feeding tube removed based on [[statement]]s by her estranged [[husband]] Look at the Judiciary == With all the talk about politics and elections in the media, it is easy to think that [[Terri Schiavo|Terri]] did elections are the only events that shape the future of America. But do not want forget that elections directly affect only two out of three branches of government in the federal (and New Jersey) government. Federal judges never stand for election, and their work is done independently from the political process. Federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and in New Jersey the judges are nominated by the Governor and confirmed by the NJ Senate, but these judges continue to live anymoredecide cases for many decades afterward without any reason to be concerned about elections. Judges, courts and trials are not what most people think about when they hear the term "government", but courts and public trials may be as important in deciding the future of our nation. This special [[Elected politicians like to avoid the difficult issues, leaving it to courts to decide what really matters. The most important trials in Anglo-American history have been by juries, and they have decided many of the fundamental issues that we take for granted. In trials, there are rules of evidence that limit what can be said or claimed. Most of what politicians says, and much of what is taught in public school, would not be considered reliable enough to present in a court of law]] gave at a trial. Demagoguery is not allowed; neither are most types of "hearsay", which is repeating what someone heard somewhere else. The basic rules of evidence have developed over hundreds of years to promote a truthful result.  The Salem Witch Trials, which are not on this list (but perhaps they should be), reached results considered to be unjust because witnesses were allowed to say in court that they had a dream or vision ("spectral evidence") convincing them that the feeding tube back defendant was guilty. Today that would be prohibited by rules of evidence. Would you like to [[Terri Schiavo|Terri]]become a trial attorney one day? ==The Top Ten Trials in American History== Here is a list of the ten most important trials affecting the United States, all of which were by some kind of jury (not necessarily a public jury): 1. William Penn (1670)<br>2. John Peter Zenger (1735)<br>3. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase (1804)<br>4. President Andrew Johnson (1868)<br>5. Boss Tweed (1873)<br>6. Sacco & Vanzetti (1921)<br>7. John Scopes (1925)<br>8. Colonel Billy Mitchell (1925)<br>9. Alger Hiss (1949)<br>10. President Bill Clinton (1999)
These were not acts How many of [[political party|political parties]], though the [[Republican Party]] did play [[minor]] roles. these jury trials can you describe? This was For the public at largeimpeachment trials (3, 4, acting through “[[interest groups]]” and as individuals10), that forced [[action]]the "jury" was the entire U. Today we will talk about “[[interest groups]]S. Senate.
This past week there was also a tremendous achievement Both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams felt strongly that jury trials were the best defense against government. Thomas Jefferson considered “trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a single-[[issue]] [[interest group]]: government can be held to the signing into [[law]] principles of the ban on [[partial birth abortion]]sits constitution. [[National Right John Adams said it was a jury’s “duty ... to Life Committee|National Right find the verdict according to Life]] his own best understanding, judgment, and other [[pro-life]] groups have been [[work]]ing on this for nearly ten years. It takes that long when conscience, though in direct opposition is fierceto the direction of the court.
We also had an [[election]] last [[Tuesday]], and we will take a moment to look at Half of these important trials resulted in convictions; the resultsother half resulted in acquittals. Here is my summary of the cases and their influence:
== What '''1.''' '''William Penn''' joined the Quakers in London, a religion disliked by the King. In 1670, Penn held a worship service and was arrested for allegedly disturbing the King’s peace. At trial, the jurors heard testimony, and the judge, as is still the custom, delivered jury instructions prior to its deliberations. The jury instructions included an Interest Group? ==order to find the Penn guilty.
But the jury refused to find Penn guilty. The term “[[interest group]]” is defined in your glossary, pjudge angrily sent them back to continue deliberations. 309 The jury returned again with its same "not guilty" verdict. It is an organization of [[people]] who agree on an [[issue]]The judge demanded “a verdict that the court will accept, and try to influence [[government]] policy on that [[issue]]. Examples are [[pro-life]] groupsyou shall be locked up without meat, pro-[[environment]] groupsdrink, pro-[[gun rights]] groupsfire, pro-[[gun control]] groupsand tobacco....We will have a verdict by the help of God or you will starve for it.” The jury went out three more times, and so onreturned with the same verdict each time. How many can you name?Then it refused to deliberate any more and the judge fined and imprisoned them. Penn was also fined and imprisoned on a scurrilous new charge invented at trial (for donning a hat in the courtroom).
