Gideon=s Trumpet .................................................. 1

What=s Politics? ..................................................... 2

People: The Source of Conflict ..............................2

Conflict: The Cause of Disorder........................... 3

Social Pluralism ................................................ 4

Political Pluralism ............................................ 5

Community: The Need for Order ........................ 6

Politics: The Means to Create Order ................... 8

Politics as a Process.......................................... 8

Conflict Representation................................... 9

Conflict Resolution...........................................10

American Political Patterns: A Summation ..........13

References .............................................................15

We believe that citizens must study conflict--its sources, consequences, and management-- to understand politics. That is why we have written Governing the United States. We use a framework based on conflict, community, and politics to organize this text. This framework, developed by Nimmo and Ungs (1979), can provide citizens a useful tool for analyzing and participating in politics. In this chapter we discuss why conflicts occur, how conflicts affect society, and how conflicts may be managed. This chapter not only introduces our approach but also reviews the structure of the entire book.

We have made a conscious effort to present a consistent, integrative approach to politics. To show students how our approach works we focus on a few Acharacters in conflict.@ We illustrate key ideas with a teaching technique as old as civilization itself, storytelling. Our first story is about Clarence Earl Gideon (1910 - 1972) and his fight with the state of Florida.

Our daily lives consist of routine activities. We know what to expect. We expect order. On June 3, 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon had gone to have a beer, one of his usual activities. Playing poker and shooting pool were also routines he enjoyed. On this June 3, Gideon was arrested and Acharged with breaking and entering the Bay Harbor Poolroom and stealing beer, soft drinks, and coins from the vending machine@ (Sherrow, 1995, p. 28). Gideon=s routine had been dramatically--perhaps permanently--altered. Order had changed to disorder as Gideon was arrested for committing a felony.

Gideon and the state of Florida were fighting. Florida won the first round--Gideon was convicted and sentenced to five years in the Florida State Penitentiary in Raiford. Gideon had to defend himself. He could not afford an attorney. Neither Florida law nor Supreme Court rulings provided for legal counsel in his case. Imagine how Gideon felt when he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced for a crime he had not committed. Gideon, now Prisoner #003826, Astubbornly refused to accept the idea that he had not been entitled to a lawyer@ (Sherrow, 1995, p. 13). Gideon believed that he had rights and that those rights had been violated. Gideon began to study the law searching for a way to persuade the Supreme Court that Aa defendant who had no money still needed a lawyer in order to have a fair trial@ (Sherrow, 1995, p. 13). Gideon asked the United States Supreme Court to become involved in his fight. He presented his demands to the Court and asked it to overturn his conviction because Florida had Adeprived him of liberty without a fair trial@ (Fonda). At this stage the deck was stacked against Gideon (for the outcome see the resources listed in Figure 1.1, AGideon=s Trumpet@). Gideon=s case is an example of politics, but what is politics?

We define politics as a process in which people living in a community try to resolve their conflicts (Nimmo and Ungs, 1979, p. 11). Four building blocks (i.e., assumptions) support this view of politics:

We shall discuss, in detail, these building blocks. Together they create a framework for comprehending and practicing politics. A conceptual framework suggests what concepts and ideas we should use in our study of politics; a framework suggests how various concepts and ideas fit together (Allison, 1969). A framework creates a puzzle and suggests a solution. Chaos, conflict, and disorder are elements of the American puzzle. Politics offers a possible, albeit imperfect, solution. Let=s consider the first building block.

The key element in government is people. Throughout the world more than one hundred and fifty national governments create rules for billions of human beings through numerous smaller units. In America we have the federal government, state governments, counties, municipalities, school

districts, and numerous special districts (water, garbage). Remove the forms, laws, and units and what remains is people. Politics is what it is because of the way people act.

Conflicts emerge from the human situation. Human beings have various needs. Sheer survival comes first. We must satisfy physical needsCwe require adequate food, water, clothing, and shelter. We have personal needs--esteem, pride, status. We also have social needsCpeople want to live with one another in safety and security in communities.

People who live together usually have different needs. This diversity is the basis of politics. Everyone must have food but people desire different foods to enjoy living. Their needs for respect, self-esteem, and equality also differ. Inevitably, it seems, they disagree over how best to satisfy their needs. People also have different abilities and talents, which can affect whether their needs are satisfied.

People make demands. Resources to satisfy those demands are required. But seldom are there enough resources to satisfy everyone=s demands. Communities with abundant resources do not exist. Limited resources force us to make choices, which invites conflict. A recent report has predicted a worldwide water shortage by 2050 (Simon, 1998). If the supply and demand projections are accurate, and if governments do little, if anything, fights over water will inevitably occur.

The human situation, in all its diversity, is the source of social conflict. Conflicts occur because people have different needs. The communities in which they live do not have enough resources to satisfy everyone=s needs. To live in communities we must cope with conflict.

