Sentence
stringlengths 118
2.7k
| video_title
stringlengths 38
107
|
|---|---|
Well, what happened was in various wars, America needed to move quickly, and they needed one person to act on behalf of the entire union. Well, there's only one person who can do that. But as people wanted quick action, they handed over more power to the president. Congress, which used to fight with the president a lot during the Second World War and then on into our present day, has given up a lot of its power to the president, one of the key ones being the power to make war. Presidents can now go and make war. Well, that's not the original way it was arranged. And they've done it because there is a hunger in the country for quick action. | Changes to the role of the presidency AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
Congress, which used to fight with the president a lot during the Second World War and then on into our present day, has given up a lot of its power to the president, one of the key ones being the power to make war. Presidents can now go and make war. Well, that's not the original way it was arranged. And they've done it because there is a hunger in the country for quick action. But the problem and challenge of that is if you invest somebody in with power to do things quickly in an emergency, they hold on to that power and they don't let it go. And that means that they start doing things when it's not an emergency that is then not vetted by the American system. And that system has both the judiciary and the legislative, which are meant to hold back a president who's trying to act too quickly and do too much. | Changes to the role of the presidency AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
And they've done it because there is a hunger in the country for quick action. But the problem and challenge of that is if you invest somebody in with power to do things quickly in an emergency, they hold on to that power and they don't let it go. And that means that they start doing things when it's not an emergency that is then not vetted by the American system. And that system has both the judiciary and the legislative, which are meant to hold back a president who's trying to act too quickly and do too much. Just to go on this notion of making war as an example, there's clear powers that Congress has to approve a war, has the power of the purse. So how did this happen? Do they just do that as a ritual now? | Changes to the role of the presidency AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
And that system has both the judiciary and the legislative, which are meant to hold back a president who's trying to act too quickly and do too much. Just to go on this notion of making war as an example, there's clear powers that Congress has to approve a war, has the power of the purse. So how did this happen? Do they just do that as a ritual now? Well, basically there are times and Congress tries and makes attempts to try to pull power back from the president. The only times they've been successful after the Second World War is really after Watergate. The view was that the president had gotten too powerful, that President Nixon, who left office, had abused the office. | Changes to the role of the presidency AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
Do they just do that as a ritual now? Well, basically there are times and Congress tries and makes attempts to try to pull power back from the president. The only times they've been successful after the Second World War is really after Watergate. The view was that the president had gotten too powerful, that President Nixon, who left office, had abused the office. And so Congress tried to pull some power back. But again, political parties, which are now very close to the president, it used to be that political parties were not so powerful. If I'm a Republican in Congress and I want my Republican president to do well, I'm going to give him the power he wants because we're connected. | Changes to the role of the presidency AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
The view was that the president had gotten too powerful, that President Nixon, who left office, had abused the office. And so Congress tried to pull some power back. But again, political parties, which are now very close to the president, it used to be that political parties were not so powerful. If I'm a Republican in Congress and I want my Republican president to do well, I'm going to give him the power he wants because we're connected. In the old days, if the president in the office was my party, well, that's nice. But I've got my own views and I'm in Congress and I'm going to do what I want. And so essentially a lot of these powers that have gone to the president have been handed over to him, not with a ceremony, but just by lack of a fight by members of Congress in withdrawing from their traditional role, as the founders wanted it, as the key actor in American government. | Changes to the role of the presidency AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
If I'm a Republican in Congress and I want my Republican president to do well, I'm going to give him the power he wants because we're connected. In the old days, if the president in the office was my party, well, that's nice. But I've got my own views and I'm in Congress and I'm going to do what I want. And so essentially a lot of these powers that have gone to the president have been handed over to him, not with a ceremony, but just by lack of a fight by members of Congress in withdrawing from their traditional role, as the founders wanted it, as the key actor in American government. That's no longer the case. In America today, the president is the key actor. And then every time that happens, the next president or the next several presidents say, wait, you allowed that to happen to that person. | Changes to the role of the presidency AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