Interest groups are very different On appeal, the jurors won their independence and were released from [[politics|political]] [[party|parties]]. Members of [[interest group]]s usually come from multiple [[party|parties]] and [[independent party|independent]]s. [[Interest groups]] cut across [[party]] lines. Both [[Democrat]]s and [[Republican]]s belong to [[pro-life]] groupsjail, for examplethough that did not help Penn. The same is true for virtually every other [[interest group]].
The motivation for an [[interest group]] is to work with both [[party|parties]] towards a specific goalimpact of the Penn trial has been enormous in two respects. It [[focus]]es on only one [[issue]]First, or a small [[number]] it established freedom of connected [[issue]]sreligion, and thus [[channel]]s all its [[energy]] towards that endwhich Penn brought to America in founding Pennsylvania a decade later. It is unconcerned with many other [[issue]]s affecting [[politics|political]] [[party|parties]]Philadelphia became the most populous city in the colonies, and the location for drafting the Constitution.
For exampleThe case also established the principle of “jury nullification, the [[National Right to Life Committee|National Right to Life]] does not take ” whereby a position on [[tax]]es, [[immigration]], jury’s decision is final and dispositive even if it rejects the [[environment]], [[Social Security]], etclaw. When asked whether it supports the [[Equal Rights Amendment]] (ERA)Jury nullification has been used frequently, it responded that it would if as in acquitting defendants accused of violating the [[Amendment]] were changed to make sure it did not authorize [[abortion]] or funding of [[abortion]]. That is its [[issue]], while others oppose [[ERA]] for many other [[issue]]s, tooAlien and Sedition Act and the Fugitive Slave Act.
Both [[Democratic]] and [[Republican]] candidates can seek '''2.''' The '''John Peter Zenger''' trial in 1735 is the support of most important case ever for the [[National Rifle Association]] (NRA)media, which is particularly newspapers. He was a large publisher accused of the crime of harshly criticizing the colonial New York governor. Zenger’s defense was that he (and particularly [[power]]ful [[interest group]]everyone else) has the right to print the truth. It sends But the judge instructed the jury that the law did not recognize truth as a [[questionnaire]] defense to [[candidate]]s to see if they agree with [[gun rights]]the charges. It can help [[candidate]]s become [[election|elected]] by endorsing them or raising campaign [[money]] for themUnder the law at the time, the jury had no authority to acquit Zenger based on the truth of his statements.
The [[Sierra Group]] is jury acquitted him anyway, thereby establishing freedom of the press (and also a famous pro-[[environment]] [[interest group]]type of freedom of speech). There are also [[pro-abortion]] [[interest group]]s This was another important example of jury nullification. To this day, England does not have the full freedom of speech and other [[interest group]]s for just about any [[issue]] imaginablethe press that Americans have because of the Zenger trial.
About a hundred [[year]]s ago'''3. By 1804''', there Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans had control of Congress and set their sights on removing Federalist Supreme Court Justice '''Samuel Chase'''. The House of Representatives impeached him, and trial began with the Senate as the jury. His prosecutor was an [[interest group]] that grew so powerful that its single [[issue]] John Randolph, a partisan Jeffersonian who was inserted into distantly related to the [[Constitution]] by [[amendment]]Federalist Chief Justice John Marshall. Can you name that [[issue]]? 25 out of 34 Senators ([[Prohibition]] – abolishing all [[alcohol]]more than 2/3rds of the U. It was passed as S. Senate at the [[Eighteenth Amendment|18th Amendment]]time) were Jeffersonians, so conviction and later repealed during removal of the [[Great Depression|Depression]] as the [[Twenty-First Amendment|21st Amendment]]Federalist Chase for his political biases seemed likely.)
== Comparing Interest Groups But the effort failed. During the trial Randolph himself criticized Jefferson over a separate issue, the infamous Yazoo land fraud in Georgia, an issue that split Jeffersonians. Meanwhile, the case against Chase amounted to Political Parties ==little more than some intemperate remarks he made while sitting as trial judge in a grand jury proceeding. The Senators were unimpressed, and at most 19 out of 34 voted to convict on any of the charges, far short of the requisite 2/3rd.
