Political Science 2 – Comparative Politics - Power Point #3
Dr. Tabakian’s Political Science 2 Modern World Governments – Fall 2012Power Point Presentation – September 11th & September 13th
COURSE LECTURE TOPICSThis Week’s Lecture Covers:•The West Versus The Rest Examining Globalization Cultural Conflict Rational Choice – Understanding Conflict•Culture As Major Influence Of Public Policy•Political Socialization - Impact Of Societal Norms•Societal Norms Of Behavior – Worldwide Implementation•Trends Shaping Contemporary Political Cultures Stability Transition Paradigms•Interest Group Conflict
COURSE LECTURE: WEEK #3 (2)•Three Levels Of Political Culture Political System Political & Policymaking Process Policy Outputs & Outcomes•Importance Of Culture•Political Socialization•Trends That Shape Contemporary Political Culture•Citizen Action•Types Of Citizen Participation•Interest Groups•Interest Group Systems•Policy Perspectives & Interest Articulation•Developing An Interest Group
COURSE LECTURE: WEEK #3 (3)Reading Assignments For Week #3•Textbook: “Comparative Politics Today” Chapters 3 & 4 From “Comparative Politics Today” Review Key Terms For Chapters 3 & 4
COMPARATIVE POLITICS TODAY KEY TERMS FOR CHAPTER 31. Agents Of Political Socialization2. Democratization3. Fundamentalism4. Legitimacy5. Marketization6. Modernization7. Parochials8. Participants9. Political Culture10. Political Socialization11. Political Subcultures12. Subjects
COMPARATIVE POLITICS TODAY KEY TERMS FOR CHAPTER 4 (1)1. Anomic Groups2. Associational Groups3. Channels Of Political Access4. Civil Society5. Collective Society6. Collective Action Problem7. Controlled Interest Group Systems8. Institutional Groups9. Interest Articulation10. Mass Media11. Neo-Corporatist Interest Group Systems12. Non-Associational Groups13. Pluralist Interest Group Systems14. Political Terror Tactics
Political Culture and Political Socialization • Each nation has its own political norms that influence how people think and act about politics. • The way political institutions function at least partially reflects the public’s attitudes, norms, and expectations. • Political culture: public attitudes toward politics and their role within the political system • Political socialization: how individuals form their political attitudes and thus, collectively, how citizens form their political culture; we conclude by describing the major trends in political culture in the world politics today
Mapping the Three Levels of PoliticalCulture• A nation’s political culture includes its citizens’ orientations at three levels: – The political system – The political and policymaking process – Policy outputs and outcomes
Mapping the Three Levels of PoliticalCulture• The system level involves how people view the values and organizations that comprise the political system.• The process level includes expectations of how politics should function and individuals’ relationship to the political process.• The policy level deals with the public’s policy expectations for the government.
The System Level• It is difficult for any political system to endure if it lacks the support of its citizens. – Feelings of national pride are considered an affective, emotional tie to a political system.
The System Level• Feelings of popular legitimacy are another foundation for a successful political system. – Citizens may grant legitimacy to a government for different reasons. • Tradition, ideology, elections, or religion – In systems with low legitimacy, people often resort to violence or extra-governmental actions to solve political disagreements.
The Process Level• The second level of the political culture involves what the public expects of the political process.• Broadly speaking, three different patterns describe the citizens’ role in the political process. – Participants are involved as actual or potential participants in the political process. – Subjects passively obey government officials and the law, but they do not vote or actively involve themselves in politics. – Parochials are hardly aware of government and politics.
The Process Level• Hypothetical examples: How are citizen types distributed within these examples? – Modern industrial democracy – Industrialized authoritarian society – Authoritarian society that is party traditional and partly modern – Democratic pre-industrial system• How does social and economic modernization affect the distribution of citizen types and the political norms of a system?• What has been the nature of modernization across the world?
