Winner Take All Politics Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, leading political scientists, look at the relationship between income inequality, public policy, and interest group politics in their book "Winner Take All Politics." Even more than the particular issue of income inequality, Hacker and Pierson argue that our complex, divided government makes it difficult for citizens to stay informed and favors time, money, and resources more easily wielded by powerful groups than by citizens. Both Republicans and Democrats are criticized as both parties have become dependent on special interest money to fund campaigns and policies that favor powerful interests occur when either party is in power. The authors trace the history of this power to the decline of unions and civic organizations that once looked after the interests of the middle class and balanced business interests that were more narrowly focused on congressional committees that regulated their particular industry This was an example of the classic pluralist model. While not all voters participated, it was okay because everyone's interests were more or less represented. As groups that supported the middle class declined in strength, business groups began to coordinate lobbying and consolidate power to counter the rise of increased government regulation eventually being able to run the policy table in sophisticated ways that the Madisonian model could not have foreseen. Ironically, the very divided government that was designed to stop narrow interests, the authors say, now supports those interests because in a complex governing system it is much easier to stop legislation than pass it. Their critique represents the elite model perspective where the powerful few dominate the many. They believe that voters will need to participate more (the majoritarian model) to counteract this power.

A fascinating video interview with Hacker and Pierson can be seen here.

Play for Pay? This fascinating article from Bloomberg News cites a survey that shows that business people of both parties would support campaign finance reform. The results here are counterintuitive as the popular assumption is that business people prefer money in politics as usual because of the favors that can result.

Business Executives Call Political Giving ‘Pay to Play’

By Julie Bykowicz – Jul 24, 2013 3:42 PM MT

Top U.S. business executives say major political contributors such as themselves wield too much political influence.

A new poll of company leaders shows that 75 percent of them regard political giving as “pay-to-play,” and even more said they would like the campaign-finance system vastly improved or completely rewritten.

“There’s an impression that there is money being used to buy politicians, and that therefore they are not beholden to the electorate but to donors,” said Steve Odland, president and chief executive officer of the Committee for Economic Development and a former CEO of Office Depot Inc. (ODP)Links to an external site.

The committee’s online survey of 302 executives was conducted May 29 to June 3 jointly by Democratic polling firm Hart Research and Republican pollster American Viewpoint. The Committee for Economic Development, a nonprofit business policy group based in Washington, released the survey today as part of its push for more disclosure Links to an external site. in campaign finance. Chamber Objection The U.S. Chamber of Commerce objected to the survey’s findings, sending a lawyer to the Committee for Economic Development’s event today at the National Press Club in Washington. The business trade group criticized the poll as unscientific and agenda-driven, invoking the name of a billionaire Democratic donor whose nonprofit Open Society Institute has provided funding for CED programs.

“This survey is not representative of the business community and given that George Soros Links to an external site. is contributing to the organization conducting it, the results should not be surprising,” said Blair Latoff Holmes, a Chamber spokeswoman, in an e-mailed statement. “The Chamber and its members understand that the real goal of the so-called disclosure push is to limit or remove altogether the business voice from the political and policymaking process.”

CED’s survey of executives was funded by the Omidyar Network Fund Inc., a nonprofit established by EBay Inc. co-founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife.

2012 Money Trade groups such as the Chamber are among those that the CED says are responsible for obscuring money in politics. Together with unions and nonprofits, groups that don’t disclose their donors invested more than $335 million in the 2012 federal elections, according to the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.

The survey of executives found that 86 percent said transparency in the campaign-finance system isn’t adequate. Accompanying the poll is a CED report calling for more donor disclosure.

“Political donors and spenders are finding it increasingly easy to avoid public scrutiny, as a growing number of organizations take advantage of porous rules to finance campaign activity without revealing the sources of their funding,” wrote Anthony Corrado, project director of CED’s Money in Politics and a professor of government specializing in campaign finance at Colby College in Waterville, Maine Links to an external site..

