GOVT 2306

Defining relevant terms

As we did in 2305, I want to clarify – broadly – what is meant by two key terms, and what they mean in the context of the government of

Texas and local population centers:

The terms are

“Government” and “Politics”

In addition, I want to look at the terms “sovereignty” and “public

policy.”

Here are two, of the many, definitions of “Government”

- The institution, or institutions, with the monopoly on the legitimate use of coercion in

society

- The institutions and procedures through which a land and its people are ruled.

And here are three of the many definitions of “Politics”

1- The authoritative allocation of values in society.

2 - The struggle over who gets what when and how.

3 - Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit in order to gain control or power

These terms are distinct.

“Government” refers to the institutions that possess the

authority to rule, “politics” refers to the conflict to influence what

those rules will look like.

We should discuss two more terms as well so that the rest of these

slides make sense.

The terms are sovereignty and public policy.

Three definitions of “sovereignty”

1 - supreme power, especially over a body politic

2 - the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a territory

3 - the power to do everything in a state without accountability

Sovereignty, at its simplest, refers to whoever or whatever is in

charge of a government.

One whose authority does a governing system rest?

In the U.S. we claim that sovereignty rests with the people.

Of course, things get complicated after that since the people do not directly rule – but we will dig into

this later.

The United States and Texas, we are reminded continually, are both based

on popular sovereignty. Authority rests on the people. Everything it does must be consented to. This is what the phrase “the consent of the governed”

means.

. . . though we commonly debate whether this is in fact the case . . .

Here is a key controversy concerning sovereignty:

Do the people always retain sovereignty or, once they agree to

establish governing institutions, and elected people to hold positions in

those institutions, do they surrender that right to those institutions with the

understanding that they can keep them in check through periodic

elections?

How much direct and immediate control do “the people” have over

government?

As we will see soon enough, the people (more specifically – the

electorate) have little direct control over government, but more so in Texas than on the national level.

Think of the story about what it takes to steer a supertanker – it takes small

adjustments miles a turn has to take place.

It’s the same thing with the American governing system. Periodic elections allow for small corrections in policy by adjusting

who is in control of each governing system.

Another controversy:

How can two level of government be sovereign? How can you have

two bosses?

Tensions between the state and national government are common.

The power of the national government is supreme –

according to the Supremacy Clause – but its power is supposed to be limited also. States have authority

over the reserved powers.

Sovereignty is especially touchy in Texas since – among other things – it

was once an independent nation.

Texas commonly disputes the ability of the national government to impose limits on how it conducts elections, emits pollutants, and others things.

Conflict involves disputes over the meaning of constitutional concepts like “commerce clause” authority and the

extent of the “reserved powers.” Conflict also stems from the fact that the people of Texas are citizens of the national and state

governments.

We will spend some time outlining this conflict over this semester.

In addition to looking at the institutions of government and

politics, we will look at how some of these policies are established

and implemented – as well as the range of conflicts that surround

them.

This is a good way to look at government as a dynamic entity.

So here’s a fourth term worth outlining before we proceed

further:

Public Policy

No surprise, but there are several definitions of public policy.

Here are a couple

1 - Public policy is a course of action adopted and pursued by a government.

2 - Public policy is a purposive and consistent course of action produced as a response to a

perceived problem of a constituency, formulated by a specific political process, and

adopted, implemented, and enforced by a public agency.

- click here for the source.

Public policy is the stuff government does (or chooses not to do) to deal with a problem that

has emerged on the public’s agenda.

Here are examples

Foreign PolicyEnergy Policy

Education PolicyDefense PolicyHealth Policy

Criminal Justice Policy

Another way we can define “government” is those institutions

that are responsible for establishing and implementing

those policies.

In 2305’s discussion of federalism, we mentioned that certain policies tend to fall more squarely on the

national, state or local level.

National policies tend to be those that are delegated to the national government in the Constitution.

These are mostly commercial and military in nature. Foreign policy is

almost fully controlled by the national government.

The constitution also contains the Tenth Amendment which

establishes that powers (policies) not restricted to the states are

reserved to them – which carries the assumption that the national

government cannot pass laws about them.

These are often referred to as the police powers.

The power to regulate the health, safety, welfare and morals of a

community.

Sometimes these policies impact commerce, which the national government has used to justify passing laws that affect

police powers.

Crime, for example, impacts the flow of commerce. The national government has

been able to justify getting involved in interstate crime on that basis.

The point being: the public policy process in the United States (like

all aspects of American government) is very complex and

involves multiple actors motivated with often competing goals.

Nevertheless, there are certain types of policies that are mostly contained within Texas. We will

look at some of these. Especially:

Education PolicyCriminal Justice Policy

Economic Development Policy

Let’s go back to defining the first term:

“What is Government?”

