Contemporary America (Contemporary States and Societies)

Contemporary America Russell Duncan and Joseph Goddard Contemporary America Contemporary States and Societies This ...

Author: Russell Duncan | Joe Goddard

195 downloads 1981 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Contemporary America

Russell Duncan and Joseph Goddard


Contemporary States and Societies This new series provides lively and accessible introductions to key countries and regions of the world conceived and designed to meet the needs of today’s students. The authors are all experts with specialist knowledge of the country or region concerned but have been chosen also for their ability to communicate clearly to a nonspecialist readership. Each text has been specially commissioned for the series and is structured according to a common format. Published: Contemporary America RUSSELL DUNCAN AND JOSEPH GODDARD Contemporary China ALAN HUNTER AND JOHN SEXTON Contemporary Japan DUNCAN McCARGO Contemporary Britain JOHN McCORMICK Contemporary Latin America RONALDO MUNCK Forthcoming: Contemporary South Africa ANTHONY BUTLER Contemporary France HELEN DRAKE Contemporary Europe B. GUY PETERS Contemporary Russia MATTHEW WYMAN and EDWIN BACON In preparation: Contemporary Germany Contemporary Italy Contemporary Spain Contemporary Asia


Russell Duncan and Joseph Goddard

© Russell Duncan and Joseph Goddard 2003 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2003 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010 Companies and representatives throughout the world PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave Macmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Macmillan® is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries. Palgrave is a registered trademark in the European Union and other countries. ISBN 0–333–91576–3 hardback ISBN 0–333–91577–1 paperback This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Duncan, Russell. Contemporary America / Russell Duncan and Joseph Goddard. p. cm. — (Contemporary states and societies) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 0-333–91576–3 — ISBN 0–333–91577–1 (pbk.) 1. United States—Civilization—1970– 2. United States— Civilization—21st century. I. Goddard, Joseph, 1962– II. Title. III. Series. E169.12 .D855 2003 973.92—dc21 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 Printed and bound in Great Britain by Creative Print & Design (Wales) Ebbw Vale

2003040511

Contents

List of Figures, Maps, Illustrations, Tables, and Boxes viii Preface and Acknowledgments xi List of Abbreviations xiii Map of the United States of America: States and State Capitals xv Introduction

1

1

6

2

3

4

History The Rise of a Nation The Rise to World Power From Isolation to World Power The Cold War The 1990s

7 18 23 27 34

Land and People

37

The Land The People Regions Immigration

39 45 52 67

Government

74

The Constitution The Federal System The Branches of Government

75 79 83

The Political System

102

The 2000 Election Participatory Democracy Political Parties Politics

102 103 109 114 v

vi

Contents

5

Society

126

Class The American Family Women Race Crime and Punishment

126 132 137 140 144

Religion, Education, and Social Policy

151

Religion Education Social Services

151 162 173

Culture

180

Diversity The Rise of American Culture Leisure Time Print Media Mass Entertainment Government Activities The World Wide Web Sports The Arts Popular Music

180 183 185 187 190 194 196 198 201 203

The Economy

207

The US Domestic Economy Labor Unions Business and Industry Government and Business The Global Marketplace

208 214 216 219 225

Foreign Policy

229

History of Foreign Policy The Cold War, 1945–91 The New World Order 11 September 2001 Low Politics Separation of Powers and Foreign Policy

229 232 239 246 249 250

6

7

8

9

Contents

vii

The Administration of Foreign Policy Transatlantic Balance

251 252

10 Prospects for the Twenty-First Century

254

US Nationalism Economics The War on Terrorism Society Health and Environment Conclusion

Recommended Reading America on the Internet Bibliography Index

255 258 260 264 266 267

269 273 275 294

List of Figures, Maps, Illustrations, Tables, and Boxes

Figures 2.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 6.1 6.2

Immigrants to the United States by Decade, 1821–2000 The System of Checks and Balances The Lawmaking Process The Court System The American Educational System Educational Attainment, 2001

68 79 93 100 168 170

Maps The United States of America: States and State Capitals 1.1 US Territorial Expansion 2.1 Major Topographical Features 2.2 American Indian Reservations 2.3 The South 2.4 The North 2.5 The Midwest 2.6 The West 2.7 The Pacific Rim

xv 14 40 48 52 56 58 61 65

Illustrations 1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 2.3

American Progress The Statue of Liberty Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming Navajo Woman and Child Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona viii

15 22 43 47 63

List of Figures, Maps, Illustrations, Tables, and Boxes 3.1 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 6.1 7.1 8.1 9.1 9.2 9.3

Presidents and First Ladies at Funeral of Richard Nixon Anti-War Demonstration President Clinton as Entertainer-in-Chief Gated Community Near Atlanta, Georgia Anti-Abortion Billboard Thanksgiving at the White House When Elvis Met Nixon Spacewalk with Space Shuttle Vietnam War Memorial, Washington, D.C. W’s World Headlines of 11 September 2001 Attack on World Trade Center 10.1 President Bush at the UN 10.2 US Air Force Stealth Bomber

ix 86 106 119 131 140 159 204 219 236 245 248 261 263

Tables 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 6.1 8.1 8.2 8.3

Country and State Comparisons The South The North The Midwest The West The Pacific Rim Immigration by Country of Origin During Year 2000 Profile of the 107th Congress (2001–02) Ideological Self-Placement and Party Identification Presidential Preference in 2000 Partisan Self-Identification by Demographic Group Presidential Elections, 1960–2000 US Population by Age and Sex, 2000 Life Expectancy and Leading Causes of Death The Good Life American Diversity, 2000 Executions and Death Row Inmates, 1 January 1976–1 June 2001 Capital Punishment, 1976–2001 American Religiosity Employment Status for Citizens Over Age 16 (1999) Individual Income Tax Rates for Year 2001 Top-Ten US Trade Partners, 1993 and 2000

38 53 56 59 62 66 69 95 110 111 112 116 132 133 135 141 149 149 154 210 213 228

x

List of Figures, Maps, Illustrations, Tables, and Boxes

Boxes 1.1 1.2 1.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 7.1 7.2

Excerpt from The Declaration of Independence The Gettysburg Address The Pledge of Allegiance The Constitution of the United States of America, a Summary Federalism as Process Constitutional Powers of Congress The Path to the Presidency Official US Holidays Top Ten Primetime Shows, September–December 2001

11 17 24 76 81 91 115 188 193

Preface and Acknowledgments

In line with the other titles in this series, the aim of this book is to provide an accessible general introduction to the contemporary United States of America and provide guidance and resources for further study for both university students and general readers. We have intentionally adopted a narrative and grammatical style that exposes readers to formal American English as well as to colloquialisms, using American spelling and punctuation throughout. Our experience teaching in university and business schools in Denmark, Norway, and the United States guided the selection of topics. In common with the nomenclature of many courses, “America” itself is used colloquially in the title to mean the United States of America. Russell Duncan has the overall editorial responsibility for the book and particular responsibility for Chapters 1, 2 and 5–10. Joseph Goddard has primary responsibility for Chapters 3 and 4. The authors are indebted to our publisher Steven Kennedy for commissioning the text in the first place and for delivering unerringly good suggestions and leeway. We would also like to single out Palgrave/Macmillan’s sales representative Ben Grieg, who first listened to Duncan’s ideas for a textbook and suggested the fit with the Contemporary States and Societies series. Keith Povey did an especially good job in copy-editing the text. Special thanks go to our colleagues and students at the University of Copenhagen and the Copenhagen Business School for their widespread encouragement during the two years of writing and editing. We are grateful to those colleagues who have read all or parts of the text: Niels Thorsen, University of Copenhagen; John McCormick, Indiana University; Paul Richmond, Copenhagen Business School; Marian Morton, John Carroll University; Deborah Kitchen, University of Oslo; John Dumbrell, University of Keele; Michael Dunne, University of Sussex; David Klooster, Hope College; Clara Juncker, University of xi

xii

Preface and Acknowledgments

Southern Denmark; Christopher Phillips, University of Cincinnati; Michael Barton, Pennsylvania State University-Harrisburg; and a number of anonymous reviewers. We would like to thank especially students and family readers: Jytte Lindberg, Bonnie Duncan, Dorthe Scherling Nielsen, Anne Bruun, Anders Rosendahl, and Dean K. Wells. The authors dedicate this book to our families. RUSSELL DUNCAN JOSEPH GODDARD

The authors and publishers are grateful to the following for permission to use copyright material: AFP London for Illustrations 4.1, 10.1 and 10.2; TimePix for Illustration 1.2; ZUMA/Polfoto for Illustration 6.1; Clinton Presidential Materials Project for Illustrations 3.1 and 4.2; Daniel Arant for Illustration 9.1; and Drew Friedman for Illustration 9.2. Illustrations 5.1, 5.2 and 9.3 are by the authors. Thanks also to the Library of Congress, National Archives and Records Administration and NASA for help with public domain images. Every effort has been made to trace all copyright-holders of third-party materials included in this work, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked the publishers will be pleased to make the necessary arrangement at the first opportunity.

List of Abbreviations

ABA ACLU AFDC AFL BIA CIA CIO CNN DHS EOP EPA ESA EU FTC FED FBI GATT GDP GNP IMF INS IRS JCS NAFTA NASA NATO NPS NRA NSA NSC NYSE OMB

American Bar Association American Civil Liberties Union Aid to Families with Dependent Children American Federation of Labor Bureau of Indian Affairs Central Intelligence Agency Congress of Industrial Organizations Cable News Network Department of Homeland Security Executive Office of the President Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species Act European Union Federal Trade Commission Federal Reserve Banking System Federal Bureau of Investigation General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Gross Domestic Product Gross National Product International Monetary Fund Immigration and Naturalization Service Internal Revenue Service Joint Chiefs of Staff North American Free Trade Agreement National Aeronautics and Space Administration North Atlantic Treaty Organization National Park Service National Rifle Association National Security Advisor National Security Council New York Stock Exchange Office of Management and Budget xiii

xiv

List of Abbreviations

PAC PBS SDI SEC TANF UN WTC WTO

Political Action Committee Public Broadcasting System Strategic Defense Initiative Securities and Exchange Commission Temporary Assistance for Needy Families United Nations World Trade Center World Trade Organization

xv

NEVADA

Alaska and Hawaii not to scale

Juneau

Helena

Phoenix

ARIZONA

UTAH

Salt Lake City

IDAHO

Boise

HAWAII

Honolulu

Carson City

CALIFORNIA

ALASKA

Sacramento

OREGON

Salem

WASHINGTON

Olympia

NEW MEXICO

Santa Fe

COLORADO

Denver

Cheyenne

WYOMING

MONTANA

Topeka

TEXAS

Austin

Lansing

MICHIGAN PENNSYLVANIA

NEW YORK

ALABAMA

LOUISIANA

Jackson

Montgomery

Raleigh

Hartford

FLORIDA

Tallahassee

GEORGIA

SOUTH CAROLINA

Columbia

NORTH CAROLINA

Atlanta

Nashville

KENTUCKY TENNESSEE

MISSISSIPPI

Little Rock

ARKANSAS

Baton Rouge

Oklahoma City

OKLAHOMA

KANSAS

Madison

WISCONSIN

Montpelier Concord Albany

VERMONT

MASSACHUSETTS

0

100

200 miles

RHODE ISLAND

Providence

Boston

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Augusta

MAINE

Trenton CONNECTICUT Harrisburg NEW JERSEY Columbus INDIANA Annapolis ILLINOIS Dover DELAWARE OHIO Springfield WEST Washington D.C. Indianapolis VIRGINIA MARYLAND MISSOURI Charleston Richmond Frankfort VIRGINIA Jefferson City

IOWA

St Paul

Des Moines Lincoln

NEBRASKA

Pierre

SOUTH DAKOTA

Bismarck MINNESOTA

NORTH DAKOTA

The United States of America: States and State Capitals

Introduction

The closing decade of the twentieth century marked a decisive end to the “post-World War II” or “Cold War” world and ushered in a new era. The 45-year period following the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the division of the world into “free” and “communist” influences, and the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 is history. We now live in a world adjusting to these changes and a consequent realigning of power relationships among countries. Historically, the world’s nations have always been involved in a struggle for power. In the twentieth century the rise of the United States of America to superpower status prompted many to label the era “the American Century.” Currently there is a rise in what might be termed “America-phobia” as some people seek to tear down the hegemony held by the United States. Some complain of the cheapness of American culture with its runaway materialism. Others fear the transformation of their own culture to mirror changing American patterns, from birth-control pills to gender equality. Still others, who refuse, or are too young, to remember when the United States was an indispensible part of “the West” – buttressing Europe with an economic aid package called the Marshall Plan and protecting European and Japanese growth through military security – only see a selfish nation that goes its own way with or without seeking world opinion. There is no doubt that American military and economic power is in a league of its own, unrivaled and arrogant. The criticism is as justified as it is expected. As the leading world power, the United States is the focus of world criticism on every issue domestic and international. This is not new. The discovery and colonization of the New World thrust America into the spotlight in the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries. The eighteenth-century revolution against Britain that established a liberal nation and the unprecedented population and territorial growth of the nineteenth century kept the nation highlighted. The twentieth-century world wars of nationalism forged coalitions that put the United States in the pre1

2

Introduction

eminent global position by 1945, and the Cold War advanced American power to the position it now holds. The country’s unique standing has brought criticism not only for what it is and has been, but for the ways it acts and portrays its actions. America is new, or likes to assert that notion. Americans often think of themselves as a people of the future whose personal pasts can be overcome or reinvented, even if they will volunteer upon the first meeting with any stranger that their families came from Ireland, from Germany, from Vietnam, or from elsewhere outside the US. The key word is “from” – as in, the Old World is a good place to be “from.” With Americans, it is the right here and right now that has their attention. They seem to care more about the future and of what could become. Most Americans see themselves as risk-takers who grasp at chances to get a new life for themselves and their children. Sometimes that means leaving family and national ties behind to cross an ocean or a continent. Americans imagine themselves and their country in many ways; but when looking into a mirror, they are likely to see the reflected image of a dream that began not so long ago. Much of what has happened in the history of the United States is based upon the European imagination of a New World. Europeans imagined America before they discovered it and, in the years since discovering it, they have been trying to define what it is that makes it different. Christopher Columbus never understood that he had located a new continent or continents in 1492, but died steadfastly believing that he was somewhere in eastern Asia. Others spoke of the discovery of an Atlantis, a lost continent that had long filled the European imagination. In the 16th century, explorers from many nations – some using a new map, Amerika, named for the Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci – canvassed the coast of the New World, sailing into inlets, collecting souvenirs, and being astonished at what they did or did not find there. The seemingly unlimited areas of free land provoked speculation about a New Eden where Indians lived easily off the land in a state of innocence, with no need for clothing or work. Others reasoned that Indians, being so different, must be “red devils” who should be summarily dealt with by the believers in Christ and civilization. Basically disregarding the claims of the Indians they encountered, Europeans saw the new land as a tabula rasa – a blank slate on which to write the dreams of national power by establishing colonies and exploiting raw materials. But whatever Europeans believed – and they believed many things – they were overcome with the possibilities of what could be gained from possessing a part of America.

Introduction

3

The idea of building something new on new land, of having the freedom to do so, of looking toward the future and not the past, of accepting the progress of change over the stasis of continuity, and of individual rebirth/recreation, inspired European adventurers and became the story of the American people. During the Age of Discovery, Europeans tried to define the dream that might be; during the Age of Reason, philosopher John Locke made what has proven to be a long-lasting appeal to innocence: “in the beginning, all the world was America.” The American Dream and American history stem directly from these European dreams and imaginings. From its discovery until the present day, America-the-place as well as America-the-idea has been discussed as opportunity. It has been seen as a “safe haven” where conditions could be altered in favor of whoever needed change. Immigration, economic opportunity, and the chance for individual redefinition are central components of the American Dream. At the 1950 Nobel Prize ceremony in Stockholm, the American author and literature winner, William Faulkner, told the audience, “The big difference between Europe and America is that we are still adding stars to the flag” (quoted in Morgan, 1993: 11). This was a patriotic statement of Cold War logic as well as a literal prediction that saw Alaska and Hawaii added to the flag in 1959. Addition has been central to American history. Historian Ted Morgan calls the American experience an “unending quest” and agrees with Faulkner that “the American flag is unlike any other, because it’s an add-on flag, with room to grow” (Morgan, 1993: 11). Morgan wrote of the exceptionalism of the American experience because the seventeenthcentury Europeans who would provide the impetus for the new nation arrived before the government did, landing in places where no government had previously existed (American Indians notwithstanding) and where control by European governments was shaky and ever-changing. Both Faulkner and Morgan declare for youth and mobility in American thinking. Egocentric and religious, most Americans have believed that a divine Providence guided the nation. In the first years of the twenty-first century, nothing had changed the American belief in the country’s exceptional status. With the end of a Cold War putting an explanation point on the success of American individualism, and as immigrants continue to pour into the country, Americans still believe that every person in the world is a potential American citizen.

4

Introduction

Americans are taught from childhood that anything or everything is possible. This American Dream is a decidedly bourgeois notion and it is formulated upon the belief that government will not limit individual ambitions, either by restrictive laws or by using transfer income to gain an equality of outcome for others. Americans have consistently and overwhelmingly resisted any equality other than the equality of opportunity to achieve merit, and, thereafter, the rewards that merit brings. So why haven’t these dreams of equality and freedom been realized in contemporary America? Is there a basic hypocrisy in the gap between what America stands for and what it is? For many of its critics, the United States is a nation built on the avarice of rich white Protestant males who laid waste to the environment of a pristine continent, killed the native inhabitants, enslaved Africans, warred against all peoples who stood in the way, suppressed women and ethnic minorities, abused the working class, and cannibalized European culture into a vulgar materialism spread by Hollywood and McDonald’s. Despite the truths inherent in these criticisms and the widespread knowledge of such actions, non-white and non-Protestant immigrants of both sexes continue to arrive, chasing the hope of a better life under the promise of opportunity. Philosopher Reinhold Neibuhr called the distance between the dream and reality “the irony of American history” (Niebuhr, 1952). That irony, as we hope this book will show, cannot be reduced to – though neither does it exclude – hypocrisy. Another warning note is appropriate. On relocating to the United States after having lived 20 years in England, popular writer Bill Bryson wrote of being “dazzled . . . [by] the famous ease and convenience of daily life, the giddying abundance of absolutely everything, the wondrous unfillable vastness” (Bryson, 1998: 17). When looking for America, one can find anything one seeks. The country is enormous and the people are many. It is easy to locate inequality, poverty, racism, police brutality, hate and death. It is just as easy to find philanthropy, community, honesty, equality, openness and life. The problem in looking for America is that we already “know all about it.” Most people have grown up with America and stories of America. It would be hard to find a single issue of a newspaper published anywhere in the world that fails to mention the United States or an American celebrity. Airways are flooded with American music, streets are walked by American tourists, everyone wears American jeans and logos, the worldwide web is overwhelmingly

Introduction

5

American, and television and movie theaters spew images of American life everywhere. Most Europeans have relatives who are Americans or who are married to Americans. Everyone has imagined America, in flattering and damning ways. The reality can be much more difficult and interesting to grasp. Understanding the USA in the twenty-first century requires a historical background that is not suited to a mere timeline or a few brief paragraphs. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the history of the nation and introduces the main themes of the American experience. Chapter 2 aims to provide a better understanding of a vast country by looking at it through the lens of its main regions and the people who live in each. Special emphasis is placed upon immigration and the environment. Chapters 3 and 4 detail governing political institutions and explain the importance of constitutional provisions and the division of powers. Chapters 5 through 7 explore American society and culture and the particular significance of religion, education and welfare. Chapter 8 examines the US domestic and international economy and the changing character of the American workforce. Chapter 9 focuses on America’s place in an increasingly globalized world and on current issues and events set in context by a brief review of the historical evolution of US foreign policy. Chapter 10 serves as summary and supposes future trajectories. A picture of continuity and change, singularity and diversity, individualism and community, and conflict and consensus are common denominators to all chapters in trying to explain the lifeways in contemporary America.

1 History

American history is long, reaching back to at least 10,000 years ago when the first group of humans struggled into the interior of a continent to become Native Americans. United States history is short – not yet 250 years old – and it is not difficult to find people alive today who remember World War I, who, in turn, had known slaves and slaveowners who could tell them firsthand about the 1840s, and who had known people who had traded with Indians or who had shaken hands with Thomas Jefferson. Five people linked together cover the entire lifespan of the United States, a nation born in modern times with a fast and furious history. Writer William Faulkner succinctly described this notion in Intruder in the Dust: “yesterday today and tomorrow are Is: Indivisible: One” (Faulkner, 1948: 194). Humans are not native to North America. The most widelyaccepted theory supposes that sometime between 40,000–14,000 years ago, a group of hunters from Siberia passed into Alaska. 10,000 years ago, a group of 30–60 people followed the herds of big game animals down through both American continents. By 5,000 years ago, some 200,000 people lived in North America. One thousand years before Europeans discovered America, agriculture was established in the present-day US southwest and Pueblo Indians built their houses into high cliffs to protect themselves from their enemies, the Apaches. The Makah in Washington state had a highly-developed culture based on salmon fishing. By 1492, the year of Christopher Columbus’s “discovery” of America, approximately 3–4 million – some claim 100 million – people lived in what would become the United States and as many as 50 million more lived in Canada, Mexico and southward. They lived in systems ranging from totalitarian to anarchistic, from highly-developed caste structures to 6

History

7

complete egalitarianism, from nomadic to static lifestyles, and under varying matriarchal or patriarchal conventions. On the eve of discovery, Europe had been transformed by the rise of nation states, which were influenced by the twelfth-century Crusades’ stimulation of commercial activities and an interchange of technology. Trade revolutionized commerce, changed the system from barter to coinage, and built banking houses, joint-stock companies, and cities. The Renaissance emphasized discovery and science and the Protestant Reformation stressed individual freedom, tore at the power of the Roman Catholic Church, and ignited competition and wars among Christians. European nations competed to control trade. Each needed a strong military and a rich treasury, which could be achieved through a favorable balance of trade, war and conquest, and colonies whose settlers fed raw materials to the manufacturing centers in the mother country. As nations sponsored enterprises to capture the New World, Indians were brought into a web of commercial relations that encircled the globe, becoming producers and consumers in a developing world market system. To provide items for trade, Indians voluntarily took more from the ecological system to supply the furs Europeans wanted in exchange for copper pots, ornamental beads, whiskey, and woolen shirts. While trade transformed cultures, disease wiped them out as the accumulated knowledge of the tribes was lost when the elders died and the death of the medicine men broke the spiritual edifice of Indian life. Contact with whites killed 90 percent of all North American Indians as typhoid, influenza, smallpox, and tuberculosis took their toll. As the devastation accelerated, many Indians hoped for salvation by accepting the Christ thrust at them by missionaries. This trinity of trade, disease and Christianity placed Indians on the edge of oblivion.

The Rise of a Nation Colonial America, 1508–1763 America was born in violence as Europeans fought Indians and each other for control of the land. By 1508, the Spanish held Puerto Rico and, in 1513, explored Florida seeking a fabled fountain of youth. As early as 1540, a Spanish expedition into Arizona and New Mexico hoped to find “El Dorado” and its seven cities of gold. These quests

8


failed, but Spain got richer in land claims, including California (1542). The French concentrated in Canada, establishing Quebec (1534), Montreal (1642), and, by virtue of floating down the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico, claimed one-third of the interior of the continent from the Great Lakes to New Orleans (1718). A Swedish colony, New Sweden (1638–55), settled parts of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, before losing them to the Dutch, who had established New Amsterdam (New York) in 1624. Forty years later, the Netherlands lost its colonies to Britain. In 1671, Denmark joined the land grab, establishing colonies in what became the US Virgin Islands (1917). The English established a line of colonies from Maine to Georgia. Jamestown, Virginia (1607), was payrolled by a joint-stock company and soldiered by professional mercenaries. Soon, the settlers were growing tobacco for the European market. In 1619, a Dutch ship sold twenty Africans into indentured servitude in Virginia. As cash crops expanded and developed, the demands for workers increased and plantation owners embraced slavery. By the time of the American Revolution in 1776, one of every five Americans was a slave. In 1620, religious dissenters, who wanted to separate forever from the Church of England, landed in a place they called Plymouth Colony. Indians quickly developed trading ties with these Pilgrims and introduced them to corn, beans, turkeys, squash, and potatoes. Legend has it that the Indians and the newcomers celebrated a huge feast in 1621 – the story behind the purest American holiday, Thanksgiving. Other dissenters –in a group of 1,000 people aboard 17 ships – who wanted to reform and purify the Church of England arrived in Massachusetts in 1630. These Puritans were engaged in an “errand into the wilderness” to establish a utopian religious community, a model for England and the world. Puritan leader John Winthrop defined the colony “as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us” (Winthrop, 1989: 41). Puritans demanded order, even if they trampled on concepts of freedom or equality. They were so intent on living righteously in an evil world, that they became intolerant. Their perfectionism caused some groups to leave, contributing to the establishment of Rhode Island (1660), Connecticut (1660), and New Hampshire (1679). In 1692, the excesses of the infamous Salem, Massachusetts, witch trials – marked as they were by community hysteria, the fear of women, rural–urban conflicts, and, simply, cultural change – highlighted the failure of the Puritan errand.

History

9

American ideology owes much to Puritan patterns. Witchhunts fit neatly into the conspiracy theories of runaway government or internal communist threats and Americans still believe the US is God’s nation. Insisting that hard work is its own reward, the Puritan work ethic is essential to American individualism. A university education remains the best path to the American dream, something the Puritans supported by founding Harvard University in 1636. Between 1660 and 1763 the colonies developed differently and English mercantilism, which maintained that strength and power comes from self-sufficiency, benefited them all. Pennsylvania (1664) counted nearly half of its colonists from Germany and Maryland (1634) was a Catholic stonghold. North Carolina (1665), South Carolina (1670), and Georgia (1733) had large numbers of Scottish immigrants. The population rose rapidly as a result of a steady immigration, slave importation and natural increase. There was a baby boom as families formed earlier due to the availability of land and need for labor. In England, the average marrying age for women was 23 years old; in America, it was 19. With colonial women giving birth to an average of seven children, the population reached 100,000 in 1660; by 1775, 2.5 million, one-third of them native-born. Rising numbers led to rising expectations. Additionally, slavery enriched the colonists as the northern colonies gained from the carrying trade and the southern colonies from the products produced. In 1775 alone, Virginia exported 105 million pounds of tobacco to European consumers. Historian Edmund Morgan called slavery the central paradox of American history and he convincingly linked the rise of liberty and equality in America and the soothing of class conflict to slavery. The more that Euro-Americans enslaved Africans, the more liberty expanded for whites (Morgan, 1995). Colonists transplanted European social hierarchies to the colonies, but as skin color began to mark caste, lower class whites demanded an expansion of voting rights and landholding privileges. Most whites came to view themselves as middle class because there were always browner or redder peoples below them. From 1734 to 1755 an evangelical revival swept through the colonies on the heels of Jonathan Edwards’s sermons about “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” and Methodist cleric George Whitefield’s colony-by-colony salvation tour. The Great Awakening was the first all-American cultural event and it appealed to the Protestant sense of individual responsibility and anti-authoritarian-

10


ism. This revival led many colonials to question the authority England was exerting over the colonies.

The American Revolution and the Constitution While the colonies grew, Britain engaged in a struggle for supremacy with Spain and France. In the Great War for Empire, 1754–63, Britain gained Canada, all French possessions east of the Mississippi River, and Florida. With her rivals effectively neutralized, Britain tightened control over the colonies. Parliament increased taxes as a way to pay the enormous debt of £140 million accrued from the war and from stationing 10,000 soldiers along the frontier to protect the colonists from Indian attacks. The taxes took many forms and the colonists responded bitterly to each and every one of them. Staging riots and breaking laws, colonists claimed the “rights of Englishmen” to “no taxation without representation.” Colonials advanced a conspiracy theory put forward by English Whigs during the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and Thomas Jefferson argued that taxes and other recent events proved, “a deliberate, systematical plot of reducing us to slavery” (quoted in Wood, 1969: 331). Jefferson was just 33 years old when, as a delegate from Virginia to the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia, he wrote The Declaration of Independence in 1776 (Box 1.1). The idea of revolution was not new, but the acts of a people, in an orderly manner, explaining and justifying their rights to throw off oppression and establish a new government was unprecedented. Jefferson was the first philosopher to place sovereignty, not just rights, in the people. The people had the power to create the government and the people had the power to tear it down. The war for independence lasted until 1783 when the colonial forces under General George Washington, with crucial aid from France, prevailed. America became the first European colony to separate from its mother country. From 1781–88, the 13 states were held together by a weak and ineffective government established under the Articles of Confederation. The government lacked a chief executive and a judiciary, and could neither collect taxes nor enforce laws. It could only ask the states to comply with its requests. After all, each of these states had been independent and was older than the new nation – a fact still acknowledged in the flag of the United States by the 13 red and white stripes, each representing one of the original states.

History

Box 1.1

11

Excerpt from The Declaration of Independence

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be free and independent states; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. Thomas Jefferson, 1776

12


In 1787, a convention of delegates wrote a document that British Prime Minister William Gladstone later praised as “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man” (quoted in Kammen, 1987: 162). The Constitution of the United States of America set up a federal system which shared power with the states and, ultimately, with the people. It checked and balanced the actions of any particular branch of government, or individual, through overlapping jurisdictions of responsibility. Because Americans feared central power, it took two years of intensive lobbying to convince the people and the states to ratify the Constitution. In 1789, the new government met in the nation’s capital, New York City, and acclaimed George Washington president. Europeans looked on in wonderment but were quickly distracted when Frenchmen stormed the Bastille. Acknowledging America’s role in fomenting these events, the Marquis de Lafayette sent Washington the key to that prison. In 1793, England declared war on France. Washington immediately invoked American neutrality, an uneasy action that bubbled through the presidencies of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. Americans were busy at home. Political parties had formed, dividing the supporters of stronger national power in the Federalist Party from the supporters of state power, DemocraticRepublicans. By 1800, population had increased to 5.3 million, three new states had been added to the union, the value of exports was $71 million compared to $20 million in 1790, 20 colleges had been established, there were 200 newspapers, and the technology of the cotton gin had increased production of “white gold” from 1.5 million to 36.5 million pounds in a decade – and with it, the demand for slaves. The country was split between a free labor system in the North and a slave system in the South. Symbolizing the intersection of two differing social systems, Congress relocated the nation’s capital in 1800 to the District of Columbia, an area set free of the boundaries of any state, and named the city, Washington. The war between England and France continued to disrupt the economy and the passions of the people. In 1812, after the British seized American ships and impressed American sailors into the British navy, President Madison declared war on England. The war was basically a drawn contest with the peace treaty ratified in 1815.

History

13

Westward Expansion and Reform The nineteenth century was marked by territorial expansion (Map 1.1). In 1803, President Jefferson doubled the size of the United States by purchasing the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon. The US purchased Florida from Spain in 1819. By 1821, in stark contrast to annexations by European colonial powers, eight new states had entered the union as equals to the older states. The northern states had abolished slavery, but Southerners held tightly to their property and way of life. Thomas Jefferson, a slaveholder, had once offered an apology that the institution was a necessary evil. Jefferson likened slavery to holding “the wolf by the ears.” You don’t like it, but you don’t dare let it go (quoted in McPherson, 1982: 39). Whites coveted western lands and as wagon trains rolled out of Eastern cities, Indians were killed and confined to reservations. By 1838, all the eastern tribes had been forced west of the Mississippi River and, in the most famous atrocity, 15,000 Cherokees were forced to relocate from Georgia to Indian territory in Oklahoma. 4,000 died along this “trail of tears.” Complicating the land struggles, the area from Texas to California was owned by Mexico, which had won its independence from Spain in 1821. In 1836, American settlers living in Texas revolted against Mexican rule, declared a Lone Star Republic, and asked to join the union. Nine years later President James K. Polk, a fervent expansionist, proclaimed that the country should fill its natural boundaries and reach its “Manifest Destiny” (Illustration 1.1) of stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans. The US absorbed Texas and, in 1846, invaded Mexico, won the war, and took all Mexican land north of the Rio Grande River. Polk bullied England into ceding the entire Northwest (part of Oregon territory), establishing the division with Canada. With the 1853 purchase of a strip of Mexican land, the US reached its present size, excluding Alaska, Hawaii, and various small offshore possessions. And yet, many Americans were not satisfied and believed that Manifest Destiny demanded more. In addition to the issue of slavery in the territories, rapid growth brought on other discussions about the moral and social fabric of the nation. Reformers advocated individual and institutional uplift. Workingmen’s associations pulled laborers together. Most middleclass women sought power by supporting a notion of separate spheres which argued that women should stay in the home and let men deal with the world. Other women argued for equality in all spheres.

Map 1.1

US Territorial Expansion

Gadsden Purchase 1853

MEXICAN CESSION 1848

OREGON CESSION (from Britain) 1846

TEXAS ANNEXATION 1845

LOUISIANA PURCHASE (from France) 1803

Ceded by Britain 1818

Ceded by USA 1818

ORIGINAL THIRTEEN STATES

FLORIDA PURCHASE (from Spain) 1819

Ceded by treaty of 1783 and acquired during Revolution

0

100

200 miles

14

History

Illustration 1.1

15

American Progress

Alternatively called “American Progress” or “Manifest Destiny Crosses the Plains,” this 1872 illustration by John Gast captures the frontier myth of expansion. Columbia – the female symbol for the spirit of America – accompanies the explorers, covered wagon pioneers, communication and transportation systems, and pioneer farmers as they move westward. Indians, buffalo, and other wild “beasts” retreat in the face of “civilization.” (Library of Congress)

Margaret Fuller’s Woman in the Nineteenth Century (1844) helped inspire the first Women’s Rights Convention (1848) at Seneca Falls, New York, where the delegates declared “All men and women are created equal.” A new religion, Mormonism, competed for converts with Shakers, Quakers, Adventists and others. A temperance movement linked poverty with “Demon Rum” and called for bans on alcohol. The Industrial Revolution reshaped the workplace and the market economy in the North to the demands of industrial capitalism, an agrarian empire was rising in the West, and a cotton kingdom ruled the South. The North and West were becoming less Anglo-American and more Euro-American as immigrants poured in. Inventors

16


conquered time and space, knitting the country together with steamboats, railroads, and telegraph lines. Cities grew rapidly, especially New York City, whose population exceded 200,000 by 1830. In politics, the nation had been in the Founders’ hands until 1828 when the Federalists were replaced by a group that soon called itself Whigs, and the Democratic-Republicans became the Democratic Party. Whigs resembled Federalists in favoring stronger national power over all aspects of the economy. The Democrats had a wider support but were weakened by their support of slavery. In 1854, the Whigs were replaced by the Republican Party, which organized on a platform of antislavery.

The American Civil War In 1860, the election of the Republican antislavery advocate Abraham Lincoln so enraged and frightened the South that before he could take office in March 1861, there were seven – soon 11 – fewer states in the union. The Confederate States of America formed a nation composed of – and in the order in which they seceded from the United States – South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee. While many in the North encouraged Lincoln to let the states depart in peace, Lincoln held firmly to his conviction that the union could not be dissolved. The crises were many. A constitutional crisis arose over the sovereignty question of state versus national power, of a written commitment to liberty and slavery, and of how to convert territories into states. A social crisis inherent in having the population double every 25 years since the 1700s and the reformist, humanitarian impulse of the abolitionist movement to improve the lot of slaves, women, Indians and immigrants split communities. Economic interests questioned whether the transcontinental railroad should connect California with a southern or a northern terminus – the route picked was important to spread either slavery or free labor – and debated whether slaveowners had the right to take slave property into the free states. A religious crisis raged over whether the country’s manifest destiny was of a slave or a free nature – causing a split in Protestant churches as abolitionists could not tolerate being in the same denomination as slaveholders, and vice versa. A moral crisis cast the shadow of hypocrisy over the contradiction in human bondage and the words of the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal.”

History

17

And then war came. The fighting lasted four years and took 620,000 American lives. It was a modern war with huge armies, rifled weaponry, forced enrollments and total war whereby both civilians and soldiers suffered devastation from foraging armies. In the end, the North’s industrial prowess and continued large-scale immigration wore down the Confederacy. Two of Lincoln’s speeches during the war – his “Emancipation Proclamation” and his “Gettysburg Address” (Box 1.2) – joined the Declaration of Independence and Constitution as the most revered and memorized expressions of American freedom, equality, and new beginnings. The “Gettysburg Address” uses biblical language, a progression of tenses from past to present, birth and rebirth metaphors, and Lincoln’s contention that if America fails, freedom will fail. With his elegant language and strong leadership, Lincoln displaced Washington as the greatest American of all time, a position he still holds in yearly polls.

Box 1.2

The Gettysburg Address

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate – we can not consecrate – we can not hallow – this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave their last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. Abraham Lincoln, 1863

18


The Rise to World Power Of Race and Frontiers With the war over, the national government consolidated its power and Americans changed a key verb. Before the war and in recognition of the power of the states, people used the plural form: “The United States are . . .”. After the war, with the nation achieved, they substituted the singular form: “The United States is . . .”. In 1867, the US purchased Alaska from Russia. The government sought to reconstuct the South in the national image. Three constitutional amendments (13th, 14th, 15th) – during the period called Reconstruction – freed the slaves, provided citizenship, and gave the vote to black men. Southern whites responded by requiring literacy tests and poll taxes for voting, leasing convicts to private individuals, refusing to allow blacks to sit on juries, and organizing the Ku Klux Klan. In 1877, Southern resistance had exhausted government efforts and led President Rutherford B. Hayes to end Reconstruction and announce that the South would be left alone to deal with its “negro problem.” By the 1890s, lynch mobs killed over a hundred African Americans a year. Then, in 1896, the US Supreme Court ruled that “separate but equal” school rooms, hospitals, libraries, hotel accommodations, and streetcars were in the spirit of the Constitution. The nation was officially segregated. During the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the country filled up as the government helped itself, railroad interests, and homesteaders to the land Indians had believed to be theirs “as long as the wind blows, as long as the grass grows, as long as the rivers flow” – as ran the official phrasing used in treaties granting property rights to Indian tribes. The government’s resolve to finish the Indian wars was accelerated by an event that occurred during the nation’s centennial celebration. In late June 1876 along the Little Big Horn River in Montana territory, a brash army colonel set out to destroy a group of Indians. Surprised by one of the largest concentrations of tribes in the history of the West, George Armstrong Custer and his command of some 250 men were killed by the forces of Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse and Rain-in-the-Face. Whites cried for revenge, and, to destroy Indian resistance and culture, army snipers helped professional hunters kill nearly 30 million buffaloes. The wars ended with the surrender of Geronimo and his group of Apaches in 1886.

History

19

The West belonged to the white man. Laws allowed homesteaders to settle on 160 acres, without cost, if they would cultivate the land. Many families built little houses on the prairie and began farming. Railroad companies received enormous subsidies in the form of land grants – 10–40 square miles of land for each mile of railroad built, an area equal to one-sixth of all Western lands. Timber and mining companies were soon cutting and digging everywhere. During the cowboy era, herds of cattle were driven from the grazing fields in Texas to stockyards and slaughterhouses in the Midwest. In 1893, historian Frederick Jackson Turner put forth his “frontier thesis” that the experience of isolation and the availability of free land had shaped American democracy and institutions (Turner, 1966). Turner inscribed the frontier as the crucible where the American traits of individualism and acquisitiveness originated and he described the central place frontiers occupy in the American imagination. The rhetoric of the frontier continues in contemporary America as leaders speak of foreign policy or business challenges as new frontiers to be explored, conquered, and made safe.

The Gilded Age The first transcontinental railroad connecting San Francisco with New York City was completed in 1869. By 1900, the United States had 258,000 miles of track, one-third of all the railroad mileage in the world. Railroad companies merged with investment banking firms and large corporate law firms to help create modern managerial capitalism. John D. Rockefeller’s oil company and Andrew Carnegie’s steel factories led the way by integrating production processes to control all aspects of the production of a single product (vertical integration) or to gain a monopoly over a single step in production (horizontal integration). In fact, developments sped along so fast that the industrialists and bankers, who saw themselves as “industrial statesmen,” seemed to be “robber barons” to the general public. Writer Mark Twain called the period The Gilded Age (1873) because the rise of huge industry, big cities, and commerce looked golden; but to scratch off the gold revealed only the ugliness of base metal. The philosophy of the marketplace reflected the era’s conservative tone as economic policy followed free market principles. This laissez-faire approach stressed self-sufficiency and self-interest in a climate of limited governmental intervention. The American creed of equal opportunity contributed to this, but so did the belief in natural

20


selection and evolutionary change put forth by Charles Darwin and adapted into a philosophy that natural laws govern people’s place in society – labeled by Herbert Spencer as “survival of the fittest.” Then, William Graham Sumner summarized these beliefs by arguing that the acquisition of private property was the most important goal for individuals. Andrew Carnegie also promoted this “Gospel of Wealth” and agreed that any government interference – such as welfare – hindered progress and hurt society because in any free society operating under evolutionary principles, wealth and power would naturally go to those most deserving of it. As they have done throughout their history – in alternating cycles of liberal reforms and conservative retrenchments – Americans looked at their country and adjusted it. A new type of investigative journalism led the way, with social commentary and photographs, such as Jacob Riis’s How the Other Half Lives (1890), Lincoln Steffen’s The Shame of the Cities (1904), and Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle (1906). Americans searched for order, called for government action, and considered solutions to regather community in the face of unprecedented immigration, industrialization, and urbanization. Their solutions helped resolve the problems of cities and city people, focused on maintaining white supremacy, and were wide-ranging and pragmatic attempts to redistribute wealth, expand social services, and put more people into the middle class. The interests of farmers seemed to be crushed as the rural lifestyle of the nineteenth century gave way to the roaring urban machinery of the twentieth. In 1890, the same year that industries first earned more profits in the US than farmlands, farmers formed the Populist Party, the largest agrarian-based political party in US history. Populists favored an expansion of the money supply as a way to redistribute wealth, a graduated income tax so that the more you made the more you paid, nationalization of railroads in order to lower prices for farm products, voting reforms – including the secret ballot – to ensure democracy, and an eight-hour work day to protect laborers. In 1892, Populists had some success in electing candidates, but failed to elect a president or to control Congress. Meeting the usual fate of strong third parties in American history, the Populist party died in 1896, a result of fusion politics. Its ideas, however, lived on, and some were transformed into law during the Progressive Era.

History

21

The Progressive Era Between 1890 and 1920 millions of non-English-speaking peoples from Southern and Eastern Europe immigrated through the new federal immigration facility built in 1892 on Ellis Island in New York harbor. No one could help but notice, towering over them from a smaller island, the Statue of Liberty (Illustration 1.2). This “Mother of Exiles” had been a gift from France. Set in place in 1886, a plaque placed in the base proclaimed: Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free The wretched refuse of your teeming shore Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door. The message – quoted from a sonnet by Emma Lazurus – had not been a part of the French gift and Europeans have been both insulted by the obvious slur concerning the lands of immigrant origins and bemused by America asking for homeless and poor people. By 1910, six American cities had populations exceeding one million people; New York City had 5.2 million. Conditions were appalling as massive overcrowding led to problems of sanitation, sewage, and garbage control. Economic competition flared up between the newcomers and those who had arrived earlier as every new wave of immigrants worked for whatever wages they could get, with wages kept low by the constant arrival of new workers. As laborers competed, the racial and ethnic clashes of the Old World rose up in the form of xenophobic stereotypings of this group as “lazy” or that one as “violent” or the next one as “stupid.” Newly-arrived immigrants sought out others of their own national origin and created in various cities: “Little Italy,” “Little Norway,” “Little Russia,” or “Little Poland.” Activists, called Progressives, instituted reforms. Social reformers, like Jane Addams, wanted improvements in housing, labor, and health conditions, and hoped to reduce class tensions and improve neighborhoods. Structural reformers improved streetcar lines, railroads, state prison systems and established a comprehensive school system for all white ethnic groups. State legislators increased income taxes and taxed corporations for the first time. Labor legislation installed inspectors to ensure factory safety, regulated the work days

22


Illustration 1.2

The Statue of Liberty

During the Great Depression, many questioned the Statue of Liberty’s promise of abundance and the capacity of America to provide for its own “tired, . . . poor, . . . [and] huddled masses.” Renowned photographer Margaret Bourke White made this shot of “Lady Liberty” in 1930. (Margaret Bourke White/Time Pix)

of women and children, and ordered a minimum wage. By 1916, most states had accepted the old Populist demands for election reforms: the secret ballot, initiative, referendum, recall, and direct election of US Senators. Women’s organizations grew to national prominence. Feminists Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Alice Paul demanded women’s suffrage and persuaded the country to bring this about by ratifying the 19th Amendment (1920). Victoria Woodhull advocated “free love” – an effort to separate ideas of sex for pleasure from those of sex for procreation – and Margaret Sanger distributed birth-control information. Charlotte Gilman’s Women and Economics (1898) challenged the right of men to the best jobs and supported the need for

History

23

women’s organizations, a position taken up again in the 1960s by Betty Friedan and the National Organization for Women. Believing that African Americans must pull themselves up by their bootstraps, the most powerful black leader in America, Booker T. Washington, reluctantly accepted segregation, while he pushed vocational education as the best way to advancement. His approach has been labeled “accommodation.” Others reacted to the black experience of discrimination and continuing lynchings by advocating the confrontation and integration approach of W. E. B. DuBois, who helped found the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1910. Still others pursued the separatist approach of black nationalist Marcus Garvey, whose Universal Negro Improvement Association (1919–27), stressed a heroic African past and called for all blacks to return to Africa where they would establish their own country. By 1900 the United States was the richest country in the world. It produced more than one-third of the world’s coal, iron and steel. Its navy ranked third behind Britain and Germany. And yet, America reflected a nervousness as patriots watched European imperialists devour Africa – one sure way to get more customers and raw materials that business interests demanded. Applying Darwinian and manifest destiny ideas to nations, Americans viewed themselves and their country as a superior race/nation which had the right to expand over lesser peoples/nations in the survival of the fittest. In 1898, in a war with Spain, the United States took the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and established a navy base in Cuba as a symbol of its hegemony over the independent island nation. A flag cult arose as Americans began the ritual of standing for the playing of “The StarSpangled Banner” and as students recited the “Pledge of Allegiance” (Box 1.3) every day in school. Americans left Africa to Europe, settled for dominance in the western hemisphere, and pursued an Open Door policy of free trade in Asia.

From Isolation to World Power World War I and the 1920s From 1901–09, Theodore Roosevelt helped establish the modern regulatory state, put power in the office of the president and defined foreign policy by dividing the world into what he called “civilized”

24


Box 1.3

The Pledge of Allegiance

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation [under God], indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 1897 Note: Congress added the words “under God” in 1954. When, in 2002, a federal court ruled the words unconstitutional by provisions separating church and state, President George W. Bush defiantly responded: “no authority of government can ever prevent an American from pledging allegiance to this one nation under God” (quoted in Oppel, 2002).

and “uncivilized” nations: the civilized ones defined as white and Western. Roosevelt is famous for seizing land in Panama and building a canal to increase trade and security by linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. He set limits on corporate greed by using the power of his office to champion reform, partly by prosecuting monopolies and partly by safeguarding and conserving wilderness areas. The two men who followed him as presidents, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson, championed even stronger roles for the federal government. Though protected by two broad oceans and a big navy, with a peaceful northern border and a weak neighbor to the south, the United States could not isolate itself from world affairs, especially following the outbreak of war in 1914 among the main European powers. In 1917, after German submarines increased their attacks on “neutral” US ships – which were busy supplying Britain with war munitions – America officially entered World War I. Protest was so strong that Congress enacted an Espionage Act to curb dissent. Draconian measures banned the teaching of the German language and the playing of Beethoven. Thousands of Americans had their civil rights abused by over-zealous patriots and the US Supreme Court declared that freedom of speech could be limited if there was “a clear and present danger.” After the war, President Woodrow Wilson supported a League of Nations, but ultimately failed to convince his countrymen to join it. Americans experienced their largest-ever race and labor riots before the government restored order. After years of Progressive reform, Americans seemed desperate to put “America First” and for a “return to normalcy” – two phrases made popular by

History

25

President Warren G. Harding, heralding business expansion and smaller government. For many Americans, the 1920s was an era of prosperity. The period has been described variously as: the “Jazz Age,” the “Roaring Twenties,” or the “Era of The Lost Generation.” It was a hedonistic age marked by the pursuit of pleasure, pushed along by the rise of advertising and radio, stimulated by the writings of Sigmund Freud and F. Scott Fitzgerald, and changed by a revolution in manners and morals, movies, automobiles, and a “me generation” that stressed a live-for-today attitude. Aviator Charles “Lucky” Lindbergh thrilled everyone when, as a young man in the most technologically advanced machine yet made, an airplane, he made a solo flight from New York to Paris, circling the Eiffel Tower and landing victoriously among 100,000 Frenchmen. Young women – “flappers” – threw off the Victorian fashions, cut their hair short, and reached for nylon stockings, silk panties, makeup, short dresses, a dance partner, a cigarette, and a beer. They sought “youth” and drank, even though the 18th Amendment (1919) prohibited the “manufacture, sale, or transporting of intoxicating liquors” anywhere in the United States. People flouted the law and bought from bootleggers – increasingly gangs of organized mobsters such as Chicago’s Al Capone and his 1000-man army of machine-gun-carrying thugs – until the 21st Amendment (1933) recognized the inevitable and nullified Prohibition. Perhaps more than any single individual, efficiency expert Frederick W. Taylor, the spirit behind Henry Ford’s automobile assembly lines, symbolized the 1920s. Manufacturing speed, standardized packaging, and a belief that there was only “one best way” led writer John Dos Passos to call the innovator “Speedy Fred,” the man who died “with a watch in his hand” (Dos Passos, 1979: 48). In 1907, an automobile cost over $2,000; Taylor’s methods reduced the costs to $300 in 1924. American males – and a few liberated females – bought their dream machines on credit. Cars changed American patterns of mobility, settlement, and leisure time. While flappers danced and automobiles raced, Protestant AngloSaxon America reasserted itself with a fundamentalist movement which surged across the land to root out the devil and other communists. The Russian Revolution of 1917 led to a “Red Scare” in the US, a fear that hurt labor and prompted a 25-year-old official in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (created in 1908) named J. Edgar Hoover to root out Bolsheviks. For his zeal and ability, Hoover was promoted to FBI director, a post he held from 1924 to 1972. The Ku

26


Klux Klan rose up again, this time with approximately 5 million dues-paying fanatics in its ranks. The 1924 Immigration Act set quotas on immigration that favored white European Protestants over all other aspirants. The next year, in Tennessee, the world watched a court case to see if a young biologist, John Scopes, would be sentenced to jail for breaking a state law prohibiting the teaching of evolution to high-school students. The court found Scopes guilty and Europeans generally labeled American fundamentalism a backwoods and backwards philosophy. Meanwhile, business was booming. In 1928 presidential candidate Herbert Hoover announced: “We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land. . . . [P]overty will be banished from this nation.” Four years later, President Hoover was the most reviled man in America, getting 6 million fewer votes than he got in 1928. On 29 October 1929, the stock market crashed and the Great Depression soon stalked the land. By January 1933, the economic situation entered its cruelest year with thousands of people dying from starvation and nearly 12 million others unable to find work.

A New Deal and the Second World War No president in the twentieth century had a greater impact on American life than Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR). Voters elected him four times and he ruled a dozen years in the White House, 1933–45. FDR used optimistic radio chats to persuade listeners that, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” His New Deal economic recovery plan was a pragmatic approach – both profoundly conservative and profoundly revolutionary – to help people find hope and paychecks. In his first “hundred days” in office, FDR sent over 100 pieces of reform legislation to Congress and, in so doing, created the American welfare state – a stark contrast to the long-standing Jeffersonian maxim that “the government which governs best, governs least.” By 1935, the New Deal was having a positive effect, even though unemployment remained above 20 percent. The Great Depression ended only after the start of World War II in Europe in 1939. With the public refusing to take part in another European war, the United States once again declared its neutrality but supplied the British. Then, on Sunday, 7 December 1941 – in Roosevelt’s phrasing, “a date that will live in infamy” – the Japanese attack on Pearl

History

27

Harbor naval base galvanized Americans as never before. The power of the national government soared as it established wage and price controls, rationed products, decided what would be produced, and raised income taxes. Americans migrated to the cities and moved west, especially to California. Women and African Americans entered the workforce in large numbers as over 16 million men joined or were drafted into the military. FDR declared it illegal to discriminate in hiring for government jobs and Congress passed a Fair Employment Practices Act. 300,000 Americans died in the Second World War even though the country’s major contribution was weaponry. By 1944, America produced twice as much war material as Germany and Japan combined. Government spending increased from $8 billion a year in 1936 to $98 billion in 1945. In the Pacific, US forces fought an island-by-island campaign, before developing and dropping the two atomic bombs on Japan that ended the war.

The Cold War The 1950s With the war over and colonial empires crumbling, the world entered into a “Cold War” increasingly divided into blocs led by the Soviet Union and the United States. Americans reached a consensus that Soviets were evil atheists out for world domination and concluded that the United States was the only country capable of stopping them. As the United States accepted the superpower role it still maintains, the country moved from a dependence on conventional armies to a strategy of sophisticated airpower, long-range missiles, nuclear submarines, and thermonuclear warheads. After a decade of economic depression followed by a four-year war where personal spending was limited and where savings accounts bulged with $140 billion, Americans began to consume. Millions of veterans used the new “G. I. Bill” to get university degrees, and in the process, increased the numbers of US research universities. As the middle class expanded and prospered, they became more homogenized and seemed to reach a basic consensus about values and culture. Sociologist David Reisman’s The Lonely Crowd (1950) described this as a loss of individualism and the change to a new conformity of doing what others expected. The primary expression of wealth was the baby boom of 1945–57 which saw the birthrate soar

28


to 25 births per 1,000 people – about 4 million babies a year. Larger families promoted a demand for housing construction and the automobile allowed for far-flung suburban communities. By 1960 the majority of Americans lived in the suburbs, commuted on the new interstate highway system, and bought what they needed in shopping malls. To renew themselves, Americans turned to religion and listened to radio evangelists like Billy Graham who preached that true Americans were Christians, not “godless Communists.” In 1954, Congress added the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance, and the next year put the words “In God We Trust” on every piece of currency. Christianity demanded order and pressured women to return to the domestic sphere to raise “decent” children. Thousands obeyed, but thousands more were reluctant to give up the freedom and equality provided by a paycheck. The “two-income family” lifted the status of working women and increased disposable income. Most white Americans lived in what economist John Kenneth Galbraith called The Affluent Society (1958). The white poor, Indians, migrant laborers and most Black Americans continued to struggle. In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court ordered the integration of the nation’s schools. The next year, protestors in Montgomery, Alabama, refused to ride the segregated city bus lines and found a leader in Martin Luther King, Jr. African American migration increased tensions where workers lived. Latinos and American Indians began to protest their poverty and second-class citizenship in the richest country on earth. A growing youth culture turned to jazz, marijuana, and Rock-’n’-Roll to challenge the growing conformity in the suburbs. During the 1950s, Americans got hysterical about “Reds.” Congress used the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) – which was formed in 1938 to explore whether or not the New Deal welfare programs were “creeping socialism” – to uncover conspiracies against the American way of life. HUAC’s Richard Nixon headed the investigation into the stealing of atomic secrets by foreign spies. Actor Ronald Reagan accused Hollywood of harboring communists, and the “Red Scare” accelerated after Senator Joseph McCarthy claimed that communists had infiltrated the government. As McCarthyism increased the American paranoia over Russian expansion, voters in 1952 elected US Army General Dwight D. Eisenhower, to the presidency. Eisenhower calmed fears by denouncing McCarthy and encouraging economic growth. He believed in the

History

29

partnership between government and business, and he held to a philosophy: “What is good for General Motors is also good for our country.” The government invested in weaponry and big businesses profited in what Eisenhower critically termed the “military-industrial complex.” Things were booming like never before.

The 1960s The decade opened with a presidential election between Republican Vice-President Richard Milhous Nixon and Democratic Senator John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK). Both were anti-communists who had supported McCarthy’s witchhunt. Nixon appealed to conservative Protestants and Kennedy, a Catholic, fought to downplay rumors that he was controlled by the Pope. Nixon pushed for television debates. After all, when rumors of an illegal campaign “slush fund” almost forced him from the Republican ticket in 1952, Nixon went on television to explain that he had also received a puppy as a gift. With a tear in his eye and his voice shaking, Nixon said that his daughter loved that puppy and that no matter what happened, he would not make her give it back. Viewers agreed that Nixon should keep his dog and remain on the ticket. In 1960, television did make the difference, but it was JFK’s camera presence that won the election. At his inauguration, Kennedy challenged Americans to “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” His womanizing – including Marilyn Monroe – was not high media drama in days when the press seemed more capable of separating private actions from public discourse. Kennedy’s domestic program, the “New Frontier,” raised the minimum wage, built low-cost housing for the poor, sponsored a redevelopment program for poverty-stricken Appalachia – an area located primarily in Tennessee – and appointed more minorities to federal jobs than anyone had done before. Yet, JFK insisted on balancing the budget instead of spending on social welfare programs and even though he supported the efforts of Martin Luther King, Jr., his administration could not be counted on to stand up to determined Southern white racism. It was in foreign policy that Kennedy made his mark, even after a bad start. A CIA-planned invasion of Cuba failed, and a few months later the world awoke to a new barrier – and a Soviet victory – the Berlin Wall. Emboldened, Cuban President Fidel Castro and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba in October 1962.

30


Kennedy responded by threatening nuclear war if the missiles were not removed. When Khrushchev capitulated, Kennedy’s popularity rose. Americans also admired Kennedy’s establishment of the Peace Corps because it fit into the historical missionary zeal of bringing democracy and “American know-how” to developing countries. They liked his determination to win the space race by putting a man on the moon before the decade ended and supported, but could not foresee the consequences of, his order sending 16,000 combat advisors to Vietnam. Then, on 22 November 1963, a sniper or, according to a proliferation of conspiracy theories, snipers assassinated him on a visit to Dallas Texas. JFK-the-martyr myth immediately rose up in the American imagination as a shining promise of what might have been. His beatification eased the way for his successor, Lyndon Johnson, to declare a “war on poverty” and to promote his “Great Society” programs for raising the lot of the underprivileged. Minority groups were already resisting their exclusion from the affluent society. In the farms of the West where workers labored long days for poor pay and no benefits packages, Cesar Chavez organized migrant Chicano laborers into the United Farm Workers Union. The African American Civil Rights Movement hit high gear, and mass protests created turmoil and brought world opinion to bear on discrimination and racism. Martin Luther King used non-violent moral pressure, but others, like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers, believed that violence could be a revolutionary tool. From 1964 to 1968, race riots occurred across urban America. In this climate of anger and fear, further assassinations followed: Malcolm X (1965), Martin Luther King, Jr. (1968), and presidential candidate Robert Kennedy (1968). Domestic violence combined with the demoralizing war in Vietnam to destroy the Great Society. The nation divided sharply along generational, philosophical, gender and racial lines. When it became clear that the Vietnam War had drifted into genocide and that there were limits to American power, anti-war protests further split society as women, environmentalists, blacks, Latinos, gays, Indians, hippies, and students demanded change. Johnson was beseiged by the incessant chanting outside the Oval Office: “Hey, Hey LBJ! How many kids you kill today?” and “Two, Four, Six, Eight, We don’t want to integrate!” and “Power! Black Power!” He did not run for re-election.

History

31

The 1970s Richard Nixon was back, promising “peace with honor” in Vietnam and a return to “law and order” at home. Americans – whom Nixon called “the Great Silent Majority” – elected him to the presidency in 1968 and 1972. He pulled American troops out of Vietnam, but only after a savage escalation of bombing forced the peace. Nixon also made overtures to Russia and China and foreign policy entered an era of détente. In domestic affairs, he promoted a “New Federalism” to reduce the role of the national government by returning power to the states and placed thousands of police in America’s streets to reestablish domestic order. The scandals came quickly. Daniel Ellsberg, a Pentagon official, leaked top-secret documents, the Pentagon Papers, to the New York Times. The Washington Post uncovered a story about the 1972 burglary of the Democratic National Headquarters in the Watergate building. The first story revealed the misinformation campaign and outright lies the Johnson Administration told the American people about Vietnam. The second story revealed that Nixon had known about the burglary and had covered it up. The Senate investigated the matter, television turned it into high drama, and when Congress threatened to impeach him, Nixon resigned. Watergate was a triumph for a liberal press, the checks and balances system and the American people, but it also increased American fears of conspiracy and mistrust of government. With the years of social turmoil and assassinations, the nation’s first war defeat, a stagnant economy with high inflation, and two presidents dishonored for lying, the American people suffered a crisis in confidence. Usually the elected vice-president becomes president when a vacancy occurs out-of-sync with the normal election cycle, but, before Nixon resigned, Vice President Spiro Agnew had been found guilty of tax evasion and had stepped down. Nixon selected Gerald Ford to fill Agnew’s position, and thus Ford became the only appointed president in US history. Still, the people felt better to have a man known to be scrupulously honest at the helm. Ford made Americans laugh when he declared upon taking office, “I’m a Ford, not a Lincoln” – a word-play on a common automobile and a luxury car (Lincoln Continental), as well as the obvious connection. Americans were prepared to suspend judgment when the unthinkable happened – Ford issued an executive pardon, freeing Nixon from criminal prosecution. While Ford explained it as a way to end “our

32


long national nightmare,” most Americans saw the action as yet another misuse of executive privilege (Ford, 1974). Runaway inflation and recession marked the post-Vietnam years. In 1976 Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter defeated Ford by making a single campaign promise never to lie to the American people. In domestic affairs, Carter could not stop inflation, which rose to 14 percent as unemployment topped 7 percent for the first time since the Depression. An energy crisis hurt the economy when Arab oilproducing states cut oil exports in protest of US–Israeli actions in the Middle East. Two disasters also indicated governmental failures. In 1978, at “Love Canal” – a housing development in Niagara Falls, New York – hundreds of people suffered or lived shorter lives as dioxin, one of the deadliest poisons ever made, rose up from the toxic waste dump nearby. The next year, at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, a nuclear power plant released radioactive gases into the atmosphere. Carter did better in the global arena, deftly handling a treaty returning the canal zone to Panama, officially recognizing the People’s Republic of China, brokering the peace between Egypt and Israel that ended their 30-years’ war, and campaigning worldwide for human rights. But those successes were overcome in the long year of 1980 when Iranian revolutionaries held 52 Americans hostage in Tehran after the overthrow of the US-backed Shah. Carter’s diplomatic efforts failed and the American people fumed over Muslim terrorists and Arab oil embargoes. When Carter seemed to be locked in the White House doing nothing, his popularity tumbled. When he tried a rescue mission with helicopter gunships, a dust storm in the desert spoiled the attempt, and Americans blamed him personally.

The Reagan Era Rising prices, energy shortages, hostages, and social turmoil, fed into the rising right-wing resurgence. In 1979, in the United Kingdom, the conservative Margaret Thatcher was elected prime minister. In 1980, in the United States, voters opted for the governor of California, a former actor in second-rate movies, a charismatic cowboy who was threatening war with Iran if it did not return the hostages. Ronald Reagan beat Carter by a landslide electoral college vote of 489–49 after promising to return Americans to confidence by stressing patriotism and revitalizing the military. At 69, he was the oldest president the country had ever elected, his grandfatherly chuckle charmed

History

33

voters, and his acting ability gained him the sobriquet “the Great Communicator.” On inauguration day, Iran released the hostages – there had been a secret deal. Reagan continued his aggressive stance, labeling the Soviet Union “an evil empire” and vowing to intervene militarily if anyone threatened US interests. This high-risk strategy made the world uneasy while it strengthened American confidence. Reagan approved expensive high-tech projects, got the military budget increased from $136 to $244 billion – four times the amount spent per minute during the Vietnam War – and promoted a “Star Wars” defense system in outer space to protect the US against a nuclear strike by another power. But Reagan’s approach did not bring peace or security. When he sent marines into Lebanon in 1983 as part of a peacekeeping force, terrorists used a truck bomb to kill 239 of them. Reagan withdrew the soldiers. In 1985, Muslim fundamentalists held various Americans hostage, hijacked airplanes, killed an American tourist on a cruise ship near Crete, and bombed an American nightclub in Munich. Frustrated by the inability to hold any country responsible, Reagan sent an airstrike against Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi for his support of terrorists. Reagan was more successful in stopping Cuban-led insurgency in Grenada. He also approved of CIA help to the “Contras” – a rightwing group in Nicaragua trying to overthrow an elected socialist government. Worried that the US might be getting involved in another Vietnam, Congress ordered all funding to the Contras stopped. At that point, Lt. Colonel Oliver North – a deputy to the National Security Advisor – devised a plan to use the money from a secret arms deal with Iran to fund the revolution in Nicaragua. Patently illegal, the press called the events “Irangate” – echoing the Watergate scandal – and a congressional investigation revealed a presidency out of control, one managed so loosely that non-elected officials could subvert the orders of Congress. Reagan said he knew nothing of it and the matter faded away. Reagan’s domestic policy rolled back the social welfare programs begun in the New Deal and expanded during the Great Society. Individual responsibility and free market capitalism were revived. Social commentators spoke of “lifestyle choices” as a way to explain away poverty, failure, and multiculturalism. Reagan got tax breaks for the rich and called for an increase in capital punishment, harsher penalties for drug use, more prisons, and bigger police departments. In 1988 Reagan’s two-term Vice-President, George Bush, easily

34


defeated the Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis. Bush spoke of a “kinder, gentler” America while he maintained Reagan’s economic policies. He benefited from breathtaking events in Eastern Europe: the Berlin Wall came down, Germany reunited, and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev’s reform policies led to the collapse and breakup of the Soviet Union into national states. The Warsaw Pact no longer existed and Eastern Europe moved toward free-market capitalism. In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait, only to be surprised at the quick and determined response of Bush, who by January had deployed over 500,000 American troops to the Persian Gulf. The quick victory in “Operation Desert Storm” boosted his popularity at home. But the economy slowed and, wanting to balance the budget, Bush sought to reduce government domestic programs while reneging on his 1988 campaign promise, “Read my lips! No new taxes!” The American public resisted any further cuts in health care and the tax increase infuriated conservatives. In the election of 1992, 19 million disgruntled voters supported a third-party candidate, Texas computer billionaire Ross Perot. This split in the conservative vote elected the Democratic nominee, a young lawyer and governor from a small Southern state, who played saxophone on MTV: William Jefferson Clinton.

The 1990s Coinciding with Clinton’s presidency, the US economy entered its longest period of expansion, unemployment fell to historic lows, inflation bottomed out, crime rates plunged dramatically, civil disorders nearly ceased, and world leaders generally approved of the change in leadership styles and rhetoric. Clinton’s election lifted the first baby-boomer into the Oval Office, leaving behind the first-hand memories of the World War II generation. The president’s wife, Hillary Rodham, had a law degree from Yale University, a daughter Chelsea, an established career, and was an equal partner in both family matters and political involvement. The Clintons would share the presidency and put forth an ambitious agenda to increase health care, fix the economy, end deficit spending, erase discrimination, reduce violence, and give more power to the states. Immediately, Clinton was in trouble. With his first order as Commander-in-Chief, Clinton removed the ban on homosexuals enlisting in the armed forces. The backlash by military leaders and

History

35

homophobic Americans was so great that the president had to compromise to a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, meaning that recruiters would not ask about sexual preference and gays should not reveal themselves (quoted in Tindall and Shi, 1996: 1545). Simultaneously, the disclosure that the Clintons had received insider treatment in a real-estate deal was coupled with lawsuits charging the President with sexual misconduct while he was Governor of Arkansas. Suddenly, everyone had a story to tell about Clinton’s womanizing. In the midst of a hailstorm of allegations, Clinton appointed his wife to chair the committee to change the health care system to a universal benefit package for all Americans. Critics charged nepotism and asked “Just who does she think she is?” Health care reform was defeated because a coalition of opposition groups, including doctors, hospitals, and small business owners, thought they would lose profits or have to pay the bulk of the health premiums in an expanded benefits system. By 1994, the Clintons had caused enough of a backlash to elect a Republican majority in the House and Senate for the first time since the 1950s. House Republicans, led by Speaker Newt Gingrich, pushed a “Contract With America” which would offer tax cuts, put term limits on politicians, expand the death penalty, restrict welfare, and pass a constitutional Amendment to balance the budget. The Senate refused to agree to the Contract and the President vetoed the Republican budget proposal because it sliced medicare payments, reduced environmental protection, and cut taxes too much. Because Congress has the constitutional power over the government’s purse, without an approved budget there is no money. Twice, in efforts to force Clinton to sign the budget, Gingrich allowed the government to shut down, delaying all payroll checks to civil-service employees, the military, and politicians. Gingrich miscalculated as the public supported the President and blamed Congress. As coincidence often affects politics, Timothy McVeigh, an extremist in Oklahoma City who wanted to strike a blow against big government, exploded a truck bomb at the federal building killing 169 people, including a dozen children in a day-care center. The American people rallied to the President. Additionally, the stock market was booming and military involvement abroad was limited to peacekeeping missions to Africa (Somalia, Rwanda) and Eastern Europe (the former Yugoslavia). With the 1996 election approaching, Clinton announced his intention to balance the budget by 2002 and adopted the Reagan plan of return-

36


ing power to the states. Clinton was a fabulous talker and his ability to read the mood of the American people provided the margin for victory over Republican Bob Dole. Gender played a huge factor in the election as women favored Democratic policies, particularly the pro-choice stance on abortion. Clinton responded by appointing more women to high positions than anyone had done before, including Attorney General Janet Reno, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and, in 1997, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Political analyst Joe Klein defined the “Clinton condundrum” as “solid policy and brilliant politics obscured by the consequences of tawdry personal behavior” (Klein, 2002: 21). Clinton could not restrain his libido and found himself in real trouble when a 21-yearold intern, Monica Lewinsky, told a friend that she had been having sex with the President and that she had a sperm-stained dress to prove it. Clinton went on national television, looked the country straight in the face, and stated, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” (quoted in Campbell, 1998). When he later admitted that he had lied under oath, the House voted for impeachment and the Senate trial dragged on for a month. The American people were titillated but forgiving. By a majority of nearly 80 percent in most polls, the people disapproved of impeachment. The Senate voted 50–50 for conviction. Since a two-thirds majority, 67 votes, is necessary to remove a President, the vote was a victory for the president. But the Democrats would pay for Clinton’s actions when the electorate voted in 2000 for Republican George W. Bush. As a footnote – and to reiterate the brevity of United States history – in his farewell speech to the nation in 2001, Clinton took up and turned around the injunction by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson against “entangling alliances.” Clinton warned that “America cannot and must not disentangle itself from the world.” A few days later, in his inaugural speech, George W. Bush also evoked Jefferson, quoting from a letter written to the country’s third president: “Our duty is fulfilled in service to one another. . . . And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.” Citing Jefferson and the unwavering belief in manifest destiny, these addresses strike the essential chord of memory in the American experience.