The Policy Level• What is the appropriate role of government? – Policy expectations vary across the globe. – Some policy goals such as economic well-being are valued by nearly everyone. – Variation in terms of what is expected relates to a nation’s circumstances and cultural traditions.• One of the basic measures of government performance is its ability to meet the policy expectations of its citizens.• Expectations regarding the functioning of government: outputs (providing welfare and security) or process features (rule of law and procedural justice)
Consensual or Conflictual Political Cultures• When a country is deeply divided in its political values and these differences persist over time, distinctive political subcultures may develop. – They have sharply different points of view on some critical political matters, such as the boundaries of the nation, the nature of the regime, or the correct ideology. – Sometimes historical or social factors will generate different cultural trajectories. • Ethnic, religious, or linguistic identities • Migration
Why Culture Matters• Cultural norms typically change slowly and reflect stable values. – It encapsulates the history, traditions, and values of a society. – Congruence theory • The distribution of cultural patterns is typically related to the type of political process that citizens expect and support. • Do democracies create a participatory democratic public, or does a political culture lead to a democratic political system? – It works both ways. – Political culture can build common political community, but it can also have the power to divide.
Political Socialization• Political cultures are sustained or changed as people acquire their attitudes and values.• Political socialization refers to the way in which political values are formed and political culture is transmitted from one generation to the next. – Most children acquire their basic political values and behavior patters at a relatively early age. – Some attitudes will evolve and change throughout life.
Political Socialization• Three general points about socialization: – Socialization can occur in different ways. • Direct socialization – Socialization is a lifelong process. – Patterns of socialization can be either unifying or divisive.
Agents of Political Socialization• Individuals, organizations, and institutions that influence political attitudes. – Family – Schools – Religious institutions • Fundamentalism – Peer groups – Social class – Interest groups – Political parties – Mass media • Global influence; most people in the world watch television to learn about the world
Direct Contact with the Government• In modern societies, the wide scope of governmental activities bring citizens into frequent contact with bureaucratic agencies.• Personal experiences are powerful agents of socialization.
Trends Shaping Contemporary PoliticalCultures (1)• Democratization• Marketization – Greater public acceptance of free markets and private profit incentives, rather than a government-managed economy• Globalization
Trends Shaping Contemporary PoliticalCultures (2)• Political culture is not a static phenomenon. – Encompasses how the agents of political socialization communicate and interpret historic events and traditional values – Important to understand • Influences how citizens act, how the political process functions, and what policy goals the government pursues
American Foreign Policy (1)American Foreign Policymakers generally believe thatmorality is not a primary factor for basing policy in theinternational arena. Morgenthau offers a propheticHobbesian declaration that “there is neither morality norlaw outside the state”. He goes on to state, “There is aprofound and neglected truth hidden in Hobbes’s extremedictum that the state creates morality as well as law andthere is neither morality nor law outside the state. Universalmoral principles, such as justice or equality, are capable ofguiding political action only to the extent that they havebeen given concrete content and have been related topolitical situations by society.”
American Foreign Policy (2)Hans Morgenthau offers five points to back his position. First,there is a cosmic humility that determines the moral principlesof states. Second, morality can place restraints on the actionsstates undertake. Third, state actions are influenced byuniversal moral principles, but this varies according to what ishappening in a given location at the given time. Fourth,realists adhere to the belief that all decisions made in thepolitical sphere are selected according to moral principles.Fifth, political realists can differentiate between their moralsympathies and the national interests that demand utmostpriority.
American Foreign Policy (3)Classical realists adhere to the belief that the selfish drive for powercomes from human nature. This in turn has produced the anarchicalworld order with states taking their role as selfish pursuers of powerfrom their political masters. The only kind of power that mattersmost to classical realists is political-military power, with economic,cultural or other types falling to the wayside. It is believed that theonly way for peace to reign in the world is for a balance of power toemerge where many states band together to serve as acounterbalance against a potential Hegemon. Strength is theultimate variable that determines this balance with power serving asa foundation from which peace can blossom. Hans Morgenthaudoes not agree with the assertion made by Enlightenment liberalsand Marxists who believe that selfish pursuits of power will berendered obsolete as human history progresses.