Again, this is the term used to define the institutions that have evolved to establish, implement,

and adjudicate rules that determine how a group of people

will live together in some agreeable way.

In 2305 we discussed the factors related to the development of

governments, its major components and different types of

governing systems.

The constitutional democratic republic that the U.S. is governed by is just one of a variety of different governing systems.

A few things worth remembering from that section:

First, Governments, historically, have evolved either due to coercion or consent. The historical record provides more evidence of governments

established by coercion, but the American system is based on the idea that governments

actually evolve due to a agreements people enter into voluntarily in order to better provide for mutual security. In this arrangement, people consent to rule rather than being coerced into

it.

Of course in reality, once a policy is put in place, the state has to have

coercive power to ensure it is followed.

Think about how speed limit laws are established.

Second, in order to in fact rule, government shave to be able to do

two things: collect revenue and coerce people to follow the law.

If a government can do neither, then its not really a government.

Third, governments can be arranged in one of three basic

ways depending on where sovereignty is located: Autocratic,

Oligarchic and Democratic. Respectively these are referred to as the rule of the one, the few and

the many.

We mentioned the each had advantages and disadvantages.

Autocracies are efficient, but prone to arbitrary rule.

Executive branches in the US tend to have an autocratic character in

order to ensure that laws are implemented effectively.

Oligarchies allows for knowledgeable rule, but are subject to bias.

The courts in the US tend to have an autocratic design so that we have

judges who have the knowledge to be able to make just decisions on the

controversies that come before them.

Democracies offer legitimacy, but can be prone to mob rule.

Our legislatures tend to be the most democratic institutions in order to ensure that diverse viewpoints are brought to bear when policies are

debated and adopted.

In 2305 we spent time discussing different ways to define

democracy – the simplest being majority rule. A more expansive

definition also includes the requirement that democracies include universal adult suffrage

and protection for minority rights.

This creates tension.

Majorities commonly attempt to minimize the rights of minorities through the democratic process.

Majorities can control democratic institution and turn them – effectively into tyrannies.

Tyranny of the Majority

In 2305 we read through Federalist #10, which was Madison’s attempt to explain how the US Constitution addresses the problem of tyranny of the majority by

allowing for the establishment of a republic over a large territory, which

includes many interests and reduces the change that a majority group can rally around a single interest and control all

branches of government.

Permanent majorities will be unlikely to form since they can be

easily broken apart.

A question we will ask throughout this semester is whether same

dynamic works in Texas.

Madison thought that tyrannical majorities were more likely to form

at the state, and especially the local level.

Is Texas prone to majority tyranny?

Fourth, we mentioned that governments tend to do three things. They make, implement and adjudicate

the law. Recall that James Madison argued that the concentration of these

three powers in one person or institutions is the very definition of

tyranny.

So that explains why powers are separated.

But how are they separated?

In the American system, the separated powers are vested in three separate

institutions. Each is designed internally so they check and balance each other. The bulk of the specific powers given to each branch was meant to allow each to resist the incursions of the

other.

The same is true for Texas, as we will see soon enough, though there

are crucial distinctions.

Recall also that each of the three separated institutions is designed

in a way that mimics the autocratic, oligarchic, and

democratic designs discussed earlier.

The legislature is democraticThe executive is autocraticThe judiciary is oligarchic

Each design allows each institution to best perform its unique

function.

Before we go to much further, let define one more term:

Constitution

What is a Constitution?

In 2305 we spent time discussing the nature of the US Constitution,

in 2306 we look at state constitutions and the Texas

Constitution.

We will note distinctions between the two as we go forward.

Here is a crucial point, one that helps us understand what makes

the constitutional structure of Texas – and other similar states –

different than that of the US.

It’s a point we will make repeatedly throughout the

semester

While the US Constitution was designed to place barriers between the people and the government in

order to give the government leeway in performing its functions, the Texas Constitution is designed

to constrain it.

Recall that the US Constitution replaced the confederated system established in the

Articles of Confederation which the Federalists judged to be too weak to

govern the newly formed nation.

The Anti-Federalists – if you recall – disagreed.

The US Constitution features centralized executive power, appointed positions and long

terms lengths where the Texas Constitution divides power and

establishes a sizeable number of elected position with short term

lengths.

This seemingly simple distinction matters.

The former design allows for more government power, while the

latter limits it.

The design of the Texas Constitution gives the general population –

specifically the majority – the ability to control it.

It is a far more democratic constitution – at least in terms of majority, not

necessarily minority rights.

Its probably not a bad idea to think of the Texas Constitution and

government as being designed and run by people who are more in line with

the legacy of the Anti-Federalists than the Federalists.

Keep this in mind as we go forward.

