My method is designed to (1) determine authoritarian, liberal, and republican habits; and (2) to test a database on any given issue according to the distinct political languages of authoritarianism, liberalism, and republicanism. The evidence should illuminate the empirical examples of authoritarianism, liberalism, and republicanism (if any) to the given issue (i.e., the Patriot Act).
MY HANDOUT AT THE MIDWEST POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE 2015
Like, in the garbage-can theory (Cohen, March, and Olsen, 1972) for the creation of new public policy, problems are discussed while solutions are waiting to be funded. Public policy problems and solutions go into the garbage can, and chance often picks the pairs (problem and solution) to come out.
I contend that when we stop shaking the garbage can, we can open the lid and pick out distinctly authoritarian, liberal, and republican solutions to problems. In the end, I hope that my media analysis of the Patriot Act will reflect distinctly authoritarian, liberal, and republican public policy problems and solutions as a response to 9/11.
In general, an ideology is a political structure that the masses can both believe in and accomplish. An “ideology” may be seen as a particularly elaborate, close-woven, and far-ranging structure of attitudes (Campbell, Converse, Miller, and Stokes, 1960, 192). The methods designed in this dissertation are meant to decipher if republicanism is a viable ideology for some Americans. As a response to 9/11 and the Patriot Act, did republicans come together and propose / pass legislation to protect res publica? Did some individuals come together to “instruct” their government? Did republicans admonish 9/11 and / or the Patriot Act? How? Why?
Before answering these questions, we must answer: On Planet Authoritarianism, Planet Liberalism, and Planet Republicanism, what political languages do we observe between the people and the government? The examination of those beliefs and practices should be observably processed. Thus, I will find how a society may develop according to the ideologies the people are legally allowed to participate in with a level of effectiveness. There may be one or one million people on Planet Auth who are republicans, for instance, but if they live in an authoritarian society under an authoritarian regime, then the people will have no agency or power in politics and republicanism is not a viable ideology.
From the lit., we expect that on Planet Auth, the government holds all agency and power and the people, ideologically, do not have access to political agency or political power. The government is in charge, ultimately, of the economy, culture, and resources. At the end of the day, all the people work for the government. The people living in this omnipresent authoritarian society couldn’t viably seek to “order the government” to protect the people after a terrorist attack, because there is no established legal path to accomplish self-government. In an authoritarian state on Planet Auth, only the leaders have the power to give liberty, and to take it away. The people don’t “check” the authoritarian regime by free and fair elections or local republican associations nested via non-domination.
In an authoritarian society, power is centralized nationally and the people have the power to obey. Public opinion surveys are useful, but also ignored by the wielders of power at will. A critical event, like a terrorist attack or a natural disaster, would give the authoritarian elite a reason to massively increase power and agency. The research suggests that they would create a panopticon (i.e., Ceausescu) in order to ubiquitously wield the capacity to penetrate the entire society for the benefit of the authoritarian elite, whether for noble or corrupt experiences, because the elite are committed to ruling over the population in a paternalistic manner.
On Planet Liberalism (Libe), the government is based on regular elections, which are free and fair, and open to the entire population (including convicted felons). Once in office, the elected representatives protect the security of the people, with a special focus on protecting private property. The government is in charge of regulating all markets for the protection of the people, and may manipulate society by providing incentives / disincentives via taxes, but they cannot control the people’s choice regarding religion, speech, education, employment, etc. The people have limited agency and power in elections because each vote is worth so little, and the government is limited in its ability to coerce and regulate the people because they have so little influence on the society (i.e., government officials rarely visit companies to ensure they are complying with national or local regulations). Most people work in the private sector on Planet Libe and only come into contact with government through elections or party affiliation.
On Planet Repu, power and agency resides with the people. A small amount of government officials track the interests of the participatory and versatile citizenry. In society, the citizens practice efficacious and worthwhile behavior and create industries in compliance with the norms of non-domination. The economy and polity is called res publica. The people’s private lives are private and the government adheres to strict rules of non-domination in order to protect against corruption and domination, which causes transparency and accountability to be top priorities of governing (i.e., not protecting private property or controlling private property). As a people, republicanism leads then to be against rapacious capitalism, and in favor of maximizing resources for the beneficial use of all citizens. In the beginning and end, the people’s right to instruct their government in line with public polices of non-domination is the cause of politics, and all other traditions are asked to speak up in-between.
**I based American republicanism on over 2,000 “resolutions of instruction” in the Senate–power and agency in politics on the people’s terms, without Rousseau (see my MPSA 2014 Essay). Nondomination is a heuristic for “strong republicanism.”
Thanks for reading this 330 something blog post! SEE THE PAPER here.