And so essentially a lot of these powers that have gone to the president have been handed over to him, not with a ceremony, but just by lack of a fight by members of Congress in withdrawing from their traditional role, as the founders wanted it, as the key actor in American government. That's no longer the case. In America today, the president is the key actor. And then every time that happens, the next president or the next several presidents say, wait, you allowed that to happen to that person. I should have that power. That's exactly right. It's almost like the powers conveyed to the new president like the furniture in the Oval Office. | Changes to the role of the presidency AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
And then every time that happens, the next president or the next several presidents say, wait, you allowed that to happen to that person. I should have that power. That's exactly right. It's almost like the powers conveyed to the new president like the furniture in the Oval Office. And so they think, well, this chair is pretty comfortable. I'm not going to get rid of that and sit in the old, you know, uncomfortable wooden chair. I want all the plush trappings. | Changes to the role of the presidency AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
It's almost like the powers conveyed to the new president like the furniture in the Oval Office. And so they think, well, this chair is pretty comfortable. I'm not going to get rid of that and sit in the old, you know, uncomfortable wooden chair. I want all the plush trappings. And here's another reason. American politics has created a situation, and television has made this so much worse, where people run for office promising the sun, the moon and the stars. So they say, I can, Donald Trump, when he was running, said, I alone can fix it. | Changes to the role of the presidency AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
I want all the plush trappings. And here's another reason. American politics has created a situation, and television has made this so much worse, where people run for office promising the sun, the moon and the stars. So they say, I can, Donald Trump, when he was running, said, I alone can fix it. That is not the way the country was originally founded, that one person could fix or unfix things. It was supposed to be a country with representatives of the entire country. But politics has created a system where, whether it's a Republican or Democrat, they run by saying, I can do anything. | Changes to the role of the presidency AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
So they say, I can, Donald Trump, when he was running, said, I alone can fix it. That is not the way the country was originally founded, that one person could fix or unfix things. It was supposed to be a country with representatives of the entire country. But politics has created a system where, whether it's a Republican or Democrat, they run by saying, I can do anything. Well, that means when you get in the office, you want those quick powers that allow you to keep those campaign promises. And those quick powers are only quick if Congress and the courts aren't in the way. So politics and the way you run for office makes presidents want to have every possible power at their disposal. | Changes to the role of the presidency AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
And federalism, you can view as a pact between a national government and its states. It's referring to a government that has various layers, where you could have the national government, often known as the federal government, and then you have the states, and you're gonna have multiple states over here, and then you could have even further layers, and in the United States you indeed do, you have the local governments, and even within the local, you have city governments, you have county governments. The analogy that's often made is, originally, the federal idea was kind of like a layered cake, so this is my best attempt at drawing a quick layered cake, where you could view each layer as one of the layers of government. So when I cut open that cake, maybe right over here, this blue layer right over here, it's a blue-flavored cake, maybe it's an ice cream cake of some kind. That might be the federal government. Then this yellow, maybe it's mango-flavored, that would be the state government. And then you have your strawberry-flavored local government. | Federalism in the United States US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So when I cut open that cake, maybe right over here, this blue layer right over here, it's a blue-flavored cake, maybe it's an ice cream cake of some kind. That might be the federal government. Then this yellow, maybe it's mango-flavored, that would be the state government. And then you have your strawberry-flavored local government. That is one view of federalism, but it turns out in the United States, especially over the passage of time, this has gotten mixed up a little bit. So even though the United States might have started a little bit closer to something like this layered cake, today it is more of a marble cake, where the different layers and their powers are more mixed together. And so that's my attempt to drawing these, the mixing of these various powers. | Federalism in the United States US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And then you have your strawberry-flavored local government. That is one view of federalism, but it turns out in the United States, especially over the passage of time, this has gotten mixed up a little bit. So even though the United States might have started a little bit closer to something like this layered cake, today it is more of a marble cake, where the different layers and their powers are more mixed together. And so that's my attempt to drawing these, the mixing of these various powers. And not only do they mix, they overlap, that different layers of our federal government, some have exclusive powers, which means they are the only layer that has them, while some of them, while sometimes there are concurrent powers, which means these are powers that multiple layers might actually