Classical RealismClassical realists like Hans Morgenthau and ReinholdNiebuhr believed that states acted like human beingsas both sought dominance over their respectivecompetitors. This in turn caused competition tomorph into war. Morgenthau stressed the virtues ofclassical realist with his declaration that the bipolarsystem of rivalry was a dangerous predicament thatwould lead to catastrophic destruction. He insteadcalled for multipolarity as a way to construct a balanceof power system that would maintain internationalstability. •
Multipolarity & Classical RealismClassical realists like Hans Morgenthau and ReinholdNiebuhr believed that states acted like human beings as bothsought dominance over their respective competitors. This inturn caused competition to morph into war. Morgenthaustressed the virtues of classical realist with his declarationthat the bipolar system of rivalry was a dangerouspredicament that would lead to catastrophic destruction. Heinstead called for multipolarity as a way to construct abalance of power system that would maintain internationalstability.
Offense/Defense Theory (Realism)Offense-defense theory was laid out by Robert Jervis, GeorgeQuester and Stephen Van Ever. The theory stresses that warscome about more frequently when states see others as being tooweak to defend against attack. Better defenses served to preservethe peace as it became more costly to attack another state for thebenefits that would be derived would not outpace the costsassociated with an offensive strike. These defensive realists sawstates as merely wanting to survive in an anarchic world where ifneed be great states could be depended upon to guarantee thesecurity of weaker states through the construction of securityguarantees. Defensive military postures were further strengthenedwith the acclimation of nuclear forces that were utilized to deteroffensive attacks for the cost of doing so would be cataclysmic.
Realism / Multilateralism Post 1940sUS foreign policy was based upon two strategies since the1940s. The first was realist in its construction as it was basedon containment, deterrence, and maintaining a globalbalance of power. The second strategy was forged over thecourse of World War II as the US constructed a new systemof relations based on institutionalized political relations withother integrated market democracies, along with continuedgrowth of new markets. Ikenberry gives an example of theliberal grand strategy purported by the government byquoting Richard Hass, policy-planning director at the StateDepartment: “…the principal aim of American foreign policyis to integrate other countries and organizations intoarrangements that will sustain a world consistent with USinterests and values”.
Balance Of Power – Realism (1)Realists affirm that power can serve to deter threats, but toomuch power can force other actors to respond harshly,sparking a ‘security dilemma’, which is a situation whenactors begin pursuing more power, resulting in anenvironment that is less safe. Realists, especially classicalrealists are assumed to be war-mongering theorists that areonly concerned with acquiring more power. This is not thecase at all as most of the school are actually cautious,humble, favoring alliances and multilateralism.
Balance Of Power – Realism (2)Hans Morgenthau states that, “Political realism refuses to identifythe moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws thatgovern the universe.” This assumes that realists do not think interms of righting wrongs, but only in terms of power in all its formsincluding is acquisition, preservation and maintaining the balanceof power. Realism promotes the balancing of state power.Morgenthau would see any call for transcending this balance as anidealistic assumption that runs counter to the lessons offered byhistory. He would therefore argue against a foreign policy thatfavored unilateral action as a stepping stone to assuming absolutepower over the world order. Any such undertaking would lead theweaker states to join together in a counterbalancing manner to re-establish a balance of power.
Neo-RealismClassical realism focuses on human nature, whereas neorealismhas taken this assumption and applied it the existing anarchicrealm of “self-interested, competitive, mutually suspicious andantagonistic states.” Neo-realism sees the international politicalsystem as one unit with interconnecting linkages existingbetween structural and units. In contrast to old realism’scontention that human nature is the drive for self-interest, neo-realists looks at the entire system to understand how singleactors, or states, base their actions. States are seen as individualunits that pursue their self-interests with the most importantone being their survival.
Neo-Realism Vs. Realism (1)Classical realism focuses on human nature, whereas neorealismhas taken this assumption and applied it the existing anarchicrealm of “self-interested, competitive, mutually suspicious andantagonistic states.” Neo-realism sees the international politicalsystem as one unit with interconnecting linkages existing betweenstructural and units. In contrast to old realism’s contention thathuman nature is the drive for self-interest, neo-realists looks at theentire system to understand how single actors, or states, base theiractions. States are seen as individual units that pursue their self-interests with the most important one being their survival. KennethWaltz suggests that neo-realism’s definition of the internationalsystem being the structure of study represents its break withclassical realism. Neorealists also state that states want toenhance their security and not power as argued by realists.
