THE SOCIAL INSTITUTION THAT DISTRIBUTES POWER, SETS A SOCIETY’S AGENDA, AND MAKES DECISIONS 1 1 1 1

AUTHORITY POWER THAT PEOPLE PERCEIVE AS LEGITIMATE, NOT COERCIVE TRADITIONAL LEGITIMIZED THROUGH TRADITION RATIONAL-LEGAL LEGITIMIZED THROUGH LAW CHARISMATIC LEGITIMIZED THROUGH PERSONALITY 3 3 3

HUNTING AND GATHERING AGRARIAN SOCIETIES POLITICAL STATES LIKE FAMILY: SPECIALIZED ROLES AGRARIAN SOCIETIES SMALL ELITE GAINING POWER POLITICAL STATES RESTRICTED GOVERNING MODERN NATION-STATES MODERN TECHNOLOGY BROUGHT ABOUT LARGER-SCALE POLITICAL SYSTEMS REFERRED TO AS NATION-STATES 4 4 4

THE MONARCHY RULE BY A SINGLE FAMILY OVER GENERATIONS TYPICAL OF AGRARIAN SOCIETIES MODERN EXAMPLE: BRITAIN ABSOLUTE MONARCHY RULERS MONOPOLIZING POWER CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHIES MODERN-DAY MONARCHIES MORE FIGURE HEAD THAN RULER POLITICAL PRINCIPLES RULE ELECTED OFFICIAL ACTUALLY RULES 5 5 5

POWER IS EXERCISED BY PEOPLE AS A WHOLE THE POWER OF THE BALLOT BOX ENSURES SOME AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION! REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY AUTHORITY IN HANDS OF ELECTED OFFICIALS RATIONAL-LEGAL REASONING HAS TIES TO DEMOCRACIES USE OF EXTENSIVE BUREAUCRACIES EXTENSIVE USE OF NEVER ELECTED PETTY BUREAUCRATS 6 6 6

AUTHORITARIANISM DENIES POPULAR PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNMENT ABSOLUTE MONARCIES HEAVY CONTROL LITTLE OR NO VOICE IN GOVERNMENT FOR MOST PEOPLE GOVERNMENT IS OFTEN INDIFFERENT TO PEOPLE’S NEEDS GOVERNMENT HAS NO LEGAL PROCESS TO REMOVE LEADERSHIP EXAMPLES: SAUDI ARABIA AND KUWAIT “SOFT AUTHORITARIANISM” HEAVY-HANDED GOVERNMENT OFFERING A “GOOD LIFE” TO PEOPLE (Singapore) 7 7 7

EXTENSIVE REGULATION OF PEOPLE’S LIVES WALLS CAN BE BUILT TO KEEP PEOPLE IN, AS WELL AS TO PROTECT THEM FROM EXTERNAL INFLUENCES. EXTENSIVE REGULATION OF PEOPLE’S LIVES CLOSE MONITORING OF PEOPLE MASSIVE AND PROTECTED EFFORTS TO COLLECT HUGE AMOUNTS OF INFORMATION ON POPULACE PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO ADHERE TO GOVERNMENT WISHES AND ARE DENIED BASIC AND HUMAN RIGHTS GOVERNMENT INDOCTRINATION BEGINS AT AN EARLY AGE 8 8 8

POLITICS IN AMERICA CONCERNS AND ISSUES CULTURAL TIES AMERICA’S BILL OF RIGHTS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM LIBERAL TO CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIC ISSUES DIFFERENCE OF OPINIONS SOCIAL ISSUES “THE VALUE ISSUES DEBATE” MIXED POSITIONS RACE AND MONEY TALK PARTY IDENTIFICATION WHY JUST TWO PARTIES? 9 9 9

POLITICAL PARTY IDENTIFICATION by Proportion of Respondents 44.2 2.1 20.1 33.6 PERCENT DEMOCRAT REPUBLICAN INDEPENDENT OTHER PARTY/NO RESP. General Social Surveys, 1972-2000 10 10

GETTING POSITIONS HEARD AND UNDERSTOOD SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS POLITICAL ALLIANCE OF PEOPLE INTERESTED IN SOME ECONOMIC OR SOCIAL ISSUE THE NRA, AARP, AFL-CIO, ETC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES ORGANIZATIONS FORMED BY SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS, INDEPENDENT OF POLITICAL PARTIES, TO PURSUE POLITICAL AIMS BY RAISING AND SPENDING MONEY 11 11 11