Conflict is the underlying condition of society. When conflicts emerge chaos, disorder, and uncertainty follow. Destruction is even a possibility. Who can really anticipate the outcome of a conflict? Gideon=s dispute with Florida lasted more than two years (from June, 1961, to August, 1963). Relatively brief conflicts are upsetting--people usually prefer cooperation and harmony, not competition and strife. Conflicts occur when people take three actions:

                    1. They realize that their goals differ from one another.

                    2. They act to achieve their goals.

When conflicts occur we generally see two outcomes: (1) either one interest (person, group, culture, nation) gains at the expense of other interests or (2) all interests agree to alter their demands so that none gains everything desired nor loses everything in the disagreement. Conflicts inevitably arise as people make demands and there are not enough resources to satisfy everyone. Conflicts can damage a society, if not managed well. If a dominant interest always gains and other, weaker interests always suffer, history suggests that disorderCcivil disobedience, armed rebellion, destruction, and war--emerges, eventually. History suggests that communities can survive and evolve if conflicts can be managed by bargaining, compromising, and negotiating. But we should never forget that conflicts among nations can erupt in violent ways through warfare (see Figure 1.2, AMemorial Day@).

The more diverse the desires and characteristics of a society's members, the greater the likelihood of social conflict. Conflicts are especially likely in diverse societies. America is diverse in its social structure and in its governing institutions.

Social pluralism is evident in America. We live in a society with diverse social groups. There are a variety of ways to illustrate this. Consider your own experience. If you are like most Americans, you are a member of a family, you associate with a few close friends, and you see fellow students or co-workers frequently. A vast array of primary groups such as families, friends, and close associates is one aspect of a pluralist society.

Consider the organized groups people may join. Again, if you are like most Americans, you may be a member of a church. You might have joined a sorority, fraternity, or other student association in college. You may be contemplating membership in any number of voluntary organizations such as professional, civic, recreational, and religious groups. These associations are the backbone of a socially diverse America. They provide a link between your private, daily life and your public less frequently played role of active citizen.

There are other ways to experience America=s social diversity. Travel to one of our largest cities--Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, or Washington, D.C.--and you can see it. Turn on your radio or CD player and listen to it. Turn on your TV and watch it. (Tune in MTV to listen and watch it!)

Consider some of the delicious foods various ethnic groups have contributed to our culture: okra and yams by African Americans; chop suey and egg rolls by Chinese Americans; hamburgers, frankfurters, and sauerbraten by German Americans; lasagna and spaghetti by Italian Americans; bagels and corned beef by Jewish Americans; and burritos, enchiladas, and tacos by Mexican Americans. Finally, we invite you to study Figure 1.3, ASocial Pluralism in America,@ and sample America=s social diversity by visiting numerous World Wide Web sites devoted to particular ethnic groups.

What are the consequences of social pluralism? One is the generation of social conflict. Diverse groups frequently have very different goals. They make demands upon one another and each group tries to gain some advantage. The resulting tension produces social conflicts.

We see other consequences that flow from people's affiliations with many different groups. If people join a variety of organizations, they need not be totally dependent upon any single group to satisfy all their demands. Joining many groups also takes the pressure offBpeople are less likely to invest all their energies and emotions in any single issue tied to any single group (Schlesinger, 1998). Because people join a variety of groups, organizations must compete for their support. 

Political Pluralism 

In addition to the many social groups, there are many governing units. Federalism, the division of political authority into levels of government, creates governing units at the national, state, and local levels. This division is responsible for approximately 85,000 units (see Figure 1.4, APolitical Pluralism in America@). Separation of powers, the division of political authority at each level, also increases the number of governing units. Distinct legislative, executive, and judicial offices exist at the national, state, and local levels. In America political authority is sliced and diced, vertically (federalism) and horizontally (separation of powers). The result is political pluralism--a tremendously fragmented governmental framework.

Political pluralism generates social conflicts. The principle of checks and balances reinforces the slicing and dicing of authority. As a political unit tries to pursue its own interests (or the interests of the citizens it represents) it finds itself checked by others. Disputes over policies quickly develop. Because there are so many units with governing authority, conflicting social interests can lobby at various access points to influence policies. If interests lose out in one unit they usually can take their demands to some other, possibly more sympathetic, unit. The Florida Supreme Court would not reverse Gideon=s conviction, so he appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Plotting how to defend its criminal court procedures, Florida=s Attorney General expected the other state attorneys general to side with Florida. But not all of them did. Minnesota=s Attorney General, Walter F. Mondale (later Vice-President of the United States), was among the attorneys general that sided with Gideon=s position (Lewis, 1989, pp. 152-153). When originally tried Gideon had to defend himself, but upon gaining access to the United States Supreme Court Gideon acquired legal support from Abe Fortas (later appointed to the Supreme Court by President Johnson) and several (twenty three) state attorneys general.

Social and political pluralism both generate conflict. We argue that America's governing institutions act as participating interests in social conflicts as much as they serve as arbitrators of those disputes. Imagine a baseball or football game in which the umpires and referees are not impartial, nor do they necessarily favor one team over the other; rather the officials enter the struggle against the teams (the other social groups) in order to preserve and improve their own interests in the contest. This is the character of social conflict in a pluralist society: It engages everybody--contestants, officials, and spectators. Because people live in a community, they have an incentive to manage their conflicts.

Conflict divides people; community unites them. People tend to join together and share their experiences. They tend to form communities (Dewey, 1927). Human beings are, by nature, social beings--they must associate with one another to satisfy physical needs (food, shelter). People also communicate with one another, creating social bonds and networks. The World Wide Web (WWW) is, in part, a social network that makes it possible for people with common interests to communicate. Gideon established a social network by playing cards and shooting pool; he created a network in prison by talking with others about his case.

