teacher resource/student handout · module three: page 10 teacher resource/student handout sample...

Inventing the Future: Leadership and Participation for the 21st Century “The most important office is that of citizen” — Justice Louis Brandeis

SEC/CSETL 2005

Module Three: 0

Teacher Resource/Student Handout

Sample List of Stakeholders

(Note: The following is a sample list of people, organizations and government structures to provide suggestions for students after drafting their charts of stakeholders involved in the

government and policy making process. It is not an exhaustive list.) Individual and Group Stakeholders that influence the Policy Making Process

• Citizens • Religious Leaders; Businesses; Unions; Federations; Universities; Nongovernmental

Groups; Special Interest Groups; Political Parties; Political Party Leaders; Policy Think Tanks; Lobbying Groups; Public Opinion Polls; Media; Conventions; Peace Corps; Journalists; Special Interest Groups; Non-Governmental Organizations; Schools

Examples of Civic and Social Organizations in New York City

Arts Organizations • American Ballet Theatre Pick-Up Performance Company; ArtsConnection; Municipal

Art Society; Heathcote Art Foundation; CityArts; Altman Foundation Green Organizations

• Operation Green Thumb; Columbia Earth Institute; The Harlem Environmental Access Project; New York City Horticultural Society; Trees NY; Brooklyn/Green Bridge; Bronx Green-Up

Educational Organizations

• New Jersey Sustainable Schools Network; The Sustainability Education Center; Green Map; Learning By Design; Make A Better Place; Boys and Girls Club; The After School Corporation; Blue Ridge Foundation; Robin Hood Foundation; Jewish Foundation for the Education of Women; New Visions for Public Schools

Community Improvement Organizations

• Make the Road by Walking; Nos Quedamos; Sustainable South Bronx; Alliance for Community Enhancement; Sustainable Long Island; United Way of New York City; Northern Manhattan Improvement Corporation; Outreach Community Program; Filling the Generation Gap

Foundations

• Achelis Foundation; Lily Auchinloss Foundation; Hyde and Watson Foundation; Carnegie Foundation; Surdna Foundation


SEC/CSETL 2005

Module Three: Page 11

Teacher Resource/Student Handout Immigrant Organizations

• African Services Committee; Mission Hope; Senegalese Cultural Committee; The Gambian Society in New York, Inc.; African Business Community

Other Civic and Social Organizations:

• Citizens Committee for New York City; Legal Outreach, Inc.; New York City Reads; Junior League; Fund for the City of New York; City Harvest; Volunteers of America; Greater New York; Brooklyn AIDS Task Force; Child Care, Inc; Constitutional Rights Foundation; Altman Foundation; American Civil Liberties Union of New York; Parents League of New York; Brooklyn Animal Resource Coalition; Citizens Advice Bureau

Local Level Government (Community, City and County)

• New York City Mayor: Michael R. Bloomberg; City Council Members: Speaker, Gifford Miller; Majority Leader, Joel Rivera; Deputy Majority Leader, Bill Perkins; Majority Whip, Leroy G. Comrie; Minority Leader, James S. Oddo and Minority Whip, Dennis Gallagher (see http://www.nyccouncil.info/constituent/member_list.cfm for a complete list of City Council Members)

• Individuals; Communities; Community Leaders; Community Boards; Borough Presidents; City Councils; School Boards; Town Courts; Mayor; City Planner; Deputy Mayor; School Superintendent; Local Non-Profit Organizations; Transportation Officials; Zoning Boards; County and City Supervisor(s); Department of Revenue (Taxes); Department of Motor Vehicles; Parks and Recreation Officials; Cultural Outreach Officers; Department of Immigrant Affairs; Elevator Inspectors; City Architect/Engineer; Election Officials; Police Department; Fire Department; EMT/Ambulances; Post Offices; 911 Services; Better Business Bureau; Department of Environmental Protection; Public Advocate; District Attorneys; City Clerk; Landmarks Preservation Commission; Department of Cultural Affairs; Department of City Planning; Department of Youth and Community Development; New York City Housing Authority; Department of Education; Department of Small Business Services; Tenants’ Associations; Neighborhood Associations; Chamber of Commerce

Regional and State Level Government

• New York City State Assembly Members include: Richard N. Gottfried, Scott M. Stringer, Michael J. Cusick, Gloria Davis, Carmen E. Arroyo and James F. Brennan.