2 Land and People

The United States has a diverse and expansive population and geography. In 1790, the first US Census counted 3,929,214 people on 891,364 square miles of land. In 2000, with an official population of 281,421,906 and a total area of 3,679,192 square miles (9,529,063 sq. km.), the US is the third-largest country in population and the fourthlargest in size. The continental distance is immense. Between New York City and San Francisco it is 3,200 miles (5,200 km), about the same distance as from New York to London. Alaska alone covers 586,412 square miles (1,518,807 sq. km.) and is 2,300 miles (3,700 km.) long. No other nation has a wider range of ethnic, racial, or cultural variations or possesses a physical environment including Arctic tundra, subtropical rainforests, natural harbors, arid deserts, fertile prairies, three continental mountain ranges, active volcanoes, prehistoric swamplands, geysers, great inland seas, multiple networks of lakes and rivers, and three ocean borders. Excepting Hawaii and Alaska, the nation is confined geographically by the same latitudes stretching between northern France and Egypt and is as large as the whole of Europe combined. America’s highest point is Mt. McKinley in Alaska at 20,320 feet (6,194m) and the lowest and hottest point is Death Valley in California-Nevada at 282 feet (86m) below sea level and a record-high temperature of 134 degrees Fahrenheit (57 C). The United States has nearly 200 cities with 100,000 or more people and at least 80 percent of the national population lives in urban or suburban areas. This leaves vast open spaces and a feeling of “emptiness.” For example, in 2000, 30 of the 50 states had smaller populations than Denmark’s 5.3 million people. Table 2.1 indicates 37

38 Table 2.1

Country and State Comparisons

Entity

Area (sq. miles)*

Population** (millions)

Russia China India Canada Mexico USA

6,592,817 3,600,930 1,147,950 3,560,219 742,486 3,539,227

147.2 1227.7 1014.0 31.3 100.4 281.4

France Afghanistan Texas

210,668 250,000 267,277

59.3 25.9 20.9

Spain Iraq California

192,819 167,556 158,869

40.0 22.7 33.9

Germany Japan Montana

135,236 152,411 147,046

82.8 126.6 0.9

Poland Vietnam New Mexico

117,571 125,622 121,598

38.6 78.8 1.8

Italy Phillippines Arizona

113,521 115,124 114,006

57.6 81.2 5.1

UK Ghana Oregon

93,278 88,811 97,132

59.5 19.5 3.4

Ireland Portugal Maine

26,598 35,382 33,741

3.8 10.0 1.3

Denmark Netherlands Maryland

16,359 13,104 12,297

5.3 15.9 5.3

* 1 square mile equals approximately 2.6 square kilometers. ** Population is rounded to the nearest 100,000.

Land and People

39

the actual and relative sizes of the United States and selected states within the United States in comparison with other countries.

The Land The landmass of the contiguous 48 states (see Map 2.1) is framed by the Pacific Ocean and Sierra Nevada mountain range on the west and the Atlantic Ocean and Appalachian mountain range on the east. The Gulf of Mexico and Rio Grande river mark the border with Mexico; the St. Lawrence seaway and five Great Lakes establish much of the border with Canada. The country is bisected by the world’s thirdlongest river, the Mississippi (3,740 m./6,020 km.), which begins in Minnesota, irrigates and drains half the continent, and pours into the Gulf of Mexico just south of New Orleans. The United States is further dissected by the Rocky Mountains, a high range stretching southwards from Alaska to New Mexico. With the exceptions of Alaska, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico and the southern portions of Florida, Texas and California, the United States is in the temperate zone and enjoys four distinct seasons. All US cities outside Alaska experience hot summers. The warm water of the Atlantic Gulf Stream spawns hurricanes and thunderstorms from Texas to Maine, and hot weather in the country’s midsection combines with flat land to produce over 1,000 tornadoes every year. At frequent intervals, too much rain or snow will raise the level of the Mississippi–Missouri–Ohio river system, flooding areas to create lakes hundreds of miles wide. In winter, an arctic or “Canadian” jet stream blows from west to east, dipping as far as the middle of the United States and bringing severely cold weather and heavy snows to the northern states. East of the Rockies and along most of the Pacific coast, the United States has adequate to above-average rainfall, punctuated in recent years by moderate periods of drought. This combines with the rich soil of the Midwest, the South, and California to provide a bountiful agricultural production in grains, fruits, and vegetables. Where the rainfall is less, but still sufficient to grow grass, cattle farmers and cowboys operate massive livestock businesses on a monotonous landscape.

Rio

ins a t n u Mo

ado

G.

of

lif Ca

orn

ia

Major Topographical Features

n s P l a i R.

io

Oh

L. Michigan

Gulf of Mexico

Ozark Plateau R . M issis sip

pi

L. Erie

L. Huron L. Ontario

0

n dso

Map 2.1

Sierra Madre

ri ou iss

Pacific Ocean

Sierra Nevada

R. Snake

R. C olor

L. Superior

A

a p p

h

y Rock c

t G r e a la

M

M

R.

.

Hu

n ia

R.

ts

R. Columbia

over 12,000 ft 6,000–12,000 ft 1,200–6000 ft below 1200 ft 500 miles

ALASKA

on Yuk R.

Atlantic Ocean

40

Gra nde

Land and People

41

Natural Resources The country has vast natural resources in almost everything, including timber, oil, natural gas, coal, iron ore, bauxite, uranium, gold, copper, and silver. It also controls nearly 12,500 miles (20,000 km.) of coastline from which to import and export products and to send out fishing fleets. For over 200 years, Europeans wrote to relatives about what seemed to be limitless forests and of their own handiwork in using an axe for taming the wilderness. Today, US timber companies clear whole areas of woodlands and fight with environmentalists over the destruction of old growth forests, most of which are protected by law. The companies also plant more trees than they cut each year, ensuring a growth cycle which renews the forests every 20 years. Even so, radical environmentalists using the name Earth Liberation Front (ELF) have been unhappy with government policies which allow companies or individuals to injure “Mother Earth.” In 2001, ELF labelled timber companies “earth rapers.” Company offices and private luxury homes built in forests that the group wants preserved have been the victims of arson attacks (Sink, 2001). America has rich reservoirs of oil, found mostly along the Gulf of Mexico in Texas and Louisiana, but also in Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere. The biggest oilfield is in Alaska and a trans-Alaskan pipeline carries the crude oil to coastal shipping and refining firms. Still, the American love for the automobile means that the country consumes more oil than it produces and is the world’s major importer of petroleum. Copper and silver are mined primarily in Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. The vast iron ore deposits in Wisconsin and Michigan and the world’s largest coal mines – in West Virginia and Pennsylvania – ensure that the country’s steel mills are well supplied. Two-thirds of the world’s known uranium deposits are located under the Navajo Indian reservation in Arizona. With this wealth in resources causing a mindset of unlimited abundance, Americans have often run roughshod over the land, depleting the soil, overkilling animals, polluting the environment, and wasting resources. Hundreds of species have been driven to extinction or very near to it. Fur traders and soldiers slaughtered millions of bison so that by 1889 fewer than 1,000 animals remained alive. Old growth forests were lost through logging practices that scalped whole areas, strip mining in open mines scarred the earth, the dumping of chemicals into waste heaps caused health problems, and rivers and lakes became so polluted that whole ecosystems were changed. Twenty-

42


five percent of all greenhouse gases causing global warming are currently spewn from US sources – not a surprising number given that US factories produce twenty-five percent of the world’s industrial products. In 2001, the Senate failed to ratify the 2000 Kyoto Protocol to the 1992 Climate Change Convention after President Bush announced that he would not support the measure. The world viewed this as an act of bad faith because Clinton administration representatives at Kyoto had agreed to reduce pollution under the protocol. In 1970 Congress established a national policy for the environment and created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA tries to achieve a balance between population size and resource use and sets national standards for the emissions of greenhouse gases, supports anti-pollution activities of states or private groups, regulates the disposal of toxic wastes, monitors noise levels, pesticide use, ocean dumping, and issues Environmental Impact Statements on the possible consequences of new building sites. The EPA’s 18,000 employees research and set national standards for water and air quality, test compliance, and issue sanctions against any corporation, individual, state, or Indian tribe which violates the standards. Powerful conservation and environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, Greenpeace, and others, join with sympathizers in the government to protect land and animals. In 1871, Congress set aside 2.2 million acres (900,000 hectares) in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho to establish the nation’s first national park, Yellowstone. It would be 20 years later, in 1890, before the second park, Yosemite, saved ancient redwood trees and pristine mountains in California. Insisting that he would protect the environment for future generations to enjoy, President Theodore Roosevelt overrode Congressional criticism to set aside millions of acres of national lands, thereby enlisting the government into conservation. The parks (see for example Illustration 2.1) are extremely popular among Americans, who are, in fact, overusing them. For example, Yosemite and Yellowstone are each visited by over 4 million visitors and campers per year. The National Park Service (NPS), which has administered the nation’s parks since 1916, continues to reduce parking spaces, limit camping permits, and remove roads to help the parks recover to a more natural condition. And, contrary to notions of America as a bastion of private ownership, in 2002, the United States government held 24.8 percent of the nation’s total land mass in the federal domain, mostly unavailable for private or state development. In

Land and People

Illustration 2.1

43

Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming

One of the nation’s foremost landscape photographers, Ansel Adams, captured the enduring grandeur of the National Park’s preservation and conservation efforts with this picture of the Snake River Valley and Grand Teton Mountains, Wyoming. (Ansel Adams Collection, RG79, Records of the National Park Service, NARA).

addition to the NPS, each of the 50 states has a state park system which sets aside state-owned land for recreational and conservation purposes. In 2000, the total state park acreage totalled nearly 13 million acres (5.2 million hectares). The largest national park is Gates of the Arctic Park in Alaska, at over 7.5 million acres (3 million hectares), established in 1980 during the Carter administration. Generally, Democratic presidents have supported programs protecting public lands; Republican presidents from 1981–93 (Reagan and Bush) resisted the creation of more parks and wanted existing reserves opened to private exploitation. The two most recent presidents are illustrative of this difference. The Clinton administration banned road-building and commercial logging on 60 million acres (24 million hectares) of forest, increased the size of many national parks, established 11 new national monuments and

44


adopted tougher standards for automobile emissions. The Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society praised Clinton and hailed 2000 as the best year for conservation since the Carter administration (Booth, 2001). Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has opened parks and Indian reservations for oil exploration, logging, and mining. He is especially keen on oil production in Alaska’s National Wildlife Reserve, which contains an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil. Bush says that the economy, jobs, and national security are the most important considerations. Since conservation programs are funded annually by Congress – $1.4 billion in 2000 – presidents have a major influence in the saving or wasting of public lands through their power to sign or veto legislation. In addition to the basic funding, separate bills can be put forth in Congress for specific reasons; for example, in 2000, Congress and Clinton approved a $7.8 billion plan to help restore water to Florida’s Everglades National Park, a massive swamp with 68 endangered species of plants and wildlife (Alvarez, 2000b). Because presidents make appointments to governmental departments, the environmental inclination of the directors affects the implementation of Congressional Acts. The present Bush administration is ideologically different from its predecessor and this fact has led many environmentalists to accuse Bush of subverting Congressional intentions by diverting most of the $7.8 billion to urban projects near Miami and only saving the Everglades as an afterthought. In addition to the 77.5 million acres (33 million hectares) in the 369 parks of the NPS, the federal government has designated more than 93 million acres (37 million hectares) as National Wildlife Refuges. These refuges protect animals and plants, restrict sightseeing, and prohibit fishing, hunting, and rock collecting. In 1966 Congress passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to provide guidelines for the protection of certain species. One of the more striking recent successes has been the recovery of the American Bald Eagle, one of the world’s largest soaring birds – a white-headed, 14-pound raptor with a wingspan of eight feet, piercing eyes and a giant, hooked yellow beak – and the longtime symbol of the American nation. When Europeans arrived in the New World, there were an estimated 500,000 nesting pairs in the continental United States. Hunters and the widespread use of pesticides reduced the population to 500 pairs before the ESA listed the bird as its top priority. By 2000, there were 11,600 mated pairs and many thousands of juveniles (Barisic, 2000).

Land and People

45

Also by 2000, the gray wolf, which was nearly shot and poisoned out of existence for preying upon western cattle herds in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and was one of the first animals protected by the ESA, recovered in the contiguous states from a population of less than 400 animals to 3,500. While it is still protected, the gray wolf is officially off the “endangered” list. This move is controversial, because a “threatened” animal can be killed if it encroaches on property. Cattle ranchers and other farmers are unhappy with the return of the gray wolf because, as the President of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association has stated publicly, “We have excessive numbers of cougars, coyotes and bears that take a heavy toll on the other wildlife and livestock, and we simply cannot add another predator” (Revkin, 2000). Private groups, such as Defenders of Wildlife, hoping to deter ranchers from their secret “shoot, shovel, and keep quiet” method of destroying wolves, reimburse ranchers for any losses caused by gray wolves in exchange for the ranchers’ promises to stop the secret killings (Revkin, 2000). Media tycoon Ted Turner has allowed the government to create a wolf habitat in thousands of acres of his private forests in Montana which abound in elk and other prey. While the survival of the wolf and eagle are striking success stories, only 28 species have been removed from the endangered list in three decades and 1,205 species remained on the list in 2002. Besides the destruction of habitats and overkilling, changing weather patterns can kill a species. In 2001, a record drought in Oregon threatened the suckerfish, an inedible species. Under the ESA, the federal government cut off irrigation water to protect the fish’s habitat. That action left Oregon farmers without water to save their crops and they lost some $250 million in profits as well as laid off 30 percent of their laborers. Conservatives nationwide sounded charges of “rural cleansing” against farmers and demanded a change in the ESA that would protect humans when the choice was between a fish that no one ate and crops that fed and provided income for families (Jehl, 2001).

The People Native Americans When Europeans arrived in America, they found it already occupied. Through European eyes, the Indians were living upon the land but did

46


not possess or use it according to biblical injunctions to “Be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion . . . over every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Genesis 1:27–8). Religious immigrants saw the land through the eyes of the scriptures both as a place where danger lurked and as a source of redemption and wealth. Soon Euro-Americans were using Crown grants, legal deeds, squatters’ rights, vigilante justice and military might to subdue Indians and land. In contemporary America, a few million people are descended from the original immigrants, Native Americans, but most are descendants of newcomers. About 90 percent of all Americans can trace a part or the whole of their ancestry to Europe. In fact, Europe’s primary export for the last 400 years has been people and Europeans have been especially prolific in rapid ecological change and in reproducing societies similar to their own on vast areas of the temperate regions of the world. As soon as they had transplanted colonies which mirrored their own, those began to transform through the interplay of other immigrant cultures, the land and climate. In so doing, immigrants became Americans. From the beginning, the people arrived ahead of the government and into areas where no government had ever existed. The first Americans came across the Bering Straits from Asia to settle on land unclaimed by precedent or legal deed. These Asians advanced yearly ten or so miles until they stretched out in different groups across the North American continent. As time and distance separated them from their roots in Mongolia and Siberia, these immigrants accommodated their cultures to the land and became “Indians” – as the early Europeans called them. Their cultures also changed rapidly with European contact as Indians and Europeans became Americans. Prior to the arrival of the European horde, thousands of Indian tribes were widely distributed across America. The Anasazi culture of Colorado built a thousand homes into cliffs at Mesa Verde and Chaco Canyon; the AdenaHopewell culture were mound builders living in Ohio; in New Mexico, the oldest continuously occupied town in the United States is the Acoma Pueblo village near Santa Fe; at Cahokia, near St. Louis, the Mississippi culture built a massive pyramidal city of 10,000 inhabitants that had to be abandoned due to overcrowding and pollution problems about the time of Columbus’s voyages; from Canada to Georgia, the Iroquoian peoples hunted, farmed, and warred against their neighbors for supremacy over the land.

Land and People

Illustration 2.2

47

Navajo Woman and Child

Navajos comprise the largest of the 562 American Indian tribes and are among the most traditional groups. There is a pan-Indian movement to revive languages and ceremonies. Similar figures of mother and child can be found at pan-Indian PowWows held every summer in Indian Country. (Ansel Adams Collection, RG 79, Records of the National Park Service, NARA)

In 2000, 2.1 million people identified themselves primarily as American Indians (Illustration 2.2) or Inuits; millions more have Indian ancestors. All Indians are assimilated into the national culture even if one-quarter of all Indians reside on land set aside exclusively for their tribe; the other three-quarters live in urban or suburban areas

Map 2.2 American Indian Reservations Source: http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/512indre.pdf]

0

Key:

100

200 miles

State Reservations

Federal Indian Reservations

48

Land and People

49

nationwide. Generally, an individual must have an ancestry of at least one-fourth blood quantum measurement to be classified as “Indian” under tribal and US government rules. Many tribes allow exceptions of various types, with the Cherokee, for example, believing that a person either is or isn’t a Cherokee – blood cell counts being less relevant than identity and culture. In 2002, there were 562 officially recognized tribes/clans, with 1.6 million enrolled members and 56 million acres of reservation land (Map 2.2), mostly in the western United States (Olin, 2002). In the last 20 years more than one million acres have been added to existing or new Indian reservations. Tribal affairs are run by elected chiefs and tribal councils who act in ways similar to mayors and city councils across America. Tribal councils hear complaints, settle disputes, and decide how to spend the money earned by tribal enterprises or distributed to them by the federal government under the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The BIA had 10,000 employees in 2002 and was headed by Neal McCaleb, a member of the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma. McCaleb pursued a policy of tribal enterprise and entrepreneurship with less US government intervention. By 2002, 29 tribal councils had established community colleges on their reservations. Forty-eight tribes are involved in oil or natural gas production and 50 operate various types of mines. Many tribes have opened casino gambling parlors – which took in $12.7 billion in 2001, topping Las Vegas tallies – or built tourist hotels on reservations to attract capital (Olin, 2002). Some tribes manage all the profits for the collective communities and others transfer casino profits directly to tribal members, income amounting to $30,000 per member of the Mohave-Apache tribe in Arizona and $900,000 to each member of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Dakota Sioux tribe in Minnesota in 1998, for example. Most tribes, however, are located on isolated reservations where tourists rarely travel. Their members remain poorly educated, impoverished, and have social problems that far exceed the national average in rates of alcoholism, low life expectancy, high unemployment, and inadequate health care. In 2002, overall reservation unemployment was 43 percent as compared with the 5.4 percent national average; and of those employed, 33 percent earned wages below the poverty line (Darling, 2001). While Indians are proud to be Americans, the major disputes with the federal government are over the sense of Indianness that is tied to the land. Without the land, some have said, there are no Indians.

50


Many of the disputes are about water and fishing rights. Public dams redirect water supplies and conservation policies restrict the number of fish which can be caught. Both of these infringe on traditional patterns and Indians have mostly won lawsuits over water and fishing. Other land disputes concern the rich mineral deposits under reservation lands which have been leased to private corporations or, in the name of national security, have been mined under contracts with the US government. For example, in January 2002, the Bush administration reversed a Clinton administration ban on mining gold on the ancestral lands of the Quechan tribe in California. The operation would open a 1,600-acre open-pit mine in a desert area basically untouched by human habitation. Tribal President Mike Jackson said bluntly: “All tribal nations are very disappointed in the Bush administration. Nobody’s history should be destroyed. Putting this mine here would be like putting a McDonald’s on the South Lawn of the White House” (Madigan, 2002).

African Americans African Americans as a group do not share the common defining experience of voluntary immigration to the United States which most other Americans share; instead, their ancestors were kidnapped or sold into slavery and forced to adapt to a country with established racial hierarchies. This substantial difference still affects race relations as other racial and ethnic groups – other assimilated citizens – feel themselves more authentically American because of the original intent of their ancestors to make a new and better life for themselves from the one they were leaving behind. It is important to remember that the United States had no feudal past and thus no established peasantry. For African Americans, the continent of origin, slavery and its confrontation with America’s stated moral vision, and the long-standing status as the nation’s central minority set them apart. For many African Americans, who believe that each new immigrant group succeeds only at their expense, the recent surge in immigration hampers the struggle toward equal citizenship. After decades of struggle, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s mobilized the African American community in line with the actions and words of leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. (“Agitate, Litigate, Legislate!”), and Malcolm X (“By any means necessary!”). While they still face discrimination by private individuals, in job promotions, and by financial institutions, much has

Land and People

51

changed as Blacks have succeeded in wiping away all rules and regulations that denied equality before the law. Much of the split in American society is now as much a function of class as race, with a large portion of African Americans still, using King’s words, “wrapped in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society” (King, 1963: 81). In the contemporary United States, 34 million people identity themselves as African Americans. Being African American is more than visual as blacks define themselves as much by self choice and societal definition as by ancestry. Social definitions count. For example, historian Barbara Fields has explained that American society “considers a white woman capable of giving birth to a black child but denies that a black woman can give birth to a white child” (Fields, 1982: 149). Another example: Haitians have defined anyone with one part of white blood as “white,” which is just the opposite of the long-standing American insistence that one drop of black blood made a person “black” (Fields, 1982: 146). As part of this social definition, it matters where the discriminatedagainst person lives. For example, a Catholic Franco-American in New York could easily be defined as white Anglo in Texas, or an Irish laborer in Boston would easily be part of the majority culture of Anglos in Wyoming. While a history of struggling against slavery and discrimination provides cohesion to the idea of being black, an acceptance of the broader culture and of the English language differentiates African Americans from many other minority groups. Upon meeting African Americans, American Indians commonly called them “black white men.” Hispanics are defined by a common first language, Spanish, and tend to view African Americans as “Anglos,” an infuriating label for most blacks. Whether defined in racial, ethnic, or cultural terms, Americans have long experienced a phenomenon just beginning in many societies in the world: the ability to blur the differences between culture groups and fuse them into a national group. Many would like to see the old racial classification pentagon of white, black, red, yellow, and brown, and cross-cultural definitions such as Muslim, Hispanic, Asian-American or Jew, deleted for a post-racial or post-ethnic idea of simply being “American” or not. Intermarriages push different groups closer to this idea as does the concept of “symbolic identity” which allows a feeling of ethnicity or race as a sub-region of the whole.

52


Regions While the United States of America is a nation, its name indicates the simple fact that it is a union of different states. Each state has a particular personality based upon its peculiar history of settlement and immigration as well as according to its geography. Americans often describe their country by regions. There is a general, but not complete, agreement over which states belong to which regions and, of course, regions contain subregions which are also contested. We have divided the country into five basic areas which generally conform to a contemporary understanding.

The South As the area closest to Columbus’s discovery, the South (Map 2.3 and Table 2.2) has cities dating from the struggles of Spain, England, France, and American Indian tribes for dominance in the New World.

Washington D.C.

West Virginia

Richmond

Charleston Frankfort Louisville

Virginia

Kentucky

Raleigh

North Carolina

Nashville

Charlotte

Tennessee Arkansas

Columbia

Memphis Birmingham

Little Rock

Alabama Jackson

Louisiana

Norfolk

Montgomery

South Carolina

Atlanta

Georgia Savannah

Mississippi Baton Rouge New Orleans

Tallahassee Orlando Tampa

State capitals Other major cities

Florida Miami

0

100

Map 2.3

200 miles

The South

Puerto Rico San Juan

Virgin Islands

Land and People Table 2.2

53

The South

State, District, Territory, or Commonwealth

Date joined US

Area (Sq. Miles*)

Population

Georgia South Carolina Virginia North Carolina Washington, D.C. Kentucky Tennessee Louisiana Alabama Mississippi Arkansas Florida West Virginia Puerto Rico** US Virgin Islands***

1788 1788 1788 1789 1791 1792 1796 1812 1817 1817 1836 1845 1861 1898/1917 1917/1927

58,977 31,189 42,326 52,672 68 40,411 42,219 49,651 52,237 48,286 53,182 59,928 24,231 3,508 171

8,186,453 4,012,012 7,078,515 8,049,313 572,059 4,041,769 5,689,283 4,468,976 4,447,100 2,844,658 2,673,400 15,982,378 1,808,344 3,857,000 121,000

* 1 square mile equals approximately 2.6 square kilometers. ** The 2000 US Census also counted 3,406,178 Puerto Ricans living in the US and distributed the numbers among the states in which they lived. Puerto Rico is a commonwealth whose people are citizens of the United States. Puerto Ricans are neither allowed to vote in US presidential elections nor are they required to pay income taxes, unless they live inside US national boundaries. *** The US Virgin Islands are unincorporated territories which were purchased from Denmark in 1917. Citizens of the Virgin Islands became non-voting citizens of the United States in 1927. Source:

US Census Bureau (2002a).

The oldest permanent European settlements in the United States are the Spanish cities of San Juan, Puerto Rico (1508), and Saint Augustine, Florida (1565), the English settlement at Jamestown, Virginia (1607), and the French city of New Orleans, Louisiana (1718). Indians were mostly removed west of the Mississippi River by the 1840s, but the Cherokee Indian Reservation in the Appalachian Mountains in Tennessee is the largest Indian land-base east of Oklahoma. The “father of his country” George Washington, the author of The Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson, the principal writer of the Constitution James Madison, and the nationalist who claimed the entire western hemisphere for American hegemony James Monroe – four of the first five presidents – were

54


Virginians. In contemporary America, two of the five most recent chief executives, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, are Southerners. Much of the South’s regional identity comes from its way of life based upon the legacies of slavery and racism, its failed attempt to separate from the United States, and its warm climate. Spanish remains the official language in Puerto Rico and the Southern drawl – a speech pattern which mixes African and Scottish influences – is widespread. This creates a real as well as psychological division that defines the South. Since colonial times the South has delivered staple crops – tobacco, cotton, rice, sugar – to a world market. The earliest settlers were mostly English and Scottish Protestants (and Spanish Catholics in Puerto Rico and French Catholics in Louisiana) who imported Africans and set up a hierarchical society with slaveholding aristocrats at the top and black slaves at the bottom. White Southerners developed a pro-slavery argument based upon genetics, history, religion, and anti-capitalism. They used scientific theories to argue that whites were superior, that the classical democratic city of Athens and the republican city of Rome incorporated slavery, that the Bible sanctioned slavery, and that the system was a positive good when contrasted to the outrages of Northern manufacturing capitalism with its degradation of white workers. The Confederate States of America (1861–65) consisted of all the states in this region, plus Texas, excepting only Kentucky and West Virginia, which seceded from Virginia in 1863 to form a new state. Precisely because the South lost and the slaves were freed, Southern identity is still marked by the “Lost Cause” and by the intimate interaction and family ties of blacks and whites. Jimmy Carter’s 1970 election as governor of Georgia and his subsequent 1976 election to the presidency marked the South’s rise to regional power. Until then the region operated mostly as an internal colony of the North, supplying cheap labor and raw materials to feed the nation’s growth. Today, and for a full half century, the “New South” has been part of the “Sunbelt” – a broad cross-regional area from Virginia to California – which continues to enjoy high immigration, massive job growth, and sunny, hot weather. Illustrating its political strength, the Sunbelt has produced seven of the last eight presidents. The South has fewer large cities than the other regions. And while Washington, D.C., is a decidedly Southern city, the key city in the modern South is Atlanta, Georgia. Immigrants – particularly those

Land and People

55

from Vietnam and Mexico – have changed the dynamics of the Southern population as has the return migration of African Americans from Northern cities since the 1970s. Foreign industries invest heavily in building factories in Southern cities in exchange for tax relief, pollution waivers, and promises of non-unionized workers. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Defense Department are significant contributors to the Southern economy, with the main space launch pad at Cape Canaveral, Florida, the nuclear research lab at Oak Park, Tennessee, the principal Army bases in North Carolina and Georgia, and the Marine Corps training facility at Parris Island, South Carolina. Of course, sunshine promotes the South’s huge tourism business, with more than a thousand miles of beaches and resorts, pristine islands protected against development, and many large amusement parks, including Florida’s Disneyworld, Epcot Center, Busch Gardens, and Universal City Studios themepark. Prominent universities such as Emory, Georgia Tech, Duke, Vanderbilt, Virginia, Georgetown, and North Carolina help the South past its long-time image of slow-talking and slowthinking, even while the region remains the most religious, least educated, and lowest paid area in the country.

The North The North (Map 2.4 and Table 2.3) has long been associated with core American values of religious freedom, cultural diversity, liberty, capitalism, democracy, work, and education. Most of the prominent symbols of American nationalism – apart from those in Washington, D.C. – are located in the North. The buildings in which congresses wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Massachusetts has the landing spot of the Pilgrims – Plymouth Rock – Puritan graveyards, and the houses and churches where patriots planned the American Revolution. The Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island Immigration Museum, and United Nations stand in New York harbor. Puritan beliefs in the middle-class values of hard work, education, individual uplift, democracy, religiosity, and America as a “city upon a hill,” defined an American ideology. English Puritans built homogenous communities in the sub-region of New England: Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. Yet, the arrival of Swedes, Germans, Dutch, Catholics and other dissenters throughout the Mid-Atlantic sub-region of New York, New Jersey, Maryland,

56

Maine Vermont Augusta Montpelier

New Hampshire Massachusetts

Concord Albany Buffalo

Boston Providence

New York Hartford

Rhode Island Connecticut

Pennsylvania

New York Trenton

Harrisburg Pittsburgh

New Jersey

Philadelphia Baltimore

Dover

Delaware


Annapolis

Maryland 0

Map 2.4

100

200 miles

The North

Table 2.3

The North

State

Date joined US

Area (Sq. Miles*)

Population

Delaware Pennsylvania New Jersey Connecticut Massachusetts Maryland New Hampshire New York Rhode Island Vermont Maine

1787 1787 1787 1788 1788 1788 1788 1788 1790 1791 1820

2,396 46,058 8,215 5,544 9,241 12,297 9,283 53,989 1,231 9,615 33,741

783,600 12,281,054 8,414,350 3,405,565 6,349,097 5,296,486 1,235,786 18,976,457 1,048,319 608,827 1,274,923

* 1 square mile equals approximately 2.6 square kilometers.

Land and People

57

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Delaware foreshadowed the future of American cultural pluralism. With the exception of Vermont, all the states in this region have direct access to big Atlantic harbors from which trading and fishing ships have always operated. Additionally, with the Appalachian Mountains pushing the fall line near the coast, northern cities benefit from water power available to supply electricity and run factories. The industrial revolution which began in England first arrived in Boston and then spread across the North. Textile and flour mills, factories making interchangeable parts for weapons, shipbuilding, and insurance firms have long been mainstays of the region. By the mid-nineteenth century, the United States led the world in the number of merchant ships – and these operated almost entirely out of Northern ports. As trade was orchestrated from this region, banking houses such as J. P. Morgan and the nation’s main stock market, the New York Stock Exchange, rose to finance America’s business expansion and built New York City (NYC) into the world’s leading financial center. As NYC established itself as the main port for immigrants from Europe, various waves of ethnic groups gave the North an even more polyglot society. “Chain migrations” reached into Europe as one immigrant family from a single town would cause a linkage, pulling scores of relatives, friends, and former neighbors to America. After 1892, immigrants were processed at Ellis Island before most of them settled in neighborhoods of their own cultures. Here the immigrants found people, language, food, and historical knowledge which kept alive Old World cultures while they made the transition to the overarching American culture. Iron and oil deposits in Pennsylvania led to the rise of Andrew Carnegie’s steel company and John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil monopoly. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York surpassed Massachusetts as centers of heavy industry, advantages they still maintain in contemporary America. Industries, trade, and the finance capitalism of the region means that even though the North is geographically smaller, it is more densely populated and much more urban than the other regions. NYC is the nation’s largest city and a sprawling urban network – a megalopolis – interconnects Boston to Washington, D.C. The Northeastern universities are renowned and include the oldest American university, Harvard (1636), as well as Yale, Princeton, Brown, Columbia, Dartmouth, M.I.T., and literally hundreds of

58


others. Education is big business, employing millions, and supplying a useable product, knowledge, to American undergraduates and to the foreign nationals who make US graduate programs excel. Universities also provide many of the innovations in scientific and technological advances.

The Midwest The Midwest (Map 2.5 and Table 2.4) is an extension of the North, settled quickly by immigrants streaming westward from northern states in the aftermath of the American Revolution and War of 1812. Additionally, as the 1848 European revolutions restored conservative monarchies, many Northern Europeans saw the chance to get a farm, work, and to be free by immigrating to the United States. The Midwest has huge populations descended from Germans, Irish, Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, Finns, Poles, and Ukranians. Seeking farms of their own, the people quickly sided with the North during the Civil War.

Michigan Minnesota


St. Paul

Wisconsin

Minneapolis Madison

Lansing

Milwaukee Detroit

Iowa

Nebraska Omaha Lincoln

Chicago

Des Moines

Illinois

Cleveland

Indiana

Ohio

Indianapolis

Cincinnati

Springfield Topeka

Kansas

St Louis Jefferson City

Missouri

0

100

Map 2.5

200 miles

The Midwest

Columbus


59

The Midwest

State

Date joined US

Area (Sq. Miles*)

Population

Ohio Indiana Illinois Missouri Michigan Iowa Wisconsin Minnesota Kansas Nebraska

1803 1816 1818 1821 1837 1846 1848 1858 1861 1867

44,828 36,420 57,918 69,709 96,705 56,276 65,499 86,943 82,282 77,358

11,353,140 6,080,485 12,419,293 5,595,211 9,938,444 2,926,324 5,363,675 4,919,479 2,688,418 1,711,263


Residents still see the region as the “heartland” of America, mostly untainted by the history of slavery in the South and overcrowded moneychangers and capitalists in the Northeast and Middle Atlantic states. Midwesterners are known for their honesty and down-to-earth directness and they speak a dialect best described as “flat.” They view themselves as liberals who conserve American values. Beginning in 1862, the Homestead Act allowed families to claim 160 acres of land by living on it. The area expanded rapidly. As Russian immigrants came into the region, they brought wheat seeds from the Steppe, which quickly took to the soil and gave the region its major crop. The Midwestern states border Canada or the Mississippi River system, the latter the key to the whole region. The Midwest is further serviced by direct access to the largest freshwater lakes in the world, the Great Lakes, which provide drinking water as well as shipping links via the St. Lawrence seaway to the Atlantic Ocean. The land has gentle hills east of the Mississippi and an increasing flatness west of the river. This is farming country, the agricultural breadbasket, meatpacking, and dairyland of the nation. It is also a region of great industrial and manufacturing cities, including Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Indianapolis, and Milwaukee. Heavy factories near these cities produce automobiles, chemicals, steel – and pollution. In the 1980s the Great Lakes ecosystem was heavily fouled and the Cuyahoga River running through downtown Cleveland frequently caught fire due to its oil and chemical content.

60


Between the World Wars, the cities of the Midwest (and North) proved an irresistable magnet for African Americans emigrating from the South to the promise of better jobs and less discrimination. As the economy expanded after World War II, blacks continued to arrive in large numbers. The competition for jobs and housing led to ugly racial incidents and to the establishment of inner-city ghettoes with maximum crowding and high crime rates. By the 1980s, the Midwestern automobile and steel industries had come under pressure from foreign competitors. Critics labelled the region the “Rust Belt” when many companies collapsed, workers were laid off, and millions relocated to better opportunities and less polluted cities in the Sunbelt. Still, the agricultural prowess of the region kept it in business until the industries could rebound. Today the Midwest is prospering with the resurgence of the automobile industry and the success of urban renewal projects to clean up and glamorize downtown regions for tourists and patrons of the arts. The economic highs of the 1990s brought prosperity, better jobs, more police protection, and lower crime rates which made the cities attractive again. Cleveland built the Rock-’n’-Roll Hall of Fame next to two new sports stadiums and a technology museum adjacent to where the cleaned-up Cuyahoga River flows into Lake Erie. Chicago remains central to the region as the third largest city in America and center for the nation’s commodities exchange. In 2001, Chicago put on an advertising blitz, announcing its intention of becoming the nation’s greenest and most environmentally friendly city by 2006. It is converting to solar and wind-powered generators to supply 20 percent of the city’s energy needs, putting in bike paths, planting trees, subsidizing the installation of energy-efficient windows and doors, and raising fines on polluters, litterers, and those who refuse to recycle (AP, 2001a). Such efforts are aimed at keeping residents happy and bringing new immigrants to the region. In 2001, for example, the state of Iowa, which is nearly 96 percent white and has the nation’s third-oldest citizenry – the average age is 58 – began a well-funded effort to attract immigrants, even going so far as to ask for an exemption from Congress on the numbers of immigrants being allowed into the United States. Iowa’s three largest immigrant groups in the 1990s have been Bosnians, Vietnamese, and Mexicans. Still, as the state’s population retires, the need for workers and tax payers remains intense (Belluck, 2000). On average, the Midwest continues to fall behind the other regions in population growth.

Land and People

61

The West The West (Map 2.6 and Table 2.5) is the region of big states and small populations. Even Texas, with a population of 20 million, is relatively unpopulated outside the major cities of Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin. This is also “Indian Country” with sizeable populations of Native Americans both on and off the reservations. Because the West – except Texas – came into the Union after the

Helena

Montana

North Dakota Bismarck

Boise

South Dakota

Idaho

Pierre

Wyoming Cheyenne

Carson City

Nevada

Salt Lake City

Utah

Denver

Colorado Las Vegas

Arizona

Santa Fe

Tulsa Oklahoma City

Albuquerque Phoenix

Oklahoma

New Mexico Texas


0

100

Map 2.6

200 miles

The West

Dallas

Austin Houston San Antonio

62


Table 2.5

The West

State

Date Joined US

Area (Sq. Miles*)

Population

Texas Nevada Colorado Montana North Dakota South Dakota Idaho Wyoming Utah Oklahoma Arizona New Mexico

1845 1864 1876 1889 1889 1889 1890 1890 1896 1907 1912 1912

267,277 110,567 104,100 147,046 70,704 77,121 83,574 97,818 84,904 69,903 114,006 121,598

20,851,820 1,998,257 4,301,261 902,195 642,200 754,844 1,293,953 494,782 2,233,169 3,450,654 5,130,632 1,819,046


American Revolution created a nation and the American Civil War decided what sort of nation it would become, it is often said to be defined by its lack of history and its newness. The West has loomed large in the popular perception of Americans as movies long-focused on the western sojourn of immigrants across the frontier, the adventures of cowboys, and the wars between the US cavalry and Indians. The West of the imagination is also vast in territory and it is that open space, the frontier, still waiting to be filled, that continues the expansive dreams of the country. The West is dryer than the rest of the country. It contains a vast desert landscape and dramatic scenery including the Grand Canyon in Arizona (Illustration 2.3), the Badlands in South Dakota, the largest cave in the United States at Carlsbad Caverns, New Mexico, ancient Mesa Verde Cliff Dwellings in Colorado, and petrified forests made up of trees turned into stone. Since the 1920s, when engineers built giant dams on the region’s rivers – such as Hoover Dam on the Colorado River in Nevada – cities such as Phoenix, Arizona; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Albuquerque, New Mexico, have grown large as irrigation systems provided a more accommodating environment. Even where there are great forests and lakes in the Rocky Mountains, the region is marked by hot, dry summers and lightning storms that set off forest fires burning millions of acres every year. On the single day of 21 August 2000, for example, there were 98 forest fires

Land and People

63

Centuries of erosion created the Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona. Ansel Adams took this photograph from the South Rim. (Ansel Adams Collection, RG 79, Records of the National Park Service, NARA)

Illustration 2.3

Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

burning 1.3 million acres at once across the Western states. For the entire month of August 2000, Montana had over 2,000 fires with 457,000 acres burned (Dininny, 2000). In Texas, Dallas set a record of 59 days without rain and had 36 days of 100-degree temperatures (Duggan, 2000). In this heat and drought, Americans turn up their airconditioners and spread what little water they can spare over their lawns. This adds to the demand for electricity, increases calls for nuclear power, puts further pressure on precious water supplies, and endangers wildlife. The West has a different ethnic mix than the rest of the country because of the large numbers of Indians, a history that saw much of the land taken from Mexico, and the recent influx of millions of Chicanos from Mexico and Hispanics or Latinos from Central and South America. For years, most white Americans saw the West as too rocky and dry for successful farming operations and the wagon trails that rolled west from St. Louis were all headed for the Pacific Rim states.

64


Except for Texas and the states of Nevada and Colorado which were settled by prospectors mining gold, silver, lead, and copper, the Western states as well as Washington, Alaska and Hawaii are the latest additions to the United States. Utah was settled by Mormons following leader Brigham Young to territory outside the United States, founding what is perhaps the most culturally homogenous city in America, Salt Lake City (1847). The Mexican War brought Mormons back under US control by the land transfer agreed to in the peace treaty. Much of the land in the West is owned or administered by the federal government. Indian reservations, most of the nation’s national parks, and large areas of national mineral and forest reserves keep populations thin, as do the deep canyons and rugged landscapes of the Rocky Mountains. Private individuals also control vast areas of the West. For example, CNN founder Ted Turner owns 1.3 million acres (.52 million hectares) on eight ranches in Montana, New Mexico and Nebraska, swears to hold the land as an undeveloped trust, and grazes the nation’s largest buffalo herd on prairie grass. Most white Westerners disagree with Turner and want US land policies aimed less at conservation and more at development. These citizens have been politically influential in the rise of the New Right, which has demanded more states’ rights and less federal government intrusion. In the 2000 presidential campaign, most of these white conservatives voted Republican, sending every Western state’s electoral votes – except for New Mexico’s – to George W. Bush.

The Pacific Rim The states and Pacific island territories in this region (Map 2.7 and Table 2.6) are tied by their common orientation to the Pacific Ocean. The US Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force have some of their largest strategic bases in these states, with the facility at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, being the best known. The histories of the Pacific Rim states differ dramatically but their commerce is interwoven and is oriented more toward Asia than to Europe. Alaska has a large Inuit population, Hawaii has a large Polynesian population supplemented by at least 25 percent of Japanese ancestry, and California is the primary port of entry for Asian immigrants to the United States. California was taken from Mexico in 1848, Oregon and Washington were ceded from Britain in 1845, Alaska was purchased for $7 million from Russia in 1867, Hawaii was wrenched from independent Hawaiian control in 1891, Guam was ceded by Spain in 1898, and American Samoa was

Land and People

Seattle

Hawaii

Guam

65

Olympia

Washington

Portland

American Samoa

Salem

Oregon


Sacramento San Francisco

California American Samoa Alaska

Los Angeles Anchorage Juneau

Guam

San Diego

Honolulu

Hawaii 0

100

200 miles

Inset maps not to scale

Map 2.7

The Pacific Rim

incorporated by mutual agreement in 1929. For many Americans, Alaska’s huge territory and sparse population marks it as the “last frontier” within the boundaries of the United States – and the state and national governments control 99 percent of Alaskan land. Historically, the Spanish settled in California and sponsored expeditions into the entire Southwest. The cities of Santa Barbara, Monterey, San Francisco, San Diego, and Los Angeles were founded as Catholic Missions which claimed the land for Spain and the people for the Catholic Church. The year California was won from Mexico, settler John Sutter found gold near Sacramento and the “gold rush” that followed brought so many settlers – from 15,000 in 1848 to 260,000 in 1852 – that by 1850, California was a state. Its favorable climate, location, and scenic beauty guaranteed a continued population growth.

66


Table 2.6

The Pacific Rim

State

Date Joined US

Area (Sq. Miles*)

Population

California Oregon Washington Guam** American Samoa*** Alaska Hawaii

1850 1859 1889 1898/1950 1929/1967 1959 1959

158,869 97,132 70,637 217 90 615,230 6,459

33,871,648 3,421,399 5,894,121 152,000 65,000 626,932 1,211,537

* 1 square mile equals approximately 2.6 square kilometers. ** Guam is an unincorporated territory of the United States whose inhabitants are US citizens without the right to vote in US elections. Guam has an elected legislature of its own. The large US Navy base at Guam provides most of the island´s economy. *** American Samoa is an unincorporated, unorganized territory whose citizens are US nationals, but not US citizens. American Samoa has a non-voting representative in the US Congress. The US administration is the main employer, followed by an American tuna firm, and tourism.

In contemporary America, California contains fully 12 percent of the total American population and Los Angeles rivals NYC as the nation’s biggest city. Its most famous industry, Hollywood, glues Americans together via mass culture. In 2000, California’s non-white population surpassed the white population for the first time since 1860 as Hispanics and Asian immigrants flooded into the state in the 1990s. California leads the nation in the manufacture of high-tech equipment and aircraft. Up the coast in Seattle, Washington, the world’s richest man, Bill Gates, runs his Microsoft computer juggernaut. The Pacific Rim states are mountainous states which sit atop geological fault lines or alongside active volcanoes. Earthquakes are common and, occasionally, volcanoes erupt, spewing lava and starting forest fires. The Hawaiian Islands in the mid-Pacific are actually the tops of volcanoes. The Pacific Ocean provides a harvest of fish and the states’ large rivers are full of salmon and shellfish. Washington and Alaska employ thousands in the salmon industry. Huge agricultural areas – excepting Alaska – grow large portions of the nation’s fruits and nuts. There are vast forests of fir trees and the logging industry is lucrative from northern California to Alaska. The

Land and People

67

California Redwood or Giant Sequoia is the world’s largest species, growing to a height of 400 feet (121m.), having a diameter of 30 feet (9m.), and being approximately 4,000 years old. Besides protecting the Giant Sequioas by federal law, the US government has control over a forest area of approximately 45,000 square miles in California, Oregon, and Washington – an area equal in size to the entire state of Pennsylvania.

Immigration The movement of peoples from other nations into the United States has been unsurpassed (Figure 2.1 and Table 2.7). Since 1607, immigrants have come with their own ideas of what they would do if they could claim a piece of land for themselves. America’s population doubled every 25 years in the nineteenth century and every 50 years in the twentieth century. The United States continues to welcome more immigrants than any other nation. In 1965, one of every 20 Americans was foreign-born; in 2002, one in 10 was born abroad. One in five was either born in another country or had at least one parent who was, for a total of 56 million Americans (Cohn, 2002). Beyond the colonists and the early immigrants and the 400,000 Africans brought as slave laborers, there were three distinctive immigrant waves. Between 1820–90, 10 million “Old Immigrants” came. These peoples were overwhelmingly English, German, Irish, and Scandinavian. The Irish came from different religious and economic backgrounds as they fled persecution for their Catholicism and starvation from the widespread potato famine. From 1890-1924, Europeans from Eastern and Southern Europe poured into New York. These “New Immigrants” – many of them of Italian, Polish, Hungarian, Russian, Czech, Greek, and Middle Eastern origins – were mostly unlettered, poorer, religiously different, and politically unwanted in their countries of origin. But whatever their economic status or home culture and surviving the multitude of hatreds and fears from among the “Old Immigrants,” these individuals quickly gathered themselves into a new and somewhat homogenous group recognized as Americans. This does not mean that assimilation was easy; many immigrants struggled to hold onto, even to reestablish the world they left into the world they entered. The immigration policy of the United States has been both inclusive and discriminatory. There have been efforts to bar some groups

68


Figure 2.1 millions)

Immigrants to the United States by Decade, 1821-2000* (in 9.1 8.8 7.3 5.7

5.2

2.5

1991–2000

1981–1990

1971–1980

1.0 1961–1970

1931–1940

1921–1930

1911–1920

1901–1910

1891–1900

1881–1890

1871–1880

1861–1870

1851–1860

1841–1950

0.5

1951–1960

0.6 1831–1840

1821–1830

0.1

3.3

2.6 2.3 2.8

1941–1950

1.7

4.5

4.1

3.7

* Total: 1821–2000: 66,081,146; numbers exclude importation of slaves. Source:

US Immigration and Nationalization Service (INS), 2000, table 1.

and stop immigration entirely. Critics say that immigrants have a profoundly harmful effect on a high-tech society if they are poor and under-educated, and union representatives sometimes complain that immigrant labor keeps down wages while increasing welfare payments. A Gallup Poll in September 2000 showed that 44 percent of Americans believed that immigrants help the economy and 40 percent think they hurt it; 75 percent agreed that immigrants take low-paying jobs that Americans do not want to do themselves. Strikingly, the nation’s largest union, the American Federation of Labor (AFL) lobbied for repealing the law which bars employers from hiring illegal immigrants, a law it lobbied to get in 1986 (Kong, 2001). These are marked changes from a decade before, when, with the economy sagging, two-thirds of all Americans wanted to limit immigration and thought that immigrants took good jobs away from American workers. In 2000, immigrants made up 12 percent of the American workforce and many of them had joined the AFL. Immigrants have sometimes faced a “100% Americanism” backlash by xenophobes who want everyone to speak the same language, to be of a certain ancestry, and to have an accepted religion and cultural folkways. Even the way people dress has come under


Immigration by Country of Origin During Year 2000

Country

No. of Immigrants

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Mexico China Philippines India Vietnam Nicaragua El Salvador Haiti Cuba Dominican Rep. Russia Canada Jamaica Ukraine Korea Pakistan Colombia United Kingdom Bosnia Herzegovina Poland Other

173,919 45,652 42,474 42,046 26,747 24,029 22,578 22,364 20,831 17,536 17,110 16,210 16,000 15,810 15,380 14,535 14,498 13,385 11,828 10,114 266,761

Total

849,807

Source:

69

US Census Bureau (2002a)

criticism. Catholics, Jews, and Muslims have been singled out in the past but are generally accepted in modern America. Even in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 11 September 2001, Americans – except in a few highly publicized incidents of individual and governmental discrimination – reacted calmly toward the two million first- and second-generation Arab Americans. The vast majority of Americans have always rejected neo-Nazi or Ku Klux Klan ideology and they continue to favor the individual variations of a multi-cultural society. Most Americans realize that first-generation adult immigrants rarely break free of their old habits or become fluent in English. Their children mainly do assimilate and often with a vengeance that rejects the “foreign” ways of their parents; and by the third generation very few children can speak the foreign language of their grandparents. More than any government action or voluntary help programs, popular culture and intermarriages turn immigrants into Americans.

70


The National Origins Act of 1924 limited immigration to a quota system based upon country of origin. The act favored Northern and Western Europe and reduced total immigration from over 800,000 to 164,000 a year. The Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War had a great impact on policy, which has been in flux ever since. In 1965, the quota system was revised, as Congress allowed a more equitable hemispheric immigration totalling 290,000 a year and stressed the reunification of families instead of job qualifications. The Immigration Acts of 1986 and 1990 granted general amnesty and, sometimes, citizenship – to those who could pass the tests about general US history and laws – to illegal immigrants who would register. The 2000 Immigration Act allowed “commuter green cards” to those who live in another country but are in the US often on workrelated business. The result has been a surge of over one million immigrants per year made up overwhelmingly of women, rich businessmen, and two new immigrant majorities: Latinos (including Hispanics) and Asians. Latinos is an inclusive term for anyone from Central and South American origin; Brasilians who speak Portuguese are Latinos, but not Hispanics. Hispanics are so-called because they all speak Spanish as their first language. Before World War II there were just 3 million Latinos in the US, mostly in the southern parts of the Sunbelt and among the Puerto Rican community in NYC. In 2002 there were more than 35.3 million Latinos of whom 20.6 million were Chicanos – as immigrants from Mexican identify themselves. Many Latino immigrants provide substantial support to communities in their country of origin. For example, in 2001, immigrants from El Salvador sent more than $2 billion home – an amount equal to the annual McDonald’s world profits. Chicano immigrants in 600 “Chicano Clubs” send approximately $7 billion annually to Mexican communities (Sheridan, 2001). Additionally, because the Chicano experience is unique in that they come from an adjacent nation which owned much of the land now claimed by the US, the newest wave of immigrants is made up of transnational commuters who frequently travel back and forth between, and feel immense loyalty to, their country of birth and their country of residence. When these groups establish themselves in America, they tend to settle together among relatives and friends they have known most or all of their lives. Chain migration has always happened, but the new phenomenon seems to be the relocation of whole towns to US suburbs. For example, of the 3,000 people living in the Mexican town of Ejido

Land and People

71

Modelo in 1984, 1,000 had resettled together in an Atlanta suburb by 2001 (Sack, 2001). Asian Americans are designated as a group not by language, culture, history or ethnicity, but by the fact that they arrive from Asia. There is little cohesion among the group as Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, Pakistani, Korean and others have little to bind them together. In the past, discriminatory immigration laws prohibited the Chinese from immigrating in 1882 and the Japanese in 1924. Other groups came in such small numbers as to be nearly uncountable before the Immigration Act of 1965. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Korean and Vietnam wars, and the rise of modern China maintained fears of Asians. In the 1980s Congress voted monetary compensation to the thousands of Japanese-Americans concentrated into work camps during World War II. With a reduction of racism during the Cold War period, more than one half of all immigrants to America since 1965 have been Asians who initially settled together in Pacific Rim states and big cities in the Sunbelt. In San Diego, the world’s largest community of Vietnamese immigrants lives in “Little Saigon” and makes up a major part of the more than 210,000 firstgeneration Vietnamese-Americans living in California. Asian immigrants have been dubbed the “model minority” by the press because of their work ethic, low crime rate, focus on education, rapid acquisition of English, and quick assimilation into the broader culture. In fact, Asian Americans – notably Japanese and Chinese – now score higher than all other groups on standardized exams, attend the finest universities in numbers out of proportion with their percentage of the population, and earn higher salaries than Euro-Americans. The government agency which oversees immigration is the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). With a 2001 budget of $4.8 billion, nearly 30,000 INS employees patrol the borders of the United States. Agents monitor visas, investigate visitors, test and administer naturalization oaths – over one million immigrants became American citizens in each year of the 1990s – arrest and deport illegal aliens with disqualifying factors (INS, 2002). Additionally, the INS monitors the out-migration of foreign-born immigrants; since 1965, 20 percent of all immigrants to the US returned to their country of origin (INS, 2002). Asylum seekers and refugees also apply to the INS for permission to stay in the US. The most publicized recent groups have been over 1 million Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians from 1975–93, 125,000 Cubans in a “Freedom Flotilla” to Florida in 1980, and 60,000 Haitians in 1981.

72


Abuses in civil rights are common. In 1998, the INS deported 171,154 foreigners plus approximately 1.5 million people apprehended trying illegally to enter the country. Nearly 81 percent of these were Mexican nationals caught crossing into the Southwest. Yet, in 2001, an estimated 9–11 million illegal immigrants lived in the United States (Cohn, 2001). Government policy is often contradictory in the way it treats illegal immigrants. The 1996 Immigration Law requires that foreigners facing deportation be jailed while they are processed. In 2001, the INS held an average of 21,000 foreigners – from murderers, to students who overstayed their student visas – in jail daily. Conversely, illegals who are not apprehended are protected by a federal law requiring schools to educate all children, irrespective of their status. The government provides anti-discrimination rights and insists on minimum wage and safety guidelines to protect illegal immigrants from unfair hiring practices by employers. Of course, the law is one thing and practice is another; many illegal immigrants are afraid to challenge employers for fear of being deported, and will take less than a minimum or competitive wage in order to remain at work in the United States. Georgia and many other states offer welfare benefits and hospital services on a need basis, not by legal status. Other states take a harder line; for example, California has barred state money for education, health care or other services for illegal aliens – though this has in part been overturned by the courts. The INS also oversees temporary visas, the most common being tourist and student permits. Other types exist: for example, in 2000, Congress authorized an annual 195,000 six-year visas for workers with specialized high-tech skills, such as architects, engineers, computer specialists, and university professors (Alvarez, 2000a). India and China provided the bulk of these specialists, with most of the chosen being graduate students already enrolled in US universities. After gaining a temporary visa and a job, a person can apply for permanent resident status. What seems certain is that with a natural increase at 4 million births a year in 2001 and a continued strong immigration from Asia and the Americas, the United States will continue its historic pattern of expansion and diversity. The land and resources are sufficient to accommodate a much larger population. Both the internal birth rate and immigration sources favor non-white groups. African Americans, American Indians, Asian Americans, and Latinos are increasing at double and quadruple the rate of white ethnics. A more culturally

Land and People

73

diverse and multi-racial America continues to grow. In his 1993 inaugural address, President Bill Clinton honored diversity and homogeneity: “We need each other. And we must care for one another. Today, we do more than celebrate America; we rededicate ourselves to the very idea of America. . . . An idea ennobled by the faith that our nation can summon from its myriad diversity the deepest measure of unity.”

3 Government

Americans are divided over the issue of how strong government should be. Some see governmental power as a danger and are eager to limit it. President Ronald Reagan caught this sentiment in his 1981 inaugural address: “We are a nation that has a government – not the other way around.” Others see government as a force for good, interceding and leveling among groups and regions. President Bill Clinton viewed government as a tool to help people help themselves: “Government is not the problem, and government is not the solution. . . . The preeminent mission of our new government is to give all Americans an opportunity – not a guarantee – but a real opportunity to build better lives” (Clinton, 1997). American governing structures are typified by deliberate divisions of power. The federal government is split and shared among three branches, comprising the Presidency, Congress, and the federal Courts system, each with specific areas of responsibility. Yet, they were not set up to control fully their own spheres. The division of power is complicated by checks and balances, amounting to mutual surveillance and limitation, while allowing the federal government to make, enact, and interpret laws. A further division of government exists in the overlapping relationship of federal and state governments. Each state resembles the federal government, with separate executive, judicial, and legislative branches. Beyond this, governmental power fractures again to create local, county, or district levels of authority. The separation of powers and the checks and balances give many access points to individuals or groups who are not always represented by the principle of majority rule. Access allows a plurality of interests to be heard and appeased, holding the diverse peoples together under the Constitution, which has been formally amended 74

Government

75

only 17 times since the inclusion of the first ten amendments as the Bill of Rights in 1791.

The Constitution The Constitution is the founding document of American federalism. The division of power in this federal system is determined both by the Constitution and through a mix of practical compromises made during the 225 years since the republic was founded. In the formative years of the nation the idea of apportioning authority was seen as the best method of ensuring benevolent government. When the American Revolution ended in 1783, the Founders – including Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton – needed to establish a system to do the business of government. This meant creating institutions to run what was even then a vast territory along the Eastern seaboard from Massachusetts to Georgia, and beyond to the Mississippi. Preserving order and protecting the nation from external threat were uppermost in their minds. At the same time, each state believed itself to have established its own identity in colonial times and wanted a system to protect its sovereign power while limiting national power. The Founders developed a double plan, which they embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Constitution (Box 3.1) set out the structure of the federal government, explaining how it should carry out its business. The Bill of Rights, appended during the ratification process, guaranteed protections under law for state and individual rights. Essentially, three sets of sovereignty were confirmed: federal, state, and popular. The debate over government power reflected the differing concerns of the states. Larger states, such as Virginia, would get more influence simply through the size of their populations. Smaller states, such as New Jersey, wanted the numbers in the legislature to be the same for all states, regardless of size. The Founders agreed to mesh the interests of small and large states by establishing a bicameral legislature, collectively called Congress, and consisting of a House of Representatives and a Senate. The number of representatives each state placed in the House – above a minimum of one representative per state – would be in direct proportion to its percentage of the total national population. In the Senate, each state would be equally represented by two senators.

76


Box 3.1 The Constitution of the United States of America, A Summary Preamble We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Articles I II III IV V VI VII

Legislative Branch. Sets a bicameral legislature, membership and election rules, privileges, areas of authority and limitations. Executive Branch. Sets election and eligibility stipulations for President, the powers of the presidency, relations with Congress and impeachment. Judicial Branch. Establishes Supreme Court and sets jurisdiction. Federalism. Provides mutual recognition and citizenship rights, creation, and governance of new states. Amendment Procedures. Establishes procedure for amending the Constitution. Supremacy Clause. Establishes Federal laws over State laws. Prohibits religious tests for officeholders. Ratification. Provides conditions for initial ratification of Constitution.

Bill Of Rights [Amendments 1–10 (1791)] 1st Underlines freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly 2nd Confirms right to bear arms 3rd Prohibits quartering of military troops in private houses in peacetime

➞

This compromise gave over-representation to the small states, because no matter how low a percentage of the national population, they would have two senators and one representative. Presidential elections have always been influenced by this advantage as the numbers of electors each state has in the Electoral College matches its total number of representatives (proportional according to decennial Census population) and senators (always 2). This arrangement puts territorial sovereignty above popular sovereignty. It should be noted that Americans do not vote for their president directly and nationally. Instead, they vote indirectly and by state, with votes transformed into Electoral College delegates. The victorious candidate in

Government

77

➞4th

Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures 5th Freedom from double-jeopardy or self-incrimination 6th Rights of accused to speedy jury trial, witnesses, and lawyer in criminal trials 7th Right to jury trial in civil cases 8th Prohibits cruel and unusual punishments; requires reasonable bail 9th Retains unlisted rights for the People 10th Reserves unlisted powers for the States or the People Subsequent Amendments 11th 12th 13th 14th

15th 16th 17th 18th 19th 20th 21st 22nd 23rd 24th 25th 26th 27th Note:

Limits lawsuits between states (1795) Revises presidential electoral college system (1804) Abolishes slavery (1865) Grants citizenship to ex-slaves. Provides for due process and equal protection (1868) Protects voting rights regardless of “race, color or previous condition of servitude” (1870) Authorizes federal income tax (1913) Provides for direct election of US Senators (1913) Prohibits the manufacture or sale of alcohol (1919) Grants voting rights for women (1920) Sets accession dates for President and Congress. Establishes Presidential succession (1933) Repeals Prohibition (1933) Sets two-term limit for President (1951) Grants electoral votes to citizens of Washington, D.C (1961) Prohibits poll taxes in federal elections (1964) Revises presidential succession procedure (1967) Lowers voting age to 18 (1971) Sets timing limits on Congressional pay raises (1992) For full text see: http://www.usinfo.state.gov/

each state – except in Maine and New Hampshire, where votes are split – wins all the state’s electoral delegates. Because there are 538 electors – 100 senators, 435 representatives, and 3 delegates from the District of Columbia – it takes 270 votes to win an election. In 2000 George W. Bush won with 400,000 fewer popular votes than Albert Gore because he won just enough states, 30 to Gore’s 20, to prevail by 5 votes in the Electoral College (271–266 with 1 abstention). Because of a reapportionment of representatives with the 2000 Census, if Bush wins the same states in 2004 as in 2000, with or without the same popular vote, he would prevail 278–260 in the Electoral College (D’Vera and Broder, 2000).

78


Division of Powers The Constitution divided power between law-making, law-enforcing and law-interpreting branches: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. This separation of powers limited each branch of government to its own specific area of authority. The Executive branch had the power to administer laws and to represent the state in foreign affairs. The Congress was designed to pass laws, with its authority split between the House and the Senate. Through its control of the budget and taxation, the House focused on domestic policy. Because treaties with other nations need approval or refusal, the Senate would oversee foreign policy. The Founders imagined the Supreme Court as the weakest branch and did not define it or the federal court system in clear terms. The judiciary would act as a court of appeal to mediate among different legal interpretations, and, eventually, to decide the constitutionality of government actions. The division of government into three branches along with strict written definitions of the range of federal and state power worked to soothe fears of a rogue executive or of a conspiracy by a legislative majority to take away fundamental rights. In fact, Americans split the functions of government so dramatically that, although executive, legislative and judicial authority overlap on most issues, no branch occupies the central space on the field of power. This situation strongly contrasts with parliamentary systems, where the biggest party forms the government, appoints and directs the executive, and controls chief judicial appointments. Even the layout of Washington, D.C., makes obvious the separation of powers by physically separating the three branches in a long, acute triangle. The large buildings command a view of the Mall, the grassy three-mile long (5km) rectangle in the heart of the city, yet no branch has an uninterrupted view of the other two. Both spatially, and conceptually, their gaze meets outside the locale of individual power. The Constitutional separation of powers creates a checks and balances system with each branch dependent on the others. Although these checks and balances will figure prominently in a later discussion of what each branch can or cannot do, their overlapping nature makes it difficult, if not impossible, for unrestrained power to accrue to any one branch. As demonstrated in Figure 3.1, each branch can check the actions of the other branches. This balance of power encourages compromise as the most effective strategy for getting things done.

Government Figure 3.1

79

The System of Checks and Balances EXECUTIVE BRANCH Legislative-Executive 1 Overrides vetoes with extraordinary majorities 2 Refuses approval of foreign treaties 3 Rejects appointments 4 Impeaches President 5 Investigates presidential actions 6 Withholds presidential funding

Judicial-Executive 1 Declares executive actions unconstitutional 2 Issues warrants

Executive-Judicial 1 Appoints judges 2 Pardons criminals

JUDICIAL BRANCH

Executive-Legislative 1 Vetoes Acts 2 Proposes laws 3 Breaks senatorial ties 4 Calls Congress into session

Judicial-Legislative 1 Declares congressional proceedings unconstitutional

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Legislative-Judicial 1 Amends Constitution by extraordinary majority 2 Impeaches judges 3 Rejects nominees 4 Rewrites and overrides judgments 5 Modifies size of courts and number of judges

The Federal System The original idea of the relationship of the states and the federal government is contained in Article 5. Additionally, the 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In contemporary America, the reality is quite different. Constitutional arrangements satisfactory for a small republic of four million people in 13 semi-sovereign agricultural states do not meet the needs of 300 million people living in an integrated, service-based, post-industrial economy. Defining what is local, state, and national is much more difficult and any clear-cut division of power is vague.

