Dr. Tabakian’s Political Science 2 Modern World Governments – Fall 2012

Power Point Presentation – September 11th & September 13th

COURSE LECTURE TOPICS

This 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 3

1. Agents Of Political Socialization 2. Democratization 3. Fundamentalism 4. Legitimacy 5. Marketization 6. Modernization 7. Parochials 8. Participants 9. Political Culture 10.Political Socialization 11.Political Subcultures 12.Subjects

COMPARATIVE POLITICS TODAY KEY TERMS FOR CHAPTER 4 (1)

1. Anomic Groups 2. Associational Groups 3. Channels Of Political Access 4. Civil Society 5. Collective Society 6. Collective Action Problem 7. Controlled Interest Group Systems 8. Institutional Groups 9. Interest Articulation 10.Mass Media 11.Neo-Corporatist Interest Group Systems 12.Non-Associational Groups 13.Pluralist Interest Group Systems 14.Political Terror Tactics

COMPARATIVE POLITICS TODAY KEY TERMS FOR CHAPTER 4 (2)

15.Protests

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 Political Culture

• 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 Political Culture • 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 Political Cultures (1) • Democratization • Marketization

– Greater public acceptance of free markets and private profit incentives, rather than a government-managed economy

• Globalization

Trends Shaping Contemporary Political Cultures (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 that morality is not a primary factor for basing policy in the international arena. Morgenthau offers a prophetic Hobbesian declaration that “there is neither morality nor law outside the state”. He goes on to state, “There is a profound and neglected truth hidden in Hobbes’s extreme dictum that the state creates morality as well as law and there is neither morality nor law outside the state. Universal moral principles, such as justice or equality, are capable of guiding political action only to the extent that they have been given concrete content and have been related to political 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 principles of states. Second, morality can place restraints on the actions states undertake. Third, state actions are influenced by universal moral principles, but this varies according to what is happening in a given location at the given time. Fourth, realists adhere to the belief that all decisions made in the political sphere are selected according to moral principles. Fifth, political realists can differentiate between their moral sympathies and the national interests that demand utmost priority.

American Foreign Policy (3)

Classical realists adhere to the belief that the selfish drive for power comes from human nature. This in turn has produced the anarchical world order with states taking their role as selfish pursuers of power from their political masters. The only kind of power that matters most to classical realists is political-military power, with economic, cultural or other types falling to the wayside. It is believed that the only way for peace to reign in the world is for a balance of power to emerge where many states band together to serve as a counterbalance against a potential Hegemon. Strength is the ultimate variable that determines this balance with power serving as a foundation from which peace can blossom. Hans Morgenthau does not agree with the assertion made by Enlightenment liberals and Marxists who believe that selfish pursuits of power will be rendered obsolete as human history progresses.

Classical Realism

Classical realists like Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold Niebuhr believed that states acted like human beings as both sought dominance over their respective competitors. This in turn caused competition to morph into war. Morgenthau stressed the virtues of classical realist with his declaration that the bipolar system of rivalry was a dangerous predicament that would lead to catastrophic destruction. He instead called for multipolarity as a way to construct a balance of power system that would maintain international stability.

•

Multipolarity & Classical Realism

Classical realists like Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold Niebuhr believed that states acted like human beings as both sought dominance over their respective competitors. This in turn caused competition to morph into war. Morgenthau stressed the virtues of classical realist with his declaration that the bipolar system of rivalry was a dangerous predicament that would lead to catastrophic destruction. He instead called for multipolarity as a way to construct a balance of power system that would maintain international stability.

Offense/Defense Theory (Realism)

Offense-defense theory was laid out by Robert Jervis, George Quester and Stephen Van Ever. The theory stresses that wars come about more frequently when states see others as being too weak to defend against attack. Better defenses served to preserve the peace as it became more costly to attack another state for the benefits that would be derived would not outpace the costs associated with an offensive strike. These defensive realists saw states as merely wanting to survive in an anarchic world where if need be great states could be depended upon to guarantee the security of weaker states through the construction of security guarantees. Defensive military postures were further strengthened with the acclimation of nuclear forces that were utilized to deter offensive attacks for the cost of doing so would be cataclysmic.