New York City State Senators include: Thomas K. Duane, Ruth H. Thompson, Ruben Diaz and Kevin S. Parker

New York State Governor: David Paterson New York State Lieutenant Governor: Mary O. Donohue

• Department of Environmental Resources; Post Offices; Better Business Bureau; Secretary of State, State Comptroller, New York State Senate; New York State


SEC/CSETL 2005


Teacher Resource/Student Handout

Assembly; Adirondack Park Agency; Department of Agriculture and Markets; Department of Civil Service; Department of Correctional Services; Department of Environment Conservation; Department of Health; Department of Insurance; Department of Labor; Department of Motor Vehicles; Department of State; Department of Taxation and Finance; Department of Transportation; Division for Women; Governor’s Traffic Safety Committee; New York State Canal System; Division of Housing and Community Renewal; Division of the Budget; New York State Division of Human Rights; New York State Energy Research and Development Authority; New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation; Office for Technology; Office of Children and Family Services; State Education Department; State Emergency Management Office; Board of Regents; Consumer Protection Board; Council on Children and Families; New York State Council on the Arts; State Board of Elections Voter Information Center

National Level Government

• New York State Senators are Hilary Clinton and Charles Schumer; Congressmen (House of Representatives) include: Jerrold L. Nadler, Gary Ackem, Timothy Bishop, Sherwood C. Bochlert, Joseph Crowley, Eliot Engel, Vito Fossella, Amo Houghton, Jr., Steve Israel, Pete King, Nita Lowry, Carolyn McCarthy, Michael R. McNulty, Gregory W. Meeks, Jack Quinn, Charles B. Royal, Thomas M. Reynolds, Jose E. Servano, Louise Slaughter and Anthony D. Weiner

• Speaker of the House; President Pro Tempore of Senate; Majority and Minority Whips; House and Senate Committees; Executive Branch; Cabinet Members; Vice President of the United States; President of the United States; Department of Agriculture; Department of Education; Department of the Interior; Department of State; Department of Defense; Attorney General; Department of Commerce; Department of Labor; Department of Housing and Urban Development; Department of Transportation; Department of Energy; Department of Health and Human Services; Department of Veterans Affairs; Senate Committees; Secretaries of the Departments; Securities and Exchange Commission; Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Postal Service; U.S. Tax Court; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Coast Guard; Army; Navy; Federal Trade Commission; Federal Communications Commission; Federal Energy Resource Commission (FERC); Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS); Food and Drug Administration; Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); U.S. Customs; Court of Veteran Appeals; Federal Courts; Appeals Courts; The United States Supreme Court; Judges

International Level Government and Organizations

• United Nations; Organization of American States; NAFTA; NATO; District Courts; State Courts; International Court of Justice; World Trade Organization; Ambassadors; International Tribunals; United Nations Children’s Fund; IUCN; UNESCO; Greenpeace; CNN; BBC; International Campaign to Ban Landmines


SEC/CSETL 2005


Teacher Resource Background Materials

Think Tanks and the Transnationalization of Foreign Policy By James G. McGann

Excerpted from: McGann, James G. “Think Tanks and the Transnationalization of Foreign Policy.” Foreign Policy Association. http://www.fpa.orgtopics_info2414/topics_info_show.htm?doc_id=141979.

(Note: This article initially appeared in the State Department’s November 2002 issue of the US

Foreign Policy Agenda and is reprinted with permission of the author.)

We live in turbulent times where the only constant is change, where the unthinkable has become a dark reality and where the line between domestic and international politics is increasingly blurred. The promise and peril of globalization has transformed how we view international relations and opened the policy-making process to a new set of actors, agendas and outcomes. International relations was once the exclusive domain of diplomats, bureaucrats, and states, but today’s policy-makers must consider a diverse set of international actors when formulating foreign policy that includes organizations such as CNN, al-Jazeera, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Greenpeace, Deutsche Bank, al-Qaeda, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). While these actors were not born of globalization, they have been empowered by it. Consider the simple fact that in 1950 there were only 50 nation states and a limited number of intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations operating in the world and one begins to understand the complexity and unique challenge policy-makers face when trying to fashion an effective foreign policy. The challenges for U.S. policy-makers are even more daunting given America’s superpower status, global commitments, and the range of transnational actors and issues it must confront on a daily basis.