We will look at this more deeply as we look at each institution

separately, but for now its worth noting the following:

The Texas Legislature is composed of two chambers, as is the US Congress, a House that is composed of 150 members elected

to two years terms and a Senate composed of 31 members who serve overlapping 4

years terms. Each is elected directly by the citizens of the state in each of the separate districts created across the state every ten

years.

The Texas executive branch is composed of several separately elected offices, most

notably the governor, but also the attorney general, the land commissioner, the

comptroller, and the lieutenant governor.

The plural design is intended to divide executive power and make it less effective.

The judiciary is composed of judges in several levels all of whom

are elected to office.

As all other states, Texas has the power – under the reserved powers –

to established local governments. Each has the power to impose and collect taxes, and to use coercion to compel people to follow the law. That’s what

qualifies them to be considered governments.

These fall under a handful of categories.

Counties: Texas has 254 counties, which implement a variety of laws

passed by the state and enforce criminal law in unincorporated

areas.

County governments are overseen by a locally elected county commission

headed by a county judge.

The specific duties are carried out by other elected officials” tax assessors,

clerks, sheriffs, constables, etc…

Cities: Occasionally, people begin to congregate in an area often due

to economic opportunities that exist there. Once it reaches a

particular size – it can apply to the state to receive a charter in order to rule itself. This is called home

rule authority.

The structure of city governments can vary considerably. Some have mayors

(strong or weak) and/or city managers. They also have city councils of varying

types and local judges.

The structure is outlined in each city’s charter.

For example: Alvin has a weak mayor / council form of

government. They all serve for free. It hires a city manager who

conducts the daily business of the city.

Houston has a strong mayor system and a large city council. All

are paid salaries.

Single Purpose Governments: The state can also authorize the creation

of governmental districts that focus on single, clearly defined functions.

The most notable are independent school districts which run K-12 public

education in the state.

These also include community college districts, navigation

districts, port authorities, hospital and airport districts, drainage

commissions, etc . . .

Many of these are headed by elected boards.

The boards of others are appointed by various officials.

That should be enough to outline how we will be using the term

“government.”

Again, it will refer to the legislative, executive, and judicial institutions

on the national, state and local levels.

Several segments in this class are focused on Texas’ governing

institutions, specifically how each is outlined in the Texas

Constitution and how they have evolved over time.

Now let’s switch to the term

“Politics.”

Earlier it was defined as follows:

1- The authoritative allocation of values in society.

2 - The struggle over who gets what when and how.

3 - Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit in order to gain control or power

Simply put, it’s the battle over what the governing institutions will

do, how they will do it, and who will do it.

Politics refers to the external forces that influence what the

people in governing institutions do.

Notice that each definition above touches on conflict of some type.

Values – what sorts of things are right and wrong.

Think of poverty programs, abortion, gay marriage, etc . . . .

Interests – where and how is revenue collected where and how

is that revenue spent.

Think of this as a pocketbook issue. Whose interests are served – and whose are not – by government

programs, both real and proposed?

And perhaps the most important aspect of politics is the ongoing

struggle to control the institutions that then make decisions on values

and interests.

Generally this involves competing in elections to win control of the legislative, executive and judicial

branches.

Here is a key point:

The political process is where people offer – or withhold -

consent to what governments do.

Politics – the political world in general - exists because our

constitutions establish elections. People are then allowed the ability to participate in them. Consent is

offered or denied through elections.

In a more direct sense, politics exists because people are free.

We should reflect on this because not all governments are based on the people.

Authoritarians and totalitarian systems do not allow popular input – and can even make it

illegal.

We can engage in political activity because we live in a system that allows for individual

freedom, including the ability of people to speak, use the press, form groups and petition

for a redress of grievances.

Think about that the next time you complain about politics.

It could be worse – you could live in a system that does not allow

political participation.

In the US and Texas, various institutions have evolved over time in order to influence governments.

Many of which have roots that go back to colonial and British times.

In 2305 I argue that the political world began to expand

considerably once the arbitrary power of the monarch was

contained following the signing of the British Bill of Rights and the

imposition of limits on governing power.

The executive power was no longer able to use arbitrary power to

punish people who disagreed with the government.

People became free to hold and articulate their own points of view,

and to engage in activities that allowed them to promote

preferred policies.

As we will see, this is a simplification. Limits still existed, but they began to be eroded.

Just who is able to participate politically – effectively – is an

ongoing question.

There are three dominant political institutions:

political partiesinterest groups

the media

I’ll introduce each below, but first a word or two on public opinion,

Texas, like the other states and the nation as a whole, is a democratic

republic which rests on the general population.

The policies Texas adopts are assumed to be based on the general preferences of the public.

But governing officials are actually more attuned to the interests of those

who participate actively in politics. This isn’t necessarily the same as the

majority.