have. Now to appreciate what these exclusive and concurrent powers are, here's a Venn diagram that shows some of them. So on the left-hand side right over here, you have your exclusive federal powers. | Federalism in the United States US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And so that's my attempt to drawing these, the mixing of these various powers. And not only do they mix, they overlap, that different layers of our federal government, some have exclusive powers, which means they are the only layer that has them, while some of them, while sometimes there are concurrent powers, which means these are powers that multiple layers might actually have. Now to appreciate what these exclusive and concurrent powers are, here's a Venn diagram that shows some of them. So on the left-hand side right over here, you have your exclusive federal powers. So in the United States, only the federal government can coin money. You can't have money from Texas or California. Only the federal government can declare war, which is related to the idea of conducting foreign affairs, which once again, only the federal government can do. | Federalism in the United States US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So on the left-hand side right over here, you have your exclusive federal powers. So in the United States, only the federal government can coin money. You can't have money from Texas or California. Only the federal government can declare war, which is related to the idea of conducting foreign affairs, which once again, only the federal government can do. That's also related to raising armies. Once again, only the federal government. Rules of naturalization. | Federalism in the United States US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Only the federal government can declare war, which is related to the idea of conducting foreign affairs, which once again, only the federal government can do. That's also related to raising armies. Once again, only the federal government. Rules of naturalization. Who becomes an immigrant? Who gets a green card? Who becomes a citizen? | Federalism in the United States US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Rules of naturalization. Who becomes an immigrant? Who gets a green card? Who becomes a citizen? All determined by the federal government, not by the states. And the federal government regulates not just foreign affairs, but foreign commerce, trade agreements, and how is trade done? They're regulating between the states. | Federalism in the United States US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Who becomes a citizen? All determined by the federal government, not by the states. And the federal government regulates not just foreign affairs, but foreign commerce, trade agreements, and how is trade done? They're regulating between the states. Now exclusive powers to the states, they conduct elections. You might say, wait, wait, wait, hold on a second. Well, aren't there federal elections? | Federalism in the United States US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
They're regulating between the states. Now exclusive powers to the states, they conduct elections. You might say, wait, wait, wait, hold on a second. Well, aren't there federal elections? Well, it turns out even for say election for president, the elections are conducted by the state government. Remember, we have the electoral college. They want to figure out who should that state's electors vote for. | Federalism in the United States US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Well, aren't there federal elections? Well, it turns out even for say election for president, the elections are conducted by the state government. Remember, we have the electoral college. They want to figure out who should that state's electors vote for. Establishing local governments. What are the counties? What are the various jurisdictions within a state? | Federalism in the United States US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
They want to figure out who should that state's electors vote for. Establishing local governments. What are the counties? What are the various jurisdictions within a state? Similarly, intrastate commerce. That's regulated by the state. What about the commerce that happens within the state? | Federalism in the United States US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
What are the various jurisdictions within a state? Similarly, intrastate commerce. That's regulated by the state. What about the commerce that happens within the state? And then the Constitution allows the states to be the main power in ratifying constitutional amendments. The Senate and House can propose amendments, but 3 4ths of the states have to vote to ratify constitutional amendments. Now what we see in the middle of this Venn diagram, these are concurrent powers, which means that they are common to both federal and state governments. | Federalism in the United States US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
What about the commerce that happens within the state? And then the Constitution allows the states to be the main power in ratifying constitutional amendments. The Senate and House can propose amendments, but 3 4ths of the states have to vote to ratify constitutional amendments. Now what we see in the middle of this Venn diagram, these are concurrent powers, which means that they are common to both federal and state governments. You can have federal taxes and you can have state taxes. In fact, most of us have both. There are federal laws and there are state laws. | Federalism in the United States US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Now what we see in the middle of this Venn diagram, these are concurrent powers, which means that they are common to both federal and state governments. You can have federal taxes and you can have state taxes. In fact, most of us have both. There are federal laws and there are state laws. Similarly, there's federal law enforcement. You can think of the FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation. And of course, you have state police and local police. | Federalism in the United States US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