In this increasingly complex, interdependent, and information-rich world, governments and individual policy-makers face the common problem of bringing expert knowledge to bear in governmental decision-making. Policy-makers need basic information about the world and the societies they govern, how current policies are working, possible alternatives, and their likely costs and consequences.

For policy-makers in many countries it is often not the lack of information that is the problem but the avalanche of information. Indeed, policy-makers are frequently besieged by more information than they can possibly use: complaints from constituents, reports from international agencies or civil society organizations, advice from bureaucrats, position papers from lobbyists and interest groups, and exposes of the problems of current government programs in the popular or elite media. The problem is that this information can be unsystematic, unreliable, or tainted by the interests of those who are disseminating it. Some information may be so technical that generalist policy-makers cannot use it or even understand it. Some information may be politically, financially or administratively impractical, or contrary to the interests of the policy-makers who must make decisions based on information that they often feel is less than adequate. Other information may not be useful because it differs too radically from the worldview or


SEC/CSETL 2005


Teacher Resource Background Materials ideology of those receiving it. In developing and transitional countries, the basic data needed to make informed decisions often does not exist and must be collected and analyzed and put into a form that is usable by parliamentarians and bureaucrats.

In politics, information no longer translates into power unless it is in the right form at the right time. Governments and policy-makers are often moved to seize the moment because the right social and political forces are in alignment or because a crisis compels them to take action. In either case, they often move quickly and make decisions based on available information, which does not always lead to the most informed policy. In short, policy-makers and others interested in the policy-making process require information that is timely, understandable, reliable, accessible and useful.

There are many potential sources for this information, including: government agencies, university-based scholars, research centers, for-profit consulting firms, and international agencies. But in countries around the world, politicians and bureaucrats alike have increasingly turned to a specialized group of institutions to serve their needs. Independent public policy research and analysis organizations, commonly known as “think tanks,” have filled policy-makers’ insatiable need for information and systematic analysis that is policy relevant. This information imperative led to the creation of the first think tanks — Royal Institute for International Affairs (1920), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1910), Kiel Institute for World Economics (1914), and the Brookings Institution (1916) — in the early part of the 20th century, and it continues to be the primary force behind the proliferation of public policy research organizations today. The international civil society movement has also helped to stimulate interest in think tanks as an alternative source of information on issues of international, national, and local concern and as potential critics of the policies of national governments and international organizations that can speak with an objective voice independent of government and the business community.

For most of the 20th century, independent public policy think tanks that performed research and provided advice on public policy were an organizational phenomenon found primarily in the United States, with a much smaller number in Canada and Western Europe. Although think tanks existed in Japan for some time they generally lacked independence, having close ties to government ministries or corporations. There has been a veritable proliferation of “think tanks” around the world that began in the 1980s as a result of the forces of globalization, the end of the Cold War, and the emergence of transnational problems. Two-thirds of all the think tanks that exist today were established after 1970 and over half were established since 1980.

The impact of globalization on the think tank movement is most evident in regions such as Africa, Eastern Europe, Central Asia and parts of Southeast Asia, where there was a concerted effort by the international community to support the creation of independent public policy research organizations. A recent survey conducted by the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program underscores the significance of this effort and documents the fact that most of the think tanks in these regions have been established in the last


SEC/CSETL 2005



10 years. Today there are over 4,500 of these institutions around the world. Many of the more established think tanks, having been created during the Cold War, are focused on international affairs, security studies and foreign policy.

Think tanks exist in almost every country that has more than a few million inhabitants and at least a modicum of intellectual freedom. For most of the last century, the vast majority of think tanks were found in the United States, but now for the first time the number of think tanks worldwide exceeds the number in the U.S. Think tanks now operate in a variety of political systems, engage in a range of policy- related activities, and comprise a diverse set of institutions that have varied organizational forms. And while all think tanks perform the same basic function — i.e., to bring knowledge and expertise to bear on the policy-making process — not all think tanks have the same degree of financial, intellectual and legal independence. The challenge facing all think tanks is how to achieve and sustain their independence so they can speak “truth to power.”

Taking into consideration the comparative differences in political systems and civil societies, I have developed the following categories that attempt to capture the full range of think tanks found around the world today

Political Party Affiliated — Examples include Konrad Adenauer Foundation (Germany, est. 1964), Jaures Foundation (France, 1990), and Progressive Policy Institute (U.S., 1998).