Distaste for the campaign-finance system bridges Democrats and Republicans, according to the survey, with 71 percent of self-identified Democrats and 68 percent of Republicans saying that major contributors have too much influence on politicians. SEC Rule Almost all of the surveyed Democratic executives, as well as 79 percent of Republican executives, said they would

favor an SEC rule requiring publicly traded companies to disclose political spending.

Increasingly, companies are voluntarily making that information public. A September 2012 study by the Washington-based Center for Political Accountability Links to an external site. found that 45 of 88 companies provide information about their corporate donations, up from 36 a year earlier.

The Committee for Economic Development’s survey of executives’ views comes a month after a Sunlight Foundation report analyzed “elite” donors. That report found that just 0.01 percent of the U.S. population accounted for 28 percent of the total $6 billion spent in the 2012 elections.

About 16.5 percent of those 31,385 elite donors listed their occupation as “CEO” or “chairman” of a company, according to the foundation, a Washington-based group that advocates for increased government transparency.

Winner Take All Politics

In spring 2013, middle school students from Walsenburg, Colorado, decided to learn about democracy and help dogs and cats in shelters by researching and proposing a bill to declare shelter rescue dogs and cats the official state pet. Governor John Hickenlooper signed the bill into law in May 2013. At his side was the governor's own rescue dog Skye, that he got from a shelter. It seemed a political perfect storm- earnest schoolkids, abandoned, adorable cats and dogs needing a loving home, and lots of hearts and votes to be won. Must have been a slam dunk, right? Wrong.

The middle school kids found themselves up against powerful industry lobbyists including purebred dog associations, pet shops, breeders, and dog show organizers. While this is a state level rather than national example it is indicative of how the simplest piece of legislation can step on the toes of powerful interests.

How could you argue against helping out schoolkids and abandoned dogs and cats?

Here's a sample of the interest group objections:

– the bill would be unfair to reptiles and birds (no joke!)

– a state designation cannot harm the subject of the honor (in this case, dogs and cats). If shelter dogs and cats are honored fewer purebred dogs and cats will be sold. Overstock animals from pet stores are euthanized so more pure bred animals will die.

-some of the dogs and cats honored won't actually be from Colorado.

See the Denver Post article below that captures the flavor of the surprisingly contentious committee hearing.

But unlike what often happens in Washington, DC, on that May day in Colorado when the governor signed the bill designating shelter dogs and cats the official state pet, the school kids carried the day in spite of powerful interests.

Kids fight for abandoned dogs and cats to become Colorado state petsBy Colleen O'Connor

The Denver Post

It was like a dogfight at the Senate Education Committee on Thursday afternoon.

The battle to make dogs and cats adopted from shelter and rescue centers the official state pet pitted schoolkids against professional lobbyists representing purebred dog clubs, retailers, groomers and dog-show organizers.

The bill ultimately passed, 6-3, but there were moments when the students from Peakview School in Walsenburg thought their project, designed to help them learn about the legislative process, could go either way.

So many people arrived to testify that stragglers were left to find seats in the overflow room. Dog leashes stretched across the packed hallway, obstacles for the unwary, and piercing barks interrupted testimony. Griffin Kerr, the 3-year- old son of the bill's sponsor, Andy Kerr, D-Lakewood, cavorted around the room dressed as a spotted dog because his preschool had just celebrated Dalmatian Day.

And that was just the sideshow.

Testimony started with Roger Arellano, 14, who had arrived on a bus from Walsenburg with other middle-schoolers from Peakview who had been researching the bill.

"It's important to honor the voice of the voiceless," he said.

Speaking up on behalf of shelter and rescue dogs is "a matter of life and death" for millions of dogs and cats, he said. "And you can save a lot of money compared to getting them from a pet store."

This did not go over well with supporters of the pet industry.

"The language of the bill honors the transaction, saying the only qualified state pet is adopted from shelter and rescue," said Dan Anglin of Anglin Public Affairs.

Anglin represents the Colorado Federation of Dog Clubs, which holds dog shows, and the Colorado Pet Association, a group of animal retailers, groomers and breeders.

