Lecture 2

Federalism is a system of government that divides power between a central

government and state and local governments. As a theory of government, federalism
was born in compromise during the struggle over the U.S. Constitution

Throughout the history of the U.S. the involvement of the federal governemnt varied. The
federal governemnt startet to be more involved during the Roosevelt administration. This
involvement happened because of the Great Depression. Local governments weren’t able to
come up with sound economic solutions and so the Federal Government had to get involved.

Biggest crisis of federalism occured over slavery. In 1861, the southern states wanted to
leave the Union because they didn’t want to comply to the laws proposed by the central
government regarding slavery. So a bloody civil war ensued.

The federal govenrment has a lot of power during times of crisis: 9/11, 2008 Wall Street
crash, etc.

The strenght of federalism is that it can adapt. Necessities and perspectives change with
time, so it s up to every generation to decide who hold the power: central or local gevernment.

This may sound like a joke but i think that federalism resembles, in many aspects,
feudalism (in a political sense, of course).

States may act like a laboratory, where new ideas and practices are tested before being
brought in discussion on a national level. States in a federal system are called „laboratories of
democracy”.

Devolution principle – take the power back from the Central Gov and give it to the states.
In this way people are more involved in democracy ( at least the author says so). But this
devolution has a lot of risks. Of course, something has to be done about the coruption and lack of
capability that governs D.C.

Devolution makes sense is the respect that local communities know their problems better
than the Central Gov. For that reason, the solution to these issues should come forn the local
authorities. A lot of resources are spent on institution that are not in touch with local realities, so
there is a strong argument for downsizing these institutions. Anyhow, I think there is a need for
central institutions to oversee how the problems are handled. If there is progress, if the
taxpayer’s money is spent properly. But, this whole situation creates a paradox. How would a
central institution know the truth. Would local institutions would be as transparent as we would
like to?
 „A race to the bottom” – every state or local community is interested only in its marginal
gain. In order to atract investments a local comm. might go easy on environment regulations. It
may destroy other communities, but its worthwhile because it doesn’t happen to our comm.

A radical devolution might hurt the workers, the middle-class. That is beacuse states will
be busy competing with eachother for investments, atracting corporations and whatnot. This
attitude will result in a disregard for workers rights and financial wellbeing. The state with less
regulations regarding the wellbeing of the worker will atract the most money. This being the
case, the struggling middle-class that we know today will suffer even more. That is why a
national agenda is needed. Firm federal laws that guarantee the financial and personal wellbeing
of the workers.

Unitary government: A national polity governed as a single unit, with the central
government exercising all or most
political authority.

Confederation: A group of independent states or nations that yield some of their powers
to a national government, although each state retains a degree of sovereign authority.

Diffusion: The spreading of policy ideas from one city or state to others, a process
typical of U.S. federalism.

Dual federalism: Also called layer cake federalism, the clear division of governing
authority between national and state governments. (1789 – 1933)

Cooperative federalism: Also called marble cake federalism, a system of mingled

governing authority, with functions overlapping across national and state governments. (1933-
1981)

This cooperative federalism has given birth to the grants-in-aid practice. Because of the
Great Depression, governors and local leaders were desperate for funds so they accepted these
grants. Anyhow, these grants came with instructions for what and how to be spent.
Consequently, the federal government started to gain more authority.

New federalism: A version of cooperative federalism, but with stronger emphasis on

state and local government activity versus national government. (during the Reagan
administration ’81-’89)

Grant-in-aids were replaced by block grants. Block grants: National government funding
provided to state and local governments with relatively few restrictions or requirements on
spending. Block grant programs introduced a trade-off for state officials: more authority, fewer
funds.
 Notice that new federalism does not restore the neat layers of dual federalism—if
anything, the lines of authority are even more swirled together than ever. Now, federal, state, and
local authorities all compete for influence over programs. Perhaps you can think of this scenario
as a many-flavored marble cake.

Progressive Federalism: Approach that gives state officials considerable leeway in

achieving national programs and goals. ( introduced in 2009 in the Obama administration)

Preemption: The invalidation of a U.S. state law that conflicts with federal law.

Civic voluntarism: Citizen participation in public life without government incentives or

coercion (speaking at a town meeting vs. paying taxes, for example).

Lecture 3

The Congress is the institution that holds legislative power in the U.S. Congressional
powers are extensive and very clearly defined. America’s Congress is bicameral: The House has
435 members (plus six nonvoting members) who are elected every two years. The Senate has one
hundred senators serving six-year terms.

Legislative hold: An informal way for a senator to object to a bill or other measure
reaching the Senate floor. The action effectively halts Senate proceedings on that issue,
sometimes for weeks or longer.

Filibuster: Rule unique to the U.S. Senate that allows any senator to hold the floor
indefinitely and thereby delay a vote on abill to which he or she objects. Ended only when sixty
senators vote for cloture.

