Read Dahl, “Who Governs” for information
a. This is a difficult reading, so be sure to look up words you do not know. We will discuss Dahl tomorrow in class, so you will be reading it again tomorrow night for a more informed and intensive reading
b. use the same “active reading” process as listed above for the Ginsberg Chapt 1 reading
c. add your questions below
– Bromley
Remember to apply the idea of political efficacy in your Dahl reading!
p. 68
-What are different types of equality? How is “equality of social conditions” different/more fundamental than other equalities?
– What is true equality? Can it exist?
p.69
-How did this revolution happen? Why was it silent? Where does this force of change come from?
– How is wealth different from power? Do wealth and other things like social standing always exist together? How does this economic separation translate into other inequalities?
p.70
– What else changes in society when this economic oligarchy is upset?
– How does the influence of the new rich vs old rich differ?
– Is there a theoretically preferred group to be the leaders, if there must be leaders? (The Guardians?)
– Can our procedures cloud our judgment whether leaders are good?
– Are rituals meant to show power/increase authority, or do they simply reflect power?
– Do these rituals detract from who our leaders really are? Do we value them too much? How much time is actually spent governing with all of the rituals being social norms (campaign fundraising) ?
p.71
– Is direct influence always more powerful than indirect influence?
– What role does the personality of a leader have in forming the relationship of political efficacy?
– Is belonging to the political strata a result of condition or choice?
p.72
– How is the less calculating nature of the apolitical manipulated? Who does the manipulating (political strata or outsiders)?
– What does belonging to the political/ apolitical strata have to do with wealth/power?
– Are the political/apolitical socially separated? What is their relationship and what is their ideal relationship for the most equal/effective democracy?
– How do the connections of the political play a vital role in the communications of larger society?
p. 73
– Why does the political strata follow the popular majority if the popular majority is made up of uninformed apoliticals?
– Do important issues often get overlooked because they lack media appeal? Whose responsibility is it to make sure these issues are dealt with?
– Are varied goals of the political strata important to greater betterment through competition?
p.74
– Does personal intention even matter when it comes to government leaders? Does the public need to or have the right to know? How much does the public have the right to know about their leader on a personal level?
– Are these delegated jobs more or less important than the job of the leader?
– How is this relationship between these delegated jobs and the job of the leader different than the patron/client relationship in Ancient Rome?
p. 75
– Is this outside influence considered constructive or destructive?
– What makes minority control by leaders just?
-What are the ramifications of not paying attention to policy in elections? Does certain means of media encourage or discourage more rich political substance? How great of an effect does this have on the information level of the voter and what issues are made important? (policy vs. scandal, horse race, gaffs)
p.76
– How much direct influence is realistic?
– How is political efficacy related to the process of re-election and different election systems?
– How do leaders adapt to changing their values to meet those of the public they are facing, when the public changes? (primaries v. general elections)
Zachary Laaguiby
Mr. Bromley
AP US Government
1 July 2013
HW # 2 Dahl Questions
Page 68 Question 1
Is it possible for equality of power to be held by all citizens and if so how would this be possible in a society that has inequalities in the conditions of its people? Also, if it is accepted that a democratic society that has inequalities in the conditions of its people, then must it also be accepted that the people who live in better conditions will have more influence and power over government?
Page 69 Question 2
Why does Dahl believe that New Haven’s gradual change from an oligarchy to pluralism is a revolution, in that, would this shift not just be a by-product of a successful democracy?
Page 70 Question 3
Why does Dahl contend that a pluralistic system is very far from an Oligarchy but far from political equality? What is the relationship between the people and the leaders of the pluralistic system? And are leaders the pluralistic system, in a sense, essentially slaves to their constituents and would this be the reason a pluralistic system is far from equality?
Page 71 Question 4
If the pluralistic system relies so heavily on its leaders (members of the political stratum) and the only purpose of the majority of people is to simply voice needs and have their needs met; then is pluralism not a democracy but just an electable polyarchy? Moreover, how can pluralism be a democratic system if the needs of the people can only be enacted by the few who understand the workings of government? Can pluralism be a democratic system, if so, how?