We have said that conflict is a fundamental part of the human situation. Now we are saying that community is also a fundamental part. Are these building blocks of our approach compatible? The fact that people live together does not mean that they forego disputes. Instead, the presence of community, of shared beliefs and values, implies the willingness to tolerate conflicts. Community is an agreement to fight among ourselves, but not to annihilate one another.

Think of community as if it were a quilt. Differently colored and shaped scrapes of cloth (patches) would be stitched together by neighbors and family members. When stitched together the patches may form a unique pattern. The top and bottom panels would be assembled, perhaps with an insulating fill in between. A finished quilt would be greater than the mere sum of its parts; the separate patches would have been Aknit together as one.@ A quilt, according to a family=s tradition, might be handed down from one generation to the next, from grandparents to grandchildren. A quilt not only would keep the children warm on a cold winter=s night, but would symbolize the bond among family members.

We are interested in what Aknits us together as one@ community. What are the components (thread) that bind the diverse groups (patches) into the American community? Having a strong Athread@ to bind us together, having a community, provides an incentive for us to manage our conflicts. We suggest that politics in America is shaped by three aspects (threads) of community:

1. The Personal Dimension: The personal dimension of community consists of individual beliefs, values, and expectations about living together. In America we tend to believe in democratic practices; we see America as a Ademocracy.@ We all have a say in the matter. We also have made aspects of the Declaration of Independence into a national creed. Gideon, for example, believed that Americans had certain rights (life, liberty) no government could take away. Sometimes people share nothing beyond a belief in the worth of community living, disagreeing on everything else.

2. The Social Dimension: The social dimension of community includes the characteristics and relationships that bring people together into groups. These groups reach backward and forward beyond the lifetimes of the current residents. Both the socially significant attributes of individuals (ethnicity, race, etc.) and the relations of people in social units (status, privileges, etc.) define a community's social base. This social base is, like our quilting example, something greater than the sum of its separate parts.

3. The Constitutional Dimension: The rules and procedures for settling disputes are the constitutional dimension of community. Some rules are written; others are unwritten. Many of these written Arules@ are in the Constitution; others are in legislative statutes, executive orders, bureaucratic regulations, and court cases. Unwritten rules are more difficult to document because they are a matter of custom and tradition. An unwritten Arule@ of American politics is that we should have competition between at least two major political parties. Some unwritten rules have been transformed into written onesBthe tradition of serving only two presidential terms, a practice begun by George Washington but broken by Franklin D. Roosevelt, was added to the Constitution by the Twenty-Second Amendment (1951). Having constitutional procedures for settling disputes helps us manage conflicts. If people fighting had to settle the Ahow to decide@ (procedures) and the Awhat to decide@ (conflict) questions, during an intense fight, the dispute might never end. Sometimes the conflict is over the rules. Citizens need to know these rules, and their importance, so that constitutional procedures are not easily and routinely compromised. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) established a fundamental constitutional procedureBAthe right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to have the assistance of counsel is . . . essential to a fair trial.@

Balancing individual freedom, an aspect of conflict, and order, an aspect of community, has been an enduring problem in American politics. Consider, for example, the nullification controversy. In 1828 the South Carolina legislature approved John C. Calhoun=s nullification doctrine. As Morison, Commager, and Leuchtenburg (1977) explained:

Under Calhoun=s nullification doctrine a state could decide whether to obey the policies of the national (federal) government. Its original target was a tariff, labeled by opponents as the Atariff of abominations,@ that imposed a tax on imported goods and materials. On January 26, 1830, Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts attacked Calhoun=s doctrine, defining it with the simple phrase: ALiberty first and Union afterwards.@ Senator Webster rejected the nullification idea, preferring, instead: ALiberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!@ (Morison et al., 1977, p. 189) President Andrew Jackson was moved by Webster=s argument and in 1833 signed legislation (the Force Act) giving him authority to use the army and navy to collect taxes on imports (was this Jackson preparing to duel on a grand scale?). South Carolina then repealed the nullification doctrine.

Conflict and community, ALiberty and Union,@ are essential aspects of American politics. Community, which binds us together, buffers conflicts that naturally arise when people are free (liberty) to pursue their private interests. Calhoun=s doctrine emphasized liberty over Union; Webster=s rebuttal, the equal value of liberty and Union. Webster=s argument, according to Morison et al. (1977), Aestablished in the hearts of the Northern and Western people a new, semi-religious conception of the Union@ (p. 189). One of its earliest readers, Abraham Lincoln, would participate in events that resolved the Calhoun-Webster debate in Webster=s favor, the Civil War (1861 - 1865). When we grow weary of politics, we should remember that intense social conflicts can destroy the community. We almost destroyed the American community in the Civil War. Social order is problematical; it can be destroyed, easily and quickly, when social conflict weakens, beyond repair, the Asemi-religious@ bonds of community.

We view politics as a process in which people living in a community try to resolve their conflicts. People are the source of politics. Conflicts occur because people have different goals and the communities in which they live do not have enough resources to satisfy everyone=s goals. Community represents what we share with one another, what we have in common. If we value our community and recognize that a conflict could destroy it, we have a powerful incentive to manage conflict. We need politics, the most inclusive process for managing social conflict in a community. In the remainder of this chapter we will examine this working definition of politics and its implications for the subjects discussed in this book.