Government Affiliated — Examples include China Development Institute (PRC, 1989), Institute for Political & International Studies (Iran, 1984), and Congressional Research Service (U.S., 1914).

Quasi-Governmental — Funded exclusively by government grants and contracts but not a part of the formal structure of government. Examples include: Institute for Strategic & International Studies (Malaysia, 1983), Korean Development Institute (Korea, 1971), and Woodrow International Center for Scholars (U.S., 1968).

Autonomous & Independent — Significant independence from any one interest group or donor and autonomous in its operation and funding from government. Examples include: Pakistan Institute of International Affairs (Pakistan, 1947), Institute for Security Studies (South Africa, 1990), and Institute for International Economics (U.S., 1981).

Quasi-Independent — Autonomous from government but controlled by an interest group, donor, or contracting agency that provides a majority of the funding and has significant influence over the think tank’s operations. Examples include European Trade Union Institute (Belgium, 1978), NLI Research Institute (Japan, 1988), and Center for Defense Information (U.S., 1990).


SEC/CSETL 2005



University Affiliated — Examples include Foreign Policy Institute, Hacettepe University (Turkey, 1974), Institute for International Relations (Brazil, 1979), The Carter Center, Emory University (U.S., 1982) and the Hoover Institution, Stanford University (1918).

In the United States you can find every variety of public policy organization while the rest of the world tends to have think tanks of a more limited scope and variety. Think tanks outside the United States fall into three main categories — university affiliated, government affiliated and political party affiliated — and tend not to enjoy the same degree of autonomy that their American counterparts do. Irrespective of their structure, think tanks have become a permanent part of the political landscape, so much so that they are now an integral part of the policy process in many countries. Think tanks of various sorts have performed many different functions including:

• the carrying out of research and analysis on policy problems;

• providing advice on immediate policy concerns;

• the evaluation of government programs;

• the interpretation of policies for electronic and print media, thus facilitating public understanding of and support for policy initiatives;

• facilitating the construction of “issue networks” that involve a diverse set of policy actors who come together on an ad hoc basis around a particular policy issue or problem; and

• providing a supply of key personnel to government.

While the emergence of think tanks has not always been viewed by the political establishment as an unalloyed good, think tanks have nonetheless had more positive than negative influence on the policy process. This is particularly evident in many developing and transitional countries where think tanks have served as a catalyst for change that has helped transform the political landscape and create a vibrant civil society.

While historical and political traditions in other regions of the world differ significantly from those of the United States, and while every country has its own specific set of policy problems and needs, some useful lessons can be distilled from the U.S. experience. The origins of think tank culture in the United States are bound up in America’s progressive-era traditions of corporate philanthropy, the sharp distinction between legislative and executive branches of government, weak political parties, the public commitment to openness and independence, and the inclination of the public and their elected officials to trust the private-sector to interface with and to provide assistance to government. These factors combine to provide very few barriers to policy analysts, ideologues, and entrepreneurs who want to enter the marketplace of ideas and contribute to the policy-making process. Finally, think tanks have grown in prominence because there is a perception that think tanks can often do what government bureaucracies cannot.


SEC/CSETL 2005



Specifically, think tanks are:

• more effectively future-oriented than government research functionaries, who work in an environment in which efforts at creative disruption are rarely rewarded;

• more likely to generate reconfigured policy agendas, while bureaucracies thrive on the security-maximizing environment of standard operating procedures; and

• better able to facilitate collaboration among separate groups of researchers for a common purpose because they have no permanent vested interest in any one domain.

Furthermore, they aid the intellectual synthesis that comes from breaking down bureaucratic barriers because they are:

• better able than government agencies to disseminate relevant policy research within government and externally to policy elites, the media, and the public;

• better suited to deal with the cross-cutting nature of global policy issues;

• better able to convene and engage stakeholders in the policy-making process;

• better able to “telescope” the policy process — from data collection to knowledge/policy creation; and

• better able to conceive the means of implementation than government bureaucracies, which may be internally segmented by department and area of specialization.