Page 72 Question 5
Would pluralism be a more complete democratic system and the majority of people have more influence on government if government called for the citizens who are apolitical to become educated in government policy and calling on them to be more informed? How does Dahl’s belief that the political stratum is easily penetrated effect my previous three questions? Does pluralism being a democracy versus an electable polyarchy depend on the people’s engagement in politics?
Page 73 Question 6
Is the difference between an oligarchy and
Is pluralism different from an oligarchy because in pluralism the government (political strata) and the people (governed-apolitical) have a reciprocal relationship (in that the apolitical strata can govern the political strata through voting and therefore the political strata must be at least cognizant of the needs and will of the apolitical strata)? Is this notion the reason that members or groups within the political strata are not unified?
Page 74 Question 7
On page 74 Dahl critiquing a slight failure in democracy in saying that a leader cannot effectively lead if he does not have a large follower base and sub leaders who facilitate the leader’s message as well as maintain and raise the base of the followers. Essentially, is Dahl comparing pluralistic democracy a system that operates like a cult or centralized religion (Catholic Church)?
Page 75 Question 8
What question should I be asking about page 75?
1. Does a single inequality among citizens truly damage the idea of governance?
2. Are dispersed inequalities any better than cumulative inequalities if the inequalities themselves still exist?
3. Since observation is completely subjective, how can a conclusion that is fair to all parties ever be reached?
4. Is change regularly caused by apolitical individuals stepping into the political stratum, or is it a rare occurrence? How severely is the change that ensues?
5. Is a homogenous class within the political stratum better for the community, or is a variety of influences more beneficial?
6. Is it possible for a leader to function without sub-leaders and still be an effective ruler?
7. If the leaders who control the decisions are influenced by their own perception, how can governmental systems be organized to consistently cater to the majority and accurately represent the populace?
8. Do leaders really want to meet the needs of their constituents, or do they merely wish to be perceived that way? Are they tending to the interchangeables or the influential and essentials?
We should take notes like we did last night in chapter 1, correct?
yep!
What is espouse?
What is fervency?
What is prerequisite?
What is creed?
What is oligarchy?
What is proletariat?
What is ambiguous?
What is a stratum/strata?
What is salient?
What is a static group?
What is affiliations?
What is imponderables?
What is coercion?
What is permeates?
What is apathy?
What is cynicism?
What is impoverishment?
What is impervious?
What is espouse?
>> to take on an idea (marry it!)
What is fervency?
>> enthusiasm to do something
What is prerequisite?
>> a necessary first step or requirement before doing something
What is creed?
>> a belief system
What is oligarchy?
>> rule by the wealthy
What is proletariat?
>> working class
What is ambiguous?
>> unclear, mixed up
What is a stratum/strata?
>> levels or parts of society
What is salient?
>> to the point, or notable
What is a static group?
>> unchanging
What is affiliations?
>> associations
What is imponderables?
>> something inconceivable or impossible to think about
What is coercion?
>> forced to do something
What is permeates?
>> gets entirely into
What is apathy?
>> lack of care or participation (as in “voter apathy”)
What is cynicism?
>> being skeptical about why other people do things (questioning motives)
What is impoverishment?
>> state of poverty
What is impervious?
>> can’t be broken (any Milles Bornes fans out there?)
Robert Dahl:
1. How are resources unequally distributed in our political system?
2. Why are they?
3. Why do many political philosophers doubt the possibility of equality of power among citizens?
4. How do social characteristics of citizens and elected officials affect society?
5. How can we see the big picture when it comes to the body politic?
6. Wouldn’t straightforward leaders gain more support?
7. Why is indirect influence on decisions so significant?
8. Is there proof that the previous political institutions of the society would temporarily stop functioning if the political stratum were destroyed?
9. Are there statistics to back up the influence behind the differing political choices of apolitical strata and political stratum?
10. Why don’t any political systems actual fulfill these conditions?
11. So why is voter turnout so low?
How are we able to truly equally disperse power when influence is not equally dispersed in society?
If legitimizing leadership is part of democratic rituals how does this differ from democratic norms?
How is the apolitical strata is able to “govern” if it remains ambivalent to political issues affecting it?
If pluralistic democracy functions within the political strata what then are the benefits of political equality?
Is indirect influence as important as direct influence on the dynamics of politics?
How do we ensure that leaders remain incentisised enough to submit to the wishes of the populance?
