A paper by John Joseph Wallis: The Concept of Systematic Corruption in American

I found this a few weeks ago and am just now getting around to posting it.

The author investigates how constitutions can help prevent the development of corruption, which he defines as the use of public institutions for personal gain. More specifically he looks at how the systemic design of a governing system can lock in place private benefits. Eliminating that type of corruption has been an ongoing goal of American government.

Whether it has been successful or not is another story.

- Click here for it.
Here's a taste - it contains a terrific look at the development of the governing systems that underlie our constitutional structure.

What I define as systematic corruption is both a concrete form of political behavior and an idea. In polities plagued with systematic corruption, a group of politicians deliberately create rents by limiting entry into valuable economic activities, through grants of monopoly, restrictive corporate charters, tariffs, quotas, regulations, and the like. These rents bind the interests of the recipients to the politicians who create them. The purpose is to build a coalition that can dominate the government. Manipulating the economy for political ends is systematic corruption. Systematic corruption occurs when politics corrupts economics.

In contrast, venal corruption denotes the pursuit of private economic interests through the political process. Venal corruption occurs when economics corrupts politics. Classical thinkers worried about venal corruption, too. They talked at great length about the moral and ethical corruption of entire peoples and societies, as well as governments. They realized, however, that venal corruption is an inevitable result of human nature. So they focused their intellectual enterprise on designing and then protecting a form of government that could resist systematic corruption. By eliminating systematic corruption, they hoped to mitigate the problems of venal corruption as well.

 
  

Kirkpatrick on the gradual development of democracy

Here's another extended quote from Kirkpatrick's 1979 essay referred to in the previous post.

It reinforces a point I make in several sets of slides that try to tied in the basic design of governing institutions to British history, and the gradual development of independent legislative and judicial institutions that can limit the power of the executive. It's the gradual nature of this development that is important, and once accomplished, freedom can expand to encompass greater numbers of people. It's the result of the process, and it takes time.

That seems to be Kirkpatrick's basic complaint about Carter's foreign policy - if not of the entire ideological point of view he represented to her.

Here's the quote:

In the relatively few places where they exist, democratic governments have come into being slowly, after extended prior experience with more limited forms of participation during which leaders have reluctantly grown accustomed to tolerating dissent and opposition, opponents have accepted the notion that they may defeat but not destroy incumbents, and people have become aware of government’s effects on their lives and of their own possible effects on government. Decades, if not centuries, are normally required for people to acquire the necessary disciplines and habits. In Britain, the road from the Magna Carta to the Act of Settlement, to the great Reform Bills of 1832, 1867, and 1885, took seven centuries to traverse. American history gives no better grounds for believing that democracy comes easily, quickly, or for the asking. A war of independence, an unsuccessful constitution, a civil war, a long process of gradual enfranchisement marked our progress toward constitutional democratic government. The French path was still more difficult. Terror, dictatorship, monarchy, instability, and incompetence followed on the revolution that was to usher in a millennium of brotherhood. Only in the 20th century did the democratic principle finally gain wide acceptance in France and not until after World War II were the principles of order and democracy, popular sovereignty and authority, finally reconciled in institutions strong enough to contain conflicting currents of public opinion.

Think about this when you look at the sections in this class on democracy, the expansion of suffrage, and the development of the three key institutions of government - the legislative, executive and judicial. It also lies in the background of the section on ideology. One of the key differences between what we now refer to as liberalism and conservatism is a dispute over whether changes in society can be achieved quickly and deliberately, or only slowly through the development of solid and stable institutions.

All this can end up on your final.

The entire CSCOPE lesson plan

Courtesy of the Texas Tribune.

We should click through the section on government at some point to see what the fuss is about.

The CSCOPE debate

CSCOPE, a K-12 educational curriculum support system designed to assist the smaller ISD's in Texas to prepare it students for the STARR tests (State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness) has been controversial for a variety of reasons.

Teachers complain it imposes limits on what they do in the classroom and parent complain about a lack of transparency - they can't see the lesson plans.

But the most heated area has to do - no big surprise - with content. How do students cover certain subjects, most social studies?

A month back - while we were discussing the importance of education in maintaining republics - a debate was held between a member of the State Board of Education - Thomas Ratliff - and the chair of the State Senate's Education Committee - Dan Patrick. While both men are Republicans, Patrick is affiliated with the Tea Party wing of the party. Ratliff sides with the moderates.