Some [[people]] prefer The independence of the judiciary was established by this failed effort to work in [[politics|political parties]]remove a Supreme Court justice. However, while others prefer the episode did encourage future justices not to work engage directly in [[interest group]]spolitics. Let’s compare the twoNo effort to impeach a Supreme Court justice has since made any progress.
Political parties address all the [[issue]]s'''4. ''' Workers in [[political parties]] are part '''President Andrew Johnson''' became the enemy of Radical Republicans who controlled Congress after the biggest [[gang]] in the [[United States]], typically either the [[Republican]] or [[Democratic Party]]Civil War. When someone in President Johnson vetoed their [[party]] wins an [[election]], the worker can claim some credit legislation and celebrateeven called their leaders “traitors”. This is true Flush from winning the most obscure political [[job]] right up war, the [[president|presidency]]likes of Republican Senators Thaddeus Stevens (PA) and Charles Sumner (MA) were not about to back down. Sumner, after all, was the fellow who once delivered a disrespectful speech against elderly South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, whereupon his outraged nephew Preston Brooks beat Sumner senseless with a cane.
People donate their [[time]] When the House of Representatives impeached President Johnson by an overwhelming vote of 126 to [[political parties]] because they care about more than one [[issue]]47, his ouster appeared to be a ''fait accompli''. They feel it is important to address many [[issue]]sPresident Johnson had violated the Tenure in Office Act by dismissing his Secretary of War, and [[election|elect]] [[official]]s he had been intemperate in his name-calling of key senators. In addressing the jury of 54 senators, the prosecutor referred to address [[future]] [[issue]]s that have not yet arisenPresident Johnson as an “accidental Chief” and “the elect of an assassin.” Witnesses testified for both the prosecution and the defense.
For exampleThe prosecutors – called “managers” in impeachment trials – were confident of victory. Manager Thaddeus Stevens described President Johnson as the “wretched man, standing at bay, surrounded by a year ago cordon of living men, each with the public was not paying attention to [[Terri Schiavo|Terri Schiavo-Schindler]]axe of an executioner uplifted for his just punishment. Yet people worked very hard Manager John Bingham brought the public galleries to [[election|elect]] [[Republican]] [[Jeb Bush]] [[governor]] their feet with his oratory: “May God forbid that the future historian shall record of [[Florida]]this day's proceedings, and also that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to [[election|elect]] a [[Republican]] [[legislature]]. Those who voted for [[Jeb Bush|Bush]] expected him to do triumph over the right thing on existing [[issue]]susurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and unforeseeable [[issue]]sperished from the earth. And he did: he recently signed a new [[law]] that saved [[Terri Schiavo|Terri's]] [[life]].
[[Party]] [[loyalist]]s try to put [[people]] who think like them into office 2/3rd vote was necessary for conviction, and then let them make the [[decision]]sit all turned on Senator Edmund Ross of Kansas. Let Like real jurors, he spoke to no one during the [[experts]] – the right [[expert]]s – handle the [[issue]]s as they developproceedings and no one knew which was he was leaning. Work on placing the right people on the fieldBut he voted “not guilty, as in [[sport]]s” and President Johnson was acquitted by one vote. The "Radical Republican" Senators had lost, and then let them play the [[game]] as best they cannever again regained their unprecedented power.
This approach takes '''5.''' '''William Marcy “Boss” Tweed''' began as a dim view volunteer fireman in New York who worked his way to the top of spending [[time]] trying to persuade someone in an opposing [[political parties|the Democratic New York City political party]]machine by 1863. It is often He developed a waste of [[time]]. You can spend [[hour]]scorrupt system known as the “Tweed Ring” that faked leases, [[day]]s or even [[week]]s trying demanded kickbacks, performed unnecessary repairs and generated other phony expenses that cost New York City from $75 million to persuade $200 million, a member huge amount of a [[political party]] to do something, only to find him [[vote|voting]] as his leadership told him tomoney at the time. It is unrealistic to think you can persuade a [[Democrat]] to support Famed cartoonist Thomas Nast, who created Uncle Sam and the elephant and donkey for the [[Republican]] [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] and Democratic Parties, frequently attacked Tweed in a public way. Spend your limited [[time]] building your favorite [[party]] rather than trying to persuade likely opponentshis cartoons.