How can we distribute social resources more equally?
How do we give people with more wealth or political influence the same voice as those without it?
What aspects of political interaction are clearest to the public, and how can we enlighten society in all current and political domains?
How could we integrate the apolitical strata into an educated group of voters?
How does a political strata where media is largely available compare to one where it isn’t?
How does having to campaign take away from a politician’s ability to serve the people?
How much have sub leaders influenced government and history?
How much of the adult population makes a healthy political contribution?
How can we ensure that politicians make the right decisions and not just the choices that might help them win an election?
Who is at a disadvantage: members of the political or apolitical stratum?
How does a pluralist system differ from the patrician oligarchy system?
Did the pluralist system begin as a patrician oligarchy?
Is indirect or direct influence more effective within our governmental system?
Are Dahl’s ideas towards the apolitical stratum biased?
What is the relationship between a political leader and its constituents in government?
to clarify: pluralism includes many different segments of society (not necessarily all of them), while oligarchy is limited to the wealthy.
Lane Coulthard
AP US Government
Reading Questions
Due: July 2nd 2013
What realm of society has the most political power, the people, representative or lobyists?
How can the American system of government be considered democratic amongst so much inequality and woe?
Why was the government considered an oligarchy prior to shifting to pluralism?
Why do we intrust responsibilities to politicians that have no accountability for their actions?
Why does affluence afford a politician a turned cheek from the police.
Would allowing the less advantaged more representation remedy the problems of the wealthy?
Are the two parties more interconnected than we assume?
How do we educate the apolitical spectra?
How do we incorporate the apolitical without feeling as if were doing so only for the sake of their vote?
Is the non- unification of representatives healthy for a democracy?
Do sub leaders hold more power than is afforded to them because of their ability to strike and protest the government more efficiently?
What has led to government being used as a political and personal pawn?
How does the relationship between leaders, sub-leaders, and constituents produce a societal ambiguity?
Are Dahl’s ideas in any way biased?
How come the society of New Haven is gradually changing from Oligarchy to Pluralism?
Why have a pluralist system when you’re a long way from achieving the goal of political equality?
How can you change the apolitical strata to be more like the political stratum?
How can the apolitical strata still be around if it relies so much on the political stratum through sharing?
What is the importance and significance of subleaders to leaders?
How can leaders use coercion on the government?
How can all leaders, subleaders, and constituents have reciprocal relationships?
Does pluralism effect how compliant the public is with the government in terms of voting and passing new amendments, laws, acts, etc.?
Would political equality among all the citizens be ideal or would that equality give the public too much voice in government?
How do you measure politically equality in a society where there are so many different statuses?
Are rituals of power and realities of power conflicting?
How does indirect influence affect a pluralistic democracy?
Are pluralistic leaders influencing citizens so that they do not form their own opinions?
Does the political stratum present a heterozygous class where both the majority and minority views can be seen?
Does an open political stratum allow for a larger amount of groups and ideas to be expressed?
If leaders only act upon the ideals that they want or believe in how does this actively represent the majority?
How can the populace ensure that leader’s beliefs are legitimate and not presented solely for the purpose of winning over the majority?
How can leaders be certain as to their assumptions on what the populace wants?
“How can the populace ensure that leader’s beliefs are legitimate and not presented solely for the purpose of winning over the majority?”
Ha! Welcome to democracy ! 🙂
I realized that today…
How are cumulative inequalities any different from dispersed inequalities if they’re both considered to be inequalities?
How were the ex-plebes able to gain popularity that gave them office?
What is the distinction between a leader and his/her constituents if viewed from the negative position?
Is it possible that non-pluralistic governments have leaders and constituents that are reciprocal, even though they are ordinarily seen as an easier and better flowing government?
How vital is communication within the political stratum?
How can a leader even be a leader when his/her aspires for the “dreams of men”, being selfish?
Do leaders absolutely need a sub-leader to properly lead, like how a president requires a vice-president?
Are there any similarities/differences in choosing a leader between a pluralistic democracy and non pluralistic democracy?
To clarify:
“cumulative” inequalities = inequity that is total, whereas “distributed” inequality is dispersed and not complete for any given group.
1. Does an access to resources at an early age unfairly qualify someone for a better life if this is supposed to be a truly free and equal society?
