As explained in class, the final will be based on the readings since the last mid-term exam: namely (as I recall), Dodd and Oppenheimer chapters 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18. (I think that's right. If not I'll correct it later today.) These chapters will be the focus of the exam questions, but don't forget the S¨undquist article in particular and all the rest of the junk we learned this semester in general. Try to identify the thesis or the main point of the authors in these chapters.
I will select five of the seven articles for the final exam and base one question on each of those five. You must answer any two questions but not a question that is based on the article that you reported on in class. I will post more detailed information on the exam questions here later this week: CHECK IT OUT! Bring a couple of blue and black pens and your ID number.
I have graded all of the papers, quizzes, etc. that you have handed in and put them in the rack on the wall across from my office door.
Seminar papers will be presented by Bryan (ch. 11), Samira (ch. 15), and Brian (ch. 18).
Urvi (ch. 14) and Lindsey (ch. 16) are up. If you were not in class on November 22d, talk to someone who attended to find out what is necessary for your three-page seminar paper. I will be out of town and incommunicado until Monday afternoon, November 29th.
Meryam (ch. 7) and James (ch.10) are up.
The exam on congressional procedures and organization will be the only assignment. It will cover the handouts that I gave you and the Sundquist article that we went over on Monday evening.
The main concern of the exam is your understanding of key concepts, institutions, and procedures of the House and the Senate, such as the filibuster, the importance of the House Rules Committee, the seniority system, and so on. You should understand the general course of law-making—the necessary steps in enacting legislation, the many different sources of the words that go into the final Act, and the places along the road to enactment where language can be added to or taken from the legislative measures under consideration. There will accordingly be a number of relatively short questions—definitions, descriptions, explanations—and you will have a choice of which to answer.
Come with a couple of blue or black pens and your student ID number. Ciao!
The assignment for November 22d is chapters 10 and 7 of the Dodd and Oppenheimer text. Two students should volunteer to present short seminar papers on the chapters (one on each chapter). The other five students will do the same for the last two classes of the semester, November 29th and December 6th.
Two things are due: first, the analysis of the elections that you are following, and second, the reading of the Sundquist chapter. There will probably be a quiz on the chapter.
Remember, the election analysis should be a methodical, carefully structured review of critical election factors that we have been reading about in the Jacobson, Fiorina, and Wright-Erickson texts. It is the exam on what you have learned from those sources. I suggested dividing the analysis into a section on national factors and a section on candidate factors. A brief political history of the election district is also in order. Where possible, compare and contrast characteristics of the two elections that you have followed (gotta be two!). Typed, double=spaced, title page, handed in, etc.
Please read the handouts on House floor procedure and the House Rules Committee; also, please find out about the so-called Slaughter Rule that was instrumental in passing the health care legislation last year. There will be a quiz. I will return the reviews of Fiorina, along with a sample that I have prepared. Also, bring your copies of Jacobson and Dodd and Oppenheimer to class with you.
Here is the Cook Political Report home page. I have found Cook to be less generous with its public information than Rasmussen in the past, but there is a lot of useful stuff here. Cook is highly respected. And here's another Real Clear Politics. And another: House Elections/New York Times, Senate Elections/New York Times.
Please read the handouts on Senate floor procedure. Prepare to give a progress report on the elections that you are following.
We have a two-week break until the next class. We will then begin a review of the way Congress works. Please read the two handouts that I gave you on Monday. Extra copies are in the rack on the wall across from my office door in Rowley.
As you read Fiorina's book and write your review, use the Memo on Article and Book Reviews that is linked on my main webpage under "Useful Links." Here are some additional points to address in your five-to-seven page review:
You do not have to touch on each one of these points, but they point the way through his argument from beginning to end. Focus on one of these points more than on the others, and use materials from Jacobson, Wright and Erickson, and/or Mayhew in your commentary. Remember, it is a review—a critique, an evaluation—not a high school book report.
Thanks, James, for the New York Times website on the 2010 elections: House Elections. Try it!
Please come to class with a one-page written description of the congressional race(s) that you are following this Fall. The report, which will be read in class and then handed in, should explain what makes the race problematical—why is the incumbent in trouble? Why is this open seat in a normally Democratic district or state leaning Republican this year? Who are the candidates? In short, the kind of factors and variables that Jacobson, Wright and Erickson, and Fiorina find significant. Please read Jacobson Chapters 5 and 7.