Viewing politics as a process suggests that it is a pattern of human activities. Each activity is related to those that precede and follow it. Our approach focuses on what happened yesterday, what happens today, and what will happen tomorrow. We look for patterns. We approach acts not as isolated happenings but as events related to one another which, taken together, form a pattern.

Relationships among political participants cannot be identified and explained apart from the behavior of other participants in a setting. As in the marketplace, where the behaviors of businesses and consumers are closely linked, we see relationships in politics between the actions of governors and governed. These relationships constitute political patterns, and we assume that certain factors are associated with shaping them. We will discuss the personal, social, and constitutional factors associated with patterns in American politics.

We must be careful not to contrive patterns, so we search for patterns supported by considerable historical and empirical evidence. Specifically, we will analyze patterns of political participation that make policy makers aware of conflicts; we call these patterns conflict representation. We also will look at the ways in which policy makers deal with conflicts; we label these patterns conflict resolution. Taken together, patterns of representation and resolution constitute politics, the means to create order.

Conflict representation refers to the ways people express their demands to public officials. When people express demands they are participating in politics. When Gideon wrote to the Supreme Court, he expressed an opinion--Aa poor person was entitled to a lawyer.@ When the attorneys general got involved, they were trying to influence the Court=s decision. An interest groupBrecall the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) lawyersBeven tried to join Gideon=s fight.

Conflict representation occurs in every government, but its key function is to link the governors and governed in a representative democracy. A democracy not only implements the desires of the governed but also provides the means for holding those who govern accountable. The effectiveness of that accountability depends on communication between citizens and officials. If conventional channels for presenting conflicts to officials are closed, or if officials dismiss a significant number of complaints sent through open channels and refuse to do anything about them, people will turn to more unconventional waysBdemonstrations, protests, or riots--of voicing grievances.

In American government there are a variety of channels available to citizens who wish to place demands on officials and hold those officials accountable. We will describe those channels and assess their contribution to conflict representation in Part II. Before analyzing these specifics, however, we will use the remaining chapters of Part I to discuss the background of conflict management in America. We compare the general character of conflict representation with patterns of conflict resolution in the remainder of Chapter 1. We describe the liberal Democratic features of American politics in Chapter 2 and explain the constitutional background of American political patterns in Chapter 3. Part II then focuses upon conflict representation. Chapter 4 looks in detail at the active and passive ways Americans take part in politics (see Figure 1.5, ADueling with Crockett or Jackson@).

People may express their demands in several ways. We focus on six forms of conflict representation. The critical aspect of each form is the existence of avenues through which people may make known their demands to their elected and appointed officials.

1. Expressing political opinions: When people talk politics they reveal their conclusions or judgments. Sometimes they agree; sometimes they disagree. Either way, they are expressing political opinions. The political opinions of many individuals, added together, form public opinion. A consensus exists when there is widespread agreement in public opinion; conflict, when there are two or more points in disagreement. Chapter 5 considers how citizens formulate and express opinions as well as patterns of consensus and conflict in public opinion.

2. Influencing political opinions: Political leaders influence opinions. Leaders represent conflict not only by getting people to take part in politics but also by getting them to take sides in disagreements. As molders of opinion, political leaders take active part in conflict representation; as makers of policy, they contribute to conflict resolution. Chapter 6 explores how Americans respond to their political leaders and how leaders try to influence followers in election campaigns.

3. Voting in elections: Elections help represent conflict in two ways. Elections permit citizens to take part indirectly in policy making by choosing between candidates. They provide leaders with an indicationCif only an imperfect oneCof public concerns. Americans express conflicting social interests by casting votes for leaders competing to win public office. Chapter 7 looks at how elections give citizens an opportunity to choose leaders, express desires to them, and hold them accountable.

4. Working through political parties: Political parties are vital to both the representation and the resolution of social conflicts. Competing for control of government during and between election campaigns, party politicians take stands on selected issues, attack the opposition, and publicize social disagreements. Party leaders in government offices formulate policies to adjust social disputes. Chapter 8 explores the vital, but perhaps diminishing, role of political parties in conflict representation.

5. Joining voluntary organizations: Americans may take part by joining voluntary organizations and pressing their demands directly upon government officials. These organized efforts to influence government constitute interest group politics. Chapter 9 focuses on how organized groups publicize and present group interests. Chapter 9 also covers protesting.

6. Protesting about grievances: The conventional ways of representing conflict--the first five listed above--have not always worked for new interests, especially when their demands have challenged the established order. When their path to influencing government has been blocked, new interests have sometimes used unconventional ways to express their grievances. They have participated in various acts of protest--boycotts, demonstrations, marches, and strikes. Some interests have committed acts of violence--bombings of public buildings, aircraft hijackings, kidnapings, and even murder.

Conflict resolution refers to the policies public officials create to manage conflict in their communities. When the Supreme Court reached its decision in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) the Court reversed Gideon=s conviction. Gideon won round two!

In Part III we discuss several stages of conflict resolution (cf., Anderson, 1996). In practice these stages overlap as diverse interests seek to influence policies. Our discussion emphasizes the political dynamics among five stages: (1) in the formulation stage policies are initiated, negotiated, and defined; (2) in the leadership stage efforts to build support for policies emerge; (3) in the adoption stage policy choices are debated and modified or blocked; (4) in the application stage general rules are modified to meet the necessities of specific situations; and (5) in the adjudication stage challenges to community policy are adjusted, sometimes producing changes in the policy itself.