[[Interest group]]s take a different approach. They say that [[Republican]]s will be [[Republican]]sEventually, and [[Democrat]]s will be [[Democrat]]sDemocratic federal prosecutor Samuel Tilden brought an indictment against Tweed, who was defended at trial by wealthy Republican Elihu Root in 1872. It’s been true for 140 [[year]]sTilden defeated Root and obtained the conviction, which catapulted Tilden to national prominence and could be true became the Democratic nominee for another 140 [[year]]spresident in 1876. They do not see one [[party]] winning over He won the other. Insteadpopular vote by a hefty 250, try 000, but the Republicans maneuvered to work with both [[political parties|parties]] give Rutherford Hayes the White House based on a particular [[issue]]narrow lead in electoral college votes and a promise to end Reconstruction. Elihu Root, meanwhile, became an imperialist who later advocated entry by the United States into the League of Nations.
Also, [[interest group]]s [[focus]] on one or a few [[issue]]s to maximize their impact'''6. ''' Many [[pro-life]]rs feel '''Sacco and Vanzetti''' were two anarchists from Italy. Anarchists believe in a dangerous philosophy that [[abortion]] is by far there should be '''''no''''' government, and some anarchists believe in the most important [[issue]] in [[Uviolent overthrow of any established ruling entity.S.A These anarchists had dodged the draft for World War I and were tried in 1921 for an afternoon robbery and murder of a shoe factory paymaster and a security guard as they carried a $16,000 payroll.| Liberals in America]]. No other [[politics|political issue]] is even closedecried trying individuals for their beliefs rather than their actions, and questions about the fairness of such a trial in Boston were raised from the beginning. They do not care if someone is [[Democrat]]ic or [[Republican]]had skilled defense counsel in a famous labor attorney, [[Libertarian]] or [[Green]] but no Italians were included in the jury (pro-[[environment]]none may have been in the jury pool). What is his or her position on [[abortion]]? That is The defense counsel eliminated every businessman from the only [[question]] needed to be asked, some feeljury.
A [[political|parties|party]] workerWitnesses for the prosecution were weak, even a [[pro-life]] with one, will tell you testifying that all [[issue]]s are connected and often it is difficult to win on one [[issue]] without winning othersthe murderer spoke good English (the defendants did not). For exampleThe prosecution only identified one bullet as being from Sacco’s gun, winning on with no explanation as to the [[pro-life]] [[issue]] requires reestablishing respect for [[human being|human]] [[life]]. It may take changing what is taught in [[public schools]], where over 90% source of [[U.S.A.|America]]ns form their [[belief]]sthe other three bullets found at the scene. If [[people]] think [[human being|human]]s are just [[animal]] [[tissue]] because they were taught that in [[public schools|school]], then they may not become [[pro-life]]The stolen money was never found.
The [[interest group]]s will respond by saying that if a [[candidate]] is wrong on defendants took the [[pro-life]] [[issue]]witness stand in their defense, then that [[politician]] is usually wrong on everything else toobut were subjected to relentless questioning about their political beliefs. [[Vote]]rs don’t have the [[time]] or interest Defense counsel repeatedly objected to find out where [[candidate]]s stand on numerous [[issue]]s. Besidessuch questions, [[candidates]] often [[deceit|lie]]but the judge overruled the objections and allowed them. Find out where a [[candidate]] stands on There is widespread agreement that the [[pro-life|life issue]], and judge never should have permitted so much questioning about political beliefs at the rest is obvioustrial.
YesThe jury returned a guilty verdict after more than a day deliberations. (At an earlier trial, [[Political parties|party]] officials say, but at the end a different jury had convicted them of the day [[candidate]]s are [[election|elect]]ed as a [[Republican]]s or [[Democrat]]ssimilar crime.) Faced with international protests against the prosecution, and those persons make the [[decision]]Massachusetts governor appointed a commission to examine the trial and evidence. [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] signed Throughout the ban on [[partial birth abortion]] because 1920s the [[Republican Party]] has case was a [[pro-life]] [[platform]]flashpoint for protests. It took hard work to keep that [[platform]][[pro-life]]Finally, too. The [[Republican]] [[National Right to Life Committee|National Coalition for Life]] puts enormous [[time]] after the commission announced it agreed with the verdict, Sacco and effort into this causeVanzetti were executed in 1927.