80


Modernization has replaced the static relationship of power with a dynamism that makes federalism as much a process as an institution. The process of federalism, accelerating during the twentieth century, has moved power consistently from the states to the national government, despite occasional rhetoric to the contrary. This process has been helped by the generality of the Constitution and Amendments, leaving room for interpretation when times or circumstances change. Box 3.2 outlines federalism as process, showing how the enumerated powers of the government have been changed by delegated powers. Historians have described federalism metaphorically as Layer Cake or Dual federalism, Marble Cake federalism, New federalism, “New” New federalism, and Rhetorical or Kaleidoscopic federalism. These metaphors seek to present a picture of how power is shared, separated, checked, and balanced. Layer Cake, or Dual, federalism evokes an image of separate and somewhat equal layers of sovereignty between the federal and state governments. Like a layer cake, the powers of the national government are contained within its single layer, over and above the powers in the layer of state government, which are over and above the layer of local governments. Each layer is distinct in its sovereign powers. The United States clearly matched this model from 1790–1865, and continued to be influenced by it until 1932. Marble Cake federalism best illustrates the period 1933–69. In this model, state and national power swirl around each other, rising and falling and being supreme according to where you slice the cake. Power is not set firmly above or below, but is cooperative and fluid, allowing for expansion and contraction of federal power and programs according to the beliefs of a specific president and congress. In 1933, during the worst year of the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt greatly expanded the role of the federal government with his “New Deal” program of welfare, social security, and jobs. In 1969 President Richard Nixon put forward a policy he called “New Federalism.” Nixon believed that the government’s main role was in foreign policy and that, in domestic affairs, the federal government had become too intrusive in everyday lives. He wanted to allow the states more power and diversity in deciding how much to spend and on what to spend it. The Nixon administration pushed a states’ rights position just as Americans were discovering the conspiratorial and imperial workings of Nixon and his henchmen in the Watergate affair and Vietnam. Still, this model of New Federalism matched the

81

Box 3.2

Federalism as Process

18th century Interstate commerce: Article 1 Section 8 grants Congress the right to regulate commerce between the states. As the American domestic economy expanded, congressional power was magnified. Necessary and Proper Clause: Article 1 Section 8 contains the “elastic clause” which empowers Congress to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper” to govern. For instance, the Constitution enumerates the power of Congress to raise taxes. The elastic clause allows Congress to establish a bureaucracy, the Internal Revenue Service, to fulfill this obligation. 19th century Supremacy Clause: Article VI declares the Constitution to be the “Supreme Law of the Land,” trumping the powers of state constitutions. However, it was only cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803), and Fletcher v. Peck (1810) that the supremacy of federal law was accepted and made enforceable. As the final adjudicator of the law, the Supreme Court has the potential to be the most powerful branch, if it chooses to exercise this potential. Citizenship: At the end of the Civil War, the 13th Amendment freed the slaves, the 14th provided citizenship to black males, and the 15th promised the vote, thereby transferring the power over citizenship and voting from the states to the national government. 20th century Business Regulation: The Progressive Era brought about an increased regulation of industry and industrial ownership. The federal government began to exercise greater control over the economy to ensure fair prices and high quality products in a competitive environment. Trust in Government: World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II redefined the government’s role in managing national economic and human resources for a common purpose. The successful outcome of the wars and the Depression-era legislation provided public support for expanded government. Stronger Government: The Cold War struggle in space, nuclear armaments, and world power, aided the public perception and need for a stronger federal government to direct the national defense. Global Village: The communications revolution of internet computers decreased the importance of distance and frontiers and let corporations, not national governments, dominate trade and commerce. Nixon and Reagan returned some power to the states. 21st century 11 September 2001: Increased governmental power in surveillance and other ways not entirely apparent.

82


people’s fears that the national government had gotten too big and self-indulgent. After a hiatus during the term of Jimmy Carter, the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, 1980–92, enacted a “New” New federalism which provided less monetary support, more tasks and thus more control to the states. During the 1990s there was a subtle change in the model when President Bill Clinton decided on a “Third Way” approach. Called Rhetorical or Kaleidoscopic federalism by political scientists, Clinton continued the policy of downsizing the federal government by allowing the states to decide how to spend money transferred from the national treasury to the states. However, the federal government’s actual power loss is largely rhetorical because it can step in again at any time to assert its dominance. Also, as the federal government decreased or eliminated specific program funding to the states, it still mandated technical and policy regulations asserting its will without costing it dollars in such areas as communications, transportation, education, and environmental protection. Like a child’s kaleidoscope, the brightly-colored granules (representing the federal and state governments) move and touch each other in various ways as the cylinder is twisted and the pattern changes (Bailey, in Peele, 1998: 116–19). The application of these models determines whether state or nation provides each particular public service and, of course, who pays for it. Nixon’s New and Reagan-Bush’s “New” New federalism have been dominant for two decades, reasserted by George W. Bush in 2001. Bush proposes more devolution to the states, even while the events of 11 September 2001 and the new Department of Homeland Security have strengthened the role of the federal government in welfare and police power within each state. Just like the federal government, every state has a written constitution establishing governing practices within its borders. This is not surprising since the original 13 states were in place before there was a United States and their representatives framed the US Constitution. The states mirror the federal division of powers, with popularly elected governors, bicameral legislatures (except Nebraska), and separately functioning court systems topped by state supreme courts. Unlike their counterparts in the federal government, state senators and representatives are only part-time legislators; they return home from the state capitols once legislative sessions are over to attend to their regular jobs. States decide on taxes, maintain their own police forces, and set laws for people living within state boundaries. Most

Government

83

states limit executive power by having the people elect state government cabinet members and judges – even state supreme court justices – unlike the federal Constitution, which leaves those selections to the president and confirmation by the Senate. Thus, there is often more internal anarchy in state government as the officials within the executive branch are responsible to the people who elected them and not necessarily to the political party of the governor. Local government at the county and municipal level is much more idiosyncratic. The US Constitution does not provide a guide for how states should distribute their internal power and the tradition of local autonomy, resulting from the existence of self-governing communities in colonial times, thrives. Across the country, there are over 80,000 units of local government. Mayors, city councils, and city courts – all elected – have responsibility and power in geographically-defined municipalities. County commissioners decide policy, enforce the law, and provide services to areas outside of city borders. Tribal councils with tribal police set policies in Indian country. Elected school boards direct school districts which establish local curricula, and have decision-making and spending powers over local property taxes. Big cities often straddle state boundaries and state power relationships, spreading cooperative local jurisdictions interstate. Many other types of government entities exist, from wildlife protection areas to military bases.

The Branches of Government The Executive Branch President Harry S Truman (1945–53) once remarked that his days in office were spent persuading people who should have known better what they ought to do (Neustadt, 1990: 11). Embedded in Truman’s lament is the complaint that the presidency is not as powerful as is sometimes supposed, meaning that the chief executive often has to be chief lobbyist. Presidential influence relies on hard constitutional and legal sources of power, and softer, personality-based powers such as persuasion and likeability. Reagan portrayed a grandfatherly demeanor and a camera presence that caused him to be dubbed “The Great Communicator.” Clinton had an affability and boyish charm that few could resist. They contrast sharply with the tough images put forth by the “imperial” presidents of the 1960s, Kennedy, Johnson,

84


and Nixon. Currently George W. Bush relies mostly on the power of the office of the president, folksy language, efficient advisors, and a war against terrorism to promote his programs. Other than in moments of national emergency, there is a strong mismatch between what a president can actually do and what most people think he can do (Neustadt, 1990). He is limited by the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances as well as by the watchdog attention of the world media. Furthermore, Congress may be controlled by the opposition party; and even when it is not, a president cannot be sure that members of his own party will support him because they often choose district or nation over party. Economic downturns or wars influence his range of options as the American public will blame or support him in sometimes unpredictable ways. While any increase in national power certainly strengthens the power of the presidency, short-term issues can wreck a president’s ability to influence legislation or conduct foreign policy. Power rises and falls. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) had enormous power as his energetic resolve coincided with the national emergencies of Depression and World War II – emergencies which demanded and warranted extensions of government responsibility into the daily lives of American citizens. The American people four times elected FDR president, whereas no one before or after FDR served more than two terms. Congress, fearing a concentration of power and wanting to prevent it happening again, voted for term limits. The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, subsequently limited any single president to two four-year terms. Neither a president nor his cabinet officers are members of Congress. In fact, the vice-president is the only member of the Executive branch who can cast a vote on legislation – and only in the Senate if his vote is necessary to break a tie. With only a few years to make a difference, a just-elected president has enormous momentum and Congressional goodwill to give his ideas a “go.” His initial actions determine his power. President Clinton lost effectiveness at the very beginning of his first term after Congress defeated his health care reforms and he vacillated on the issue of gays in the military (Klein, 2002: 139). He recovered by careful compromise, accepting much of the “New” New federalism, and rode economic expansion to re-election in 1996. He then lost power again for sexual misconduct, for lying, and when he became only the second American president to face an impeachment trial. As the trial dragged on, became a political witch-hunt, and alienated the

Government

85

American people, Clinton regained power. World events, the economy, competence, the media, popularity, and personality, combine to enhance or limit the Constitutional power of a president. The legal power of the presidency comes from the enumerated, inherent, and delegated powers provided by law and precedent. Article II of the Constitution sets forth the presidential powers in approximately 500 words, including the role of Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and senior diplomatic officer, the authority to appoint federal officers, ministers and Supreme Court Justices, and the power to pardon criminal offenders. Additionally, the president is required annually to inform Congress about the state of the Union. He is expected to initiate legislation in the nation’s interests and to serve as the chief executive office of the corporate whole of the United States as well as being the chief bureaucrat formally responsible for every action of government agencies. While the American people might hope that all presidents would follow Truman’s famous maxim, “The buck stops here,” they expect political finger-pointing and even admire a person’s ability to wriggle out of bottom-line responsibility. While Nixon, Carter and Ford were blamed for almost everything they did or did not do, Reagan’s talent to elude blame was so pronounced that nothing seemed to stick to him – “the Teflon President” – and Clinton proved so politically astute as to be labeled “Slick Willie” and “the Comeback Kid.” The movie “Primary Colors” (1997) was an insider’s exposé of the modern president as latter-day “artful dodger.” In addition to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, presidents have gathered or accrued powers, which have been butressed by the Supreme Court rulings that “inherent powers” reside in the duties and responsibilities of the Chief Executive. Presidents need such authority to make decisions concerning territorial, economic, and demographic expansions. George Washington expanded presidential power by taking on a ceremonial role as Head of State, receiving foreign diplomats, signing treaties, and “embodying” the nation. Thomas Jefferson’s purchase of Louisiana (1803) was an obvious example of the exercise of inherent powers, as the Constitution nowhere mentions the right to buy territory. This loose interpretation of presidential prerogative set a precedent for future land deals. Abraham Lincoln pushed the limits of Constitutional powers by calling forth and increasing the size of the militia in 1861 and denying the citizens’ rights to habeas corpus. Teddy Roosevelt claimed it as the president’s duty to be anything that the needs of the nation

86


Illustration 3.1 Nixon

Presidents and First Ladies at Funeral of Richard

On 27 April 1994, the funeral of former President Richard M. Nixon (1969–74) brought together the five presidents who succeeded him. From right to left: Betty and Gerald Ford (1974–77), Rosalyn and Jimmy Carter (1977–81), Nancy and Ronald Reagan (1981–89), Barbara and George Bush (1989–93), and Hilary and Bill Clinton (1993–2001). (P11381-27a, 27Apr 94, Clinton Presidential Materials Project)

demanded, unless expressly prohibited by the Constitution or Congress – including the building of the Panama Canal, making executive agreements with leaders of other countries, and establishing regulatory agencies. Delegated powers are responsibilities transferred to the president by Congress, often in times of crisis or in his role as head of the bureaucracy. A classic example of crisis delegation was Roosevelt’s “New Deal” program, whereby the Congress temporarily relinquished its lawmaking role to give the executive the kinds of power usually reserved for a president in wartime. FDR swiftly had measures enacted to relieve unemployment with a public works program. Other delegated powers are less intentional and reflect the president’s role as chief administrative officer. Presidents appoint the heads of all federal agencies and thereby create policy according to the political and ideological stance of the appointee on issues such as

Government

87

racial justice, law enforcement, or use of natural resources. George W. Bush’s appointment of Gale Norton – a business-orientated Republican – to direct the Department of the Interior represents a challenge to the policies set in place by Clinton’s choice, Bruce Babbitt, a Democrat who favored the environment over business interests. Presidential power also increased during the Cold War as the role of war manager led to a more imperial presidency (Schlesinger, 1973a: ix). That power receded with revelations of corruption concerning Vietnam and Watergate, a non-elected president (Ford), and Carter’s powerlessness to stop double-digit inflation or return the hostages from Iran. With the end of the Cold War, presidential power softened again before the attack on the World Trade Center stiffened presidential authority, giving George W. Bush the opportunity to rebuild the imperial presidency (Economist, 2001). The role of the media in sanctioning or condemning presidential actions affects his strength. After the Watergate affair, reporters, who had traditionally shown discretion in regard to presidents’ private lives, were willing to tell all. The media frenzy surrounding Clinton’s numerous extra-marital escapades entertained audiences with open discussions that would not have been acceptable before the collapse of media deference in the 1970s. A disgraced President Nixon described executive failure in 1977: “Anybody who is in that [presidential] office who does something that reduces respect for the office makes America a little weaker, a little less admirable, and most important, a little less able to be the leader of the free world” (Birt and Frost, 2002). The postmodern presidency emerged and was christened with synonyms: Imperiled, Protean, Diminished, Rhetorical, and Shrunken. To be president was to be fragile and assailable from all directions. The occupant of the Oval Office became more ordinary. But this situation also played into the hands of experts and spin doctors who could use the media to gain public sympathy even while reporters were tearing at personal lives and language blunders (Kurtz, 1998). Modern presidents recognize the media’s influence: Reagan and Clinton were masters of the photo opportunity and the effective use of images. George W. Bush has also proven adept in using the media to project and accumulate power. A president needs a large staff to manage the duties and personnel of the Executive branch, which currently totals over 3 million employees. The Executive Office of the President (EOP) is composed of around 1,500 people specializing in various issues. The president’s

88


most trusted advisors make up an informal group called the White House Staff. The Chief of Staff is a facilitator who buffers the president, acts as his most savvy political advisor, literally manages the president’s schedule, and has power over who gets to see the president and when. The vice-presidency has evolved from “stand-by equipment,” as Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller quipped in the late 1960s, to become much more important during the last three administrations. Al Gore, Clinton’s deputy, busied himself with reorganizing the bureaucracy and directing environmental reform, and Vice-President Dick Cheney is said to be immensely influential in almost every policy decision of the 43rd presidency. The National Security Council (NSC) is the executive’s most influential group in dealing with internal and external security. It includes the VicePresident, Secretaries of State and Defense, and various senior members of the armed forces and intelligence communities. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) deals with the president’s program, recommends the federal budget, and oversees federal spending programs. Beyond the EOP, thousands of administrative jobs change hands with every new president. Senior bureaucratic positions in domestic and foreign affairs are filled by presidential nominees who give the president extensive support and influence over national affairs. The president’s cabinet is made up of a second body of advisors who are appointed by the president – and confirmed by the Senate – to head federal departments. The significance of the cabinet changes according to the managerial style of the president, but the US does not practice a cabinet-style government of collective responsibility and decision-making common to many parliamentary democracies. The power of the Department heads for Trade, Housing, Energy, Education, Defense, State, and so on, stems directly from the president. Cabinet members are not elected, even if some have established political power bases of their own. Some critics claim that the cabinet is simply a decorative body, with real decisions being made within the EOP. Clinton is said to have used the cabinet as a showcase for multiculturalism by reflecting American diversity in his appointments. The presidency is resilient and the world is unstable enough to provide opportunities for power to rise or fall according to circumstance. The presidency provides a focal point for the American people and the world – a central and unified institution in the body of one person. The Constitution originated this role for the executive, but

Government

89

years of discovering inherent rights and adding delegated powers have created a much more powerful office than the Founders imagined or desired. The prominence of the office is reflected by its central position in media attention and public consciousness. In this lies its weakness: it can lead to unrealistic public expectations in its power to deal with all situations. If a president fails to win a war or stop inflation, for example, the public is easily exasperated (Cronin, 1997).

The Legislative Branch Congress is a bicameral legislature made up of 435 representatives (commonly called congressmen or congresswomen) in the House of Representatives and 100 senators in the Senate. The Constitution sets two-year terms for representatives and six-year terms for senators. Every even-numbered calendar year, the entire membership of the House and one-third of the Senate stand for re-election. This election cycle makes the House more chaotic as representatives are always on the campaign trail for the next election. The staggered election cycle in the Senate means that even if all the incumbents were to be defeated and replaced by new faces – a highly unlikely scenario – two-thirds of the body would be experienced and provide a certain measure of stability to the national government. The legislative process is hampered by different term lengths, leading to a more divided government because voters vote at intervals of two years – a very long time in politics. So, the president, senators, and representatives, are expressions of the electorate’s will at different times. Thus, a majority in one election can turn into a minority in the next election. Midterm elections – those elections not corresponding to a presidential election – frequently serve as “presidential plebiscites” where the voters confirm or condemn presidential actions by electing or defeating members of his party. In contrast to parliamentary systems, a midterm defeat for a president’s party does not translate into a formal vote of no confidence in the president. It is quite normal for American government to be divided, with different parties controlling different elected branches. Rarely does one party control the lawmaking process completely, making the post-election 2002 situation unusual. Divided government and different term lengths weaken the role of the parties, making cooperation necessary. This creates strong pressures in the direction of bipartisanship, where representatives and senators make decisions and compromise on policy across party lines.

90


The working atmosphere varies as the House “bustles” and the Senate is “clubby.” House rules are much stricter overall with debating time severely limited while the Senate allows much more time for debate. The sheer number of people in the much larger House chamber explains some of the difference, as does the effect of term lengths on the internal community of politicians. Because their six-year terms grant them protection from wild swings in public opinion and because of their enhanced stature in representing an entire state instead of a congressional district within a state, senators view issues more nationally. States are bigger and more diverse than congressional districts and senators are used to combining disparate opinions into a majority opinion. Their relative scarcity, more genteel working culture, long terms, and state-wide electoral mandates give them far more media attention than representatives who must usually decide – with their re-election hanging in the balance – between local issues and national opinion. The House chaos reflects the members’ close attention to current, rather than long-term, public opinion. The dilemma for legislators is whether to follow long term trends in opinion or to mirror the electorate’s present and immediate views. John F. Kennedy noted that a politician’s wish to be re-elected might push him to “flatter every public whim and prejudice . . . to put public opinion ahead of public interest” (Safire, 1978: 577). Often voters hold contradictory opinions, believing one thing at any given moment and something quite different over the long-view. For example, in the abstract, most Americans concur that action should be taken to reduce the socioeconomic differences visible between the classes; but they overwhelmingly oppose specific, concrete actions which could affect their own personal lifestyles. Popular support for the death penalty may be declining over the long term, yet sudden heinous crimes such as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing of a US federal building or the 2001 destruction the World Trade Center caused significant changes in favor of capital punishment (DOS, 2002a). However their members vote, both the House of Representatives and the Senate are fully involved in making the law and making sure the bureaucracy implements and enforces the law. In lawmaking, the House is more specialized and the Senate is generalist. The prime responsibility of the House of Representatives is initiating legislation for the collection and distribution of money through its control over taxes and spending. The Senate is specifically charged with approving or rejecting all presidential appointments and treaties with foreign

Government

91

countries. The original powers of Congress as enumerated in Article I of the Constitution are shown in Box 3.3. The work of the House and Senate is coordinated along lines of party affiliation. The legislative agenda of a chamber is set by the leader of the party with the greatest numerical representation – called the majority party – and the working agenda of each of the committees is generally set by the longest-tenured committee member representing the majority party. Party leaders go to considerable lengths to enforce voting discipline among their members, and they are often successful due to their ability to provide campaign money, information, and expertise. All the same, party affiliation is not always the decisive factor for American politicians. Representatives vote to improve the economy of their home district by, for example, building a military base, establishing a national park, or constructing a dam. This is called “bringing home the pork” or “pork-barrel” legislation – that is, keeping the home folks fed. The amount of pork and the constant electioneering let voters focus on politicians as individuals rather than as party members, personalizing elections in such a way that Congressional Box 3.3 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Constitutional Powers of Congress

Levy and collect taxes Borrow money for the public treasury Make rules and regulations governing interstate and foreign commerce Make uniform rules for the naturalization of foreign citizens Coin money, state its value, and provide for the punishment of counterfeiters Set weights’ and measures’ standard Establish bankruptcy laws Establish post offices and post roads Issue patents and copyrights Set up a federal courts system Punish piracy Declare war, raise and support armies, provide for a navy Call out the militia to enforce federal laws, suppress lawlessness or repel invasions Make all laws for the seat of government Make all laws necessary to enforce the Constitution

Source: Dept. of State, http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/ outusgov/ch4.htm

92


elections take on more of a candidate-centered rather than a partycentered approach. This strengthens the independence of elected officials and means that party leaders must woo their own members on every issue. Committees are at the heart of lawmaking. Representatives and senators spend much more time involved in process, in the production of the actual wording of the law – based on debate and expert help – than they do voting in chambers. Woodrow Wilson contrasted committee work with full House proceedings as the difference between “Congress at work,” and “on public exhibition” (Wilson, 1885: 79). Committee work is a slow and unglamorous process. The large number of representatives enables a division of labor which produces specialists within policy fields; the small number of senators translates into fewer and broader committees. On any given day, there are nearly 200 committees of various types – standing, select, joint, and conference – operating. The 20 standing committees in each house are a fixed feature of Congressional life, in that they are involved both in the formulation of law and the feedback of its effects from the bureaucracy (Departments and Agencies implementing the law). They also exert oversight over specific areas of policy implementation, such as the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Select committees are temporary, created with a single task in mind. When the task is over, the committee dissolves. Joint committees include members from both houses, such as the Joint Economic Committee. For a bill to become a law, both houses must agree to the exact wording and details. Conference committees, including both senators and representatives, are set up specifically to reconcile differences in legislation passed in each of the houses. The need for discussion based on specialist knowledge of particular issues means that committees often have to set up subcommittees. The House Livestock and Horticulture Subcommittee with 20 members, for example, is a subcommittee of the 50-member House Agriculture Committee. Subcommittees discuss the specifics of a law and conduct hearings with expert witnesses to ensure that the detailed drafting of a law is consistent with intended policy outcomes. Committees are essential to the legislative process. Figure 3.2 below shows how a bill becomes a law. To begin the lawmaking process, ideas for legislation come from any branch or level of government, interest group, community, or individual. To initiate the legislative process, the idea must be sponsored by a member of Congress who formally introduces it on the

Government Figure 3.2

93

The Lawmaking Process Idea/policy stage Introduced as a Bill Assigned to Committee Assigned to Subcommittee Returns to Full Committee Rules Committee (House only) Full House and Senate debate Conference Committee Returns for full House and Senate approval President signs the Bill into law

Specific Departments write procedures to implement the law Note: Bills go through the stages shown in Figure 3.2 above in both houses (Rules Committee excepted). This figure shows the route of a successful bill. At any stage, the bill can fail and be dropped. Even when it survives the Congress, a president can veto the bill and return it to Congress for revision or oblivion. Congress can then overturn the veto by a two-thirds majority vote.

floor of the House or Senate as a “Bill.” Each Bill is assigned to a relevant committee. The work of a committee is structured by its Chair, who is attuned to the political desires of his party. The Chair is traditionally assigned to the member of the majority party with seniority on the committee. Control of the House or Senate by a party also translates into a control of the committees. This grants considerable power to the Chair who decides which Bills to consider or ignore – there are far more Bills introduced than committees can handle. Thus the majority party controls the legislative agenda both through the committees and through the leadership offices of Speaker of the House and of the Senate’s president “pro tempore” (for the “time being” – the vice-

94


president is the formal president of the Senate). The Speaker and Senate president decide on legislative priorities and appoint committee Chairs from members of their own party. The strength of party affiliation and the influence of the House Speaker or Senate president can be overestimated. Committee Chairs can exert significant independence, a result of the seniority principle and consequently having worked within committees for a long time and of a feeling of collegiality among all committee members. Powerful Chairs who realize they have reached the limits of their political careers, offer majority leaders little leverage. In 1994 the seniority principle was broken temporarily. Newt Gingrich – then Speaker of the House – passed over senior members for younger members whose Conservative ideological stance matched his own, cementing him as the most powerful Speaker for a generation. In late 1998 the seniority system re-emerged following Gingrich’s demise. Subcommittees study bills and listen to advice from experts both in and out of government. Once convinced of the merits of a bill, the subcommittee reports to the full committee which, when satisfied, reports it ready for debate by the full House or Senate. In the House, the Rules Committee sets rules and time limits for debate. After debate and changes, members vote on the bill. Unless there are compelling local or ideological reasons not to, members usually rely on their party’s advice and vote accordingly. If voted down in either chamber, the bill is dead; if passed, the bill goes to a Conference Committee to iron out differences between the bills passed in different chambers. The bill is sent back to both Houses for final approval. If approved, it goes to the president for final approval, which he usually gives, signing it into law. If the president does not like the bill and less than 10 days remain in the legislative session before recess, he can kill the bill simply by refusing to sign it. This is called a “pocket veto.” The president can also simply veto the bill and return it to Congress, where it is either modified and returned to the president, or simply dies. If it can get the support of at least two-thirds of Congress, the legislators override the president’s veto. The bill now becomes law and is called an Act. Committees have the right of oversight - keeping a watchful eye - to ensure that the Act is applied as it was meant and that its effects match legislative intent. The legislative process is deliberate and slow most of the time. However, Congress can act promptly during times of national crisis or when popular opinion clearly backs a certain course of action. In 1933, FDR and Congress sped through over 100 pieces of legislation

Government

95

in the famous “Hundred Days.” In 2001, Bush and Congress speedily created anti-terror legislation in the wake of the attacks in New York and Washington (Anderson, 2001). Congress is not, and never has been, a mirror of American society. Although during the last generation officeholders have become somewhat more representative of American society in terms of gender and race, there has been less change in terms of education, occupation and income of officeholders. As Table 3.1 shows, white males were overrepresented in the 107th Congress. In all democracies there is tension in the way elected officials view their responsibilities towards the people: should they act as delegates or trustees? Delegates treat the policy wishes of their supporters as instructions. Trustees are freer to follow their own informed views on how to best help their district and nation. Most elected officials mix and match these two approaches. If an issue exerts strong passions among the folks back home, it is almost certain to bring out the delegate; if the issue is not particularly important locally, the representative is more likely to vote in the trustee mode. The national political climate also matters. For example, the ideological rigor of the Republicans’ 1994 “Contract with America” encouraged representatives of both sides to vote more along party lines. Collectively, Congress represents a synthesis of models of government. Candidates are elected by the will of the majority, yet their effect is diluted by the plurality of districts and institutions within the three elected branches. Additionally, the social profile of elected officers, and the vast expense of getting elected, suggests that legislators’ lives are far removed from the daily concerns of ordinary citizens. Table 3.1

Profile of the 107th Congress (2001–02)

Gender/Ethnicity

Population (%)

Representatives (%) (No.)

Senators (%)

Male Female

49 51

86.0 14.0

(374) (61)

87 13

Non-Hispanic White African American Latino (Hispanic) Asian American American Indian

69 12 13 4 1

84.4 9.0 4.8 1.6 0.2

(367) (39) (21) (7) (1)

98 0 0 1 1

Source:

US Senate (2001) and DOS (2000).

96


The pluralist model argues that pressures to reflect the opinions of not only the majority of the voters, but of different vocal minority interests pushes elected officials into a delegate/trustee mix and match of positions. The bifocal – local and national – nature of representation forces lawmakers toward compromise, giving different groups of voters and interests access from a number of directions. Occasionally majority opinion gets decoupled from the policy process, leaving legislators and sectional interests to brew private or “elite” policy outcomes.

The Judicial Branch In contemporary America the Judicial branch is the equal of the others, but this has not always been the case. The Founders imagined the Court as the “least dangerous” branch and the Constitution devotes just three short paragraphs in Article III to establish the Court and to empower Congress to construct a federal judicial system. The real power of the Court came in the early 1800s when Chief Justice John Marshall used the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause to declare the federal courts superior to the state courts. Marshall also established the principle of judicial review to make the Supreme Court the final judge on whether Congressional Acts, state laws, lower court judgments, and executive actions follow the rules set out in the Constitution. Using the power of judicial review, the Court is always involved in the most politically sensitive issues, including racial integration, prayer in the schools, abortion rights, handgun control, death penalty decisions, and fairness issues. Most cases before the Court deal with 1st and 14th Amendment freedom and equality protections. For example, in 1989, in the name of the free-speech clause of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to punish a person for burning the American flag. No discussion of civil society – of liberties and rights – would be complete without the strong voice of the Supreme Court in the resolution of the issue. This contrasts markedly to most other Western countries, where such issues are dealt with by the elected legislatures. Judicial activities are divided into separate federal and state jurisdictions. The system of federal courts is a tripartite division among US District Courts, US Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. The federal courts hear appeals from judgments rendered by lower courts, but mostly they work with original disputes over federal law,

Government

97

suits by or against the federal government, or cases between citizens of different states. The US Supreme Court is strictly an appeals court which rules on the constitutionality of a law or action, and in that way establishes the law for all courts. The Supreme Court consists of nine judges – called justices – who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Because justices serve for life and because a president can only appoint a new justice when a vacancy occurs, each president’s influence is limited. When a justice retires, changes career, or dies, the Justice Department creates a list of likely candidates which will be reduced to a shorter list by senior White House advisors. The president selects his nominee and sends the name to the Senate, where the Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings to determine a candidate’s background qualifications, approach to the law, and judicial philosophy. Senate approval is not automatic. The most recent refusal went to Reagan-nominee Robert Bork, who was defeated in 1987 for his anti-abortion stance. The process is clearly not pleasant for successful nominees either: Clarence Thomas termed it a “high-tech lynching” in 1991. In 2002 the Court consisted of members appointed by Nixon (William H. Rehnquist), Ford (John Paul Stephens III), Reagan (Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy), Bush (David H. Souter and Clarence Thomas), and Clinton (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer). Republican presidents who believed in limiting the role of the Federal government and of repatriating responsibility to the states appointed seven of these justices. The Rehnquist Court – all courts are named after their Chief Justice – is a relatively conservative body which reflects an adherence to individual and states’ rights over the national collective (Greenhouse, 2002). Judicial politics are dynamic and the Court is active in politics by nature of its selective and interpretive judgments. In deciding a case, justices have considerable discretion and are influenced by ideas of judicial method and judicial philosophy. Judicial method can be traced along a line with procedural ideas at one extreme and substantive ideas at the other. Put simply, a procedural view is based on a justice’s strict adherence to accepted rules when formulating judgments. A substantive approach concentrates more on outcomes than process with judgments made for the effects they will have, rather than strictly according to precedent. Justices also must balance judicial restraint against judicial activism. Judicial restraint stems from a

98


philosophy that elected legislators should make the law and that justices should closely follow the original intent of statutes. Judicial activism assumes that justices, even though not elected, should make judgments in-line with an ever-changing society. Division and partisanship in the elected branches has complicated matters in recent years as divided government sends mixed signals to the Court. Partisanship also raises the significance of the verdicts, as the Court mediates between elected branches controlled by ideologicallyenlivened parties (Clayton and Giordano, in Peele, 1998: 72–5). The current Court is divided into a conservative group emphasizing restraint and established process, a centrist element oscillating between deference to and interpretation of the letter of the law, and a faction of judicial activists more concerned about law’s spirit. Consensus is difficult to obtain and many verdicts from the Rehnquist Court split 5–4, generally in favor of restraint and established process. While unanimity of opinion is not required, lower courts can more easily follow precedent when the Supreme Court is unified. Additionally, the more contentious the issue, the better a unanimous or near-unanimous verdict works to convince the public on a certain point. For example, the 9–0 decision on school desegregation in 1954 convinced Americans that the federal government would enforce integration. 5–4 splits ensure that more cases will arise in hopes of swinging a centrist justice to the other side and overturning the decision. The Supreme Court has the flexibility and freedom to decide which cases to hear. It selects only about 100 cases a year from the approximately 7,000 cases discussed in Court conferences. If at least four justices agree to hear a case, it is placed on the docket. Choosing its own cases allows the Court to direct the law in areas it wants and ignore it in others – even though the Court often adds cases the administration or national media push strongly. Of course, just how the justices interpret the law depends on their legal philosophy and personal beliefs. Legal adjudication is based on the principles of constitutional and statute law, and, in their absence, common law (or judge-made law). The adjudication of statute law, especially recent, is less problematical than common law, as the intent of the legislation is usually more obvious, either from the legal text itself, or from the records of the committee or government department primarily responsible for the drafting of the text. Exceptions occur when cases are heard which are based on contradictory or clashing pieces of law. Common law is

Government

99

based on the principle that if there is no existing written or statute law on an issue, the uniformity of the law will be enforced by using earlier judgments – especially those from higher courts – called precedents. The briefness of the Constitution, the large number of states, the plethora of laws which need to be reinterpreted as time and conditions change, and the fact that the US is the most highly-litigious society on earth, give the Supreme Court enormous leverage to shape society through its decisions. The federal court system also includes 14 appellate courts and 94 district courts with over 800 judges. Presidents have a great impact at these levels, leaving a durable legacy by filling vacancies with personal choices. Democrats Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton managed to change the courts dramatically by eschewing middle-class and middle-aged white men and appointing hundreds of women and members of racial minorities. Their choices have made the Judicial branch far more representative of diversity in contemporary America than Congress. In addition to the president’s power to select judges, the Executive branch has other channels into the Judicial branch. The Department of Justice deals with the day-to-day management of judicial affairs. The attorney general, who is appointed by the president, is the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. The attorney general is a powerful aide to the president with the authority to set cases selected to push the president’s political agenda into the federal courts. The president also has an officer, the solicitor general, who represents the federal government in dealings with the Supreme Court. The solicitor general decides which judgments the government should appeal. Parallel to the federal system of courts are the state courts, which adjudicate 99 percent of the 90 million lawsuits tried each year. State inferior courts – often divided into city or county jurisdictions – deal with routine cases of traffic violations, divorce, child custody, or other relatively minor and civil suits. State superior courts preside over multi-county districts and convene juries to try criminal cases – such as burglaries, murders, and assaults. Because criminal cases can involve prison terms or capital punishment, a jury of twelve usually determines the fate of the accused. This use of ordinary citizens connects people to the judicial process, an important element of justice because the social backgrounds of jurors differ widely and provide a cross-section of society, whereas lawyers and judges still generally have middle and upper class backgrounds and outlooks. Each state has its own appeals courts, topped by a state supreme

100


court. States vary in the number of courts and in terms for judges who are either appointed by state governors or elected by the people, in contrast with federal judges. Elected judges who must stand for reelection may feel pressure to follow public opinion, which can lead to popular but legally dubious decisions. Appeals courts are in place to rectify possible errors. With separate federal and state systems (Figure 3.3) with three levels of courts, groups who want to change the laws have multiple points of access to present “class action suits” to bring people in similar circumstances together to have a verdict rendered which will apply to all of them. For example, in 1995 and 1997, women who had had breast augmentation surgery, whether or not they had experienced side effects, pursued and won a single suit against the makers Figure 3.3

The Court System US Supreme Court (ca. 100)

Requests for Review (7,000)

12+2 Federal Courts of Appeals* (54,000)

50 State Supreme Courts (100,000)

State Courts of Appeals (200,000)

94 Federal District Courts (250,000)

State Trial Courts (90 million)

* There are twelve regional United States Court of Appeals, one United States Court of Appeal for the federal circuit, and one United States Court of Military Appeals. Figures in brackets indicate the approximate number of cases heard in 2000. Source: US Courts, 2001.

Government

101

of the silicon implants by claiming health risks that had been concealed by the manufacturers. Tobacco companies have been forced to pay millions of dollars to smokers for concealing the fact that nicotine in cigarettes endangers health. Environmental groups have originated cases against factories for polluting air and water resources. Access to the courts requires money and expertise, which favor powerful interests in the private and political realms, but multiple levels of courts give access to groups and citizens who can challenge the laws or the political majority. Ease of access helps explain the high numbers of lawsuits in the United States and the way in which the courts provide cultural glue for the diverse interests of diverse peoples in the United States. When the system is challenged, the Supreme Court usually shows its strength by settling the controversy. In Gore v. Bush, the case that decided the 2000 presidential election, a divided verdict was good enough for the American people. Bush wanted the Court to stop the manual recount of 170,000 votes in Florida that were unclear, even though the Florida Supreme Court had ordered the count to continue, as Gore requested. The US Supreme Court overruled the Florida Supreme Court decision. In noting its unusual role, the Court issued a 7–2 majority opinion: None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this court and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution’s design to leave the selection of the president to the people through legislatures and to the political sphere. When contending parties invoke the process of the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront. In its second verdict, 5–4, the Court disallowed a recount of the contested ballots. Five days later Gore accepted the decision, urged Americans to support president-elect Bush, and praised the system, saying: “And now it has ended, resolved as it must be resolved – through the honored institutions of our democracy” (Gore, 2000).

4 The Political System

The 2000 Election Newspaper editors usually find it easy enough to declare the winner of US presidential elections, but in November 2000 they stumbled into an abyss of confusion and embarrassment. Television reporters joined them in flip-flopping announcements of who had been elected, and the American citizenry stood bewildered and bemused after being accustomed to political scientists and professional pollsters claiming near perfect accuracy in using exit polls to predict winners and losers (Getlin and Gettleman, 2000; Mnookin, 2001). The problem was that in this election the American voters had divided all too evenly in casting ballots for the Republican candidate, Governor George W. Bush of Texas, and the Democratic nominee, Vice-President Al Gore of Tennessee. In the state of Florida, for example, where nearly 6 million people voted, Bush’s majority over Gore was a meager 537 votes – 2,912,790 to 2,912,253 – with thousands of contested votes still uncounted. For five weeks the drama continued as all three branches of the federal government, plus the state government of Florida, claimed the Constitutional power to resolve the election. Finally, under great pressure, the United States Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision that put Bush in the White House. For America and the world the debacle was a detailed civics lesson in the workings of the US government. Ratings for television news shows soared, enhanced by the initial miscalls and the continuing inability of reporters to predict what would happen next. In the final count the election system worked, as 102


103

Gore won more popular votes than Bush, 50,996,116 to 50,456,169, but lost in the Electoral College, 271–266 (1 abstention). Fifteen other candidates split 3,278,864 popular and 0 electoral votes. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader got nearly 2.9 million votes, almost all siphoned from Gore. Democrats blamed Nader for putting Bush in the White House and everyone thought about the dangers of voting outside the two major parties in future elections. While world commentators expressed outrage or ridiculed the election confusion and the potential for a deadlocked government, Gore quietly congratulated Bush and only a very few citizens protested that the election had been “stolen.” After all, an adversarial system and divided government have always been prime ingredients of American democracy. Additionally, the events in Washington seemed far away to most people who went about their daily lives of family and work. Most of their contact with government remained where it had always been, at the local or state level, where parties, issues and personalities blur and overlap. Any resentment and resistance to the 48 percent to 48 percent popular vote split in the national results were relieved by ballots cast for local and state favorites. In 2001 the states were headed by 29 Republican, 19 Democrat, and 2 Independent governors.

Participatory Democracy Voters and Voting American citizens generally register to vote at the local courthouse in their hometowns when they turn 18 years old. Some states require them to register their political affiliation, usually Democrat, Republican, or Independent. Citizens in some states can also register at libraries when they sign up for a lending card, at police stations when they get a driver’s license, or by mail when they move outside the city, county, or state. Because Americans move a lot, they must often re-register in a new city or state. Once registered, Americans can vote in the many separate or combined elections to pick local dogcatchers, school board members, mayors, members of city councils, sheriffs, draft board members, judges, secretaries of state, lieutenant governors, governors, highway commissioners, state legislators, US Senators and Representatives, and the President of the United States, to name only a few of the elected posts.

104


In the contemporary United States, the right to vote is a universal right, whereas in the past voting was viewed more as a privilege. Even though the Constitution declared “We the People,” the Founders had real reasons to fear “mob rule” and so restricted voting rights to those who owned property and met residency requirements. “We the People” was an elite idea of representative rule before the agitation by free whites increased in 1828 and led to the expansion of the suffrage and establishment of the Democratic Party. By mid-century, all white men were entitled to vote. Black men received the vote in 1870 only to have it removed on a state-by-state basis in the South; women were included in 1920; and American Indians were classified as citizens in 1924. There were important Voting Rights Acts in the 1960s and 1980s which finally ensured that everyone who wanted to vote, could vote. In addition to deciding on leaders, voters vote directly on the issues. Nearly half the states allow their citizens to vote for or against state laws and 49 states require a popular vote on any change in the state’s constitution. When state legislatures put a proposal to the people’s vote, instead of deciding matters themselves, the vote is called a referendum. In addition to a legislature’s power to call for a referendum, 23 states allow the people to initiate a referendum from the grassroots level without going through a city council decision, state legislature, judicial ruling, or congressional procedure. Advocates for a new law often go door-to-door, collecting signatures on petitions. Once enough signatures are gathered – from 1,000 to 60,000 according to jurisdiction – the “initiative” is placed on the ballot. People vote on such issues as whether or not to raise or lower taxes, decide if alcohol can be sold in their counties, build sports stadiums, reduce penalties for marijuana usage, and allow for gay or lesbian adoptions. In 1978, Californians initiated and voted to reduce property taxes by half, even though state politicians were firmly against it; in 1994, Californians stunned the nation by supporting Proposition 187 to deny medical benefits to illegal immigrants and their children. The US Supreme Court overturned this vote as unconstitutional. In 1996, 20 states held referenda based upon citizens’ initiatives; the most prominent was California Proposition 209 to end Affirmative Action programs for minority students – an action with which the US Supreme Court later agreed. While referenda based upon populist petitions are democratic, the people’s judgment and knowledge of issues might be better served by legislators and professional government employees.


105

Additional concerns swarm around the question of who votes. In the 1830s Alexis de Tocqueville wrote glowingly of American democracy: “In countries in which universal suffrage exists, the majority is never doubtful, because neither party can reasonably pretend to represent that portion of the community which has not voted” (Tocqueville, 1994: 197). Tocqueville could not have imagined that nearly two-thirds of Americans would abstain from casting their vote at the start of the twenty-first century. Americans have long agreed on the principle that all citizens have the right to vote; but that in no way implies that Americans see voting as a duty. They rather see it as a freedom and an equal opportunity to do with as one wishes. Yet, does it really matter if most Americans decide not to vote? The answer is hard to determine. Political scientists acknowledge that individual Americans and various organizations have many ways to participate in and make an impact upon political decisions without ever stepping into a voting booth. Some specialists even believe that voting is one of the least influential forms of political participation available to the people.

Interest Groups There are two basic forms of participatory behavior for individual or group action: conventional and unconventional. Conventional behavior includes the regular voting and party systems that legitimize existing institutional arrangements. Unconventional participation includes, for example, the disruptive demonstrations against the World Trade Organization and International Monetary Fund meetings in Seattle and Washington, D.C., in 1999 and 2000 (see also Illustration 4.1 on anti-war demonstration). In contemporary America, everyday individual political behavior spans the spectrum from the supportive to the disruptive. Opinions are most often expressed through interest groups, not by individual voters. For instance, a member of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) – a union with a qualified membership and specific interests – may abstain from voting in a local, state, or national election but is still intimately involved in the political process through the collective influence of the AFT. Or, take the example of a busy Chief Executive Officer (CEO) who decides not to take an hour off to vote, but influences policy decisions when engaged in management decisions through a business group, such as the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). The individuals in these two examples have

106


Illustration 4.1

Anti-War Demonstration

Americans commonly participate in unconventional political activities, such as this demonstration in Los Angeles on 6 October 2002 against the Bush administration’s Iraq policy. (Photo by Lucian Read/AFP)

exhibited conventional behavior, but they could also be involved in disruptive actions, through strikes or illegal monopolies or insider trading schemes that affect the entire US economy, damaging confidence in the economy and in the political system’s ability to regulate it. Interest group politics are growing while individual voting participation falls. An interest group, often called a lobby, is a group of people or businesses who organize themselves to influence public policy on certain issues. They link civil society and the market to political institutions by supporting or declining to support particular politicians. Legislators are lobbied directly by experts who present them with detailed research or opinion polls and most often contribute money to a politician’s (re)election fund. Interest groups have narrow policy focuses, whereby politicians and parties face broad and varied constituencies. Interest groups are of two types. Open groups allow anyone to join, claim to work for the public good, and have mass memberships


107

consisting of individuals with limited resources. Such open groups include the Sierra Club, dedicated to the preservation of wilderness areas; the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which especially focuses on the First Amendment’s right of freedom of speech; the Christian Coalition, which supports laws against homosexuals and abortions; and the National Rifle Association (NRA), which defends the rights of gun owners. Even the little known group, The National Bowling Association (TNBA), has as its main aims the promotion of “sportsmanship, fellowship and friendship among its 20,000+ membership.” Its website announces that the TNBA “plays a part in the national movement toward implementation of American democracy, ideals and principles” – evidenced by its influence in desegregating bowling halls in 1950. Membership is open to all bowlers or lovers of bowling of any race (TNBA, 2002). These open interest groups have large and disparate memberships, rely on small membership dues or private contributions to support their lobbying efforts, and more often than not provide voters, instead of dollars, to politicians who support their causes. The other type of lobby group is the closed interest which promotes action to benefit very specific organizations or groups of people. These closed groups include labor unions such as the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA), trade and professional organizations such as the AFT representing educators, the American Bar Association (ABA) for lawyers and the American Medical Association (AMA) for doctors and the Bowling Proprietors’ Association of America (BPAA). The BPAA and its associated Political Action Committee (B-PAC) represents bowling alley owners; in 2000, for example BPAC successfully lobbied Congress for the removal of the Special Occupational Tax, saving its members $800,000, and lobbied to overturn no-smoking bans in buildings. These closed interests lobby with money and the promise of supplying voters to candidates who support their interests. In 2002 the BPAA put over $40,000 into campaign chests for specific Republican candidates, while the AFL gave millions of dollars and encouraged its membership to vote for Democrats (B-PAC, 2002). Closed interests, with the exception of unions, usually have small memberships, but their strong financial resources make sure that politicians will listen to their private interests. The concerns of bowlers and bowling proprietors illustrate the push behind the expansion of lobbies in recent years. Both are focused on issues which are too small to be effectively promoted by

108


parties, but that are important to their members and promoted by groups through support, candidate endorsement and campaign cash. The ideological and socioeconomic contrasts between the parties are also reflected in interest groups. Commercial interest groups like the BPAA are more likely – though not exclusively – to support the Republicans in the hope of influencing their policy agenda than the Democrats, who gain more support from unions and public interests. Lobbyists come up with ideas for legislation, and provide feedback to politicians on the effects of legislation and of voters’ responses to it. The Christian Coalition claimed it delivered 70 million presidential voter guides in 2000 (Benen, 2000), and the failed energy giant Enron supplied millions of dollars and expertise primarily to Republicans (CRP, 2002). Whether or not interest groups should be allowed to do this, or even broke the law in doing so, will be under consideration for a long time. The existence of interest groups helps to illuminate the pluralist nature of American civil society. Interest groups allow Americans to express their views and preferences constantly, not just in voting booths on election days every two years. They give citizens with particular interests many points of access to the political process. In a society of nearly 300 million people divided into thousands of subcultures and many classes with varying religious, educational, and occupational interests, lobby groups expand democracy by letting minority groups and interests be heard over the simple arithmetic of a winner-take-all voting system of majority rule. With interest group politics, various minority groups or minority interests can be heard and might succeed on issues that would never survive a majority vote. The darker side is that groups with greater resources in terms of members, expertise, and money have disproportionate influence on policy debates (Schattschneider, 1960). Interest groups have the financial resources to push legislation and ensure that they are heard in another way, through litigation. Groups often file “class action” lawsuits in American courts to stop big business or to overturn legislation that does not give every person “equal protection” under the law, as demanded by the 14th Amendment. Some scholars argue that the use of lawyers to trump the will of a legislature is hardly democratic; others contend that lawsuits and interest groups help ensure that all citizens are heard and that the law is applied fairly.


109

Political Parties Over and above the interest groups, political parties gather the electorate into large coalitions of voters that affect the governing structure of the country. Parties and their candidates support ever-changing plans for the administration of government in order to balance order, freedom, and equality for the people, and to provide national security for the state. Parties propose and nominate candidates and offer general policy platforms to help voters make choices. The Democratic and Republican parties dominate the political landscape; yet they are not alone. Many smaller parties exist – see Table 4.4 – but their influence is normally limited, as the winner-takes-all electoral system disregards the votes of losing candidates. For most people, voting rationally means voting for Democrats or Republicans. Since the 1860s the stability of the Republicans and Democrats as structuring organizations for civil society has been remarkable; in fact, the Democratic Party (1828) is the oldest existing political party in the world, and the Republican Party (1854) is the third-oldest. Their longevity indicates a high degree of flexibility on issues and the ability to transform themselves as immigrants, technology, and time alter voting lists and attitudes. Otherwise, the rise of strong third parties, such as the Populists in 1890, Progressives in 1912, and Reform Party in 1992 would supplant them. The elections of 1896, 1932/1936, and 1980 were transforming elections for the two parties as they fused ideas from lesser parties into their platforms and switched constituencies. Republicans in 1896 dropped the mantle of reform and equality that had been Abraham Lincoln’s legacy, and became the conservative party of big business interests. Democrats in 1932 were able to build a coalition of Northern workers and unions with Southern and Western farmers and African Americans to redistribute wealth a bit. In 1980 the Republicans drew Southern and Western white voters away from the Democrats and transformed their party around Ronald Reagan’s conservative response to the 1960s cultural turmoil and his promise to limit government. Analysts offer a “median” voter theory as an explanation for why the two-party system creates similar stances on issues (Downs, 1957). Because there are more voters in the center than on the left or right, and because American elections are based on a winner-takes-all system – as opposed to proportional representation – politicians can expect to be elected only by attracting the middle-of-the-road voter who often switches between liberal and conservative issues. While

110


other theories see economic, gender, North–South, rural–urban, or coastal–heartland divides as preeminent factors, median voter theory seems best at explaining the variation in election outcomes from one year to the next, and between voters casting votes for different parties on election day; as candidate and party positions vary according to the national, state, or local character of the contest. Table 4.1 indicates how Americans view themselves on a simple left–right spectrum, with “left” expressed as extremely liberal and “right” as extremely conservative. Most voters put themselves in the center, with the recent trend moving even more toward conservative/ Republican positions. Whether centrist self-identification conforms with the position people actually take on specific issues is another matter, complicating strategy choices for politicians. Table 4.1 shows how Americans ideological self-placement has moved over the last 30 years. The Democratic and Republican parties navigate between three core American values: individuality (freedom), community (order) and fairness (equality). When asked whether they prefer absolute freedom or absolute equality, Americans by a three-to-one margin choose freedom; thus, they are choosing diversity and wide class Table 4.1

Ideological Self-Placement and Party Identification

Ideological Self-Placement

Year and Percentage 1972

Party Identification

2000

Year and Percentage 1972

2000

Extremely Liberal

1

2

Strong Democrat

15

19

Liberal

7

9

Weak Democrat

26

15

Slightly Liberal

10

9

Independent Dem.

11

15

Moderate, Middle of Road

27

23

Independent

13

12

Slightly Conservative

15

12

Independent Rep.

10

13

Conservative

10

15

Weak Republican

13

12

Extremely Conservative

1

3

Strong Republican

10

12

Don’t Know

28

27

1

1

Source:

NES-UM.

Apolitical


111

differences over conformity, homogeneity, and social equality. Republican voters tend to stress the maintenance of order as the highest aim of government, with freedom second, and equality third. Democrats usually put equality issues first, freedom second, and order third – but even Democrats generally mean equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Conservatives favor less government intervention except in demanding harsher penalties for crimes, while liberals expect an activist government for minority and women’s legal rights. Communitarians who want equality of outcome, generally vote with the Democrats, while Libertarians who want the least possible government – except where necessary to protect life and property – vote on the Republican side. In 2000 and 2001 the two parties collided in Congress over the budget surplus, and whether it should be spent on tax cuts and defense (Republicans) or saved for Social Security pensions and education (Democrats). Ideological self-placement and party support obviously correspond. The voter’s gender, race, education, and income also determine voting behavior, as is indicated in Table 4.2. Voting patterns are really more complex than socioeconomic left–right splits suggest. During the last 20 years, the Republicans have been more successful in adapting to social changes, capturing the White House in 1980, 1984, 1988, and 2000. In 1994, for the first time since the 1952, Republicans wrested control of Congress from the Democrats and, after the 2002 midterm elections, Republican victories in the Senate gave them firm control of all three branches of government. Both Table 4.2

Presidential Preference in 2000

Voting Group

George W. Bush

Al Gore

Males

53

47

Females

44

56

White

54

46

Black

8

92

High school or less

26

74

College degree

50

50

Income: lowest 16%

34

66

Income: highest 5%

67

33

Source:

NES-UM.

112


parties pragmatically change their platforms to conform to opinion polls as they compete for the support of median voters. The views of young people must be taken into account – even though they vote less than their elders – as they represent changing opinions and future concerns which parties must confront if they expect to maintain influence. No party wants to be seen as being unable to connect, or “out of new ideas.” Since 1964 the numbers of Democrats have declined and Republicans have risen in almost all age groups. Table 4.3 shows a shift in virtually all categories from Democrats to Republicans, and to non-partisan stances, underpinning the idea that Americans are increasingly individualistic. Young adults vote more conservatively than their parents in contemporary America. The relative liberalism of their parents and grandparents stems from the effective government actions against systemic economic and geopolitical crises during the Depression, World War II, and Cold War, as well as the 1960s revolutions toward greater racial and gender equality. The unprecedented increase in Table 4.3

Partisan Self-Identification by Demographic Group Republican

Democrat

Independent

1964

2000

1964

2000

1964

2000

Males

30

41

61

46

8

12

Females

30

34

61

53

7

12

White

33

42

59

44

8

13

Black

8

7

82

83

6

10

Grade school/Some High school

20

30

70

58

8

11

College degree/ Post Graduate.

46

48

48

44

6

8

Low Income (bottom 16%)

24

22

65

62

9

14

Medium Income (middle 33%)

25

40

66

47

8

13

High Income (top 4%)

48

54

44

36

8

10

South

17

37

72

47

8

14

Non-South

34

37

58

51

8

11

Source:

NES-UM.


113

living standards for most Americans and the removal of overt racist and sexist barriers have made young adults focus more on freedom and less on equality. Contemporary adults of college age have grown up in a time of continued economic expansion, security from Cold War fears of the atomic bomb, and falling crime rates. While in the 1960s and 1970s political behavior was unconventional – many citizens marched, burned draft cards, sat-in, and rioted to expand government responsibility toward equality – voters in the 1980s and 1990s often chose not to vote or they voted to dismantle social programs that demand increased taxes. Bill Clinton won in 1992 partly because George Bush reneged on his pledge not to raise taxes, partly because the economy was in a brief downturn, and partly because Clinton played a saxophone on MTV and encouraged young people to “Rock the Vote!” Clinton won re-election in 1996 because he used a moderate Third Way approach that combined liberal and conservative positions. He also benefited from a soaring economy, and because his opponent, 73-year-old Robert Dole, seemed ancient when contrasted to Clinton’s youthful 50. Successful politicians must adapt their messages to different audiences, while taking care to avoid giving opportunities for television reporters to show obviously contradictory 15-second sound-bites on the national news. Because issues that hit home in Washington, D.C., may not matter much elsewhere, candidates rely on a party’s middleof-the-road national platform for stability, devising specific strategies for local campaigns. Contemporary politicians are often more ideological than the voters to whom they cater, and their votes on specific issues sometimes contradict or go far beyond campaign promises. This ideological difference helps to explain why voters believe that politicians cannot be trusted to do what they say. Until recently, parties have not been good at mustering internal discipline for voting; this has been attributed to the need for ideological, ethnic, religious, and geographical compromise within a federal political system and a diverse nation. Lately however, with interest groups such as the Christian Coalition working feverishly to remove liberal candidates, and liberal Christian groups such as People for the American Way responding in kind, politicians have taken more rigid positions than usual. The 2000 presidential contest increased partisanship, as the electorate split evenly and politicians clung tighter to party labels. Additionally, the extensive redrawing of election districts in the past two decades has so firmly established ideological areas, that 98 percent of incumbents won re-election in the 2002 elec-

114


tion for the House of Representatives. Political parties seem to be increasingly important in the United States, perhaps as important as the charisma of individual candidates.

Politics Elections In real contrast to other Western democracies, ordinary voters in the US are given the final say over who should represent the parties in elections. Before the general election is held between one Republican and one Democrat – and a few Independents or others – a primary election is held to pick the party candidates. Although presidential primaries are most widely reported, primaries are held for almost all the country’s elected offices. In a primary, voters elect one candidate from each party from a field of hopefuls who have simply announced that they are candidates for the particular office and wish to run as Republicans or Democrats. Some states allow for open primaries, whereby voters from either party can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary. Other states hold closed primaries, restricting the vote in each primary to registered party members. The primary system increases democracy by giving the people the power to determine the official party candidates over the entire spectrum of political offices. Presidential elections illustrate the complexity of the election process (Box 4.1), even though variations are of different scales for each public office. The visible process starts at least a year before the presidential elections take place, when the states hold primaries or, in two instances, closed political meetings called caucuses. Primary elections receive massive media coverage, and voters often turn out in significant numbers Roughly three months before an election, the parties hold Conventions where their presidential candidates are officially named and the campaigning accelerates. This long process of going from being a hopeful to becoming the party candidate helps to “personify” the political structure by focusing attention on the personal attributes of each candidate. Voters select candidates who they identify with, or by habit of party affiliation. Overall, local interests and primaries put candidates in stronger positions towards their parties than in other countries where voters choose parties, not candidates. When casting


115

ballots, voters weigh the personal qualities of the candidate as much as ideology; and are more likely to ask, “Is he like me, and do I like him?” than “Is he the best leader possible?” Table 4.4 shows that control of the White House has split fairly evenly between Democrats and Republicans since 1960, and how minor parties sometimes help determine the outcome of the elections – for instance in 1992 and 2000. Because elections to the House of Representatives occur every two years, representatives must constantly be on the campaign trail. All 435 representatives pay closer attention to their home districts than to the wants of their parties, even though they tend to vote along party lines if the issue does not confront the interests of the people “back Box 4.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11

The Path to the Presidency

Election day minus 4–8 years. A future president has usually first been elected as a state governor, US Senator, or Vice-President; sometimes a military hero will do. Election day minus 2 years. Hopefuls fundraise the tens of millions of dollars needed to run a campaign. Contributors give money directly to the candidate and not to a political party. Election day minus 18 months. Individuals announce that they are actively campaigning to be President of the United States. They begin to visit states with early primaries. Election day minus 12 months. Voters in state primaries have narrowed the field to two or three favorites in each party. The losers concede. Election day minus 9 months. Results from the state primaries usually point to a clear frontrunner from each party. Election day minus 6 months. The winners are virtually assured the nominations of their parties. Election day minus 3 months. Party Conventions officially name their presidential candidates. The parties now begin to fund the nominee’s campaign. Candidates announce their choices for vicepresidential running mates, visit states they can win, avoid those they will surely lose, and pour money into the toss-up states. Election day minus 6 weeks. Hard campaigning and head-to-head television debates by which viewers/voters decide who performs best under the spotlights. Election day. Voters nationwide cast ballots and electoral votes are tallied in a state-by-state fashion to name the winner. Election day plus 6 weeks. The Electoral College officially declares the winner. Election day plus 10 weeks. Inauguration of the President.

116 Table 4.4

Presidential Elections, 1960–2000

Year Candidate

Popular Votes (millions)

%

Electoral College

1960 John Kennedy (Dem) Richard Nixon (Rep) 1964 Lyndon Johnson (Dem) Barry Goldwater (Rep) 1968 Richard Nixon (Rep) Hubert Humphrey (Dem) George Wallace (AI) 1972 Richard Nixon (Rep) George McGovern (Dem) John Hospers (Lib)* John Schmitz (Ind) 1976 Jimmy Carter (Dem) Gerald Ford (Rep) Eugene McCarthy (Ind) 1980 Ronald Reagan (Rep) Jimmy Carter (Dem) John Anderson (NU) Ed Clark (Lib) 1984 Ronald Reagan (Rep) Walter Mondale (Dem) David Berglund (Lib) 1988 George Bush (Rep) Michael Dukakis (Dem) Ron Paul (Lib) 1992 Bill Clinton (Dem) George Bush (Rep) Ross Perot (Ind) Andre Marrau (Lib) 1996 Bill Clinton (Dem) Bob Dole (Rep) Ross Perot (Reform) Ralph Nader (Green) Harry Browne (Lib) 2000 George W. Bush (Rep) Al Gore (Dem) Ralph Nader (Green) Pat Buchanan (Reform) Harry Browne (Lib)

34.2 34.1 43.1 27.2 31.8 31.3 9.9 47.2 29.2 0 1.1 40.8 39.1 .8 43.9 35.5 5.7 .9 54.5 37.6 .2 48.9 41.8 .4 44.9 39.1 19.7 .3 47.4 39.2 8.1 .7 .5 50.5 51.0 2.9 .4 .4

49.7 49.6 61.1 38.5 43.4 42.7 13.5 60.7 37.5 0 1.4 50.1 48.0 .9 50.8 41.0 6.6 1.1 58.8 41.0 .2 53.4 45.7 .5 43.0 37.5 18.9 .3 49.2 40.7 8.4 .7 .5 47.9 48.4 2.7 .4 .4

303 219 486 52 301 191 46 520 17 1 0 297 240 0 489 49 0 0 525 13 0 426 111 0 370 168 0 0 379 159 0 0 0 271 266 0 0 0

* John Hospers’ single 1972 delegate defected from the Nixon camp. Rep = Republican; Dem = Democrat; Lib = Libertarian; Ind. = Independent; NU = National Union; AI = American Independent. Source:

Leip (2002).


117

home.” Those mavericks who support party interests over homefolks are usually defeated in the next election. It should be noted that the size of Congress has not changed since 1912, when the number was set at 435. Because of population growth, each representative represents an average of nearly 665,000 people, instead of the 60,000 people at the time of the Founders. In 2000, it cost nearly a million dollars to run for a congressional seat, making fund-raising as important as legislative work. The 100 US Senators are individually more powerful but are lessfrequently connected to the people than are the representatives. Their six-year-cycles insulate them from constant electioneering, and reduces the immediacy and necessity of courting interests for votes and contributions. Additionally, each senator has a large and changing state-wide electorate. The states have vast differences in population with the result that California’s senators represent 34 million people, while Wyoming’s only represent 500,000. Until 1913 senators were appointed by state legislatures, rather than being elected by the voters, emphasizing the point that senators were intended to be ambassadors for sovereign states, rather than representatives of the people. Moreover, senatorial election campaigns are far more expensive than House elections – for example, in the 2000 contest in the state of New York, Republican Rick Lazio and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton raised and spent a combined $60 million (FEC, 2001b). However serious, elections are more a spectator sport than participatory activity for most Americans, who have a much lower voter participation rate than most other Western democracies. Overall voting rates in the 2000 presidential election barely surpassed 50 percent and the 2002 midterm election saw a turnout of around 38 percent. Furthermore, voters tend to be older, whiter, wealthier, and better-educated than non-voters. Americans have been concerned about this and have changed state and federal laws in order to liberalize registration rules and provide more locations to make it easier to enroll voters. The Motor Voter Bill of 1996 lets people register to vote whenever they renew their driver’s licenses – something done every four years in most states and required when relocating from state to state. Federal marshals and legal groups ensure that anyone eligible to vote can vote. There are no longer discriminatory impediments to voting, such as existed up to the mid-1960s before the African American Civil Rights Movement forced legislation in the form of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

118


Yet these changes have not increased voting rates. Although critics see this as hugely important, many political scientists point to the alternative access points that tie Americans to political institutions through interest groups, unconventional political behavior, and the courts. With a history of weak class-consciousness, with most politicians and parties navigating a middle road, and with a federal system enforcing the claim that “all politics are local,” Americans seem to be more satisfied with – than jaded by – the system.

Media Impact The frequency of democratic elections and the spectacle of politics help knit civil society together. The media exert a powerful influence and offer a conduit for communications between the people and their politicians. Sometimes the media are most influenced by the profit motive and offer questionable stories to titillate and attract viewers, instead of informing them on the issues. At other times, the media can act too much like a government mouthpiece or, contrarily, can serve as a populist megaphone where ordinary people call for conventional or unconventional actions to change a political situation. In the year between the first presidential primaries and the final election, journalists are relentless in exposing the lives of the likely winners. Primaries are both “beauty contests” and marathons, with every deviant feature of the candidate’s life scarring them a bit until the unrelenting exposure of personal details finally convinces some candidates to quit the race. Many people do not enter political life simply because their private lives cannot bear the scrutiny from professional reporters or talk show pundits. For the American public, this is all great entertainment and far more people closely follow the campaigns than actually vote. Most media companies in the US are privately owned; thus newsworthiness must be balanced against market forces to provide profits. The First Amendment protects free speech and freedom of the press but also gives comfort to gossip pages that stretch the truth to sell papers or attract viewers. Mostly, though, the media take pride in the truthfulness and trustworthiness of their stories and are quick to retract or correct a falsehood. There can be no doubt that the media are essential and convenient tools for politicians, all of whom develop press strategies to connect with potential voters. Franklin Roosevelt showed the power of radio in the 1930s and John Kennedy proved the effectiveness of television


Illustration 4.2

119

President Bill Clinton as Entertainer-In-Chief

President Bill Clinton mastered the “photo op.” In an official state visit to Russia on 13 January 1994, Clinton surprised the press, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, and their staffs with a spontaneous solo on the saxophone just presented to him by Yeltsin. (P11471-26A, 14Jan94, Clinton Presidential Materials Project)

in the 1960s. Today, all high-level politicians spend a lot of money and time molding media moments to attract voters in the first place, stay in the public eye via a TV “photo opportunity,” or by spinning – interpreting favorably – a negative story to diminish its impact. The terms “photo-op” (Illustration 4.2) and “spin-city” became common during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, respectively. Clinton also used the media to follow public opinion polls and listened to “focus group” responses to shape announcements and make sure that the spin received by the public was the one intended by the spinners (Kurtz, 1998; Klein, 2002). The national and local scope of the media present an ambiguous picture. The connection of media to politics is complicated by localism as no newspaper successfully reaches a national audience, even though the Wall Street Journal and USA Today come close. On the other hand, television, radio, and newspapers are increasingly owned by large conglomerates, such as CNN-Time/America-On-Line. This

120


monopolization of news outlets has been blamed for the centrism of political candidates who are wary not to offend media owners if they want favorable airtime or in-depth columns in any or all markets. Many critics have claimed that the media have acted the role of gatekeeper, controlling the flow of information and determining its spin. The internet, fax systems, and satellite television channels complicate analyses of media influence as individuals are able to customize their viewing by going around and beyond the newsmakers and reporters to find alternative views. Another recent problem is that competition has made the media both incredibly hungry for news and vicious in acquiring it. To keep viewers or subscribers, conglomerates feel that they must be the first to break the news (Kovach and Rosenstiel, 1999). Thus, any citizen who runs for elective office risks being consumed by the press. Clinton was credited with setting the benchmark for a savvy media strategy in 1992, yet he was ultimately tarred and feathered during the 1997 Monica Lewinsky affair. Media spins and photo-ops were exposed in a Hollywood film released during the Clinton presidency, “Wag the Dog,” which clearly depicted the umbilical connection between the press and the president’s men. The media need the candidates’ advertising money and headline-making ability and are thereby influenced by business considerations. However, because viewers decide what the media consider news by their “consumer votes” of tuning in to one station or out of another, or choosing between newspapers, the media is also a pipeline from the people, as public appetites shape political behavior and laws. Exactly how great an influence the media have in voter education and political socialization – helping people determine how they should vote and where they fit into government – is debatable, yet the influence is clear. In 2000, Congressional candidates spent an estimated $1 billion on election campaigns, with most of the money going for media exposure (FEC, 2001a).

Campaign Finances Election costs are paid by the candidates, the federal government, political parties, interest groups, and private contributors. The system favors the affluent because of the start-up money required to begin a campaign in the first place. The idea – and sometimes reality – that the candidate who spends the most money for advertising can buy the election, rubs against long-standing myths that anyone can rise to be


121

president, governor, or mayor. But the biggest concern among Americans is that private contributions to campaign coffers give the donor too much access and influence, thereby damaging the democratic process. In 1971 Congress passed the Federal Election Campaigns Act, and in 1974 created the Federal Elections Commission to require candidates and donors to make full disclosures on contributions and spending. Under these laws, the government provides federal “matching funds” to even the field between rich and poor candidates, and caps the amount of direct or “hard money” spending for each contest. The laws are clearly intended to limit the influence of wealthy donors, labor unions, and tax-exempt (religious or other interest groups) organizations from buying influence and increasing public cynicism about government. In 1996, the legal limit for hard money direct spending for each presidential candidate was $37.1 million. That limit did not include public funding – $62 million apiece to Bill Clinton and Bob Dole in 1996 – nor did it apply to a candidate’s own personal money spent over and above contributions from elsewhere. For example, Reform Party candidate H. Ross Perot spent over $50 million of his own money in 1992 in capturing 19 percent of the popular vote. Even with caps on hard money, total spending has continued to rise, as money is spent by parties, private individuals, and other organizations indirectly on campaigns via voter education and registration drives, rather than by the candidates themselves. This kind of spending is known as soft money, and is unregulated. The amount of softmoney spending has been condemned by the press and some high-profile politicians. In the 2000 Republican primaries, presidential candidate John McCain called for campaign finance reform and his supporters pointed out that George W. Bush had raised around $70 million. Many people worried that Bush would repay the contributors with programs of tax cuts, anti-environmental laws, and government spending programs that went beyond the traditional kinds of repayment, such as receiving an Ambassadorship. McCain’s 2000 election primary challenge faltered over allegations that McCain had himself lobbied on behalf of 15 of his top donors, exposing him to Bush’s “Walk the walk” – or do as you preach – counter on national TV (Zagorin and Dickerson, 2000). After the collapse of the Enron Corporation in 2002, it was suggested that Enron’s campaign contributions to Republican candidates in 2000 may have led to cover-ups and special favors. Fear of guilt by association subsequently led to a surge of support for campaign finance reform. “Enron gets a lot of

122


credit,” explained the bill’s co-sponsor Rep. Christopher Shays (Lancaster and Eilperin, 2002). Meanwhile, soft money continues to pour in and is generally accepted because it can mean the difference between victory and defeat. The money is distributed mostly by Political Action Committees (PACs) – organizations pooling campaign contributions from different sources for candidates. PACs are influential, as they raise and distribute money from formally and informally constituted organizations like interest groups, religious organizations, and private citizens. PACs are often regarded as a problem because of the sheer enormity of the amounts they distribute: $580 million in 2000 (FEC, 2001c). Many people have argued the dangers of PACs’ influence on elections, but, perhaps, PACs give strength to civil society by allowing groups of people to gain access to a politician’s office and ear. PACs help persuade candidates of the importance of issues by contributing volunteers and money to political campaigns. Still, Americans are uneasy about big money and, when asked whether they thought soft money spending was acceptable, 77 percent of those polled believed that there was a corrupt or unethical link between campaign financing and elections (Pew, 2001b). There is no sign that PACs will disappear or that the courts will rule them unconstitutional; in fact, they continue to proliferate because Americans contribute so much money to them, regardless of fears of corruption. Campaign finance reform efforts launched by Senators McCain and Feingold in 2001 to limit soft money, and signed into law by George W. Bush as the 2002 Campaign Reform Act could, however, stem the growth of PAC-funding in the future, depending on how the law is enforced.