The Tea Party maintains the curriculum is liberal, Anti-American and pro-Islamic.

For further background:

- Ratliff, Patrick Exchange Words over CSCOPE Lessons.
- Debate again thrusts CSCOPE into Texas spotlight.
- Sen. CSCOPE announce sweeping changes.

The curriculum was designed by the Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative and overseen by the Texas Curriculum Management Program.

Happy "Texas Being Readmitted to the Union Day!"

We tend not to celebrate this one, but its as momentous as the rest.

From the TSHA:

On this day in 1870, U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant signed the act that ended Congressional Reconstruction and readmitted Texas to the Union. In the aftermath of the Civil War, Texas had been in turmoil, first under Presidential Reconstruction and then, beginning in 1867 with the passage of the First Reconstruction Act, under Congressional Reconstruction. The latter required that Texas have a constitutional convention, with delegates elected by all male citizens over the age of twenty-one, regardless of race, color, or "previous condition of servitude." The convention was to write a new state constitution that would provide for universal adult male suffrage. When the constitution had been written and the state had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Congress would consider the case for readmission to the Union. The convention met at Austin in June 1868 and did not adjourn until February 1869. The constitution it produced differed significantly from previous constitutions by authorizing a more centralized and bureaucratized system of government, with greater power in the hands of the governor. In February 1870 the Twelfth Legislature assembled at Austin to adopt the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments and select United States senators in preparation for readmission to the Union. They quickly approved the amendments and selected Morgan C. Hamilton for a six-year term and James W. Flanagan for a four-year term. This completed the requirements set by Congress for readmission.

Also on this day in 1849, a seccessionist paper was founded in Marshall:

On this day in 1849, the Marshall Texas Republican was established by Trenton A. and Frank J. Patillo. The paper is most closely identified with Robert W. Loughery, who became associate editor in July and editor in November, and two years later bought the paper outright. Under his fiery leadership, the Republican became one of the state's most articulate voices for secession, and his editorials were reprinted around the state. Loughery's support played an important role in the election of his fellow townsmen James Pinckney Henderson and Louis T. Wigfall to the United States Senate, and the Republican was among the staunchest supporters of the Confederacy during the war years. Once the war ended, however, Loughery vigorously advocated conciliation and compliance with the requirements of surrender, though he changed his stance after the imposition of congressional Reconstruction. His last great journalistic fight involved the Stockade Case at Jefferson, in which a number of citizens were held without formal charge and finally tried by a military tribunal. Loughery's complaints about the military's refusal to turn the case over to civilian courts or to release the prisoners on bail came to the attention of President Andrew Johnson, who asked for an explanation from Gen. Joseph J. Reynolds, commander of the troops in Texas. After the Republican ceased publication in 1872, Loughery went on to help found several other Texas newspapers. He died in 1894.

So some Texans began agitating for seccession 4 years after joining the union. We really have ongoing issues with being a part of the US don't we?

Birth of Texas: Houston A Nation's Capital

A fellow student watched this recently and recommends it. It's showing on PBS along with a companion piece on Spanish Texas.

Here's a description, looks awesome:

For two hurly-burly years, the Bayou City was the capital of the Republic of Texas. As Sam Houston, Mirabeau Lamar and others squabbled over the direction in which they would lead the fledgling nation, scores of drunken, furloughed soldiers battled in makeshift saloons, on the town’s muddy streets and at the dueling grounds which was located south of Texas Avenue, and therefore away from the city limits. Noted author and historian, Stephen Hardin, leads a tour of locations that serves as the backbone of this documentary. Interviews with other scholars, snippets of contemporary journals, photographs, maps, music and graphics makes this an engaging way to learn about Houston’s beginnings.

We still haven't figured out what to do about the confederacy.

The Texas Tribune reports on the latest tussle over how to deal with Texas' confederate past. The Son's of Confederate states that the current plague insufficiently honors the Confederacy. It reads:

"Because this building was built with monies from the Confederate Pension fund it was, at that time, designated as a memorial to the Texans who served the Confederacy."

Not good enough for the group. Here's one of the many confederate monuments on the capitol grounds










We discussed controversies over the content of history and government curriculum in class this week, at least a bit. Covering Texas' past presents on an ongoing conflict in the state.

Click here for an interactive map of all Texas' confederate markers.

And here's a related story.

What if George Washington decided to be a tyrant?