Realism / Multilateralism Post 1940s

US foreign policy was based upon two strategies since the 1940s. The first was realist in its construction as it was based on containment, deterrence, and maintaining a global balance of power. The second strategy was forged over the course of World War II as the US constructed a new system of relations based on institutionalized political relations with other integrated market democracies, along with continued growth of new markets. Ikenberry gives an example of the liberal grand strategy purported by the government by quoting Richard Hass, policy-planning director at the State Department: “…the principal aim of American foreign policy is to integrate other countries and organizations into arrangements that will sustain a world consistent with US interests and values”.

Balance Of Power – Realism (1)

Realists affirm that power can serve to deter threats, but too much power can force other actors to respond harshly, sparking a ‘security dilemma’, which is a situation when actors begin pursuing more power, resulting in an environment that is less safe. Realists, especially classical realists are assumed to be war-mongering theorists that are only concerned with acquiring more power. This is not the case 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 identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe.” This assumes that realists do not think in terms of righting wrongs, but only in terms of power in all its forms including is acquisition, preservation and maintaining the balance of power. Realism promotes the balancing of state power. Morgenthau would see any call for transcending this balance as an idealistic assumption that runs counter to the lessons offered by history. He would therefore argue against a foreign policy that favored unilateral action as a stepping stone to assuming absolute power over the world order. Any such undertaking would lead the weaker states to join together in a counterbalancing manner to re-establish a balance of power.

Neo-Realism

Classical realism focuses on human nature, whereas neorealism has taken this assumption and applied it the existing anarchic realm of “self-interested, competitive, mutually suspicious and antagonistic states.” Neo-realism sees the international political system as one unit with interconnecting linkages existing between structural and units. In contrast to old realism’s contention that human nature is the drive for self-interest, neo-realists looks at the entire system to understand how single actors, or states, base their actions. States are seen as individual units that pursue their self-interests with the most important one being their survival.

Neo-Realism Vs. Realism (1) Classical realism focuses on human nature, whereas neorealism has taken this assumption and applied it the existing anarchic realm of “self-interested, competitive, mutually suspicious and antagonistic states.” Neo-realism sees the international political system as one unit with interconnecting linkages existing between structural and units. In contrast to old realism’s contention that human nature is the drive for self-interest, neo-realists looks at the entire system to understand how single actors, or states, base their actions. States are seen as individual units that pursue their self-interests with the most important one being their survival. Kenneth Waltz suggests that neo-realism’s definition of the international system being the structure of study represents its break with classical realism. Neorealists also state that states want to enhance their security and not power as argued by realists.

Neo-Realism Vs. Realism (2) Kenneth Waltz contends that neo-realism is markedly different from traditional realism in four customs: neorealism accepts the international system as being the determining factor guiding state action; neorealism can alter causal relations; defines power differently; and handles units in another fashion. Realists see the world as that of interacting states, whereas neorealists can only study interacting states by first differentiating structural-unit level causes and effects. Realists may think of causes going in one direction, from the interacting states to the outcome produced. Neorealists in turn look at the entire structure that serves as a conduit shuttling gives and takes between states. Outcomes can affect how a state bases its policies for instance. Hans Morgenthau is regarded as the father of power politics. He has even warned of the seemingly cosmic dangers of realism and has been an advocate of world government.

Utopian Realism (1)

Utopian theories of the interwar period were discredited primarily because of its normative bias towards international law, organization and collective security as a means to construct a balance of power that would forever maintain equilibrium of peaceful relations between nation-states. Woodrow Wilson accepted the fate of his utopian dream as it was fully discredited by political scientists following the failure of the United States to fully participate in the League of Nations. Diplomacy has its limits. Without the threat of force, diplomacy collapses. Pfaltzgraff details why normative theory by itself has failed to adequately explain why countries or its leaders tend to result to conflict or using force to solve problems that a moralist would rather deal with diplomatically.