SOME THEORETICAL ANALYSIS EXPLAINING POLITICAL POWER YOU MEAN, I REALLY DON’T HAVE A REAL SAY IN MY OWN GOVERNMENT? PLURALIST MODEL POWER IS DISPERSED AMONG MANY COMPETING INTERESTS GROUPS THE POWER-ELITE MODEL “REAL” POWER IS CONCENTRATED AMONG THE VERY RICH IN AMERICA CAN THE WEALTHIEST IN AMERICA EVER ENCOUNTER PRESSURE TO NOT ACT IN THEIR OWN BEST INTERESTS? POLITICAL-ECONOMY MODEL POWER IS DIVIDED ALONG THE LINES OF A POLITICAL ECONOMY BIAS IS ROOTED WITHIN THE NATION’S SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS REVOLUTION IS THE ONLY ANSWER

THE OVERTHROW OF A POLITICAL ORDER IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A NEW ONE REVOLUTIONS SHARE COMMON TRAITS RISING EXPECTATIONS WHEN QUALITY OF LIFE IS IMPROVING, PEOPLE WANT MORE AND ARE LESS WILLING TO WAIT UNRESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT DEGREE OF WILLINGNESS AND ABILTY TO REFORM TO MEET DEMANDS OF PEOPLE RADICAL LEADERSHIP BY INTELLECTUALS REVOLUTION IS OFTEN “UNIVERSITY CENTERED” ESTABLISHING NEW LEGITIMACY GUARDING AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO COUNTER THE REVOLUTION 12 12 12

TERRORISM VIOLENCE, OR THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE, EMPLOYED BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR A GROUP AS A POLITICAL STRATEGY STATE TERRORISM USE OF VIOLENCE, GENERALLY WITHOUT SUPPORT OF LAW, AGAINST INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS BY A GOVERNMENT OR ITS AGENTS 13 13 13

War AND peace WAR – ORGANIZED, ARMED CONFLICT AMONG PEOPLE OF TWO OR MORE NATIONS, DIRECTED BY THEIR GOVERNMNETS

FACTORS PROMOTING WAR PERCEIVED THREATS SOCIAL PROBLEMS THREATS TO PEOPLE AND TERRITORY SOCIAL PROBLEMS INTERNAL PROBLEMS AND FRUSTRATION POLITICAL OBJECTIVES SHOW OF FORCE AND PROTECTING ONE’S OWN PROPERTY MORAL OBJECTIVES RALLYING PEOPLE AROUND MORALITY ABSENCE OF ALTERNATIVES LIMITED OPTIONS 14 14 14

COSTS ARE OFTEN FOUND WELL BEYOND THE BATTLEFIELDS AND LONG AFTER THE WAR $5 TRILLION SPENT ANNUALLY $1,000.00 FOR EVERY PERSON ON EARTH ANOTHER BILLION HERE, ANOTHER MILLION THERE... HOW MUCH SUFFERING GOES ON BECAUSE NEEDED FUNDS MUST BE DIVERTED? WOULD IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF THE FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER NEEDS? THE POLITICS OF WAR MILITARY INDUSTRAIL COMPLEX THE CLOSE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE MILITARY, AND THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY FOLLOW THE MONEY AND THE CAREERS OF PENTAGON OFFICIALS AFTER THEY LEAVE THE MILITARY AS SEE WHERE THE TWO END UP! NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE THINGS ESCALATING AGAIN WITH THE CHANCE OF SUCH WEAPONS BEING USED BY 3RD WORLD MILITARIES? PAKISTAN AND INDIA

REDUCING CHANCES FOR WAR AND INCREASING CHANCES OF PEACE DETERRENCE BALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN SOCIETIES HIGH-TECHNOLOGY DEFENSE STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE DIPLOMACY AND DISARMAMENT KEEP TALKING ABOUT REDUCING ARMS RESOLVING UNDERLYING CONFLICT INCREASE SPENDING ON PROMOTING PEACE RATHER THAN BUILDING UP MILITARY 16 16 16