Where Vanzetti, who sported a distinctive handlebar mustache, maintained his innocence to the end. His final words to the judge before execution were these:“I would you prefer not wish to spend your [[time]] – working in a [[political parties|political party]] dog or in an [[interest group]snake]what I have had to suffer for things that I am not guilty of. But my conviction is that I have suffered for things that I am guilty of. I am suffering because I am a radical and indeed I am a radical; I have suffered because I was an Italian, and indeed I am an Italian; I have suffered more for my family and for my beloved than for myself; but I am so convinced to be right that if you could execute me two times, and if I could be reborn two other times, I would live again to do what I have done already.” Does that persuade you of his innocence?
== [[Lobbyist]]s Among liberals, sympathy has continued for Sacco and PACs ==Vanzetti ever since. Much is made of a confession by another death row inmate to having perpetrated the crime. But the judge found that unreliable. But the judge did not seem to be entirely impartial; earlier he had criticized a jury for acquitting an anarchist, and seemed determined to do what he could to end anarchy in America.
[[Lobbyist]]s are people hired by large [[company|companies]] or [[interest group]]s to try to influence [[public policy]]. They work in Fifty years after the [[capital]] [[city|cities]] executions of [[states]] (e.g.Sacco and Vanzetti, [[Trenton]]in 1977, [[New Jersey|NJ]], or [[Jefferson City]], [[Missouri|MO]], or [[Austin]], [[Texas|TX]]) or Massachusetts Democratic governor and future presidential candidate Michael Dukakis signed a resolution apologizing to them and establishing a day in [[Washington, Dhonor of them.C.]] However, the [[capital]] he did not pardon them, and many remain convinced of the [[federal government]]their guilt. Federal lobbyists have offices Dukakis’ soft position on “K” street, crime was a luxurious area of D.C. In 1968, there were only 62 [[lobbyist]]s there. Now there are 21,000 of them, mostly well paidmajor reason for his defeat by the first President George Bush in 1988.
Their job is to make friends with [[congressman|congressmen]] and [[senator]]s and the [[president]] and their staffs, and then exert influence on [[legislation]] or an action by '''7.''' '''John Scopes''' was merely a [[federal]] [[agency]]young public school teacher in Tennessee when he unwittingly became a test case for promoting evolution in American schools. The [[lobbyist]]s play [[golf]] with the [[politician]]s, send them birthday cards, take their staff out to dinnerTennessee had a law against teaching human evolution, and show up at the [[Christmas]] [[party|parties]]American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wanted to overturn it. When a [[tragedy]] strikesIt enlisted the top criminal attorney of the day, Clarence Darrow, they are there to make people feel betterserve as Scopes attorney. The [[lobbyist]]s thereby form [[bond]]s that become very strong and influentialAs crafty as the day is long, he arrived in Tennessee armed with his bag of tricks.
It is not easy being a [[congressman]]William Jennings Bryan, [[senator]] or even the [[president]]. If it looks easyformer presidential candidate and Secretary of State, it isn’thad oratorical skills second to none. They constantly worry about re[[election]] and possible embarrassment. Everyone His “Cross of Gold” nomination acceptance speech in 1896 is looking to knock them downconsidered one of the greatest political works in American history. Often they deserve to be ousted from office, so He united the [[fear]] is justified!Populist and Democratic Parties then and laid the foundation for the takeover by the Democratic Party of American politics 36 years later.
[[Lobbyist]]s make After witnessing the [[politician]]s feel betterhorrors of World War I, Bryan became convinced that the teaching of evolution was leading society to ruination through war. Make them feel [[love]]d. Send them [[candy|candies]] and tell them how great they are. Then, at “Survival of the right time, fittest” provided an intellectual justification for the [[lobbyist]]s just ask for a small favor: insert a few lines into a piece brutal killing of [[legislation]] for themother nationalities and races. The [[politician]] doesn’t have any [[reason]] not Bryan foresaw the ethnic cleansing that grew to. And another few [[powers_of_ten|million]] [[dollar]]s goes out its horrible culmination in the door of the [[federal government]] as a grant or [[tax]] break for a special [[interest group]]Holocaust.