Despite the efforts of some scholars and policy-makers to question the potential transferability of U.S.-style independent think tanks to other regions and countries of the world, many policy-makers and civil society groups from around the globe have sought to create truly independent, free standing think tanks to help their governments think. So while the transferability of the Brookings Institution, RAND Corporation, or Heritage Foundation model to other countries and political cultures may be debated, the need and desire to replicate the independence and influence these institutions enjoy is unchallenged.

The transnationalization of the think tank movement has often been encouraged and funded by the international donor community and private foundations in the United States, Europe, and Japan. Along with the international flow of funds has come an internationalization of think tank staff. Programs like those run by the Brookings Institution, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, National Institute for Research Advancement, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the German Marshall Fund, Atlas Economic Research Foundation, and other organizations provide opportunities for staff from think tanks and universities in the developing and transitional economies to come and consult with their peers so that they can exchange information and ideas about international issues and learn about best practices for how to create and sustain an independent public policy organization.


SEC/CSETL 2005



Think tanks in the United States have also been actively engaged in exporting their scholars, brands of policy analysis, and organizational structures to other countries. The Urban Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and Hudson Institute have actively promoted their approach to policy analysis to groups in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union. The Urban Institute, Carnegie Endowment and Heritage Foundation have gone so far as to establish overseas affiliates.

Advances in information systems and telecommunications have greatly expanded the scope and impact of collaboration between institutions and scholars. Bilateral and multilateral exchanges are taking place every day as technological advances allow think tank staff to communicate and operate more effectively across international boarders. The Internet enables think tanks around the world to connect with each other in a way that was unthinkable just a few years ago. Global forums, conferences, and debates now take place regularly on the World Wide Web. Collaborative research projects involving researchers from 20 or more countries are now commonplace. Recently, institutions such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Global Policy Program, the World Bank’s Global Development Network, the United Nation’s Global Public Policy Network, and the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program have created partnerships with think tanks around the world in an effort to create global networks that will analyze global issues, attempt to shape foreign policies and influence the programs and priorities of international institutions. In addition, an equal number of regional networks have been organized in Europe (Transition Policy Network, Trans European Policy Studies Association network, and Partnership for Peace network), Asia (Association of Southeast Asian Nations Institute of Strategic and International Studies network), Africa (African Capacity Building Foundation network), and Latin America (Atlas Foundation network) to achieve similar objectives.

The growth of public policy research organizations over the last two decades has been nothing less than explosive. Not only have these organizations increased in number, but the scope and impact of their work has expanded dramatically. Still, the potential of think tanks to support and sustain democratic governments and civil societies around the world is far from exhausted. The challenge for the new millennium is to harness the vast reservoir of knowledge, information, and associational energy that exist in public policy research organizations in every region of the world. It is essential that the U.S. State Department and other international agencies of the U.S. government take immediate steps to work with, and through think tanks, to help develop and sustain a global network of policy institutes that will span physical, political and disciplinary boundaries in the pursuit of solutions to some of the emerging and enduring policy problems of our time.


SEC/CSETL 2005


Teacher Resource Background Materials for Mini-Lesson Facts about Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs)

Adapted from: Citizen Action, World Resources Institute. 1998. Permission Pending. A nongovernmental organization (NGO) is a private organization, one that is not part of a government or a “for-profit” business. NGOs include everything from environmental advocacy groups, women’s associations and human rights groups, to policy analysis centers, labor unions, farmer cooperative and tenants’ associations. There is a great variety among NGOs. Some are local, some national, some work at the regional or international level. Some meet the needs of their own members. Others serve those who need help. Some give away money to others, and some receive funds. NGOs can be large or small, secular or religious. There are four basic “levels” of NGOs: grassroots, service, thematic and coalitions.


SEC/CSETL 2005


Teacher Resource Background Materials for Mini-Lesson

Political Parties Adapted from: Wolfson, Steven C. Civics for Today: Participation and Citizenship.

