×
Log in to StudySoup
Get Full Access to UW - Study Guide - Midterm
Join StudySoup for FREE
Get Full Access to UW - Study Guide - Midterm

Already have an account? Login here
×
Reset your password

UW / Political Science / POLS 355 / What are the differences between secular and political time?

What are the differences between secular and political time?

What are the differences between secular and political time?

Description

School: University of Washington
Department: Political Science
Course: The American Presidency
Professor: Scott lemieux
Term: Winter 2019
Tags: Politics, american, presidency, and midterm
Cost: 50
Name: POLS 355 Midterm 2 Review
Description: completed study guide for Midterm 2, Winter Q 2019, The American Presidency, Prof Lemieux
Uploaded: 02/25/2019
8 Pages 132 Views 11 Unlocks
Reviews

Xiaofan Huang (Rating: )


buchanmf (Rating: )



Political Science 355 Midterm 2 Review


What are the differences between secular and political time?



You will have to answer some of the short answer questions (approx. 1-2 pp.) Study to assume there will not be choice. Bring an empty blue/green book and blue/black pens.

1. What are the differences between secular and political time? According to Skowronek, what are the four types of presidents in politics time? Be sure to include a definition and at least one example for each type.

Political time:

- describes recurrent patterns in presidential leadership

- has a narrative structure

- includes the president’s interaction with his predecessor’s legacy and work, their ability and course of action for claiming power (through politics), and how well (or not) they fulfill expectations of voters and fellow government actors We also discuss several other topics like What is behaviorism theory?

- is reset periodically by a great repudiator


Who is skowronek?



Secular time:

- describes recurrent patterns in politics and how the office has changed over time Presidential Types

- Reconstructive: create a new coalition and set of ideological and interest commitments, replace existing order

- EX: FDR

- Affiliated: Claim authority within dominant party, orthodox innovators with some distance from reconstructive president most successful

- EX: JFK

- Disjuncture: try to claim authority within dying regime

- EX: Hoover, Carter

- Preemptive: try to govern in opposition to dominant regime

- EX: Andrew Johnson, Clinton We also discuss several other topics like What is elasticity of demand?

2. According to Skowronek, what are the 3 main characteristics of a reconstructive president? How can they clash? Use Jefferson as an example to explain all 3.


What is chevron doctrine?



1. Order Shattering

a. I wish nothing but their (federalist) eternal hatred

b. Repeal of judiciary act of 1801 (Stuart v Laird)

c. Repealed all internal taxes

d. Created West Point to democratize armed forces

e. Eliminated executive authority

f. Presidents that are categorized as reconstructive must break the patterns of the old, tired incumbent regime to make way for their new political order Don't forget about the age old question of What is bacterial flagella?

2. Order Maintaining

a. We are all federalist, we are all republican

b. Jefferson as a conciliator

c. Did not purge federalists from national bureaucracy

d. Accepted federalist control of judiciary (after failed Chase impeachment)

e. Did not repudiate national debt

f. Despite presidency’s naturally disruptive nature, presidents musts also maintain some semblance of continuity and order to keep ahold of their political power and enact their agenda, often means conceding certain things to opposition party so that other more important things will be passed

3. Order Creating

a. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction

b. Claimed his political authority based on his authorship of the Declaration of Independence

c. The norms of elite/aristocratic leadership combined with the lack of an entrenched party and a lack of entrenched legislative leadership (only 3rd US pres), allowed him unique opportunity to enact his agenda and allowed him to deny responsibility for failures

3. What kind of president would Skowronek’s model use to categorize Monroe, Polk and LBJ? Why does Skowronek consider these three presidents so similar?

- Affiliates: maintain and vindicate the government of the dominant party, serve interests of party loyals, maintain and update agenda to reflect party demands, fix divisions within party If you want to learn more check out What is the formula of mirror equation?

Polk and Monroe

- Proteges of regime founder (polk-jackson, monroe-jefferson)

- Worked with handpicked successor of regime founder (monroe-madison, polk-van buren)

- Loyal party regulars despite political setbacks

LBJ

- Like Monroe, appealed to an overarching consensus

- Like Polk, tried to address every major part of dominant coalition

- Like Polk, engaged in wars of dubious provocation

4. Define and explain the politics of disjunction using Pierce and Carter as examples. Politics of disjunction:

- Maintaining authority in a fraying coalition If you want to learn more check out What is nativism?

Pierce:

- Key tools of the presidency in 1852

- Patronage: ability to hire civil servants and fill government position, can be used as political bargaining chips for local allies We also discuss several other topics like Who are the members of a construction team?