The [[lobbyist]]s have their biggest impact on To avoid growth of the staff mistaken belief in “survival of [[congressman|congressmen]]the fittest” among humans, who are Bryan defended the ones doing most of Tennessee law and its application to Scopes, which imposed a $100 fine as the workpenalty for teaching that humans had evolved from apes. Imagine yourself as a staff worker Darrow agreed to take the witness stand to testify for a [[Republican]] in teaching human evolution if Bryan also took the Northwitness stand to allow Darrow to ask him questions. Bryan testified first and performed well. So well, or a [[Democrat]] in fact, that Darrow reneged on his promise and forced Scopes to plead guilty to end the Southcase. You see which way With that the [[wind]] is blowing: [[Republican]]s are losing in the North trial ended, and [[Democrat]]s are losing Tennessee’s law remained in the Southeffect for another half century. When your bossFor nearly 100 more years Tennessee public schools taught little evolution, and George W. Bush won the [[congressman]] or [[senator]], loses re[[presidential election]] or retires, you are out in 2000 by carrying this home state of your job. And even if he winshis opponent, you are not making much and you are working very long [[hour]]sAl Gore.
The [[lobbyist]] tells you how much better is to [[work]] on “K” street as a [[lobbyist]] rather than on [[Capitol Hill]] for But the media wrote the [[Uhistory about this trial.S A famous liberal reporter at the trial, H. Government]]L. The [[lobbyist]]s Mencken, published extremely one-sided articles that would make more [[money]] and have more funtoday’s media blush. He excoriated Bryan at every possible turn, you are toldtrying to make him look foolish. If you impress When Hollywood got into the [[lobbyist]], then he’ll put in act with a good word for you and try to get you a nice jobmovie called “Inherit the Wind,” it imitated Mencken’s bias. Next thing you knowMisinformed, all many think Scopes and the staffers are trying harder to please evolutionists won the [[lobbyist]]s than to serve trial, but the real result was the publicopposite.
[[Lobbyist]]s also help raise money for [[politician]]s for their re[[election]], in the form of [[politics|political]] action committees (PACs)'''8. ''' These are special accounts set up '''Colonel William “Billy” Mitchell''' dropped out of college in 1898 to raise [[money]] that can be given to a [[candidate]]serve in the Spanish-American War. Every large [[company]] has oneAfterwards, America stayed out of wars until 1917, when Mitchell was touring Europe as an observer. Employees are told they should donate By then he was considered too old to be trained on the [[company]]’s PAC so new airplanes that it can give [[money]] were just being considered, but he learned to important [[politician]]s in D.Cfly through private lessons of his own. It has become necessary When the United States entered World War I, Mitchell was the first American to donate to [[politician]]s to help them winfly over enemy lines. In 1918, he led a large bombing attack on St. Mihiel on the western front in order to catch their attentionEurope. You can bet politicians appreciate those who send [[money]] for re[[election]]An account of the battle is available online.<ref>http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ww1/stmihiel/stmihiel.htm</ref>
== What Would James Madison Say? ==After the war he devoted his efforts to advocating greater use of aviation in the military, and criticizing those who resisted the change. In 1921 and 1923 Mitchell demonstrated how easily air power could sink ships by bombing old battleships and sinking them. The embarrassed military brass sent him on a trip to Asia, but when Mitchell returned he predicted that Japan would ultimately attack us as it did at Pearl Harbor.
What would [[James Madison]] say about this? Recall [[Federalist NoIn September 1925 a military airship crashed and killed many on board. 10]] Mitchell published a diatribe harshly criticizing his superiors, even accusing them of treason in which James Madison criticized "factions"ignoring the need for good military aviation. Was he right?He was swiftly brought before a military court, known as a court-martial, for insubordination. He was tried for seven weeks.
[[Moderate]]s today, and particularly Military courts lack the [[media]], oppose [[conservative]] [[interest group]]sprotections guaranteed to civilians in ordinary courts. [[Pro-life]], [[gun rights|pro-gun]]The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict, anti-[[tax]] groups are portrayed which in the [[media]] as narrow-minded [[people]] who care only about one thinga federal criminal case would prevent conviction. ThatOne juror, of coursewidely thought to be the future General Douglas MacArthur, is not true: [[interest group]]s care about many [[issue]]s, but choose voted for acquittal. But he was outvoted and Mitchell was convicted and sentenced to [[focus]] on only onea humiliating loss of rank and pay. They are maximizing their influence that wayPresident Calvin Coolidge intervened to restore half his pay, but Mitchell quit the military instead.