Pluralistic Democracy In America, where a winner-takes-all system determines election outcomes, the question of how to safeguard minority and class-based representation is difficult to resolve. In the 1980s Congress encouraged states to redraw election districts to group minority voters together in such a way as to give a group a majority in a district. This gerrymandering of voters into “minority–majority” districts succeeded as minority representation in Congress rose by 50 percent. Sometimes this gerrymandering created election districts of snake-like dimensions, wiggling in and out of black neighborhoods, going down interstates to incorporate another community of African Americans until a majority could be ensured. When the media printed maps of these


123

districts, many Americans were outraged by the obvious prejudice inherent in such a system and criticized the moves as favoring one group of citizens over another. Supporters argued that this was the only way to put more minorities into seats in the nation’s capitol. Congressional efforts to increase minority members were initially supported by the Supreme Court under the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment. But in the case of Shaw v. Reno (1993), concerning “racial gerrymandering” in North Carolina, the Court ruled that creating minority districts amounted to political apartheid. In Easley v. Cromartie (2001), the Court modified its stance somewhat, allowing race as a factor, as long as it was not the “dominant and controlling one” (Greenhouse, 2001). The issue remains controversial, especially to those who prefer a proportional system of representative democracy. Whether people are better represented by a candidate of their own ethnicity is a matter of debate, because as long as politicians regardless of their race, ethnicity, or gender come from the upper portion of the middle class, middle-class interests are likely to be upheld. Some political observers have also argued that racial gerrymandering helps Republican interests because in creating minority districts, it removes minority voters from other districts where their votes would be needed to provide Democratic majorities. Racial gerrymandering has also had the effect of making “safe districts” for incumbents who can rely on war chests, name recognition, and ideological conformity to win re-election campaigns. One way to dampen the advantages which incumbents have over challengers is to impose term limits on the number of years any one person can hold a particular office. The obvious legal precedent for this is the constitutional two-term limit on American presidents. Theoretically, citizens in democracies should be able to vote for any politician of their choice. This has led some to argue that the whole concept of limiting terms is anti-democratic as well, and threatens to weaken government by removing the most competent leaders and replacing them with inexperienced newcomers. On the other hand, others argue that democracies require turnover to bring forward new ideas and to involve more people in politics. Critics believe that as politicians accrue power, they think too much about how they will be remembered by their colleagues for their political skills – and not enough about the concerns of ordinary people back home. Calling for “accountability” and promoting the idea that politics should not be a career-in-itself but should be open to citizen-politicians who do something else first and are legislators second, many

124


states have now introduced term limits for public offices. In 1996 referenda in 10 states imposed term limits on state legislators. Some states also passed term limits on US Senators and Representatives. Although the Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that putting term limits on federal offices was unconstitutional, a number of representatives have declared that they will follow the will of the people by refusing to run for re-election when they hit the ceiling set by referenda. Overall, the American political system is a blend of elite, plural, and democratic interests. The more savvy, influential, or determined an individual or interest group is, the more the system bends to accommodate the pressure. A single dissenter or a mass movement can still bring about change through the court system or by taking to the streets. Dissent is an integral part of American political culture, from the throwing of tea into Boston harbor in 1773 to marching on Washington against the Vietnam War or for civil rights in the 1960s, blockading abortion clinics in the 1980s, or protesting against globalization by vandalizing a McDonald’s in 2000. The skepticism Americans have for their government has increased in the last few decades. In 2000, 60 percent of all Americans said that government is run primarily for big business interests, while 34 percent said it was run for the benefit of the people. In 1960 the numbers were almost exactly reversed (NES-UM, 2002). Regardless of the reality of that belief, the point is that dissent and skepticism remain crucial to the political system. Americans vote or have the opportunity to vote more times and for a wider range of officials than anyone else in the world. Some commentators claim that it is just this overabundance of democracy that explains apathy and reduces voting rates. Politics that seeks the center also dampens voter interest as does the belief that big money controls politicians no matter what the voter does. The apparently narrow ideological spread within party constituencies may mean that some people feel unrepresented and doubt if their votes make any difference. In analyzing the 1996 campaign, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader – misquoting Lewis Carroll – suggested that people saw Democratic and Republican candidates as “twiddle-dum, twiddledee” (FDCH, 2000): so similar that you could hardly tell them apart. An opposite argument is that the widespread use of polling may convince many voters that their views are already known and that candidates will obey the dictates of that public opinion. American social behavior tempers American voting behavior as the majority of contemporary Americans pursue middle-class lifestyles


125

centered on office work, suburban living, and the good life which double-incomes provide. Americans feel a “time bind” as they trade long working hours and long commutes for a materially comfortable lifestyle (Hochschild, 1997). School- and work-based activities crowd out available free time for participation in bowling leagues or for voting (Putnam, 2000). Life may actually be too full and too comfortable for the middle class to bother with political activities, especially when a majority believe the government is unresponsive to their needs anyway. This lack of civic involvement could change with the increasing calls for community service and the conformity necessary to fight a war against terror. The closeness of the 2000 election showed many people that votes do count. But it is likely that Americans will continue to cast and spread their votes in comparatively small numbers with the question of who to elect at each level in mind. Many voters intentionally split their votes among parties – a way of countering single-party control for some and of lessening governmental power at all levels for others. Except in difficult times: then many Americans prefer a Republican during a foreign crisis and a Democrat during economic downturns. And even after such a close and divisive election as 2000, American society showed its essential unity when it was threatened by outside forces. Under the shadow of al Qaeda and the near-certain war with Iraq, Election 2002 confirmed that security interests trump other issues. Republicans controlled the government, George W. Bush’s approval ratings were in the mid-60s, and the bitterness of Election 2000 was a distant memory.

5 Society

America was born in a culture war when colonists departed from Britain in the early 1600s, and the wars over culture have increased with each new set of immigrants. American society is a mixture of racial, ethnic, immigrant, or multicultural neighborhoods, city blocks, and suburbs. Critics of the society generally agree with political scientist Andrew Hacker’s conclusion that the country is increasingly divided into Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, and Unequal (1995). Sociologist Robert Putnam bemoans a breakdown of community involvement and sees most Americans Bowling Alone (2000). On the opposite side, the society has its defenders. Historians Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom conclude that in the area of race it is more correct to see an America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible (1999). Sociologist Alan Wolfe finds that community spirit is thriving, and says so in his book, One Nation After All (1998). When polled about the ongoing culture wars, most Americans stare blankly, not understanding what the researcher means; and when told that it means a fight over what the nation would be like, most Americans insist that they are not a part of that war and could not draw boundaries between being on one side on some issues and on the opposite side on others.

Class For most Americans, the opportunity for a better life is far more important than having a society where everyone is equal. Class divisions are widening and could be disruptive, except for the fact that almost no one outside the foreign press ever thinks or speaks in class 126

Society

127

terms, except the rich, perhaps – and intellectuals. Of course Americans can see that there are rich and poor people, but they usually will deny or play down the reality of social classes. The Marxian concept that class division and inequality automatically gives rise to class consciousness and conflict does not ring true in the American experience. There is no particular envy of or deference to the rich and the enduring myths of equal opportunity, individual responsibility, and the abundant examples of those who have gone from “rags to riches,” deflect most class tensions which do arise. Generally, people are optimistic about their lives and think they can succeed with hard work and by their own efforts. In every decade of the twentieth century – except for the 1930s – the middle class improved its living standards in terms of material goods, property ownership, and discretionary income. In America, despite wide disparities in income, the vast majority consider themselves to be middle-class. At no time during the last 30 years has any poll had more than 20 percent of the total population defining themselves as anything else. One problem in grasping what it is to be middle-class is that having $200,000 a year while living in Manhattan and having $35,000 in rural Iowa amount to similar material rewards and quality of life – certainly the house would be much bigger in Iowa. To have $200,000 in Iowa would be upper-class. It might be easier to think of the middle class as being composed of those people who have at least a high-school education – and more likely a college degree – some real choice as to where to live and work, and who can live without government aid. The middle class is the working class, divided into white collar “desk” and blue collar “sweat” jobs. Many Americans feel that they are middle class if they own their own homes. The homeownership rate in 2000 was 67.4 percent (US Census Bureau, 2002a: 607). Political theorist Michael Lind uses the term Overclass to describe the professional class of bourgeois managers and politicians who make between $60,000 and $200,000 a year in salaries and stock options and who have achieved their status through education, hard work, and luck. They live in suburbia, commute to work, and support their communities. They seem to be running the country – and they are. Members of this Overclass are not among the capitalist elite or those who have inherited wealth – a further class of super-rich people above these managers (Lind, 1995). In America, race informs class. Lind sees class conflict dampened by the Overclass inclusion of minority members into the upper eche-

128


lons of university faculties, professional sports, law firms, religious organizations, and government. African-American, Hispanic, and other minority Overclass leaders provide examples of the American Dream by their own successes. Tension occurs when the minority Overclass hits a “glass ceiling” in promotions and charges the white Overclass with “tokenism,” as Justice Clarence Thomas did when challenged at his Senate confirmation hearings. Thomas “played the race card” and charged the senators with “a high-tech lynching” aimed at keeping him off the Supreme Court (Lind, 1995: 179). Sports superstar O.J. Simpson did basically the same thing when he was tried for murdering his white wife and her white friend (Thernstrom, 1999: 512–19). In contemporary America, when highprofile blacks claim racism, whites usually retreat. Tensions also occur among white males who feel they are the victims of reverse discrimination when employers promote minority workers or women to higher positions, even though their test scores, education, or time employed is less than white males.

Rural and Urban America While many commentators construct an America divided between haves and have nots, others argue that economic differences do not explain much about the divide. The real divisions, and they are big, are between conceptions of self and in where people live. Americans outside the megalopolises often criticize the transformations wrought by the 1960s countercultural, multicultural, and feminist movements. They favor a return to traditional, disciplined, strictly moral, patriotic, and religious family values. Urban Americans, in contrast, are more likely to support real equality between men and women in families, to have a looser moral code, to be uneasy with too many open displays of patriotism, and to describe themselves as “non-religious.” Rural Americans do not read the New York Times, but their radio stations are saturated with information about local fundraising activities, lodge meetings, and church services. Rural white Americans tend to vote Republican. Most urban Americans, especially in the metropolises along the East and West coasts, vote Democratic. Unlike urban Americans who see themselves as special, rural Americans conceive the self differently: “I am normal. Nobody is better, nobody is worse. I am humble before God” (Brooks, 2001: 63). While few doubt the rural–urban split, the United States continues to experience a gradual movement of peoples back to the countryside – a

Society

129

deconcentration of the population. This does not mean that Americans are returning to farming; instead, they are taking advantage of advances in communications and transportation technologies which allow them to work from home or relocate businesses outside of cities and suburbs. Rural areas are becoming less isolated due to satellite technology, the internet, fax machines, and the proliferation of package delivery systems such as Federal Express. A recent immigration trend has immigrants locating in small towns across the South and West which had lost populations in past decades as people moved to the cities. Basically, Americans seem to want to be left alone and do not bother themselves with the lives constructed or believed in by other Americans, so long as it does not get too loud or begin to infringe on their own lives. Most people live in communities or form groups made up of family, friends, and co-workers that make them comfortable; they neither really care about nor try to reform other groups. Most Americans unite in this “cafeteria choice” of selecting from a smorgasbord of lifestyle options (Brooks, 2001: 64). Football stadiums can be filled with congregations of Holy Rollers one evening and given over to covens of Pagans the next. People hardly bat an eye. Robert Putnam sees a loss of community spirit and a middle class withdrawal syndrome as Americans go “bowling alone,” eschewing traditional big-membership organizations and community activities, and spending their free time within a small circle of friends and family (Putnam, 2000). Many others argue that it is precisely the choices and diverse lifestyles that bind the community and nation together. The events of 11 September showed how quickly Americans can unite behind the myths of one nation, one people, even if real class divisions exist.

Poverty and Affluence Poverty has been omnipresent in American history with slaves, poor whites, and successive waves of low-paid immigrant workers working at whatever jobs they could find. In the early twentieth century, social critic Jacob Riis found that 10 percent of New Yorkers and 20 percent of Bostonians lived lives of enormous distress (Riis, 1901: 191). Perhaps Riis misjudged matters. Modern researchers estimate that at least 40 percent of Americans were in poverty in 1900. During the last half century there has been a steady decrease in the percentages of citizens in poverty as the rising economy lifted wages and as wives entered the labor force and created two-income families.

130


Still, by 1990, 32 million people (13 percent) officially lived in poverty in America. By note of comparison, in 1993, an EU-sponsored study found 57 million Europeans (17 percent) lived under the poverty line, though with wide variations: 6 percent in Denmark, 11 percent in Germany, 22 percent in Britain, and 26 percent in Portugal (Buerkle, 1997). The disparity between rich and poor has widened since the 1980s as the economic boom helped the richest group get astonishingly richer, the middle class get a little richer, and the poor get significantly poorer. Much of this polarization between rich and poor is due to the changing nature of work, with the internet revolution, the loss of industrial jobs to countries with cheaper labor costs, and an increasing emphasis on a well-educated workforce. The poor are concentrated into inner-city neighborhoods, mobile home parks across the South and West, Indian reservations, rented farmhouses across the Midwest, or wander from here to there – homeless and unwanted. Columnist James Fallows wrote that Americans still respond generously when asked to help the poor, “but our poor are like people in Madagascar. We feel bad for them, but they live someplace else” (Fallows, 2002). By 1999, with an official poverty line at $17,184 a year, 17 percent of all American families were poor and the proportion is much higher if the definition includes all those making below $24,500 a year – the income many economists set as the real threshold into the middle class. During the late 1990s, the truly destitute familes making below $10,000 a year lost 14 percent in real income. The key factor in the new economy seems to be the education level of the primary wage earner. Workers without a high school degree saw their salaries decrease by an average 12 percent. Those with high school education gained 12 percent, those with some college, but no degree, gained 18 percent, and those with a bachelor’s degree or higher gained 30 percent or much more. The super-rich and many families of the Overclass have moved into “gated communities” (Illustration 5.1) where high fences, security guards, and houses beyond the economic reach of all but a few people keep them isolated in luxury. In 1994, 68,064 Americans had an income of more than $1 million; the group average was $2,483,081 and the income tax paid averaged 31.7 percent, or $787,994 each (Hacker, 1997: 23, 73). In 2000, life was very good for nearly 11 million families – fully 15.2 percent of the American total – that made between $100,000 and $1 million a year.

Society

Illustration 5.1

131

Gated Community near Atlanta, Georgia

The gated community of “Tara” near Atlanta, Georgia, offers privacy, security, and fine homes for upper-middle class home buyers. The guardhouse and high fences keep out all visitors not specifically named on an access list. The house in the background serves as a club, with swimming pool and party rooms for residents and guests. (Photo by Russell Duncan)

Obviously, a redistribution of income could be accomplished to make the country a comfortable and relatively poverty-free middleclass nation from top to bottom. Setting a maximum and a minimum income could do this, but, overwhelmingly, Americans would fight such an effort tooth and claw, calling it immoral, unAmerican, socialistic and, possibly, Satanic. Critics of redistribution point to figures showing the poor growing as tall, living as long, and surfing as many cable channels as the rich, whether or not they live in gated-suburbs or on Indian reservations. And the American secular myths of worth and merit combine with Christian admonitions of salvation to produce an egalitarian creed that is central to the fabric of society. While Americans overwhelmingly support an equality of opportunity, some propose that the focus should be more upon an equality of outcome.

132


The American Family Family dynamics (Tables 5.1 and 5.2) have changed over the past few decades due to increasing life spans and the shift from three- to fourgeneration families in which children have long relationships with their great-grandparents. Maternal health and childcare have improved so that an infant is four times more likely to live into childhood and three times more likely to live past 15 years of age than in the 1950s. Living longer, parents raise their children and then have decades of “life after children,” as some realists put it. Divorces are more common as people live longer and are unwilling to spend additional years in an unhappy marriage – and also because women have more independence as a result of earning higher wages. Additionally, the mobility of the American workforce, with people willing to travel across the nation or around the world to go where the jobs are, affects kinship cohesion and caregiving as adult children sometimes live thousands of miles from their aging parents. In 2000, there were 72 million families in the United States and 7 out of 10 Americans say that being married is better than being single. But Americans are also marrying later and having fewer children. Sixty-two percent of US households have only one or two members and the average family size is 3.2 people (US Census Bureau, 2002a: 49, 52). Since the liberal revolutions of the 1960s, the number of American families with both husband and wife present has been shrinking. The number of single-parent households has skyrocketed, and this, together with rising divorce rates, has put more women with children into poverty as two incomes are increasingly essential to middle-class lives. This, in turn, has caused anxiety over the future of the family and many have proclaimed a crisis situation. There is a nostalgia for the mythical good old days when women stayed home, men went to work, children were manageable and “above average,” Table 5.1

US Population by Age and Sex, 2000 (millions)

Age Group

Males

Females

% of Total

Under 15 15–64 Over 65 Total

30.0 91.0 14.6 135.6

28.7 92.9 20.5 142.1

21.1 66.3 12.6 100.0

Source:

US Census Bureau (2002a)

Society Table 5.2

133

Life Expectancy and Leading Causes of Death US Life Expectancy, 2001 Male Female Overall Source:

74.4 80.1 77.3

CIA, (2002).

Leading Causes of Death, Both Sexes, All Ages, 2000 Whites, Latinos, Asians

African Americans

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Heart Disease Cancer Stroke Chronic respiratory disease Accidental death Influenza and pneumonia Diabetes mellitus Alzheimer’s disease Kidney disease Suicide

Source:

Heart Disease Cancer Stroke Accidental death Diabetes mellitus Chronic respiratory disease HIV/AIDS Homicide Kidney disease Influenza and pnuemonia

CDC (2001b).

and two cars were in every driveway. A return to that model would require women to give up the gains of the past 30 years and return to patriarchal models, something not many are willing to consider. Middle-class Americans are torn between traditional and modern family models and are deeply ambivalent about the one they should construct for themselves. There is a culture war inside most individuals between traditional family values and contemporary liberalism. Tradition calls for no divorce, living near other family members, children obeying their parents, women focusing on domestic duties and motherhood, and everyone believing in God. The reality of contemporary families promotes an absence of strict rules, puts both spouses as free agents in the labor market, nurtures children who are not the biological offspring of the adults they live with, and exists in a culture dominated by entertainment and emphasizing rights and sexual freedoms (Wolfe, 1998: 110). Affluence, too, contributes to the breakup of families as many young people grow up faster with cell phones, automobiles, and disposable incomes. But while parents are frustrated with the modern family, few seem willing to return to the 1950s.

134


Generally, children seem to be going out of style as more women opt not to have them. In 1970 over half of American women had more than three children; in 1995 only 28 percent did. In 1998, 19 percent of American women over 40 had not yet had a child. At the peak of the baby boom in 1960, each 100 women averaged 365 children: by 1976, the average was 174. In 2000 it was up to 205, primarily credited to Latinas whose rate was 291 per 100 (Hacker, 2000; US Census Bureau, 2002a: 74). Economics help explain the decline in births. In the past, children helped the family’s income, but in modern America, parents do not get an economic boon from having children, and are more likely to see the high costs of support and education as a drain on resources. The main motivation for those who choose pregnancy is their hope to gain pleasure from having children in the household; most want the parenthood experience. Some men want the prestige of siring offspring but not the expense, so they never marry or quickly divorce the mothers and often default on child-support payments – thereby becoming absent fathers who lose rather more prestige than they gain. About one in three American children is living only with its mother; but that can be said another way: nearly seven in ten American kids live with both parents. Studies indicate that middleclass fathers are spending more time with their children than ever before, and 49 percent of couples say that they share childcare equally (Coontz, 2001). The average cost of raising a middle-class child born in 1999 to 18 years old is estimated at $236,600 (Hacker, 2000). Costs double from ages 18–21 if the child goes to college. For the vast majority of American teenagers, life outside the family revolves around school, part-time jobs, shopping, worrying about getting into college, athletics, and friends. Most teens get driver’s licenses when they are 16 and, quickly thereafter, a car of their own. This is especially the case for suburbanites with both parents working. Middle-class teenagers have many social engagements in after-school athletics, clubs, volunteer organizations, music or dance lessons, and work. School days begin at or before 8 a.m. and end at 3 p.m. Sexual promiscuity among teens has been decreasing with the percentage of those between 15 and 19 years old who had lost their virginity dropping below 50 percent for the first time in three decades (Vobejda and Havemann, 1997). It has become common in parts of the South and West for teens to voluntary agree to an abstinence pledge – popularly called a “Virginity Oath” – abstaining from sex until they enter college or get married (Schemo, 2001). The continuing threat of AIDS and the general conservative climate have also

Society

135

been influential. Since 1992, there has been a corresponding downwards trend in the number of teen pregnancies as abstention and the growing use of condoms and birth-control devices has had an effect. Still, in 1997, one teenage girl in every 10 got pregnant – a total of 872,000 known pregnancies (AP, 2001b). Financial matters continue to be the biggest concerns for Americans, even more than terrorism, war, or education. Still, in the last decade the percentage of Americans giving their financial situation either excellent or good ratings stayed constant at nearly 75 percent (Pew, 2001a). When asked if they could afford the good life (Table 5.3), the percentages answering “yes” followed class categories, but rose in every group. Americans have high expectations and seemingly unlimited sources of material goods from which to choose. Those with higher incomes come to expect more, and so many Americans in the highest income brackets either spend everything they make to live the most materially comfortable life available, or want things even more costly – an even bigger house, newer car, designer clothes, and exotic vacations. In The Overworked American (1993) and The Overspent American (1998), sociologist Judith Schor examined contemporary family life in the United States and drew the conclusions, apparent in her book titles, that Americans are caught in a work-and-spend cycle that weakens family and community ties. Certainly, Americans have chosen more time on the job and less with family. The 1990s saw an increase in competitive acquisition and conspicuous consumption and reinforcement of the long-standing American notion that “more and newer” is better. Schor (1998: 4) points out that American materialism is central to personal identity as a marker of success or failure, and has evolved from comparisons to the next door neighbor’s propTable 5.3

The Good Life

Question: Is it easy to afford all the things you want? % answering “yes” 1992 2001 Low Income Middle Class Upper Middle High Income Total Source:

Pew (2001a).

24 33 42 65 39

26 51 64 81 50

136


erty to a “new consumerism” marked by “upscale spending.” Contemporary American families have new reference points in the lifestyles they see on television or among their professional coworkers and bosses. By trying to emulate these groups, a family can put its household economy and personal well-being at risk. Social theorist John Woolman once said that people could be “necessitated to work too hard” and thereby endanger community and familial ties (quoted in Segal, 2000). The pursuit of riches is doing just that to American families. Parents want their children to “keep up” with Overclass children in fancy private schools or in wearing the latest fashion or flashing the latest product innovation. To do this, parents work longer hours to make the additional disposable income necessary to fund their own and their children’s new gizmo addictions. Some of this is understandable in a competitive society that wants to believe that the next generation will have life better than the previous one. Parents might want to downsize their own lifestyles but cannot and will not, because to do so would threaten the status and opportunities of their children. America is and always has been a culture of desire, but the concept of “need” has changed as the “must have” items now include cellular phones, home computers, and the newest shoes. Parents who lack the money to provide for the wants of their children suffer real pain, feel deprived, and blame themselves for failing (Schor, 1998: 39). Most American families in the 1990s neither had a family budget nor saved money for the future; instead, they spent their entire salaries between paychecks and bought on credit. This growing debt burden weighs most heavily on poor families who charge items to credit cards and do not make the incomes to pay more than the monthly minimums, therefore staying perpetually in debt. The middle class, too, feels overextended, with single women and minorities leading the categories of those who owe much more than they can afford to pay. Two-income families with children and DINKS (double income no kids) have two salaries to help pay the bills, but their expectations and upscale spending patterns also often leads to debt. Personal income and indebtedness affect the way people see the economy in general. It is therefore not surprising that poorer Americans are less optimistic about the future as prices rise faster than the minimum wage of $5.15 an hour in 2002.

Society

137

Women For at least two centuries, American women have been a majority within the nation’s population, but, until the last two decades, they have faced limited choices in the job market. Moreover, the divisions of race, class, marital status, political philosophy, and immigration divide women as much as they do men. One thing is certain: women in contemporary America have come a long way since the 1960s in every field of private and public life. In contemporary America, women have risen to near-equality in access to jobs, education, and aspirations; and yet, “near-equality” is not equality and the struggle continues on how to create a more just society. The rise of paid labor and industrialization in the early nineteenth century simultaneously gave women avenues to self-sufficiency outside the marriage and circumscribed their choices by funnelling them into “women’s work” and lesser salaries. Women were seen as helpmates to men, secondary wage-earners, and, primarily, as homemakers. This “separate sphere” philosophy held out the roles of piety, purity, submissiveness, and domesticity as the realm of “true womanhood.” Feminists from the 1830s and 1840s protested this inequality, but it would take until 1920 for women to push through the Nineteenth Amendment to win women’s suffrage in national elections. Most of the gains focused on white women, with minority women stigmatized by race. World War II and the social revolutions of the 1960s accelerated women’s rise in the marketplace. Women had long been seen as “weaker vessels” whose physical frailty needed protection. Even though the government had called for “Womanpower” to fill industrial jobs during World War II, until the 1960s court decisions and social convention limited work hours to keep women safe and healthy – of course, these provided rationalizations for paying women less, limiting their occupational choices, and maintaining their dependence upon men. As early as 1923, feminists believed that to change things, the country needed to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA): “Equality of rights under law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” Efforts to get Congress to consider such an amendment fell flat until it was resurrected in 1972, with Congress quickly passing the ERA and sending it to the states for ratification. It was not ratified, falling three states short of those required for amending the Constitution, thereby joining five other rejected Amendments in US history.

138


Partly, the ERA failed because conservative women fought vehemently against it, afraid that it would change conventions on child custody, which favored mothers, or that it would make females available for a wartime draft into the military. Highly-religious women clung to biblical readings that taught that a woman should support her husband and be subordinate to him. Big businesses fought the ERA because of the costs of higher salaries. Many liberals argued that the Amendment was unneccessary because the 1964 Civil Rights Act had explicity banned discrimination based on sex or race, that Affirmative Action programs were having a positive effect, and that the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was increasingly being interpreted by the Supreme Court to overturn discriminatory laws and practices. Laws have made workplace environments better by penalizing employers who allow or proffer unwanted sexual advances against women employees. Sexual harassment lawsuits against employers for making women uncomfortable in their jobs and for withholding promotions and pay raises if a woman refuses sex, have overwhelmingly been settled in favor of the women filing the claim, although some high-profile exceptions exist. In televised hearings in 1991, law professor Anita Hill accused nominee for the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas, of past sexual harassment. Nationwide, more women began to file lawsuits alleging similar misconduct by male employers. By the 1990s, overt signs of gender discrimination had decreased and women were found in increasing numbers in every profession. The gains have been made across racial and ethnic lines. Madeleine K. Albright was the first woman to serve as secretary of state (1998–2000) and, in 2001, Condoleezza Rice became the first woman and second African American to hold the crucial post of National Security Advisor (Colin Powell briefly held this position in the Reagan Administration). In 2001, more women than men took university degrees, which enabled them to enter the workforce at equal pay with their male counterparts. Women have reached historic highs in elected positions. In 2002, 13 women held US Senate seats – including both senators from Maine, California, and Washington; 61 held seats in the House of Representatives; there were hundreds of female judges; a black woman, Shirley Franklin, became Atlanta’s mayor; and two women served on the US Supreme Court. Glass ceilings for promotion still exist as do “pink collar” jobs where women are predominant, such as secretarial work, nursing,

Society

139

elementary-school teaching, waitressing, and in libraries. This keeps the issue of equal pay and ideas of “comparable worth” rightfully in the headlines. While there have been significant gains in childdaycare facilities, many working mothers are forced to leave their children with public sector providers or with grandparents. Congress passed the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993 to mandate maternity leave for pregnant and new mothers. However, as no provisions were made to make the leave paid, most women in single or poor circumstances cannot afford to take unpaid absences for very long. The Supreme Court continues to rule in favor of a woman’s right to choose to give birth or have an abortion, a rule it established in the controversial Roe v. Wade (1973) decision. By 1996 there were 35 abortions for every 100 births and four of five abortions were to single women/girls (Hacker, 2000). The abortion controversy (see also Illustration 5.2) is a touchstone issue in American politics, dividing conservatives from liberals. The Court continues to hear cases that ask it to decide between the constitutional rights of women to control their own bodies and the rights of society to protect human lives, born or unborn. The Court is also divided as the consistent 5–4 rulings indicate. In June 2000 the justices ruled (5–4) to overturn a Nebraska law that prohibited partial birth abortions, a procedure whereby doctors remove the fetus from the womb and then kill it by crushing its skull (Stout, 2000). The normal abortion procedure in advanced pregnancies is to kill the fetus before removing it from the womb. The Court ruled that a woman’s right to choose outweighs the state’s interests in a fetal life. The Court also ruled that states could prohibit protestors outside abortion clinics from coming into contact with patients and emphasized that it would not reconsider the Roe v. Wade case. In the past few decades Americans have done much to level the field for women; but there remains much to be done. The rising numbers of women in politics and universities – particularly the 25 percent female enrollment among law students – portends well for future gains. But in 2000, when all the numbers were added up, women earned only about two-thirds of what men earned, were twice as likely to live in poverty, and were almost non-existent at the highest levels of corporate life.

140


Illustration 5.2

Anti-Abortion Billboard

This anti-abortion billboard stands on the property of the Greater Pentecostal Temple near Pritchardville, South Carolina. The automobile junkyard provides graveyard imagery that echoes the message of death and thrown away parts. (Photo by Russell Duncan)

Race America is a society highly conscious of color, usually in terms of black and white. Racial equality remains a dream deferred. It is certainly easy enough to focus on the African American inner-city poor, to find neo-Nazis, or to find prejudices that need to be overcome. On the other hand, as African American columnist William Raspberry lamented: “It has become a virtual heresy in black America to acknowledge progress. . . . [When researchers] write that the black condition, white attitudes and race relations have all improved dramatically, it is taken as an assault on black America” (Raspberry, 1998). In one of the most comprehensive new studies of race, Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom argue that racial preferences are still all too common in hiring and promoting, in loaning money for new homes, in buying homes in certain neighborhoods, and in myths about intelligence and criminality. Still, they conclude, “Racial progress is a train that left the station fifty years ago, and has been

Society Table 5.4

141

American Diversity, 2000

Group

Number

Non-Hispanic White 211,460,626 Hispanic or Latino (any race) 35,305,818 African American 33,947,837 Asian American 10,123,169 American Indian and Inuit 2,068,883 Some other race 821,279

% of Total Population 75.1 12.5 12.1 3.6 .7 .3

Note: The 2000 Census allowed individuals to mark more than one category for race. Most of the double markings were Non-Hispanic White plus one other category. Source:

US Census (2000).

chugging along ever since” (Thernstrom, 1999: 12). African Americans alive in the 1950s could not have imagined the successes they would achieve, even while those gains are not evenly distributed across class or rural lines. Andrew Young – a successful African American politician – often talks of the transformations in his own life: “If anyone had told me that I would be a congressman in Georgia, an ambassador to the United Nations, and a mayor of Atlanta, what I would have replied cannot be said in a church” (quoted in Thernstrom, 1999: 17). The extent of American racial diversity is shown in Table 5.4. Americans have generally expected an individual to succeed or fail on his or her own merits. Individuals, such as Andrew Young, have risen. But it is when a group claims rights that most Americans – and interpreters of the Constitution – hesitate, because giving members of one group priority smacks of discrimination against individuals who are not in that group, current or historical circumstances notwithstanding. The tough question is whether or not to discriminate against single individuals for the benefit of a group. The answer is even harder to reconcile with the Constitution, especially when even the lowest group is not as low as it once was. Before World War II about 87 percent of the black population was mired in poverty and uneducated. In contemporary America, 74 percent are above the poverty line, 93 percent of those who are active in the labor force (working or looking for work) have found jobs, 75 percent of those above 25 years old have graduated from high school, 16.5 percent have earned bachelor’s degrees, 75,000 have doctorates,

142


and 75,000 hold medical, dental, or law degrees. 1.4 million African American students are currently enrolled in college (US Census Bureau, 2002: 41; Thernstrom, 1999: 18). Everyone knows of basketball superstar Michael Jordan, talk-show queen Oprah Winfrey, and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as hundreds of musicians and sports figures. Undoubtedly, things have changed for the better. But the racial divide has not disappeared and the economic outcome is not equal. The poverty rate for blacks is three times that of whites, the unemployment rate is double, and black workers make on average 78 cents (males) and 84 cents (females) for every dollar whites make (US Census Bureau, 2002a). The number of black families headed by single women is triple the white rate and there are more than a million African American men in prison or on parole. This situation increases poverty among single, uneducated, and underemployed women with children. Even if these women work – and most of them take part-time employment – they remain in poverty. In 2001, nine states had laws that disfranchised people who committed felonies – a removal of voting rights further alienating people already on the fringe of society. Glass ceilings also exist for upwardly-mobile individuals who suddenly find their occupational advance within companies stopped before the big promotion to the topmost level of management. The legal system is full of cases alleging discrimination because of skin color. In November 2000, in the largest racial discrimination lawsuit in American history, the Coca-Cola company was ordered to pay $192 million to African American workers who had been “passed over” for promotions. In 1997, the Texaco oil company paid out $176 million for similar practices (Schafer, 2000). These cases show that Americans, through their legal system, are unwilling to sanction further discrimination when it comes to opportunity. Critics complain about whites “here” and blacks “there,” but even if neighborhoods were integrated proportionally, only 12 of every 100 households would be black. When African Americans speak of integration, they prefer to live where the mix is 50-50; when whites speak of integration, they mean the proportional representation reflecting American society (Thernstrom, 1999: 227). Not wanting to break up the culture of black communities, black families continue to buy houses near other black families and – as whites do the same – this form of segregation continues. While it is misleading to claim, as some do, that the United States has residential racial apartheid,

Society

143

America does have a society heavily divided by class, skin color, and a choice of subcultures. In 2000, one-third of all African Americans lived in the suburbs, sometimes completely integrated with whites, but more often in a checkerboard pattern of black street, white street, reflecting strong preferences to live in cultures within cultures. For example, in the working-class town of Vallejo, California, population 116,760, the 2001 population was 30.4 percent white, 24 percent black, 26.1 percent Asian, and 16 percent Latino – making it one of the nation’s most racially-balanced cities. Yet, residents say that there is little interaction between groups, except for children playing together in the streets. Once teenagers get to high school, they separate themselves along familiar racial lines and have fewer and fewer friendships with other groups. There is great tolerance and little hostility as Vallejo residents go about their daily lives in a diverse and generally quiet coexistence (Holmes, 2001). Racism has not disappeared and the poor too often have black and female faces, but racial attitudes in America have changed for the better. In 1991 an international poll of attitudes toward principal domestic minorities found 13 percent of American whites admitted having “unfavorable” opinions about African Americans. That is unfortunate, but it is great progress. In Britain, 21 percent disliked the Irish, in Germany 45 percent disliked the Turks, and in France 42 percent disliked North Africans (Thernstrom, 1999: 531). In contemporary America, liberals too often cite a “going-nowhere picture of black America and white racial attitudes” and conservatives have a “see-no-evil” policy that upholds the American Dream as available to anyone who will work, marry, and lead a moral life (Thernstrom, 1999: 534). The reality for black America lies somewhere inbetween. Latino and Asian immigrants have had an easier time integrating, even though it was not always so. Both groups have a long history of mistreatment by Euro-American racists. But during the last two decades, Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans have leapt over African Americans: Asian Americans now command the highest education levels and salaries in America – surpassing the median income for whites by more than $2,000 – and Hispanics have become the largest minority group (Hacker, 1997: 23). These developments have created a tension between African Americans, who have been in country for four centuries, and the newcomers who seem to be thriving in the marketplace, taking any job available and always looking

144


for upward mobility. This picture of hardworking and thankful immigrants, combined with the fact that America has always – except in the depths of the 1930s Depression – had more job openings than workers to fill them, increases conservative polemics against black criminals, welfare mothers who continue to have children out of wedlock, and the “lazy” poor. African Americans are concerned that they will suffer by comparison and be exploited by hierarchical racist employers who place them last on the list of preferred workers. Historically, most Americans who have been unable to find goodpaying jobs blame themselves, not the society or the government. Many sociologists believe that the long time oppression of African Americans has created a “culture of poverty” in attitude and reality that cannot be overcome without massive government intervention. Studies reveal that poor African Americans simultaneously have a lack of confidence and an unwillingness to take jobs that pay less than demanded by their sense of past injustice and present aspirations. There are too many children having their own children – perhaps because the act of reproduction provides the only validation available in otherwise dead-end lives. The facts of a lack of education, life in a single part-time income household, and the unwillingness of other Americans to offer more than a minimum of public assistance, is likely to keep the poor in desperate straits.

Crime and Punishment Americans rely on legal remedies to maintain order, equality, and freedom in a multicultural society. With more lawyers than any other nation in the world, Americans use the court system to settle disputes, large and small, and put real faith in the ability of the judges to ensure that constitutional guarantees overcome unfair actions by individuals, groups, the government, or even the law itself. The courts follow federal and state law, the Constitution and decisions from similar cases, called precedents, to establish verdicts and set sentencing. The Constitution has much to say about the legal rights of Americans charged with crimes. Particularly, Amendments 4–8 provide the basics of due process of law, speedy and public jury trials, no cruel or unusual punishments, an adversary system, the right to remain silent, the right to a lawyer, the right to call and confront witnesses, no second trial for the same offense, no excessive bail, and no police coercion of witnesses. The Supreme Court has further ruled

Society

145

that police must advise people of these rights if they are to be questioned about committing a crime. Typically, a police officer must say: You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you without charge. Do you understand these rights as I have explained them to you? If the arresting officer fails to advise the prisoner of these rights or does not follow the exact procedure in searching for and finding evidence, the courts will free the accused person, even if the evidence points to guilt. During a lifetime, most Americans are involved in at least one court case, either criminal or civil in nature. The legal system is adversarial, pitting defendant(s) against accusor(s), while a judge and jury listen to evidence presented according to formal rules. Civil law accounts for the bulk of legal actions as individuals sue each other for financial compensation arising from accidental destruction of property, divorce and child custody, psychological “pain and suffering,” accidental physical injury, breach of contract, or discriminatory acts of a racial or sexual nature. Civil cases have included suing McDonald’s for selling dangerously hot coffee, class action suits against makers of faulty breast implants, and claims for general reparations to contemporary African Americans who suffer “post-slavery stress syndrome.” Most cases involve the minor irritations neighbors cause each other with too loud music, dogs that bite, or too high fences. Civil courts often award compensation above the actual loss in property or medical costs, including punitive financial damages against companies for “negligence.” For the most part, civil cases do not involve prison time – although failure to pay child support or follow court judgments can land the offender in jail. Criminal cases are brought against those who are charged with committing a crime against individuals and, by extension, the society. Murder, rape, assault, burglary, use of illegal drugs, theft, insidertrading, embezzlement, child molestation, kidnapping, and arson are a few of the most common charges. For the most part, these cases are kept within the state court system, with appeals available through the US Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. Criminal cases are usually settled with a trial by jury of 12 citizens, who, after listening to the

146


evidence, must unanimously agree that the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If even one juror dissents, the prisoner is released. Defendants can skip the jury trial by agreeing to a “plea bargain” agreement with the prosecutor, typically agreeing to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for a shorter prison term and/or financial penalty in lieu of a long trial and an undetermined verdict. If the defendant is too poor to hire an attorney, the state is required to appoint and pay the costs for a “public defender.” These lawyers have enormous caseloads, are the poorest trained, youngest, and the least paid of all trial lawyers. Because about 80 percent of all people accused of felonies are poor, and thus defended by appointed counsel, the United States clearly has a wealth-based justice system favoring the middle and upper classes. Additionally, most juries are drawn from lists of registered voters on which the poor are under-represented, a practice which keeps the middle class and elderly in charge of deciding verdicts. The United States has a notoriously high crime rate and the vitality of the legal system makes most observers believe that America has even more crime than it really does. Nearly every Hollywood movie revolves around a crime or includes a crime in the plot; newspapers and television news shows attract viewers with the news of one misfortune after another, knowing that horror sells better than feelgood stories; and television ratings continue to show that viewers want to see dramas which let them watch the courts and police in action. There is a love affair for violent spectacle. America has over 17,000 separate police departments with nearly 1 million police officers; there are also nearly 250,000 civilians involved in law enforcement (US Census Bureau, 2002a). These numbers are striking, even if we acknowledge the large population and economy of the country. The United States also has a greater percentage of people in prison than any country in the world, with more people – 673,000 – put in prison during the Clinton years than at any other time in American history. In contemporary America, more than two million prisoners are behind bars and 6 million more are on probation and parole (US Census Bureau, 2002: 200, 202, 294; Butterfield: 2002). The prisons are marked by overcrowding, some are run by private corporations which contract services to states, and most function mainly to detain people and to exact retribution, instead of rehabilitating them. The vast numbers of guns available throughout society probably increases the number of violent crimes and undoubtedly increases the

Society

147

number of accidental shootings by children, although opinions range widely concerning the former. For example, in Cartersville, Georgia, a town ordinance requires every family to own a gun and keep it ready to stop intruders; those without guns are heavily fined. Burglaries in Cartersville have dropped to near-zero. The pro-gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), continues to use snappy slogans such as “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people!” and “If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns!” to lobby for individual, not government, responsibility. In 1994 Congress passed laws which put a five-day waiting period on the purchase of handguns so that the FBI could run background checks on the customer; banned most assault weapons; required the registration of all handguns; increased prison terms for criminals using guns to commit crimes; and restricted former criminals from being able to purchase guns. Over 30 million background checks were made from 1994–2001, with about 689,000 rejections (DOJ, 2002). There have been “buy back” programs offered by communities willing to pay for any and all handguns turned in voluntarily. It is debatable whether or not these measures made any difference in the falling rates of violent crime in the 1990s. The Court continues to interpret the 2nd Amendment as giving individuals the constitutional right to bear firearms for self-defense. The country grew up with weaponry, killed the French, Spanish, British, Indians, Mexicans, and each other, as it shot its way westward. There are presently so many weapons in the US that they could never be collected and seem certain to remain a fixed feature in American life. In the aftermath of 11 September, Americans purchased handguns and ammunition in record numbers, with 1,029,691 new guns bought in the single month of October 2001 (Baker, 2001). Clinton pledged to “get tough on crime” and Congress passed the 1994 Crime Act which earmarked $30 billion to the states to put 100,000 more police officers on the streets. The Act also provided for tougher penalties for drug offenders. Not only are more people going to jail, but they are staying longer. Part of this move to incarcerate is due to society’s fatigue with criminals and the political situation of judges who hammer down longer sentences as they campaign for reelection to the bench. The effect of the Crime Act, combined with a decade of economic prosperity, has been a steady decrease in the number of criminal cases, as rates fell to the lowest levels in 40 years to 26 million reported crimes (mostly drugs and theft) and 15,000 homicides (mostly friends and family) in 2000. The numbers of

148


violent crimes were only half of what they were in 1993 and fell proportionately below the crime rates for Western Europe (Eggen, 2001). In 1999 at Columbine High in Colorado and Heritage High in Georgia, “average” white students shocked the nation by killing teachers and other white students. It is worth observing that if the killers had been black and the victims white, the response would have been quite different, with talk of criminality of young blacks rather than of the individual tragedies of both perpetrators and victims. It is a continuing feature of American society that whites are treated as individuals without blaming all whites, but blacks bear the onus of being blamed as a group for failures or crimes perpetrated by individuals. The court system continues to hand out harsher penalties to black men than to whites who commit similar crimes as plea bargains and higher qualified lawyers reduce sentences for whites. One-third of all black men will spend time in jail at some point in their lives. The ultimate penalty of capital punishment is disproportionately invoked against African Americans convicted of murder than against other groups. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has charged that “race, ethnic origin and economic status appear to be key determinants of who will, and who will not, receive a sentence of death” in the United States (Olson, 1998). Blacks are not the only ones executed. Since its founding, America has used the death penalty to punish those found guilty of particularly gruesome murders. Timothy McVeigh was executed in 2001 for the deaths of 168 persons when he used a truck bomb to level a federal building in Oklahoma City. Karla Faye Tucker, who made headlines worldwide for becoming a born-again Christian while on death row and received an outpouring of support from the Pope and American Protestant leaders – who asked Texas Governor George W. Bush to pardon her – was executed in 1998 for an especially brutal doublemurder with a pickaxe. State governors have the authority to pardon anyone for any crime, but they rarely use the power to overturn judicial decisions supported by the electorate. In only one instance, Furman v. Georgia (1972), did the Supreme Court outlaw the death penalty by judging it “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the 8th Amendment. At that time, there had been no execution in the US for five years. Four years later, the Court reversed itself and the states began executing people again (Tables 5.5 and 5.6). In 2002, there were more than 3,600 people on death row awaiting lethal injection, electrocution, or hanging; the

Society Table 5.5 2001

149

Executions and Death Row Inmates, 1 January 1976–1 June

Category

Executed

On Death Row (as of June 2001)

Non-Hispanic White African American Hispanic Native American Asian American Male Female

395 256 47 13 5 709 7

1,702 1,578 321 47 31 3,629 50

Source:

Clark County (2002).

average time spent awaiting execution averages twelve years (Amnesty International, 2002). Both the methods of execution and the morality of capital punishment continue to be the subject of debate in contemporary America. A dozen states and the District of Columbia do not have a death penalty and recent polls reported a loss in support for capital punishment from 75 percent to 25 percent in favor in 1997, to a 50–50 percent split in 2001. Americans are Table 5.6

Capital Punishment, 1976-2001

Year

Executions

Year

Executions

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

0 1 0 2 0 1 2 5 21 18 18 25 11

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

16 23 14 31 38 31 56 45 74 68 98 85 66

25-year total: 749 Note: Source:

From 1930 through 1975, 3,882 people were executed in the United States. SMU (2002).

150


increasingly in favor of life imprisonments with no parole in lieu of executions (Sherrill, 2001: 2). To describe American society, the cohesion or culture wars in its midst, and the speed of change due to large-scale continuing immigration is a difficult proposition. Inequities in race, gender, and class abound – the first two categories moving rapidly toward more equal treatment and the latter category widening between the richest and the poorest Americans. The institutions of education and religion are highly significant portions of the story, as are the social programs put in place by government to provide for the general welfare of the citizenry. And, of course, any real understandings of the workings of society depend upon acknowledge of the power of the overarching culture. These discussions continue in the following chapters.

6 Religion, Education, and Social Policy

The American experience displays an uneasy tension between individual advancement and a belief in equality. Religion, education and government services are marked by this tension, and each of these institutions helps to reconcile personal success and failure with ideas of the work ethic. In the United States, secular and religious faiths are growing, an enormous national revival is in motion, and the events of 11 September seem only to have strengthened the belief that through religion, education, and a program of general welfare for those who “deserve” it, the nation will continue to progress. Religion, education, and social policy provide avenues by which Americans maintain their faith in uplift, advancement, individualism, and equality.

Religion Religious Freedom The United States is both remarkably religious and remarkably secular. The country’s semi-official motto “In God We Trust” is located on every piece of currency, and the Pledge of Allegiance recites the belief in “One Nation, Under God.” The United States military employs chaplains and builds churches on military bases. Religious groups are supported by having tax exempt status. All of this seems clearly contradictory to the historical American rejection of an established religion as does the continuing tradition of lighting 151

152


a Christmas tree on the White House lawn even though Congress cannot sanction any religious holiday. Religion has always found fertile soil in the United States, from Native American shamanism to Euro-American myths of providential foundings in a New Eden and manifest destinies to subdue the earth. The concurrent timing of the Protestant Reformation and the discovery of the New World compounded matters. While the Puritans and Pilgrims in Massachusetts, Anglicans in Virginia and Georgia, Jesuits in California, Mormons in Utah, and others, experimented at different times with official government-established religions, American history is punctuated by religious freedom. The mixture of large numbers of believers of different faiths has demanded tolerance and helped persuade the Founders to state in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This provision dampens ethno-religious conflicts even if it has caused a two-centuries-long struggle over the use of the Bible in public institutions. In fact, the First Amendment seems to want it both ways, allowing neither the establishment of nor interference with religion. Political Scientist Kenneth Wald concluded that “there is a kind of two-way street operating in the Constitution – the sense that religion will do best and government will do best if they flourish independently” (Wald, 1998: 20). To establish a religion in a country of immigrants would endanger the survival of the nation while simultaneously making for “bad religion” – too formal, authoritarian, and undemocratic. Americans associate churches with community spirit and they want to keep them free from the European associations with oppressive classes or governments. After 220 years under the Constitution, Americans have yet to decide if religion is private, public, or an uneasy combination of the two. Religious infighting still occurs within the United States. The arrival of each group of immigrants whose faith is new to the towns or regions in which they settle, often gives rise to fear and hostitlity in the pre-existing population. Catholics, Jews, Transcendentalists, Amish, Shakers, Quakers, Muslims, Black Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Pentacostals, Fundamentalists, Moonies, Christian Scientists, Scientologists, Branch Davidians and others have been treated with suspicion or ridicule at least, and sometimes with violence. Recently, theologians are noting the extraordinary rise of what they call the New Religious Movement, which is a creation of faiths even more diverse than before (Lester, 2002). With


153

more than 2,000 denominations active in the United States in 2002, it might be difficult to imagine more diversity. Generally, Americans practice a “quiet faith,” acknowledging the fundamental right of all individuals to believe in the god of their choice, as long as they abide by the law (Wolfe, 1998: 39). Open religious prejudice is rare as Americans have faith in faith, no matter the doctrine. Religion is laissez-faire and is not discussed in everyday conversation, even with the ubiquity of religious structures and television ministries. There is little crusader zeal on any issue as Americans do not want to offend their neighbors’ rights to do whatever they want to do. Americans talk about going to church or what they did at church, not what they learned from the service itself. When polled, upwards of 95 percent of those asked will say that they believe in God and 70 percent believe in the devil and hell. 75 percent believe that they will go to heaven, 1 percent to hell, and 6 percent to purgatory (Harris Poll, 2000a). This is clearly a part of American optimism. About one-third of all Americans are “unchurched” and practice their faiths in private. Atheists and agnostics are not discriminated against, if they are not too loud, even though their families might pray for them to repent. Most Americans believe in a personal God who performs daily miracles. Four-in-ten attend church at least once a week. Nine-in-ten Americans own a Bible and nearly three-in-ten own four or more. One-third of all Americans say that God speaks directly to them and half pray at least once a day, even if they are mostly praying for good grades, a higher salary, a pretty girlfriend, a victory in the football game, health, and safety; 90 percent say that God answers some of their prayers. For most Americans, God is an affirming, not a demanding, entity and prayers are secular wishes not high worship (Gallup, 1998: 28). Since 11 September, religion has become more prominent, but not to the elevation of one religion over another. In a December 2001 poll, 78 percent of Americans said that religious influence was growing in the country, even while studies show that church attendance has not increased and the number of people who said that religion was very important to them personally (61 percent) has not risen (Pew, 2001b).

Main Religious Groups Protestants outnumber Catholics but are split into numerous denominations. With over 60 million members, the Catholic church is the

154


largest single religious group (Table 6.1) and its membership is increasing as Hispanics lead the immigration lists. The discoverer Columbus brought Catholicism with him to the New World and Jesuits soon worked across the continent. The colony of Maryland was established as a refuge for French Catholics and large numbers of Irish Catholics poured into east coast cities after the Irish potato famine in the 1840s. A larger, and different, group came during the massive influx of the 1880s–1920s. Some Protestants formed into xenophobic, nativist groups and used mob violence and rioting to protest against the culture of the newcomers, especially during times of economic uncertainty when the real struggle was for jobs. These conflicts between Catholics and Protestants largely disappeared from America after World War II, and certainly stopped after the election of John F. Kennedy to the presidency in 1960. In part this is because American Catholics, however much they admire the Pope, do not strictly follow his decrees. The overwhelming majority of American Catholics practice birth control, half get divorced, and some churches Table 6.1

American Religiosity Affiliation

Number of Members

Roman Catholic Baptist Non-religious Methodist Pentecostal Lutheran Eastern Orthodox Islam Mormon Judaism Presbyterian Episcopal Reformed Church of Christ Atheists Neo-Pagans

60,191,000 36,613,000 23,000,000 13,533,000 10,606,000 8,350,000 5,302,000 5,100,000 4,766,000 4,300,000* 4,193,000 2,505,000 2,039,000 1,651,000 1,500,000 1,000,000

Note: The list includes only those groups with over 1 million members. * Reporting of the numbers in each denomination varies widely, none more than the number of Jews, who are more often reported at over 5 million. Source:

Religious Tolerance (2000).


155

have asked that priests be allowed to marry and that women be elevated to the priesthood. As of 2003, the Vatican has denied both requests. Outside the priesthood, most American Catholics say that they have the right to ignore Papal orders on an individual basis. 100 million Americans are Protestants who divide themselves between at least 220 denominations and thousands of self-identified congregations. The two largest groups, Baptists and Methodists, spread rapidly among the lower and middle classes during the Great Revival of the 1830s. The evangelical message of appealing directly to an all-powerful God was soon translated into an anti-authoritarian individualism that bypassed clergy, government officials, and the upper classes. In modern America, Baptists and Methodists are split into approximately 250,000 local congregations averaging 300 believers worshipping in various ways according to history, ethnicity, race, class, or particular preacher. There are approximately 5 million American Jews divided into Orthodox, Conservative or Reform groups, with most feeling a solidarity with Israel and a common history of persecution both within and without the United States. Most Jews came to America from Germany (1820–80) and Russia or Poland (around 1900). Jewish scientists and intellectuals, including Albert Einstein in 1933, immigrated during the World War II years. Clinging together and pushing education as the way to success, American Jews have risen economically and politically to become the most influential Jewish community in the world, especially in the urban centers of New York City and Miami. They have entered the professions in large numbers and are leaders in obtaining doctorates and teaching positions in American universities. Intermarriage by Reform Jews to Christians is widespread and well-funded political action committees affect foreign policy. Additionally, in rural areas of America where evangelism is strongest, the population is strongly pro-Israel, and a large number of Protestant ministers have made pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Islam has grown from having 52 mosques in 1945 to 1,250 mosques and Islamic centers in 1998 – an average of 24 new mosques per year – located throughout the 50 states (Haddad, 1998: 37). This does not include the nearly 100 African American mosques of the Nation of Islam (Black Muslims), a religion centered in northern industrial cities which reached its heights in the 1960s under the leadership of Malcolm X. Most of the 5 million American Muslims came to the United States via chain migration from Lebanon, Bangladesh, Palestine, Syria, Iran, and Pakistan (Haddad, 1998: 37). The discrim-

156


ination faced thus far by Muslims has been more racist than religious even though there have been confrontations – then compromises – over partitioning cemeteries, granting breaks to workers for midafternoon prayers, and making religiously-appropriate food available. The continuing crises in the Middle East between Arabs and Jews, and the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 increased Islamophobia to record levels. American Muslims subsequently reasserted that they are Americans first and Muslims second and a recent poll shows that favorable views of Muslim-Americans by the general population have risen to 59 percent, from 45 percent before the attacks (Pew, 2001b). In the 1980s when 365 Muslims were asked if they believed that America discriminated against Muslims, 100 percent responded yes. When asked if they themselves had been discriminated against, 100 percent said no (Haddad, 1998: 38). Unfortunately, discrimination has risen, especially around airports and nationally symbolic sites. Founded in 1830, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints – commonly called the Mormon Church – is the largest indigenous religious group in America. Its attempts to convert everyone to Mormonism and to establish a religious government in Utah, as well as the widespread practice of polygamy, confronted the First Amendment’s ideas of religious pluralism, separation of church and state, and the common belief in sanctity of the family: one husband, one wife. The result was long years of religious persecution with Congressional and Constitutional insistence that Utah be free of church control. By 1890, Mormon leaders agreed officially to stop polygamy, even though unsanctioned plural weddings continue to crop up in contemporary America. By 2000, there were 3.5 million Mormons in the United States and twice that number worldwide. The 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City confirmed the acceptance of Mormonism into the diverse religious fabric of the United States. Another indigenous religion, the Native American Church, has about 250,000 members in 100 branches. This church blends Christianity with the use of peyote cactus – which contains the hallucinogen mescaline – in worship services. In 1990 the Supreme Court ruled that states could prohibit the use of peyote, but most states have allowed the practice to continue, in private. In 1978 Congress passed the Religious Freedom Act to allow Indians to use sacred tribal places on public land. Most American Indians are Christians wholly, or have combined Jesus with traditional prayers, dancing and singing. At the


157

Our Lady of the Sioux Catholic Church on the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota, for example, the altar has a crucifix and image of Christ alongside a peace pipe and thunderbird. Communicants pass the pipe, taste wine and eat crackers at communion (Rawls, 1996: 173).

Revivalism Periodically, America has experienced widespread evangelical movements which turn people back to God. These revivals occur during times of large scale immigration and changes in society coupled with fears of war or economic uncertainties. The First Great Awakening in the 1730s witnessed the arrival of Methodist Reverend George Whitefield who preached up and down the colonies. His oratorical power made hell so vivid that some listeners searched for it on an atlas. Whitefield helped bind the colonists together and his message of salvation made a substantial contribution to inciting the American Revolution. The Second Great Awakening of the 1830s lit a religious fire that thrust thousands into Baptist and Methodist churches and formed others into groups to end slavery, set up communes, or join Mormon, Shaker, or 7th Day Adventist churches. A third great revival of the 1920s pitted the traditional agricultural and white nineteenthcentury values of creationism against the industrial, urban, and multicultural twentieth century and its espousal of the idea of evolution. This debate between fundamentalism and modernity played out spectacularly in the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, when a young teacher was jailed for teaching the scientific theories of Charles Darwin. Currently, America seems to be in the midst of a fourth great revival, which has arisen from the anxiety over contemporary themes of multiculturalism, terrorist threats, nationalist movements, and globalization (Fogel, 2000; Jenkins, 2002). A January 2001 poll found that 84 percent of evangelicals believed that Satan was behind the fight against prayer in public schools (Harris Poll, 2001). The Catholic archdiocese of Chicago has employed a full time exorcist, Bob Larsen, who supervises 40 “exorcism teams” across the nation. According to Larsen, “Dealing with the Devil is ugly work. . . . Our goal is that no one should be more than a day’s drive from . . . an exorcist” (Fountain, 2000). He is only one of 10 known full-time exorcists performing ancient rituals on those who are found to be possessed by Lucifer or his minions. Fundamentalist apocalyptic novels, such as Tim LaHayes’s Left Behind series have topped the

158


New York Times bestseller list, selling nearly as many books as the ultra-popular Harry Potter series (Smith, 2000). This awakening is led by the widely-expanding group of evangelical Protestants who put God up front in their lives, often wearing wristbands engraved with WWJD which they can rub and contemplate “What Would Jesus Do?” when confronted with everyday choices. Methodist evangelist Billy Graham drew over 242,000 people to a four-day “Jacksonville [Florida] Crusade” in November 2000. Graham took in $2.8 million and blessed the 10,539 people who were “born again” during the revival (AP, 2000a). It must be noted that fundamentalists – those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible – are not in majority among evangelical groups, who run the gamut between extreme liberalism and radical conservatism. Pentecostal groups, formerly known as “holy rollers” for their habit of “speaking in tongues” and belief that some people are blessed by God with the ability to heal, are growing rapidly (Jenkins, 2002). Pentecostals are famous for tent revivals in which the lame are made to walk again through “faith healings.” In the aftermath of 11 September, religion is one of the many ways by which Americans have sought to regain their balance, something Atlantic Monthly editor Michael Kelly calls, a return to “when America was square” (Kelly, 2002: 20). The 1940s were square, but since then America has been hip, beat, rock and rolled, turned on, punk, rapped, and, ultimately, chaotic. Kelly says that Americans are exhausted and just want to be safe in the square old-fashioned values of “courage, bravery, strength, honesty, love of country, sense of duty” (Kelly, 2002a: 20). Many Christian groups are sponsoring community events to convince everyone that America’s fundamental strengths remain strong. Other Christian groups seem intent on exploiting the terrorist assaults to push their conservative agendas of putting prayer back into the schools and expanding the role of religion in the public sphere. The Supreme Court has been vigilant in separating church and state and even while a Fourth Great Awakening is ongoing, secular faith in the Constitution is stronger. The most controversial contemporary aspect of religion in America is its foray into the political realm. This is not new, even if it has been discouraged by the constitutional separation of church and state and by the common assent of most Americans. Martin Luther King, Jr., liked to say, “God isn’t going to do all of it by Himself” (quoted in Dionne and DiIulio, 2000: 6). King understood the complex balance of individual and collective responsibilities in a liberal society. Since


159

the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976, presidents have increasingly invoked religious sentiments, thereby setting aside the taboo of keeping religion out of politics. Bill Clinton repeatedly employed biblical language and George W. Bush often spontaneously refers to his deep religious beliefs. Once during the 2000 presidential campaign when Bush was asked to name his favorite political philosopher, he named Christ. Bush’s answer caused widespread debate (Rosin, 1999). Illustration 6.1 depicts the conjunction of religion, politics and holidays. The present controversy is over conservative usurpation of liberal methods. Conservative Christians, reacting to the social upheavals of the 1960s and the anxiety of a globalizing post-Cold War world, have created an interfaith cooperative under the general idea of social action by a Christian Right. These conservatives have joined with fundamentalists to elect politicians more favorable to their beliefs to ban abortion, to allow prayer and the teaching of the Genesis story in public schools, to make it unconstitutional to burn the American flag,

Illustration 6.1

Thanksgiving at the White House

On every national holiday, a president gives a speech or makes an appearance in honor of the person, event or myth being celebrated. On 25 November 2002 – Thanksgiving Day – President George W. Bush posed at the White House with a group of children who had been carefully positioned by his staff to represent an inclusive multicultural America and history. (Photo by Michael Springer/ZUMA/Polfoto)

160


to return power to the states by reducing federal taxes, and to get the government out of the welfare business. Reverend Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority helped elect Ronald Reagan, and Ralph Reed’s and Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition linked evangelicals to politics by distributing 70 million “Voter Guides” and organizing churches nationwide to get out the vote for Republican Party candidates in the 2000 election (Vita and Schmidt, 2000). They may have provided just enough votes in Florida to put Bush in the White House. But evangelists find they must be careful not to overstep boundaries. In December 2001, after agreeing with Falwell that the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center were “God’s punishment on America for tolerating feminists, gays, lesbians, libertarians, and certain federal judges,” the most influential conservative preacher of the 1990s, Pat Robertson, was forced out of his position as president of the Christian Coalition. Americans do not want their leaders to be unfair to other groups, intolerant, or to invoke pictures of a vengeful activist God who intervenes in contemporary affairs (Lind, 2001). Americans do want their leaders to be a member of a church, but they are suspicious of those who flaunt their religiosity. They reject those who elevate the written scriptures over a personal Christ. A politician can ask for God’s blessing on America, but cannot say that his faith strongly insists on a particular course of action.

Religion à la Carte The United States is unique among industrialized countries in having a highly educated citizenry and a heavy emphasis on religion. Usually, the more technologically advanced a country becomes, the more religion is downgraded. This secularization thesis argues that religion fades as modernization and globalization expand. This has not happened in contemporary America, where religion is a growth industry, adapting, crossing denominational boundaries and expanding. The country oozes religion. In physical structures, there are nearly 500,000 churches, temples, mosques, or gathering sites. Billboards along major interstates and minor highways, streetcorner preachers, handbills attached to trees, and radio/television programs daily broadcast the good news or apocalyptic prophecy to anyone who tunes in. The phenomenon of the Mega-Church is sweeping the country (Trueheart, 1996). These churches are huge, with over 10,000 members worshipping every weekend and thousands more actively


161

involved during the week in each of the nearly 400 congregations. The goal of the churches is to encourage communities of people to build their lives around church activities. These fellowships are nondenominational, independent, entrepreneurial, market-driven entities that attract people who are more secular, “unchurched,” or lapsed from traditional religions. Their churches are evangelical, cohesive, quiet and Protestant. And while teenagers might still wear wristbands embroidered with WWJD, they kid with the meaning: We Want Jack Daniels! The Mega-Church offers traditional, contemporary, and charismatic services but adds seminars and various activities, such as “A Succsexful Marriage,” “discovering divorce dynamics,” “fellowshippers” for seniors, “women in the workplace,” a baseball clinic, basketball leagues, Rock music and a twenty-something Friends-TVshow discussion group (Trueheart, 1996: 4). It is religion à la carte (Gallup, 1998: 31). The choice of faiths is populist not hierarchical and is marked by privatism. Because there is no direct state support for US churches, except for the benefit of tax breaks for non-profit groups and some money for school books to church-sponsored schools, all funding is via private donations. Churches need a product and they have to advertise it successfully to attract money. Many churches and individual preachers have expanded their congregations by television ministries which appeal to those who are sick or find it too difficult to travel or who want to “attend” more services every week. Many Americans change denominations, or even faiths, if they find themselves suddenly more comfortable or happier with another group, or as they intermarry. American religion is as social and secular as it is spiritual. When Americans change residences, they seek out new churches, explore the market, and make choices based upon convenience, class, race, preaching style, beauty of the church structure, day-care for children, sports leagues, and position on conservative or liberal issues. This helps explain religious pluralism in America, the everexpanding numbers of churches and the competitive business of American religion. Prominent religious studies scholars agree that “the more competition there is, the higher the level of consumption . . . [with the] paradox that the United States is one of the most religious countries in the world but also one of the strongest enforcers of a separation between Church and State” (Lester, 2002: 43). Polls consistently find that churches are social clubs, which sponsor activities that give people something to do. Churches succeed in getting half of all

162


Americans to work two to three hours every week in volunteer service to the community and they are the major institutions distributing free food and clothing services to the poor, housing the homeless, caring for the sick, and setting up day-care facilities for children of working mothers (Gallup, 1998: 29). So while many academics have seen religion as irrational, primitive, or superstitious, Americans continue to join churches for both spiritual reasons and popular tastes. And yet, despite this smorgasbord of religious choice, most Americans choose or inherit a denomination and stick with it most of their lives.