- Media machine: main source of news was newspaper, newspapers were very partisan, communicate messages, set party orthodoxy

- Relationship with congressional leaders: in order to be effective, had to cultivate relationships with congress and persuade them that acting in his interest was also in their interest

- Missouri Compromise

- Banned slavery north of parallel 36’30, except for new state of Missouri - Created new informal norm of sectional balance

- Compromise of 1850

- Package brokered by Henry Clay and stephen Douglas

- California accepted as free state

- Wilmot proviso again rejected in organizing Texas secession

- New fugitive slave act: tried to create a federal power to thwart the underground railroad

- Slave trade banned in Washington DC

- Proponents of slavery were not giving up much

- Kansas Nebraska act which is created to replace the Missouri Compromise, ends up shattering the northern democratic party because of its appeal to the pro slavery coalition

- Many northerners saw KN as a sellout to the slave power

- Many southerners say KN as inadequate

- Bleeding Kansas and the collapse of Pierce’s authority

- Bleeding kansas: essentially a civil war in kansas and missouri territory - Pro slavery v anti slavery capitals and constitutions in both states

- Pierce steps aside in 1856

Carter

- Interest group liberalism with smaller coalition than 1968

- Republicans damaged by Watergate, but Carter unable to assert authority - Democratic regime upended by Reagan in 1980

- Little consequential legislation passes

- Democratic party “exhausted” -- infighting and loss of authority

5. Compare and contrast the presidencies of Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan. Explain the reasons Skowronek groups these presidents together and why we tend to herald them as some of our best presidents.

- All reconstructive presidents

- All afforded unique opportunities within political and secular time which allowed them to enact their agendas and reconstruct the political power of the presidency - Jefferson

- Jefferson: the ultimate reconstructive president

- The three presidencies:

- Order shattering

- Order maintaining

- Order creating

- Jefferson as Conciliator: We are all federalist, we are all republican

- Did not purge federalist from national bureaucracy

- Ultimately accepted federalist control of judiciary after failure of

chase impeachment

- Did not repudiate national debt

- Jefferson as Order shatterer: I wish nothing but their eternal hatred - Repeal of judiciary act of 1801 (Stuart v Laird)

- Repealed all internal taxes

- Creating west point to democratize armed forces

- Eliminated executive formality

- Jefferson as Order Creator: Let us not make it a blank paper by

construction

- Louisiana purchase and the Constitutional issue

- Embargo as alternative to war powers

- Unprecedented control of congress

- The unique opportunities available to jefferson

- Authority based on authorship of Declaration of Independence

- Norms of patrician leadership combined with lack of entrenched

party/legislative leadership allowed him historically unique power

with the ability to deny responsibility

- Jackson

- (partial) democratization, represented by first President without ties to the founding generation

- The first president since Washington to make his reputation through military - Decline in presidential deference

- Order shattering/creation: expanding presidential power

- Expanded use of the veto, especially the veto of the charter for the bank of the US

- Expanded use of executive removal powers

- Re asserted limits

- Key conflicts of the jackson administration

- With the supreme court (esp over bank veto and the removal of native americans)

- With congressional leader Henry Clay (over internal improvements) - With vice president John Calhoun over nullification

- Order Creation: the second party system

- Jackson is first democratic president

- Creates 32 year order of democratic dominance

- Parties were supposed to compete across regional lines

- No party won any election without support from both

- Opposition factions, led by Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, coalesce into the Whig party

- Only whig presidents war heroes: WH Harrison (1840), Taylor (1848) - The partisan presidency

- Presidents no longer claimed to be above political faction

- Was a source of authority in that presidents could be more aggressive in asserting leadership vs congress

- But downside is that opposition party commands certain inherent

authority, without premature deaths of Harrison and Taylor, Jacksonian agenda would not have been as dominant

- Lincoln

- Perhaps the most consequential presidency since Jefferson’s

- But shows the evolution of the office

- Wins as result of shattering of democratic party

- Lincoln in emergent time: the monumental and the mundane

- First republican president

- A party man comparable to polk and pierce

- The importance of patronage

- How did he surpass the achievement of any previous president under these conditions?