It is unlikely that [[James Madison]]After Japan’s air power attacked and sunk our fleet at Pearl Harbor, himself a bit of a [[moderate]] in his dayMitchell’s views were vindicated. By then he had passed away, would like [[interest group]]sbut the military restored his rank and President Truman honored him with a medal posthumously. '''9.''' He would worry '''Alger Hiss''' had denied he knew Whittaker Chambers, a former American communist who claimed that an [[interest group]] may capture control of the [[federal government]]Hiss had been passing him State Department secrets for years. He would fear Obscure Congressman Richard Nixon was convinced that [[proHiss was lying and questioned him when he appeared before the House Un-abortion]] interest groups might capture American Activities Committee during the entire [[government]]Cold War in 1948. Then what?Nixon intensely disliked Hiss, who came from the wealthy background of political connections that Nixon initially lacked. Nixon’s pursuit of Hiss catapulted Nixon’s career on a path that would eventually carry Nixon to become president.
A response might be that Both Hiss and Chambers testified before the [[pro-abortion]]ists did capture the [[federal government]]House Committee, and only [[pro-life]] interest groups can correct the situationcontradicting each other. All it takes is for five [[Justice]]s on the [[Supreme Court]] One had to issue a ruling like [[Roe vbe lying. Wade]] When Chambers ultimately produced typed documents of State Department information and there is claimed they came from Hiss, a huge problem. Besides, the [[media]] act like one big interest group that promotes [[abortion]]. It takes new [[interest group]]s to combat this effectivelyfederal prosecutor in Manhattan indicted Hiss for perjury.
== Regulating Interest Groups ==But Hiss could afford the best attorney and had the most impressive array of character witnesses ever assembled. It included two U. S. Supreme Court justices, a former Solicitor General, a former Democratic presidential candidate (John W. Davis) and a future one (Adlai Stevenson). Hiss’ jury selection was also superb: the foreman proved to be sympathetic to the liberal and perhaps even communist movement in America.
The [[First Amendment]] protects [[interest groups]]Hiss did well on the witness stand in his defense, but his attorney probably erred in putting his wife on. [[Government]] cannot abolish themHiss's attorney was blistering in his cross-examination of the prosecution’s star witness, but can it [[regulation|regulate]] them?Chambers himself, who admitted that he had worked for the communist cause in America.
[[John McCain]] almost won the [[Republican]] nomination for [[United_States_presidential_electionThe jury could not agree on a verdict, 2000|president splitting with eight in 2000]] by emphasizing one [[issue]]: reforming the finance favor of political campaigns. [[Senator]] [[John McCain|McCain]] particularly disliked how an [[interest group]] could spend [[Powers of ten|million]]s a few days before an [[election]] to sway the public conviction and four against a [[candidate]]it. He said Despite testimony that is unfairthe unlawfully leaked documents were typed on Hiss’ typewriter, the four were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt.
The [[media]] also dislike how [[interest group]]s could influence [[election]]s by running [[advertisement|ads]] just before [[vote|voting]]As is typical, the government then brought the case for retrial. These [[advertisement|ads]] detract from Prosecutions do better the [[power]] second time, learning from its mistakes. The judge allowed a broader range of questioning. Hiss's new defense counsel was weaker, conceding that the media to influence leaked documents were typed by the outcome of an [[election]]typewriter found in Hiss’ possession, but disputing that he typed them. The [[media]] loved [[John McCain|McCain]] partly because they agreed on this [[issue]]Inexplicably, Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter did not testify for Hiss in the second trial.
