GV4E2 Authors and Main Arguments Flashcards
(19 cards)
What is Levistky and Ziblatt’s main argument?
In favor of countermajoritarian restraints because they think they ensure democracy’s survival while also protecting minority rights. But they also later warn that some countermajoritarian restraints are democracy “subverting” instead of democracy “enhancing, like the Senate’s Filibuster. But nonetheless, they believe that civil liberties and democratic processes must be out of reach of majorities. Also discuss how different electoral systems either stengehten or weaen the power of the majority
What is Schumpeter’s main argument?
Pro-countermajoritarian restrictions because thinks that having them would make life more convinent and efficient than not. So is not in favor of not having citiznes make important decisions, but that technical, time-consuming decisions should be left to committees. Also does not believe that citizens are too dumb to make their own political decisions. It’s simply that there is no one common good upon which everyone agrees, so comming to unamimous decisions is tough. But then he says how citiznes can be the wrong ones to make political deciions because they become irrational when they become engaged in politics, have a limited understanding of economics, and also struggle to think outside of their inner circle.
What is Murphey and Nagel’s main argument
Basically: No such thing as just market based policy becuse govenemnt creates everything – like tac policiies
Discussing mostly tax policy and how people are mistaken to believe that “equal sacrifice” is actually just. Yet they point out that market outcomes are centraintly not deserved because people have more access to privilege (like inheritance) than others (32)
Underscore how market and government are intertwined:
“There is no market without government and no government without taxes; and what type of market there is depends on laws and policy decisions that government must make” (32)
Argues how markets need institutions, laws, and policiies, banks and government determines all of that (32). Conclude that these views of taxes as should not be distributive is taken up by most – calling it “everyday liberatiransm” and blaming it for obscuring public debate about taxes and disribtuive justice
What is Mill’s main argument
Very pro-countermajoritarian structures because they think that citizens are biased decision-makers and only look at what concerns their class, and that they are “not the most highly cultivated” citizens, whatever that means. Prefers citizens that are educated to only have the right to vote, but admits that then this would be against universal suffrage. And then states that only people who pay taxes can vote.
What is Friedman’s main argument?
Left optimists – very pro market and demcoracy and beliefs that they are mutually reinforcing. Anti democratic socialism and dictatorships. Argues the eocnomic freedom is necessary for ensuring political and total freedom
What is Meltzer and Richard’s main argument
What is Lindblom main argument
Very left pessimist and views the market as a prison because he believes that business and capitalism come with punishments like retaliation against union activity, unemployment, recession. Also says that markets imprison people by potentially jeopardizing their lvilhood during a recession and imprisoning thought by influecing policy making. THus this is why he believes that captialism deteriroates democracy – the stucutural power of wealthy makes it so that deomcoracy and elections cannot function without ceding to market demands and needs
what is Allen’s main argument
Discusses how we should understand equality and what the founding fathers meant by “all men are created equal”. Also reinforces how the founding fathers believed that you need political liberty to have economic equality, but also points out how they profited off of the expropriation of land and slave labor. Also discusses how there are different kinds of equality
What is Friedman’s other
main argument
Kind of depicts capitlaist society as a game between citizens and the government. Argues that the market has some level of conformity, but that people have the right to play the game or not. Warns about the risks of monopolies on freedom and choice. But also argues that there are ways that the government intervenes in the market that should be considered to be anti-choice and freedom too, like social security, rent control, minimum wages, and forced conscription.
What is Hacker and Pierson’s main argument
Discuss how politics and policy are contributing to rising inequality in the us that economic arguments cannot soley explain. This is because economic arguemnts often overlook politics and overrely on the median voter theorem. THus propose their own argument that politics need to be included in economic explanations of rising inequality Coin the concept of “politics as organized combat” to show how organized interests can determine public policies that in turn determine distributional outcomes. Their main contirnution is presenting that the US economy has a “winner-takes-all model” in which the rich profit the most from economic growth and there is little trickle-down effects to most of the population.