Resolutions of conflicts take two basic forms: (1) written laws, statutes, and decisions; and (2) unwritten customs, conventions, and practices. The federal budget, for example, is a long, detailed, and highly intricate document prepared each year to raise and expend funds for a multitude of programs and projects. By contrast, no written statute calls for quadrennial Republican and Democratic conventions to nominate candidates for President, a vital stage in the selection of our national leadership.

These written and unwritten resolutions make order possible. Whether people involved in a dispute actually abide by these resolutions affects whether, and to what extent, social order is actually restored. Why might people involved in disputes stop fighting? Political observers suggest three possibilities, and each operates in the American community (see Figure 1.6, AFour-Way Stop@).

1. Order by Social Control

All governments have means by which to force citizens to obey policies. Government agents may legally use deadly force. We need look no further than to our local law enforcement officers for examples of social control. Police officers prefer to have their efforts (e.g., traffic control) obeyed because citizens respect their authority and judgment. They are prepared to use force, if necessary. Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested, handcuffed and taken to jail. Had he chosen to resist arrest, that action probably would have been meet with overwhelming force.

If city police are unable to manage a disturbance, county officers, state police, and possibly the National Guard would be called upon to restore order. Violent protests and riots, whether by students protesting the Vietnam War or by minorities protesting for civil rights, are targeted by agents of social control. These agents may use deadly force to restore order. They will enter with a monopoly of force, even employing armored vehicles for crowd control. Merely threatening the use of force is sometimes sufficient to restore order (e.g., China=s use of tanks to disperse the ADemocracy Wall@ in Tian=an Men Square in April 1989). When government agents actually use deadly force human life is put in jeopardy (e.g., the use of force by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms against the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, in February 1993).

Force and the threat of its use are mechanisms of social control, but they are not the only ones. Organized groups--labor unions, business associations, farm cooperatives, and professional organizations--sometimes exert tremendous pressure upon their members to conform to policies judged to be in the group interest. In discussing the role of both the administrative bureaucracy (Chapter 13) and the courts (Chapter 14) in conflict resolution, we will see still other mechanisms of social control in American government.

2. Order by Social Convergence

People can be forced to stop fighting by social control agencies, assuming that those agencies have a monopoly of force. Although imposing order by force is possible, it is, in most cases, undesirable because it causes people to hate their rulers. Widespread contempt for rulers and their harsh methods of maintaining order plant seeds of rebellion (e.g., the American Revolution). Fortunately, there are other, more peaceful means by which to achieve order.

People may simply accept a policy. Some might accept a policy because they have considered the available options. Others might habitually accept policy. Some might abide by policy because they have no other meaningful choice. We are suggesting that individuals may make the same choice (selection) but for very different reasons. Social order may emerge from social convergence. Order may result because the choices of a wide variety of people, based on a wide variety of reasons, converge on a selection.

To expect order to emerge from individual selections, especially with a wide range of choices, is unrealistic. Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) argued that it was also unwise: ATo expect that all men for all time will go on thinking different things, and yet doing the same things, is a doubtful speculation. It is not founding society on a communion, or even on a convention, but rather on a coincidence" (1922, p. 23). In Chapters 2 and 3 we explore a crucial case of problematic coincidence, the degree to which Americans accept common beliefs and values about constitutional democracy and abide by them in their political conduct.

3. Order by Social Negotiation

Some people accept policies because, either directly or indirectly, they have a part in negotiating the content of those policies. In the process, they have obtained some, but rarely all, of what they demanded. For these people the rewards of policy-making outweigh the costs, at least to the extent that the participants receive sufficient benefits from their efforts to continue bargaining. Social negotiation has always been a key feature of American policy-making. Indeed, in Chapter 3 we argue that the evolution of our most fundamental policy, the Constitution of the United States, was and remains today a process of negotiation. In Part III we explore the role of bargaining in policy formulation (Chapter 10), presidential leadership (Chapter 11), congressional adoption of laws (Chapter 12), bureaucratic applications of policies (Chapter 13), and the adjudication of the Supreme Court (Chapter 14).

Although public policies may resolve disputes, we should not expect them to provide long-term, permanent solutions for our most serious problems. Rather, we should view conflict resolution as a way to limit the intensity, scope, and duration of conflict. In Chapter 10 we analyze policies devoted to . . . [Authors= Note: policy case studies to be determined later] . . . to illustrate that instead of curing social ills or producing permanent settlements, conflict resolution is a never ending process.

Conflict resolution not only falls short of ending disputes but also creates new ones. No sooner is a policy that seems to placate one set of conflicting interests made than other interests emerge to challenge it. Consider, for example, the continuing debate over the Supreme Court=s decision in Roe v. Wade (1973). In 1970 Jane Roe (a pseudonym for Norma McCorvey) was unable to get a legal abortion because, under a Texas law first enacted in 1854, her life was not threatened by her pregnancy. Roe chose an illegal abortion, but she subsequently challenged the Texas law on behalf of all women. In their oral arguments before the Supreme Court, Roe=s attorney argued a woman=s absolute right to choose and Texas=s attorney argued a state=s right to protect life (visit: oyez.nwu.edu/ to hear these arguments). The Court could have chosen either side or it could have tried to fashion a workable solution that accommodated, to some extent, both arguments. Justice Blackmun, speaking for the Court, sought to resolve the competing interests by dividing pregnancy into trimesters. A woman had the right to choose in the first trimester; in the second and third trimesters different levels of state interest were defined. States could regulate abortion to protect life at the viability stage during the third trimester.