[[National Right to Life Committee|National Right to Life]] The defense relied heavily on testimony by a expert witness who was so upset at [[John McCain|McCain]]’s attempt to muzzle [[interest group]]s a psychiatrist, who painted Chambers as a pathological liar. But the prosecutor destroyed that it ran [[advertisement|ads]] attacking [[John McCain|McCain]] expert witness in one of the [[New Hampshire]] [[presidential primary]] in 2000, even though [[John McCain|McCain]] has a [[promost famous cross-life]] [[vote|voting]] recordexaminations in American legal history. The [[advertisement|ads]] backfired, and [[John McCain|McCain]] defeated [[George WExcerpts from the trial transcript are available online.<ref>http://law2.umkc. Bush|Bush]]edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hiss/hisstrialtranscripts.html</ref>
What do you think about Hiss maintained his innocence until he died, despite the right eventual release of [[interest group]]s to run expensive [[advertisement|ads]] just before an [[election]]? secret Soviet files apparently identifying him as a spy. Should it be limited? In the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002Perhaps Hiss felt he could not go back on his prior statements, [[Congress]] prohibited [[politics|political]] [[advertisement|ads]] by [[interest group]]s within 60 [[day]]s of an [[election]]or perhaps he remained true to communism in protecting the movement. The [[Supreme Court]] later ruled this case helped define American politics for forty years, propelling Nixon to be [[unconstitutional]]the Vice Presidency in 1952, Barry Goldwater to the Republican nomination for president in 1964, Nixon to the White House in 1968, and ultimately Ronald Reagan to the White House in 1980, where he awarded Chambers a posthumous Medal of Freedom. Do you think this [[regulation]] is [[constitution]]al?
== Election Results =='''10.''' '''President Bill Clinton''' was riding high in the polls and was ready to pick his successor for the White House by late 1998. His personal popularity and a strong economy enabled the Democratic Party to do surprisingly well in the mid-term elections, and President Clinton was seeking to leave a lasting legacy.
Every [[November]]Then the House of Representatives impeached him for making false statements under oath, America changes which is perjury, and trial was scheduled for the U.S. Senate in 1999. First Lady Hillary Clinton accused her opponents of being part of a bit because there are [[election]]s“vast right-wing conspiracy” against her husband. It is always worth pausing The Democratic Senators all lined up behind President Clinton, promising to [[observe]] what happenedvote for acquittal.
The South has become more [[Republican]] and Republicans enjoyed a majority in the North has become more [[Democratic]]Senate but lacked votes anywhere close to the requisite 2/3rd majority to convict. [[Republican]]s won [[governorship]]s in [[Kentucky]] President Clinton was a lame-duck at that point anyway, and [[Mississippi]]; Democrats took control of the [[New Jersey]] Senatereal battle was over his ability to influence politics beyond his term.
This is part The managers of a 30-year trend for political realignment in this [[country]]the impeachment presented their case, but the Senate prevented them from calling key witnesses such as Clinton’s closest aids. People tend The procedural rules hamstrung the trial and served to vote regionallyprotect the president. At Without the time presentation of the [[Civil War]]full case, President Clinton easily survived the North was solidly [[Republican]] and the South was solidly [[Democratic]]. Now it has shifted to become the oppositefinal vote.
In 2004, But the Democrats did not win a single southern statevictory was Pyrrhic. The Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, Al Gore, felt he had to distance himself from Clinton and Bush did not win a single state in that probably made the northeastdifference on Election Day. But Bush did win [[West Virginia]] and [[Ohio]]For 5 or so years, which were enough Clinton had little success in campaigning for candidates, failing (for example) in trying to give him the overall help Governor Gray Davis in California prevail in his recall election. Hillary Clinton, pollsters choice to run in 2004, apparently felt it was too soon to make an attempt. When she did run for her party's nomination in 2008, she was defeated. The political ramifications of the impeachment trial lasted for at least a decade.
In becoming mayor of [[New York]], [[Mayor]] [[Bloomberg]] (a [[moderate]]) failed in his attempt to change New York primaries from “closed” to “open”. The parties opposed his [[referendum]] to allow [[independent]]s to vote in party primaries, and the parties beat the mayor. Never underestimate the power of political parties. But Bloomberg was able to overcome the power with his enormous personal [[wealth]] and obtaining the [[Republican]] nomination rather than the [[Democratic]] one, and won that way.== Homework ==
In [[Mississippi]], famous [[Republican]] [[lobbyist]] [[Haley Barbour]] won For the [[governorship]] and was just reelected. So sometimes lobbyists become top government officials themselves. The [[door]] between government and lobbyists [[revolve]]s roundhomework, we will have a ten or fifteen-and-roundquestion quiz '''''on only this lecture''''', which I will send by email in a day or two.
== Issues References ==
1. Do you think there should be [[regulation]] of [[interest group]] [[ad]]s just prior to elections?<references/>
[[Category:Homeschool CurriculumAmerican Government lectures]]{{DEFAULTSORT:American Government Lecture 09}}
Siteadmin, bureaucrat, check user, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrator
115,812
edits