Education Colleges and Universities In 1944, Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal identified the essence of the American belief in advancement: “Education has in America’s whole history been the major hope for improving the individual and society” (Blanck, 2002: 138). It is a fundamental part of the American Dream and a part of the social compact idea that democracies require educated citizens. American education developed from European traditions, centered originally in the families, and entered the public sphere when Puritans established the first community and churchrelated schools just after arriving in the New World. Americans who wanted more than a primary education enrolled in private academies (the norm until replaced by public high schools in the later half of the nineteenth century). By the American Revolution, every colony had public and private schools and there were nine universities with a total of 731 students: Harvard (Puritan Congregational, 1636), William and Mary (Anglican, 1693), Yale (Puritan Congregational, 1701), Princeton (Presbyterian, 1746), University of Pennsylvania (nonsecterian, 1751), Columbia (Anglican, 1754), Brown (Baptist, 1764), Rutgers (Dutch Reformed, 1766), and Dartmouth (Congregational, 1769). After the Revolution, Americans developed a more nationalistic syllabus for students – this was done privately and was neither sanctioned by law nor mandatory – with texts emphasizing constitutional freedoms and the sacrifices of heroes such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Students continued to study Greek and Latin and primarily read British literature. Noah Webster compiled an American dictionary to stress differences in


163

spelling and pronunciations from standard British English. Webster sold his product with a promotion that “NOW is the time, and this the country. . . . Let us then seize the moment and establish a national language, as well as a national government” (Webster, 1789: 379). American leaders insisted that girls receive a thorough primary education so that they could fulfill their roles as “republican mothers” to the new nation. It was widely hoped that education would ease social tensions, provide upward mobility and equal opportunities for all free, white Americans in the marketplace. Teaching expanded quickly in the North, but public schools in the South and West were not generally available until around 1900. African Americans and American Indians were widely deprived of anything beyond elementary education apart from a few missionary schools. With large-scale immigration around 1900, public schools expanded as a way to rid immigrants of foreign influences and to assimilate and Americanize them. The number of universities grew remarkably from 119 in 1850 to 356 in 1876, the year Johns Hopkins University became the first college to insist that research and graduate classes take precedence over undergraduate teaching. In contrast to all other nations, Americans were educating the masses. Contemporary America has over 4,000 colleges and universities with 15 million enrolled students, nearly a million teachers, and an aggregate expenditure of $200 billion (NEA, 2000). State-suppported colleges were established immediately after the Revolution, with the University of Georgia (1785) and the University of North Carolina (1789) leading the way. Today, every state has at least one central four-year university and most states have a university system with many campuses. The states also operate 1,004 two-year public community colleges, often called “junior colleges” whose average annual tuition fee in 2002 was $1,518 (AACC, 2001). These colleges provide education for students who cannot afford the higher costs of four-year institutions, who are generally older (the average age in 2002 was 29), who have responsibilities of children or work, or who seek to improve their academic credentials in hopes of being admitted to a “senior” university. Students successfully completing the requirements at community colleges are granted an Associate degree. Additionally, since the 1960s, vocational-training colleges have been established to provide skills to students in specific occupations, or to provide English language classes to immigrants. This public system operates alongside and in competition with the large number of private universities and colleges.

164


Overall the system is market-driven, decentralized and pluralistic, providing opportunities for students of different abilities, income levels, family responsibilities, and goals. Enrollment has skyrocketed from 3 percent of college-age students attending in 1890, to 25 percent in 1950, to nearly 67 percent in 2000. The largest increase came after World War II, when the US government’s G. I. Bill (1948) offered subsidies to veterans who wanted to get college degrees. The Cold War increased the need for scientists and specialists and Congress passed the National Defense Education Act of 1958, which linked the nation’s security to the mental resources and skills of university students (Menand, 2001). Federal grants were made to the nation’s research universities, an amount reaching $21 billion for 1996 (Marchese, 1998: 58). Universities are the gatekeepers to the most lucrative occupations and much of the class division in technology-driven America stems from how much or how little education an individual has obtained. In the 1960s, college attendance doubled as the Baby Boom generation reached 18. The 1960s African American, Chicano, and American Indian Civil Rights Movements, the Feminist Movement, and the deferment granted from Vietnam for active students, further expanded enrollments. As more students experienced equal access to universities, the attitude toward higher education changed from being seen as a privilege to being claimed as an equal right. By 2000, over one-half of all Americans had attended college at some point in their lives (Menand, 2001). The student population that began classes at the new millenium consisted of 55 percent women, 10 percent African American, 7 percent Hispanic, 6 percent Asian American and 1 percent American Indian – percentages fairly close to the overall population percentages of each group, and rising (Marchese, 1998: 61). Universities compete for students and students compete for acceptance into universities. Each institution has its own admissions committee which matches the needs of the university against applicant scores and backgrounds. Most American students take a standardized Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) and/or American College Test (ACT) to determine their competitiveness against all students graduating from high school in a given year. Additionally, universities since the 1960s have been sensitive to past discrimination, diversity, and minority needs and have selected students based upon Affirmative Action policies in relation to race, gender, and class. Prestigious private universities accept as few as 15 percent of all


165

applicants, while some state and private colleges have an open admission policy. Even at most public four-year universities, less than 50 percent of the applicants are admitted. Those rejected must apply elsewhere or go directly into the labor market, mostly at minimum wage. About two-thirds of all students enroll in public colleges. An undergraduate degree takes a minimum of four years to complete and consists typically of 36–40 different courses. American colleges are uniform in requiring that one-third of a student’s curriculum be in general classes in science, philosophy, history, literature, math, and language so that students will be broadly-informed democratic citizens. After completing these required courses, students select a major and take 9–12 specialized courses. The remaining classes needed for graduation are electives which students choose to supplement other areas of interest or to concentrate on a minor field which strengthens the major. Lately, the trend is away from traditional disciplinary study in the arts and humanities; English language and literature majors have decreased from 7.6 percent of all BA degrees in 1970 to 4.2 percent in 1997. In 2001, the biggest winner was Business, with 20 percent of the total undergraduate majors – an American subject par excellence (Menand, 2001). When the Londonbased Financial Times listed its top 20 business schools worldwide for 2001, 16 US schools made the cut, led by the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard, and Stanford. France (at 7th), England (at 8th), Switzerland (at 11th), and Canada (at 12th) each placed one school on the list (Søndagsavisen, 2001). If a student wants to go on to graduate school, he or she first takes a standardized test, the Graduate Record Exam (GRE), which does what the SAT did at the undergraduate level. The competition for placement begins again. A Master’s degree usually means an additional 6–18 courses plus a thesis, and a PhD could add another 6–18 courses plus a dissertation, depending upon the specific program and whether or not classes are on the quarter or semester system. Most state universities charge moderate to high fees to residents of their states, while out-of-state charges – for students from other states – can be very expensive. A university education is overwhelmingly paid for by students and their parents, with the average public university costing $8,000 a year for in-state residents (out of state fees usually double the costs) and the average private university costing $19,410 for the 1997–98 academic year (NEA, 2000). The 2001–02 school year at Harvard cost a pricey $34,269, but 70 percent of the students had financial aid, averaging about $20,000 each (Levine, 2001).

166


Nationwide, there are government “need-based” scholarships and loans for poorer students. Top athletes are given scholarships to matriculate while they compete in intercollegiate sporting contests. Both public and private “merit-based” scholarships are given by every university to attract the most academically-gifted students. Additionally, thousands of private foundations or individual donations promote education. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has earmarked $1 billion to finance full scholarships for 20 years (1999–2019) for 1,000 African American and American Indian students a year (Verhovek, 1999); in 1999, the Lilly Endowment donated $30 million to the American Indian College Fund to help improve tribal community colleges; and African American television star Bill Cosby gave $20 million to Spelman College in Atlanta. At present, even though more than half of all students fail to finish their degrees, American universities are annually awarding nearly 540,000 Associate (two-year) degrees, 1.2 million Bachelor (four-year) degrees, 400,000 Master’s, 76,000 professional (law, medicine, etc), and 45,000 doctorates. Many of the graduate degrees are to foreign students (Marchese, 1998: 62).

A State Responsibility The United States does not have a national system of primary and secondary education even if the government sometimes makes land available, provides funding for special projects, and watches to see that all citizens have equal access to schools. The US Department of Education has very limited supervisory powers. It does research, makes suggestions for national standards – such as “Goals 2000”: a proposal for more math and science classes – and contributes approximately 7 percent of the total costs of education to the states (DOE, 1999). The states have constitutional authority over education. This gives them the flexibility to meet the demands of a variety of citizens and ways of life. State Boards of Education set mininum requirements for teacher qualifications, student attendance, and course offerings, but real control devolves to more local levels. The day-to-day management of the 90,000 public schools and 2.7 million teachers is delegated to 14,600 independent school districts (NEA, 2000). The nation’s 27,400 private schools, divided between religious and classbased college-preparatory schools, are outside of state control – except they are required to meet minimum guidelines for course


167

offerings. They receive little state, federal, or local funding, and must raise money from endowments, donations, churches, and tuition. In 2001, America had 53 million school children enrolled in classes from kindergarten to 12th grade, with about 10 percent of these in private schools (US Census Bureau, 2002a: 134). Total expenditures for primary and secondary education were approximately $300 billion. The structure of education in the US is summarized in Figure 6.1.

School Districts and School Boards School districts are administered by school boards elected or appointed from the local communities or counties. Large cities typically have one school district, suburban areas usually have one each, and rural counties might combine to pool resources into one large district. School boards decide what will be taught in their schools and administer the funding. Generally, half the money to operate schools comes from the state and the remaining half is raised through local property and sales taxes, as decided by each community. Those communities which have high property values or a willingness to increase their taxes can provide high quality facilities, the newest software, and the best teachers for their schools. Poorer districts find it difficult to fund the basics and are marked by inadequate supplies, burned-out teachers, absent students, old computers, and rotting physical structures. Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the federal government offers financial assistance to these under-funded public schools. Additionally, since the 1960s, an Upward Bound program aids poor high-school students and Project Head Start provides pre-school education to help disadvantaged children improve their basic skills. School boards decide which textbooks to buy and which courses to mandate – choices made with the community in mind. Agricultural communities, African American communities, urban areas, fundamentalist Christian communitites, immigrant communities, liberal and conservative communities all have differing ideas of appropriate textbooks and courses. Selection of texts and courses can be a daunting task in urban areas, especially, where the variety of students often consist of those speaking 80–90 first languages at home, while concentrating on English at school. State laws require equal access to and education of all students regardless of language. Studies indicate that while suburban areas have good schools,

168 Figure 6.1

The American Educational System Postdoctoral Study and Research

Doctor’s Degree Study

Master’s Degree

Master’s Degree Study

Professional Schools, (Medicine, Theology, Law etc.)

6 5 4

Bachelor’s Degree Associate Degree or Certificate

Vocational Technical Institutions

Undergraduate Programs

Junior or Community Colleges

3 2 1 12

17 16

Senior High Schools

4-Year High Schools

11 Combined Junior Senior High Schools

15 14 13 12

Junior High Schools

(8, 4)

7 (6 – 3 – 3)

(6, 6)

4

(4 – 4 – 4)

3 Elementary (or Primary) Schools

7

2

6

1

5 4 3 Age

K

Kindergartens Nursery Schools

Elementary (or Primary Education)

8

6 5

10 9

9 8

Middle Schools

11

10

Secondary Education (Academic, Vocational, Technical)

High School Diploma

7

Postsecondary Education (College, University, Profesional, Vocational, Technical)

Ph.D. or Advanced Professional Degree

PK Grade

Note: Adult education programs, while not separately delineated above, may provide instruction at the elementary, secondary, or higher education level. Chart reflects typical patterns of progression rather than all possible variations. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).


169

inner-city urban areas and the country’s rural districts produce less well-prepared students. Americans research the differences among schools when they make decisions on home purchases or job relocation, often making the final decision exclusively on the school district their children will enter. Of course many poorer Americans have no chance to choose. Middle and upper class Americans can opt to place their children in private schools if the public schools do not meet their expectations for discipline, manners, and intensive education. Americans expect their high schools to give comprehensive educations, wide-ranging and unspecialized. The educational philosophy is that everyone should receive twelve years of schooling, whether or not the student is motivated to study or is academically qualified for the task. This philosophy of not selecting among students aims at providing equal opportunity for everyone, to provide literate workers, and to make the complex variety of ethnic, racial, and cultural peoples into Americans. Of course this inclusion of students of varying abilities in the same school and same courses can hold back the academic potential of individual students as teachers face the challenge of trying to teach everyone. Most schools have tried a “tracking” system that places students in classes by ability, still teaching everyone but often at vastly different levels. Tracking is controversial for those who want fairness over academic challenge. The most exclusive private “college preparatory” schools select only students with certain IQ scores and/or proven ability, as well as those whose parents stand high in the community or express the willingness to donate sizeable monetary gifts to the school. Whether educated publicly or privately, by 2000, 82 percent of whites, 75 percent of blacks, and 55 percent of Hispanics in the total population had completed high school (US Census Bureau, 2002a). Figure 6.2 shows the level of highest educational attainment of Americans aged over 25 in 2001. American schools are professionally run by administrators and teachers, who generally hold college degrees. It is not uncommon to find primary and secondary teachers with Master’s degrees, and a few have gained PhDs. Prospective teachers must pass state written examinations to be certified to teach in the public schools; and certification in one state does not necessarily transfer to another. Overall, Americans have built a system that is decentralized, comprehensive, universal, and professional. And with all these students, faculties, and administrators engaged on a full-time basis – representing around 25 percent of the American population – education is big business.

170


Figure 6.2

Educational Attainment, 2001

Not high-school graduate 15.9% Doctorate 1.2%

High-school graduate 33.1%

Professional degree 1.5% Master’s degree 5.9%

Bachelor’s degree 17.0% Associate degree 7.8%

Some college 17.6%

Total persons age 25 and over = 175.2 million

Note: Source:

Numbers have been rounded. NCES (2001).

Debates over what happens in the schools and the quality of education are constant. Americans are competitive and dislike reports that students in other countries, states, or school districts are achieving more. In recent years there has been much concern over the declining scores in 3rd- and 8th-grade achievement tests and on SAT/ACT examinations. Comparisons with worldwide student scores indicate that the US is in the middle range for most industrial nations in math and science (OECD, 2002: 68–9). Fingerpointing occurs as parents hold teachers and administrators responsible; teachers respond with studies which indicate that the presence or absence of family support and issues of poverty are key determinants to test scores. Teachers argue that the top 50 percent of American students compare with any students worldwide. Most suburban parents are content with their schools and say that it is the inner-city numbers or new immigrants who reduce the total scores; their own children are achieving. Asian Americans are held up as the model minority, receiving much support


171

at home and excelling in testing. Despite comprising just 4 percent of the population, Asian Americans make up nearly 25 percent of the student population at prestigious universities such as Stanford and Columbia, 19 percent at Harvard, and 16 percent at Yale (Thernstrom, 1999: 400). Some reformers want to see the implementation of a national curriculum, but most parents hold firmly to decentralized schools run by local citizens. Americans accept the role of government in providing monetary support and in intervening, sometimes, to uphold minority rights.

Integration and Affirmative Action In 1954, in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, the US Supreme Court ruled that separate schools for different races were “inherently unequal” and that the states had to desegregate all educational facilities. The struggle to integrate schools met with strong local resistance and sporadic violence, but schools were integrated. The government persuaded universities to use Affirmative Action guidelines to bring in minority students even when their test scores were below those of white students who were being denied admission. The government provided money to those universities which showed progress in integration; federal marshalls – and private organizations such as the NAACP – brought lawsuits against universities which discriminated against minority students. These actions were highly successful in integrating institutions of higher education, even while there have been setbacks. The Bakke decision (1978) ruled that it is “reverse discrimination” and unconstitutional to set quotas for minorities at the expense of qualified white students. This of course begs the question: does the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment perpetuate racial supremacy when it is used to stop Affirmative Action? The Court ruled that diversity could be taken into account in admissions decisions, but quotas could not be mentioned. In 1991, Congress outlawed the practice of “race-norming” where universities compared only black student scores to each other before adjusting them upward to match white student scores for admissions decisions; the Supreme Court agrees that race-norming hurts white students. With the white backlash in the 1990s against the claims of “preferential treatment” for minority students, President Clinton reiterated his support for Affirmative Action, saying, “Mend it, don’t end it” (quoted in Engstrom, 1998: 301). This encapsulates the majority view that

172


history requires some strategy favoring minority uplift, but that previous discrimination against one group does not warrant present discrimination against another. In 2001, a Federal Court of Appeals upheld Affirmative Action but showed its ambivalence by ruling that the University of Georgia’s policy was unconstitutional because it was based upon racial diversity alone and did not take into account other factors, such as life experiences or talents (Steinberg, 2001). Clearly, it is difficult to balance equal protection and equal opportunity with a history of disadvantage and discrimination in a multicultural society. Another problem is that community schools are located in suburbs and cities, reflecting the race, ethnicity, and class of the homeowners. In the 1960s the Supreme Court tried to solve this residential segregation dilemma by ordering school districts to use “busing” to transport inner-city children to suburban schools, and vice versa. Because public schools are funded primarily by property taxes, the middle class resisted this practice of taking students from well-financed school environments and placing them in schools which lacked the basics. African Americans protested that busing destroyed their innercity neighborhoods and asked instead for more monetary assistance to keep their children in local schools. Whites increasingly put their children in private schools or fled further into the suburbs. Finally, in 1974, the Court reversed itself and argued that local control of the schools was a deeply-rooted tradition that should be upheld. Only real residential integration can solve the problem, and Americans continue to segregate themselves socially by class and race. In today’s America, desegregation seems to proceed smoothly in the suburbs until black enrollment reaches 30 percent, when “white flight” occurs (Thernstrom, 1999: 229).

Prayers and Vouchers Just as controversial and long lasting has been the debate over the 1962 Supreme Court ruling that prayer has no place in public schools because it violates the separation of church and state and abridges the rights of non-believers or non-Christians. States responded with “moments of silence” to allow students to sit quietly in their own thoughts, or prayers, during the school day. The Court has ruled against prayers to open football games and prayers at commencement ceremonies, even though groups of people often protest the order by simply reciting the Lord’s Prayer aloud (Duggan, 2000). Since 1925


173

the courts have consistently ruled out the teaching of creationism as an alternative or complement to the teaching of Darwin; and yet, in 1999, the Kansas State Board of Education removed evolutionary theory from the curriculum and replaced it with “creation science” explanations that God made the earth and its creatures in six days. The courts ruled this unacceptable, again, even though a CNN poll found 68 percent of Americans in favor of teaching both creationism and evolution in the schools and 40 percent agreeing that Darwin was not fit to survive in the classroom (Lewis, 1999). Poor test scores and uneven educations have led politicians to discuss a system whereby families could get a voucher worth a few thousand dollars per child. That voucher could be used to purchase education via enrollment into public or private schools and would pay the cost for the average public school in each school district. If parents selected a private school or a more costly public school, they would pay the difference. Another suggestion is for states to sign three to five year contracts with “charter schools” that would be public, non-sectarian, non-discriminatory, and local, but would receive state monies according to the number of students attending and/or graduating. Charter schools have more autonomy to try innovative teaching methods, serve specific student needs, and reduce class sizes – with the requirement to produce positive academic results (CDE, 2001). Vouchers and charter schools are market-based, conservative solutions which have been supported by presidents Bush, Clinton, and Bush, Jr., as well as by most African American leaders. More traditionally liberal approaches would involve asking the states to redistribute money from rich to poor districts to equalize education, or even to put more money into the poorer districts because of the other resources rich students enjoy. As in the debates over religion, the education debates will continue to define the American experience.

Social Services The United States is a welfare state with an infrastructure designed to distribute services to those who qualify or to those in need. The expenditure for social programs far exceeds the money spent for defense. Over the last 50 years, government has played a big role in increasing incomes and life spans, primarily through subsidies for education, pensions, and public health. This redistribution of tax

174


money is highly controversial in a nation that promotes individual and family self-reliance, has a diversity of racial and ethnic groups, 50 states governed by elected politicians of varying conservative or liberal philosophies. Mostly, the government’s social services attempt to alleviate suffering and to provide a minimum living standard for the poor and disabled. In addition to public assistance, there are private organizations and charities which offer services outside the public framework. Moreover, many Americans insure themselves privately, buying health care and contributing to pension plans over and above government provision, religious handouts, or employer–employee benefit packages. These programs overlap. Americans expect individuals to take care of themselves within the market economy and there is a clear understanding of who makes up the deserving or undeserving poor. Children, the elderly, war veterans, and disabled persons are seen to “deserve” assistance and are fairly well-provided for, but people who consistently lose their jobs, drop out of high school, have children outside of marriage, or need assistance too often are dismissed as “undeserving” (Harris Poll, 2000c).

Government Assistance From 1789 until the 1930s, the United States did not provide public assistance. Most of the government aid programs available in contemporary America are rooted in the social policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal (1933–39) and the 40 percent unemployment rate of 1932. About one-half of all American families had someone employed by a New Deal agency. Roosevelt announced that poverty was not a moral failure but arose from social and economic conditions not always in a person’s control. He promoted the understanding that given the opportunity, any American would take a job instead of a handout. In the end, the New Deal changed laissez-faire economic policies by taking the responsibility for aiding the poor and placing it squarely into federal government regulatory and social agencies. The Wagner Act protected labor’s right to collective bargaining, the Works Progress Administration put hundreds of thousands of people to work in government programs, and the Fair Labor Standards Act mandated a minimum wage and restricted the hours of allowable work. But the most important program proved to be the Social Security Act, which established the pension system, unemployment insurance,


175

and Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC). The old-age pension portion of the Social Security Act is compulsory and is raised by taxes paid into a trust fund by employers and employees during working years of the employee; it does not come from general tax revenues and it is not distributed equally to the elderly. The more an employee and employer pay in – usually corresponding to higher incomes – the bigger the retirement pension. Social Security is a “pay-as-you-go” system whereby present-day workers pay presentday retirees’ pensions; in 2000, 45 million retirees received a total of $407 billion (US Census Bureau, 2002a: 528). As the number of retirees grows, more workers are required to cover the costs, the pensions could be lowered, or taxes could be raised to fund programs. With the New Deal, the government committed itself to helping those who were down on their luck. This changed attitudes toward the unemployed. Since the New Deal, various groups of workers, consumers, and minorities have been able to press for government intervention, something formerly only available to big business interests. This has changed the nation into a “broker state” adjudicating claims among various interest groups in society and giving rise to “rights talk” – the notion that social programs are “entitlements” that all Americans are guaranteed under the Constitution. President Lyndon Johnson announced a “War on Poverty” in the 1960s and rewrote New Deal programs to include the creation of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Transportation, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Office of Economic Opportunity, and two education acts to fund school districts and to provide college funding for poor students. All of these programs are still in force. A federal food stamps program provides stamps (coupons that work like money – except with a stigma attached) redeemable for food at most retail stores nationwide. Even though students and married couples without children are generally excluded, most households with a gross income below 130 percent ($22,339) of the national poverty line ($17,184 for a family of four in 1999) are eligible. In 1999, 18.2 million Americans used the program and received an average of $87 a month in food stamps (US Census, 2002a: 549). A School Breakfast and Lunch Program provides free or reduced-cost meals for poor children in public schools with funding that totalled $6.7 billion for 34.3 million students in 1999 (US Census Bureau, 2002a: 549). In 1965, the federal government promoted Medicare to fund health care costs for the disabled and for everyone over 65 years old, regard-

176


less of need; the next year, Medicaid expanded those health benefits to anyone living under the poverty line. Medicaid is administered by each state, has wide variations in the quality of service, and is funded by a combination of federal and state monies, an amount totalling $48.2 billion in 1999 (HHS, 2000). The huge jumps in medical costs – particularly prescription drugs and nursing homes – during the 1980s, swamped state budgets before the economic boom of the 1990s saved the system. The contemporary United States is virtually alone among industrialized nations in not having a comprehensive health care system for its citizens. Bill Clinton came into office in 1993 with health care reform as his key issue. He put his wife, Hillary, in charge of developing a plan and she put forward proposals based on universal coverage and cost controls. Big businesses and labor unions supported the plan, but small businesses, insurance companies, the American Medical Association, and the majority of the American people rejected it, the latter group because of higher taxes and loss of choice. Having failed to achieve wholesale reform, Clinton had to settle for a more modest change. In 1996 he managed to sign into law three bills which guaranteed that health coverage would continue even if an employee changed jobs; extended the hospital stay to 48 hours after childbirth; and forced companies to insure patients with preexisting medical problems. Nonetheless, in 1998, approximately 45 million Americans still lacked any medical insurance. The old, disabled, and poor have Medicare and Medicaid to fall back on, and the middle and upper classes generally have employer-funded health insurance, but those workers above the poverty line in minimum wage jobs are uninsured and remain vulnerable. The majority of the population has very good health care plans which give them a choice of doctors, hospitals, and medical providers, paying from 80–100 percent of the costs for themselves, their spouse, and children. About half of all Americans have dental care plans to pay for regular checkups, braces for children, and tooth repair. The federal government subsidizes the whole economy by being the nation’s single biggest employer with 17 million workers in jobs such as the military, immigration, foreign service, post-office departments, federal law enforcement, and janitorial staffs. The United States Postal Service alone employs over 800,000 workers and the government is responsible for 12 percent of the total workforce. Additionally, tax money in the form of housing and education loans, business bailouts, and tax breaks to start up new businesses help the


177

middle and upper classes. The women and men who select careers in the armed services receive the most comprehensive packages. Military personnel receive free medical and dental care, housing, high-tech training, and shopping benefits for themselves, their spouses, and children. If stationed overseas, they receive income supplements, cheap insurance rates, and tax breaks on most purchases. For those who decide to quit the military after their enlistment period is up – usually three to six years – the government provides money to help underwrite a college education and offers low cost housing loans. Personnel who serve at least 20 years can retire at half of their normal salaries; if they serve 30 years, they get twothirds – and both groups of retirees retain all the special benefits, except housing, which they had on active duty. Because people join the military when they are 18–22 years old, retirement comes at ages 38–52. There is plenty of time for a second career, and most retirees take full-time jobs while continuing to receive monthly military retirement checks. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which are presently the costliest programs in the social insurance system, together consume 25 percent of the entire federal budget. Politicians rarely dare to support changes because of the political strength of veterans and the elderly who claim the programs as entitlements. The so-called “graying of America” – the aging Baby Boom generation combined with higher life expectancies – threatens the entire system. Many of the elderly live alone or with family members. In 2000, 45 million people were over 60 years old, and the number will surge to 70 million – one American in four – in the next two decades.

Workfare Americans continue to debate the issue of what should be done to help the poor. Many argue that private-sector economic growth will eradicate poverty; others want higher taxes coupled with a redistribution of income and job training. Some claim that the poor lack the will to rise, while others argue that all societies are marked by class inequalities. Critics claim that government has never had the will to invoke real programs that will work and has simply done the minimum to control the poor. Conservatives say that government programs have been adequate but that poverty is tenacious among various groups. There are strong historical attitudes toward giving or taking “handouts” from a government, a clear attachment to

178


the work ethic, and strong ethnic, religious, and racial prejudices in the way. For twenty years conservatives have blamed welfare programs for creating a cycle of dependency and a culture of poverty that would keep new generations on welfare. The New Deal’s program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) had been formulated in the 1930s, when families were more traditional, and it was designed to help widowed or divorced mothers who were raising children alone. From the 1960s onward the number of divorces and single mothers had expanded claimants to 4 million adults and 9 million children. Since Ronald Reagan, presidents have been taking government out of the welfare business by implementing a “New Federalism,” a program returning authority to the states. In line with his emphasis on economic freedom not economic equality, Reagan pushed through substantial cuts in food stamps, housing assistance, and job-training programs. These were some of the first efforts to move the poor from welfare to “workfare.” In 1996 Clinton agreed with the Republican Congress “to end welfare as we know it,” by signing the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Act (DeParle and Holmes, 2000). TANF ended AFDC, set time limits on welfare recipients, set up strong work requirements, and devolved power over welfare monies to the 50 states, each with a different program. TANF provides a block grant to each state in the amount of $4,100 per year for each of a state’s poor families, a total expenditure to 2.6 million families in 1998 of $10.6 billion. The Act requires recipients to be employed within two years after welfare starts and it makes the states responsible for finding the jobs. Each recipient is limited to lifetime benefits of five years. New immigrants to the US were made ineligible for any benefits under the law, but the states stepped in to support jobless immigrants under the same general conditions provided by TANF. A recent poll found that 75 percent of Americans agreed that “most people who are on welfare and do not find work would find paid work if they were not on welfare” (Harris Poll, 2000c). Early press reports indicate that TANF is successful. Nationwide, welfare rolls have fallen dramatically as 4.7 million Americans entered job-training programs or full employment. When people face the deadline for assistance, about 80 percent have taken jobs and are keeping them. In Massachusetts, for example, TANF payments average nearly $437 a month, but those who took paid employment were making an average of $1,218 per month (Cassidy, 2000). In Minnesota the state says


179

outright, “work or you don’t get a cent”; but if you do work at any paid job, the state provides the whole family with insurance, free daycare, a clothing allowance, and low-cost loans for housing and automobiles (Simon, 2001). If there are no jobs available, the state creates special positions until a private-sector job is available. Across the United States, once taxpayers see the poor as deserving workers who are temporarily unemployed, instead of as undeserving welfare cheats, they have become more generous. With everybody willing to work, everybody is willing to help. The flood of single women into the labor market has been a solid achievement; but TANF has neither created more two-parent families nor reduced births to teenage mothers as supporters had hoped. In 2000, one-third of the total US births and 69 percent of all African American births were to single mothers (US Census Bureau, 2002a: 76). The latter figure points out that welfare has been a racially-stigmatized program; workfare seems to be reducing the racial rhetoric as teenage mothers are being given time to change their attitudes toward work and family. With the press watching closely, there have been no reports of people starving, yet. Critics worry about what will happen when the economy dips or when people reach the five-year lifetime deadline, the safety net falls away, and they still will not or cannot find work. In contemporary America there is as much to condemn as to praise. The country has not been able or willing to eradicate poverty or to move closer to an equality of outcome for all its citizens. Cries of hypocrisy abound as critics point out that the nation says one thing and does another. There are layers and layers of objections and problems when it comes to equalizing treatment for an increasingly diverse population of citizens. The so-called “classless society” has failed to eradicate class, race, gender, and age divisions. Perhaps the critics are blinded by the progress that has been made. Political Scientist Samuel Huntington has summed up the tension between real equality, opportunity, individual beliefs, and fingerpointers: “Critics say that America is a lie because its reality falls so far short of its ideals. They are wrong. America is not a lie; it is a disappointment. But it can be a disappointment only because it is also a hope” (quoted in Kagan, 2001: 82).

7 Culture

Diversity American culture, like America itself, can be all things to all people. Culture varies widely by locale, region, ethnicity, and race in a nation with 50 states as diverse in historical particulars as the French Quarter in New Orleans, Pine Ridge Sioux Reservation in South Dakota, Muslim Detroit, casino-rich Las Vegas, Asian Honolulu, Irish Boston, African American Atlanta, Blues-bound Chicago, Chinatown in San Francisco, Inuit Alaska, Jewish Colorado, Elvis-afflicted Memphis, Mormon Utah, Cuban Miami, Protestant Indiana, Chicana Texas, Quaker Philadelphia, Scandinavian Minnesota, Puerto-Rican New Jersey, Navajo Arizona, Madison Avenue New York City, Amish Pennsylvania, Hollywood-starred Los Angeles, corn-fed Iowa, monument-crushed Washington, and Rock-’n’-Roll Cleveland. There has never been an official national language, even though, outside the home, Americans speak English first and foremost. There has never been an official national religion, even though the country is known for its evangelical Protestants. There are no bans on flying the flags of other nations alongside, or instead of, the national banner. In America there is a compromise among languages, faiths, and nations. In 1913, for example, novelist Willa Cather spoke of American diversity when she wrote of her own life growing up in the state of Nebraska in the American “heartland”: The county in which I grew up, in the south-central part of the State, was typical. On Sunday we could drive to a Norwegian church and listen to a sermon in that language, or to a Danish or a Swedish church. We could go to the French Catholic settlement in 180

Culture

181

the next county and hear a sermon in French, or into the Bohemian township and hear one in Czech, or we could go to church with the German Lutherans. (quoted in Bell, 2000: 3) Striking in Cather’s description is the agrarian world of Christianity in which she lived and the many European cultures existing in that rural environment. Because American cities dominate the news, we are more familiar with the view of cultural pluralism and melting pots existing in the urban metropolises. The United States is a nation of immigrants whose personal histories diverge as they reach back into national histories and ethnic rivalries on every continent, each with different cultural memories. Longstanding notions of individualism, self-reliance, and freedom of action further divide people from a common community. America in its chaotic blend of multiculturalism is the world in its postmodern diversity. This isn’t new. Cultural conflict has always been a part of the culture of discontent that is America and the current round of culture wars has long roots in American society.

E Pluribus Unum And yet, it is possible to talk about a single, dominant American culture. Were this not so, we would hardly hear the multitude of fearful voices arguing that American cultural imperialism is neocolonialism, making all the world’s languages subservient to the linguistic-debasement of American English and all the world’s people conform to cheap and transient American tastes. Perhaps the 1960s slogan advocated by Dr. Timothy Leary could be remade to express world fears about American dominance: “Tune in! [to the American idea], Turn on! [to Hollywood movies], Drop out! [of your own culture].” To many, America is a dangerous mind-altering drug. Critics complain that America has become a modern-day Babylon, spreading moral decay and diseased style, fashion, food, films and other iniquities outside its borders. American popular culture is blamed for everything from global warming to midlife obesity. Ironically, in the midst of all this resentment is the movement to copy and imitate. One thing that is clear about American culture is that it doesn’t stay “American” very long. It is soon cozy in the farthest corners of the world. American culture is loud and American culture is fast. Critics sometimes dissolve the whole into a McCulture, boring in its homo-

182


geneity, cheapness, and ubiquity in shopping mall after shopping mall, another one just down the interstate at the next turnoff or around the next corner, past the traffic signal on both sides of the road. Some see America as a “fast food nation,” eating out as much as four nights a week, eager for immediate service, and demanding cheap food prices, while paying scant attention to how the burgers got to the drive-thru window in the first place (Schlosser, 2001). America is an “idea state” held together as much by a promise as by geography and law. The idea not only shaped the culture, it is older than the government and thus provides the impetus for nationalism. President George W. Bush expressed this understanding in his inaugural address: “America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgounds, lift us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens.” Race, ethnicity, class, gender, and religious variations fit into subcultures, but do not destroy this umbrella idea culture. There is much debate and concern over culture wars that involve a separatism, maybe a balkanization, of African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans, Whites, and women, into six competing tribes. Certainly multiculturalism and deep divisions exist, but the claim that it is tearing the country apart, making not only “two nations” black and white, but six – or more – nations misses an obvious point. Americans are divided but they are equally united. Diversity itself is a necessary component of the culture with its emphasis on boundary crossings, mergings, newness and co-existence. Diversity is expressed in the national motto, E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one), in the promise of equal opportunity that is the American creed, and in the overriding trust in having freedom of information and speech. Chaotic heterogenity is the American cultural norm. America-the-dream is the self-conscious invention that has molded a huge population with varying, local folkways into a national culture. Obviously, culture can be defined in many ways, including classifications as a way of life or as creative achievements at any level. Culture can be subdivided by geography into local, regional, national or global culture; it can be divided by density into urban or rural culture; it can be split into pop, mass, consumer, youth, women’s, or American Indian culture; it can be generational as in first-generation immigrant, second-generation immigrant, Old Immigrant or New Immigrant culture; it can be grouped by decades into the 1920s, the 1930s, the 1960s or the 1990s culture; it can be discussed in terms of

Culture

183

high versus low culture; it can be described in opposition to itself, as counterculture; it can be contested in traditional versus modern versus postmodern culture; it can be pitched as plural or assimilationist culture. American society offers a mix and match of many cultures and sub-cultures, easily and rapidly selected through the mass media and facilitating shifting attitudes, lifestyle choices, technological variations and multiple identities.

The Rise of American Culture Culture before the American Revolution was a hodge-podge of local customs, each town or rural area adhering to different laws, languages, and folkways. These local cultures began to change with the consciousness raising efforts of nationalists who wanted to wrench power over American affairs from England. At the Continental Congress in 1775, patriot Patrick Henry declared an end to differences between the colonies and declared famously: “I am not a Virginian but an American.” Borrowing heavily on European masters, portraitists John Singleton Copley, Gilbert Stuart, Benjamin West, John Trumbull, and Charles Wilson Peale painted and repainted the heroes of the Revolution. Their efforts made myth, helped tie the nation together, and elevated George Washington into a symbol of the new America. Patriots wanted to assimilate Indians and immigrants into an AngloAmerican culture praying in Protestant churches and learning the English language, efforts which persisted into the residential schools of the twentieth century. In the early decades of the nineteenth century, Americans sought to develop an art, literature, and music that met their idea and sense of being “American.” Historian Michael Kammen has noted the rise in national pride in the face of critics who “did not believe that a democracy was capable of ‘genuine’ culture and that the United States, in particular, had a population too heterogenous to produce a distinctive culture or identity in any case” (Kammen, 1999: 63). American popular culture has been marked by nationalistic signifiers and innovation. From the middle of the nineteenth century, American literary expression was filled with clear American dialects in the works of Cooper, Thoreau, Emerson, Dickinson, and Twain. Herman Melville’s complex precursor to the modernist novel, Moby Dick (1851), is the story of Captain Ahab’s obsession with killing the

184


great white whale which had bitten off his leg in a previous encounter. Melville shows the futility of assuming any single explanation of the truth and offers multiple meanings of the whale and of Ahab’s desperation. Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter (1850) is another characteristic example of American dissent against authority. Hawthorne spun the witches and judges of Salem on their heads, offering several suggestions for Hester Prynne’s seduction of the Puritan cleric. Opposition to institutional power and conspiracies have remained at the heart of American literature for over 150 years. American literature also followed the trends of urbanization, industrialization, and westward expansion. Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885) is filled with the tension between nature and civilization, Stephen Crane’s Maggie: A Girl of the Streets (1893) looks at poverty and sexuality in immigrant America, and Kate Chopin’s The Awakening (1899) explores issues of sex and gender in middle-class life. These themes would continue to fill the great American novels of the twentieth century.

Advertising Manufacturers and marketers capitalized on the differences inherent among immigrant groups and the period between 1885–1935 was a battleground for the transition of the Anglo-American model of assimilating everyone into a melting-pot American or of a new EuroAmerican model of cultural pluralism or mosaic (see Chapter 2). Corporations fostered a consumer culture of “100% Americanism” to shut out foreign competition and encourage common buying patterns and lifestyles revolving around standardization of packaging. Yet in the midst of building a national culture, regional patterns of popular culture endured. There was a notable growth in leisure time, a commercialization of organized entertainment, innovations in transportation and technology, and a change in attitudes that allowed the rich to join the lower classes at movie theaters and elsewhere. Popular culture manifested itself in burlesque shows, vaudeville, the Buffalo Bill Wild West Show, and the Phineas T. Barnum Circus as well as in the several huge expositions – Chicago (1892) and Atlanta (1895) being the most famous. These extravaganzas were hyped by banner advertising and newspaper spots. European visitors often remarked contradictorily on the leveling of American society and the vulgarity of democratic cultural forms.

Culture

185

The ubiquity of advertising and the rubbing of shoulders with different classes shocked visitors more used to the ethnic homogeneity and heirarchies of their own societies. American advertising wizard Frances Alice Keller saw the potential of using advertising to assimilate people in the face of subcultural pluralisms: “National advertising is the great Americanizer. American ideals and institutions, law, order, and prosperity, have not yet been sold to all our immigrants” (quoted in Kammen, 1999: 66). Novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novels, particularly The Great Gatsby (1922), showed how the automobile and advertising changed the American way of life. The man who became known as the father of advertising, Bruce Barton, explained how to win friends and influence people. In The Man Nobody Knows (1925), Barton described a poor carpenter from Galilee, who, though born in a manger, assembled twelve believers from the lowest rungs of society and turned them into ad men who understood the principle that “reputation is repetition.” Jesus built an empire of faith – and expressed an American Dream sensibility – based upon simple slogans and unsophisticated arguments, selling the same story over and over, and providing an example for ad men everywhere. Advertising made newspapers and magazines affordable, but the flowering of consumer culture came in the 1920s when radio and billboard ads, the rise of household appliances, and an era of rising wages mixed commerce and culture together irrevocably. In 1929 Robert and Helen Lynd’s Middletown concluded, “The American citizen’s first importance to his country is no longer that of citizen but that of consumer. Consumption is a new necessity” (Lynd, 1929: 88). The absolute commercialization of American culture came with the Second World War and the shift of the consumer marketplace from city centers to suburban shopping centers to malls. Regional cultural gave way to national conformity in the realm of materialism. Television and advertising have been “pervasive, aggressive, repetitive, and intrusive” in flooding contemporary America – and the world – with mass culture (Kammen, 1999: 193).

Leisure Time Americans are not good at relaxing, even if they currently spend over a trillion dollars a year trying to do so. Laziness confronts the work ethic and in a society rife with traditional corny homilies like “time is

186


money,” “don’t leave for tomorrow what you can do today,” “the early bird gets the worm,” and “a rolling stone gathers no moss,” Americans weigh the costs of leisure against the rewards of work. Puritan clerics warned that “idleness is the devil’s workshop” and preached a gospel of “work as its own reward.” This attitude filters into all aspects of American life and combines democracy, Christianity, and capitalism into a belief that “God helps those who help themselves.” Seeking fun, Americans spent more than 5 percent of their total income – $2,050 each – on entertainment and reading in 1999 (US Census Bureau, 2002a: 659). The notions of equality of opportunity and of a constantly rising living standard based on merit and “by the sweat of one’s brow” have long marked the American character. Americans are uneasy with leisure as they find themselves in a work-and-spend cycle of increasing wants, needs, and debts. In a he-who-dies-with-the-most-toyswins mentality, the more he works, the more money he has to buy the newest item, the more he owes, the more he wants, the more he works, the more he makes, and so on. Additionally, the “winner take all” ethic of the American workplace whereby the most successful workers gets the highest salaries and the unequal distribution of rewards makes most workers run faster from a fear of falling (Schor, 1998: 9). On the other hand, Americans also believe that “all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” Part of the American Dream involves home ownership and so, when they have free time, most Americans work at domestic chores associated with maintaining and improving their property. Besides the 1.6 million new houses built in 1998, 4.7 million existing homes were bought and sold. The average size of new houses has doubled since the 1980s at the same time that family size has decreased. It is commonplace to find a middle class family of three living in a house with over 3,500 square feet and three bathrooms. And many new homes have three-car garages, which American families use as a storage center for overflow purchases. Homes are centers for technology and Americans increasingly spend their free time in their own backyards or relaxing in front of the home entertainment center of TV, video, and DVD. Simultaneously, Internet connections in the home pull Americans more toward work than relaxation. Whether lounging or working, home life has become more private as mass culture is experienced less in community and more in solitude or with a few relationships.

Culture

187

When they are not at home with families and friends, Americans tend to go to the mall. In 2001, in addition to the stores in town centers, there were over 40,000 shopping centers in the US and nearly 2,000 malls. Standard stores, regular products and similar consumer environments link them all, even as bargain hunters look for that special item to mark their “good taste.” Nationwide, the Super WalMart stores serve up an array of products stretching down aisles as far as the eye can see. American life is marked by a psychology of abundance that turns aristocratic dreams into democratic consumption as all classes can afford to purchase from the same stores. Americans also depend on credit cards to buy what they need. In 2000, 185 million card-carrying Americans had 506 million bank, and a large number of other, credit cards. An estimated 13 percent of American adults had 10 or more cards, 37 percent had four to nine cards, and 50 percent had one to three cards (USA Today, 2000). Credit limits rise to $1 million for customers qualifying for the so-called “Quantum Card” issued by several US banking groups (Péralte, 2000). American workers generally take between one to four weeks of paid vacation a year, except for those growing numbers of people trapped in the work-and-spend cycle who opt for a weekend getaway now and then. These vacations are coordinated with the period when schools are out for the summer. The automobile trip across the state or across the country – 6,000 miles in two weeks – continues to be a favorite holiday pursuit. Many people use their private camping vans to cut costs and enjoy the “nature” of crowded campgrounds or try to find a serene spot in busy national parks. Commercial enterprises have their own camping facilities; Disney World in Florida, for example, even provides direct transportation from the campsite to the “Magic Kingdom.” Americans are frequent vacation flyers, taking 808 million “pleasure trips” in 1996. In addition to the vacation periods, most Americans have days off work on national holidays (Box 7.1), most of which have been placed to give three-day weekends.

Print Media The founding of the United States corresponded closely with the rise of newspapers. In 1775, the English colonies published 37 papers, which were important political organs carrying the debate over revolutionary ideas. A hundred years later, in 1880, America had 971 daily

188


Box 7.1

Official US Holidays

New Year’s Day .......................................... January 1st Martin Luther King, Jr. Birthday ................ 3rd Monday in January Presidents’ Day (Washington & Lincoln) .. 3rd Monday in February Memorial Day ............................................. last Monday in May Independence Day ....................................... July 4th Labor Day ................................................... 1st Monday in September Columbus Day ............................................ 2nd Monday in October Veterans’ Day ............................................. November 11th Thanksgiving Day ....................................... 4th Thursday in November Christmas Day ............................................. December 25th

papers and 8,633 weeklies. Urban dwellers had a wide choice of local papers; New Yorkers, for example, picked among 29 and Chicagoans had 18. With the advent of radio and television news programs, many newspapers went out of business while others consolidated to survive. In 1997, New Yorkers had only three dailies. The five papers with the largest daily circulation in 2000 were the business-oriented Wall Street Journal (1.8 million), the popular lowbrow USA Today (1.7m) – notable as a national paper in a country where almost all papers are local to one city – the nation’s best news source New York Times (1.1m), the respected regional Los Angeles Times (1.1m), and the politically-astute Washington Post (.8m) (World Almanac, 2002: 276). Because many Americans buy and read only the Sunday papers with their extravagant entertainment, sports, book, magazines, job, automobile, and home sections, the Sunday circulation is higher. In 2001, the United States had nearly 1,500 daily papers and 912 Sunday papers for a combined circulation of 56 million copies daily. Magazines and periodicals are widely popular and differ from newspapers in the nature of their coverage and publishing frequency. Consumers have a choice among the current issues of nearly 11,000 magazines and periodicals. The 50 leading magazines enjoy a total circulation of nearly 200 million copies per issue. The top two, American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and Modern Maturity, are bought up by older persons at the rate of nearly 21 million copies per issue. Reader’s Digest, TV Guide, and National Geographic are followed by Better Homes and Gardens, Family Circle, Good Housekeeping, Woman’s Day, and Ladies’ Home Journal, before the news magazine, Time, weighs in at number 11

Culture

189

with weekly sales of 4.1 million. Other popular news magazines include Newsweek (3.1m) and U.S. News and World Report (2.1m) (World Almanac, 2002: 273). As early as 1970, most Americans got their news from television; in 2000, ten times as many people watched, rather than read, the news. And yet, as the number of magazines and newspapers indicate, Americans are avid readers. A paperback revolution, starting in 1939 when Pocket Books made cheap books available, helped democratize culture and popularized the works of Ernest Hemingway, William Faulkner, John Steinbeck, Robert Penn Warren, Truman Capote, and Ralph Ellison. By 1965, readers bought nearly 7 million books a week, choosing among the 25,000 titles on display in airports, drugstores, and supermarket checkout lines with bestsellers by Saul Bellow, Norman Mailer, Philip Roth, and James Baldwin, slipping in among the plethora of romance and crime novels. When asked about their favorite ways to spend leisure time, 31 percent of American adults picked reading, 23 percent watching television, 14 percent spending time with the family, 13 percent gardening, 9 percent fishing, 8 percent walking, and 6 percent each computing, exercising, going to movies and being with friends (Harris Poll, 2000b). Sales by US publishers continue to rise, reaching 2.5 billion books sold in 2000 (US Census Bureau, 2002a: 1134). Americans are also great library users and there are nearly 17,000 public libraries. Almost every town has a lending library and the nation’s 4,000 colleges and universities and 87,000 elementary and high schools all have libraries. In 2000 the two biggest collections were in the Chicago Public Library (14.4 million books) which is the world’s largest city library and Harvard University (13.6 million) which is the world’s largest university library. There are also hundreds of private collections available to researchers and readers nationwide, among them the Henry H. Huntington Library in San Marino, California, and the world’s best financially-endowed library, the J. Paul Getty Museum in Malibu, California. There are state and local archives with books and papers relating to regional affairs. The federal government maintains two of the biggest libraries in the world in the Library of Congress (LC) and National Archives (NA). Established in 1800 but secured in 1814 when Congress purchased 10,000 volumes from the private collection of Thomas Jefferson, the LC is the largest library in the United States, with more than 24 million books and over a billion items of all types. The NA houses the documents of government agencies and includes such items as the

190


original copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, soldiers’ records, photographs, Indian treaties, and most of the official correspondence between government officials. Former presidents since Herbert Hoover (1929–33) also have a federallyfunded presidential library in their home state.

Mass Entertainment The Movies Hollywood is American culture writ large, but its impact and presence are as global as Coca-Cola and Levi’s jeans. The American scenes flickering on movie screens and the American accents reaching the ears with wrap-around Dolby soundsystems worldwide are Hollywood’s. Hollywood also reaches into the world’s living rooms, not only through the VCR and DVD systems, but in the made-for-TV sitcoms (situation comedies), dramas, mini-series, and movies that are standard fare wherever television sets are turned on in the West, and increasingly worldwide. In many ways, entertainment has conquered reality (Gabler, 1998). Hollywood used to be associated primarily with leisure and entertainment, but since the 1960s, the broadcast images have increasingly mixed fiction with documentary and informational material – ”infotainment” – to the point that people refer to movies as if they were real history. For years, the Sunday night primetime Wonderful World of Disney opened with the soundtrack: “When you wish upon a star, makes no difference who you are. When you wish upon a star, your dreams come true.” Hollywood gives life to the American Dream and, particularly, to the American dreaming to recreate and reinvent life as seen in the movies. This can be a capitalist dream, a romantic dream, a religious redemption dream, or a democratic egalitarian dream. Hollywood films have always functioned to help ethnic Americans assimilate. Today this assimilation is played out increasingly on a world scale whether or not viewers immigrate into the US or live in McWorld. Fantasy America has been a country that could teach the rich humility, the poor to rise, the ignorant to study, the doubters to believe, and the foreigner to assimilate. Disney Studios expressed these themes in films including Pinnochio (1940), Bambi (1942), and Lion King (1994) where young characters face homelessness and lose parents, only to rise and reinvent themselves through honesty, friend-

Culture

191

ship, and hard work. Hollywood has always contrasted themes of wealth versus democracy and individualism versus community, but with its own very distinctive “Hollywood style” in terms of themes and happy endings. The movie industry was created in 1908 when Jewish-Americans moved production studios from NYC to a suburb of Los Angeles. Hollywood had its first studio by 1911 and its first prominent company, Universal City Studios, in 1917. Some highlights of the movie industry include the founding of Walt Disney studios (1923), introduction of sound in The Jazz Singer (1927), the first Oscars awarded (1929), the first drive-in movie theater (1933), premier of Gone With the Wind (1939), the first multiplex theatre (1962), arrival of the VCR (1975), Ted Turner’s takeover of Metro Goldwyn Mayer (MGM)/United Artists (1986), Time Warner’s purchase of CNN (1996), the DVD (1997), and Time-Warner merger with internet giant America-On-Line (2000). Hollywood companies had advantages that led to dominance at home and abroad. The major companies forged monopolies during the 1920s, allowing them to minimize costs while maximizing profits, including showing their films in company-owned theaters. The dominance over an exceptionally large US domestic market allowed companies an economy of scale in production costs. In 1999, the domestic box office take totaled $7.5 billion (US Census Bureau, 2002a: 1244), and was boosted by the growing income from worldwide distribution with foreign television systems broadcasting everincreasing numbers of American films and television shows. The top 100 films of all time produced by Hollywood had taken in $19.2 billion in US ticket sales and $37.6 billion worldwide by 2001. And yet, the costs of filmmaking have increased beyond receipts, with an average production cost per movie in 1997 of $53.4 million. Despite the 1.5 billion tickets and $8.3 billion in box office receipts in the United States in 2001 (Waxman, 2002), Hollywood is only profitable because of home video sales and the so-called “tie-in” merchandizing of toys, shirts, and other spin-offs. Teenage girls became the largest market in the mid-1990s, and their tendency to see movies over and over fueled the move from action films to romantic comedies. Films such as box office leader Titanic (1997), with a sales of over $600 million – excluding videos and tie-ins – combined history, myth, action and romance, even if most girls paid primarily to swoon over heartthrob Leonardo DiCaprio.

192


Radio American radio has not lost its popular appeal. Radio was first broadcast commercially in the 1920s and, by 1935, almost every family owned a receiver. The radio helped immigrants learn English, the language of the airwaves, and unified the population. Perhaps the most famous use of the radio was by President Franklin Roosevelt, whose “fireside chats” in the Depression and World War II helped the nation through hard times. Two other highlights include the live broadcast of the arrival and “on-air” explosion of the German airship Hindenburg in New Jersey in 1937 and the 1938 transmission, without explanation, of the H. G. Wells’s novel, The War of the Worlds – a broadcast that caused panic and hysteria in listeners who thought the earth was actually under attack by spacemen from Mars. In contemporary America, there are over 10,000 radio stations operating nationwide and every major city has dozens of stations. The most successful radio group in 1997, CBS, operated 166 stations and took in over $1.5 billion in advertising revenues. Three other groups were bigger than CBS, with a combined 675 stations, but the profits were less. There are many public radio stations, operated mostly on college campuses or by National Public Radio (NPR), an association funded primarily by private subscriptions. NPR presents high quality programming and news specials similar to those presented by its television counterpart, the Public Broadcasting System (PBS). “Talk radio” began in 1970 and proliferated in the 1980s with the explicit sexual commentary of Howard Stern, who has been the subject of a made-for-TV movie. Americans like to listen to the radio while they work in the yard, sit by the pool, or ride in the car – that is anytime they are away from the television. Those who tune in to talk shows have the opportunity to make the radio an interactive medium simply by calling the host and expressing an opinion – the more outrageous the opinion, the more likely to get it aired. The hit television show Frasier is a sitcom revolving around the antics of Dr. Frasier Crane, a Seattle, Washington, radio psychiatrist who dispenses advice to callers with broken hearts or other problems.

Television In 2000, the newest American television family had a history professor father, a beautician mother, four children aged 9–14, a mini-van, and lived in the suburbs. The Brothers Garcia, which aired on the

Culture

193

kid’s cable channel Nickelodeon, featured a middle class Latino family and an all-Latino cast. The cable channels Fox, Disney, and Showtime quickly grasped the danger of losing a big part of their markets and started producing Latino shows of their own – all in English with Spanish subtitles. This change in programming reflects the $452 billion in purchasing power among the growing Latino population in the United States in 2000 and the ability of cable TV to target audiences (Russakoff, 2000). France experimented with television in the early 1900s but the phenomenon grew fastest in the US, with 23 stations broadcasting in 1940 and 98 in 1950. In 1951, experimental broadcasts in color began and the first simultaneous coast-to-coast broadcast marked the rise of mass culture with its everyone-knows-this-at-the-same-moment phenomenon. By 1960, nine out of ten American families owned a TV set. Mass culture was reinforced by the dominance of three national channels: CBS, NBC, and ABC. Ted Turner pioneered cable TV in the mid-1970s and within 10 years operated nationwide; in 1980, Turner pioneered Cable News Network (CNN), bringing continuous news simultaneously to a worldwide audience. Music Television (MTV) arrived in 1980 and appealed to youth culture in style and structure. Other channels proliferated each with its own targeted audiences. Television became even more popular with programs aimed at specific interests. By 1990, 98 percent of American households had at least one television set; many had three or more. Cable TV and video cassette recorders diversified programs and democratized viewing styles. Watching television became more participatory and interactive as the Box 7.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Top Ten Primetime Shows, September–December 2001

Friends (situation comedy) National Football League Summary (sports) E R [Emergency Room] (hospital drama) CSI [Crime Scene Investigation] (reality TV) Everybody Loves Raymond (situation comedy) Law and Order (crime drama) West Wing (political drama) Survivor (physical competition) NFL Monday Night Football (sports) Becker (police drama)

Source:

AC Nielsen Media Research (2002).

194


remote control and VCRs empowered viewers. Viewers recorded and deleted at will and gained flexibility in “time-shifting” schedules of work and play, becoming less dependent on broadcast schedules. American adults watch an average of four hours of television daily; the most popular primetime shows are listed in Box 7.2.

Government Activities Americans are content to leave the media to private businesses because they view government ownership as unacceptable to freedom of speech and freedom in general. The nearly 1,200 commercial television stations are paid for by advertisers or by cable subscriptions. Much commercial broadcasting is “trash TV” because the profit motive makes it focus on the lowest common denominator in order to maximize audience appeal and because of the sheer number of hours of broadcast time to fill. There are also high-quality programs and a wide range of more specialized channels, like Discovery, which concentrates on nature and scientific phenomena. Americans also support nearly 350 public television stations, broadcasting locally or regionally. The Public Broadcasting Service, founded in 1967, is nonprofit and educational, has no advertising, and is funded by small contributions from thousands of viewers, big foundation grants, and government support. Even while believing in private ownership and freedom of speech, most Americans want the government to safeguard children from the programming of a violent, dirty language or sexual content. From the beginning Hollywood created controversy; in 1915, the US Supreme Court refused to ban the showing of The Birth of a Nation (1915), a film upholding the virtues of the Ku Klux Klan while stereotyping African Americans as brutish. When in the 1930s Hollywood introduced a production code to self-censor its films, films became bland and ridiculous, to the extent of only showing married couples as sleeping in twin beds in the same room. In 1947, during the apex of the Red Scare, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) investigated Hollywood for liberal films and attitudes that were claimed to reflect and influence people toward communism. Americans still debate the effects of television on behavior and generally believe that some impressionable viewers mimic what they see on TV. Technology allows parents to block certain channels or shows and the violence-chip (V-chip) lets parents eliminate the recep-

Culture

195

tion of all programs with a rating inappropriate for children. Americans also worry over racial and gender stereotyping. While Americans debate matters, the entertainment industry has been allowed to police itself, providing programs and instituting a rating system to safeguard minors and to provide information to adults on film contents. In 1999 President Clinton warned Hollywood that it would have to clean up its practices of advertising and making violent movies aimed at an audience of children. For example, labelling materials as unsuitable for children under 15 (R-rated) or 18 (Xrated) does not help much if R- and X-rated advertisements are interspersed with regular programming on MTV. In line with the First Amendment protection of freedom of the press, there is no government regulation on what is broadcast, only on who is allowed to broadcast. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), an independent regulatory agency created by Congress in 1934, has five members appointed by the president to grant station licenses, maintain an acceptable – non-pornographic broadcast – and regulate media ownership. The FCC requires stations to operate under an “Equal Opportunities Rule” which gives equal time to political candidates and a “Reasonable Access Rule” giving time for dissenting views on important issues. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 relaxed restrictions on media ownership from a limit of 12 television and 40 radio stations by a single company to allow mergers up to a maximum control of 35 percent of the nationwide television market. There is no limit on the radio market, except that radio conglomerates can own only eight stations in any particular overlapping market area. The Telecommunications Act reduced diversity and brought more homogenity to mass media. And yet, since 1998, cable television has pushed the boundaries with wildly successful shows like Sex and the City, focusing on the sexual appetites of four successful single women in New York; Will and Grace, presenting a sanitized relationship between a gay man and a straight woman; The Sopranos, depicting a Mafia family leading a middle-class life in New Jersey; Queer as Folk, showing candor about the sexual behavior of five gay men; and Six Feet Under, focusing on a dysfunctional Los Angeles family which owns a funeral home. Naturally, the world also gets much of what it knows about American culture from these and other shows aired nightly worldwide: Baywatch, Oprah, Letterman, Friends, and all the others.

196


The World Wide Web The internet was born in 1969 as a Department of Defense project linking research universities. In 1993 only 50 websites existed worldwide; by 2002, there were millions of sites and billions of users as the internet became the fastest growing technology worldwide. In 1999, 63 percent of American adults used the web for an average of six hours a week, excluding time spent sending and receiving e-mail (Harris Poll, 1999a). Ninety-five percent of the nation’s public schools have been connected to the net and two-thirds of all teachers incorporate net sources into their teaching. In 2000, American females surpassed American males in using the internet, with the largest single user group being 12–17-year-old girls attracted to teen magazines and chatrooms (Walker, 2000). The internet has spread American culture faster than ever, raising protests that while international, the internet feels awfully American. Maybe it is just that the form is informal, consumer-oriented, competitive, individualistic, disrespectful, decentralized, and diverse – all stereotypical American characteristics. The internet claims to democratize information, knocking down the walls of class, caste, and nationalism. The World Bank suggests an “end of geography” as information technology (IT) brings economic progress to isolated countries (Knowlton, 1999). That is a bold prediction especially in the face of the real danger of a growing technological gap between the “wired world” and the third world, unwired; for example, in Africa, only Egypt and South Africa have enough phone lines to take advantage of IT. Many commentators express fears about a digital divide and a widening income gap at home too, as the rich have access and the poor do not. The US government has been quick to place its services on the web. In September 2000, www.firstgov.gov provided a single source site to access 20,000 separate government sites with 27 million federal agency web pages and a half-billion particular documents. Users can access federal trial transcripts, reserve a campground in a national park, file tax returns, apply for citizenship or a green card, or check Social Security benefits. The web has made the government more responsive; for example, someone trying to get federal benefits, such as food stamps, can just type in “food stamps” without knowing the particular federal agency in charge. “The problem [in the past] has been finding the information,” one government official said, “It has been like a library without a card catalog” (Dart, 2000). This has

Culture

197

changed, for unlike government offices, www.firstgov.gov never closes. The FCC, in attempting to ensure fair access to communications systems, has taken a leading role in helping American Indian tribal governments link-up to the web. The FCC also facilitates internet access through its Link-Up America and Lifeline Assistance programs which pays up to 100 percent of the costs for low income users. The internet is likely to become a channel for access to entertainment media and this has led to inititatives by existing mass media companies anxious to safeguard their advertising and other revenues. Moving mass media to the web, Microsoft’s Bill Gates signed a deal organizing the Microsoft NBC (MSNBC) sites. Disney and other companies have also been quick to establish their own websites, including the multi-million dollar purchase of Infoseek stock by Disney in 1998. Since the wealthiest households with disposable income are also the ones with internet, advertising dollars and consumer selectivity will move increasingly to the popular culture of the worldwide web. Newspapers and magazines have also moved to the web, providing electronic publications in an attempt to keep subscribers and advertisers. The transition is painful as Time-Warner found out in losing millions while trying to convert People, Sports Illustrated, and Money magazines into websites. Newspapers have been more successful because of the ability to deliver timely news nearly as fast as, and sometimes faster than, television and because of search engines that allow readers to dip backward into electronic archives for previous stories. High-school and college students, writers, and teachers are supporting the archives by paying a “per view” fee for articles. The internet has caused much controversy among Americans primarily due to the proliferation of “hate” and pornography sites and their accessibility to children with a natural curiousity or who accidentally access a link. The Ku Klux Klan and affiliates have many pages on the web, chatrooms proliferate with racial and ethnic slurs, and graphically illustrative sex sites present material previously available only on video cassettes or in sex clubs. There have been many legal challenges to these sites but the courts have upheld the First Amendment’s free speech and free press guarantees.

198


Sports Media mogul Ted Turner, who has already given $200 million of a promised $1 billion personal donation to the United Nations, once stated that sports and television are the vehicles for globalization. He should know. The developer of cable television is the owner of two professional sports franchises, the Atlanta Braves baseball and Atlanta Hawks basketball teams. Turner broadcasts all Braves and Hawks games on his – now Time Warner/Turner – stations. As a result, the Atlanta Braves have a nationwide following of fans because their frequent appearance on television gives viewers a chance to learn their names and identify with Turner’s promotion of “America’s Team.” Of course it did not hurt that the team was the National League’s dominant team of the 1990s, something Turner guaranteed with capital investment in the best players. Turner also invented and owns exclusive broadcast rights to the “Goodwill Games” which are played at the midpoint between Olympic competitions. Americans love sports and have actively participated in organized games since the middle of the nineteenth century. The world’s foremost yachting race, the America’s Cup, began in 1851 and baseball, which can be traced to the English game of “rounders,” rose to prominence during the American Civil War. For the most part, Americans play the games of the world – including a 1996 Olympic Gold Medal and 1999 World Cup victory for the US Women’s Soccer Team. But there are a number of sports particularly associated with America, such as baseball, basketball, and American football, whose final games – the World Series, National Basketball Association Championships, and Super Bowl – are broadcast worldwide. Baseball pits one man with a bat in his hand against a team of men ready to put him out. It represents the individual in competition against other men in one-on-one situations where no one can interfere to help the player succeed or fail. The game is highly-nuanced and every play has a winner and a loser. The man who “wins” hits the home run, strikes out the batter, steals second base, or makes the game-winning catch near the wall in left field; the loser swings and misses, fails to catch the ball, shows bad judgment by throwing the wrong pitch or being caught off base. One team wins and one team loses, but the credit is given to a “hero” and failure is blamed on a “goat.” The size of the player is irrelevant but the skill of the player is all important. Time is not a factor and game length depends on how

Culture

199

long it takes to play nine innings, as measured by the success or failure of individuals to get base hits or to make outs. Baseball is orderly and appeals to the American legal sense as an umpire rules on every single action of the game. Baseball is played on grass and the generally slow speed of the action reflects the pre-industrial pace of life and offers a respite from the hurried world of urban living. Softball has basically the same rules and feel of baseball and is played by women as well as men. Basketball is more chaotic and represents a Rock-’n’-Roll society in the movement of players, constantly in motion, racing up and down the court at extremely high speed. Time matters and is highlighted on the scoreboard, with stopwatch precision down to hundreths of seconds. Unlike baseball, physical size matters. Basketball began as a way to Americanize immigrants by organizing boys and girls into teams. It was invented in 1891 by James Naismith at a Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) meeting in Springfield, Massachusetts, and quickly spread to Settlement Houses where immigrants lived. American football is played by precise rules on a field laid out in grids. Each play has been completely rehearsed in long days of practice and is activated in particular situations and against the opposing team´s specific alignment and personnel. Football is violent and the game depends on the gain and loss of territory (Schrank, 1995). As in basketball, size matters. There is a certain lawlessness to the game with 22 players all in motion, pushing and shoving, and trying to gain advantage by breaking the rules – something almost impossible to do in baseball. The corporate mentality of the team counts more, and individuals must submerge their own glory so that the group can penetrate most deeply into the opposing group’s side of the field in order to score the most points and win the game. Movement is characterized in military terms as in “throwing the bomb,” “the ground attack,” and “shredding the defense” (Kanfer, 1995: 382). Baseball, basketball, and football are games played by a wide variety of Americans at many levels. To Americans, success in sports represents the faith that individuals and teams have an equal opportunity to win, but that hard work and merit lifts some above others. Sometimes the underdog can beat the champion – even the greatest athletes lose about half the time. The games are highly-institutionalized rituals which combine Christianity, capitalism, and politics. Every American school has weekly physical education classes organized around these, and other, sports – such as volleyball, tennis,

200


swimming, field hockey, and soccer. Every town of any size has organized baseball and basketball leagues where people from six to sixty years old can compete. The Friday-night high-school or Saturdayafternoon college football games, with their ferocious emphasis on winning, bring communities, social classes, and ethnic groups together to worship the home team at a level approaching religious belief in nearly all parts of the country. Teams and heroes in each sport become mythical, legendary, and historical. American writers often invoke sports in their novels and Hollywood produces movies highlighting a particular team, league, and player, including a scene of a game or ballpark. Professional teams are unmistakenly big business, act as rallying points for civic pride, provide mass culture and Americanization, and fill television airways. And players’ salaries make sports one of the most lucrative occupations in the world; for example, in 2001, 25-year-old superstar Alex Rodriguez became the highest paid athlete in sports history by agreeing to a ten-year contract of $252 million to play baseball for the Texas Rangers – the team formerly owned by President George W. Bush (Sheinin, 2000). Sports has been central to definitions of American masculinity and has long been seen as crucial to the development of manliness. Until very recently when feminism has shown women as strong, able, and competitive, sporting women were stereotyped as unfeminine or lesbian. Women and men are still generally segregated by teams and leagues. Males who are not fanatical about sports or who do not favor a particular team often have their masculinity questioned. Race has also been an issue, with African Americans and Native Americans historically excluded from participation and spectatorship at university and professional levels. For to include them – and to have them excel – questioned the rules of racial heirarchy and “master race” theories which long dominated American society. Sports has advanced equality in recent years as college and professional teams have been integrated or opened to women’s sports. Minority groups and women have increasingly participated in even the most class-based sports of golf and tennis, as is evidenced by the rise of Tiger Woods and Nancy Lopez in golf and the Williams sisters (Venus and Serena) in tennis. Recent studies show that the chance to compete for status and income in sporting venues has kept many children focused on finishing high school. Additionally, American sports spectatorship strengthens family by its orientation of adults attending games with children. This may help explain the lack of fan violence that punctuates games in other countries.