2. Do former oppressed minorities value and use political power more advantageously than those who have had it constantly before them?
3. Are leaders influential because of the office they hold, because of the people who put them there, or because of the people who passively permit that office to exist?
4. Could we call the United States a democracy on the federal level if the President and his cabinet members only represent a percentage of donors?
5. Even if an American voted in a Presidential election, if they’re not well informed on the topics relevant in that day, would they not be considered apolitical?
6. Do a loyalty to political parties cloud our ability to work together on actual issues because of a predisposition and lack of self-proposed thought?
7. In an analogy of leaders and sub leaders, could a politician be seen as a sub leader to a wealthy corporation or family who gets them into elected office?
8. If the single most valuable resource for constituents to have/give is money, does that not defeat the purpose of representation because of a minority containing nearly half of the total wealth?
“Do former oppressed minorities value and use political power more advantageously than those who have had it constantly before them?”
Five dollar question!!! (or maybe a buck… :))
btw, your questions epitomize C’s request for the definition of “cynical”…
Alright, these are all five dollar questions. Collect tomorrow in class.
I couldn’t possibly.
Page:
68. Approximately where is pluralism on the left and right political spectrum?
69. Why did New Haven switch from an oligarchy to pluralism?
70. If pluralism is not so much a democracy, what is it?
71. If there is a special group of individuals who are more involved in the political process in New Haven, why is it not an oligarchy?
72. Would a closed pluralistic system merely be a political stratum that does not embody as many of the most widely shared values and goals in the society?
73. Are there separate political parties within a pluralist community?
74. If a leader needs the help of other individuals, who is really in charge, the leader or the individuals?
75. What does the second pargraph mean?
76. What is great direct influence and indrect influence on the choices made in public policy?
let’s work on the word “pluralism” to get that straight. See your book page 239.
Questions on the Dahl reading
Page 68: According to Professor Bromley, this passage was written in the 1970s. Now, 40 years later, the society that we live in has changed dramatically. Therefore, to what extent does the argument “resources being “unequally distributed”” actually cover? In what ways has modern day technology affected this?
page 69: In New Haven, Dahl argues that a “silent socioeconomic revolution” took place from an oligarchy to pluralism. Does this social/political/economic “revolution” somehow model the general cycle of historic revolutions? (ex: French revolution)
page 70: If an individual is elected into office, it means that they are already popular. That is the consent of the citizens has been given to him. Given this, why do elected officials take part in these so called “democratic rituals”?
page 71: How is it possible for the general public to know whether or not the decisions of a leader are indeed genuine attempts of representation for the people?
page 72: How are the apolitical strata and the political strata different economically and socially? why would this (provided that it does) be an influence on how one group participates in political matters?
page 73: The goals and motives of leaders seems to be all related to subcategories of human nature. These can be both good and bad and quite similar to those of common individuals. Therefore, holistically, can the public condemn political leaders for undignified motives?
page 74: Subleaders receive a standard compensation from the leader, yet for them to operate at the minimum standards of the leader, they demand rewards. Is the leader essentially undercut?
page 75: Why are the actions of political associations seen as foreign to institutions of democracy?
page 76: How do voters exert “indirect influence” on the decision making of leaders?
I can’t afford your questions…. I do want to highlight your p 73 Q, as distrust of human nature is a core element to the Constitutional arrangements of 1789.
Your p 70 Q we answered in class today: LEGITIMACY
Page 68
1. How does the unequal distribution of resources affect the unanimous political outcomes in the U.S.?
Page 69
1. Would a government that represents all groups based on the percentage of people who belong to each group better represent equality between those groups?
2. Is cummulative inequaitly still present in today’s government, but just less prevailent?
Page 70
1. Does the tugging back and forth between citizens and leaders for who rules in a pluralist democracy result in equality for all groups?
2. Do the rituals of the leaders prevent equality among different groups from happening rapidly?
Page 71
1. If the leaders are able to influence their constituents, and the constituents influence the leaders, do the leaders have the upper hand?
2. How should a democratic society maintain its amount of intellectuals?
Page 72
1. Do ill-informed voters just hurt the society they are voting in?
2. Can a pluralist democracy be equal if the majority are in the apolitical strata?
Page 73
1. Can the ideas of the apolitical strata be taken seriously by the political stratum if the apolitical strata does not follow politics as closely?