The House of Representatives is more active in making and proposing new laws. It kind
of acts like the legislative engine of the country. On the other hand, the Senate is more or less
conservative, halting these numerous proposals ( it is said that the Senate offers stability ).

Congressional caucus: A group of House or Senate members who convene regularly to

discuss common interests; they may share political outlook, race, gender, or geography.

Descriptive representation.
Race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and/or class are crucial to political representation.
Someone cannot really speak for me if he or she has not experienced the world as I have.

Substantive representation.
It doesn’t matter if someone looks like me as long as he or she effectively represents my views.
Someone who does not share my political outlook is not going to represent me well.
 Geographic representation: Constitutional election rules say members must live in the
state or district they represent.

Lecture 4

The president and vice president are not elected directly by citizens. Instead, they're
chosen by “electors” through a process called the Electoral College. ... It was a compromise
between a popular vote by citizens and a vote in Congress.

Delegated powers: Powers that Congress passes on to the president.

At a first glance the president embodies the peak of executive power, because the
constitution states that he needs to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Inherent powers of the presidency: Powers assumed by presidents, often during a

crisis, on the basis of the constitutional phrase “The executive power shall be vested in the
president.”

The president has three types of powers: expressed in the Constitution, delegated by
Congress, and inherent in the role of chief executive. In theory, Congress passes laws and the
president executes them. In reality, presidents constantly negotiate the limits of their power—
which often expands during crises.

Unitary executive theory: The idea that the Constitution puts the president in charge of
executing the laws and that therefore no other branch may limit presidential discretion over
executive matters.

Imperial presidency: A characterization of the American presidency that suggests it is

demonstrating imperial traits, and that the republic is morphing into an empire.

Although sometimes presidential power seems immense, in case of crises and events of
this nature, most of the time a case can be made for a weak presidency. Regarding domestic
problems, a president’s authority doesn’t count for that much. If legislature needs to be passed it
must go through Congress. If a president wants to impose a vision and change the country,
maybe for good, he has a very hard time because of all the checks and balances in place. He
needs to get along with Congress, to have a positive image in the media, to act decisive in times
of crisis and maybe then hope that his plans can come through.

Today, presidential candidates define the legislative agenda. Presidents can give
executive orders in times of crisis, but can also “recommend measures”. In spite of all this,
presidents cannot formally propose a law, they rely on supporters in each chamber to submit
their bill.

“batting average”—how many bills endorsed by the president get through Congress.
 Presidential roles include commander in chief, top diplomat, first legislator, head
bureaucrat, economist in chief, head of state, and party leader. Presidents also are uniquely
situated to introduce new ideas— tying together these many different roles.

Chief of Staff: The individual responsible for managing the president’s office.

The presidency is a reflection of the American people. It is more or less a paradox. In

some cases the president can display a lot of power and influence, and in other cases it seems
that the Oval office has no real power. The president personifies America in some ways, but I
think there is an argument that The American people personify the president. They want less
government, but when there is a problem they want it fixed immediately. Americans want a
powerful leader who is able to inspire them, but at the same time they fear such a persona. In any
case, I think that the existence of this paradox is the very essence of democracy. We do not wish
for authoritarianism, but we want to feel heard and represented. The struggle in a democracy is
finding the middle ground, the grey area that represents progress, but not at the expense of
others. It is up to the people to shape a democracy, consequently, it is up to that person in the
Oval office to shape and define the presidency.

Lecture 5

The presidential election process has two stages: primary election ( when candidates from
each party try to win a nomination to the general election by convincing their respective party
and voters that they have a real chance to be president) and general election ( here candidates,
one for each party, go head to head for the presidency – this is the level in which more
Americans are invested in; more Americans vote in the general election than in the primary).

General elections are usually won by moderates. Even if you are a candidate for the
republican party, it is best to be as close to the ideological middle as you can. People are usually
moderates, not partisans, they lean somewhat to the left or right, but they do not support very
partisan candidates. This is one of the reasons why primaries are very different from general
election. In primaries the ones who vote are generally the ones with a clearly defined political
view ( they may be liberals or conservatives, or whatever). So a candidate must be appealing for
the convinced democrats/ republicans in order to succeed in the primaries, but then needs to
change his rhetoric in order to be seen as a moderate.

Presidential election process: Each state gets as many electors as it has members of
Congress ( some states have more electoral votes because they have more representatives in
Congress; for ex California has more electoral votes than Nebraska). The winner of the popular
vote in a state gets the electoral votes from that state ( let s take Nebraska for ex: if a candidate
wins the popular vote in Nebraska, he will get the 4 electoral votes from Nebraska. This happens
because of the principle “Winner-takes-all”. The majority of the states do not use the “winner-
takes-all” rule from what I understand. Electoral votes are very important in the election process.
A candidate can win the overall popular vote, but can lose the presidency to a candidate who has
the majority of the electoral votes. This is the reason why candidates focus on states that can
offer a lot of electoral votes.
Lecture 6