We covered two subjects this week and ignored - maybe just postponed - a third.
The first looked at public policy and included an observation of the public policy process and - in my view more importantly - the concept of a sub-government, or issue network, or advocacy coalition. These are terms that refer to the networks of interested parties - stakeholders - that develop around a specific policy impacted by government.
I suggested that despite the constitutional arrangements we discussed in previous lectures, these might best describe the actual workings of government, and its relationship with private organizations which benefit from those policies. We discussed the iron triangle since that provides the clearest picture of what these networks might actually look like. I mentioned that this is a simplistic picture - and other institutions can play a role in preserving certain policies - but the relationship between legislative committees, bureaucratic agencies and interest groups might be the best way to visualize these networks.
I also mentioned that a revolving door exists between these institutions, and it describes the tendency of people to move from a job in one institution to another. Each step of the way the knowledge and connections built up in one institution tie into those in another. The interests of the committee and the agency become intertwined. Interest groups - the strong ones especially - can drive the connection between them. Members of Congress can often cash in when they retire by joining one of the interest groups focusing on the policy the member focused on when in office.
The major point I tried to drive home was that network matter, and we can best understand what governments actually do less in terms of the constitutional principles we discussed in the two previous weeks - though they still matters - but in terms of these networks. Critics argue they compromise democracy and ought to enter into our assessment of whether the people either rule, or our understanding of consent.
We then looked at civil rights and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. I encouraged you to consider it as being a fifth principle - equality before the law - added to the Constitution following the Civil War. It - along with the 13th and 15th Amendment.
A couple points to keep in mind as we go further:
- A lot of the ongoing conflict between the state and national governments - especially states like Texas - are based on the equal protection clause. Definitions of what it takes to be equally protected by the law can vary, and have varied over history.
- Its up to the Supreme Court to define which groups are covered under the equal protection clause and how much protection they are provided. Legislatures - local, state, national - pass laws related to these groups, which are generally challenged by opponents, which begins a process which can lead to the case being heard in the Supreme Court.
Finally a word about the section we did not cover: Ideology - What is Government for anyway?
I'm still developing this section and its not quite ready to go live. It'll provide a little more in-depth analysis of the history of ideological movement in American history and how they tie into broader movements throughout western political history. This should help us know how different political movements rose and fell over American history, and how we got to where we are now ideologically. There's an outside possibility it will be included later in the year. I'll let you know if that happens.
Keep reading - and I hope this review helps.
Next week we begin looking at the US legislature.
I mentioned in class that the week after that will be devoted to the assigned book in order to help you more clearly build on your proposed topic for the 1000 word essay.
I hope the class is going well so far - let me know otherwise.