Page 74
1. Can leaders also be subleaders of other leaders?
Page 75
1. How does leaders using the government as a resource against rivials help the society?
2. Is there a way for a local political system to reflect the preferences of the populace and be controlled by a tiny minority?
Page 76
1. Does having a few individuals form two of the three groups responsible for making the laws, not represent the majority equally in the system?
Please clarify: ” unanimous political outcomes” — there aren’t many of these.
Dahl’s use of “unanimous” regarded Americans’ belief in democracy, not political outcomes.
I meant when citizens accept or celebrate after the results of political elections, or when some popular laws are passed.
I’m gonna go broke:
Can a pluralist democracy be equal if the majority are in the apolitical strata?
What point of understanding defines critical self-consciousness?
Do other countries not have the enthusiasm and agreement when relating to their political systems, like the united states has towards democracy? Do Americans still have this fervent and unanimity that is described, and if not, did America ever have this fervent and unanimity?
Were there any pros to an oligarchical system that do not apply to a pluralist system?
Would it make sense to make a class about becoming a member of the active political society a required class?
What are reasons for a representative (indirect) democracy, other than to have the elite making decisions, while still having the general public still feel important? Why is the term “representative” in “representative democracy” used when the stance is pro representative democracy, while the term “indirect democracy” is used when the stance is anti-representative democracy?
If the political strata disappeared, would the empty spots be filled with people who are willing to fix up the current system and continue it’s use, or people who were opposed to the previous ideas and decide to make a new governmental standard? Why does the book assume the former?
What causes an apolitical person to become political?
Are there people in politics that share views on both the republican and democrat side? Are they successful in getting elected and reelected?
If a subleader quits, how difficult is it to fill in the empty position?
How can the leader use the government as a pawn when the leader is the government?
How does someone become a leader? Do leaders have to get the support of people with opposing view?
Can a pluralist democracy be equal if the majority are in the apolitical strata?
>> good Q! And you should question whether or not it is true. Dahl assumes it is. Maybe at JSA… lol
Has there been other factors that determined cumulative inequality in the political system, other than the lack/gain of political resources?
What were the requirements to become a leader of a pluralist democracy in New Haven?
Was it any different than it was now?
If Tocqueville were to live in New Haven to experience the way of American life there, how would his view of the American government change?
Since each different political strata would be connected to each other in networks of communication to get news around the community, how much conflict would pass around to have the wrong information, since important info like these would end up in New York Times or Time?
How would the life of a subleader be like in New Haven?
Where there any “promotion” available to an individual who was a subleader?
Have there been any revolts, strikes, etc. to change any of the people’s dislikes in New Haven?
In the political system of patrician oligrachy, how does an individual accommodate to be unequal/equal to others inequality?
Does the wealthy rule in a pluralist democracy or do the elites?
What does it take for non-politician to become a politician?
Fame? Or hereditary title, somehow, if its in the blood of that person for him/her to be successful?
What is ex-plebes?
For a political issue to be said to exist and command the attention of a significant segment of the political stratum, could a profitable issue be possible?
What is constituents?
Constituents = people represented by a political leader
Also, let’s clarify that a pluralistic society would not be ruled by the wealthy only. That is, if the wealthy rule only, it is not pluralistic.
Nicholas Liu’s Dahl Q’s (emailed to me):
1. Dahl raises the question of who governs in a pluralistic society –doesn’t everyone have a say, but not everyone is represented equally?
2. Since there are great inequalities in conditions, must there also be inequalities in the conditions of different citizens? Does anyone represent the minority interest?
3. Is there no way for a democratic system to work amidst inequality of conditions?
4. Is dispersed inequalities really the norm through most states? Aren’t most inequalities concentrated in a single area for the most part?
5. Is the government still as ambiguous for who actually rules as Dahl describes?
6. Does direct influence correlate to more power?
7. Is a political stratum controlled by the elite a good representation of the needs for the entire population?
8. Are the differences in subcultures and cultures represented well in the government? If these are minorities, does the government only serve to the majority?
9. Is it really true that the political stratum of the US is not quite homogeneous?