This paper surveys several foundational aspects of American government, examining the four principal factors that influence how members of Congress cast their votes: representational, organizational, attitudinal, and financial. It then addresses two major criticisms of Congress — special interest influence and pork barrel spending — before analyzing three key presidential powers and how the presidency has evolved since the nineteenth century. The paper also contrasts monetarist and Keynesian economic theories, explains how the national debt shapes domestic policy, and traces three watershed foreign policy events — the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II — that continue to define the United States' role on the world stage.
Members of Congress vote according to four principal factors. First, they vote representationally — to please their constituents and to secure reelection. This means that the member of Congress must understand what voters want and must hope that their vote earns constituent approval. This type of voting best represents social welfare and civil rights bills, though it is less influential for foreign policy bills. In certain areas, constituents and their legislator may not agree, particularly on volatile issues such as gun control or abortion.
Second, members vote according to an organizational view, which allows them to please fellow legislators and gain prestige and status. These votes are often based on their political party and its ideology; members may be supporting key party figures on special committees, or they may be influenced by more vocal or powerful party members. A legislator who votes organizationally may not hold clear, well-considered positions on all issues, or may not fully understand the party's broader ideology.
Third, members can vote according to the attitudinal view, which means the legislator votes in line with their own personal ideology. Under this view, many legislators hold positions similar to those of a majority of voters, and they seek to represent the core values of the country. This approach to congressional representation is often seen as the most principled of the four.
Finally, members of Congress can vote according to money or financial interests, even if they would not openly admit to doing so. Large political contributions and political action groups can influence legislators, who may vote in accordance with how lobbyists pressure them. This is the type of voting that most voters strongly oppose, and it remains one of the most controversial aspects of congressional behavior. The public good is generally represented by the first three types of voting, whether or not citizens agree with a legislator's particular position. The final method, however, does not represent the public good in most cases.
There will always be criticisms of Congress. In recent years, two major criticisms have centered on special interest groups and pork barrel spending, or earmarking. Special interest groups include lobbyists, Political Action Committees (PACs), and large corporations. All of these groups can influence a legislator's vote — whether covertly or overtly — and this can harm the public good when a lawmaker votes in response to those influences rather than in the best interests of constituents. For example, voting to grant medical insurance companies additional regulatory breaks can raise premium rates for workers who carry that insurance. This is a valid criticism, and one that is inherently damaging to the political system as a whole. Members of Congress frequently say they will not be influenced by such groups, yet there appears to be no reliable mechanism to eliminate that influence.
Pork barrel spending is another major and legitimate criticism. The practice of earmarking special, high-cost amendments into bills is quite common, and it serves only very narrow interests rather than the public as a whole. These earmarks typically fund pet projects that benefit a state or local area rather than the entire nation, and they are usually high-cost items that provide only a temporary boost to a local economy. They are costly, controversial, and broadly fail to serve the people. A frequently cited example is the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska — an expensive bridge built to connect an island that contained little more than an airport. It provided a modest benefit to the immediate local community, but not to the state or the nation, and it carried an enormous price tag. This is a persistent problem that Congress has been unwilling to address, yet it demands attention, because it represents an unhealthy and even unethical legislative practice.
"Executive orders, commander role, and historical change"
Today, the President's power differs substantially from what it was in the nineteenth century. In the 1800s, communication was far less effective than it became in the twentieth century, so comparatively few voters were genuinely informed about presidential actions, and Congress was not nearly as powerful as it would later become. The nineteenth century also saw far fewer special interest groups, so presidents did not have to contend with that kind of political pressure — but they also lacked the support and resources those groups can provide. Although the Constitution has not formally altered the powers of the presidency, the office has grown considerably more influential over time, particularly on the world stage, where a modern president can drive political change and reform that nineteenth-century presidents could scarcely have imagined. Ronald Reagan's influence on the fall of the Berlin Wall stands as a notable example of this expanded global reach.
There are two major competing theories regarding the American economy. The first is the monetarist view, which holds that the money supply is the sole determinant of aggregate demand, and that money's impact on aggregate demand is reliable and stable. Monetarists argue that independent changes in spending or fiscal policy — unless accompanied by changes in the money supply — will have little effect on prices and output. They disagree with Keynesian economists on the grounds that Keynesians exaggerate the degree of inertia in wages and prices.
Keynesian economists, by contrast, believe the economy is more complex than monetarists acknowledge. They agree that money powerfully influences output, prices, and aggregate demand, but they argue that other factors must also be taken into account. Fiscal policy and net exports, they contend, also enter into the determination of output alongside monetary forces. Keynesians further maintain that there is meaningful inertia in prices and wages, and that the aggregate supply curve is less steep than monetarists believe.
"How deficit spending shapes government and citizens"
"Three wars that defined U.S. global influence"
You’re 56% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.