Please read Jacobson, chapters 3 and 4, on campaigns and elections, and also read news accounts of the Tuesday (September 14th) primary elections.
Please read Jacobson, chapter 1, 2, & 6; Fiorina, "Introduction to Part One" and chapter 1; Dodd and Oppenheimer, chapter 4. As I explained, this is twice the size of the usual assignment because of the missed class on Labor Day.
Also, be sure to identify a couple of congressional elections, either from your state or any place else in the country, that look close or undecided at this point. Bring in a few candidates to class and your reasons for selecting the races to follow. This is the basis for your first paper in November.
Rasmussen Political Polling Reports
"Incumbency, Redistricting, Decline of Competition"
Incumbency Re-election Rates (Thirty-Thousand Org.)
Incumbency Re-election Rates (Center for Responsive Politics)
Original Gerrymandered District. William Safire says, in his New Political Dictionary, that Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry, for whom it was named, signed the 1811 redistricting bill reluctantly. For what it is worth, the original gerrymander was intended to favor the Democrats. Compare it to North Carolina District 12.
GOP Congressional Leadership Disagreement (2003 article)
Filibusters: Going Nuclear (2003 article)
"Congress's Afterthought, Wall Street's Trillion Dollars."
Congressional Elections, 1900-2008.
Speakers of the House of Representatives
The Keynes and Myrdal readings are due the following class on St. Patrick's Day, March 17th. Askins, Carlo, and Gerlach are up with three-page seminar papers on the readings.
Please read the pieces by FDR and by Lord Lindsay in the handout and come prepared to discuss them. The general topic for the five seminar sessions will be the development of twentieth century American liberalism and conservatism. Since American liberalism developed first and conservatism developed in response (odd, no?), we will first look at the origins of the welfare state and social democracy in England and the United States. The FRD campaign speech and the article by British Labourite Lord Lindsay of Birker describe the political foundation for the stream of political thought that we presently identify as "liberalism" or "progressivism" in the United states and that is generally referred to as social democracy. Enjoy!I am going to assume, for the following remarks and when I grade your final draft, that you have reviewed the Lamoreaux article and used it, where applicable, as a model for your paper. I wanted to point out a few things to you. First, the Lamoreaux article is, of course, quite a bit longer than your paper will be; keep that in mind. Second, note how in the opening pages she sets up the problem that she will address in the paper. She identifies two different groups of scholars and fairly characterizes their views. She then sets about showing that neither group's explanation of the origins of American capitalism is quite correct, or, better, neither is quite as good as her explanation. This is exactly what you should do and show in your paper.
She also explains at the outset how she will go about supporting her view--her thesis--so that the reader knows what to expect in the upcoming pages. And, after making her argument, she offers a conclusion that restates her answer-thesis and recaps her criticisms of the others.
I strongly suggest that you follow this general outline. I suggest that you use more section headings than she does, even in your shorter paper. Note also how she puts a lot of content in her footnotes, which is a very common practice: I suggest it to you.
One of the articles that I wanted you to read and study as a rough model for your theses is Naomi R Lamoreaux, "Rethinking the transition to capitalism in the early American Northeast," The Journal of American History 90 (September 2003): 437, available on ProQuest in full text version or in the library stacks in hard copy. I will try to list a couple other good models for you to use. Since we will not have a class before the final drafts are due, I must mention a few things that I was going to bring up on Monday.
We will discuss the Churchill article on "Consistency in Politics." I believe that Emily and Brian will present papers. If I am wrong on that, let me know.
The readers of the senior theses will be asked to grade the paper not as a normal research paper for a semester course but as a demonstration of a student's best work, culminating his college career. With that in mind, please remember the following:
1. All footnotes and bibliographical entries must be in proper Chicago Style form. Go over your footnotes from the first draft, and insert ibids and shortened references as appropriate. See Turabian, ch. 8.
2. Make sure that the papers have page numbers on each page (except the Title Page).
3. Make sure that the papers are divided into parts with headings and subheadings, and that the table of contents (mandatory!) refers to these headings and subheadings.
4. The opening page or two should clearly explain the problem that you address, the thesis that you propose, and the basic organization of the paper that follows.
5. Finally, I shall apply the usual formula of "two errors, plus one per page" to grading the papers; more errors than this will result in a failing grade. So PROOFREAD, PROOFREAD, PROOFREAD!!!
Monday, December 18th, at 3:00pm is the drop dead deadline for submission of the papers. Any paper received after that will be penalized.
