ARGUMENTS Flashcards
Lippmann’s Argument!!!
Walter Lippmann was a political philosopher and journalist who argued that the average citizen is incapable of understanding complex political issues due to limited information and cognitive biases. He believed that democracy needed to be guided by experts who could interpret information and make decisions in the public interest.
Lippmann’s argument was based on the premise that the complexity of modern society and the diversity of interests and opinions make it difficult for citizens to make informed decisions on political issues. He argued that most people do not have the time, resources, or expertise to become sufficiently informed about complex political issues. This leads to a situation where the public is easily swayed by propaganda, misinformation, or emotion-based arguments.
Lippmann believed that democracy needed to be guided by a group of experts who could interpret information and make decisions in the public interest. These experts would be trained in the social sciences, economics, and other relevant fields, and would be responsible for analyzing information and making decisions based on the best available evidence. In this view, political ignorance is a fundamental problem for democracy that can only be overcome by providing citizens with high-quality information and by empowering experts to make decisions.
Lippmann’s argument has been widely debated and criticized, with many arguing that it ignores the importance of citizen participation and the potential for democratic deliberation to improve decision-making. However, his work remains an important contribution to the study of democratic theory and the challenges facing modern democracies.
Neustadt Argument
Richard Neustadt, an American political scientist, argued in his 1960 book, “Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership,” that the power of the president is primarily rooted in their ability to persuade others to support their policy agenda. By persuasion, Neustadt meant the ability of the president to influence the behavior and decisions of others, particularly members of Congress and the American public, by using their personal and institutional resources, such as charisma, popularity, expertise, and bargaining skills.
Lupia and McCubbins Argument
Driving through an intersection would require perfect information about where all the other cars are going, but we use a traffic signal as a substitute for all this information. We can still make a rational, reasoned choice without perfect information.
Lupia and McCubbins argue that voters can still make reasonable decisions even when they have limited information about political issues and candidates. They suggest that voters rely on various heuristics or shortcuts to make their decisions, such as party affiliation, candidate characteristics, or issue stances.
According to Lupia and McCubbins, these heuristics are not random or arbitrary but are based on voters’ past experiences, values, and beliefs. For example, voters who have a long-standing affiliation with a political party may use that affiliation as a cue for which candidate to support in an election. Similarly, voters who prioritize a particular issue, such as healthcare or the environment, may support the candidate who has a clear stance on that issue.
Moreover, Lupia and McCubbins argue that the media can play a critical role in reducing the cost of information acquisition for voters. The media can provide voters with information about political issues and candidates, allowing them to make more informed decisions, even with limited information. However, they also acknowledge that the media can be biased or present information in a way that is misleading, which can make it challenging for voters to make reasonable decisions.
Overall, Lupia and McCubbins suggest that voters can still make reasonable decisions with limited information by relying on heuristics and by using the media as a source of information. They also note that there are limits to voters’ ability to make informed decisions, particularly when they lack critical information about political issues and candidates.
Bruce Cain’s argument
Overall, Cain’s argument is that the partisan cartel in American politics is a major obstacle to effective governance and democratic participation. He suggests that reforms are needed to promote greater competition and diversity in the political system, such as changes to campaign finance laws and electoral systems, as well as efforts to promote greater civic engagement and participation.
Mayhews argument
Mayhew’s argument on reelection, as outlined in his book “Congress: The Electoral Connection,” is that members of Congress are primarily motivated by the goal of getting reelected. Mayhew argues that politicians are rational actors who seek to maximize their chances of winning reelection by focusing on issues that are salient to their constituents and avoiding controversial or unpopular positions that might harm their chances of being reelected.