Utopian Realism (2)

Ken Booth presents utopian realism as more of an “…attitude of mind than a ‘theory’ with powers of explanation and prediction. But it is based upon both normative (‘utopian’) and empirical (‘realist’) theories.” Booth states the normative elements consisting of universal appeal that are based on reason and commonly held world principles that represent the foundation for academic studies. The empirical element seeks to make the world more intelligible by going beyond realism, instead towards an established set of ideas that offers an understanding of the various forces 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 understand utopian realism. First, a counter-attack needs to be formulated according to ‘utopian’ thinking. We also need to understand the motives of those who label ideas or thinkers as ‘utopian’ as a means for attack. Second, utopian thinking as a means of practicing politics can be used to set goals for the purpose of acting on behalf of challenging the status quo or realist thinking in the political sciences. Booth argues that ‘utopian thinking’ calls for the re-educating of human reason for most of the produced thinking by mankind is the reasoning 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 – Realism Robert L. Pfaltzgraff defines the national interest as, “…ultimately the prudent use of power to safeguard those interests most vital to the survival of the nation-state.” The author further states that by studying history, realists are able to produce a generalization about what certain preconditions have to exist for a nation-state to pursue policies of aggression to secure their nation-interest. Nation-states pursue their individual national-interests on a never-ending basis, which in turn leads to a stable international system. Defenders of a competitive security system suggest that states are forever striving to increase their security in relation to that of other states. This would entail ego’s gain as alter’s loss and as a result is prone to security dilemmas. In a cooperative security system, states equate the 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 has produced only one method for maximizing collective gain and that is the “tit-for-tat” tactic. Kenneth Waltz argues that the self-help system may lead the most powerful states to further widen the gaps in economic, military and political power between themselves and weaker members. Many have argued as this author that conflict is rooted in human nature and this will always remain so regardless of the structure of the international system.

Institutions (Realism) Realism asserts that international institutions serve the interests of the most powerful member states, not international interests. The expansion of NATO is a good example as this action satisfies the interests of member states. Realists do not recognize institutions as possessing the power to impact state behavior. These institutions are instead a reflection of the distribution of the power in the world, constructed to satisfy the self-interest of the most powerful members. Institutionalists counter that this is a wrong presumption as institutions can affect state behavior as it is seen to be in the best interests of each member to work out their differences to assure peaceful coexistence. Realists acknowledge the role that institutions can play in the international system, especially how states can utilize them to perceive self-interests.

No Higher Authority

There is no higher authority than the nation-state. They cannot willingly cede either in part or in full their authority to international riles and agreements. Every state retains the right to withdraw from any agreement regardless of any consequence. This results in an international system consisting of both law and power politics that continuously mix.

Realism & Core States Realists are more likely to assume that core states are democratic, whereas periphery states remain authoritarian. Core states are prone to recognizing the sovereignty of other core states, but are willing to ignore the sovereignty of periphery countries if it serves their interests. Thomas Barnet is a professor at the US Naval War College who authored a model that may enlighten students to how the Bush Administration conducts foreign policy. Professor Barnett first splits the world in two distinct areas. The first contains “The Functioning Core” which are developed or those in the process of development that is entrenched in the capitalist system and remains committed to globalization. In the camp is the “Non-Integrating Gap” which contains poor, repressive and unstable governments that have not been allowed in the globalization club. Professor Barnet then goes on to state that the main security threat for Core states is not one another as realists would presume, but the threat presented by unstable regimes that emphatically voice their disenchantment with the world order and in turn produce terrorists who are further incensed over the gap between the two camps.

Realism & Institutions

Realism asserts that international institutions serve the interests of the most powerful member states, not international interests. The expansion of NATO is a good example as this action satisfies the interests of member states. Realists do not recognize institutions as possessing the power to impact state behavior. These institutions are instead a reflection of the distribution of the power in the world, constructed to satisfy the self-interest of the most powerful members.

Realism / Multilateralism Post 1940s

US foreign policy was based upon two strategies since the 1940s. The first was realist in its construction as it was based on containment, deterrence, and maintaining a global balance of power. The second strategy was forged over the course of World War II as the US constructed a new system of relations based on institutionalized political relations with other integrated market democracies, along with continued growth of new markets. Ikenberry gives an example of the liberal grand strategy purported by the government by quoting Richard Hass, policy-planning director at the State Department: “…the principal aim of American foreign policy is to integrate other countries and organizations into arrangements that will sustain a world consistent with US interests and values”.

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.