Neo-Realism Vs. Realism (2)Kenneth Waltz contends that neo-realism is markedly different fromtraditional realism in four customs: neorealism accepts theinternational system as being the determining factor guiding stateaction; neorealism can alter causal relations; defines powerdifferently; and handles units in another fashion. Realists see theworld as that of interacting states, whereas neorealists can onlystudy interacting states by first differentiating structural-unit levelcauses and effects. Realists may think of causes going in onedirection, from the interacting states to the outcome produced.Neorealists in turn look at the entire structure that serves as aconduit shuttling gives and takes between states. Outcomes canaffect how a state bases its policies for instance. Hans Morgenthauis regarded as the father of power politics. He has even warned ofthe seemingly cosmic dangers of realism and has been anadvocate of world government.
Utopian Realism (1)Utopian theories of the interwar period were discredited primarilybecause of its normative bias towards international law,organization and collective security as a means to construct abalance of power that would forever maintain equilibrium ofpeaceful relations between nation-states. Woodrow Wilsonaccepted the fate of his utopian dream as it was fully discreditedby political scientists following the failure of the United States tofully participate in the League of Nations. Diplomacy has its limits.Without the threat of force, diplomacy collapses. Pfaltzgraff detailswhy normative theory by itself has failed to adequately explain whycountries or its leaders tend to result to conflict or using force tosolve problems that a moralist would rather deal withdiplomatically.
Utopian Realism (2)Ken Booth presents utopian realism as more of an “…attitude ofmind than a ‘theory’ with powers of explanation and prediction. Butit is based upon both normative (‘utopian’) and empirical (‘realist’)theories.” Booth states the normative elements consisting ofuniversal appeal that are based on reason and commonly heldworld principles that represent the foundation for academicstudies. The empirical element seeks to make the world moreintelligible by going beyond realism, instead towards anestablished set of ideas that offers an understanding of the variousforces shaping, in the words of Harold Lasswell, “Who gets what,when and how.”.
Utopian Realism (3)Ken Booth outlines a method one can utilize to understandutopian realism. First, a counter-attack needs to beformulated according to ‘utopian’ thinking. We also need tounderstand the motives of those who label ideas or thinkersas ‘utopian’ as a means for attack. Second, utopian thinkingas a means of practicing politics can be used to set goals forthe purpose of acting on behalf of challenging the status quoor realist thinking in the political sciences. Booth argues that‘utopian thinking’ calls for the re-educating of human reasonfor most of the produced thinking by mankind is thereasoning of emotions.
Realist Force Conception• E. H. Carr argues that there exist two opposite poles of utopian feelings of right and realist conceptions of force. He stresses that there exists a need for a combination of both utopia and reality so that society can come to a favorable compromise between power and morality. Politics and law is viewed as a ‘meeting place’ for ethics and power where both can come together in order to facilitate continued progress towards a utopian society. Classical realists like Thomas Hobbes, Reinhold Niebuhr and Hans Morgenthau argued that egoism and power politics stemmed from human nature. Structural realists or neorealists moved away from human nature and instead stressed anarchy. Kenneth Walt stated that anarchy allows conflict to brew as “wars occur because there is nothing to prevent them”. He goes on to infer that it is the actions of predator states whose behavior is fostered from human nature or its domestic politics that forces other states to respond in kind if they are to survive.
National Interest – RealismRobert L. Pfaltzgraff defines the national interest as, “…ultimatelythe prudent use of power to safeguard those interests most vital tothe survival of the nation-state.” The author further states that bystudying history, realists are able to produce a generalization aboutwhat certain preconditions have to exist for a nation-state to pursuepolicies of aggression to secure their nation-interest. Nation-statespursue their individual national-interests on a never-ending basis,which in turn leads to a stable international system. Defenders of acompetitive security system suggest that states are forever strivingto increase their security in relation to that of other states. Thiswould entail ego’s gain as alter’s loss and as a result is prone tosecurity dilemmas. In a cooperative security system, states equatethe security of each as a contribution to the collective good.National interests are seen to bolster international interests.