New York: Amsco Publications, 1998. 48-51. Permission Pending. Public polices are constantly being formed and reformed. Views change about how to solve problems facing any level of government. Various groups try to influence government officials as they try to decide on public policy. People who have similar ideas about the direction of public policy join together in political parties. They are organizations created to win elections. They are organizations created to win elections. Their goal is to control government and help construct public policy. Parties name candidates to run for office at all levels of government — local, state and national. Parties are most visible at election time. This is especially true during presidential election years. Some nations have many political parties competing with each other to control the government. The United States has two primary political parties, the Democratic party and the Republican party; however there are a number of other political parties competing to bring additional issues and platforms to the public. When the Framers wrote the United States Constitution in 1787, they did not provide for political parties. Many feared that political parties might tear the country apart. They argued that such organizations would create a great deal of friction, cause disunity among people, and lead to an unstable government. Others did not believe that this would be the case. Among them was James Madison. Madison joined with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay to write a series of essays in support of the new Constitution. These essays are known as the Federalist or the Federalist Papers. In Federalist Paper, Number 10, James Madison explained that various factions (or groups of people with similar ideas) would develop in a free society. We are, Madison wrote, many people with many ideas and opinions. Therefore, people will naturally choose sides when deciding how to approach issues. Madison went on to predict that because there are many different opinions, no one faction will gain so much control that it will destroy a democratic government. The variety of opinions will create a system in which factions will counter, or balance, the power and policies of each other. Madison believed that this condition ensured that representative government would be supported and not destroyed by the development of political parties. The History of U.S. Political Parties Many different political parties have been created in the United States since the 1790s. But for most of our history, the nations has had only two major parties at any one time. Both have had control of the government at different periods. Political parties in the United States can be traced


SEC/CSETL 2005


Teacher Resource Background Materials for Mini-Lesson back to the presidential administration of George Washington (1789-1797). Two of President Washington’s advisers, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, disagreed about what the proper role of the national government should be. Jefferson believed that much of the power of government should be given to the states. Hamilton believed in a strong central government. Each of these men represented a different part of early American society. Hamilton was considered to be a champion of the wealthy property owners. He once wrote, “All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and wellborn, the other the mass of the people . . . The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, . . .” Hamilton believed that the common person could not be trusted to make wise decisions for the nation. The well-to-do property holders and businesspeople were better suited to make decisions for all. Jefferson was seen to be the supporter of the “common” person, the farmers and laborers. His first inaugural address in 1801 reflects that view. “Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political, . . .” In referring to “state,” he means the social status of the individual. He is assuring the American people that the government is for all people. Two political parties formed around these philosophies. The Federalist party was Hamilton’s party. Jefferson’s party became known as the Democratic-Republican. By 1830, the name had changed to just Democratic party. In the early 1800s, the Federalist party disbanded, and in the 1830s, the Whig party was created. The controversy over slavery in the mid-1800s led to the birth of the Republican party. In 1860, the Republicans succeeded in electing their second presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln, to office. The Democrats and the Republicans are the major national parties that dominate American politics today. Third Parties Throughout American history, groups with ideas different from those of the Democrats and Republicans have formed new political parties. Called third parties, they have nominated candidates to run for office. Often a third party focuses on one or two issues of particular importance to its members. One of the strongest third parties developed during the late 1800s. In the South and East, Many farmers with small farms found themselves losing money because the prices for their crops kept falling. They had to take out bank loans. But they had a hard time paying back the loans. Many lost their farms. The farmers believed that both of the major parties were not addressing their problems at any level of government. They moved away from the Republicans and Democrats to form a new political party. Known as the Populist party, its program aimed at addressing the needs of the farmers. One idea called for the unlimited coinage of silver to increase the amount of money in circulation and make it easier for farmers to repay their debts. Populists wanted an