Lohmann’s main argument
Similar to Hacker and Pierson, argues that current explanations for why policies are biased and ineffecient to addressing redistribution and weak because they don’t focus on how political decisions are made primarily with specicial interests rather than public interests in mind. Uses rational choice thoery to explain how politicians, primarily incumbants see that is it in their electoral interest to prioritize speicial interest groups’ suggested policies even at the expense of the majority because they can raised money for their campaigns which will determine whether they will be re-elected. But she argues that if the majority is ill-informed about how a policy does or doens’t beenfit them, they might be persuaded by political propagandic tactics to still vote for the incumbatn
Pontusson’s main argument
Argue that you need to consider how income bias influences debates on redistribution and inequality and counters arguemnts that voters are just too stupid to understand the extent of income distribution and inequality. Points to how tax and welfare-state reforms were the main drivers of inequality in the 1990s and 2007s and that the state did little to address rising ineuqality during this period. Also points to how survey questions trying to gage citiznes’ view of income inequality are poorly phrased and often do not elicit their true views. Moreover, he underscores the importance of considering voters’ relative bargaining power in politics, as affluent citizens – not just middle income or median voters – often have signficiant influence on politics and policies
Hing et al’s main argument
Trying to determine why inequality doesn’t alaways produce a public outcry and argue that as inequality continues and grows overtime, it becomes normalized and people become ignroante of how bad it really it or they accept it as just and rational. Also expand Meltzer and Richard’s median voter theorem to expand how people’s views of redistribution change due to mucrolevel psychological and personal responses to rising inequality, which the median voter theeorm does not address
Scheve and Stasavage’s main argument
Discuss the merits of governments taxing the rich to ensure equality among citizens, like compensatory arguments that argue that because rich people oftnen benefit from governemntal policies more, then they should compensate this benefit by paying more in taxes. The ability to pay arguments persuade that those who can should pay more in taxes. Other argue that it is more equal if everyone pays the same flat tax rate. Detemines that governments are more likely to tax the rich because they fear revolts or to also compensate for people who have sacrificed their life to state through conscription, although this is less applicable to today
Bartel’s main argument
Argues that the majority of voters are very minsinformed when it comes to voting for policies that benefit them economically. Analyzes surveys trying to assess whether people support tax cuts on the wealthy, espeically when informed that these were policiies that the Bush administration rolled out.
Ferguson main argument?
Argues that classifcal democracy theories do not explain how voters struggle to navigate polciitc, elections, and governance of the state and how political parities are out of touch with the realities of voters. He argues the reason for parties being out of tohc, is – like what Lohman says – investors define and detemine the tajectory of political partieis and what partieis will put on the ballot for voters to vote on. Like Hing, Pontusson, and Lohmann also critiques the median voter theorem for being to short-zighted and not applying to how contemproary politics in the US works. But unlike Lohmann and Bartels, argues that the problem with the majority of lower income voters not understanding how policies don’t benefit them isn’t because they aren’t smart enough, but because they are too poor to copete with wealthy investors and voters’ bargaining power in elections. Also reinforces what Hacker and Pierson and Hing et al discuss that investors have an incentive to keep redisitribution off the ballot and keep issues like race, values and immigration on the forefront
Skocpol and Hertel-Fernandez main argument?
Discuss the Koch network and their control over the conservative GOP party ideology, politicans, and political agenda by funding nearly every conservative political organization, think tank, party, and their affiliates.
Hopkin and Blyth’s main argument?
Argue that its the economic growth regime that influences political party structures and the failure of the current growth regime, leaving cartel parties out of otch with voters and contemrpoary eocnomic issues that has produced the rise in populist parties. Part of the reason why the growth regimes infleunced politics so much is that the regimes tried to address distcint economic problems and parties would organize around those discting issues. Populist and anti-system thus emerged to try and address the places in which the partieis failed to
Rodrik’s main argument?
Using an empiricial analysis of the 2016 US presidnetial election to underscore how globalization related variables helped increased support for Trump. Creates a conceptual framwork that explains how globalization can produce populism as it relates to the effects of trade and growing restment to whhat is deemed as foregin and not pro-the -right-people. Argues that globalization has impacted politics on the demand side directly by economic disoltion which demanded anti-eleite and redistirbutive polciies and indrectly through the ampliciaiton of cultural and identity dividsion. He also argues that globalization has impact politics on the supply side through the adoption by political candidates of populist platofroms and theor their adoptions of platforms that deliberity inflame cultual and identitiy tensions to divert voters’ attention away from economic issues. Concludes that backlash to globalization benefits right-wing voters more than left wing becayse right wing plays on cutlrue and idneity issues more in the dicussion of globlaization