In sum, politics produces temporary solutions that keep community members talking, campaigning, voting, joining parties, organizing groups, and protesting. We may grow weary of politics, but what alternative do we have? We could have social conflicts--civil wars, riots, and mass demonstrations--with the potential to destroy our community. Politics creates temporary solutions that keep social disputes truly social rather than antisocial. The results are acceptable, not perfect.

Gideon presented his demands to the Supreme Court, his views were represented by Abe Fortas (1910-1982), and the Court agreed (9 - 0)--Gideon was entitled to counsel. With the aide of competent legal counsel (Fred Turner), Gideon won round three (second trial)! Gideon=s story illustrates an important point for all citizens: by participating in politics we can sometimes influence public policy.

In analyzing government it is useful to think of politics as patterns of activity concerned with the management of conflicts. This usage is appropriate to a view of the human situation that assumes: (1) people are physical beings living in society; (2) people have different needs, wants, capacities, and resources; (3) people pursue conflicting goals because of their very diversity; (4) people associate to achieve interests that come from sharing the human experience of community; (5) people endeavor to pursue their conflicting interest but desire to do so without destroying that community; and (6) people use politics as a method of managing social disputes.

The management of conflict consists of the representation and resolution of social disagreements. Representation makes the conflicts known through political participation-- expressing opinions, exercising and following leadership, voting, being partisan, and presenting organized demands. Resolution is a process of making policies to reach partial accommodations that keep conflicts within manageable limits. Officials make acceptable (and sometimes unacceptable) public policy through formulation, executive action, legislative adoption, bureaucratic application, and court adjudication. All of this occurs within a community marked by varying personal beliefs and values, social diversity, and constitutional fragmentation. In short, politics is what it is because people are what they are.

We see public officials fighting almost everyday. We see conflicts between the executive and legislative branches over spending priorities, between Democrats and Republicans over campaign finance reform, between the federal government and state governments over education policy, between school boards and parents over the curriculum. Disputes among leaders emerge on a daily basis. AAll the news that=s fit to print,@ the motto of the New York Times, is about conflict.

We think conflict is a fundamental part of life in the United States. The potential for conflict has been increased by several developments: (1) the consensus on democratic ideals, which could limit the effects of conflict, has been challenged; (2) the balance in our constitutional framework has been tilted toward the presidency; (3) social pluralism has evolved into multiculturalism; (4) the governing coalitions made possible by political parties have given way to divided government;

(5) news broadcasting has evolved into news narrowcasting, providing a specialized Achannel@ for each special interest; (6) election campaigns are increasingly managed by paid professionals who will do almost anything to win; (7) elections attract fewer and fewer people into voting booths, suggesting that many Americans are unwilling to follow any leaders; and (8) the end of the Cold War has diminished the external threat of nuclear war, which once provided an incentive to settle domestic disputes.

Could conflict destroy America? If conflicts were not managed, America could be destroyed. Conflicts among leaders can be traced to the communities they represent. Communities can be preserved, and changed gradually, if effective conflict management processes exist. The purpose of this textbook is to provide students an understanding of how and why conflicts in America are managed.

REFERENCES

Allison, Graham T. (1969). Conceptual models and the cuban missile crisis. American Political Science Review, 63, 689-718.

Anderson, J. (1996). Public policymaking (3^rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 1774-1971. (1971). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Bureau of the Census.(1994). 1992 Census of Governments, Volume 1, Numbers 1 and 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (www.census.gov/prod/www/titles.html).

Crane, Stephen. (1994). The red badge of courage (3^rd ed.). New York: Norton. sunsite.berkeley.edu/Literature/Crane/RedBadge/index.html

Degregorio, W. A. (1991). The complete book of U. S. presidents: From George Washington to George Bush (3^rd ed.). New York: Wings Books.

Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Denver: Alan Swallow.

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).

Lewis, A. (1989). Gideon=s trumpet. New York: Vintage.

Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Macmillan.

A Memorial Day message. (May 24, 1998).Wisconsin State Journal,p. 2A.

Morison, S. E., Commager, H. S., & Leuchtenburg, W. E. (1977). A concise history of the American republic. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nimmo, D., & Ungs, T. (1979). American political patterns: Conflict representation and resolution. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Schlesinger, A. M., Jr. (1998). The disuniting of America: Reflections on a multicultural society. New York: Norton.

Shaara, Michael. (1975). The killer angels. New York: Ballantine.

Sherrow, V. (1995). Gideon v. Wainwright: Free legal counsel. Springfield, NJ: Enslow.

Simon, P. (1998). Tapped Out. New York, NY: Welcome Rain Publishers.

Statistical abstract of the United States. (1997). www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/cc97stab.html.

Figure 1.1 Gideon=s Trumpet

Gideon=s Trumpet, by Anthony Lewis (Lewis 1989), tells the story of Clarence Earl Gideon and the right to counsel case, Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). The movie by the same title stars Henry Fonda as Gideon. You may purchase Lewis=s book at www.barnesandnoble.com and the VHS videotape at www.reel.com.