This is an important point that we will touch on repeated throughout the class. Its not “the people” that

count when it comes to determining what Texas

government does, its what “the participants” want that really

matters.

As we will see in an upcoming set of slides, Texas – statewide –

contains majorities that tend to support conservative policies. And even when clear majorities do not

support these policies, the dominant political institutions do.

Texas tends to be a low tax, low services state, that also supports

conservative social policies.

But there is no consensus on this.

A quick comment on ideology.

In 2305 we defined ideology as a set of issue positions based on an

underlying value.

A value being a sense of right and wrong and an issue position being

an opinion on a topical issue.

We focused attention on the importance on the importance of three dominant values: Liberty,

Equality, and Tradition.

In Texas, the values of liberty and tradition tend to dominate the value

of equality.

This isn’t the case in other states or, depending on who controls national

institutions, the national government. As we will see, this is the source of the

bulk of political conflict in the US.

Many people do not spending too much time figuring out how they should be positioned on different

issues and therefore adopt a primary value and use cues received from trusted sources to determine how

they should position themselves on specific issues.

They often adopt a primary media source because is confirms their value system and

allows them to interpret events in a manner that conforms to that value.

Again, this creates conflict. People who watch – for example – Fox News have a

different world view than those who watch the mainstream media.

At this writing (5/20/12) gay marriage is a dominant issue due

to President Obama’s recent statement of personal support for

it.

People whose primary value is equality or liberty are generally in

favor of gay marriage.

It allows different people to be treated equally before the law, as well as the freedom to enter into

relationships they chose.

Traditionalists – which also refers to the religious – see this as an

affront to the traditional definition of marriage.

They are all correct within their own spheres. The question is, how have a given value system and how many then come to the conclusion about the policy due to their value

system?

To complicate things further, not all local areas – especially the large metropolitan areas – share these positions, so areas of

conflict do exist. The cities of Austin, Houston and Dallas tend to be more liberal

than the state as a whole.

We will also dig into the conflict this creates later.

More on this conflict later.

Interests also matter.

As with other states, certain issues are more important in Texas, based on which interests are

dominant within the state, and the content of the political culture –

which we cover more fully elsewhere.

No surprise, but energy, commerce, aerospace and a handful of other issues are

especially important in the state and local areas.

In the local area, this includes medical and high tech research.

Now let’s introduce ourselves to some of the dominant political

institutions in the state and local areas.

The goal is to become familiar with these terms so you can use them

fluently as we proceed.

Political parties are groups of individuals organized formally who unite to compete in elections. By winning office they can control

governing institutions and are in a good position to implement their

desired policies.

As is the case nationally, and in each of the states, the two dominant parties in

the state are the Democratic and Republican parties. But the state

parties are very different than the national parties and can compete with it to determine what the party really

stands for.

Whereas each party competes with each other relatively evenly

nationally, Texas has a tendency to be controlled by one party.

Until the 1960s, the Democratic Party dominated politics utterly,

but shifts in the national Democratic Party led conservative members to gradually leave and

join the Republican Party.

By the early 1990s, the Republican Party became the dominant force in

the state. They are not as strong as the Democrats were at their peak, but

they dominate state wide offices like the governor, and other executive

offices, the US Senator. They have also recently had comfortable majorities in

the Texas Legislature.

Rule of thumb: There is a party organization in every level of

government where there is an election.

This is true down to the precinct.

Point to remember: Each party is not only organized at the state

level, but also at the county and precinct levels. Conflict between

each is common.

In addition to looking at the state Democratic and Republican

Parties, we will be looking at area county parties as well as local

clubs.

While state elections – including county elections – are partisan

(meaning that candidates run with party labels), city elections are not.

City and single purpose government elections (ISD’s, etc…)

are non-partisan.

Interest groups are also defined as groups of people organized to

pursue a shared policy goal, but interest groups are narrowly

organized to obtain that goal – not to contest in elections.

While diverse groups operate within the state, business groups

and those affiliated with social conservatives – the Christian Right – are especially influential within

the state.

The power of those affiliated with liberal causes – unions, trial

lawyers, the public sector – have been minimized in recent decades.

But they are still influential.

Two dominant think tanks also exist which churn out ideas, policy

proposals and talking points for other political organizations.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a source for conservative policy

proposals.

The Center for Public Policy Priorities

is a source for liberal policy proposals.,

The press in Texas is dominated by a handful of newspapers, none of

which has a huge impact nationally.

Austin American StatesmanDallas Morning News

Houston Chronicle

A recent entry in the market is the online newspaper The Texas

Tribune.

As with all newspapers and media sources, they contain editorial boards that take positions on

policy issues and make recommendations for candidates

for various elected offices.

There’s more to say but this is enough for now.

With this overview of terms in mind, you should be set to more

efficiently cover the material presented in upcoming sections.