Culture

201

The Arts Few, if any, cities contain more art museums than New York City. The Museum of Modern Art, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Henry Frick Collection, Guggenheim Museum, J.P. Morgan Library, Brooklyn Museum of Art, Whitney Museum of Modern Art, and Museum of the American Indian are just a few of the better known, world-class collections. While these museums reflect New York’s tastes in high culture, the city by no means has a monopoly in that area. Every American city of medium size has its own list of high culture sites. American painting originally patterned itself after European models in portraiture and in the romantic landscape renderings of the Hudson River School. Most prominent American artists were traditionalists, such as Winslow Homer, Thomas Eakins, and James McNeil Whistler, who studied abroad and combined portraiture with landscape. In the 1930s a modernist group, the Ashcan School, realistically painted the crowded streets and confusion of urban America. Edward Hopper’s depictions of the solitude of city life are wellknown. Then American art came into its own in the 1940s with public recognition and influence worldwide when Jackson Pollock began to drip paint over canvases and Andy Warhol depicted celebrities and consumer products. Pollock and others in the “New York School” who let their unconscious direct their creations came to be known as abstract expressionists. Shunning all legible symbolism, Pollock explained, “I am not aware of what is taking place. . . . It is only after [I have painted] that I see what I have done” (quoted in Tallack, 2000: 261). Warhol’s depictions of soup cans, Elvis Presley, and Marilyn Monroe, exploited popular culture icons and was dubbed “pop art.” Walter Rauschenburg used recognizable items, including tires and toy animals and pictures of John Kennedy to construct collages mocking abstract expressionism but still asking for interpretation of a chaotic culture. American arts are primarily self-sufficient, supported more by businesses than government. Americans have long been resistant to the use of public funding for the arts, insisting that fans of different styles should support their own causes. Contributions by philanthropic groups such as the Pew Charitable Trust, the John T. and Catherine D. MacArthur, Rockefeller, Carnegie, George Soros, Bill and Melinda Gates, and Henry Ford foundations plus individual donations raise most of the money needed to build theaters, museums, and collections in the United States. For example, the

202


famous Lincoln Center for Performing Arts in New York, which is home to the Metropolitan Opera and New York Philharmonic Orchestra receives all but five percent of its funding from private gifts, advertising revenues, and ticket sales. Even the museums and libraries in Washington, D.C., such as the American History Museum, National Air and Space Museum, Holocaust Museum, Natural History Museum, Library of Congress, and the National Portrait Gallery are supported primarily by private donations. In the category of large donations, for example, John Kluge, the founder of the global telecommunications company Metromedia, donated $73 million to the Library of Congress in 2000 and philanthropist Kenneth Behring gave the Museum of American History $80 million and the Natural History Museum $20 million in 1997 (Weeks, 2000). For the fiscal year 2000, Americans donated more than $200 million in cash gifts to the national museums in Washington. One of the reasons Americans distrust government funding of museums is because of the irresistable temptation by politicians to censor art for personal reasons and political gains. In February 2001, New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani announced that he was freezing the city’s annual multi-million dollar subsidy to the Brooklyn Museum of Art because a photography exhibit contained a picture offensive to his tastes. The exhibit showcased the work of 94 contemporary African American artists, but the picture Giuliani focused on was Renee Cox’s “Yo Mama’s Last Supper” which depicts Jesus as a naked woman surrounded by 12 black apostles. The picture highlights the Catholic Church’s refusal to recognize women and minorities. “Why can’t a woman be Christ?” Cox asked (AP, 2001d). Giuliani tried the same manuever in 1999 to prevent the display of a picture showing an elephant-dung covered Virgin Mary. As usual, when these cases reached federal courts, the judges upheld the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech to overrule censorship and restore funding. The courts uphold the maxim that the people can and must choose for themselves. America does not have a national policy concerning the arts, but allows a tax deduction for contributions to non-profit organizations, a figure which averaged nearly $1.1 billion per year in the 1990s. In the 1960s Congress created the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), to provide government grants to individual artists and researchers. In 1998, the total funding was $179 million, down from $303 million in 1995, due

Culture

203

to budget slashing by the Republican Congress (US Census Bureau, 2000: 265). Concert halls and major orchestras began with the New York Philharmonic (1842). By the beginning of the twentieth century, every major city had its own orchestra, dominated by European compositions and conductors. Today the US has some 1,500 orchestras, including at least 40 world-class symphonies and nearly as many Americans go to hear the orchestras as attend professional baseball games. There are also more than 400 ballet and 100 opera companies.

Popular Music More than perhaps any other medium, American popular music has become the leading agent of globalization and cultural imperialism as the world is tuned in to American rhythms. The music industry is very big business, perhaps the biggest. It is perfect capitalism, creating a market and supplying the product. The pop music craze exploded in the 1950s and 1960s as television brought stardom to musicians and bands and as technology produced affordable record players for the adolescents of the Baby Boom era. There had always been Native American music, slave songs in the fields, and political tunes to help the country through the various wars, but mostly, music was confined to religious observances or played at large community gatherings. With the rise of American imperialism in the late-nineteenth century, military music and marching bands played the nationalistic music of John Philip Sousa. Black marching bands in New Orleans took up this movement, mixed in the Blues of slave songs and developed not only Jazz, but a music with a special “ragged” beat, Ragtime – two forms that emphasized both the modern and the exotic. Jazz spread quickly to Europe after World War I, developing from instrumental creations to the vocal patterns of Billie Holiday, Charlie Parker, and Louis Armstrong. The Depression and World War II brought in Swing, with the big band sound of Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, and Duke Ellington. Patriotic folk ballads of hard work, heroism, and sacrifice were also popularized by the likes of Woodie Guthrie. Country music arose during the Depression in the poorest white sections of rural America in the Appalachian Mountain region of Tennessee and Kentucky. Stories of coal miners, cheating hearts, and “poor-white-but-proud” lyrics expressed the reality many lived. After

204


Illustration 7.1

When Elvis Met Nixon

On 21 December 1970, superstar Elvis Presley made an unscheduled visit to the White House, where he asked President Richard Nixon to deputize him as a federal marshall in the administration’s war on drugs. (21 Dec 1970, Nixon Presidential Materials, NARA).

Roy Acuff and his Smoky Mountain Boys became the preeminent live music radio show in America, the genre spread. Hank Williams, Sr., became the first true star with his songs about hard drinking and hard loving; his death at age 29 from a mixture of alcohol and pills increased the fame of Country music (HOF, 2002). Loretta Lynn, Willie Nelson, Johnny Cash, Dolly Parton, and Garth Brooks have so popularized the form, that it remains the number-one format for radio stations in twenty-first-century America. A momentous change came when African-American Blues patterns merged with white Country music’s lead guitar to produce Rock-’n’Roll. The youth rebellion was on as Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, Bill Haley, and Elvis Presley (Illustration 7.1) mixed sexual innuendo with a fast pace which crossed the Atlantic to inspire the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. The Beatles played romantic love songs, while the Stones endorsed sexual intercourse without the need for commitment. Young people began to live for the music, an addiction that is still obvious. Rock-’n’-Roll helped provide the vehicle for the youth

Culture

205

culture protesting the Vietnam War and the conformity of the older generation. Rock-’n’-Roll, and later Rock, became as much an attitude as a music form. Many adults criticized the beat and lyrics as immoral, depraved, and way too loud. Cultural critic Allan Bloom has lambasted Rock as a “barbaric appeal to sexual desire” which destroys the hearer’s ability to reason due to its drug-like effects (Bloom, 1987: 73). At the same time, James Brown, Aretha Franklin, and Wilson Pickett sang the lyrics in a slower, deeper manner called Soul. Folk singers such as Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, and Pete Seeger mixed ballads, spirituals and Rock into protest music. George Clinton and others mixed Soul with Jazz to produce an urban syncopation called Funk. In the 1970s and 1980s, Michael Jackson became the “King of Pop” with his dance steps, adolescent voice, and tender lyrics. In the 1980s and 1990s, Madonna – with more number-one hits than anyone ever – criticized the materialism, racism, sexual prudery, and religious hypocrisies of American culture while hooking the world on that culture. Rap, or Hip Hop, sprang out of street culture to expand the vocabulary of the inner city into common use. Quickly, middle-class African Americans who had never been in gangs, such as Niggaz4Life, Run-DMC, and Public Enemy took over. Rap’s biggest audience is white suburban teenagers who seek the runaway thrills of gangbanging, drugs, guns, and crime without any risk to themselves. These fans particularly admire white rapper Eminem, who through his use of misogynist, raunchy, homophobic and violent lyrics, has given them a way to express adolescent rage and confusion (Harris, 2000). Even though Eminem confuses the issue, basically rappers and record producers use an escalating image of violent and defiant black males to increase their white audience, who use these images of blackness to define their difference, their whiteness (Samuels, 1991: 284–8). Another view explains Rap as cultural expression whereby black musicians explode the racial stereotypes by exaggerating them into parody (Gates, 1990: 295). But is Rap obscene? The Supreme Court has defined “obscenity” as something undeniably offensive to the average person and which contains no serious artistic value. Courts and juries are left to decide matters on a case-by-case basis. Generally the courts have found rappers “not guilty” because of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. In 1997 the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Federal Communications Decency Act (1996), which made it a crime

206


to put “indecent” material on the internet. Rappers have used this decision to be “As Nasty As They Wanna Be” – as the highly controversial 2 Live Crew album did. With the surge of South American immigrants during the past decade, American music is making another change to the electric pulses and rhythms of Christina Aguilera, Ricky Martin, and Jennifer Lopez. In contemporary America, music is everywhere, assimilating the people or shaping them as surely as does the English language. American culture is a created culture which relies on newness and change for vibrancy. That vibrancy continues the expansion of American culture into the global arena.

8 The Economy

Whether for good or evil, the United States is the capital of capitalism with the largest and most powerful economy in the world, a gross domestic product (GDP) estimated at $10.7 trillion, and a per capita GDP of $37,300 for 2002 (Economist, 2001: 84). The state of California itself had the world’s fourth-largest economy – after Britain and ahead of France – at $1.33 trillion in 2001 (Purdum, 2001). The national economy benefits from the country’s favorable geographical location, which provides an abundance of agricultural products to the internal market, as well as makes the United States the world’s largest exporter of food and foodstuffs. Additionally, the nation’s energy reserves, timberlands, river systems, ocean harbors, and the world’s sixth-largest fishing fleet make the country virtually self-sufficient. The US population enjoys one of the highest living standards in the world in relation to income and material goods. This combines with the sheer numbers of citizens to create a huge economy based on mass production and mass consumption. In 2000, US citizens reported a total taxable income of $8.3 trillion, or $7 trillion after taxes (US Census Bureau, 2002a: 646). Americans have voracious appetites for all products domestic and foreign and the enormity of their purchasing power can cause a recession or surge in the world economy according to their rates of spending. The total work force stands at 140 million people and there continues to be a demand for more workers even though increased immigration in the late 1990s has eased the situation. The economy has also been favored by the historical circumstances of a nation born in modern times, being physically removed from the arenas of two world wars, enjoying the expansion of English as the 207

208


global language, and benefiting from the technological inventiveness of thousands of immigrants. Other factors have formed the American philosophy of the market, including the Protestant or Puritan work ethic, a strong belief in education and research, 200 years of basically stable government – even the four years of Civil War advanced the American economy – and the creative tension between individual freedom and state responsibility. The government has generally operated on laissez-faire and free-market principles of Scottish economist Adam Smith, whose 1776 book The Wealth of Nations shared the natural law philosophy in Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. Agreeing with Smith that individual self-interest would promote the general welfare, government has limited its intervention into business dealings, which, in turn, has given rise to entrepreneurship and has led most Americans to focus on their specific “pursuit of happiness.” Additionally, the Hegelian concept that all individuals are in a struggle for recognition in which they want to be acknowledged as free agents with important and intrinsic individual worth is crucial to the philosophy of capitalism and to the workers who make the wealth. Beyond attaining the essentials for life itself, economic motivations are part of the desire to be recognized, whether that be by governments, entrepreneurs, or workers. The United States has been the most consistently bourgeois nation on earth since its founding.

The US Domestic Economy The American Work Force In 2000, nearly 134 million Americans, age 16 and over, were employed in the labor force, 6 million were unemployed, and 69 million were “not looking for work” (BLS, 2000a). The 4 percent unemployment rate matched a 30-year low. Of those employed, women held 46.5 percent of the jobs and men 54.5 percent. Median weekly earnings for full-time workers averaged $566 and differed substantially by education level: those with less than a high-school degree averaged $363; those with a high-school diploma $504; and those with a university degree $892 (BLS, 2000b). During a working career, a college graduate earns an average of $600,000 more than a high-school graduate; a PhD adds another half million dollars (Hacker, 1997: 213). A gender gap exists as women made about $550 for every $1,000 made by men. Part-time versus full-time employ-

The Economy

209

ment, pink-collar jobs, and historical factors of discrimination and less education account for this difference. Strikingly, the pay for “never married” women with full-time jobs was $1,005 for every $1,000 made by men (Hacker, 1997: 186). For American families, the median annual household income was $40,816, or about $600 a week after taxes (BLS, 2000b). Nearly two-thirds of all families had both husband and wife working and those families had a median income of just over $50,000 (BLS, 1999). These numbers represent virtual full employment and it is hard to imagine that unemployment rates could be further reduced. A rate of 5.5–6 percent is considered normal due to changes in employment caused by moving; a lower rate is generally seen as furthering inflation. The changes in welfare provision from AFDC to TANF (see pp. 178–9) have forced those who were “getting by” on transfer incomes to enter the labor force. On the other hand, there is a core group of hard-to-reach teenagers and young-twentyish adults who do not have and are not looking for jobs. These high-school dropouts live with relatives or in gangs on the street and refuse to take minimum wage jobs. Only 54 of 100 teenagers without a high-school diploma were employed; and among African American dropouts, only 23 in 100 had full-time jobs (Herbert, 2001). Many of these people end up in the criminal justice system; in 2001, 2 percent of the overall male labor force was in prison. The United States has had a federally-mandated minimum wage since 1938, when it was set by Congress at $0.25 an hour. In 2000, all full-time workers over 18 years old were guaranteed at least $5.15 an hour; those under 18, or those in jobs where tips made up a large part of their salaries, might receive less. At minimum wage, a full-time (40-hour-a-week) worker would make $206 a week before taxes. Moreover, 10 states have laws putting minimum wages above the national requirement. Oregon and Washington set it at $6.50, Connecticut at $6.40, and California at $5.75, for example. Most businesses pay higher wages than are required by law, usually about $7 an hour for beginners. In 2000 the average hourly pay for all US wage and salaried workers was $16.17 an hour (AP, 2000e). Overtime for wage labor is paid at 1.5 to 2 times the hourly rate; in 2000, the average worker took home three hours of overtime pay per week. The employment status of those over age 16 is summarized in Table 8.1. One in three American workers say that they are “overwhelmed” with the amount of work required of them (Joyner, 2001). Technological advances have speeded and expanded production

210


Table 8.1

Employment Status for Citizens over Age 16 (1999) (millions: 71.5 = 71,500,000) Employed

Unemployed

Not in Labor Force

Male Female White Black Hispanic Asian

71.5 62.0 112.2 15.1 13.7 5.2

3.1 2.8 4.3 1.3 .9 .2

25.2 43.2 56.6 8.5 7.0 2.7

Total

133.5

5.9

32.9

Note: Source:

Numbers vary slightly due to non- or double-reporting in racial categories. US Census Bureau, 2000: 645.

output while reducing the workforce needed to operate production lines. Companies have generally “downsized” the number of employees while asking workers to increase output by working faster and longer. Part of the problem has been that personal consumption – with high home mortgages and transportation costs – and the fears of an economic slowdown make workers work harder to prove their worth to the company. Those who have worked long hours hope to be among those retained if and when downsizing comes. Of course, this is a numbers game as two in three workers do not feel overwhelmed, say that they are satisfied with their jobs, and do not fear layoffs (Harris Poll, 2000d). Beyond the job, technology is affecting work hours as e-mail, voice recorders, and cellphones allow work to spill over into home life. Additionally, the average two-way commute nationwide adds 48 minutes to the workday. For those working in big cities like New York and living in the suburbs, commutes can often total 1.5 hours each way. About 15 percent of the work force is in motion in any given year, selling their skills in the labor marketplace to the highest bidder as they change employers and geographical locations. Relocations stimulate the economy but also increase stress as workers compete for bigger prizes. Most workers sign yearly or long-term contracts and expect annual pay increases based upon inflation and merit promotions. The notion of merit, not inheritance, is long-standing in the country’s history as Americans accept that there will be winners and losers. The father of the Constitution, James Madison, called the

The Economy

211

unequal distribution of property a natural truth arising from disparities in human talent. That idea continues to resonate. In fact, most Americans display more anger at welfare payments to poor families than to the extreme wealth of the privileged class. The economic system intertwines with the social system and operates under the same philosophy as the general culture. In the world of white-collar jobs, a winner-take-all system has come into play in the past two decades. A “star system” exists where the top performers accumulate pay and prestige, making outrageously high salaries and stock options that skew the distribution of wealth. In 1974 a company’s chief executive averaged 35 times more than the average worker; in 1995, the multiple was 120 times (Lind, 1995). For much of American history, land was the essential source of wealth. In contemporary America it is human capital in knowledge, skill, and starpower. There are lesser stars, too, making double or triple the salaries of their colleagues in similar jobs. College professors, for example, who win a Pulitzer or Nobel Prize or whose books win fame turn that recognition into hard cash as universities compete to get them for their faculties. Stars attract money, so to pay Oprah Winfrey, Mel Gibson, or Disney President Michael Eisner for their talent does not dismay most Americans, even though when most of the money goes to one individual in any enterprise, there is much less to divide among the others. During the 1990s, real disparities in pay increased as the primary and secondary stars received lavish pay packages while the weaker or unacknowledged workers got only cost-of-living increases that kept pace – or failed to keep up – with inflation.

Taxes Most Americans detest the idea of high taxes. “No taxation without representation” was a rallying cry that helped spur the American Revolution. Since then, Americans have decided to keep as much of their income as possible and to accept fewer government services. The first income tax was established to finance the American Civil War and was phased out in 1872. Excise taxes and tariffs funded the government until federal income taxes came into being with the 16th Amendment (1913). Those first taxes were set progressively at 1 percent for incomes over $3,000 and rose to 7 percent for those over $500,000. Since 1913, there has been an ongoing debate over the fairness of a progressive tax system. The Tax Reform Act of 1986

212


reflected this discussion and tightened the percentages by reducing the rates on the richest earners. This still meant that, by 1997, the 6 percent of US taxpayers with incomes over $100,000 were paying 55 percent of the total income tax (Friedman, 2000). There is much support for a “flat tax” which would, for example, put a 25 percent tax on all income above $40,000, with no deductions allowed. So far, Americans have chosen to reform, but retain, the progressive system. In addition to the national tax, all but seven states, including Texas and Florida, levy state income tax at varying levies – up to 12 percent in North Dakota. Cities and counties also tax residents, usually at rates below 2 percent. Additionally, Americans pay excise taxes on purchases of gasoline, alcohol, and cigarettes. They also pay state sales taxes ranging from 4–7 percent. In 1986 President Reagan persuaded Congress to cut taxes on the highest income groups in line with his belief in supply-side economic theory that high taxes and government regulations limited economic enterprise. Believing that deficit spending could stimulate the economy, Reagan paid little attention to the rising federal debt as he lavishly supported the defense industry. Whether his economic plan was correct or not is difficult to assess, but the United States enjoyed a huge business expansion from 1983–89. The country also had a greater national debt after eight years under Reagan than had been accumulated in its entire history. George Bush continued Reagan’s policies, but when the economy hit a small recession as the Cold War ended and markets adjusted, Bush approved a tax increase that ultimately led to voter disapproval and his re-election defeat. Bill Clinton was favored by eight years of economic growth, the longest period of continuous growth in US history. Some analysts credit this to Reagan’s policies and see the Clinton boom as part of a 17-year-long expansion (1983–2000). From 1998 to 2000 a booming economy provided huge tax revenues and a three straight years of budget surpluses, totalling $456.2 billion as the government spent less than it took in (Aversa, 2000). Many argued that the windfall should be used to reduce the $3.63 trillion national debt (1999 figure), others wanted to bankroll the social security system, and some wanted tax refunds and tax cuts (Solow, 2000). Upon taking office in 2001, George W. Bush’s overriding concern was to provide a tax cut to stimulate the economy, to return the surplus, and to win support from Americans who like to get a check in the mail. Bush proposed $1.6 trillion, but Congress cut it to – and it is worth putting in all the zeros – $1,350,000,000,000. In addition

The Economy

213

to sending each American taxpayer a refund averaging $300, the Tax Relief Act of 2001 further reduced rates on the top and middleincome brackets. By 2006 the top rate is set to be 35 percent and the bottom rate 10 percent (Rosenbaum, 2001). Whether that cut can be maintained is difficult to predict. Worldwide, in 2002, economic growth was sluggish and analysts watched to see if American consumers could once again buy their way out of the recession. Since consumer spending accounts for roughly two-thirds of the total US GDP, most analysts look for signs of vitality in the shopping malls (AP, 2001e). Some economists boldly predicted a worldwide depression, and, in the aftermath of September 11, global markets fell rapidly. By mid-2002 Americans were spending at high levels but the market continued to fluctuate for reasons discussed later in this chapter. The changes in the tax rates and the costs of the war on terrorism had an expectedly large impact on the total tax revenues for the 2001 tax year (Table 8.2) as the government experienced its most dramatic revenue drop since 1946. Economists have predicted at least three years of deficit spending before the revenues catch up with expenses. The projected $5.6 trillion total surplus by 2011 has been downgraded to a mere $336 billion (Weisman, 2002).

Table 8.2 Tax Rate (%)

Individual Income Tax Rates for Year 2001 Single

15

Married (filing jointly) 0–$27,5000

0–$45,2000

27.5

$27,051–$65,5500

$45,201–$109,250

30.5

$65,551–$136,750

$109,251–$166,500

35.5

$136,751–$297,350

$166,501–$297,350

39.1

over $297,350

over $297,350

Source:

IRS, (2002).

Example: If a married couple filed a return on a combined income of $125,000, they would owe 15 percent ($6,780) for the first $45,200; 27.5 percent ($17,613.75) for the amount between $45,201–$109,250; and 30.5 percent ($4,803.75) for the rest. Their tax before deductions would be $29,197.50, or about 23.4 percent of their income.

214


Labor Unions Unless a person is self-employed there is usually tension between management and labor over levels of production, work hours, benefits, and pay. Most American workers negotiate individually with management without intermediaries. Membership in the nation’s 67 unions rose slightly in the late 1990s and reached 16.3 million members (12 percent of all workers) by January 2000. 13.5 million of those were members of the 58 unions affiliated to the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFLCIO) and the rest were divided among nine independent unions, mostly composed of teachers, police officers, university professors, and government employees (World Almanac, 2002: 148). Most unionized laborers work in traditional industrial, construction and manufacturing plants. This has been the case since unions arose in the United States in the latter half of the nineteenth century in response to large-scale industrialization, big business/monopolistic expansion, and the tidal wave of immigration which brought in cheap labor from Southern and Eastern Europe. Local craft unions existed before the American Civil War but the first major nationwide group was the Knights of Labor (KOL) which reached its zenith in the 1880s by accepting all workers into one organization. But because the KOL wanted to improve the immediate situation of pay inequities through strikes and violence, without a long-range program of reform, many craft workers founded a rival group, the AFL (1886). The AFL represented skilled trade unionism and represented all groups that organized themselves and asked to join the federation. The AFL never enrolled more than 15 percent of all American workers because of the widespread fear of socialism and a view of unions as anarchistic or un-American. Federal and state government police forces supported corporations against strikers. Additionally, the AFL suffered from a lack of cooperation from a heterogenous labor pool of varying ethnicities, races, the sheer number of available workers – including new immigrants – and a free-market ideology of individual responsibility. In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to stop big business from forming “conspiracies in restraint of trade” and to provide mechanisms for breaking apart monopolies. Pretty soon this act was turned against labor unions, who, when they went on strike, were themselves seen as “conspiracies in restraint of trade.”

The Economy

215

From the 1870s to the 1930s, union members used strikes and violence to demand changes in safety conditions, benefits, and pay. Given the general level of violence in the country, it is not surprising that the United States has had one of the bloodiest labor histories among industrialized nations. Striking workers, who were determined to get a company’s attention or prevent it from bringing in replacement workers, often resorted to the destruction of private property or even assault and murder of workers who dared cross the picket lines. The companies hired private detectives, state governors sent in police, and, sometimes, the president would authorize the use of federal troops to break up a strike. This era generally witnessed business expansion under laissez-faire rules of free-market capitalism. President Calvin Coolidge summed up the majority opinion that “The man who builds a factory, builds a temple. The man who works there, worships there” (quoted in Bittinger, 2002). Hundreds of these “worshippers” died or were arrested trying to change conditions for the working man and woman. During the Great Depression, workers unhappy with the AFL, or not qualifying for membership because they were unskilled, formed the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). The New Deal’s National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (Wagner Act) gave workers the right to collective bargaining for the first time, spurring the growth of membership in unions to 35 percent of the workforce, 12 million workers, by 1945 (Peck, 1991). Worried that labor would get too powerful, Congress passed the Taft–Hartley Act in 1947 to outlaw any “closed-shop” agreement which required employers to hire only labor union members. The act also forbade agreements requiring workers to join or be represented by unions after they were hired. In 1955, the two biggest unions joined together into the AFL-CIO. Collective bargaining succeeded in tripling hourly wages between 1945 and 1970 and in finally accepting the full enrollment of African American and women workers, who had often been excluded by conventions favoring a white, male workforce. In the 1980s the union movement foundered under deregulation, foreign imports, a recession, newer technology and fewer workers in factories, and hostile national administrations. Reagan was openly anti-union and by 1985 had so effectively used executive power to stop strikes and keep wages low, that union membership fell to 17 percent. Most Americans believe that big labor has been co-opted as management improved conditions in the workplace and made workers “part owners” by issuing stock to employees in a “profit-

216


sharing” system in return for increased production rates. By 1999, 50 percent of all Americans owned stock, 40 percent of all union members were white-collar workers firmly in the middle and upper classes, and union members made approximately 15 percent more in wages and salaries than non-unionized workers (US Census Bureau, 2002a: 618 & 1209).

Business and Industry European investment has been essential to the rise and sustenance of American business since colonial times. English joint-stock companies and trading firms, with the support of the Royal Navy and under the rules of mercantilism, poured money into the fishing and shipbuilding firms of the North and the plantation agriculture of the South, including providing slave labor to grow the crops. By the time of the American Revolution, the United States possessed one of the world’s largest merchant fleets and maintained ties with nearly every European nation along the North Atlantic rim. Except for the embargoes during the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812, trade continued uninterrupted as the European desire for American food products, cotton, and tobacco soared and the money-making possibilities for investment capital in America’s westward expansion multiplied. In contemporary America, foreign investment is at an all time high. The United States was primarily an agricultural country until the latter part of the nineteenth century, when the number of urban dwellers and industrial workers surpassed the rural population for the first time. In 2000, only 3 million Americans farmed the land, most of them in small-scale family enterprises. Most of the nation’s crops were produced by giant agribusinesses which fed the internal and external marketplaces. From the 1830s until 1900, European investment capital made the transportation revolution possible as American companies built hundreds of canals and new harbors and thousands of miles of roads and railroad lines. Railroad companies, entirely private, were the nation’s first big businesses and, during the Gilded Age (see pp. 19–20), were the keys to the expansion of steel and oil industries, to the building of western cities, to moving crops quickly from coast to coast to establish an integrated internal marketplace, and to the rapid rise of a superpower.

The Economy

217

The first factory in the United States was a textile mill built in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, in 1793. The gathering of workers together into one building increased production as did the development of a system of interchangeable parts in the handgun and rifle industry around 1800. The system was demonstrated to President Jefferson by bringing in 10 rifles, dismantling them, mixing the parts, reassembling and firing each one. This “mass production” revolutionized products, brought prices down, and all but eliminated the need for mastercraftsmen who built things one product at a time. About midcentury the growing need for machine tools that were used to make, package, or harvest other products spurred a whole new industry which made mechanical reapers, spinning and weaving machines, and precision tools. By 1890 the value of the nation’s manufactured goods exceeded agricultural production for the first time and, already the world’s leading agricultural nation, America became the leading industrial nation. By World War I, factories in the United States were turning out fully one-third of all industrial products produced worldwide and were just experimenting with Henry Ford’s idea of improving efficiency and lowering costs by using continuously moving assembly lines from the manufacture of parts to the finished car. Ford’s innovations and ideas of “scientific management” began to be taught in another American innovation, the Business School. By World War II, American universities were turning out professional managers who had taken advanced courses in accounting, economics, finance, marketing and management. These managers quickly increased US production to half of the world’s total. The country still produces 25–30 percent of the world’s industrial goods. In contemporary America there are 3.9 million corporations and an uncounted number of unincorporated businesses, ranging from giant enterprises such as the Mars Candy Company to the mom-and-pop stores in small towns across the country (Hacker, 1997: 105). During the Gilded Age, companies formed corporations, monopolies and oligopolies and set up trusts and holding companies to control prices, production, and buy out competitors. When government regulation limited their size with the Clayton Anti-Trust Act (1914) and demanded that competition be fair and open as supervised by the Federal Trade Commission (1914), businesses excelled at research and development, advertising, and packaging of standard “name brands” to eliminate competition. Huge economies of scale meant lower costs per item.

218


Even with the advantages held by large corporations, the United States is perhaps the most accommodating “start-up” place for entreprenuers who want a business of their own, whether they are Korean immigrants setting up corner grocery-stores, Lebanese bowling alley owners, finance capitalists funding a new airline, or young Bill Gates developing computer software (Hacker, 1997: 95). Each year, over 100,000 Americans take a shot at owning their own shops; a few hundred of these grow into large corporations. In the late 1990s, the percentage of new businesses opened by African Americans exceeded those of any other racial group. And even though the 1990s economy was built on internet access and computer systems, the service industry dominated the US economy as more corporations sold services such as hotel rooms, basketball tickets, education, or recreation, than made actual physical products. The United States continues to lead the world in the development of high-technology products, especially in the aerospace and IT arenas. This is hardly surprising given the head start the country had with automobile and space shuttle industries as well as the great emphasis on targeting international scientists and specialists for US universities and companies through immigration-friendly rules. Americans have overwhelmingly won the Nobel prizes for physics, chemistry and medicine. Furthermore, the continued upgrading of weapons systems demands high-tech inventions to maintain military superiority. The American space program is important to innovations. In 2000, NASA launched its 100th space shuttle flight and, in 2001, astronauts made the 100th spacewalk (Illustration 8.1). Company mergers have played a crucial role in the consolidation and advance of American business. Today’s biggest service providers continue to combine into ever fewer mega-corporations. For example, in October 1999, telephone powerhouse MCI WorldCom bought up US Sprint for a record $115 billion and, in September 2000, the venerable Chase Manhattan Bank spent $33 billion to buy the even more venerable J. P. Morgan & Company (Holson and Schiesel, 1999; Martin, 2000). Where mergers were once mainly designed to bring together companies with interconnected product lines, the contemporary trend is towards greater diversification with a range of vastly different kinds of products protecting a corporation against downturns in specific sectors of the economy. Soaring stock market values in the 1980s and 1990s facilitated buyouts and mergers.

The Economy

Illustration 8.1

219

Spacewalk

The US space program furthers America’s economic and military preeminence. During a Space Shuttle mission on 10 October 2002, astronaut Piers Sellers works from the International Space Station while orbiting 240 miles above the earth. (STS–112–05111, Shuttle Mission Imagery, NASA).

Government and Business Regulation and Deregulation On the whole, government and business cooperate and the government often intervenes to promote or protect economic growth even if its leaders maintain a mantra of free-market capitalism. The trend in recent years has been towards deregulation in contrast to the strong interventionist and regulationist role played by the government from the Great Depression to the 1970s. In normal circumstances government stays out of business and allows private interests virtual freedom in their day-to-day operations. Even such necessities as telephone services, railroads, airlines, health care, and electric power are in private, not public, hands. The government buys goods and services for the public from the private sector. While operating under a philosophy of laissez-faire and applying a Darwinian logic that

220


systems which adapt best to changing conditions will survive and multiply, the American government uses taxes on imported goods (tariffs), subsidies, tax breaks, and national banks to protect domestic enterprises. The American economy has been so highly successful because it combines individual self-interest with a communitarian approach that serves the national interest. The idea that a liberal nation must be a limited nation with low levels of government direction has long held sway among the American populace. Whenever the government steps in to aid business, many critics complain that protectionism has overcome free trade. Big industry and the industrial workforce have always been the strongest advocates for protectionism. They generally ask the government to put tariffs on foreign imports so that their domestic products will cost less. The real fear is that if the market is flooded with cheaper imported goods, domestic wages will suffer and businesses will collapse. But because American consumers want cheaper prices brought by open markets and lower tariffs, the United States has vacillated between periods of high and low tariffs according to the strength of the economy. In 2002 the average tariff was a low 4.3 percent on all goods, but in the face of the tougher economic climate, the Bush administration has sought to increase tariffs and set quotas on imports. Since international trade demands good will and trust, tariff issues can damage relationships or lead to retaliatory tariffs and quotas by trading partners. When Bush announced in 2002 that he was setting a tariff of up to 30 percent on imported steel – exempting NAFTA and developing countries – the foreign outcry was unified and sustained from even the strongest allies (Sanger, 2002). British Prime Minister Tony Blair called Bush’s move, “unwarranted, unacceptable and wrong”(quoted in Krugman, 2002b). The government also regulates business through acts designed to ensure that all products are safe. In 1906 the Pure Food and Drug Act put standards and restrictions on food processing and meat packing and created the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to test the safety of all prescription drugs. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) issues warnings and guidelines for what may be imported and exported. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) oversees workplace safety and health environments to reduce injuries (5.7 million in 2000) and fatalities (5,915 in 2000) (OSHA, 2002). The National Safety Council, a non-governmental agency with close ties to the government, inspects the construction and flammability of all toys to increase children’s safety; it also tests

The Economy

221

all electrical inventions to reduce the risks to the consumer (NSC, 2002). Additionally, the government requires that all products are labelled with a list of ingredients or material composition and requires that all sellers mark prices clearly and advertise honestly. Any product claims that cannot be substantiated by government inspectors are illegal. Consumers have access to reimbursement through the legal system but also by making complaints to state and local offices of the Consumer Protection Agency or Better Business Bureau. Usually, companies show goodwill by quickly refunding money or offering items in exchange. Historically, the government helped settle the west by offering large acreages of public land to companies which would build railroads. In contemporary America, state governments often give tax breaks and time-limited pollution exemptions to encourage companies to relocate to their states. The government also stands ready to intervene to prop up businesses which it holds vital to the national economy. In the 1980s the government saved the Chrysler Corporation from bankruptcy and, in 2001, it supported airlines hurt by the 11 September attacks.

The Banking System The central bank for the United States is the Federal Reserve (FED), which consists of a board of seven governors who set policy, and 12 regional banks located around the country to handle the day-to-day operation of printing and circulating money to the 4,900 different banks that are members of the system. The FED was established in 1913 and expanded its influence during the New Deal, when member banks were required to keep a certain amount of their total “demand” deposits on reserve in one of the 12 regional banks. The reserves cover sudden credit needs. The chairman of the FED is appointed by the president to serve for four years. Since 1987, Alan Greenspan has been appointed and reappointed by four different presidents. He is widely credited for the economic success of the 1990s. The primary function of the Federal Reserve is to establish a monetary policy which will enhance confidence and trust, encourage economic stability, reduce or increase inflation as needed, and limit unemployment by stimulating the market (FED, 2002). The US economy experiences the boom-and-bust cycles that are common to all market economies as business expands or contracts. Congressional fiscal policy – taxation and spending programs – also

222


affects the economy as does any change in consumer spending patterns. Any disruption in the supply of oil, major terrorist assault, or natural disaster – forest fire, hurricane, a bad crop harvest – alters the economy in unpredictable ways. The Federal Reserve can moderate these fluctuations by adjusting the national interest rates for borrowing money: a high rate discourages borrowing and consumer spending while a low rate does the opposite. Of course, sometimes the Federal Reserve must choose between trying to lower inflation and trying to increase employment. There are 5,000 private banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve and are capitalized by other means. Whether or not a bank is part of the FED, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) protects individual deposits up to $100,000 in the event the bank collapses. Even with these protections, in the late 1980s speculation in the bonds market, fraud, and bad management by the nation’s Savings and Loan (S & L) banks led to massive losses and Congress authorized a bailout of $150 billion over and above FDIC guarantees. S & Ls are community banks that encourage savings while they lend money to borrowers to build homes in the neighborhood. The bailout reimbursed the millions of average citizens who had put their life’s savings into institutions that failed, a necessary action to restore trust among consumers and to prevent financial panic leading to a run on bank deposits.

Wall Street and Enron The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) is located on Wall Street in New York City (NYC) and is the world’s leading organized market for the trading of stocks and bonds. The NYSE is the oldest and bestknown stock market in the United States (established 1792), even though the American Stock Exchange (AMEX) and the Chicago Commodities Exchange handle nearly 25 percent of all transactions. The National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (NASDAQ) is an electronic stock market located in Times Square in NYC with internet links to 1.3 million brokerage firms in over 80 countries. Major corporations rely on investments to provide the capital required to develop their businesses. The stock market serves to encourage that investment and to provide a solid measure of a company’s present and anticipated performance as stocks rise and fall. Famously, the stock market crash of 1929 signalled the begin-

The Economy

223

ning of the Great Depression and, in 1934, Congress established a regulatory agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to monitor the trading of stocks so that wildly inflated profit claims and speculative financing could be controlled to prevent future depressions. The NYSE and other markets are privately run, but publicly supervised. The SEC requires real assets such as property or cash reserves to back purchases, regulates stock mergers, and sets rules to disqualify persons with reliable information concerning a company’s future from profiting by dumping or buying stocks before public announcements have been made – a practice known as “insider trading.” The SEC also requires businesses to present accurate profit-and-loss disclosures to accounting firms who check the accuracy of their claims, both protecting investors and providing confidence in the American way of business. At least it is supposed to operate that way. Capitalism works well when the players can trust one another and when companies act not only for their own benefit but for the benefit of the economy at large, as Adam Smith argued. Ethical standards are important, even fundamental to the American economic system. A loss of confidence in the system could trigger a removal of capital into more trusted markets, which would erode the strength of the dollar as the international exchange currency, both by foreign investors who own some 15 percent of US stocks and by domestic investors. The 2001 event which could have the biggest long-term impact on the United States and the world may well not be the war on terrorism, but the Enron scandal. Listed as the seventh-largest company in America and as the leading provider and trader of energy commodities, such as electricity and oil, Enron collapsed into bankruptcy during a six-month period in mid-to-late 2001, losing $90 billion overnight. Its financial tentacles reached into thousands of companies, its monetary contributions to the Republican Party and its business ties to prominent politicians such as President George W. Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of the Army Richard White, and its use of its employees’ retirement funds to speculate in stocks exposed the problems of under-regulated capitalism. Across the nation, pension funds disappeared because they had been tied to Enron stocks, supposedly secured by the company’s assets (Rohatyn, 2002). Millions of individual Americans lost substantial amounts of retirement income when the company’s real assets were divided among its creditors.

224


Companies rise and fall, but Enron’s collapse exposed what economist Paul Krugman called “Crony Capitalism, USA.” (Krugman, 2002c). Conflicts of interest abound as accounting firms do lucrative consulting work for companies whose accounts they audit and as regulators are beholden to politicians whose campaign funding is dependent on business contributions. Public and private interests are further tangled as economists run the FED and SEC, government agencies have a stake in promoting optimistic figures, and the business press and financial news spread the message that the best investments are, for example, Enron. The Enron story is full of scandals of deliberately concealed and misrepresented financial statements, of complicity by one of the nation’s most respected accounting firms, Arthur Andersen Associates, and of special favors by the Bush administration in opening up oil reserves in protected wilderness areas in return for campaign contributions. Enron’s activities in weakening pollution controls and storing nuclear waste in Nevada and failures by the Federal Reserve, SEC, and Congress itself to oversee the wrongdoings pointed out the abuses possible in an under-regulated economy. Fears mounted among investors, that if Enron had gotten away with such misdeeds, then maybe other companies had too. Because of this crisis of confidence, the Bush administration and Congress are under increasing pressure to increase regulation.

Federalism The constitutional division of powers in the US means that it is possible for states or cities to pass laws restricting trade with nations which pursue policies of which they disapprove, for example, in relation to human rights, nuclear proliferation, worker’s rights, environmental protection or child labor. In 1998 the City of New York halted trade with Switzerland because of that nation’s refusal to settle claims with Second World War holocaust victims over money kept in Swiss banks. In 1998, Massachusetts stopped all agreements with any nation trading with Burma because of child labor abuses in that country (Hocking, 2000: 155–6). Even though the US Constitution is clear that “No state shall, without the consent of Congress . . . enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power . . .”, the states also often send delegations abroad to lure foreign capital or foreign companies into their states. The “New Federalism” – called “New Freedom” by George W. Bush – has allowed the states a larger role in international commerce.

The Economy

225

The National Governors’ Association and National Association of State Development Agencies are two organizations that run overseas offices for international trade. In his job as mayor of Atlanta, Andrew Young, after being Ambassador to the UN during the Carter administration, spent much energy in attracting companies to build factories or establish offices in the city. Over 500 companies from 20 nations now operate in Georgia, which promotes itself as “the International State” (Hocking, 2000: 165). All 50 states have greater or lesser links to global trade. There is no single agency in charge of global trade, but a plurality of voices.

The Global Marketplace World Trade Organization From the time of the first explorers to the New World, Americans have been involved in the web of commercial relations that stretched to Europe and beyond. What we call globalization began about 500 years ago with the advent of capitalism and has been expanding ever since even if the immense worldwide economic changes brought about by the end of the Cold War and the rise of the internet represent a significant acceleration. Issues concerning trade agreements, tariffs, subsidies, and agreements are central to US foreign policy. And even in its most isolationist periods, America has been strongly interventionist in promoting business interests and pursuing a “dollar diplomacy” of rewarding nations with monetary help in return for a favorable trade policy and inflicting punitive economic sanctions on such “undesirables” as Cuba, Iran, and Iraq. The US-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank set requirements on nations that borrow money. This intervention into the internal affairs of other nations causes extreme controversy as these nations need the money to bail out their economies or for development of new resources but do not necessarily want the greater movement of jobs, goods, capital, and democracy across national borders that is the price of the loans. Globalization can be seen as a destructive, exploitative system, especially when operated by the old colonial/imperial powers of the West who have proven untrustworthy in the past. Supporters of IMF and World Bank policies say that they will help close the gap between the wealthy Northern hemisphere and the under-industrialized Southern hemi-

226


sphere. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, from Ghana, acknowledges that “arguing against globalization is like arguing against gravity” (quoted in Crossette, 2000) and adds that “The poor are not poor because of too much globalization, but because of too little” (quoted in DOHA, 2002: 11). Domestic critics of globalization complain that it hurts American – and all – workers by creating a global labor market which keeps wages down while profits soar. The United States has a share of 12.3 percent of total world exports and an 18.9 percent share of total world imports (WTO, 2001). Trade between the United States and the EU averages over one billion dollars a day. The World Trade Organization (WTO), established in 1995, is an international forum designed to open markets and expand free trade in general, but particularly among developing countries. The WTO is designed as the UN of the global economy and tries to resolve disputes and monitor fair trade among the 142 member nations. The Seattle round of WTO meetings in 1999 – which was widely reported because of the violent actions of anti-free trade protestors – failed because of disputes between the US and EU and the lack of a belief by developing countries that open markets would help make their products competitive when tariffs and quotas were removed. In contrast, the Doha, Qatar, session in 2001 brought real progress as developing nations and the industrial world seemed more prepared to promote markets. The WTO replaced the older General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) conferences with a more permanent body of negotiators and grew much stronger in late 2001 when China and Taiwan joined the organization. The WTO regulates trade, encourages fair competition, discourages domestic support to national businesses that distort trade, debates fair use of intellectual property, and promotes environmental standards. The WTO adjudicates complaints of unfair practices, such as the US complaint against the average 62 percent tariff on agricultural imports worldwide – as opposed to the average 4 percent for industrial imports – or the dispute with the EU over hormone-treated beef (DOHA, 2002). In 2002, the WTO prohibited the long-running practice of “offshore tax havens” such as Guam and the Virgin Islands, which saved US companies about $4 billion a year in export taxes, thus lowering the final costs of US goods, particularly aircraft, in foreign countries and thereby giving them an unfair market advantage (Rosenbaum and Olson, 2002). The US responded that state-run airlines in Europe had an extreme advantage over private US carriers. EU members threatened to impose a 100 percent

The Economy

227

tariff on American iron, steel, and aircraft parts if the US did not comply with the ruling. Bush answered by raising tariffs on steel imports, and threatening a trans-Atlantic trade war if necessary – something few expect to happen. The United States is the world’s leading developer and exporter of technology. Its manufacturing base is extensive but is mainly geared to internal consumption. Leading industries include steel, aerospace, textiles, automobiles, chemicals, telecommunications, semiconductors, biotechnology, and computers. Changes in technology and industrial organization continue to flow from US sources and the US dominates in the export of movies and CDs. But Americans still make most of their money in the domestic market as total exports make up only 11 percent of the GDP, compared to the EU’s nearly 30 percent (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2002). US industrial production dipped slightly in the 1970s and 1980s, and many analysts predicted that Asian products would overtake the preference for American products. In the 1990s, however, upgraded machinery and techniques have once again strengthened American companies in traditional manufacturing sectors. The United States is also the leading importer of world products, both in terms of raw materials to fuel factories and in goods aimed at the consumer market. Since American imports far exceed its exports – a situation aggravated by a strong dollar – the country has a balance of trade problem. The trade deficit of $346.3 billion in 2001 was an improvement over the $375.7 billion in 2000. While the US imbalance in trade is spread among the majority of the world’s nations, the deficit in 2001 was largest with China (-83 billion), NAFTA/Mexico (-81 billion), Japan (-69 billion), EU (-61 billion), NAFTA/Canada (-53 billion), and OPEC (-40 billion).

NAFTA The North American Free Trade Agreement (1993) between the United States, Canada and Mexico, created the largest free trade zone in the world. Congress had strongly opposed the deal because of Mexico’s failure to enforce environmental laws and from concerns that cheap labor south of the border would hurt American workers. Fearing that manufacturers would relocate to Mexico, labor unions especially opposed NAFTA. Clinton used his position as president – “lobbyist-in-chief” – as well as the lobbying support of ex-presidents Ford, Carter and Bush, to get enough votes for the agreement. In

228


Table 8.3

Top Ten US Trade (Exports and Imports) Partners, 1993 and 2000 (in billions of dollars: 211.7 = $211,700,000,000) 1993

2000

Country

Trade

Country

Trade

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

211.7 155.1 81.5 48.2 47.5 41.3 40.3 31.9 28.5 24.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

409.8 247.3 211.4 116.2 88.0 84.9 68.1 64.9 50.2 37.0

Canada Japan Mexico United Kingdom Germany Taiwan China South Korea France Singapore

Source:

Canada Mexico Japan China Germany United Kingdom South Korea Taiwan France Singapore

International Trade Administration (2002).

1995, when the collapse of the Mexican peso threatened the trading block, Clinton sidestepped Congressional disapproval of a bailout and quickly transferred $25 billion to the Mexican government. The infusion worked. Mexico repaid the loan, plus $1 billion in interest (Sanger, 2000a). Trade inside NAFTA is rapidly expanding. Mexican President Vicente Fox credited this growth not only to “an economic partnership, based on shared goals and shared responsibilities,” but to the fact that “democracy has been brought about in Mexico,” and to the social “trust” existing between Mexicans and Americans (Fox, 2001). NAFTA reflects a growing regionalism marked by the April 2001 agreement in which leaders of 34 countries in the Western Hemisphere met in “The Summit of the Americas” in Quebec City, Canada, agreeing to replace NAFTA by 2005 with a massive free trade zone to include the whole of the Western hemisphere and its 800 million people (Milbank and Blustein, 2001). America’s top-ten trade partners in 1993 and 2000 are listed in Table 8.3. American foreign policy is tied intimately to economics, but it is also humanitarian and ideological. The next chapter takes a broader look at America’s place in a world in which it has become an increasingly dominant player.

9 Foreign Policy

From the first president to the present one, American leaders have conducted an often ambivalent foreign policy marked by a consistent belief in New World exceptionalism. Because America was founded in revolution against British imperialism, Americans retain a widespread distrust of Europe – and the rest of the world in general – as places inclined toward war, conspiracies, class-based privilege, a lack of order and, increasingly in recent years, a breeding place for terrorism. In 1776 Thomas Paine’s exhortation that “We have it in our power to begin the world over again” (quoted in Foley, 2000: 176) expressed not only the distinction Americans make between themselves and all others but also the notion of rebirth and reinvention that marks American ideology. In his “Farewell Address” in 1796, President George Washington advised the nation to extend commercial relations while being careful to avoid entangling political agreements: “’Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances with any portion of the foreign world. . . . Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course” (Washington, 1796). This chapter surveys the rise of American power, its consistency, its management, and the contemporary dilemmas among isolation, unilateralism, and cooperation.

History of Foreign Policy Isolation and Expansion For a large part of its history America tried to go it alone. In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson soothed fears stemming from 229

230


the French Revolution and the competition between France and Britain by stating that America desired a policy of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” In common with many of his successors, even while Jefferson expoused isolationist sentiments, his actions were interventionist. In 1801, Jefferson used US marines to wage war against the Barbary Coast pirates who were raiding shipping lanes north of Algiers and, in 1803, he doubled the size of the nation by agreeing to purchase the Louisiana territory from Napoleon. Expansion westward held the symbolic and real function of withdrawing from England and the Old World toward a new frontier. Americans have never seen themselves as imperialists, maintaining a great capacity for myopia to Indians and others who occupied land they desired for themselves. As early as 1823, President James Monroe established a touchstone of American foreign policy by issuing the Monroe Doctrine to claim a sphere of influence and hegemony over the Americas, closing them to further European colonization. Rapidly, the nation extended its boundaries to the Pacific Ocean. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln insisted that the fate of global liberty rested on the outcome of that war when “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Lincoln’s claim of American exceptionalism has long echoes in the American imagination with its “city upon a hill” mission to convert everyone to American institutions and save the world from itself. Lincoln’s sentiment is often invoked by presidents, as George W. Bush did in his inaugural address: “The stakes for America are never small. If our country does not lead the cause of freedom, it will not be led.” In the 1890s the US competed with Europe for overseas territories. The Reverend Josiah Strong preached that commerce always followed the missionary and Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan’s book, The Influence of Sea Power on History (1890), convinced Congress to build a modern navy. In 1898, President William McKinley ordered a war to liberate Cuba from Spanish control after the US battleship Maine exploded in Havana harbor. Secretary of State John Hay lauded “that splendid little war” which lasted three months but made America a world power. With the peace, the United States established a protectorate over Cuba and gained Guam, Puerto Rico and, after a three-year land war with Filipino nationalists in which

Foreign Policy

231

2,000 Americans and 200,000 Filipinos died, the Philippines. McKinley used the new US presence in Asia to force Japan, Russia and the European powers to allow free trade – the “Open Door” – in China. The twentieth century witnessed the rise of America as a superpower. President Theodore Roosevelt was an enthusiastic imperialist who intervened often in Latin America. His Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine made the United States an international police power which would maintain order in – and keep Europeans out of – the Western Hemisphere. Where the Monroe Doctrine had pledged American power to ensure sovereignty for American nations, the Roosevelt Corollary committed the United States to intervene in its neighbors’ affairs. Roosevelt used gunboat and dollar diplomacy to establish an ambiguous policy combining imperialism and isolationism.

A World Power When war erupted in Europe in August 1914, a deeply-divided American citizenry mostly insisted that the war was a foreign matter. President Woodrow Wilson declared US neutrality and campaigned for re-election on the slogan “He Kept US Out of War.” But Germany’s use of unrestricted submarine warfare and Wilson’s massive propaganda effort “to make the world safe for democracy,” put American soldiers in France in late 1917. Wilson was the prominent figure at the Paris Peace Conference. His “Fourteen Points” offered a way to secure lasting peace and revolved around the establishment of a League of Nations, the rights of national self-determination, free trade, arms reductions and open diplomacy. But the American people rejected the entangling alliances of Wilsonianism and the Senate refused to ratify the peace treaty or to allow the United States to join the League of Nations. Clearly unprepared for global leadership, America defined its security interests narrowly, restricted them primarily to what a regional power could do, and isolated itself as far as possible from European politics. Writer Ernest Hemingway captured the mood of the times: “We were fools to be sucked in once in a European war and we should never be sucked in again” (quoted in Jeansonne, 1994: 97). To Americans, it seemed that Europeans loved wars and rumors of wars; America was better off going it alone. In the 1920s the world became increasingly dependent on American capital while the primary foreign policy concern of

232


Republican presidents was the promotion of free trade as a guarantor of international peace. The United States became a creditor nation for the first time and used that financial muscle to promote the Washington Naval Conference agreement to reduce the size of navies and the Kellogg–Briand Pact to outlaw war. With the Great Depression of the 1930s, Americans feared another European conflict and Congress passed a series of Neutrality Acts. In 1930, Congress also implemented the highest tariff in American history. Not surprisingly, Europeans responded with high tariffs of their own. In 1939, as World War II began, American neutrality became one-sided as President Franklin Roosevelt made executive agreements to ensure that Britain had the necessary supplies to fight Hitler. Roosevelt called the US “the arsenal of democracy” lending and leasing supplies and equipment to those fighting totalitarianism. Even so, America stood back, kept its small 185,000-man army at home and refused to sign military alliances with anyone. Japan erased isolationist sentiment overnight by its successful carrier-borne airstrike against the US fleet at Pearl Harbor naval base in Hawaii. In 1945 two superpowers emerged and an exhausted Europe lay between them. The United States clearly had the most power – it produced half the world’s steel, had a nuclear monopoly, possessed 70 percent of the world’s ships and aircraft, and manufactured 50 percent of the world’s goods. As the Soviet Union expanded into Eastern Europe and Asia, the United States consolidated its influence in Western Europe by pumping in billions of dollars under the auspices of the Marshall Plan. A new type of war developed, a Cold War marked by rivalry, ideological suspicion, and military buildups.

The Cold War, 1945–91 For nearly five decades of Cold War, American foreign policy leaders claimed that the primary objective was to prevent communist expansion. The United States had a well-defined enemy to confront on every issue, anywhere in the world. The contest was ritualized and rule-bound and every encounter became a crisis. Americans generally viewed communism as an evil ideology of totalitarian, anti-democratic, and anti-capitalist action – an ideology obstructing the spread of freedom, democracy and free trade. As the acknowledged leader of the free world, America not only acted with an arrogance of power, it created consensus to wage wars in distant countries, stifle debate,

Foreign Policy

233

prop-up right-wing dictatorships, and enroll dozens of allies in the cause of anti-communism. As the Soviet Union countered each move, the superpowers practiced mutual restraint and maintained order in a bipolar world system where every nation lined up in one camp or the other. Historian John Gaddis has bluntly stated that the Cold War established a “long peace” by which the industrialized West (including Japan) directed the trade and finances of the global political economy. In fact, the concept of the “West” rose up during the Cold War to define the bloc of nations confronting communism. The half century of promoting mutual security and dependence during the Cold War tangled the domestic and international affairs of Western Europe and America so tightly that it is sometimes difficult to separate national from international affairs. In 1947 President Truman contrasted two ways of life: one free and one enslaving. He stressed the need to contain Soviet expansion in a statement known now as the Truman Doctrine: “It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” The Cold War had begun and Truman pushed a policy of “Containment” to stop Soviet expansionism. America thrust itself into the internal affairs of third world nations, a role that meant high defense expenditures and a large military financed by tax dollars. That same year, 1947, the National Security Act created the National Security Council (NSC), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and Department of Defense (DOD) combining the military branches under the control of the secretary of defense, who reports to the president. Events accelerated. In 1948, when the Soviets tried to seize Berlin by blockading all land routes, only a massive airlift by American and British cargo planes kept West Berlin in allied hands. Truman authorized the Marshall Plan, spending $15 billion in Europe over the next three years to provide humanitarian aid, tie the economies of the West into a common market, provide a market for American surpluses and dampen the appeal of communism. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) helped stabilize currency rates, pushed free trade, and made the US the world’s banker. In 1949, the Chinese Civil War ended with victory for Mao Zedong, the Soviets exploded an atomic bomb, and the 12 nations (Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, United States) of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) promised that any attack against a member nation would be consid-

234


ered an attack against them all. The next year an internal memorandum, NSC-68, put American power at the core of the Western military coalition and asked Congress to quadruple military spending. That same year, an effort by North Koreans to reunite their country with South Korea sent UN – mostly US – troops into a hot war that cost 33,000 American lives and 103,000 wounded and a combined 2.5 million Korean and Chinese casualties. The entry of China on the side of North Korea escalated fears of communism, while reminding American leaders of the limits to American power and creating within them a new urgency to speed the development of a more powerful thermonuclear weapon, the hydrogen bomb. In 1953, with an armistice in Korea, President Dwight D. Eisenhower decided that the Truman Doctrine did not go far enough. Liberation policy replaced Containment and included “roll back,” “massive retaliation” and “brinksmanship.” The United States would help to liberate countries lost to communism; if any country attacked the US or its allies, it would be met with overwhelming military might, to include atomic weaponry; and the United States would accept the risk of taking enemies to the brink of nuclear war and beyond. In hindsight, all this was a change of rhetoric rather than reality. But the arms race was real. The politics of nuclear deterrence depended less on conventional armies and more on the fearsome technology of long-range rockets, bombers, and submarine-based atomic weapons. Eisenhower claimed this would save American lives and was cheaper for the American taxpayer, who would get “more bang for the buck.” The Soviet Union accelerated its own nuclear programs, created the Warsaw Pact (WP) in 1955, and launched a space satellite named Sputnik in 1957. Still, there were rules to the bipolar world, and when the USSR invaded Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, the US declined to intervene in what it saw as an internal WP matter. Nations outside WP and NATO, however, were legitimate objects of interference, including Iran, Guatemala, Taiwan, and Vietnam. In 1961 the Soviet Union built a wall in Berlin that became a visible symbol of the Cold War division of peoples and ideologies. The world shivered under threats of massive retaliation and mutual assured destruction (MAD) whereby any nuclear strike by one superpower against the other would result in a complete annihilation of both sides. In October 1962, after the United States discovered Soviet missiles in Cuba, the superpowers raced to the brink of disaster with threats

Foreign Policy

235

and counterthreats of nuclear war, launching bombers and positioning navies with atomic weapons ready for firing. Clearly an international crisis, the Cuban Missile Crisis was also a domestic crisis challenging the American sense of security in North America and showing the nation’s vulnerability. Having frightened the world and themselves before backing down, President John F. Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, and their successors, looked for other strategies, signed a series of test ban treaties and arms limitations agreements, even while they continued to build weapons of mass destruction. US policymakers concluded that a more “flexible response” using conventional weapons and tactics was necessary.

Vietnam After WWII, nationalist movements in developing countries wrested control away from colonial powers. American involvement in Vietnam began in the 1940s as a way to keep France in the Western coalition and away from the allure of communism. After the forces of Ho Chi Minh defeated the French army at Dienbienphu in 1954, the United States intervened, supported the division of Vietnam into North and South and financed the South. Politicians expounded a “domino theory” that if one nation fell to communism it would create a chain reaction as others fell in turn.. Certainly, high sounding words confused emotions. In his inaugural address Kennedy declared: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” After the assassination of Kennedy in 1963, a more cautious Lyndon Johnson told the public, “We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves” (quoted in Tindall and Shi, 1996: 1417). By 1965, Johnson reversed himself, took up Kennedy’s challenge and sent the first US combat troops to Vietnam. In 1969, President Richard Nixon had 543,000 soldiers in country in a war in which 2.5 million Americans served and 58,000 died. A peace treaty in 1973 allowed the US to withdraw, while Nixon claimed victory in achieving “peace with honor.” Whether or not the US should have intervened in Vietnam remains contentious. The impact of the Vietnam loss, however, cannot be overstated. With the failure to win the war, the revelations that they had been

236


The polished black marble wall with the names of over 58,000 American servicemen who died in service to their country in Vietnam is among the most visited sites in Washington, D.C. Vietnam Veteran Daniel Arant took this “Flowers and Flag” photograph in 1995. (Photo by Daniel Arant).

Illustration 9.1

Vietnam War Memorial, Washington, D.C.

misled, a fragmentation of the foreign policy elite, and skyrocketing inflation caused by war spending and an increase in oil prices, Americans lost faith in their ability to control world events. Some even suggested that the Cold War and Vietnam War were actually caused by American imperialism, not communist agression. Toward the end of the war, Nixon cited the loss of national consensus and the need for a new approach: “America cannot – and will not – conceive all the plans, design all the programs, execute all the decisions, and undertake all the defense of the free nations of the world”(quoted in Kegley and Wittkopf, 1996: 48). Nixon and National Security Advisor/Secretary of State Henry Kissinger pursued détente and trade agreements with Russia, entering

Foreign Policy

237

into an Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT I), and initiating a joint space mission to link up while the earth spun beneath them. Nixon explained the “friendship” as containment in that simultaneous overtures to China and increasing trade relationships created a more stable world. Europeans, who had never liked the bipolar division of the world, now fretted over a bipolar cooperation by superpowers who made global decisions without consulting them.

A Crisis of Confidence President Jimmy Carter (1976–80) rejected both containment and liberation, focusing instead on a liberal human rights policy and hoping to normalize relations with the Soviet Union by downplaying the threat of communism. His administration insisted that Soviet aggression was illusory and claimed that developing countries would always select American economic aid, technology and free market capitalism over communism. The attention of the world focused on the continued violence between Israel and Egypt following their 1973 war, the quadrupling of energy prices, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and the 1980 overthrow of the Shah of Iran by Islamic fundamentalists, who complicated matters by holding 50 Americans hostage in Tehran for over a year. Carter declared Middle Eastern oil vital to American security interests and issued his Carter Doctrine that the United States would intervene militarily to protect the region. His threat was coupled with his greatest triumph. Through private talks with Israel’s Menachem Begin and Egypt’s Anwar Sadat, Carter helped bring an end to the 30-year-long Egyptian–Israeli conflict. But Carter’s inability to free the hostages in Iran seemed to the public just the latest in the series of conspicuous failures by their leaders and played a large part in the election of his successor, the oldest man ever to be elected to the nation’s highest office, the former actor, Governor of California, and super-patriot who testified once that Hollywood was full of communists – Ronald Reagan. Reagan recalled the past in the present, holding up the myth of America as “still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness towards home” (Reagan, 1989: 97). He held the Soviets personally responsible for all the problems of the world, endorsed liberation, increased Cold War tensions by calling the USSR “the evil empire,” promised

238


to help “freedom fighters” everywhere and vowed never to compromise with terrorists. When the public later learned that the Reagan administration had approved a secret arms deal with Iran and that the money from the arms sale had been funneled – in direct violation of specific Congressional prohibition – to “Contras” in Nicaragua who were trying to overthrow the communist Sandinista government, Reagan denied all knowledge. Vice-President Bush admitted sitting through the meetings, but claimed to be unable to remember any specifics. The affair played out on television and created much excitement about government corruption before being quickly forgotten and forgiven by voters.

The End of the Cold War Reagan frightened Europeans by acting unilaterally. His “Reaganomics” economic policy created huge deficits and high interest rates which adversely affected the world economy and made the US the world’s largest debtor nation. He convinced NATO to deploy cruise missiles and sophisticated rocket delivery systems by threatening to decouple the US from Western Europe. He showcased American military muscle by doubling defense spending and promoting a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) – called “Star Wars” by the international media because of its plans to put nuclear weapons and lasers in space. He sent US marines into Grenada (1983) and launched an airstrike against Libya (1986). Reagan also stopped American payments to the United Nations and rejected World Court jurisdiction in the case of Nicaragua. After years of warming, the Cold War got colder. Then in 1986, after Afghanistan proved to be the “Russian Vietnam” by bankrupting a Soviet Union already overspent from the arms race, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev reached out to Reagan, who quickly reciprocated. Reagan claimed victory for his unilateral actions when, just after the election of George Bush in 1988, the Warsaw Pact disintegrated. The Soviets could not support their allies due to a faltering economy and the growing knowledge about and appeal of western affluence. Quickly, fantastically, the Berlin Wall fell, Germany reunited, Hungary and Poland threw off communism, and the Soviet Union broke into several parts. The Cold War ended on 19 November 1990 when Gorbachev and Bush signed the Charter of Paris, and declared that the East and West would no longer be adversaries.

Foreign Policy

239

The New World Order Since then, the United States has been a somewhat lonely and reluctant superpower in search of a coherent foreign policy (Huntington, 1999). There is a worry among America’s closest allies in NATO of the dual possibility of abandonment and dominance. NATO was established as the cornerstone of the Atlantic alliance when it seemed a permanent division of Europe was likely. Now that the Europe is seeking a tighter union while seeking to expand its voice in NATO, America does not quite fit anymore. Currently, the United States is preeminent in every arena of power: military, economic, cultural, technological, and diplomatic. This primacy is likely to continue for decades; but primacy is not the same as hegemony. In the Post-Cold War era, the United States cannot realize its ambitions without the tolerance or support of regional powers. Confronted with resurgent nationalism, ethnic conflict, and religious fundamentalism, America’s leadership role is problematic as action brings cries of “imperialism” and inaction is condemned as indifference. Having jumped as it did during World War II from geographical isolation to superpower status, the United States has no real experience in dealing with equals. An inertia of power makes lesser roles difficult. The world also wonders about the wisdom of destroying American primacy because the balance of power approach did not work before or after the First World War When the Cold War ended, President George Bush presented a globalist view: “We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. . . . A new world order can emerge . . . a world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice, a world where the strong respect the weak” (quoted in McGrew, 2000: 216). America would lead, he said, but in a multilateral way as a superpower with support from the leading regional powers of Germany and France in Europe, Japan, China, and India in Asia, and Brazil in South America. There is no regional power in Africa, although South Africa’s mineral wealth and nuclear capability give it some authority. Russia and Britain remain key players on the world stage and, therefore, must be consulted by the United States in nearly every situation requiring military intervention. In response to Iraq’s military buildup and leader Saddam Hussein’s expansionist thrust into Kuwait in 1990, Bush rejected ideas of unilateral action and achieved a consensus – including Arab states and Russia – before sending the largest expeditionary force since WWII

240


into the Gulf. “Operation Desert Storm” was a 100-day-long war fought primarily by United States troops and managed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell. Reflecting his Vietnam experience, the “Powell Doctrine” declares that any intervention by US troops anywhere in the world be predicated on a threat to American strategic interests, that overwhelming force be used to accomplish results with the least risk to American lives, and that there be a clear timetable for the withdrawal of US soldiers. Iraq clearly lost the war but it defied the peace by continuing to research and build chemical, biological and nuclear “weapons of mass destruction.”