"The state already honors that with a license plate," said Anglin, who added that the economic impact of American Kennel Club purebred dog ownership in Colorado was an estimated $20.48 million each year.

There was another problem with the bill.

"It unfairly discriminates against birds, reptiles, arachnids and other mammals," he said. "And snakes, lizards and spiders."

Many opponents said the bill should focus on heroic dogs, such as service dogs, law enforcement dogs, cadaver dogs and military dogs.

Then, patriotism was invoked.

"We do our share too," said Karen Kotke-Partington, a member of the Norfolk Terrier Club. "When a puppy owner went to Iraq, we took care of the puppy," she said, adding that when the soldier returned, the dog meant everything to him.

Interloper Skyler Kuykendall, a fifth-grader at Rooney Ranch Elementary School in Lakewood, sought to amend the bill to include the golden retriever as the state dog.

With his golden retriever, Boz, at his side, he ticked off a list of reasons including "brown eyes like the Rocky Mountains" and "golden color that is like all of the gold that has been found in Colorado."

The Walsenburg students sat in the back, rapt at democracy in action.

"The argument swung between service dogs and shelter dogs," said Kaylee Summers, 14. "It was difficult to decide, because both sides made sense."

Those 3 journal entries are a minimum of 250 words for each idea reflection per idea reflection. You can go longer on text or video if needed. If you are doing text it would run about 2000 words for the three weeks of reflections and about 2750 words in the final journal which will cover four weeks.

The format is your choice depending on your comfort level with technology and what you feel best fits your topic and creative inspiration. It could be a written Word doc. It could be a video. You could include your own creative work such as photographs, memes, graphics, artwork, poems, songs, graphs, diagrams, and tables. You can also use PowerPoint (link from Google Drive in your assignment post), Prezi, or an audio file. Include links to what is being discussed in your reflections when its from something other than our course. If you are using video and it is a file smaller than 500 mb you can upload it directly to Canvas.

This can be a painless and enjoyable learning process if you do it regularly. If an idea grabs you as you are reading the Canvas site or the Our Own Worst Enemy book, do a short write-up. If you wait until a day before it’s due, or worse, the day of, it will be unpleasant.

Credible sources are a must

As you analyze the different ideas, your evaluation of the pluses and minuses of each idea is up to you. You will not be graded or judged on your beliefs and values. This course is about reflecting on critical political questions and issues and learning how to think, not what to think. You are required to include citations and supporting evidence for all your views. See the next page for definitions of credible sources. Use it as a checklist. If it meets all the criteria use the source. If it doesn't meet all criteria don't use it. You are responsible for vetting your sources before using them in this course!

How to Get a Better Grade on an Assignment To improve your grade on assignments use the following list of things to do and things to avoid. Use it as a checklist as you edit your assignment. The more checks the better your grade will be.

Above all remember as you analyze different perspectives, your evaluation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of any political position is up to you. You will not be graded or judged on your beliefs and values. This course is about teaching you HOW to think, not WHAT to think. I do not care if you are Republican, Democrat, Right or Left or none of the above. What is important is to make the best possible argument you can for your position. The tips on this page will help you do just that. It begins with the six most common mistakes that I've seen in assignments.

A) The Big Six:

1: Thoroughly read through the assignment prompt and make sure you have done all required parts of the assignment. Don't throw away grade points unnecessarily. If you have any questions, or if something is unclear to you, reach out. I am here to help.

2: Define your terms. For example, writing "President Biden is making the US a socialist and maybe even a Communist country." (I heard this from a friend on Facebook so it is a real life example). Possible responses: How are defining you "socialism?" It's thrown around like a political football as a loaded word. But what defines it? What does it look like? How do you know when you see it? Thomas Dye, a conservative political scientist, defines socialism simply as central government control of the market. He goes on to say many of his fellow conservatives define any governmental economic regulation as socialism, but that is inaccurate as a capitalist system with some government regulation isn't socialism. Is a government run utility company or garbage service socialism? What is the difference between state central socialism, democratic socialism and social democracies? Know terms before throwing them around.

