in a limited government role in the economy but an expanded role in the social order. Examples include low taxes, prayer in schools, censorship of books that violate traditional values, anti-gay rights, tight restriction on immigration, and authoritarian values on the roles people play in society. The religious right aligns with this ideology. Anti-establishment conservatives fall in between the Social Conservative and Social Liberal ideologies. The top right quadrant represents “Economic Conservatives,” or those who believe in a limited government role in both the economy and the social order. Examples include low taxes, laissez-faire capitalism, maximum individual freedom, and the guest worker program. Most Americans who align with this ideology are moderate Republicans, although traditional Republicans and the Libertarian Party are also included.
Back to Figure
Two line graphs showing that an increasing number of young Americans feel empowered to influence politics, according to an A P N O R C Center and M T V poll. Over the span of three months, the percentage saying elected public officials care what people like them think grew from 25 percent to 34 percent. Additionally, the percentage saying people like them can affect what the government does also increased, from 37 percent to 46 percent, during the same three-month period. These percentages reflect those who answered “a moderate amount,” “a lot,” or “a great deal.”
Results are based on interviews with 939 U S residents ages 15 to 34. Margin of error is plus or minus 4.3 percentage points for the full sample, higher for sub groups.
Map illustrating the path of critical thinking. The path begins with the “comfort zone,” ends with the “goal,” and features five parts in between. The first part is “considering the source” in which you need to ask yourself: Where does this information come from? Who is the author? Who is he or she talking to? How do the source and the audience shape the author’s perspective? The second part is “lay out the argument” in which you need to ask yourself: What argument is the author asking you to accept? If you accept the argument, what values are you also buying? Does the argument hold together logically? The third part of the path is “uncover the evidence” in which you need to ask yourself: Did the author do research to back up the conclusions? Is there any evidence or data that is not provided that should be there? If there is no evidence provided, does there need to be? The third and fourth parts are joined by the “bridge to enlightenment.” The fourth part is “evaluate the conclusions” in which you need to ask yourself: What’s the punch line here? Did the author convince you that he or she is correct? Does accepting the conclusion to this argument require you to change any of your ideas about the world? The final part is “sort out the political significance” in which you need to ask yourself: What difference does this argument make to your understanding of the political world? How does it affect who gets what and how they get it? Was getting this information valuable to you or did it waste your time?
The path of critical thinking surrounds an “ocean of excuses” and a “sea of confusion,” which include common excuses and feelings of confusion when thinking critically. These include:
“I read it on the Internet. It must be true.”
“My parents always watch this TV station. Of course it’s reliable.”
“Arguments sound like conflict. I hate conflict.”
“Values are private. It’s rude to pry.”
“Logic gives me hives!”
“Data means numbers. Numbers freak me out.”
“What, do I look like some kind of detective?”
“I don’t like this person’s values. Why should I care about his or her conclusions?”
“These ideas make me really uncomfortable. They don’t click with anything I think I know. Time for a beer!”
“How would I know?”
“Ouch! Thinking is hard work. Wake me up when it’s over.”
“There is no way to know what conclusions are right.”
“Who cares? What do I need to know for the test?”
2 The Politics of the American Founding
Granger, NYC — All rights reserved.
In Your Own Words
After you’ve read this chapter, you will be able to
2.1 Outline the events and political motivations that led to the colonies’ split from England.
2.2 Explain the competing narratives under the Articles of Confederation.
2.3 Identify the competing narratives, goals, and compromises that shaped the Constitution.
2.4 Explain the system of separation of powers and checks and balances.
2.5 Summarize the debate over ratification of the Constitution.
2.6 Evaluate the narratives told about the founding of the United States.
What’s at Stake . . . in Challenging the Legitimacy of the Government?
Declaring war on the U.S. government is a risky business. Governments depend for their authority on people believing their power is legitimate—when that legitimacy is challenged, so is their authority. Still, the United States is a democracy that guarantees free speech and the right to assemble peacefully, so handling rebellion can be tricky.
That was why the federal government reacted cautiously when Ammon Bundy, leader of a militia group called Citizens for Constitutional Freedom and the son of antigovernment activist Cliven Bundy, responded to what he said was a divine instruction to take over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon on January 2, 2016. Bundy said he was acting to support two ranchers who had been arrested for arson on federal land, though the ranchers disavowed the group. Specifically, Bundy demanded that the wildlife refuge land be given back to the state.
The federal government, which owned the land but was wary of causing a bloody showdown, waited. As various militias came to join the effort, police were able to apprehend Bundy and several of the other leaders traveling in a convoy. Although one person was shot and killed, most surrendered and the siege ended on February 28.1
The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation reflected a movement that has gained traction in recent years: declaring that the federal government is abusing the power of the Constitution, and that that power must be returned to the people via the action of private citizens. Timothy McVeigh’s 1995 attack on the federal building in Oklahoma City, which killed 168 people, including 19 children, was the bloodiest incident in the antigovernment movement, but the broadest and strongest expression is the Tea Party movement, some of whose members have become part of the federal government themselves.
The