- The incomplete reconstruction

- Unlike jackson and jefferson, lincoln does not destroy the dominant political coalition

- Lincoln also produced substantial opposition from his party

- Lincoln and slavery

- Opposed expansion of slavery but was not initially an abolitionist

- His initial pragmatism - saving the union as top priority

- Strategically frees slaves (not in border states) to maintain the

union

- The sincere, strategic, and constitutionalist emancipation proclamation - Made it possible for european powers to recognize union

government as legitimate

- Confederates assumed that the european states would recognize them as legitimate, but public opinion against slavery prevented

this

- African americans picked up arms for the Union, rather than the

confederates

- Reflected principles, but strengthened lincolns political coalition

and goals and hurt the opposition

- FDR

- The most far reaching transformation of the 20th C

- The new deal was administered by state governments, which was the price of getting it passed

- These concessions created more inequality

- A period of unprecedented experimentation

- The 1938 midterms and truman: the rise of the conservative coalition

- Although democrats controlled congress, the southern democrats and republicans were the most powerful coalition

- Was still repudiated in his attempts to transform southern wing of party Reagan

- Asserted repudiation of the past with new governing coalition

- Subsequent republican leaders have explicitly situated themselves within Reagan’s tradition

- Put forward different constitutional understandings

- Wins impressive landslide, only losing two states, proves his success as reconstructive president and his ability to appeal to voters across party lines

- Limits of modern reconstruction

- Stopped the development model of New Deal/Great Society Era, but did not roll back any of its major components

- Often thwarted by Congress, forced to moderate in several respects - Administrations are no longer working with blank slates, have to contend with established parts of federal and state governments, which are impossible to fully repeal or transform entirely within limits of term and presidential powers

These presidents are often considered the greatest in our history because they are those that leave the biggest mark on political and secular time through their enactment of their reconstructive agenda: they reshape the presidency throughout their term and create lasting effects on our system for years, until the next reconstructive president comes along

6. According to Julia Azari how should we situate Obama and Trump in political time? What is a counterargument to Azari’s argument?

Trump

- disjunctive : last gasp of incumbent (reagan) regime

- Inability to reconcile policy with politics ( replacing obama care alienates older voters who are a major stronghold for republican party)

- Outsiders: often in opposition to large part of their parties

Obama

- Preemptive (Opposition): president is part of opposition party to incumbent regime - Similar to Clinton: prone to ideological shifting and legitimacy challenges

Trump is not representative of a dying regime but rather a bridge or suspension of new political order in which both parties are equally polarized and competitive

- Trump has support of republican congress which means he may be able to get stuff done (atypical of disjunctive president)

- Obama neither reconstructive or preemptive-- new political era with no dominant party, no longer in reagan era

7. What factors cause presidential reputations to be good or bad? Why do presidential reputations sometimes change across time?

- Good factors: successful enactment of agenda (reconstructive), popularity among voters, scandal free,

- Bad factors: scandal, failed legislation and failed enactment of agenda, unpopularity among voters

- Sometimes presidents and/or their actions are unpopular in their time, but their actions lead to positive change which is only recognized later in history

8. What is the Chevron doctrine? How does King v. Burwell suggest that this doctrine may be changing? (Be sure to include the relevant background of King v. Burwell.) Chevron Deference- judicial deference is given to agencies in regards to interpreting their own statutes

- When a statute (under an administrative agency) is ambiguous, an administrative agency is allowed to interpret that statute and act accordingly, and the judicial branch may not substitute its own interpretation for that of the agency

- Administrative interpretation must be made by agency in charge of that statute - May interpret the statute, but may not interpret jurisdiction under the statute - Interpretation must be deemed rational or reasonable

- Above only stands so long as congress has not created any precedents regarding named statute

King v Burwell

- Affordable Care Act has provisions dealing with tax credits but were found to be ambiguous, IRS regulates state and federal exchanges under ACA , plaintiffs argued that the language meant only people in states with state run exchanges are eligible for premium credits

- Congress had not clarified statute

- 4th Circuit ruled that according to Chevron test, IRS is the regulating agency and their interpretation of statute should be given deference

- Supreme Court: failed Chevron test, if congress had wanted to delegate to IRS they would have made that clear -- premium tax credits will be given to persons in all states Case shows how the Chevron deference is changing because the SC did not defer to the IRS interpretation of statute, despite the fact that they upheld the current actions of the IRS, but instead the SC defined the statute to create a standing precedent

9. What are the politics of pre-emption? Be sure to include at least two examples. - Preemptive: try to govern in opposition to dominant regime

- Clinton as Pre emptive Leader: the third way

- Like Wilson and Nixon, won in three way race with about 40% of the vote - Like A Johnson and as Nixon was threatened with, was impeached

- Like Cleveland, questions of personal morality were used to question his authority

- Like Eisenhower and Nixon, worked within priorities of dominant coalition while moderating them in some respects

-“Aggressivelymongrel politics”

Page Expired
5off
It looks like your free minutes have expired! Lucky for you we have all the content you need, just sign up here