Gideon, AMy Right to Counsel,@ was created by Frank Watkins Design (www.fwdesign.co.uk). Watkins=s design shows Gideon (Henry Fonda) observing the oral argument before the justices of the U. S. Supreme Court. This example of heroic symbolism, while emotionally very powerful, is historically inaccurate. Gideon was not physically present on January 15, 1963, the day of oral argument. His court-appointed attorney, Abe Fortes, argued for Gideon=s right to counsel (see the Appendix for a transcript of the oral argument).

Figure 1.2: Memorial Day

Memorial Day honors the armed services personnel who died in wartime. This legal holiday is celebrated on the last Monday in May with parades, speeches, and grave-site ceremonies. This day (originally "Decoration Day") was first observed on May 30, 1868, to honor the Civil War dead. Memorial Day 1998 included various protest acts ("Rolling Thunder") for Vietnam War POWs ("prisoners of war"). Some Rolling-Thunder participants displayed protest messages ("Bring Them Home or Send Us Back") emblazoned on their outer garments as they rode motorcycles by the Vietnam embassy (AMemorial Day,@ 1998). Listed below are eleven major conflicts. At least two World Wide Web (WWW) addresses are listed for each conflict. The first listed web address is a single web site; the second address, a comprehensive index of multiple web sites. The third address for Korea and Vietnam is the Combat Area Casualties Current File (CACCF), which lists the individual U. S. military personnel who died or who were declared dead while in a missing or captured status.

The American RevolutionC revolution.h-net.msu.edu/

Canadian Forces CollegeC www.cfcsc.dnd.ca/links/milhist/usrev.html

Star-Spangled Banner and War of 1812C www.si.edu/resource/faq/nmah/starflag.htm

Canadian Forces CollegeC www.cfcsc.dnd.ca/links/milhist/1812.html

The U.S.-Mexican WarC members.aol.com/dmwv2/mexwar.htm

The Civil War-- www.civilwar.com

Canadian Forces CollegeC www.cfcsc.dnd.ca/links/milhist/usciv.html

Remember the MaineC www.smplanet.com/imperialism/remember.html

Canadian Forces CollegeC www.cfcsc.dnd.ca/links/milhist/spus.html

World War IC www.worldwar1.com/

Canadian Forces CollegeC www.cfcsc.dnd.ca/links/milhist/wwi.html

World War IIC www.msstate.edu/Archives/History/USA/WWII/ww2.html

Canadian Forces CollegeC www.cfcsc.dnd.ca/links/milhist/wwii.html

Korean War ProjectC www.koreanwar.org/

Canadian Forces CollegeC www.cfcsc.dnd.ca/links/milhist/korea.html

Lists of CasualtiesC www.nara.gov/nara/electronic/korvnsta.html

Vietnam: Yesterday and TodayC servercc.oakton.edu/~wittman/

Canadian Forces CollegeC www.cfcsc.dnd.ca/links/milhist/viet.html

Lists of CasualtiesC www.nara.gov/nara/electronic/korvnsta.html

Frontline: The Gulf WarC www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/index.html

Canadian Forces CollegeC www.cfcsc.dnd.ca/links/milhist/gw.html

Operations IFOR & SFORC www.nato.int/ifor/ifor.htm

Bosnia--Mission:PeaceC www.cnn.com/WORLD/Bosnia/index.html

Hollywood actors, producers, and writers have attempted to depict what wartime is like. Films such as Gettysburg, Midway, Patton, Platoon, PT-109, The Big Red One, The Bridge on the River Kwai, The Longest Day, and Tora, Tora, Tora have treated the "war is hell" theme in different ways (visit www.reel.com for descriptions of these and other war films). A recent film, Saving Private Ryan directed by Steven Spielberg, provided moviegoers a ground-level perspective on D-Day (June 6, 1944). If you wish to learn about the history behind Spielberg's remarkable film, please visit Imagining D-Day: The History Behind "Saving Private Ryan" at private-ryan.eb.com/page1.html. Two excellent PBS documentary films are The Civil War, directed and produced by Ken Burns, and LIBERTY! The American Revolution. You may purchase Burns=s Civil War documentary and other PBS videos at shop.pbs.org. Review LIBERTY! at www.pbs.org/ktca/liberty. Two novels to consider are Stephen Crane=s The Red Badge of Courage (1994) and Michael Sharra=s The Killer Angels (1975). Crane=s novel is available online at sunsite.berkeley.edu/Literature/Crane/RedBadge/index.html.

Figure 1.3: Social Pluralism in America (draft)

America is a socially diverse community. We suggest you sample the richness of our social fabric by visiting the World Wide Web sites for the groups listed below. Interests need to be organized by leaders to be effective in politics. Take note of each group=s leaders and organizations. Perhaps you are already a member of one or more of these organizations. If not, consider which groups might represent your own views. Consider joining them. See whether your selected groups have state and local chapters. Many local chapters are listed in the Ayellow pages@ of telephone books. You may search At Hand Network Yellow Pages on the Web at: www.athand.com/.

Group: African Americans

Population: 30,486,000 (12.3% of total 1990 population)

Top Three States: California (1,784,171); Texas (1,720,618); New York (1,720, 618).