Enlargement and Engagement In the 1990s, Americans hoped for a “peace dividend” and a safer world. President Clinton understood that economic policy is tied to national security and the increased meshing of international and domestic – “intermestic” – markets has created interdependence and interpenetration on a global scale.That linkage makes arms reduction more difficult because US arms manufacturing is big business and because any peace dividend hurts profits and lays off workers. By late 2000, defense spending had been reduced from $400 to $300 billion a year, accounting for approximately 18 percent of the federal budget. The American military remained a goliath and the Department of Defense employed 1.4 million active-duty personnel, 1.3 million reserve soldiers, and 672,000 civilians. It had 40,000 separate properties worldwide, 15,000 aircraft, 250,000 land vehicles, 150 space satellites, 1,000 ocean-going ships (twice as many as Russia and China combined), and hundreds of thousands of buildings from movie theatres to day-care centers to missile silos (DOD, 2000). In the aftermath of September 11, the defense budget rose in 2002 to $350 billion and President George W. Bush requested nearly $400 billion for 2003 (CDI, 2002). Many analysts expect a rise to over $500 billion in the next few years. Americans still have very little tolerance for the spilling of American blood in foreign conflicts where US interests are illdefined. Called “zero casualty” or “Vietnam syndrome,” this attitude surfaced during the 1990s in such flashpoints as Palestine, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia. Even in the Gulf War, Bush was pressured to pull out on “Powell Doctrine” principles before finishing the job of removing Saddam Hussein. Describing

Foreign Policy

241

this aversion to sacrificing American lives, Islamic terrorist Osama bin Laden’s 1996 “Declaration of War Against Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places” taunted: Where was this courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place in 1983. . . . You were transformed into scattered bits and pieces at that time; 241 soldiers were killed, most of them Marines. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you leave Aden in less than twenty-four hours! . . . you moved tens of thousands of international forces, including twenty-eight thousand American soldiers, into Somalia. However, when tens of your soldiers were killed in minor battles and one American pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu, you left the area in disappointment, humiliation, and defeat, your dead with you. (quoted in Gerecht, 2002: 47) While Clinton sent an unsuccessful airstrike against bin Laden’s base in Afghanistan, many Americans complained that Europeans were not bearing the burden of a “New Europe,” citing as proof the EU failures to provide aid to Russia and to halt the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. Perhaps the complaints would have more resonance, said Europeans, if the United States paid the $1.65 billion owed to the UN: the shortfall is because the US is charged for 30.2 percent of total costs for every UN peace-keeping deployment, even though Congress passed a law in 1995 capping the share the US would pay at 25 percent (Lynch, 2000). The New NATO is slowly developing its own European Rapid Reaction Force of 60,000 troops; but Europeans’ unwillingness to expand their defense budgets beyond 2 percent of their GDP constrains their capacity for independent action and leaves them uncomfortably dependent on US forces for any projection of power. Europe’s collective spending on defense in 2002 was $180 billion, which represented about 50 percent of the $350 billion America spent the same year (Kagan, 2002). Clinton accepted the Powell Doctrine while articulating his own “enlargement and engagement” policy. In his first inaugural address Clinton rejected neo-isolationism while using the exceptionalism argument that “America must continue to lead the world we did so much to make. . . . Our mission is timeless.” Stressing geo-economics instead of geopolitics, Clinton focused on the importance of the new technological and political trends of worldwide internet access, democratization, vast migration, and free markets implicit in the

242


recasting of GATT into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. The central tenets of Clinton’s foreign policy involved American aid to nations transitioning to democracy and support for open marketplaces. Even though the US-controlled IMF lent $4.8 billion to Russia in 1998, neither the Bush or Clinton administrations nor the European Union provided enough financial assistance fully to stabilize the Russian economy and promote the free market. Nonetheless, despite corruption, crime and disorder, Russia continues to democratize itself and to forge closer ties with NATO through the “Partnership for Peace” program for non-members. As for engagement, Clinton stressed humanitarian intervention to prevent genocide and other catastrophes even if no strategic interests exist: “Whether you live in Africa, or Central Europe, or any other place, if somebody comes after civilians and tries to kill them en masse because of their race, their ethnic background, or their religion, and it’s within our power to stop it, we will stop it. We should not countenance genocide or ethnic cleansing anywhere in the world” (quoted in Korb, 2000). This stated policy lacked real commitment, even if the US did finally attempt to stop the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo once it became clear that Europeans would not intervene if left to their own devices. Following the advice of Powell, who strongly opposed military intervention while he was still Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the US delayed through long months of terror by Slobodan Milosevic. In 2002, the United States had a continued military presence of 4,000 soldiers in Bosnia. On the other hand, Clinton did nothing to stop the genocide of half a million Tutsis in Rwanda because to do so would expend too much diplomatic and domestic capital. He learned from Bush’s earlier use of American troops in Somalia, when the televised death of a soldier being dragged naked behind a jeep, prompted Americans to demand that the troops be withdrawn. With a keen eye to public opinion polls, Clinton backed away from any engagement that might lead to such an incident. In Indonesia in 1999, the civil war in East Timor brought no American response. Even though a major intervention in Rwanda would have presented massive logistical problems with the accompanying monetary costs, the fact is that US policy-makers have done very little to deter genocide because public support withers if no strategic interests exist. Engagement policy meant that nations which used terrorist units, invaded their neighbors, or threatened security by developing power-

Foreign Policy

243

ful weapons would be quickly engaged. It should be noted that in his first week in office in 1993, Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack against the palace and command centers in downtown Baghdad in an effort to kill Saddam Hussein, who had been linked to an asassination attempt the week before on President Bush. During his eight years in office, Clinton approved thousands of airflights into Iraqi airspace monitoring compliance with the Gulf War peace treaty. Hundreds of retaliatory strikes were made against “perceived threats” during that period. The Clinton administration also continued to support economic sanctions against Iraq, Libya, Cuba, and Iran, and threatened “secondary sanctions” against countries who traded with these “rogue states.” Clinton’s much-heralded visits to North Korea and Vietnam in 2000 strengthened ties and soothed long-term hostilities in the East. The fact that Asian immigration to the United States is at an all time high helps US interests in Asia. Most analysts agree that the “next big nation” is China, a country growing in economic prowess and accounting for one-fifth of the world’s population. Ever since Nixon helped open the door to China in the 1970s, American presidents have had ambivalent relations with Chinese leaders. Nixon showed that appeasement on some issues worked better than containment and economic punishment. In 1995 and 1996, Clinton ordered US aircraft carrier task forces into the strait between China and Taiwan as a show of strength in support of Taiwan after China conducted military exercises and fired missiles with the aim of pressuring the Taiwanese into rejoining China. China’s relationship with the United States is competitive and adversarial as each sees the other as the principal block to its ambitions. In 2000, Clinton supported and the Senate approved a permanent trade and benefits agreement with China. This represents another Clinton imprint on foreign policy, the use of economic ties to foster political change. By 2001 the United States spent nearly $40 billion a year on Chinese imports and American corporate investment helps build Chinese industry. As an example of American business influence, the Disney corporation will open a Hong Kong Disneyland in 2006 and has agreed to open a Shanghai Disneyland in 2008 (Orwall and Leggett, 2002).

Unilateralism Reborn? In contrast to Clinton’s approach, George W. Bush reversed the stated humanitarian side of the New World Order, declaring, during his run

244


for the presidency, “We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide in nations outside our strategic interest” (quoted in Lewis, 2000). He has also robustly declared that “China is a competitor, not a strategic partner” (quoted in Sanger, 2000b). China has increased military spending and its confrontations with the United States rally patriotic nationalism in both countries. In real terms, China has a nuclear arsenal of around 300 warheads – of which 20 could reach the United States – in comparison with America’s 7,200 deployed warheads. Differences with America over Taiwan, human rights, the selling of nuclear weapons to Pakistan, and the ownership of “intellectual” property and software continue to be major issues. At times the world has seen American political leaders as unsophisticated in international dealings and in the post-Cold War era there is much debate and worry that a rogue superpower will attack a rogue nation. The blame is usually placed on “cowboys” or “parochial isolationists.” To many observers, the first months of the Bush administration were marked by a unilateral and muscular approach and a rigidity that verged on arrogance. On 16 February 2001, in just his third week in office, Bush authorized a strike against Iraqi air defense forces around Baghdad. The attack came on day five of Bush’s self-proclaimed “National Security Week” – a week designed to focus media coverage on his role as commander-in-chief. He promised pay raises for all members of the armed services, pushed the “missile shield” defense system, spoke to Army Reserve units, and traveled to Mexico to meet with President Vicente Fox (Bruni and Sanger, 2001). Bush wanted to show his resolve in keeping the pressure on Saddam Hussein – who seemed to be testing the new president by firing more surface-to-air missiles at US and British aircraft during February than in all of 2000. Bush’s bombers sent a message to the world that while he might be inexperienced in foreign affairs, he would not be timid. His visit to Mexico in company with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell (Illustration 9.2) reinforced the US commitment to the NAFTA while highlighting national security concerns. Following the 16 February attack, in which British warplanes had cooperated, Prime Minister Tony Blair held a news conference blaming Iraq for precipitating the attacks and promising “to prevent Saddam from once again wreaking havoc, suffering and death” (Gordon, 2001). In a show of solidarity a week later, Blair met personally with Bush at Camp David, Maryland, to issue a joint state-

Foreign Policy

245

This illustration by artist Drew Friedman appeared in the New York Times on 14 January 2001, six days before the inauguration of the nation’s 43rd president. Holding the world as a bowling ball, Bush is flanked by two key appointees: National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell. (Illustration by Drew Friedman. Originally appeared in the New York Times).

Illustration 9.2

“W’s World”

ment reconfirming the “special relationship” between Britain and America. Meanwhile, Secretary Powell landed in the Middle East to emphasize that the US would listen to Arab concerns, seek a peace between Israelis and Palestinians and continue to support allies. Bush picked an experienced team for foreign policy. He selected his father’s secretary of defense, Dick Cheney, as his vice-president, took Ford’s former secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfield, as secretary of defense, and former General Colin Powell, as secretary of state. The world worried about the missile shield and Bush’s unilateralism, and, as if to demonstrate its fears and to punish the US for its financial arrears, the United Nations in May 2001 removed the United States from its seat on the Human Rights Commission, a seat it had held since 1947. In retaliation, the US Congress quickly voted to withhold $244 million of an already agreed upon monetary payment to the world body (Eilperin, 2001).

246


11 September 2001 By mid-2001, state-sponsored terrorism and terrorist organizations had been recognized as a general threat to world peace and a particular threat to US interests. The number of anti-US attacks, most of them small-scale without casualties, rose from 169 in 1999 to 200 in 2000 (AP, 2001c). Horrific incidents such as the first World Trade Center attack in New York in 1993, the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and of the US destroyer Cole in Aden in 2000, increased US fears and resolve. Recognizing the need for new policies, in 1999 Congress formed a National Commission on Terrorism which reported its findings in Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism. The report concluded that because of its superpower status, the US would experience an increasing number of assaults. While the nations of Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria continued to fund attacks, more terrorists would be independent individuals and groups who were “less dependent on state sponsorship and are instead, forming loose, transnational affiliations based on religious or ideological affinity and a common hatred of the United States” (US Congress, 2000: 3). Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network and the complicity of the Islamic fundamentalist – Taliban – government in Afghanistan were highlighted. The Commission called for immediate action and coordination of all sanctions, intelligence communities and financial resources to prevent terrorist attacks. The Commission recognized that with over one million visitors legally entering the US daily and with thousands of foreign students enrolled in universities, the problem was enormous. In May 2001, Secretary Powell promised an increased program to isolate and punish any states or groups involved in terrorist acts (AP, 2001c). Then on 11 September 2001, a shockwave swept the world as Islamic terrorists hijacked and crashed four commercial airliners into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon building in Washington, D.C., and a cornfield in Pennsylvania. Many people worldwide watched live CNN coverage as planes hit the buildings, people jumped to their deaths, and the towers collapsed into the streets. Nearly 3,000 people died. The Bush administration responded quickly by assembling a global coalition against terror, even while his rhetoric of being on a “Crusade,” and putting a “Wanted, dead or alive” bounty on Osama bin Laden frightened and disgusted many people (Knowlton, 2001). As part of his

Foreign Policy

247

effort to calm Americans, and in fulfillment of suggestions made by the Commission on Terrorism, Bush immediately called for a cabinetlevel position, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The mission of the DHS would be “to develop and coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats and attacks” (Bush, 2001). The United States began a measured attack on the Taliban government, winning the support of Pakistan, Russia, and Afghan warlords before it began a military bombing and search-and-destroy mission in Afghanistan. At the same time, Bush authorized millions of tons of food and clothing aid to be distributed among Afghan civilians. With overwhelming international support, the United States quickly overthrew the Taliban regime and pledged itself to the long-term war against terror organizations worldwide. Not surprisingly, bin Laden’s successful attack and the US military response have given rise to calls from Islamic extremists for a holy war (jihad). Most Muslims do not support an all-out war against the West, but most are angry over the continuing Israeli occupation of Palestine. Some commentators worry that a “clash of civilizations” will bring about World War III. Political scientist Samuel Huntington (1996) noted that the East has generated powerful religions while the West generated republican, limited power ideologies, and that these are diametrically opposed. For Huntington, the Cold War was insignificant when compared to the centuries-long struggle between the West and Islam, or maybe, “the West against the Rest” (Kaplan, 2001). Even without that apocalyptic prediction, small groups of minimally armed terrorists and a world filled with millions of “rogue individuals” who see martyrdom in the next life as equally or more important than issues in this one, mean a loss of security and unlimited vulnerability. Bush insisted that he would not back down in the hunt for bin Laden and that he is increasing US actions against the “axis of evil” – which he defined as Iran, Iraq, and North Korea (Sanger, 2001). Of course, this sort of phraseology continues to bring world condemnation as even allies worry that it signals a re-emergence of unilateralism and a US belief that only military power can lessen domestic vulnerability. The Pentagon released a study, “The Nuclear Posture Review,” in March 2002, which argued that the US needed to develop a nuclear weapon capable of penetrating deep into the earth to strike heavily-fortified underground bunkers, resume nuclear testing, and maintain a strong nuclear arsenal with submarine-, missile- and aircraft-delivery systems (DOS, 2002b).

248


Illustration 9.3 Trade Center

Headlines of 11 September 2001 Attack on World

On 12 September 2001, US newspapers reported the tragedy of the previous day’s terror attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Joe Goddard. Courtesy of Eric Friedheim Library, National Press Club, Washington, D.C.).

American policymakers are aware of the danger of “imperial overstretch” – the condition that brought down the empires of Rome, the Ottomans, Spain, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union by having too many properties and allies and too few armies, resources, or too little will to protect them all. One of the problems for contemporary presidents is that the world is closely connected via communications and transportation but is dangerously divided by nationalism and cultural differences. Conducting a war on terrorism is a difficult task because nations fear that information-sharing and military strikes endanger the relationship between each nation and the superpower. The United States has to balance a realistic, pragmatic and sometimes harsh foreign policy with a more cooperative multi-polar participation that does not make US actions seem like “bossism.” Presidential rhetoric of noble and ruthless kinds will have to coexist and the United States will continue to attract and repel the international community, as it has patently done in the 2003 Iraq war. Perhaps German foreign

Foreign Policy

249

policy analyst Josef Joffe put it best: “America is both menace and seducer, both monster and model” (Joffe, 2001).

Low Politics High politics issues of foreign policy have traditionally been linked first and foremost with national security based upon military operations. With the end of the Cold War, the issues of what political scientists term “low politics” have gained increased prominence, particularly in relation to the environment. The need for a reduction of “greenhouse gases” that lead to global warming, and possibly cancer, is a top priority because the United States, with 5 percent of the world’s population, burns 25 percent of the energy and spews out 20 percent of the gases. The world is alarmed and the number of “Earth Summits” have increased. In 1997 the United States delegates signed the Kyoto agreement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 6 percent by the year 2012. The Senate, however, refused to ratify the agreement and President George W. Bush declared it too high an economic cost. Another issue is the decrease in biodiversity as thousands of animals and plants are now extinct and the rate seems to be increasing to as many as two hundred species a year. Because life is interdependent and fragile in ways that we still do not understand completely, the loss of biodiversity might threaten the planet. Americans are concerned about both emissions and biodiversity. The environmental movement is strong and Congress first responded with a Clean Air Act (1970), Water Pollution Control Act (1972), banning pesticides, requiring unleaded gasoline, and levying huge fines for dumping waste. Thousands of laws nationwide provide environmental protection. The current Bush administration, however, has deemphasized low politics by removing the divisions handling environmental and health issues from the National Security Council. Bush’s first budget also lowered funding to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by 7 percent. In the late 1970s, Jimmy Carter lifted human-rights issues to center-stage; ever since, American presidents have championed the universality of those rights. But these rights depend on sending foreign aid dollars and that is an unpopular expenditure, especially in a country whose central myths revolve around the freedom and responsibility of each individual to take care of him- or herself. The

250


federal budget allocates less than 1 percent to foreign aid. The United States is quick to point out inhumane practices in China, North Korea, Syria, Iran and elsewhere, while denying that religious, cultural or historical reasons exist for some inequalities. Meanwhile, America’s tough stance on crime keeps two million people in jail in the United States. And although the World Court and human rights groups protest, the United States has increased its use of the death penalty.

Separation of Powers and Foreign Policy There are other complications to foreign policy. The United States operates under a federal system where states share power. Foreigners thereby have multiple chances to access the US market and many nations have established lobbying groups in Washington and various state capitals to convince legislators to favor their proposals. On the other hand, Congress has increasingly tried to force American domestic agendas into international politics. For example, in 1998 before Congress approved an extra $18 billion for the International Monetary Fund to deal with an Asian financial panic, Republicans wanted to stipulate that no money would be given to nations where abortion was practiced. In the end, no stipulation was made and the IMF got the money. Officially the Constitution divides power over foreign policy between the executive and the legislative branches. But in practice, Congress had most of the power in the ninteenth century and the president has had it ever since. The president is commander-in-chief of the military, has the power to make treaties, appoint ambassadors, and is head of state in according diplomatic recognition to foreign heads of state. Only Congress can declare war, approve spending, raise an army, make rules regulating commerce and create international programs. The Senate alone approves ambassadorships and must ratify all treaties made by the executive before they are legally binding. Often, Congress makes laws to control executive perogatives. For example, the 1973 War Powers Resolution limits the president’s ability to wage war by requiring him to notify Congress within 48 hours of sending in troops and by providing a limit of 60 days on their deployment, unless Congress specifically approves an extension. The 1988 Arms Control Export Act restricts the president’s ability to transfer arms approved for one nation to another nation.

Foreign Policy

251

Presidents chafe under legislative control and often sidestep Congressional wishes by using executive agreements, discretionary funds, undeclared wars and other devices. From 1974 to 1997, Congress authorized American presidents to make “fast track” trading agreements with foreign leaders. These agreements could be accepted or rejected by Congress, but not amended. The fast-track agreements helped presidents open foreign markets by making foreign leaders more confident that the president’s agreement would not be changed to include Congressional restrictions. In 1997, in retaliation for Clinton’s support of NAFTA, Congress voted not to extend fast-track agreements. Still, a president can use an agreement between himself and a foreign head-of-state to make policy. The Supreme Court has ruled that these “executive agreements” are constitutional and the number of executive agreements outpace formal treaties by almost 25 to one. Executive agreements are only valid while the president is in office; a new president must renew, reject or make his own agreements. Discretionary funds provide the president with a large amount of money to use in a crisis situation or to pursue pet projects. For example, Kennedy used discretionary funds to run the Peace Corps, Johnson spent $1.5 billion to get America into Vietnam in 1965 and, in 1995, Clinton directed a $25 billion loan to Mexico (Janda, Berry and Goldman, 1999: 377).

The Administration of Foreign Policy The executive authority over war is strengthened by the Department of State, Department of Defense (DOD), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and National Security Council (NSC), all under the direction of the President. The Department of State has primary responsibility for foreign affairs and the secretary of state is the highest-ranking cabinet official, a key figure in formulating and implementing policy. In 1997 Clinton appointed Madeleine Albright as the first woman to hold the position; Bush’s choice of Colin Powell raised the first African American to that office. The secretary of state supervises all US ambassadors, who are political appointees, and the nearly 4,000 permanent foreign service officers. The Department of Defense consists of the military forces of the United States and acts to coordinate the military under the control of a civilian, the secretary of defense. The army, navy, and air force

252


also have civilian heads, known as the secretary of the army, etc. Next in command come professional military soldiers: the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and the respective military commanders. The Central Intelligence Agency is the official intelligence-gathering arm of the foreign policy establishment. Since 1947 the CIA has collected, analyzed, and circulated information relating to national security to the NSC and other agencies which have a “need to know.” Most of the activities of the CIA are entirely mundane, collecting information from statistical reports and newspapers, but the CIA is best-known for its covert activities such as assassinations, spying, destabilizing governments, and wiretaps. In the post-Cold War era, the covert operations have focused increasingly on anti-terrorism, drug smuggling, detection of nuclear weapon development by rogue states, and economic security. The National Security Council consists of advisors who help the President shape a coherent foreign policy. Permanent members include the President, Vice-President, Secretaries of State and Defense, Director of the Office of Homeland Security, and the National Security Advisor. Others, such as the JCS, CIA and FBI Directors, and treasury secretary serve at the discretion of the president. The NSC discusses policy for foreign aid, military intervention, “best-guess” scenarios for Eastern Europe, how to deal with China, and all other issues deemed relevant to national security. The NSC often recommends a course of action and helps persuade Congress to pass funding bills or loans to foreign countries. For example, in 2000, Congress agreed with an NSC directive and authorized $1.3 billion, which included the purchase of 60 attack helicopters, to Colombia to help stop heroin and cocaine production by the powerful drug cartels.

Transatlantic Balance In the contemporary world, transatlantic tensions are increasing as the 60-year-old post-World War II community between Europeans and Americans is declining. Most nations do not fear the hard politics of American military intervention but they do fear American financial, technological, environmental, and cultural threats. The US can often get its way in foreign policy by either ignoring world opinion or by coercing nations into accepting its demands. American leaders add to

Foreign Policy

253

these fears by stressing that all they want is to do business. Foreign leaders worry that once the business interests expire, the US will ignore and abandon them or drag them into an unwanted military conflict. The United States has enormous power to reward nations who conform to American wishes. The government grants access to the large and rich American consumer market, distributes foreign aid in many forms, sponsors entry into international organizations, ignores violations of human rights, forgives debts, and lifts economic sanctions. All of these are understandable components of a nation’s responsibility to its own well-being, but these actions create resentment in a competitive and nationalistic world. Furthermore, nations and regions with little money or few trade goods have low priority in the New World Order, such as sub-Saharan Africa, an area with more international standing during the Cold War. A strengthened UN, more leadership from the EU, and a return to “Wilsonianism” might provide the international balance and humanitarian aid necessary to deal with both high and low politics in a global community. Whatever the future portends, isolationist, multilateral, and interventionist tendencies will continue to co-exist in the American national persona.

10 Prospects for the TwentyFirst Century

In the first years of the twenty-first century, globalization and nationalism coexist uneasily. The ongoing technological revolutions in communications and transportation ensure that nations and individuals can easily penetrate the borders of other nations. At the same time, resurgent nationalism with its tendency toward cultural ethnocentrism threatens world peace. While modernization has increased secularism, religion has proven resilient and sometimes dangerous. Interlocking world economies bring fears of recessions or depressions that could spark civil wars or, perhaps, World War III. The overdependence on oil is potentially dangerous if oil prices rise or war disrupts supply. Immigrants of vastly different cultures increasingly stand at the doors of industrialized nations, knock to enter, or climb over the walls without permission. Some analysts see an expansion of technology and open trade as a panacea which will help all nations rise, but many others believe that the West, including Japan, has such a headstart, that new technology will only increase the gap between the First World and the rest. A few cynics – or realists – argue that environmental protection agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol, are capitalist ploys to sell very expensive “clean” technology to developing nations, while keeping those nations underdeveloped as providers of raw material and cheap labor. The insistence by lending organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank or World Trade Organization that borrowers conform to open markets, environmental standards, human rights, and democratic governments causes as much resentment as it promises stability. The vocal and violent demonstrations of protesters 254

Prospects for the Twenty-First Century

255

– as well as the rising numbers of academic books positing that Western globalization is neo-imperialism – point to future unrest on a massive scale (Gray, 1998; Hutton and Giddens, 2001; Stiglitz, 2002). There is only one superpower, but whether its strength is growing or waning is debatable. Historian Paul Kennedy concludes that at no time in world history has the gap between the world’s greatest power and the second greatest power been so wide as in the twenty-first century (Brooks, 2002a). And yet, China has enormous potential, Japan could rebound from its present economic reverses, and the European Union could redefine “superpower” with the Euro replacing the dollar as the world’s currency. It is not certain whether or not the United States has even reached its own potential. No one seriously dissents from the view that the twentieth century was an American century, but an unstable world, a strong NAFTA, a large resource base, and a continued large immigration might further increase American hegemony, making the twenty-first century a Second American Century.

US Nationalism And what of the effects of 11 September? It could be that the United States has only just become a “nation.” While the 1941 attack on the naval base at Pearl Harbor forged a superpower, the destruction of the World Trade Center in the financial capital of the world, in a city that embodies many revered symbols of American history and mythology, pulled Americans together in ways that only invasions of a homeland can do. American Indians have always had this sense of loss and place. Southerners, defeated in Civil War battles fought almost exclusively on Southern soil, have also been defined by their defense of a homeland. In the aftermath of 11 September – and probably for the first time since before the Civil War – Southerners flew more national flags and felt more “American” than ever before. Perhaps other Americans will come to feel the “homeland” below their feet instead of the ancestral country of their memories. Then, they will answer the question of identity more with “American” than with the state, country of origin, cultural, or hyphenated constructions of the past: that is, Texan, Chicano, Latino or Mexican-American. To get a notion of this, think of the way resident second-generation racial and ethnic minorities, such as Turks, Koreans, Senegalese and others celebrate

256


World Cup victories by their countries of origin even more than of the country in which they are living. Americans, whose families are immigrants all, have long had such divided loyalties. Perhaps 11 September will finally make them “Americans all.” The 4th of July has usually been treated as a day away from work to be celebrated in small gatherings of friends cooking barbeque on the grill or taking in a baseball game. The 2002 Independence Day celebration was different. No one could help noticing the proliferation of flags as Americans continued a trend they began on 11 September: flying the flag every day of the year and replacing tattered flags with bright, new ones (Payne, 2002). President Bush addressed the crowd gathered in the small town of Ripley, West Virginia: “We love our country only more when she’s threatened. . . . All Americans can draw a straight line from the free lives we lead today to that one moment, when the world changed forever. From that day in 1776, freedom has had a home and freedom has had a defender” (quoted in AP, 2002; Oppel, 2002). Across the nation, Americans seemed more patriotic than at any time since World War II. The FBI warning of a heightened chance of terrorist attacks on the 4th was basically ignored as Americans swarmed into public places. The military was out in force, guarding national symbols, such as the Statue of Liberty and Mount Rushmore. A barricade and two dozen checkpoints were established on the Washington Mall and the police were prominent. States and cities operated security checkpoints everywhere large crowds might gather (Belluck, 2002). This increased sense of danger and patriotic defiance expanded feelings of nationalism. There is a risk involved in this coming together: the danger of conformity. As historian Francis Fukuyama has pointed out, “While many Americans [and others] today argue that America is too individualistic and disparate to be a real community, it is hard to recall that at midcentury most critics of American life characterized US society – and particularly the business community – as overly conformist and homogeneous” (Fukuyama, 1995: 277). Whether conformity is liberal or conservative is beyond the realm of this book, but it must be noted that Americans fear the conformity of one era as much as they dread the chaotic individual freedoms of another. Atlantic Monthly editor Michael Kelly forecasts a resurgence of American liberalism and sees a growing faith in government that began even before the events of 11 September (Kelly, 2002b). The


257

1990s economy dampened dissent. Clinton’s approval rating, even during impeachment proceedings, remained around 80 percent. In November 2001, Bush had an approval rating of 89 percent and Congress had a 77 percent support rate. The terrorist attacks gave rise to a civility among ethnic groups, races and classes that recognized the threat to all Americans, regardless of social standing. This feeling could act to stimulate government programs for the underprivileged. Kelly points out that patriotism is a factor bringing liberals and conservatives together to see America as a good country, as one country encompassing a multicultural citizenry where both individual freedom and government social programs are necessary (Kelly, 2002b: 18–19). The war on terrorism revived trust in government and lessened fears and conspiracy theories about government, something for which Americans are as notorious as the French (Marshall, 2001). This distrust of government is the default setting to which politics returns and has been in place since the eighteenth-century Enlightenment brought about the American and French revolutions in 1776 and 1789, respectively. President Bush has made it clear that the war on terrorism will go on indefinitely. In a war without end, the division of power and constitutional freedoms are jeopardized by concentrating political power in the Executive branch. The President, his advisors, the military, and the intelligence agencies operate with more secrecy and the people, fearing attacks, accept it. In 2002, the American government tightened survelliance, profiled all Arabs as potential terrorists, arrested people on the flimsiest excuses, and called for tighter coordination of security efforts – actions that clearly violated the Bill of Rights. Patriotic nationalism and community coherence are detrimental when there is too little criticism of government and too much emphasis on “standard” or “American” values. In the name of order, freedom is often discarded. Calls of “America, love it or leave it” arise. In the name of national security, secrecy rises and with it, a lack of public information by which to hold the government accountable. Laws to put the Bible into the classroom, to criminalize the burning of the American flag, to limit access to government information, and to mandate English as the national language would make a mockery of traditional freedoms. There are no such laws, as yet, even though reactionary voices have gained strength and votes. Any further terrorist attack could easily alter the fragile balance between individual liberty and national security.

258


Economics In many ways the United States has remained loyal to its eighteenthcentury beliefs. The country was established when European nationstates fought to expand their riches through trade and colonization of a New World. The colonies provided raw materials, cheap labor, and wealth in closed market systems run for the benefit of the mother country. Then Enlightenment ideas of laissez-faire, social compacts between governments and peoples, individual responsibility, and open markets had much to do with the coming of the American Revolution. With Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence (1776) embodying the key concepts of eighteenth-century liberalism, America was born, and remains, a creature of that thinking. Expansion across the continent was completed just as Europeans plunged into World War I, and shortly thereafter, World War II. With the rise of Soviet power, the United States defended global openmarket capitalism against regulated-market communism. The end of the Cold War in 1990 seemed to confirm that the American way would be the global way (Gray, 1998). Politicians frequently invoke Jefferson in major speeches because he has become a synonym for eighteenth-century Enlightenment ideas. These ideas resonate with contemporary Americans. Yet, most of the world never embraced Jefferson’s truths as “self evident” nor have they completely accepted economic liberalism. Consistently throughout the twentieth century, the majority of American politicians and business leaders have insisted that economic globalization will create a safer and more prosperous world. What they have in mind is the American model, which they see as the universal ideal, even though it is not viewed that way by Europeans and others. In 2002 the business sections of world newspapers read like a John Grisham crime novel as tales of corruption, scandal and scam permeated the business world of the United States (Pearlstein, 2002). Well-respected, seemingly invulnerable, corporations tumbled like dominoes and many commentators worried whether or not capitalists could bring down capitalism (Eichenwald, 2002). British economist Will Hutton excoriates the United States, which he sees adrift from its high ideals, for the conservative ascendancy that began with Nixon and reached a zenith in its lack of self-knowledge and self-criticism under George W. Bush. Hutton argues that not only is American capitalism not as strong as it boasts of being, it is feral (mad-dog) capitalism without a humanitarian component (Hutton, 2002).


259

The US Senate had barely begun its inquiries into the Enron scandal when other titantic corporations admitted that they had overestimated profits, lied to stockholders, imagined sales, manipulated bookkeeping, destroyed evidence, and conspired with others to inflate their reputations on world markets. Conspirators included high-level government officials and bank officers who manipulated loans to bankroll companies. In June 2002, after communications giant WorldCom admitted hiding $3.8 billion in costs and disclosed that the company’s true value had fallen from $115 billion to less than $1 billion, its stocks were selling at $0.26 a share, down from a high of $62 (Romero and Berenson, 2002). Each week brought a new disclosure and a new scam as corporate executives betrayed the principles of honesty and trust necessary to free-market capitalism. Many Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) sold off their own stocks just before their companies collapsed – a patently illegal practice. Supposedly, this cannot happen. After the 1929 stock market crash brought on the Great Depression, the government established the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to oversee business accounting, mergers, and sell-offs. Independent accounting firms were entrusted with protecting the public against private greed. But, as in the 1920s, the US economy of the 1990s was booming, and with predictions of more growth CEOs found ways to inflate profits and to sidestep disclosure. The long-term results are unpredictable, but in the immediate aftermath of the scandals, confidence in the New York Stock Exchange dropped as Americans and foreign investors reduced stock purchases as all corporations and CEOs became guilty by association. The press implied that George W. Bush’s 1990 sell-off of 212,140 shares of stock worth $848,560 in a Texas-based oil company just eight days before that stock collapsed might have been illegal. Bush was on the company’s board of directors at the time (Bumiller, 2002). These developments, when added to the contrast between America’s huge trade decifits and the EU’s trade surplus, made the Euro seem a good currency in which to invest funds. Even with these corporate scandals, business analyst Kurt Eichenwald has pointed out that capitalism is self-correcting because corporations rely on consumer confidence for the capital required and will thus support a stronger and tougher SEC (Eichenwald, 2002). A bigger concern, as explained by analyst Jack Beatty – citing economist Robert Brenner and alluding to Karl Marx – is that “over-investment and overproduction are the specters haunting the world

260


economy” (Beatty, 2002). Technology has exacerbated this threat by helping companies increase production while employing fewer workers. When the stock market falls it affects tax revenue used to fund social programs. If investors see the NYSE as a “crooked house,” instead of placing the blame on individual criminals, a crisis of confidence could reduce spending and bring widespread distress.

The War on Terrorism The anxiety caused by the war on terrorism also affects the stock market. Add in the continuing tensions between Israelis and Palestinians and the war pursued by the Bush administration to finish off Saddam Hussein, and the world wonders about the future, vacillating between calls for America to do everything and do nothing. US policy-makers often claim that inaction against a known threat is “appeasement”; in contrast, European policy-makers are more likely to view inaction as a sign of tolerance and sophistication (Kagan, 2002). In the arena of foreign policy, the United States continues to attract and repel – a natural phenomenon given the history of dominant and lesser power relationships. Looking at the internal foreign policy debate on the day before 11 September, experts viewed the situation five ways, ranked here by order of support. Advocates for a “benign globalization” saw an increasingly secular, prosperous, liberal, and peaceful world. Second came the idea of a “power transition” which consolidated US and Western power by blocking the rise of the most likely peer competitor, China. Others pushed for American “unilateral preeminence,” a go-it-alone approach of increasing power. The fourth position advanced a “clash of civilizations” thesis that saw the world as increasingly dangerous in the aftermath of the Cold War and forecast fighting wars between nations. The last and least argued position warned of “domestic vulnerability” with terrorist threats to American cities (Bobrow, 2001). On 11 September, the ranking was overturned and a fusion of positions four and five fueled US foreign policy. Political Scientist Samuel Huntington’s thesis that a modernizing world did not mean a Westernizing world and that culturally-conscious nationalism was rising, particularly in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, gained increasing support from policy-makers. Huntington had argued that the end of the Cold War meant a more dangerous world, not a safer


Illustration 10.1

261

President Bush at the UN

President George W. Bush meets UN Secretary General Kofi Annan at the United Nations, 12 September 2002. Bush encouraged the Security Council to act decisively on what he believed was an imminent threat to international peace and security posed by Iraq. Two months later, on 8 November, the UN Security Council voted 15-0 to support Bush’s ultimatum that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein comply with weapon inspections or face war. (Photo by Tim Sloan/AFP).

one. He dismissed notions of a New World Order or Pax Americana and predicted a “clash of civilizations” due to long-standing resentment by Islam of the West, a resentment that has risen to great heights through the continuing Israeli–Palestinian conflict (Huntington, 1996). The population increase in Islamic countries has outpaced the West, the 2003 war in Iraq, and the spread of the internet into Muslim homes brings daily pictures of the conflict in Palestine and tracts against the US–Israeli coaliton, keeping passions inflamed. The internet also causes great anxiety among Americans because it opens another route for terrorist attacks. Many facilities in the United States are computer-operated. Electric and nuclear power stations, railway switches, water floodgates on dams, hospital emergency

262


generators, drawbridge devices, and communications systems might all be damaged by an attack through cyberspace. Fears increase when the press reminds the public of the 1998 incident when a 12-year-old hacker had complete command of the computer system that controlled 500 trillion gallons of water behind Roosevelt Dam in Arizona (Gellman, 2002). Warnings of renewed terrorist attacks create concern; then when nothing happens, people begin to discount the next warning. What is more, warnings without actual occurrences have the effect of increasing distrust in the government’s ability to stop the terrorists and in government itself. And warnings with an actual occurrence might have exactly the same effect. To prove itself, and in its frustration, the administration could attempt to divert attention through actual wars against states that are developing biological or nuclear weapons. The 2003 war to depose Saddam Hussein could ignite Islamic public opinion and Arab governments against the United States, especially if US military forces occupy Iraq after the war (Gordon, 2002). The result could be to foster the very clash of civilizations about which US policy-makers are so concerned. Inside the United States, the intelligence-gathering community has reorganized itself to share information among the many agencies involved in the war on terrorism. The FBI, CIA, NSC and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) have pledged closer cooperation. Congress held hearings to ensure that the agencies develop a cooperative data-analysis system. In addition to appropriating more money to this already expensive $30-billion-a-year intelligence community, in November 2002 Congress approved the president’s request to fund a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to coordinate federal and state resources against future attacks. Twenty-two federal agencies with 170,000 employees will comprise the DHS, including Border Patrols, Coast Guard, and Health and Human Services. Fearing that terrorists will contaminate water supplies, poison food, or send anthrax (an acute, infectious disease) through the postal system, various agencies dealing with health and disease control have been included. State governors appointed directors who would be the contact point for the DHS. Americans were encouraged to join the “Citizens Corps,” a kind of national “neighborhood watch” group to heighten awareness in local communities and report on suspicious actions. Critics of the DHS warn that “Big Brother” will take away the rights of the people and create an atmosphere of distrust similar to the


Illustration 10.2

263

US Air Force Stealth Bomber

The American military depends increasingly on high-tech weaponry to sustain its power. Stealth bombers were employed against the Taliban forces in Afghanistan in 2001 and will be a mainstay of future American engagements. (AFP).

“Red Scares” which followed both world wars. The calls for national identification cards and increased immigration vigilance threaten freedom of movement and speech. The freedom to observe religious beliefs has been jeopardized. For example, in one highly-publicized case, a woman brought suit against the state of Florida for violating her civil liberties by demanding that she remove her veil for a driver’s license photograph, a veil required by her religion (Canedy, 2002). We can expect to see the courts heavily involved in balancing freedoms and security interests as the war on terror continues to confront the Constitution. Until the collapse of the World Trade Center, Americans generally believed that the country was invulnerable to outside attacks, other than a nuclear assault. Starting with the Reagan administration’s call for a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) to protect the United States

264


from such a nuclear strike, presidents have supported the idea of a missile shield. The public realizes that a missile shield cannot protect the nation from terrorists – and may prove ineffective against a nuclear strike – but supports the program. Additionally, there are calls for new tactical nuclear weapons for use in areas hard to reach by conventional bombing (Illustration 10.2). These weapons would also serve as a deterrent or might be used to protect allies or strategic interests such as oil fields. Pentagon planners have made it clear that they want to resume nuclear testing, something the United States has not done since 1992 (Gordon, 2002).

Society Looking beyond the changes wrought by 11 September, a continued strong and diverse immigration and the habitual relocation of Americans to new jobs in new states ensures an ongoing degree of social disruption. The church-going religiosity of Americans dampens the effects of this turmoil and the schools are great assimilators. Both institutions provide a portable civil society for a mobile nation. Internal domestic multicultural conflicts – culture wars – seem to be abating, and are, perhaps, problems that belong to the last century. For five decades American race relations have been the nation’s most enduring social problem. And while discrimination and racism have not disappeared, so much progress has been made and other threats loom so large as to make them benign by comparison (Posner, 2002). The major problems on the social horizon deal with demographic changes and persistent and growing inequalities of wealth. Even without the tremendous expenditures devoted to the war on terror and the diverting of tax revenues to pay for national defense, the rapid aging of the population is enormously troubling. There are 4 million Americans over 80 years old and 45 million others – one in every six – are over 60. By 2030, 89 million more people will join this over-60 group (HHS, 2000). Longer lifespans have combined with the usual retirement at ages 62–65 to increase demand on the pension and health care systems. At the same time, with no mandatory retirement age, some people continue to work into their 90s, thereby taking jobs from younger people. Meanwhile, advances in biotechnology seem close to matching drugs to individual genotypes. There is no doubt that new research and technology are saving lives and extending


265

lifespans, but they are also increasing costs to state budgets by 10–12 percent a year (Pierre, 2002). Falling fertility rates have reduced the numbers of younger workers who are needed to support welfare and pension systems. This problem is not confined to the United States but is general to the West (Peterson, 1999). Optimists hope that salvation lies in continued strong immigration or a hike in taxes to cover rising costs. One way to gain revenue is to impose local option taxes – commonly called “sin tax” – on alcohol or tobacco. In mid-2002, New York City raised the tax from $0.08 to $1.50 a pack on cigarettes, a move estimated to bring in $111 million a year while reducing the cancer risks of smoking (Cooper, 2002). While Americans might be willing to pay higher sales and income taxes to support the elderly, there seems little chance that they will approve a Scandinavian model of welfare for the poor. The inequality gap will continue to grow and the righteous Puritan rhetoric of individual hard work and merit could reach fever pitch. In social matters, Enlightenment values of equality and human rights have been adopted by most nations, theoretically, although many nations have radically different views of the rights of women and ethnic, racial, or religious minorities. Most of the West, plus Japan, adopted a twentieth-century liberalism that expects the government to intervene in social welfare issues aimed at producing a better equality of outcome for all citizens. Seen from a global perspective – if not necessarily from a Western one – the United States is a welfare state that provides assistance to the poor, sick, aged, and unemployed. That the aid is neither equal nor completely adequate does not diminish the fact of its existence. From a world perspective, Americans as a group are rich and are likely to remain so. The average yearly income for an American family headed by someone with a four-year university degree is $71,400 and 26 percent of all Americans over age 25 have those degrees (Brooks, 2002a; US Census Bureau, 2002a). Analyst David Brooks points out that such an income places those families above 95 percent of the world’s population, a position he terms “stinking rich” (Brooks, 2000, 2002a). For most of these suburban Americans, the hardship is time, not money. Life in suburbia is “arduous” simply because it is so full of activities and responsibilities, all driven by “color-coded charts on the refrigerator” which map activities every single minute of the week. Middle-class America works as hard as it plays and falls asleep exhausted at the end of the day (Brooks, 2002b: 19–20).

266


Health and Environment Despite always being on the go, “Americans,” as a Harris Poll frankly stated, “are the fattest people on Earth and are getting fatter every year” (Harris Poll, 1999b). With nearly 30 percent of the population weighing in at over 20 percent of their recommended weight, obesity is a national problem. The fast-food culture that supersizes everything, more time in front of television or computer, and the sheer abundance of products contribute to this situation. Politicians cannot afford to address the issue of overeating for fear of alienating their constituents. Government departments of health and private advocacy groups have spent millions of dollars on advertisements trying to convince Americans to exercise more and eat less. So far, the battle has been lost. The health problems related to overeating put further stress on the health care system. Since 1980 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has operated a Superfund program to clean up the nation’s 1,231 toxic waste dumps. The program was funded by a billion-dollar-a-year tax on the industrial corporations responsible for the pollution. Since 1994, Republican-dominated Congresses have reduced the tax. With the Superfund lacking money, the Bush administration proposed to limit cleanup at more than two dozen sites in 18 states, including the New Jersey dumping ground for Agent Orange, the cancer-causing defoliant used during the Vietnam War. Contaminated landfills are threats to the health and environment of nearby communities but the cleanup can only continue by the authorization of Congress, which might have to override a presidential veto if it wants to reestablish the fund. Bush’s seeming lack of environmental concern during the first half of his presidency led New York Times columnist Bob Herbert to write: “Mother Nature has been known to tremble at the sound of the president’s approaching footsteps. He’s an environmental disaster zone” (Herbert, 2002). Up next for the United States is what to do about the older nuclear reactors and bombs that need to be decommissioned. World scientists are consistent in their warnings on global warming and predictions of catastrophic floods, droughts, storms and a large rise in the earth’s temperature of +10.4 degrees Fahrenheit (5.8 C) by the end of the century (Pan, 2001). A federally-funded “drought monitor” was introduced in 1999 to study climate changes that could cause tornadoes, fires and flooding. The United States has averaged over 800 tornadoes a year since 1950, but higher temperatures and less rainfall are harbingers of increased damage. Sea levels are


267

expected to rise and fragile mountain ecosystems and coral reefs will disappear. Thus far the Bush administration has acknowledged these predictions while refusing to support international agreements such as Kyoto (EPA, 2002). It may be that the United States can deal with the climate changes in the domestic sphere, but the worldwide implications of drought and food disruptions are immense. Globally, the HIV epidemic is advancing with predictions that 68 million people will die of the immune disorder by 2020 if preventive action is not dramatically increased. Since 1981, 20 million people have died of AIDS; in 2001 alone, 3 million expired. Many areas of sub-Saharan Africa have been the worst hit with as many as one-third of all young adults infected. The rates in China, India, and Indonesia are rising and could turn the epidemic into a much wider disaster (Brown, 2002a). The United States and the West have not done enough to stop the spread of the virus, and many believe that it is too late to help Africa. In 2002, Bill Gates donated $100 million to fight the HIV cases in India, adding to the $100 million he had already donated to the International Aids Vaccine Initiative, a non-governmental organization privately fighting the virus (Waldman, 2002). Only combined governmental and private sector efforts can hope to dampen the epidemic. By 2000, there had been 770,923 Americans documented with AIDS of whom 448,060 died from the infection (CDC, 2001a).

Conclusion America continues to dominate the world’s attention and imagination. Not only the physical reality of the country, but the metaphysical idea of “America,” causes strong visceral responses from individuals worldwide. The 500-year-long advertisement (since 1492) of new beginnings in a New World has taken its toll as we long for something else to capture our attention. The Western world has become over-communicated, our attention spans are shorter, and the people are impatient for speed and change. We are soon exhausted by having to wait more than a few seconds for our laptop computer in Louisiana to retrieve a document from an archive in Eritrea. The two global twentieth-century wars of nationalism and the Cold War created winners and losers. This bound the world tighter together economically while causing resentments that lead to reprisals. Many want now to strike back at what were abuses done in the name of “our

268


way” versus “the other way” – capitalism and communism. In the twenty-first century the United States will be attacked and told to stay away as much as it will be embraced and asked to help. A clear example of this is the 2003 war in Iraq in which a US-led coalition including Britain, Australia, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, and more minor players, overturned the dictatorial government of Saddam Hussein. The consequences of that war in the face of massive worldwide peace demonstrations, lack of support by the UN and NATO, and the ultimate response by the Muslim world both threatens and enhances American power in ways yet to be understood. This book has attempted to strike a balance between positions of social, political, and economic import. Neither conservatives nor liberals have a monopoly on the truth, even if they argue vehemently and press their solutions upon the opposition. In the United States, political partisanship has been on the rise since the fall of Republican President Richard Nixon in 1974. Whether or not that partisanship will continue is unpredictable in the face of current events. Americans and the world still cling to the idea of “America” but must live with the reality of the United States. A broader question is in order. Near the end of the last century, Bill Clinton summed up the most important problem facing the nation – and world – in the present century: “The challenge of our past remains the challenge of our future: Will we be one nation, one people, with one common destiny, or not? Will we all come together, or come apart?”

Recommended Reading

1

History

Among the many excellent comprehensive survey texts are Tindall and Shi (1996), Davidson, Gienapp, Heyrman, et al. (2001), and Faragher, Buhle, Czitrom and Armitage (1994). The best short survey is Jenkins (1997). See Foner and Garraty (eds) (1991) for reliable and readable encyclopedic information. Lipset (1996) explains American exceptionalism and Foner (1998) is indispensable for understanding American freedom. On race, manifest destiny and religion, see Horsman (1981) and Wood (1990). Schlesinger (1986), Williams (1966) and Niebuhr (1952) cogently explain the foundations of and cycles in American history from various viewpoints. Slotkin (1993) is excellent on the role of violence and frontier in American mythology.

2

Land and People

The best overall primary source is the published census of 2000 located in US Census Bureau (2002). The main issues concerning environmentalism and conservation are found in Merchant (ed.) (1996). An entertaining and informative account of the people and the land can be found in Bryson (1998). For immigration history and the changing ethnicities of immigrants, see Barkan (1996), Takaki (1989, 1992), Daniels (1992) and Ungar (1995). Gjerde (ed.) (1998) provides the best combination of primary sources and academic essays on immigration issues. Very good conflicting views of current conditions for African Americans are debated by Hacker (1995) and Thernstrom and Thernstrom (1999). On Native Americans, the best short survey is Rawls (1996) and a good review of current problems is Thornton (ed.) (1998).

3

Government

For discussions of the presidency see Schlesinger (1973), Neustadt (1990) and Cronin and Genovese (1997). For insight into congressional elections and voters see Herrnson (1995). Abraham (1993) gives an account of judicial

269

270

Reccomended Reading

process. Clayton and Giordano (1998) consider the role of judicial philosophy in Supreme Court decisions. Bailey (1998) draws on research charting the changing nature of contemporary federalism, whereas Lind (1995) and Lazare (1996) both criticize federalism for its inflexibility, based on an immutable Constitution. Kammen (1986) highlights the cultural significance of the Constitution.

4


Schattschneider (1942, 1960) looks at the roles of parties and interest groups on the political process. Wattenberg (1996) argues that links between the parties and the electorate have lessened in recent times. Wolfe (1998) suggests that a consensus of basic values underlies partisan decline. Putnam (2000) sees growing individuality, and obliquely offers an explanation for a decline in participation. Lehmann (1996) argues that participation has changed, not declined. Hutton (2002) and Lipset (1996) put American political attitudes into a comparative context. Ansolabehere, Behr and Iyengar (1993) deal with the media’s role in political communication, whereas Kurtz (1998) and Klein (2002) concentrate on how politicians use the media.

5

Society

For classic views of American society, start with Riis (1901), Lynd (1929), Galbraith (1958) and Patterson (1981). To understand the influence of the suburbanization of America, see Jackson (1985) and for a look at how to change the suburbs from a geography of nowhere to liveable space, see Kunstler (1996). Wolfe (1998) is a superior study of American middle-class values and lifestyles, and contrasts with a more pessimistic view by Putnam (2000), who finds a loss of civic virtue in the American community. Hacker (1995) shows how race and crime have split the country into two cultures; Lind (1995) sees six tribes and is perceptive in showing how the Upper Class maintains control by promoting multiculturalism. A good study of diversity is Smelser and Alexander (1999). For a critique of the winner-take-all society, see Frank and Cook (1995). Schor (1993, 1998) presents a lively discussion of the contemporary realities of overwork and overspend. On this theme, also see Hochschild (1997). Fukuyama (1995) shows how economics and social values are inseparable.

Recommended Reading

6

271


The best general introductions to religion in America are Marsden (1991, 2000) and Wills (1990). A highly readable, and damning, view of how Christianity merged with capitalism is Wood (1990). Studies praising American faiths are found in Wolfe (1998) and D’Souza (2002), the latter seeing the division between church and state as the cornerstone of American power. Kozol (1991) indicts the American primary and secondary education system for its inequalities. Bloom (1988) laments the loss of intellectual desire among university students. A good understanding of the influence of conservative Christians on politics is Martin (1996). Skocpol (1995) examines the whys and wherefores behind social policy and discusses the policies themselves. Peterson (1999) delves into social programs and the problems of an aging workforce.

7

Culture

For a comparative view of how European and American culture diverged and united after World War II, see Pells (1997). Kammen (1999) presents an excellent scholarly study of the contours of American culture during the twentieth century. Cruden (1994) provides the most concise overview. A solid work which pleas for community instead of division is Gitlin (1995). Lears (1994) and Leach (1993) are must-reads for those interested in how companies advertise and promote desire. Williamson (1986) is also good. The drive-thru culture is examined best by Schlosser (2001) and good essays are found in Nye and Pedersen (eds) (1991). Another solid book of readings, which will entertain and inform, is Petracca and Sorapure (eds) (1995). Gabler (1988, 1998) turns the cameras on Hollywood to show how life imitates art. Kovach and Rosensteil (1999) explore the problems with fast telecommunications systems. Good leftist studies of American sports mentalities and culture are Higgs (1995) and Morgan (1994).

8

The Economy

Comprehensive treatments of the development of the American economy are particularly clear in Heilbroner and Singer (1999) and Dethloff (1997). Hutton and Giddens (eds) (2001) provide a useful debate from conflicting viewpoints on economic globalization. Hutton (2002) offers a sound critique of runaway capitalism-American style. An excellent study of the principles of scientific management and the man who built them is Kanigel (1997). Krugman (1995) looks at how government policies hurt the economy and Brenner (2002) predicts a coming economic depression because of historic trends. Two insid-

272

Reccomended Reading

ers in the Clinton administration, Reich (2001) and Stiglitz (2002) examine the downside of the domestic economy on national cohesion and the impact of globalization on emerging economies, respectively.

9

Foreign Policy

The frequently updated study by Ambrose (1997) is a must-read as an introduction to American involvement as a superpower. Fukuyama (1992) predicted an end to history with the ending of the Cold War but Barber (1995) and Huntington (1996) indicate that Islam and the West are increasingly at odds. Gaddis (1998) offers good insights into the reasons behind the Cold War. Addington (2000) provides an excellent narrative history of the Vietnam War and Lind (1999) theorizes that the US involvement was necessary. The ways in which the United States depends on war for world power is explained by Perret (1989), while Nordlinger (1995) looks into the rise of isolation and limited engagements for the future. Joseph S. Nye delivers a thoughtful and somewhat comparative approach in The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone (2002).

10


Predictions for America’s future directions and actions are hazardous. Nevertheless, the following books are important for investigating major themes. Wills (1999) offers an overview of conspiracy fears. Bork (1996) chastizes American liberals for their continuing immoralities. Lind (1995) hopes for a rise in nationalism as a way to save the liberal state. A thorough review of the AIDS crisis is Shilts (2000). The threat of longer lifespans is nicely examined in Peterson (1999). Hutton (2002) flails American capitalism and calls for other capitalist models to prevail. Stiglitz (2001) furthers the accusation to the West’s policies of globalization. Buchanan (2001) and Kraut (1995) worry that immigrants and their diseases are a threat to the nation. Bennett (2002) looks at rising Islamic fury over Israel and the Middle East. D’Souza (2002) comes to America’s defense by looking at what is right with the country.

America on the Internet

US Government Using the primary website (http://www.firstgov.gov), students can access all US government offices, departments, and agencies. Direct access to selected agencies include: http://www.doi.gov http://www.whitehouse.gov http://www.usinfo.state.gov http://www.census.gov

News Sources Almost every US news source has its own website for current news and analyses. Many have searchable archives for past news, among them: http://www.theatlantic.com http://www.nytimes.com http://www.washingtonpost.com http://www.latimes.com http://www.wsj.com http://www.cnn.com http://www.pbs.org

Journals Most important American journals can be accessed through http:// www.jstor.org with the caveat of a five-year quarantine on the most recent issues. Current journals are available on-line through most university libraries.

273

274

America on the Internet

Libraries http://www.unc.libraries.edu http://www.nara.gov/education http://www.lcweb.loc.gov http://www.harvard.edu/home/library.html

Political Parties Democratic Republican Libertarian Green Reform

http://www.democrats.org http://www.rnc.org http://lp.org http://gp.org http://www.reformparty.org

Opinion and Attitudes http://www.gallup.com http://www.people-press.org http://www.umich.edu/-nes/nesguide.html

Think Tanks http://www.heritage.org/research/features/agends.cfm http://www.brookings.edu http://www.cato.org

Bibliography

Abbreviations: AJC = Atlanta Journal-Constitution AMO = Atlantic Monthly AP = Associated Press ASJ = American Studies Journal (Martin-Luther-University, Halle Wittenberg) ECON = Economist IHT = International Herald Tribune LA = Los Angeles Times LRB = London Review of Books NR = New Republic NYRB = New York Review of Books NYT = New York Times WP = Washington Post WSJ = Wall Street Journal

AACC. American Association of Community Colleges, “About Community Colleges.” [www.aacc.nche.edu/Template.dfi.html] Abraham, H. (1993) The Judicial Process: An Introductory Analysis of the Courts of the United States, England, and France, 6th edn, New York: Oxford University Press. A.C. Nielsen Media Research (2002). Addington, L. (2000) America’s War in Vietnam: A Short Narrative History, Bloomington, Indiana: University of Indiana Press. Alsop, R. (ed.) (1999) The Wall Street Journal Almanac, New York: Random House. Alvarez, L. (2000a) “Congress Backs Big Increase in Visas for Skilled Workers,” NYT, 4 October. Alvarez, L. (2000b) “Senate Approves $7.8 Billion Plan to Aid Everglades,” NYT, 29 September. Ambrose, S. and D. Brinkley (1997) Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938, 8th edn, UK: Penguin. Amnesty International (2002) Death Penalty. [www.amnestyusa.org/abolish] Anderson, N. (2001) “US Strikes Back,” LAT, 13 October.

275

276

Bibliography

Anonymous [Klein, J.] (1996) Primary Colors, London: Vintage. Ansolabehere, S. R. Behr and S. Iyengar (1993) The Media Game: American Politics in the Television Age, New York: Macmillan – Palgrave. AP (2002), “Bush Defends Pledge on 4th of July,” NYT, 4 July. AP (2001a) “Chicago Tries to Become Greenest City,” NYT, 20 June. AP (2001b) “Teen Pregnancy Rate Falls,” NYT, 13 June. AP (2001c) “Powell: Terrorists More Isolated,” NYT, 1 May. AP (2001d) “Guiliani Angered by Nude Female Exhibit,” AJC, 16 February. AP (2001e) “Americans’ Incomes, and Spending, Rise,” NYT, 1 February. AP (2000a) “Nearly 250,000 Attended Billy Graham’s Jacksonville Crusade,” AJC, 6 November. AP (2000b) “Minimum Wage Can’t Support Modest Roof, Study Says,” WP, 21 September. Aversa, J. (2000) “Clinton Announces Record $237B Surplus,” USA Today, 25 October. Bailey, C. (1998) “The Changing Federal System,” in Peele, G., C. Bailey, B. Cain and G. Peters (eds), 114–37. Bailyn, B. (1985) The Peopling of British North America: An Introduction, New York: Knopf. Baker, A. (2001) “Steep Rise in Gun Sales Reflects Post-Attack Fears,” NYT, 31 December. Barber, B. (1995) Jihad vs. McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism are Reshaping the World, New York: Times Books. Barisic, S. (2000) “Eagles Recovery Far From Complete,” NYT, 4 July. Barkan, E. (1996) And Still They Come: Immigrants and American Society, 1920 to the 1990s, Wheeling, Illinois: Harlan-Davidson. Barrett, D. (2000) World Christian Encyclopedia (2 vols.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baym, N., R. Gottesman, L. Holland, et al. (1989) The Norton Anthology of American Literature, 3rd edn (vol. 1), New York: Norton. Beatty, J. (2002) “The Boom and the Bubble,” AMO, (July/August): 191–92. Bell, I. (2000) “The Constructions of American Culture: An Overview,” in R. Maidment and J. Mitchell (eds), 1–12. Belluck, P. (2000) “Short of People, Iowa Seeks to be Ellis Island of the Midwest,” NYT, 28 August. Belluck, P. (2002) “With Patriotism Renewed, July 4 Hits a Deeper Chord,” NYT, 4 July. Benen, S. (2000) “Truth Squad; Christian Coalition and the Presidential Election,” Church and State, 1 December. Bennett, W. (2002) Why We fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism, Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Birt, J. and D. Frost [Producers] (2002) “The Nixon Tapes, Part 1,” Discovery Communications. Bittinger, C. (2002) “The Business of America is Business?” Calvin Coolidge

Bibliography

277

Memorial Foundation. [www.calvin-coolidge.org/pages/history/research/ ccmf/bitt02.html] Blanck, D. (2002) “‘We Have a Lot to Learn From America’: The Myrdals and the Question of American Influences in Sweden,” Angles on the English Speaking World 2 (2002), 129–45. Bloom, A. (1988) The Closing of the American Mind, New York: Touchstone. BLS. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2002). US Department of Labor. “US Economy at a Glance” [www.bls.gov]. BLS. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2000a) “Employment Status of the Civilian Population: 1950–1999,” Chart no. 643. BLS. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2000b) “Usual Weekly Earnings Summary,” 20 July. [www.stats.bls.gov/newsrels.htm] Bobrow, D. (2001) “Changing the US World Role,” paper delivered at the 50th Anniversary of the Fulbright Program, Copenhagen, Denmark, 8 November. Boorstin, D. (1983) The Discoverers: A History of Man’s Search to Know His World and Himself, New York: Random House. Booth, W. (2001) “A Slow Start to an Environmental End-Run,” WP, 13 January. Bork R. (1996) Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, New York: HarperCollins. B-PAC. Bowling Proprietors’ Association Political Action Committee (2002) [http://www.BPAA.COM/B-PAC.htm]. Brenner, R. (2002) The Boom and the Bubble: The U.S. Economy Today, London: Verso. Brookeman, C. (1984) American Culture and Society Since the 1930s, London: Schocken. Brooks, D. (2000) Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There, New York: Simon & Schuster. Brooks, D. (2001) “One Nation, Slightly Divisible,” AMO (December): 53–65. Brooks, D. (2002a) “Why the US Will Always Be Rich,” NYT, 9 June. Brooks, D. (2002b) “On the Playing Fields of Suburbia,” AMO (January 2002): 19–21 Brown, D. (2002) “Report on AIDS Offers Dire Prognosis,” WP, 3 July. Bruni, F. and D. Sanger (2001) “News Analysis: The World Stage, Act I,” NYT, 17 February. Bryson, B. (1998) Notes From a Big Country, London: Doubleday. Buchanan, P (2001) The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization, New York: Thomas Dunne. Buerkle, T. (1997) “Testing the Welfare System: EU Finds Poverty at 17 percent” IHT, 15 May. Bumiller, S. (2002) “Bush Faces Scrutiny Over Disclosing ’90 Stock Sale Late,” NYT, 4 July. Burner, D. (1979) Herbert Hoover: A Public Life, New York: Knopf.

278

Bibliography

Bush, G. (2001) “Executive Order Establishing Office of Homeland Security,” 8 October. [www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/print/200110082.html] Butterfield, F. (2002) “Study Finds Big Increase in Black Men as Inmates Since 1980,” NYT, 28 August. Campbell, J. (1998) “Clinton: I Did Not Have Sex With Lewinsky,” Evening Standard (London), 26 January. Campbell, N. and A. Kean (1997) American Cultural Studies: An Introduction to American Culture, London: Routledge. Canedy, D. (2002) “Lifting Veil for Photo ID Goes Too Far, Driver Says,” NYT, 27 June. Carneville, A. and S. Stone (1995) The American Mosaic: An In-Depth Report of Diversity at Work, New York: McGraw-Hill. Cassidy, T. (2000) “Majority Off Welfare Employed, State Says,” Boston Globe, 6 December. CDC. Center for Disease Control (2001a) “HIV and AIDS: United States, 1981–2000,” 30 November. [www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ mm5047a10.htm] CDC. Center for Disease Control (2001b) “National Vital Statistics Report 49 (October 2001). [www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr] CDE. California Department of Education (2001) “About Charter Schools,” [www.cde.ca.gov/charter/about.html] CDI. Center for Defense Information (2002) “Fiscal Year 2002 Budget.” [www.cdi.org/issues/budget/fy’02/index.html] CDI. Center for Defense Information (2002) “Highlights of the FY’03 Budget Request.” [www.cdi.org/issues/budget/FY03Highlights-pr.html] CIA. Central Intelligence Agency (2002) “The World Factbook” [www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html] Chafe, W. (1999) The Unfinished Journey: America Since World War II, 4th edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Christian Coalition (2000) “2000 Christian Coalition Voter Guide.” [www.cc.org] Clark County (2002) “Executions and Death Row Inmates, 1 January 1976–1 June 2001.” [www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/dpusa.html] Clayton, C., and J. Giordano (1998) The Supreme Court and the Constitution,” in Peele, G., C. Bailey, B. Cain and G.Peters (eds) 71–97. Clinton, W. (1997) “Inaugural Address of President William J. Clinton,” 20 January. National Archives and Records Service. [www.clinton6.nara.gov/ 1997/01/1997-01-20-presidents-inaugural-address.html] Cohn, D. (2002) “Foreign-Born Americans’ Numbers Rise,” WP, 7 February. Cohn, D. (2001) “Illegal Residents Exceed Estimate,” WP, 18 March. Coontz, S. (2001) “The American Family: Where We Are Today,” U.S. Society and Values: An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State, January. Cooper, M. (2002) “Cigarettes Up to $7 a Pack With New Tax,” NYT, 1 July.

Bibliography

279

Cowan, R. (1997) A Social History of American Technology, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cronin, T. (1997) The Paradoxes of the American Presidency, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crosby, A. (1986) Ecological Imperialism, Cambridge: Canto. Crossette, B. (2000) “Globalization Tops Agenda for World Leaders at UN Summit,” NYT, 3 September. CRP. Center for Responsive Politics (2002) “Enron Total Contributions to Federal Candidates and Parties, 1989–2001.” [www.opensecrets.org] Cruden, R. (1994) A Brief History of American Culture, New York: Paragon House. Daalder, I. (2000) Getting to Dayton: The Making of America’s Bosnia Policy, Washington: Brookings Institute Press. Dahl, R. (1976) Who Governs? New Haven: Yale University Press. Daniels, R. (1990) Coming to America: A History of Immigration and Ethnicity in American Life, New York: Harper & Row. Darling, N. (2001) “Native American Times Names Neal McCaleb Newsmaker of the Year for 2001,” US Department of the Interior News. [www.doi.gov/ news/010831] Dart, B. (2000) “Feds Open ‘All-In-One’ Web site for Public,” NYT, 23 September. David, S. (1999) “Saving America from the Coming Civil Wars,” Foreign Affairs (January 1999): 103–16. Davidson, J., W. Gienapp, C. Heyrman, et al. (2001) Nation of Nations: A Narrative History of the American Republic, 4th edn, Boston: McGrawHill. DeParle, J. and S. Holmes (2000) “The Clinton Legacy,” NYT, 26 December. Dethloff, H. (1997) The United States and the Global Economy Since 1945, New York: Harcourt Brace. Didion, J. (2001) Political Fictions, New York: Knopf. Dininny, S. (2000) “Governor Calls Montana a Fire Disaster Area,” WP, 17 August. Dionne, E. and J. DiIulio (2000) “What’s God Got To Do With The American Experiment?” Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute Press. DOD. US Department of Defense, (2000) “Big Business Are Us.” [www.defenselink.mil/pubs/dod101.html] DOE. US Department of Education (1999) “Executive Summary,” Digest of Education Statistics, 1999. [www.nces.ed.gov/pubs/USCaseStudy/ execsum.html] DOHA (Doha, Qatar, Conference of the WTO) (2002) “Economic Perspectives: Trade in the Post-Doha Global Economy,” An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State, 7 (January). [www.usinfo. state.gov/journals/ites/0102/ijee/aldonas.html] DOJ. Department of Justice (2002) Bureau of Justice Statistics. [www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crs.html]

280

Bibliography

DOJ. Department of Justice (2001) “2000 Year End Report in the Federal Judiciary,” January. [www.ojp.usdoj.gov] DOS. US Department of State (2002a) “Death Penalty Support Dropping in the US, Growing in Europe – Ambassador Minike’s Remarks to OSCE Permanent Council,” 6 June. [http.//usinfo.state.gov/topical/rights/hrpage/ cp.html] DOS. US Department of State (2002b) “Special Briefing on the Nuclear Posture Review,” 9 January. [www.usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/ stories/review.html] DOS. US Department of State (2000) “Election 2000. Campaign Spotlight,” 44 (15 November). Dos Passos, J. (1979) The Big Money, New York: New American Library. Dowie, M. (1995) Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. Downs, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper & Brothers. Doyle, R. (ed.) (1994) Atlas of Contemporary America: Portrait of a Nation, New York: Facts on File. Duggan, P. (2000) “A Few Faithful Make Stand for Prayer,” WP, 2 September. Duggan, P. (2000) “Dire Water Deficit in Texas Town,” IHT, 21 August. D’Vera, C. and D. Broder (2000) “Nation Grows to 281 million, Census Finds, Trends to Shift 12 House Seats to Republican Leaning States,” WP, 29 December. D’Souza, D. (2002) “What’s So Great About America?” New York: Regnery. Economist Intelligence Unit (2000) “Country Briefings: United States,” 21 July. [www.economist.com/countries/USA/profile] Economist (2001a) “The Imperial Presidency,” 3 November. Economist (2001b) “The World in 2002,” London: Economist Newspaper Ltd. Eggen, D. (2001) “Violent Crime is Down for 6th Year,” WP, 14 June. Eichenwald, K. (2002) “Could Capitalists Actually Bring Down Capitalism?” NYT, 30 June. Eilperin, J. (2001) “House Votes to Block Payment of UN Dues,” WP, 11 May. Engstrom, R (1998) “Affirmative Action and the Politics of Race,” in G. Peele, C.Bailey, B. Cain and G. Peters (eds) 292–307. EPA. Environmental Protection Agency (2002) “US Climate Action Report: 2002.” [www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications] Esping-Andersen, G. (1996) Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity Press. Fallows, J. (2002) “Councils of War,” AMO, January: 23–25. Farragher, J., M. Buhle, D. Czitrom and S. Armitage (2002) Out of Many: A History of the American People, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Faulkner, W. (1948) Intruder in the Dust, New York: Modern Library. FDCH. Federal Document Clearing House Political Transcripts (2000) “Ralph

Bibliography

281

Nader Delivers Remarks at News Conference,” Washington D.C., 6 November. FEC. Federal Election Commission (2001a) “FEC Reports on Congressional Financial Activity for 2000 – Surpasses $1 Billion Mark,” 15 May FEC. Federal Election Commission (2001b) “Finance Activity of 1999–2000 New York Senate Campaigns.” [http://www.fec.gov/2000/nysen6.htm] FEC, Federal Election Commission (2001c) “PAC Activity Increases in 2000 Election Cycle,” Released 31 May. [http.//www.fec.gov/press/ 053101pacfund/053101pacfund.htm] FED. Federal Reserve Bank (2002) “US Monetary Policy: An Introduction,” 10 March. [www.frbsf.org/publications/federalreserve/monetary/ index.html] Fields, B. (1982) “Ideology and Race in American History,” in J. Morgan Kousser and J. McPherson (eds) Region, Race and Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of C. Vann Woodward. New York: Oxford University Press, 143–77. Fitzgerald, F. (1987) Cities on a Hill: A Journey Through Contemporary American Culture, London: Picador. Fogel, R. (2000) The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Foley, M. (2000) “The Democratic Imperative,” in A. McGrew (ed), The United States in the Twentieth Century: Empire, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 175–209. Foner, E. (1998) The Story of American Freedom, New York: Norton. Foner, E. and J. Garraty (eds) (1991) The Reader’s Companion to American History, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Ford, G. (1974) “Gerald R. Ford’s Remarks on Taking the Oath of Office as President,” Gerald R. Ford Library and Museum. [www.ford.utexas.edu] Fountain, J. (2000) “Exorcists and Exorcisms Proliferate Across US” NYT, 28 November. Fox, V. (2001) “More Trust on Both Sides of the Border,” NYT, 4 September. Frank, R. and R. Cook (1995) The Winner-Take-All Society: How More and More Americans Compete for Ever Fewer and Bigger Prizes, Encouraging Economic Waste, Income Inequality, and an Impoverished Cultural Life, New York: Free Press. Friedman, B. (2000) “Gore vs. Bush: The Difference,” NYRB, 19 October. Friedman, T. (2001) “World War III,” NYT, 13 September. Friedman, T. (1999) The Lexus and the Olive Tree, New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Frum, D. (2000) How We Got Here, The 70s: The Decade That Brought You Modern Life – For Better or Worse, New York: Basic Books. Fukuyama, F. (1992) The End of History and the Last Man, New York: Free Press.