3: Examples help clarify meaning and definitions. Continuing our example above socialism above. For one example, Bernie Sanders

identifies as a socialist, but isn't a socialist. He is social democrat. Why? For example, he would leave free market capitalism in place, but have more social programs. Social welfare programs with a capitalist economy aren't socialism. Social assistance programs historically were created to counter the appeal of socialism to workers. We'll have more on this later in the course.

4: Avoid generalizations. To use a simple example: All dogs have curly hair. Generalizations are the easiest statements to disprove. Find one exception and poof, it melts. By the way, did you know all the superheroes in the Marvel cinematic universe are ethical and serve only to help people?

5: Cite evidence. We all have opinions. Its fine to swap opinions over a cup of coffee. A school assignment is different because it requires evidence. Evidence raises an opinion to the level of reasoned argument. In the socialism discussion above above I don't just assert Bernie Sanders isn't a socialist, and let it go as an obvious truth. I give reasons, examples and evidence. My sources are on the page linked. Which leads us to the next point.

6: Use credible sources. You are responsible for vetting your sources before turning in your assignment. My PSCI department colleague Sasha Breger Bush has excellent and concise advice on determining what a credible source is in her book Global Politics: A Toolkit for Learners (pp 80-81) co-written with Kay M. O'Dell. Hint, a Q-drop is unlikely to be credible. Her checklist is as follows:

-Identify the author. If author is not identifiable, do not use the source/information (author can be a credible organization, government, or other source, such as the WTO as an author);

-Identify the author’s credentials and ensure they are experts in the subject. Credentials need not be academic but could also include relevant life or work experience, or time spent researching the subject matter. Don’t use source/information without good reason to trust the author’s credentials;

-Identify source information. Does the author reveal where they get their information, such that their findings could be replicated? If not, don’t use the source or the information provided;

-Identify possible interests or affiliations. Is the source affiliated with a company, interest group, political party, or political persona? If so, factor

this into analysis of the author’s/publisher’s bias in conveying information in the text.

B) Other sure fire ways to weaken your arguments (i.e. more logical fallacies to avoid). This advice from the Perdue University writing lab is worth reviewing.

Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others.

Slippery Slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,…, X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either. Example:

If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment eventually the government will ban all cars, so we should not ban Hummers.

In this example, the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all cars, which is not the same thing.

Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts. Example:

Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring course.

In this example, the author is basing his evaluation of the entire course on only the first day, which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the author must attend not one but several classes, and possibly even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.' Example:

I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must have made me sick.

In this example, the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to be sick.

Genetic Fallacy: This conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth. Example:

The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally designed by Hitler's army.

In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people who built the car. However, the two are not inherently related.

Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim. Example:

Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.

Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, that coal causes enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting."

Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Example:

George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks effectively.

In this example, the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the same idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.

Either/or: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices. Example:

We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.

In this example, the two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car-sharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.

Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments. Example:

Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they are all dirty, lazy hippies.

In this example, the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in the group.

Ad populum/Bandwagon Appeal: This is an appeal that presents what most people, or a group of people think, in order to persuade one to think the same way. Getting on the bandwagon is one such instance of an ad populum appeal.

Example:

If you were a true American you would support the rights of people to choose whatever vehicle they want.

In this example, the author equates being a "true American," a concept that people want to be associated with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to buy any vehicle they want even though there is no inherent connection between the two.

Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. Example:

The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what will fishers do to support their families?

In this example, the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and talks instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish. While one issue may affect the other it does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of possible economic consequences to a few individuals.

Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.

People who don't support the proposed state minimum wage increase hate the poor.

In this example, the author attributes the worst possible motive to an opponent's position. In reality, however, the opposition probably has more complex and sympathetic arguments to support their point. By not addressing those arguments, the author is not treating the opposition with respect or refuting their position.

Moral Equivalence: This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major atrocities, suggesting that both are equally immoral.

That parking attendant who gave me a ticket is as bad as Hitler.

In this example, the author is comparing the relatively harmless actions of a person doing their job with the horrific actions of Hitler. This comparison is unfair and inaccurate.

Related Tags