Web Sites:

The African-American MosaicC lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/african/intro.html

The Anacostia MuseumC www.si.edu/organiza/museums/anacost/start.htm

Black World Today C www.tbwt.com/

Note: We plan to complete Figure 1.3 for the following groups: Arab Americans, British Americans, Chinese Americans, Cuban Americans, Filipino Americans, French Americans, German Americans, Greek Americans, Hungarian Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Japanese Americans, Korean Americans, Mexican Americans, Native Americans, Polish Americans, Russian Americans, Scandinavian Americans, and Vietnamese Americans.

Source: Ethnic groups within the United States: 1993-1997. Microsoft7 Encarta7 98 Encyclopedia. Visit the Microsoft Encarta World Wide Web site at www.encarta.msn.com/

Figure 1.4 Political Pluralism in America

Figure 1.5: Dueling with Crockett or Jackson

Some forms of conflict representation require a great deal of effort. Running for elective office, like Davy Crockett did, requires a great deal of effort, time, and, for Representative Crockett, plenty of moonshine whiskey for the Agood folks back home.@ People who actively express demands usually have the opportunity to do so, sufficient resources to make their efforts worthwhile, and a strong desire for politics. Campaigning today requires time off from work to run full time; money to pay for staff, polling, and commercials; and ambition. Other forms of conflict representation may not require as much effort. Saying, ACrockett >tis as crooked as Old Hickory,@ would not be too difficult. Although expressing that opinion in Tennessee in the late 1820s might have resulted in a duel with either Crockett or Jackson (AOld Hickory@) or both. We may express opinions without quitting our jobs and without making an effort to become informed. It is possible to express an opinion without being involved in, or caring much about, the issue in question. Campaigning is, therefore, an active form of conflict representation; expressing an opinion, a more passive form.

Davy Crockett served as a Representative from Tennessee in the 20^th, 21^st, and 23^rd Congresses (1827- 1831, 1833-1835). He probably lost his seat because he opposed President Jackson=s Indian policies (ABiographical Directory,@ 1971). He lost his life in March, 1836, in the vicinity of the Alamo fighting for Texas Independence. For more on Representative Crockett and his Adueling@ weapons, visit: www.americanwest.com/pages/davycroc.htm. See, also, a web site on the Alamo at: numedia.tddc.net/alamo/.

Andrew Jackson served as seventh president (1829 - 1837) of the United States. In 1806 Jackson dueled Charles Dickinson, a lawyer who criticized Mrs. Jackson and argued with Mr. Jackson over a horse race. The two gentlemen had a duel to settle their dispute. Dickinson fired first; his bullet struck Jackson in the chest near Old Hickory=s heart. Much to Dickinson=s surprise, Jackson stood his ground, firm and erect. After Dickinson was admonished to return to his designated mark on the Afield of honor,@ Jackson aimed his pistol, not in the air as was the custom, but at Dickinson. Jackson pulled the trigger, but the hammer failed to strike home. Jackson, adamant about killing Dickinson, tried a second shot, and this time the pistol fired. Dickinson died from the wound in the abdomen. Jackson walked in his own blood as he retired, his honor defended, his foe vanquished, and Dickinson=s bullet lodged permanently in his chest (Degregorio, 1991, p. 110). For more information about President Jackson visit:

www.whitehouse.gov/WH/glimpse/presidents/html/aj7.html

Figure 1.6: Four-Way Stop--How to Survive a Traffic Jam

or How Traffic Control Is Possible?

Consider how right-of-way laws affect choices drivers make at intersections where there are neither stop lights nor directions. Consider a Aworst case@ scenario for a four-way stop--all four drivers reach the intersection and stop at exactly the same moment. If they all proceed straight ahead, at the same time and speed, their vehicles would meet in the middle for a four-way traffic accident. We have in this example a great deal of potential for traffic conflict. What process usually prevents this hypothetical accident, assuming simultaneous stops and roughly equivalent vehicle weights (i.e., either no SUVs or four SUVs) and drivers who are in about the same Ahurry up@ state and that don=t know one another. Each driver has a choice to make. Do they make the same choice--yield to the car on the right. With four stopped vehicles each driver has a car on the right! The yield to the right rule does not initially resolve the dilemma. The drivers probably realize they must find a way to make it through the intersection safely. Consider these three possible solutions:

1. Social Control: One of the drivers pulls out a sheriff=s badge and then gives directions to the others, which, when followed, allow all to pass safely.

2. Social Negotiation: All four drivers lower their windows, they talk with one another, and eventually work out a way to proceed. A second set of four drivers arrives shortly thereafter and they exchange a few nonverbal, hand signals to work out a way for all to proceed safely.

3. Social Convergence: The first vehicle continues North because the driver in the 1966 Ford Mustang isn=t worried about a wreak. The other three drivers notice the burnt orange, rust colored spots on the Ford and yield. The second vehicle continues South because the North-bound Ford Mustang had blocked the East-West traffic, making it safe for vehicle #2 to proceed. The third vehicle continues East because the driver in the West-bound vehicle--a red VW Bug--is dreaming about the 1960s while listening to ATraffic Jam@ by James Taylor. Each driver made it through the intersection safely (same course of action) but each accomplished this feat by different means.

Professor Wattier's POL 140 Course Syllabus