282

Bibliography

Fukuyama, F. (1995) Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, New York: Free Press. Gabler, N. (1988) An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, New York: Crown. Gabler, N. (1998) Life the Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality. New York: Vintage. Gaddis, J. (1998) The Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War, New York: Oxford University Press. Galbraith, J. (1958) The Affluent Society, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Gallup, G. (1998) “Will the Vitality of Churches be the Surprise of the Next Century?” ASJ 42 (Winter, 98), 28–34. Gardner, H. (2000) “Paroxysms of Choice,” NYRB, 19 October. Gates, H. (1990) “2 Live Crew, Decoded,” NYT, 19 June. Gellman, B. (2002) “Cyber-Attacks by Al Qaeda Feared,” WP, 27 June. Gerecht, R. (2002) “The Gospel According to Osama Bin Laden,” AMO (January), 46–8. Getlin, J., and J. Gettleman (2000) “TV News Badly Embarrassed by Bad Calls,” LAT, 9 November. Giddens, A. (2000) The Third Way and its Critics, Oxford: Polity Press. Gitlin, T. (1995) The Twilight of Common Dreams: Why America is Wracked by Culture Wars, New York: Henry Holt. Gitlin, T. (1993) The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage, New York: Bantam. Gjerde, J. (ed.) (1998) Major Problems in American Immigration and Ethnic History, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Goldman, S. and T. Jahnige (1985). The Federal Courts as a Political System, New York: Harper & Row. Goodrum, C. and H. Dalrumple (1990) Advertising in America: The First 200 Years, New York: Abrams. Gordon, M. (2002) “Saudis Warning Against Attack by US on Iraq,” NYT, 17 March. Gordon, M. (2001) “News Analysis: US Strikes Leave Plan for Iraq Fuzzy,” NYT, 18 February. Gore, A. (2000) “Concession Speech,” CNN, 13 December. Gray, J. (1998) False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism, London: Granta Books. Greenhouse, L. (2002) “Court Had Rehnquist Initials Intricately Carved on Docket,” WP, 2 July. Greenhouse, L. (2001) “Justices Clarify Rule on Using Race in Redistricting,” NYT, 19 April. Haass, R. (1997) The Reluctant Sheriff: The United States After the Cold War, New York: Council on Foreign Relations. Haass, R. (2000) “Foreign Policy in the Age of Primacy,” Brookings Review 18, 2–7.

Bibliography

283

Hacker, A. (2000) “The Case Against Kids,” NYRB, 30 November. Hacker, A. (1997) Money: Who Has How Much and Why, New York: Scribner. Hacker, A. (1995) Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile and Unequal, New York: Scribner. Haddad, Y. (1998) “Islam in the United States: Interview with Yvonne Haddad,” ASJ 42 (Winter), 35–42. Harris, L. V. (2000) “Generation Gap Rocks On,” AJC, 5 August. Harris Poll (1999a) “On-Line Population Spends an Average of Six Hours on the Internet or Web Per Week,” 24 March. Harris Poll (1999b) “Smoking, Obesity and Not Using Seat Belts Much More Common Among People with the Least Education,” 3 March. Harris Poll (2000a) “No Significant Changes in the Large Majorities Who Believe in God, Heaven, The Resurrection, Survival of Soul, Miracles and Virgin Birth,” 13 September. Harris Poll (2000b) “Reading Remains the Nation’s Favorite Leisure Time Activity, Increasing Its Lead Over Watching TV,” 12 July. Harris Poll (2000c) “The Public Tends to Blame the Poor, the Unemployed, and those on Welfare for Their Problems,” 3 May. Harris Poll (2000d) “The Mood of American Workers,” 19 January. Heilbroner, R. and A. Singer (1999) The Economic Transformation of America: 1600 to the Present, New York: Harcourt Brace. Herbert, B. (2001) “On the Way to Nowhere,” NYT, 3 September. Herbert, B. (2002) “Fouling Our Own Nest,” NYT, 4 July. Herrnson, P. (1995) Congressional Elections, Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Press. Hess, A. (2000) American Social and Political Thought: A Concise Introduction, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. HHS. US Department of Health and Human Services (2000) “HHS Fact Sheet,” 3 May. [www.hhs.gov/news/press/2000pres/20000503b.html] Higgs, R. (1995) God in the Stadium: Sports and Religion in America, Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press. Higham, J. (1971) Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860–1925, New York: Atheneum. Hitchens, C. (1998) “Brief Shining Moments,” LRB, Vol. 20, 3–7. Hochschild, A. (1997) The Time Bind, New York: Metropolitan Books. Hocking, B. (2000) “Globalization and the Foreign-Domestic Policy Nexus,” in A. McGrew (ed.), 144–74. Hodgson, G. (1976) America in Our Time: From World War II to Nixon, New York: Random House. HOF. Country Music Hall of Fame (2002) “The Rise of an Industry: Country Music Comes of Age.” [www.halloffame.org/hist/time.essay3.html] Hoffman, S. (2001) “On the War” NYRB, 1 November. Holmes, S. (2001) “A Diverse City Exists Equal but Separate,” NYT, 11 May.

284

Bibliography

Holson, L. and S. Schiesel (1999) “MCI, Making History, Wins Fight for Sprint,” IHT, 6 October. Hopper, I. (2000) “One-Stop Government Web-Site Debuts,” AP, 23 September. Horsman, R. (1981) Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial Anglo-Saxonism, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Huntington, S. (1996) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, New York: Simon & Schuster. Huntington, S. (1999) “The Lonely Superpower,” Foreign Affairs (April), 35–49. Huslin, A. (2000) “Grizzly Proposition Aims to Return Bears to Idaho,” WP, 3 July. Hutton, W. (2002) The World We’re In, London: Little, Brown. Hutton, W. and A. Giddens (eds.) (2001) On the Edge: Living with Global Capitalism, London: Vintage. Ikenberry, J. (1999) “Why Export Democracy?” The Wilsonian Quarterly (Spring), 56–65. INS. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2002). [www.ins.gov] International Monetary Fund (IMF) (2002) “How Has September 11 Influenced the Global Economy?” [www.imf.org] International Trade Administration (ITA) (2002) “Foreign Trade Highlights.” [www.ita.doc.gov] IRS. Internal Revenue Service (2002). [www.irs.gov] Jackson, K. (1985) Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States, New York: Oxford University Press. Janda, K., J. Berry and J. Goldman (1999) The Challenge of Democracy: Government in America, 6th edn, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Jeansonne, G. (1994) Transformation and Reaction: America, 1921–1945, New York: HarperCollins. Jehl, D. (2001) “Cries of Save the Suckerfish Rile Farmers’ Allies,” NYT, 20 June. Jenkins, P. (2002) “The Next Christianity,” AMO (October): 53–68. Jenkins, P. (1997) A History of the United States, London: Macmillan – Palgrave. Joffe, J. (2001) “Who’s Afraid of Mr. Big?” National Interest (Summer): 66–96. Joyner, T. (2001) “Study: Work Threatens to Overwhelm Us,” AJC, 17 May. Kagan, R. (1998) “The Benevolent Empire,” Foreign Policy (Summer 1998), 24–35. Kagan, R. (2002) “Power and Weakness,” Policy Review, 113 (June and July 2002), 1–19. [www.policyreview.org] Kammen, M. (1987) A Machine That Would Go Of Itself: The Constitution in American Culture, New York: Knopf. Kammen, M. (1999) American Culture, American Tastes: Social Change and the 20th Century, New York: Knopf.

Bibliography

285

Kanfer, S. (1995) “The Greatest Game,” in M. Petracca, and M. Sorapure (eds), 380–3. Kanigel, R. (1997) The One Best Way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma of Efficiency, New York: Penguin. Kaplan, L. (1994) NATO and the United States, New York: Twayne Publishers. Kaplan, R. (2001) “Looking the World in the Eye,” AMO (December), 68–82. Kegley, C. and E. Wittkopf (1996) American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process, 5th edn, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Kelly, M. (2002a) “Getting Hip to Squareness,” AMO (February), 20–1. Kelly, M. (2002b) “A Renaissance of Liberalism,” AMO (January): 18–19. Kennedy, P. (1988) The Rise and Fall of Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000, New York: Random House. King, M. (1963) Why We Can’t Wait, New York: Mentor Klein, J. (2002) The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton. New York: Doubleday. Knowlton, B. (2001) “Bush Says He Wants bin Laden Brought to Justice ‘Dead or Alive,’” IHT, 18 September. Knowlton, B. (1999) “Wired World Leaves Millions Out of Loop,” IHT, 9 October. Kong, D. (2001) “Union Leaders Speak for Immigrants,” WP, 2 September. Korb, L. (2000) “Defense,” Council on Foreign Relations. [www.foreignpolicy 2000.org/library/issuebriefs/IBDefense.html] Kovach, B. and T. Rosenstiel (1999) Warp Speed: America in the Age of Mixed Media, New York: The Century Foundation. Kozol, J. (1991) Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools, New York: Harper Perennial. Kraut, A. (1995) Silent Travelers. Germs, Genes, and the Immigrant Menace, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Krugman, P. (2002a) “Testing His Metal,” NYT, 8 March. Krugman, P. (2002b) “The Great Divide,” NYT, 29 January. Krugman, P. (2002c) “Crony Capitalism, USA.” NYT, 15 January. Krugman, P. (1999) The Return of Depression Era Economics, New York: Norton. Krugman, P. (1997) The Age of Diminished Expectations, Cambridge: MIT Press. Kurtz, H. (1998) Spin Cycle: How the White House and the Media Manipulate the News, New York: Simon & Schuster. Lancaster, J. and J. Eiperlin (2002) “Grass Roots Effort Given Key Boost By Enron Scandal,” WP, 14 February. Lasch, C. (1978) The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in the Age of Diminishing Expectations, New York: Norton. Lazare, M. (1996) The Frozen Republic, New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co. Leach, W. (1993) Land of Desire: Merchants, Power, and the Rise of a New American Culture, New York: Pantheon Books.

286

Bibliography

Lears, J. (1994) Fables of Abundance: A Cultural History of Advertising in America, New York: Basic Books. Lehmann, N. (1996) “Kicking in Groups,” AMO Vol. (April). Leip, D. (2002) Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. [www.uselectionatlas.org] Lester, T. (2002) “Oh, Gods!” AMO Vol. 289 (February), 37–45. Levine, P. (2001) “An Expensive Education,” Weekendavisen, 15 October. Lewis, A. (1999) “When Faith Undermines the Scientific Method,” IHT, 13 October. Lewis, A. (2000) “Bush and the World” NYT, 4 October. Lieberman, J. (1998) “A Republic – If We Can Keep It,” AMO Vol. 282 (July), 14–17. Lind, M. (2001) “America’s Tribes,” The Prospect (January). Lind, M. (1998) “Alice Doesn’t Vote Here Anymore,” Mother Jones, March–April. [www.motherjones.com] Lind, M. (1998) “75 Stars,” Mother Jones, January–February. [www.motherjones.com] Lind, M. (1995) The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Republic, New York: Free Press. Lind, M. (1999) Vietnam, The Necessary War: A Reinterpretation of America’s Most Disastrous Military Conflict, New York: Free Press. Lind, M. (1995) “Why the Rich Get Richer,” NYT, 24 September. Lipset, S. (1996) American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword, New York: Norton. Luedtke, L. (ed.) (1987) Making America: The Society and Culture of the United States, London: Macmillan – Palgrave. Lynch, C. (2000) “Rising US Debt to UN Spurs Fight Over Funds,” WP, 9 August. Lynd, R. and Lynd, A. (1929) Middletown: A Study in American Culture, New York: Harcourt, Brace. Maasik, S. and J. Solomon (eds) (1994) Signs of Life in the U.S.A.: Readings on Popular Culture, Boston: St Martin’s Press. Madigan, N. (2002) “Tribe Prepares for Renewed Fight Over Gold Mine,” NYT, 3 July. Madrick, J. (2002) “Enron: Seduction and Betrayal” NYRB, 14 March. Maidment, R. and J. Mitchell (eds.) (2000) The United States in the Twentieth Century: Culture, 2nd edn, London: Hodder & Stoughton. Marchese, T. (1998) “US Higher Education in the Postwar Era: Expansion and Growth,” ASJ 42 (Winter), 57–62. Marsden, G. (2000) Religion and American Culture, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Marsden, G. (1991) Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Marshall, J. (2001) “The Strange Death of American Liberalism: No Cold War, No Liberalism,” NYT, 9 December.

Bibliography

287

Martin, M. (2000) “J. P. Morgan Being Sold to Chase Manhattan,” IHT, 14 September. Martin-Luther-Universitet (ed) (1998) “Religion in the United States,” ASJ 42 (Winter), 3–64. Martin, W. (1996) With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America, New York: Broadway Books. McClay, W. (2000) “Two Concepts of Secularism,” Wilson Quarterly (Summer). [www.wwics.si.edu/outreach/wq/WQSELECT/SECULAR. HTM] McGerr, M. (1992) “Is There a Twentieth-Century West?” in W. Cronon, G. Miles, and J. Gitlin, (eds), Under an Open Sky: Rethinking America’s Western Past, New York: Norton, 239–56. McGrew, A. (2000) “A Second American Century? The United States and the New World Order,” in A. McGrew (ed.) 211–50. McGrew, A. (ed.) (2000) The United States in the Twentieth Century, London: Hodder & Stoughton. McPherson, J. (1982) Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconsruction, New York: Knopf. Mead, W. (2001) Special Providence: The Secret Strengths of American Foreign Policy, New York: Knopf. Menand, L. (2001) “College: The End of the Golden Age,” in NYRB, 18 October. Merchant, C. (ed.) (1993) Major Problems in American Environmental History, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Milbank, D. and P. Blustein (2001) “Leaders Affirm Free Trade Zone,” WP, 23 April. Mnookin, S. (2001) “It Happened One Night,” Brills’ Content (February). Morgan, E. (1995) American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia, New York: Norton. Morgan, T. (1993) Wilderness at Dawn: The Settling of the North American Continent, New York: Simon & Schuster. Morgan, W. (1994) Leftist Theories of Sport: A Critique and Reconstruction, Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Myers, R. (1999) U.S. Foreign Policy in the Twenty-First Century: The Relevance of Realism, Baton Rouge: LSU Press. National Commission on Terrorism. “Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism.” [www.fas.org/irp/threat/commission.html] National Vital Statistics Report (2001) 49 (October). NEA. National Education Association (2000) “American Education Statistics At A Glance.” [www.nea.org/publiced/edstats/statsata.html] NCES. National Center for Education Statistics (2001) “Digest of Education Statistics, 2001”. [www.nces.ed.gov] Neely, R. (1981) How Courts Govern America, New Haven: Yale University Press.

288

Bibliography

NES-UM. (2002) Dataset, The National Election Studies, Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1995–2000. [www.umich.edu/~nes/nesguide/nesguide.htm] Neustadt, R. (1990) Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan, rev. edn, New York: Free Press. Niebuhr, R. (1952) The Irony of American History, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Nordlinger, E. (1995) Isolationism Reconfigured: American Foreign Policy for a New Century, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. NSC. National Safety Council (2002) “About the Council,” 16 March. [www.nsc.org/insidensc.html] Nye, D. and C. Pedersen (eds) (1991) Consumption and American Culture, Amsterdam: VU University Press. OECD. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, (2002) “OECD in Figures: Statistics on the Member Countries.” [www.oecd.org/ en/education] Olin, D. (2002) “Tribal Recognition,” NYT, 24 November. Olson, E. (1998) “UN Report Assails US Death Penalty,” IHT, 8 April. Oppel, R. (2002) “Bush Extols Military Service and Expedites Citizenship,” NYT, 5 July. Orwell, B. and K. Leggett (2002) “Disney Signs Letter of Intent to Build Shanghai Theme Park,” WSJ, 22 July. OSHA. Occupational Safety and Health Organization, (2002) “OSHA Facts,” 16 March. [www.osha.gov/as/opa/oshafacts.html] Pan, P. (2001) “Scientists Issue Dire Prediction on Warming,” WP, 23 January. Patterson, J. (2000) America’s Struggle Against Poverty in the Twentieth Century, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Payne, H. (2002) “Patriotism Reflected in Flag Sales,” WP, 3 July. Pearlstein, S. (2002) “Corporate Scandals Taking Toll on Markets,” WP, 26 June. Peck, I. (1991) “Labor in America,” Washington: US Information Agency. Peele, G., C. Bailey, B. Cain and G. Peters (eds) (1998) Developments in American Politics 3, London: Macmillan – Palgrave. Pellis, R. (1997) Not Like Us: How Europeans Have Loved, Hated, and Transformed American Culture Since World War II, New York: Basic books. Péralte, C. (2000) “Gold, Platinum Cards Are Old Hat,” AJC, 8 May. Perret, G. (1989) A Country Made By War: The Story of America’s Rise to Power, New York: Random House. Peterson, P. (1999) Gray Dawn: How the Coming Age Wave Will Transform America – And the World, New York: Random House. Petracca, M. and M. Sorapure (eds) (1995) Common Culture: Reading and Writing about American Popular Culture, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bibliography

289

Pew. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2001a) “Economic Inequality Seen as Rising: Boom Bypasses Poor,” 21 June. [www.peoplepress.org] Pew. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2001b) “Post September 11 Attitudes,” 6 December. [www.people-press.org] Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2001c) “Why Americans Aren’t Stirred by Campaign Reform,” 27 March. [www.people-press.org] Pierre, R. (2002) “We’re Just Getting Clobbered,” WP, 16 March. Posner, R. (2002) “Strong Fiber After All,” AMO, (January), 22–3. Powell, C. (1996) My American Journey, New York: Ballantine. Power, S. (2002) “Genocide and America,” NYRB, 14 March. Purdum, R. (2001) “California Passes France on Economic Ladder,” LA, 15 June. Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York: Simon & Schuster. Raspberry, W. (1998) “Blind to Progress,” WP, 7 August. Rawls, J. (1996) Chief Red Fox Is Dead: A History of Native Americans Since 1945, Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Reagan, R. (1989) “Farewell Address,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 14 January, 95–7. Reich, R. (2001) The Future of Success, London: Heinemann. Religious Tolerance (2002) “Memberships of Various US Religious Groups.” [www.religioustoleerance.org] Revkin, A. (2000) “Rules Shielding the Gray Wolf May Soon Ease,” NYT, 3 July. Riis, Jacob (1901) How the Other Half Lives, New York: Dover. Roche Rico, B. and S. Mano (eds) (1995) American Mosaic: Multicultural Readings in Context, 2nd edn, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Rohatyn, F. (2002) “The Betrayal of Capitalism” NYRB, 28 February. Romero, S. and A. Berenson (2002) “WorldCom Says It Hid Expenses, Inflating Cash Flow $3.8 Billion,” NYT, 26 June. Rorty, R. (1998) Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in 20th-Century America, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Rosenbaum, D. (2001) “Congress Adopts Plan to Cut Taxes Over Next Decade,” NYT, 11 May. Rosenbaum, D. and E. Olson (2002) “US Loses Trade Case to Europeans on Offshore Tax Havens,” NYT, 15 January. Rosin, H. (1999) “Evangelicals Ponder Bush Outburst,” IHT, 17 December. Russakoff, D. (2000) “Keeping Up With the Garcias,” WP, 23 September. Sack, K. (2001) “Far From Mexico, Making a Place Like Home,” NYT, 30 July. Safire, W. (2001) “Farewell and Hail,” NYT, 22 January. Safire, W. (1978) “Safire’s Political Dictionary,” New York: Random House. Samuels, D. (1991) “The Rap on Rap,” NR, 11 November. Sanger, D. (2002) “Bush Puts Tariffs of as Much as 30 percent on Steel Imports,” NYT, 6 March.

290

Bibliography

Sanger, D. (2001) “Bush Relishes the Reactions to ‘Axis of Evil,’” IHT, 19 February. Sanger, D. (2000a) “Economic Engine for Foreign Policy,” NYT, 28 December. Sanger, D. (2000b) ”Rivals Differ on US Role in the World,” NYT, 30 October. Schafer, S. (2000) “Coke to Pay $193 Million in Bias Suit,” WP, 17 November. Schattschneider, E. (1942) Party Government, New York: Henry Holt. Schattscheider, E (1960) The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in Action, New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co. Schemo, D. (2001) “Virginity Pledges by Teenagers Can Be Highly Effective, Federal Study Finds,” NYT, 4 January. Schlesinger, A. (1986a) The Imperial President, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Schlesinger, A. (1986b) The Cycles of American History, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Schlosser, E. (2001) Fast-Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal, Houghton Mifflin. Schor, J. (1993) The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure, New York: Basic Books. Schor, J. (1998) The Overspent American: Upscaling, Downshifting, and the New Consumer, New York: HarperCollins. Schrank, J. (1995) “Sport and the American Dream,” in M. Petracca and M. Sorapure (eds), 358–61. Schulman, B. (2001) The Seventies: The Great Shift in American Culture, Society, and Politics, New York: Free Press. Segal, J. (2000) “We Need Less Labor, More Days,” WP, 3 September. Segal, J. (2001) “What We Work for Now,” NYT, 3 September. Sheinen, D. (2000) “Rangers, Rodriguez Agree: $252 Million,” WP, 12 December. Shenton, J. (1991) “Ethnicity and Immigration.” Washington, D.C.: American Historical Association. Sheridan, M. (2001) “Region’s Immigrants Building a Better Life – Back Home,” WP, 19 March. Sherrill, R. (2001) “Death Trip: The American Way of Execution,” The Nation, 8 January. Shilts, R. (2000) And the Band Played On: Politics, People and the Aids Epidemic, Boston: St Martin’s Press. Shorris, E. (1992) Latinos: A Biography of the People, New York: Norton. Simon, S. (2001) “Thompson’s Welfare Reforms Cut Rolls But Also Safety Net,” LA, 12 January. Sink, M. (2001) “Radicals Take Responsibility for Burning Timber Office,” NYT, 11 January. Skocpol, T. (1995) Social Policy in the United States, New Brunswick, NJ: Princeton University Press. Skowronek, S. (1993) The Politics Presidents Make, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bibliography

291

Slotkin, R. (1993) Gunfighter Nation: The Myth of the Frontier in TwentiethCentury America, New York: HarperCollins. Smelser, N. and J. Alexander (eds) (1999) Diversity and Its Discontents: Cultural Conflict and Common Ground in Contemporary American Society. New Brunswick, NJ: Princeton University Press. Smith, D. (2000) “Success of Christian Thriller Reflects Rising Interest in Religious Fiction,” NYT, 8 June. SMU. Southern Methodist University (2002) “Capital Punishment, 1976–2001.” [www.smu.edu/~deathpen/pending] Solow, R. (2000) “Should We Pay the Debt?” NYRB, 5 October. Steinberg, J. (2001) “Georgia Ruling May Force Colleges to See Individual in Group,” NYT, 29 August. Stevenson, R. (2000) “The Clinton Legacy: The Wisdom to Let the Good Times Roll,” NYT, 25 December. Stiglitz, J. (2002) Globalization and Its Discontents, New York: Norton. Stout, D. (2000) “US Court Voids ‘Late Abortion’ Law,” IHT, 29 June. Sutherland, J. (1998) “The Fight For Eyeballs,” LRB, 1 October, 13–17. Søndagsavisen (2001) “USA dominerer,” 8 July. Takaki, R. (1992) A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America, Boston: Little, Brown, & Co. Takaki, R. (1989) Strangers From a Different Shore: A History of Asian Americans, Cambridge: Oxford University Press. Tallack, D. (2000) “Architecture and Art,” in R. Maidment and J. Mitchell (eds) 235–69. Thernstrom, S. and A. Thernstrom (1999) America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible, New York: Simon & Schuster. Thernstrom, S., A. Orlov and O. Handlin (eds) (1980) Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Thornton, R. (ed.) (1998) Studying Native America: Problems and Prospects, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Tindall, G. and D. Shi (1996) America: A Narrative History, New York: Norton. TNBA- The National Bowling Association (2002) “The National Bowling Association Story.” [http.//www.tnbainc.org/history/nbastory.htl] Tocqueville, A. de (1994) Democracy in America, London: The Everyman’s Library. Traynor, J. (2001) Mastering Modern United States History, London: Palgrave. Trueheart, C. (1996) “Welcome to the Next Church,” AMO,(August). [www.theatlantic.com/issues/96/nxtchrch/nxtchurch.htm] Turner, F. (1966) The Significance of the Frontier in American History, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Ungar, S. (1995) Fresh Blood: The New American Immigrants, New York: Simon & Schuster.

292

Bibliography

Unruh, J. (1979) The Plains Across: The Overland Emigrants and the TransMississippi West, 1840–60, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. US Census Bureau. (2002a) Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2001, Austin, TX: Hoover’s Business Press. US Census Bureau. (2002b) “Goods and Services Deficit Decreases in 2001,” 21 February. [www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html] US Census Bureau. (2000) “Race and Hispanic Data.” [www.census.gov] US Census Bureau. (1998) Statistical Abstract of the United States 1998, 118th edn, Washington, D.C: National Technical Information Services. US Congress. National Commission on Terrorism (2000) Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism. [www.fas.org/irp/threat/ commission.html] US Courts (2001) “2000 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary,” The Third Branch: Newsletter of the Federal Courts 33 (January 2001). [www.uscourts.gov] US Senate (2001) Senate Home Page, “Senate Statistics.” [www.senate.gov/ learning/stat_14.html] US Society and Values: An Electronic Journal of the US Department of State. (2001) 6 (January). [www.usinfo.state.gov/journals/journals.htm] USA Today (2000) 5 September. Van Natta, D. and D. Johnston, “New F.B.I. Alert Warns of Threat Tied to July 4th,” NYT, 30 June. Verhovek, S. (1999) ”Gates Pledges $1 Billion for Minorities,” IHT, 17 September. Vita, M. and S. Schmidt (2000) “The Interest Groups,” WP, 2 November. Vobejda, B. and J. Havemann (1997) “Sexual Activity down Among US Teens,” WP, 11 May. Wald, K. (1998) “Separation and Interaction: Religion and Politics,” ASJ 42 (Winter), 20–7. Waldman, A. (2002) “Gates Offers India $100 Million to Fight AIDS,” NYT, 12 November. Walker, L. (2000) “Teen Girls Help Create Female Majority Online,” WP, 9 August. Wall Street Almanac (1998) London: Ballantine Books. Walsh, E. (2001) “Remaking the Role of Vice-President; Cheney Expected to Wield Much Power, Influence,” WP, 20 January. Washington, G. (1796) “The Farewell Address: Transcript of the Final Manuscript,” George Washington Papers, University of Virginia. [www.gwpapers.virginia.edu/farewell/transcript.html] Wattenberg, M. (1996) The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952–1994, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Waxman, S. (2002) “Hollywood’s Great Escapism,” WP, 4 January.

Bibliography

293

Webster, N. (1789) “Dissertations on the English Language,” in The Annals of America, Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 1976, 3: 375–9. Weeks, L. (2000) “Kluge Gives $60 Million to Library of Congress,” WP, 5 October. Weibe, R. (1967) The Search for Order, 1877–1920, New York: Hill & Wang. Weisman, J. (2002) “Forecast: Deficits to Last Into ’05,” WP, 28 August. Wilentz, S. (ed.) (1992) Major Problems in the Early Republic, 1787–1848, Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath. Williams, W. (1966) The Contours of American History, Chicago: Quadrangle. Williams, W. (1972) The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, New York: Norton. Williamson, J. (1986) Consuming Passions: The Dynamics of Popular Culture, New York: Marion Boyars. Wills, G. (1992) Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words that Remade America, New York: Simon & Schuster. Wills, G. (1999) A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government, New York: Simon & Schuster. Wills, G. (1990) Under God: Religion and American Politics, New York: Simon & Schuster. Wilson, G. (1998) “The Presidency,” in G. Peele, C.Bailey, B. Cain and G. Peters (eds), 19–42. Wilson, W. (1885) Congressional Government, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Winthrop, J. (1989) “A Model of Christian Charity,” in N. Baym, R. Gottesman, et al., The Norton Anthology of American Literature, Vol. 1, New York: Norton, 31–42. Wolfe, A. (1998) One Nation After All: What Middle Class America Really Think About, New York: Penguin. Wood, F. (1990) The Arrogance of Faith: Christianity and Race in America from the Colonial Era to the Twentieth Century, Boston: Northeastern University Press. Wood, G. (1969) “The Whig Science of Politics,” in J. Kirby Martin (ed.), Colonial America: Selected Readings. New York: Harper & Row, 330–47. World Almanac and Book of Facts, 2002, New York: St Martin’s Press. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2001) “International Trade Statistics.” [www.wto.org] Zagorin, A. and J. Dickerson (2000) “When Does Money Matter?” Time Magazine, 17 January.

Index Note: page numbers in bold indicate references to figures, maps, illustrations, tables and boxes.

abortion 36, 139, 140 Adams, Ansel 43, 47, 63 Adams, John 12, 75 Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The 184 advertising 25, 184–5 affirmative action 104, 138, 171–2 affluence 28, 133, 135, 187 Afghanistan 237–8, 246–7, 263 Africa 23, 35, 54, 67 African Americans 23, 50–1, 60, 133, 140, 141, 218 and Civil Rights Movement 30, 50 and crime 60, 142, 148 education level of 141, 144, 169 and equal treatment 50–1, 60, 142 migration by 28, 55, 60 in poverty 51, 141, 142, 144 in workplace 27, 60, 141–2, 210 see also lynchings; slavery; race; racism agriculture 39, 54, 59, 66, 206, 216–7 Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) 175, 178, 209 AIDS 134, 267 airplanes 25, 66, 226, 232, 243, 247, 263 al Qaeda 125, 246 Alaska 3, 13, 18, 37, 64, 65 Albright, Madeleine 36, 138, 251 American Association of Retired Persons 188 American Bar Association 107 American character 2, 4, 127, 153 see also American values American Civil Liberties Union 107 American Civil War 16–17, 58, 62, 208, 211, 295 American Creed 19, 131, 182 American Dream 3–4, 9, 126–8, 143, 162, 182, 185, 190 American exceptionalism 3, 9, 17, 229 American Federation of Labor 68, 107, 214 American Progress 15 American Revolution 8, 58, 75, 157, 256, 258

American values 2, 9, 55, 131, 151, 153, 155, 174, 179, 182, 185–6, 208, 210, 249, 257, 268 Annan, Kofi 226, 261 Anthony, Susan B. 22 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty 237 anti-war demonstration 106 Apache Indians 6, 18, 49 Arizona 7, 62, 63 Arms Control Export Act 250 arts (the) 183, 201–3 Asia 23, 46, 64, 231 Asian Americans 64, 66, 69, 71, 141, 143, 170–1 assimilation 47, 50–1, 67, 69, 143, 164, 190, 264 Atlanta 131, 138, 141, 184, 224 atomic bomb 1, 27, 234 Attorney General (US) 99 automobiles 25, 28, 41, 59, 187, 227 baby boom 9, 27, 34 banking 7, 221 see also Federal Reserve System Barton, Bruce 185 baseball 107, 198, 199, 256 basketball 198, 199 Berlin 1, 29, 34, 233, 234, 238 Bill of Rights 75, 76, 77, 257 bipartisanship 89 births 22, 27, 72, 154, 179 see also baby boom Black Muslims 152–5 Black Panthers 30 Blair, Tony 220, 244–5 Bork, Robert 97 Bosnia 240, 242 Bowling Alone 125, 126 Brown v. Board of Education 28, 171 budget (US) 29, 35, 212 Bureau of Indian Affairs 49 Bush, George H. W. 33–4, 86, 97, 113, 116, 224, 238 and “New World Order” 34, 238, 239

294

Index Bush, George H. W. – continued and tax cut 34, 212 and war with Iraq 34, 243 Bush, George W. 36, 64, 148, 173, 200, 261 and defense spending 240 and domestic policy 82 and Election 2000 77, 101–3, 111, 116, 121–2, 159–60 and Enron 223 environmental policies of 42, 43, 249, 266 foreign policy of 220, 245 inaugural address of 182, 230 and Iraq 244–7, 261 popularity of 84, 87, 125 and religion 24, 159 rhetoric of 246–7, 256 on taxes 212–3 and war on terrorism 95, 246–7, 257 business 19, 25, 57, 214–28, 240 Cabinet 83–5, 88 Cable News Network (CNN) 64, 119, 246 California 13, 16, 27 campaigns 113, 118, 123 Federal Elections Commission and 121 financing of 117, 120–2 political action committees and 122 Campaign Reform Act 122 Canada 6, 13, 18, 69, 227 capitalism 19, 54, 207–28, 258 and free market 33–4, 215, 219 capital punishment 96, 148, 149 by race, ethnicity, gender 148, 149 support for 35, 90, 149 Carnegie, Andrew 19, 20, 57 Carter, Jimmy 32, 43, 54, 82, 86, 99, 116, 159 and crisis of confidence 32, 85, 87 and foreign policy 32, 237 Carter Doctrine 237 Castro, Fidel 29 Catholics 7, 54, 65, 67, 69, 152–5, 157, 180 Center for Disease Control (CDC) 220 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) 29, 233, 251–2, 262 charities see philanthropy Chavez, Cesar 30 checks and balances, system of 121, 31, 74–78, 79, 84 Cheney, Dick 88, 223, 245 Cherokee Indians 13, 53 Chicago Commodities Exchange 222

295

Chicanos 30, 63, 69, 70 see also Hispanics; Latinos; Mexico children 22, 132–4, 139, 143, 162, 195 China 31, 32, 69, 71, 231, 233, 234, 249 as trading competitor 237, 243–4, 260 Christian Coalition 107, 113, 160 and Election 2000 108, 159–60 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints see Mormons churches 152, 160–1, 180–1 cities 16, 20, 21, 37, 128 “city upon a hill” 8, 55, 230 civic involvement 125 Civil Rights Act (1964) 117, 138 Civil Rights Movement 117, 124 class 21, 126–31 by education level 127, 164, 208, 211, 265 see also middle class Clayton Anti-Trust Act (1914) 217 Clinton, Hillary 34, 86, 117, 176 Clinton, William J. 34–8, 54, 82, 86, 88, 242, 268 on crime 147 on education 171, 173 on environment 42–3 first inaugural address of 73, 74, 241 foreign policy of 119, 241, 243 health care programs of 34–5, 84 impeachment of 36, 84–5, 257 judicial appointments of 36, 97, 99 and media 83, 87, 119, 120, 195 and 1996 campaign 35–6, 116, 121 on religion 159 sexual misconduct of 35–6, 84 signs NAFTA 227–8 and Third Way 82, 113 Cold War 3, 30–6, 70, 81, 87, 112, 113, 232–8 end of 225, 238–9, 258, 260 Columbine High School 148 Columbus, Christopher 2, 6, 46, 52, 154 committees 91, 92, 93 legislative 91–4 oversight 94 conference 92, 94 see also subcommittees communism 9, 25, 28, 232–4 see also Red Scare communitarians 111 community 125, 128–9, 143, 152, 181, 256 Confederate States of America 16, 17, 54 conformity 27–8, 256

296

Index

Congress 75, 89–96, 99, 104, 109, 111, 117, 120 minority representation in 121–3 profile of 107th (2001–2) 95 Congress of Industrial Organizations 214 Connecticut Compromise 75 conspiracy theories 10, 28, 31, 184, 214, 257, 259 Constitution of the United States 55, 76–77, 82–3, 85–8, 88–9, 91, 96, 98, 99, 101, 104, 210 described 12, 17, 53, 74–7, 80 and enumerated powers 76–7 Constitutional Amendments 18, 144–5 consumerism 27, 135–6, 185, 210 Consumer Protection Agency 221 Continental Congress 10, 183 “Contract With America” 35, 95 Coolidge, Calvin 215 country and state comparisons 38 court system 82–3, 89, 99, 100, 124, 145 see also Supreme Court cowboys 19, 32, 39, 244 Crazy Horse 18 credit cards 136, 187 crime 34, 60, 71, 128, 144–9 Crime Act (1964) 147 Cuba 69, 71, 225, 234 and missile crisis 234 and Spanish American War 23, 230 culture 9, 37, 57, 135–6, 144, 181, 183, 201, 204–5 defined 180–3 culture wars 126, 150, 181 Darwin, Charles 20, 157 Darwinism 23, 157, 173 death penalty see capital punishment Declaration of Independence 11, 16, 17, 53, 55, 208, 258 deficit spending 34, 213 delegated powers 80, 85, 86, 89 Democratic Party 16, 36, 104, 109–14, 124 Denmark 8, 58, 130, 180 Department of Defense 55, 88, 196, 233, 240, 251 Department of Homeland Security 82, 247, 252, 262–3 Department of Housing and Urban Development 175 discovery of America 1, 3, 7 discrimination see racism Disney 55, 187, 190, 197, 211, 243 dissenters 8, 24, 30, 55, 124, 256 diversity 55, 57, 58, 67–73, 80, 82, 88, 89, 110, 126, 141, 180–2

division of power 74–79, 224 divorce 132, 154 Dole, Robert 36, 113, 116, 121 Dos Passos, John 25 drugs, war on 147, 204, 252 DuBois, W. E. B. 23 Dukakis, Michael 34, 116 E Pluribus Unum 181 Easley v. Cromartie 123 Eastern Europe 34, 35, 67 economy 31, 207–28, 258–60 growth during Clinton administration 212, 257 history of 208, 221, 225, 259 laissez-faire principles of 174–5, 208 see also business; “Reaganomics” education 8, 161–2, 167, 168, 169 attainment 170 federal influence 82, 88 and nationalism 162, 164 philosophy of 162, 169 and religion 157, 162, 172 state responsibility for 166, 167, 173 see also income; schools; universities Edwards, Jonathan 9 Eighteenth Amendment 25 Eighth Amendment 76, 148 Eisenhower, Dwight D. 28, 234 elastic clause 81, 91 Election 2000 77, 101–3, 108, 125 contested 101–3 and Electoral College 77, 103 and media inaccuracy 102 Election 2002 89, 111, 125 elections 114–20 and democracy 114 funding 120–2 initiatives and referenda 104, 124 media and 108 midterm 89, 109, 117, 111, 125 participation in 105 presidential process 114–18, 115 presidential results, 1960–2000 116 primaries 114 see also voting Electoral College 76, 77, 103, 115, 116 11 September (2001) 81, 82, 246–8, 248 and economy 213, 221 and Islam 156, 246 and nationalism 69, 129, 255 and religion 151, 158, 263 Ellis Island 21, 55, 57 “Emancipation Proclamation” 17 Eminem 205 employment 237 see also labor; workers; workforce

Index Endangered Species Act 44–5 England 10, 12 English colonies 7–10 English language 51, 69, 71, 180, 181, 208 Enlightenment liberalism 3, 256, 257, 258 Enron scandal 108, 121, 223, 259 enumerated powers 80, 91 Equal Rights Amendment 137–8 equality 8, 19, 96, 109–13, 128, 131, 137, 179 see also American values; affirmative action; racism “errand into the wilderness” 8 Espionage Act 24 ethnic minorities 21, 37, 51, 57, 63 voting and representation 95, 123 environment 43, 63, 64 destruction of 4, 35, 41, 60 protection of 41, 249, 254 Environmental Protection Agency 42, 249, 266 Euro-Americans 15, 70, 71, 184 Europe 2, 21, 23, 24, 46, 57, 58, 267 and struggle over New World 6–10, 52–3 European Union 241, 242 exceptionalism see American exceptionalism executive agreement 86, 251 Executive branch 74, 76–9 , 83–9, 99 Executive Office of the President 87–8 vice-presidency 84, 88, 93–4 White House Staff 87–8 expansion, westward 13–15, 19, 216, 258 and dates the states joined the US 53, 56, 59, 62, 66 exports 12, 226–7 factories 42, 59, 217 Fallows, James 129 Family and Medical Leave Act 139 families 27, 128, 132–6, 142 two-income 129–30, 136, 213 see also births; children Fair Employment Practices Act 27 Fair Labor Standards Act 174 Falwell, Jerry 160 farmers 20, 30, 59, 63, 216 see also agriculture Faulkner, William 3, 6, 189 Federal Bureau of Investigation 25, 147, 252, 256, 262 Federal Communications Commission 195

297

Federal Deposit Insurance Association 222 federal government 27, 74–101, 120 Federal Reserve System 221, 224 Federal Trade Commission 217 federalism 75–6, 79–83 metaphors for 80–4 as process 80, 81 Federalist Party 12, 16 feminism 137, 164 First Amendment 24, 76, 96, 107, 152, 194, 202, 205 and media 117–8, 195, 197 fishing 41, 50, 66 Fitzgerald, F. Scott 25, 185 flag, American 3, 10, 23, 24, 159, 180, 255–6, 257 see also Pledge of Allegiance Fletcher v. Peck 81 focus groups 119 food stamps 175, 196 football 198 Ford, Gerald 31–2, 85, 86, 87, 97, 116, 245 Ford, Henry 25, 217 foreign policy 19, 29, 229–53, 245 administration of 90–1, 251–2 containment 233–4, 237 isolationism 24, 229–31, 241 massive retaliation 234 in post-Cold War era 239–53, 260 racism in 23–4 and separation of powers 78, 79, 250–1 unilateralism in 244–5, 247, 260 see also Monroe Doctrine; Roosevelt Corollary; Carter Doctrine; Powell Doctrine Founders 75, 78, 89, 104, 117 Fourteenth Amendment 76, 81, 96, 108, 123, 138, 141, 171 Fourth of July 255 Fox, Vicente 228, 244 France 8, 10, 12, 21, 143, 229, 231, 235, 239 Franklin, Benjamin 75, 162 Franklin, Shirley 138 freedom 7, 8, 76, 96, 107, 109–13, 230, 249 George W. Bush on 230, 256 free market see capitalism free trade see capitalism Freud, Sigmund 25 Friedman, Betty 23 frontier, American belief in 18–19, 62, 230, 258 Fukuyama, Francis 256

298

Index

Fuller, Margaret 215 fundamentalists 25, 152, 157–8, 159 Furman v. Georgia 148 Gaddis, John 233 Galbraith, John Kenneth 28 Garvey, Marcus 23 gated communities 130, 131 Gates, Bill 66, 166, 197, 218 gays 30, 34, 160 gender see women General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 226, 233, 242 geography 37, 38, 39, 40 by regions 55–74 Germany 2, 8, 23, 27, 34, 58, 130, 143, 231, 238, 239 Geronimo 18 “Gettysburg Address” 17 “G.I. Bill” 27, 164 Gilded Age 19–20, 217 Gilman, Charlotte 22 Gingrich, Newt 35, 94 Ginsberg, Ruth B. 36 Gladstone, William 12 glass ceiling 128, 138, 142 global warming 42, 249, 266 globalization 7, 124, 157, 225–6, 254, 255, 258 Glorious Revolution (1688) 10 “Gold Rush” 64–5 “Good Life” 135 Gorbachev, Mikhail 34, 238 Gore, Al 77, 88, 101–3, 111, 116 Gore v. Bush 101 government, branches of 83–101 county 83 local 74, 79–80, 83, 103, 105 models of 95–6, 122–3 Graduate Record Examination 165 Graham, Billy 28, 158 Grand Canyon National Park 63 Grand Teton National Park 43 Great Awakening 9, 157 see also religion Great Britain 8, 23, 32, 64, 69, 126, 130, 232, 247 Great Depression 22, 26–7, 70, 80, 81, 84, 112, 144, 215, 222, 232, 259 Great Gatsby, The 185 Great Lakes 8, 40, 59 Great Society (The) 30, 33, 175 Greenspan, Alan 221 Grenada 33, 238 gross domestic product 207, 213 Guam 23, 64, 66, 226, 230 guns 146–7

Hacker, Andrew 126 Hamilton, Alexander 75 Harding, Warren G. 24 Harvard University 9, 162, 165, 171, 189 Hawaii 3, 13, 37, 64 Hawthorne, Nathaniel 184 Hayes, Rutherford B. 18 Head Start 167 health care 34, 84, 264, 266, 267 Hemingway, Ernest 189, 231 Henry, Patrick 183 Hispanics 51, 66, 69, 70, 95, 141, 169 see also Chicanos; Latinos history (US) 6–36 holidays 8, 188 Hollywood 4, 66, 190, 191, 195 homesteaders 18, 19, 59 Hoover, Herbert 26, 190 Hoover, J. Edgar 25 Hopper, Edward 201 House of Representatives 75, 78, 89–96, 113–14, 115 Speaker of 35, 93, 94 see also Rules Committee; Congress House Un-American Activities Committee 28, 194 housing 28, 29, 127, 186 and gated communities 130, 131 How the Other Half Lives (1890) 20 Huntington, Samuel on clash of civilizations 247, 260–1 on individualism 179 Hussein, Saddam 239–40, 243, 244, 260, 261, 262, 268 Hutton, Will 258 ideological self-placement and party identification 110 immigrants 15, 20, 21, 59, 67, 68, 70, 72, 126 by country of origin 69 by decade 68 illegal 71–2 recent 54–5, 60, 64, 143 immigration laws 26, 67, 70–1, 264–5 see also National Origins Act Immigration and Naturalization Service 71–2 impeachment 31, 76, 84 imperialism 23, 225, 230–1, 236, 239, 248, 255 imports 226, 228 income 68, 127, 129, 131, 138, 209, 211 average 208 by education level 127, 130, 141–2, 208, 265 by gender 139, 215

Index income – continued by race 142, 143, 144, 215 in two-income families 28, 209 see also minimum wage incumbency 89, 113–4, 123 Indians 2, 6–7, 18, 41, 44, 46–51, 47, 62 and casinos 49 contemporary numbers of 46–7, 49, 72, 141 and education 49, 64, 163, 164, 166 and Europeans 4, 45–6, 49 poverty among 28, 49 and religion 152, 156 on reservations 13, 48–50, 53, 157, 180 tribal councils among 49, 197 wars with 13, 18, 230, 255 individualism 3, 8, 19, 27, 128, 151, 174, 208, 265 Industrial Revolution 15, 57 Influence of Sea Power on History, The 230 interest groups 105–9, 113 and campaign finance 107, 120–2 democratic theory and 108, 118 and litigation 108 International Monetary Fund 225, 242, 250, 254 internet 4, 129, 196–7, 225, 261 interstate commerce 81, 91 Inuit 47, 64, 141 Iranian hostage crisis 32, 87, 237–8 Iraq 34, 125, 225, 239–40, 243, 244, 247, 248, 261, 262, 268 Ireland 2, 154 Islam 155, 237, 247 Israel 32, 155, 237, 245, 247, 260, 261 Jamestown 8, 53 Japan 26, 27, 64, 71, 227, 254, 265 Jazz Age 25 Jefferson, Thomas 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 26, 36, 53, 85, 162, 217, 229–30, 258 Jews 69, 152, 154–5, 190 Johnson, Lyndon 30, 83, 116, 175, 235 Judicial branch 74, 76, 78, 79, 81, 96–101, 142, 144–5 appointments to 97 Founders’ intentions for 78 and judicial method and philosophy 97–9 judicial review by 96 and precedence 98 at state level 99 see also Attorney General; Solicitor General; Supreme Court; federal court system Jungle, The (1906) 20

jury trials

299

76, 99, 144–5

Kammen, Michael 183 Keller, Frances Alice 185 Kellogg–Briand Pact 232 Kelly, Michael 158, 256 Kennedy, John F. 29–30, 83, 90, 116, 118, 154, 235 Kennedy, Paul 255 Khrushchev, Nikita 29–30, 235 King, Martin Luther, Jr. 28, 29, 50–1, 158 Kissinger, Henry 236–7 Korean War 71, 234 Ku Klux Klan 18, 26, 69, 194, 197 Kuwait 34 Kyoto agreement 42, 249, 254 labor 21–2, 25, 28, 68, 105, 107, 108, 109, 121, 214–16 see also workers; workforce labor unions 13, 68, 105, 107, 174, 176, 214–16 Laden, Osama bin 241, 246 LaFayette, Marquis de 12 LaHaye, Tim 157 laissez-faire 19, 215, 219, 258 Latinos 28, 63, 70, 133, 134, 193 law 144–6 see also Constitution; Executive; Judicial; Legislative League of Nations 24, 231 Leary, Timothy 181 Lebanon 33 legal system see Judicial branch Legislative branch 74, 75, 78, 89–96 enumerated powers of 76, 91 see also Senate; Congress; House of Representatives legislative process 93 and electoral cycle 89 and presidential vetoes 94 legislature 75–6, 89, 96, 101, 108, 117 majority parties in 91 seniority system of 94 see also Legislative branch; committees leisure 25, 42, 184, 185–9 Lewinsky, Monica 36, 87, 120 liberalism 256, 258, 265 see also Enlightenment liberalism libertarians 111 Library of Congress 189, 202 libraries 189, 190, 202 Libya 243 life expectancy 132, 133, 177, 264 Lincoln, Abraham 16–17, 85, 109, 230 Lind, Michael 127–8

300

Index

Lindbergh, Charles 25 literature, American 183–4 lobby groups see interest groups Locke, John 3 Lonely Crowd, The 27 Louisiana Territory 13, 85, 230 lynchings 18, 23, 128 Madison, James 12, 53, 75, 210 magazines 185, 188–9, 197 Mahan, Alfred Thayer 230 Maine (USS) 230 Malcolm X 30, 50, 155 Manifest Destiny 13, 15, 16, 23, 36, 152 Marbury v. Madison 81 Marshall, John 96 Marshall Plan 1, 232–3 McCain, John, and campaign finance reform 121, 122 McCarthy, Joseph 28 McDonald’s 4, 124, 145 McKinley, William 230–1 McVeigh, Timothy 35, 148 media 113, 114, 118, 118–20 and political campaigns 118–20 and spinning the news 119 as watchdog 84, 85 see also magazines; newspapers; television; radio; photo opportunity Medicaid 176, 177 Medicare 35, 175, 177 melting pot see assimilation; immigration Melville, Herman 183–4 Methodists 9, 155, 157, 159 Mexico 13 immigrants from 55, 60, 69, 70 and NAFTA 227–8, 244 middle class 9, 20, 27, 55, 127, 129, 130, 131 Middle East 156, 245 Midwest (the) 58, 59, 60 migration 26, 28, 58, 60 military 23, 24, 26, 33, 55, 64, 151, 218, 238, 240, 251–2 issue of gays in 84 weapons 27, 29, 238, 243, 244, 247, 263, 264 Military–Industrial Complex 29 Minh, Ho Chi 235 minimum wage 22, 29, 136, 209 see also income missile shield 244, 245, 263–4 see also Strategic Defense Initiative Moby Dick 183–4 Monroe, James 53, 230 Monroe, Marilyn 29, 201

Monroe Doctrine 230–1 Montgomery bus boycott 28 Moral Majority 160 Morgan, Edmund 9 Morgan, J. P. 57, 201, 218 Morgan, Ted 3 Mormons 15, 64, 152, 155–6, 157 Motor Voter Bill (1996) 117 movies 25, 190–1 see also Hollywood MTV 113, 195 museums 201–2 music 4, 203–6 see also Rock-’n’-Roll Muslims 33, 152, 155–6, 247 see also Islam Myrdal, Gunnar 162 Nader, Ralph 103, 116, 124 Napoleon 13, 230 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 55, 218, 219 national anthem see Star Spangled Banner National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) 23, 171 National Association of Manufacturers 105 National Bowling Association 107 National Commission on Terrorism 246 National Defense Education Act (1958) 164 National Endowment for the Arts 202 National Labor Relations Act (1935) see Wagner Act National Organization for Women 23 National Origins Act (1924) 70 national parks 41–43, 62, 63 National Park Service 42, 44, 64 National Public Radio 192 National Rifle Association 107, 147 National Safety Council (NSC) 220 national security 33, 44, 50, 244 National Security Act 233 National Security Advisor 33, 138, 244 National Security Council 88, 233, 234, 249, 251–2, 262 nationalism 18, 27, 129, 254, 255–7, 267 natural resources 41, 66–7 Navajo Indians 47 Nebraska 64, 139, 180 necessary and proper clause 81, 91 Neibuhr, Reinhold 4 New Deal 26, 28, 33, 80, 86, 174–5, 267

Index New Federalism 31, 80, 224 see also federalism; metaphors New Freedom 224 New Frontier 29 New Jersey Plan 75 New Mexico 7, 62, 64 newspapers 12, 119–20, 185, 187–8, 197, 248 New World 2, 258 New World Order 239, 243–4, 253, 261 New York City 19, 55, 129, 155, 201, 255 New York Stock Exchange 57, 222 New York Times 31, 128, 188 Nicaragua 238 Nineteeenth Amendment 22, 77, 137 Nixon, Richard 28, 29, 31–2, 86, 97, 116, 204, 231, 243, 258, 268 administration of 31–2, 80, 81, 83–4, 85 and Vietnam War 31, 235–6 and Watergate scandal 87 North (the) 56–8 North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA) 220, 227, 228, 244, 250 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 233–4, 238, 239 and “Partnership for Peace” program 242 North, Oliver 33 Nuclear Posture Review 247 nuclear power 63, 232, 266 obesity 266 Occupational Safety and Health Administration 220 Office of Management and Budget 88 oil 32, 41, 44, 49, 52, 54, 237 Oklahoma City bombing 35, 90, 148 One Nation, After All 126 Operation Desert Storm 234, 239–40 Overclass 127–8, 130, 136 Overspent American, The 135 Overworked American, The 135 Pacific Rim (the) 39, 63, 64–7, 65, 66 Paine, Thomas 229 painters 183, 201 Palestine 240–1, 245, 247, 260, 261 Panama Canal 24, 32, 86 partisan self–identification 112 Paul, Alice 22 Peace Corps 30, 251 Pearl Harbor 26, 64, 71, 232 Pennsylvania 8, 9, 55, 57 Pentagon 31, 246, 247, 264 Pentagon Papers 31

301

pentecostals 152, 158 People for the American Way 113 Perot, Ross 34, 116, 121 philanthropy 165–6, 174, 201–2 photo opportunities (photo op) 87, 118, 119, 120 Pilgrims 8, 55, 152 Pledge of Allegiance 23, 24, 28, 151 pluralistic democracy 95–6, 108, 122–5 Plymouth colony 8, 55 police 31, 33, 144–6 political action committees 107, 122 political parties 91, 109–14, 120 candidate-centered 92 and core values 110–14 declining support for 112 increased partisanship of 113 loyalty to 91, 113 realignment in 109 see also Federalism; Democratic Party; Republican Party; Populist Party; Reform Party politicians 91, 107, 121, 123, 124 political participation 105, 106, 117, 124–5 political system 16, 102–25 Polk, James K. 13 pollution 42, 55, 221, 224, 249, 266 popular sovereignty 75, 76–7 population 6, 132, 137, 141, 264 compared 37–8 growth of 9, 12, 16, 60, 67, 72 by region 53, 56, 59, 62, 66 by 2000 Census 37, 141 Populist Party 20, 22, 109 pork barrel politics 91 poverty 26, 129–30, 141, 174 compared with other countries 130 line 130, 175 Powell, Colin 138, 142, 239–40, 244, 245, 251 Powell Doctrine 240 presidency 74, 76, 83–9, 109, 114–15, 116, 120 the Imperial Presidency 83–4 path to the 115 and State of the Union Address 85 see also Executive branch president, roles of 83–5, 250 presidential powers 76, 79, 84–7 appointments 85–6 vetoes 93, 94 Presley, Elvis 201, 204 prisoners 146, 148 prisons 21, 142 Progressive Era 20–6, 81 Prohibition 25, 77

302

Index

property, private 20, 42 Proposition 187 104 Proposition 209 104 Protestants 4, 9, 25, 155, 158, 180 Protestant Reformation 7, 152 Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) 194 Puerto Rico 7, 23, 52, 53, 54, 230 Pure Food and Drug Administration 220 Puritans 8, 55, 152, 162 Puritan work ethic 9, 55, 151, 178, 185, 208, 265 Putnam, Robert 125, 126, 129 Quakers race

15

9, 50, 51, 72, 76–7, 95, 107, 111, 112, 118, 123, 137, 140–4, 264 and class 127–8 racial gerrymandering 123 racial progress 71, 140–1, 143 racism 29, 54, 60, 143, 154, 200 compared with other countries 143 national 23, 24 prevention of 138 and white supremacy 20, 54, 128 see also Ku Klux Klan; xenophobia; Muslims radio 25, 26, 128, 191 railroads 16, 18, 19, 221 Rain-in-the-Face 18 Reagan, Ronald 28, 32, 43, 83, 85, 86, 87, 89, 97, 109, 116, 119, 160, 215 and “evil empire” 33 as Great Communicator 83, 119 inaugural address of 33, 74, 237 and the “New Federalism” 81, 82, 178 support of “Contras” 33, 238 and tax cuts 212 “Reagonomics” 33, 212, 238 reapportionment 77, 114, 123 see also racial gerrymandering Red Scare 25, 28, 194 Reform Party 109, 121 reformers 21, 24, 26 religion 28, 151–62, 180, 254 diversity of 152–154 American attitudes about 129–53 as civil society 152, 161, 264 in media 28, 153 in politics 158–60 secular 151–2, 161 separation of church and state 151–2, 156, 173 see also Great Awakening; Protestants; Catholics; Jews; Mormons; Islam religious freedom 55, 151–2, 160–1, 263 Religious Freedom Act 156

Representatives 75, 77, 78, 89–92, 115, political campaigns of 115, 117 state 82–3 term limits 123–4 see also incumbency Republican Party 16, 64, 109–14 Rice, Condoleezza 138, 244, 245 Riis, Jacob 20, 129 riots 24, 30 Robertson, Pat 160 Rock-’n’-Roll 28, 60, 204–5 Rockefeller, John D. 19, 57 Rockefeller, Nelson 88 Roe v. Wade 139 Roosevelt, Franklin Delano 26, 80, 84, 86, 118, 174–5, 191, 232 Roosevelt, Theodore 23–4, 42, 85, 231 Roosevelt Corollary to Monroe Doctrine 231–2 Rules Committee 93, 94 Rumsfeld, Donald 245 rural America 127, 216 and urban conflicts 8, 128–9 Russia 18, 31, 59, 64, 69, 242 Rwanda 35, 240, 242 Sanger, Margaret 22 Scarlet Letter, The 184 Scholastic Achievement Test 164 schools 83, 134, 136, 143, 172, 173 see also education; affirmative action; universities Schor, Judith 135 Scopes, John 26, 157 Second Amendment 76, 147 secretary of defense 88, 251–2 secretary of state 88, 251 Securities and Exchange Commission 224, 259 Senate 75–76, 77, 78, 84, 88, 89–96, 109 Senate Judiciary Committee 97 Senators (US) 89–96, 124 campaigns by 117 Seneca Falls, NY 15 Separation of Powers 74, 76, 78–9, 84 sex 22, 134–5, 184 Shakers 15, 157 Shame of the Cities, The 20 Shaw v. Reno 123 Sherman Anti-Trust Act 214 shopping malls 28, 182, 187, 213 Sierra Club 42, 43, 107 Simpson, O. J. 128 Sinclair, Upton 20 Sitting Bull 18 Sixteenth Amendment 77, 211 slavery 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 50, 51

Index Smith, Adam 208, 223 Social Security Act 174–5, 177, 196 social services see welfare society 126–44 Solicitor General (US) 99 Somalia 35, 240, 242 Somoa (US) 64, 66 South (the) 15, 16, 51–5, 52, 53 Soviet Union 27, 34, 232–8, 248 breakup of 34, 238, 248 space 30, 55, 81, 218, 237 shuttle 219 see also National Aeronautics and Space Administration Spain 7–8, 10, 13 Spanish–American War 23, 64 Spencer, Herbert, and “survival of the fittest” 20 sports 198–200 see also baseball; basketball; football Sputnik 234 Stanton, Elizabeth Cady 22 states 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 82–3, 97, 103, 104, 114, 117, 124 bicameral legislatures of 83 court systems of 82, 99–100 elected officials of 82–3 and rights 80, 97 Statue of Liberty 21, 22, 55, 256 steel 23, 41, 57, 59, 220, 227, 232 Steffens, Lincoln 20 stock market 26, 223–4, 259 see also New York Stock Exchange Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) 237 Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) 238, 263–4 Strong, Josiah 230 subcommittees 92–4 suburbs 28, 143, 210 Summit of the Americas 228 Sumner, William Graham 20 Sunbelt 54, 60, 70, 71 superpower EU as 253 US as 2, 27, 231–2, 239, 246, 254–5 supremacy clause 76, 81, 96 Supreme Court (US) 18, 24, 76–9, 81, 96–101, 101–2, 123, 124, 138, 205 appointment of Justices to 97, 128, 138 cases 98 and desegration of schools 28, 98 and judicial philosophy 97–8 and politics 97 Rehnquist Court of 97 and “rule of four” 98

303

Taft, William Howard 24 Taft–Hartley Act (1947) 215 Taliban 246, 247, 263 tariffs 220, 226–7, 232 Tax Reform Act (1986) 211–2 Tax Relief Act (2001) 213 taxes 34, 35, 211–3, 174, 264, 265 colonial 10, 21 income 20, 130, 211, 212, 213 Taylor, Frederick 25 teachers 166, 169, 170 see also education technology 7, 60, 210, 218, 227, 254, 260, 263, 264 Telecommunications Act (1996) 195 television 5, 190 and globalization 195 and politics 29, 31, 34, 242 primetime 193, 195 temperance movement 15 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 78–9, 209 term lengths 84, 89 term limits 35, 77, 84, 123–4 territorial expansion, depicted 14 territorial sovereignty 77 terrorism, war on 84, 213, 246–8, 257, 260–4 warnings of domestic terrorism 256, 261–2, 264 see also 11 September; Department of Homeland Security terrorists 32, 33, 157, 237, 245, 247 Thanksgiving 8, 159 Thatcher, Margaret 32 Thernstrom, Stephan and Abigail 126, 140 Third Way 82, 113 Thomas, Clarence 97, 128, 138 Tocqueville, Alexis de 105 trade 7, 57, 225–8, 230, 244, 251 partners 228 see also NAFTA Truman, Harry S 83, 85, 233 Truman Doctrine 233–4 Turner, Frederick Jackson, and frontier thesis 19 Turner, Ted 45, 64, 193, 198 Twain, Mark 19, 184 Two Nations 126 unemployment 26, 34, 174, 208, 210, 221 United Nations 55, 141, 148, 238, 241, 245, 253, 261 Universal Negro Improvement Association 23

304

Index

universities 27, 57, 71, 138, 163–5, 171 degrees 27, 165, 170 diversity 163–4 graduate schools 163, 217 growth of 9, 12 Upward Bound program 167 urban 8, 20, 57, 60, 128–9, 216 US Court of Appeals 100, 145 US Department of Education 166 US Postal Service 176 USA Today 119, 188 vice-president 84, 93–4 Vietnam, immigrants from 55, 60, 69, 71, 235, 243 Vietnam War 30, 71, 80, 124, 235, 251 legacy of 33, 235–6, 266 memorial wall 236 syndrome 240–1 Virgin Islands (US) 8, 52, 53, 226 Virginia Plan 75 “Virginity Oath” 134 voters 103–5, 109–14 conservative shift among 112 ideological self–placement of 110 voting 90–1, 96, 103–5, 107, 109–14, 117–18 low rates of 117–8, 124 intervals 89 patterns of 111–14 preferences in Election 2000 102, 111 qualifications for 103–4 reforms 104, 117 see also elections Voting Rights Act (1965) 117 “W’s World” 245 “Wag the Dog” 120 Wagner Act 174, 215 Wall Street Journal 119, 188 “War on Poverty” 175 War Powers Resolution 250 Warsaw Pact 34, 234, 238 Washington, Booker T. 23 Washington, D.C. 12, 78, 149 Washington, George 10, 12, 17, 36, 53, 85, 162, 229 Washington Post 31, 188 Water Pollution Control Act (1972) 249 Watergate 31, 33, 80, 87 Wealth of Nations, The 208 weather 39, 42, 45, 62, 65, 222, 266–7 Webster, Noah 162–3

welfare 28–9, 209 American attitudes toward 20, 177–9 cuts in provisions of 33, 35 welfare state 26, 173–9, 265 see also TANF, AFDC West (the) 61–4, 62 “West” (the) concept of 1, 232–3, 239, 247, 254, 265 declining cooperation in 239, 252, 267–8 “What Would Jesus Do?” (WWJD) 158, 161 “white flight” 172 White, Margaret Bourke 22 Whitefield, George 9, 157 Wilderness areas 24, 41, 42, 43 Wilson, Woodrow 24, 92, 231 Winthrop, John 8 witch trials 8–9 Wolfe, Alan 126 Woman in the Nineteenth Century (1844) 15 women 8, 28, 132, 136, 137–9 and influence on politics 36, 95, 123, 138, 139 notion of separate spheres 13, 137 organizations 13, 22, 23 and suffrage 22, 110, 111, 112, 137 in workplace 22–3, 27, 28, 128, 137–9, 162, 179, 208, 210 see also feminists Women’s Rights Convention 15 Woodhull, Victoria 22 workers 21, 60, 128, 130, 175–7, 179, 185–6, 210–11, 215–16 work ethic see Puritan work ethic Workfare 177–8 workforce 27, 68, 132, 137 total 207–9, 210, 264 Works Progress Administration (WPA) 174 World Bank 196, 225, 254 World Trade Center 87, 90, 160, 246, 248, 255, 263 World Trade Organization 226, 242, 254 World War I 6, 23–4, 81, 231 World War II 26, 27, 70, 81, 84, 112, 232 xenophobia 21, 68, 69 see also racism Young, Andrew

141, 225

Contemporary America (Contemporary States and Societies)

Contemporary Latin America (Contemporary States and Societies)

Contemporary Poetry and Contemporary Science

Contemporary Ethnic Geographies in America

Altered States: America Since the Sixties (Reaktion Books - Contemporary Worlds)

Democracy in Muslim Societies (Orf Studies in Contemporary Muslim Societies)

Contemporary West African States (African Studies)

Contemporary West African States (African Studies)

Contemporary Ergonomics 2000 (Contemporary Ergonomics)

Contemporary Caribbean Cultures and Societies in a Global Context

Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America

Contemporary Paganism Religions in a Majoritarian America

Meanings of Violence in Contemporary Latin America

Clausewitz and Contemporary War

God and contemporary science

Sidgwick and Contemporary Utilitarianism

Lacan and contemporary film

Contemporary movements and ideologies

Classical and Contemporary Cryptology

Habermas and Contemporary Society

Clausewitz and Contemporary War

Sidgwick and Contemporary Utilitarianism

Lacan and contemporary film

Kant and Contemporary Epistemology

Lacan and Contemporary Film

Sidgwick and Contemporary Utilitarianism

Contemporary Pediatrics

Contemporary Combinatorics

Contemporary Cryptography

Contemporary Issues

Contemporary America (Contemporary States and Societies)

Contemporary Latin America (Contemporary States and Societies)

Contemporary Poetry and Contemporary Science

Contemporary Ethnic Geographies in America

Altered States: America Since the Sixties (Reaktion Books - Contemporary Worlds)

Democracy in Muslim Societies (Orf Studies in Contemporary Muslim Societies)

Contemporary West African States (African Studies)

Contemporary West African States (African Studies)

Contemporary Ergonomics 2000 (Contemporary Ergonomics)

Contemporary Caribbean Cultures and Societies in a Global Context

Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America

Contemporary Paganism Religions in a Majoritarian America

Meanings of Violence in Contemporary Latin America

Clausewitz and Contemporary War

God and contemporary science

Sidgwick and Contemporary Utilitarianism

Lacan and contemporary film

Contemporary movements and ideologies

Classical and Contemporary Cryptology

Habermas and Contemporary Society

Clausewitz and Contemporary War

Sidgwick and Contemporary Utilitarianism

Lacan and contemporary film

Kant and Contemporary Epistemology

Lacan and Contemporary Film

Sidgwick and Contemporary Utilitarianism

Contemporary Pediatrics

Contemporary Combinatorics

Contemporary Cryptography

Contemporary Issues

Recommend Documents