SEC/CSETL 2005


Teacher Resource Background Materials for Mini-Lesson income tax that would require the wealthier people to pay more taxes. They also supported government ownership of railroads and an eight-hour working day. The Populists nominated James B. Weaver to run against the Republican and Democratic nominees in the presidential election of 1892. Grover Cleveland, the Democratic nominee, won the election, but Weaver took 8 percent of the popular vote and 22 electoral votes. The income tax and the eight-hour workday did eventually become law. Having a third-party candidate on the ballot has sometimes changed the outcome of elections. For instance, in the 1912 presidential election, Theodore Roosevelt, running as Progressive party candidate, took votes away from the Republican candidate, William Howard Taft. This allowed Democrat Woodrow Wilson to win the election. Roosevelt had been a popular Republican president (1901-1909). Third-party movements have not lasted long for a variety of reasons. Sometimes the issue they promoted became less urgent. Usually, though, it was taken from them by one of the major parties. Once the third party’s central issue was made into law, the party no longer had a reason to exist. Today, we might call some of the minority parties of the past “single-issue” parties. Such groups, now fairly common, focus on one major idea that may have a limited appeal for the majority of voters over time. Voters in recent elections have seen a number of “third” parties listed on their ballots. The Libertarian party, founded in 1971, calls for less government interference in the private lives of citizens and the elimination of most taxes. The Green party surfaced in 1996. Its first presidential nominee was the consumer advocate Ralph Nader. He campaigned against increasing corporate influence in America. The Purpose of Political Parties Political parties serve several important functions in the United States. Foremost on their agenda is to elect party members to public office. The hope is to elect enough people to gain control of the government at any level — local, state and national. When it is out of power, a political party “keeps an eye” on how its opponent is running the government. The “out” party makes sure that the voters hear about the errors it believes the opposition is making. Political parties also identify issues they believe are important to American voters. Parties conduct opinion polls, telephone surveys and send out questionnaires to see what kinds of issues people care about. Parties use this information to refine their platforms. You might hear candidates explaining their party’s policy toward taxes, health care, Social Security, the homeless and foreign affairs. The policies that a party names and supports during an election year are put together in a platform. The platform tells the voters what the party stands for. The party’s nominees support the platform throughout the campaign.


SEC/CSETL 2005


Student Handout U.S. Political Parties

NAME OF PARTY MAJOR POLICY VIEWPOINTS/PLATFORMS Democratic Party http://www.democrats.org/index.html

Republican Party http://www.rnc.org

American Independent Party http://www.aipca.org

Constitution (U.S. Tax Payers) Party http://www.constitutionparty.org

Democratic Socialists of America http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

Green Parties of North America http://www.greens.org/na.html

Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org

Natural Law Party http://www.natural-law.org

New Party http://www.newparty.org

Reform Party http://www.reformparty.org

Social Democrats http://www.socialdemocrats.org


SEC/CSETL 2005


Teacher Resource

Examples of Non-Governmental Organizations and Stakeholders

NAME OF POLITICAL, SOCIAL OR CIVIC GROUP

WHAT INTERESTS OR ISSUES DOES THIS GROUP WORK FOR?

WHAT INFORMATION CAN YOU GATHER FROM THESE WEBSITES ABOUT THE ROLE THESE GROUPS PLAY IN THE POLICY MAKING PROCESS? (EXAMPLES OF JUST A

FEW THINGS THEY DO/PROVIDE)

Sierra Club http://www.sierraclub.org People interested in preserving wilderness areas

and protecting the environment. Provide news updates on policies and bills affecting their interest areas. Provides readers links and means to writing to congress members regarding issues, etc.

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) http://www.aflcio.org

Unionized workers in a variety of industries. Provides forum for voicing opinions on policy issues to the White House, Congress, etc. Sends out e-mail alerts and provides information on labor unions, current job outlooks, etc.

Campaign for America’s Wilderness http://www.leaveitwild.org

The Campaign for America’s Wilderness is a national effort to permanently protect the nation’s last wild lands by placing them into the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Provides an on-line newsletter and information about wilderness preservation efforts and current policies and bills being debated at the local and national levels. Also provides information about stakeholders to write and call voicing citizen opinions.


SEC/CSETL 2005


Teacher Resource

Examples of Non-Governmental Organizations and Stakeholders



WHAT INFORMATION CAN YOU GATHER FROM THESE WEBSITES ABOUT THE ROLE THESE GROUPS PLAY IN THE POLICY MAKING PROCESS? (EXAMPLES OF JUST A

FEW THINGS THEY DO/PROVIDE)

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) http://www.naacp.org

African Americans and others interested in reducing prejudice and promoting civil rights.

Provides policy information and current news coverage of policies and events affecting African Americans. Lists various community organizations and chapters of the NAACP. Provides forum for members and citizens to speak out on issues dealing with the organization.

American Association of Retired People (AARP) http://www.aarp.org

People over 50 years of age. Provides information and news updates to its members; tracks current policy and bills affecting its members' interests. Provides an email forum and “AARP The Magazine,” the monthly “AARP Bulletin,” and a Spanish-language newspaper, “Segunda Juventud.”

Foreign Policy Association http://www.fpa.org

Serves communities across the United States to foster citizen involvement in these issues.

Keeps members up-to-date on foreign policy issues and debates through newsletters, community forums, and its Great Decisions lecture series in communities.