The newest version of the computer game Assassin's Creed is based on the premise the George Washington "succumbed to the allure of infinite power" and became a tyrant.


A single-player campaign delivered through three episodes, the content tasks players will dethroning Washington and returning freedom to the colonies. Ubisoft had no qualms about altering history, according to executive producer Sebastien Puel.

“History is our playground, and [Assassin's Creed] teams have always loved playing with historical facts and their consequences as a way to better understand a time period,” Puel said in a statement. “While Assassin’s Creed III concentrates on history as it happens, we wanted to take some liberties with this DLC and tell you how things ‘could have happened.’”

Sweet. We should play it in class.

Michael Lind on the federal government's ongoing involvement in the economy

A great extended interview in Salon. The author blows away some assumptions about what factors led to the development of the American economy.

Francis Fukuyama: The Origins of Political Order

I've yet to read this, but it seems to be worth the time. According to reviews, "the book traces the development of political order from the earliest human societies," which fits perfectly with the subject matter of both 2301 and 2302. While we claim to know much about this development - how societies and institutions evolved, we really don't. Here's an attempt to augments out understanding of it.

The History of english in Ten Minutes

Via YouTube no less!!

A History of the U.S. Tax System

I just stumbled across this.

Houston Historic Ordinance

The City of Houston is also wrestling with amendments to its historic preservation ordinance.

The ordinance would make it harder to tear down historic buildings and to severely alter existing ones. The intent is to maintain the "look" of a historical neighborhood. Opponents argue that it interferes with the property rights of owners. Here's how it would apply to one neighborhood.

On the Supreme Court's Use of History in Fourth Amendment Cases

For our upcoming discussion of civil liberties: Grits for Breakfast provides a link to a recently published critique -- The Fourth Amendment: History, Purpose, and Remedies, by Arnold Loewy --  of the Supreme Courts' Fourth Amendment rulings.

Grits highlights the following from a talk by Loewy:

Frankly, I would rate the Supreme Court’s use of history as spotty and inconsistent. Let’s compare, for example, Watson v. United States and Tennessee v. Garner. In Watson, the Court examined the history of the right to arrest without a warrant for a felony which the police officer has probable cause to believe was committed by the arrestee. The Court concluded correctly that at common law arrests for a previously committed felony without a warrant were permitted. Substantially, but not exclusively, because of this history, the Court upheld the right to make a warrantless arrest for a previously-committed felony.

So far so good, but there is one major question that the Court did not ask, despite the urging of Justice Marshall’s concurrence: That question is whether the concept of felony meant the same today as it did at common law when the “no need for a warrant” rule developed. The answer seems to be pretty clearly “no.” At common law, all felonies were both violent and capital. Consequently when a police officer saw a felon at large, it was likely a violent individual, who, if he escaped, would escape the hangman.

Watson, on the other hand, was a non-violent credit card defrauder, who in modern times, is a felon. Well, does history demand that this type of felon be treated the same way as the violent felons for which the common law did not require a warrant? My answer would be either “no,” or at least “not necessarily.” Surely the common law rule calling for the arrest of violent, capital felons tells us little about whether the same rule applies to non-violent defrauders, such as Watson.
Loewy highlights, repeatedly, the requirement that searches be "reasonable" but criticizes its consistency in how it defines what is and isn't reasonable, and whether the court thinks that it is its job to apply it in every case where a question is raised.

Again, an extended Loewy quote from Grits -- this involves a court case that stemmed from an incident in Lago Vistam where Highway 6 intersects I-45:

The operative word in ... the Fourth Amendment ... is “reasonable.” Indeed, in case after case, the Court has emphasized that the overarching principle of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness. Most of the time when the Court cites “reasonableness” as the overarching principle, it does so to uphold a search; e.g. There is no need for a warrant here because the search comports with the overarching principle of reasonableness. Without regard to the correctness of those decisions, one would have thought that the same principle (if indeed it is a principle) would have applied in Atwater. But it did not. The Court conceded that as applied to Atwater herself, the arrest was clearly unreasonable. As the Court so starkly put it: “Atwater’s claim to live free of pointless indignity and confinement clearly outweighs anything the City can raise against it specific to her case.”

So, one might have thought that the finding of individual unreasonableness would have ended the case, but it did not. Rather, the Court continued: “But we have traditionally recognized that a responsible Fourth Amendment balance is not well served by standards requiring sensitive, case-by-case determinations of government need, lest every discretionary judgment in the field be converted into an occasion for constitutional review.”