Self-Help (Realism)States are succumbed to existing in a self-help system.Robert Axelrod has demonstrated that this reality hasproduced only one method for maximizing collective gain andthat is the “tit-for-tat” tactic. Kenneth Waltz argues that theself-help system may lead the most powerful states to furtherwiden the gaps in economic, military and political powerbetween themselves and weaker members. Many haveargued as this author that conflict is rooted in human natureand this will always remain so regardless of the structure ofthe international system.
Institutions (Realism)Realism asserts that international institutions serve the interests ofthe most powerful member states, not international interests. Theexpansion of NATO is a good example as this action satisfies theinterests of member states. Realists do not recognize institutionsas possessing the power to impact state behavior. Theseinstitutions are instead a reflection of the distribution of the power inthe world, constructed to satisfy the self-interest of the mostpowerful members. Institutionalists counter that this is a wrongpresumption as institutions can affect state behavior as it is seen tobe in the best interests of each member to work out theirdifferences to assure peaceful coexistence. Realists acknowledgethe role that institutions can play in the international system,especially how states can utilize them to perceive self-interests.
No Higher AuthorityThere is no higher authority than the nation-state. They cannot willingly cede either in partor in full their authority to international riles andagreements. Every state retains the right towithdraw from any agreement regardless of anyconsequence. This results in an internationalsystem consisting of both law and power politicsthat continuously mix.
Realism & Core StatesRealists are more likely to assume that core states are democratic,whereas periphery states remain authoritarian. Core states areprone to recognizing the sovereignty of other core states, but arewilling to ignore the sovereignty of periphery countries if it servestheir interests. Thomas Barnet is a professor at the US Naval WarCollege who authored a model that may enlighten students to howthe Bush Administration conducts foreign policy. Professor Barnettfirst splits the world in two distinct areas. The first contains “TheFunctioning Core” which are developed or those in the process ofdevelopment that is entrenched in the capitalist system and remainscommitted to globalization. In the camp is the “Non-Integrating Gap”which contains poor, repressive and unstable governments thathave not been allowed in the globalization club. Professor Barnetthen goes on to state that the main security threat for Core states isnot one another as realists would presume, but the threat presentedby unstable regimes that emphatically voice their disenchantmentwith the world order and in turn produce terrorists who are furtherincensed over the gap between the two camps.
Realism & InstitutionsRealism asserts that international institutions serve theinterests of the most powerful member states, notinternational interests. The expansion of NATO is agood example as this action satisfies the interests ofmember states. Realists do not recognize institutionsas possessing the power to impact state behavior.These institutions are instead a reflection of thedistribution of the power in the world, constructed tosatisfy the self-interest of the most powerful members.
Realism / Multilateralism Post 1940sUS foreign policy was based upon two strategies since the1940s. The first was realist in its construction as it was based oncontainment, deterrence, and maintaining a global balance ofpower. The second strategy was forged over the course of WorldWar II as the US constructed a new system of relations based oninstitutionalized political relations with other integrated marketdemocracies, along with continued growth of new markets.Ikenberry gives an example of the liberal grand strategypurported by the government by quoting Richard Hass, policy-planning director at the State Department: “…the principal aim ofAmerican foreign policy is to integrate other countries andorganizations into arrangements that will sustain a worldconsistent with US interests and values”.
Realist Force ConceptionE. H. Carr argues that there exist two opposite poles of utopianfeelings of right and realist conceptions of force. He stresses thatthere exists a need for a combination of both utopia and reality sothat society can come to a favorable compromise between powerand morality. Politics and law is viewed as a ‘meeting place’ forethics and power where both can come together in order tofacilitate continued progress towards a utopian society. Classicalrealists like Thomas Hobbes, Reinhold Niebuhr and HansMorgenthau argued that egoism and power politics stemmed fromhuman nature. Structural realists or neorealists moved away fromhuman nature and instead stressed anarchy. Kenneth Walt statedthat anarchy allows conflict to brew as “wars occur because there isnothing to prevent them”. He goes on to infer that it is the actions ofpredator states whose behavior is fostered from human nature or itsdomestic politics that forces other states to respond in kind if theyare to survive.