SEC/CSETL 2005


Student Handout

Investigating Additional Non-Governmental Organizations and Stakeholders



WHAT INFORMATION CAN YOU GATHER FROM THESE WEBSITES ABOUT THE ROLE THESE GROUPS PLAY IN

THE POLICY MAKING PROCESS?

American Civil Liberties Union http://www.aclu.org

America’s Promise http://www.americaspromise.org

Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economics (CERES) http://www.ceres.org

Christian Coalition http://www.cc.org

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence http://www.gunfree.org


SEC/CSETL 2005


Student Handout

Investigating Additional Non-Governmental Organizations and Stakeholders NAME OF POLITICAL, SOCIAL

OR CIVIC GROUP

WHAT INTERESTS OR ISSUES DOES THIS GROUP

WORK FOR? WHAT INFORMATION CAN YOU GATHER FROM THESE WEBSITES ABOUT THE ROLE THESE GROUPS PLAY IN


DC Vote http://www.dcvote.org/

National Environmental Education and Training Foundation (NEETF) http://www.neetf.org

Family Research Council http://www.frc.org

Just Food http://www.justfood.org

Free the Children http://www.freethechildren.org

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) http://www.madd.org


SEC/CSETL 2005


Student Handout






National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) http://www.norml.org

National Organization of Women http://www.now.org

National Rifle Association http://www.nra.org

Nature Conservancy http://www.tnc.org

People for the American Way http://www.pfaw.org

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine http://www.pcrm.org


SEC/CSETL 2005


Student Handout






Public Citizen http://www.citizen.org

Union of Concerned Scientists http://www.ucsusa.org

World Resources Institute http://www.wri.org

World Wildlife Fund http://www.wwf.org


SEC/CSETL 2005


Student Handout

Public Policy/Think Tanks/Advocacy Centers

NAME AND WEBSITE OF ORGANIZATION MAJOR POLICY/RESEARCH AREAS AND THE ROLE THEY PLAY IN THE POLICY MAKING PROCESS (PAPERS, CONFERENCES, POLICY INFLUENCE, MAJOR

STAKEHOLDERS AND FUNDERS) Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty http://www.acton.org

American Enterprise Institute http://www.aei.org

Aspen Institute http://www.aspeninstitute.org/index.asp

Brookings Institution http://www.brookings.org

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace http://www.ceip.org

Cato Institute http://www.cato.org


SEC/CSETL 2005


Student Handout Public Policy/Think Tanks/Advocacy Centers

NAME AND WEBSITE OF ORGANIZATION

RESEARCH/SPHERES OF INFLUENCE (PAPERS, CONFERENCES, POLICY INFLUENCE, MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS AND FUNDERS)

Center for Strategic and International Studies http://www.csis.org

Council on Foreign Relations http://www.cfr.org

Economic Policy Institute http://epinet.org/

Heritage Institute http://www.heritage.org

Hoover Institute http://www.hoover.stanford.edu

Hudson Institute http://www.hudson.org

Institute for Women’s Policy Research http://www.iwpr.org


SEC/CSETL 2005



NAME AND WEBSITE OF ORGANIZATION RESEARCH/SPHERES OF INFLUENCE (PAPERS, CONFERENCES, POLICY INFLUENCE, MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS AND FUNDERS)

International Institute for Energy Conservation (IIEC) http://www.cerf.org/iiec

International Institute for Strategic Studies http://www.iiss.org/home.php

The Mercatus Center http://www.mercatus.org

National Bureau of Economic Research http://www.nber.org

National Center for Policy Analysis http://www.ncpa.org

National Research Council http://www.nas.edu/nrc

Ocean Arks http://www.oceanarks.org


SEC/CSETL 2005



NAME AND WEBSITE OF ORGANIZATION RESEARCH/SPHERES OF INFLUENCE (PAPERS, CONFERENCES, POLICY INFLUENCE, MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS AND FUNDERS)

Progress and Freedom Foundation http:/www.pff.org

Rand Institute http:/www.rand.org

Rocky Mountain Institute http://www.rmi.org

Urban Institute http://www.urban.org

World Future Society http://www.wfs.org

World Resources Institute http://www.wri.org

Worldwatch Institute http://www.worldwatch.org

teacher resource/student handout · module three: page 10 teacher resource/student handout sample...

Documents