Yet just five years earlier, in Ohio v. Robinette, the Court had said: “We have long held that the ‘touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.’ Reasonableness in turn is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances. In applying this test we have consistently eschewed bright-line rules, instead emphasizing the fact specific nature of the inquiry.”

I suppose that a cynic could say that it all depends on whose ox is gored. If the police win with a bright-line rule (as in Atwater) then bright-line rules are good. But if a citizen wins by employing a bright-line rule (as in Robinette) that is bad. I am inclined to favor flexibility (so that Atwater would have won, and frankly so would Robinette, if flexibility had been applied properly). But, however one might resolve that question, we can surely expect more consistency (and more reasonableness) from the Court than we saw in Atwater.

The Organic Decentralization of Governmental Power

I'm re-reading parts of Democracy in America and ran across the following bit in the Preface. For my 2301s (and 2302s) it shows how Tocqueville described the gradual dispersal of governmental power in France. Certainly a similar story happened in Britain, which lead to the institutional arrangement embodied in our Constitution. This sounds very much like the evolution of the forces that would allow for checks and balances. Sounds a bit Madisonian also.

It is evident to all alike that a great democratic revolution is going on among us, but all do not look at it in the same light. To some it appears to be novel but accidental, and, as such, they hope it may still be checked; to others it seems irresistible, because it is the most uniform, the most ancient, and the most permanent tendency that is to be found in history.

I look back for a moment on the situation of France seven hundred years ago, when the territory was divided among a small number of families, who were the owners of the soil and the rulers of the inhabitants; the right of governing descended with the family inheritance from generation to generation; force was the only means by which man could act on man; and landed property was the sole source of power.

Soon, however, the political power of the clergy was founded and began to increase: the clergy opened their ranks to all classes, to the poor and the rich, the commoner and the noble; through the church, equality penetrated into the government, and he who as a serf must have vegetated in perpetual bondage took his place as a priest in the midst of nobles, and not infrequently above the heads of kings.

The different relations of men with one another became more complicated and numerous as society gradually became more stable and civilized. Hence the want of civil laws was felt; and the ministers of law soon rose from the obscurity of the tribunals and their dusty chambers to appear at the court of the monarch, by the side of the feudal barons clothed in their ermine and their mail.

While the kings were ruining themselves by their great enterprises, and the nobles exhausting their resources by private wars, the lower orders were enriching themselves by commerce. The influence of money began to be perceptible in state affairs. The transactions of business opened a new road to power, and the financier rose to a station of political influence in which he was at once flattered and despised.

Gradually enlightenment spread, a reawakening of taste for literature and the arts became evident; intellect and will contributed to success; knowledge became an attribute of government, intelligence a social force; the educated man took part in affairs of state.

The value attached to high birth declined just as fast as new avenues to power were discovered. In the eleventh century, nobility was beyond all price; in the thirteenth, it might be purchased. Nobility was first conferred by gift in 1270, and equality was thus introduced into the government by the aristocracy itself.

....

This is just a taste of a broader argument, but as avenues to power increase, the ability of one group top check the power of others increases. Political equality (or perhaps more accurately, equal access to power) sets the stage for the establishment of individual liberty.

This is worth a discussion in class.

Presidents, Rich and Poor

Here's background on the relative net worth of presidents.

Obama Comments on the State of Politics

And uses an example we discuss in class:

So before we get too depressed about the current state of our politics, let’s remember our history. The great debates of the past all stirred great passions. They all made somebody angry, and at least once led to a terrible war. What is amazing is that despite all the conflict, despite all its flaws and its frustrations, our experiment in democracy has worked better than any form of government on Earth.

On the last day of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was famously asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got -– a republic or a monarchy?” And Franklin gave an answer that’s been quoted for ages: He said, “A republic, if you can keep it.” If you can keep it.

Well, for more than 200 years, we have kept it. Through revolution and civil war, our democracy has survived. Through depression and world war, it has prevailed. Through periods of great social and economic unrest, from civil rights to women’s rights, it has allowed us slowly, sometimes painfully, to move towards a more perfect union.

A Tradition of Self Governance

The founders were not amateurs, and their experience in self governance came in handy for a newly formed republic searching for stability.

Tax Revolts

As American as apple pie, or better yet, whiskey.