There are federal laws and there are state laws. Similarly, there's federal law enforcement. You can think of the FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation. And of course, you have state police and local police. The chartering of banks. Eminent domain, which we might do another video on in the future, but this is the idea that a government can view taking land as the interest of the broader good in order to put down power lines or a highway and ideally compensate the people that it takes from if it's for the greater good. Establishing courts. | Federalism in the United States US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And of course, you have state police and local police. The chartering of banks. Eminent domain, which we might do another video on in the future, but this is the idea that a government can view taking land as the interest of the broader good in order to put down power lines or a highway and ideally compensate the people that it takes from if it's for the greater good. Establishing courts. You have a federal court system and a state court system, which we'll talk more about in future videos. And borrowing money. They both can issue bonds if they wanna have a large project or to finance their deficit. | Federalism in the United States US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Establishing courts. You have a federal court system and a state court system, which we'll talk more about in future videos. And borrowing money. They both can issue bonds if they wanna have a large project or to finance their deficit. All of these things are concurrent powers. Now this list is not exhaustive for any one of the three, for the exclusive federal powers, the concurrent powers, I'll do this dot, dot, dot here, and the exclusive state powers. And one thing that you will see, even certain exclusive state powers, so for example, education is for the most part considered an exclusive state power, but then you might say, hold on a second, isn't there a federal department of education? | Federalism in the United States US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
They both can issue bonds if they wanna have a large project or to finance their deficit. All of these things are concurrent powers. Now this list is not exhaustive for any one of the three, for the exclusive federal powers, the concurrent powers, I'll do this dot, dot, dot here, and the exclusive state powers. And one thing that you will see, even certain exclusive state powers, so for example, education is for the most part considered an exclusive state power, but then you might say, hold on a second, isn't there a federal department of education? I'll do that over here. And the way, and this is a good example of how the federal government, even when something might be more of a exclusive state power where the federal government can still influence it. And they do that through grants. | Federalism in the United States US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And one thing that you will see, even certain exclusive state powers, so for example, education is for the most part considered an exclusive state power, but then you might say, hold on a second, isn't there a federal department of education? I'll do that over here. And the way, and this is a good example of how the federal government, even when something might be more of a exclusive state power where the federal government can still influence it. And they do that through grants. So even though the states and local governments might run the schools, the federal government might say, hey, if you do X, Y, and Z, which we want you to do, then we will give you more funding for your schools. And so that might be motivation for the states to listen to the federal government. So I will leave you there. | Federalism in the United States US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
How has the evolution of media affected the evolution of political discourse? At the beginning of our country, the editors of the rival newspapers, there was no middle of the road newspaper. You were either for one side or the other. You were either a Federalist or you were with the Jeffersonian Democrats, Democratic Republicans as they called themselves. And the editors were at each other's throats so violently, they would sometimes get in fights in the street and knock each other down. So it was, and you had lawmakers who were supposed to be men of virtue, it was all men in those days, would be leaking documents. Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury Secretary, and Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, would leak documents to their favorite papers in order to attack the other. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
You were either a Federalist or you were with the Jeffersonian Democrats, Democratic Republicans as they called themselves. And the editors were at each other's throats so violently, they would sometimes get in fights in the street and knock each other down. So it was, and you had lawmakers who were supposed to be men of virtue, it was all men in those days, would be leaking documents. Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury Secretary, and Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, would leak documents to their favorite papers in order to attack the other. And eventually George Washington had to come in and say, knock it off, fellas, because this isn't good for the country. So the bitterness carried out in the press was with us from the founding. What changed over time is that it became in the interest of the newspapers particularly to appeal to a larger audience. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury Secretary, and Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, would leak documents to their favorite papers in order to attack the other. And eventually George Washington had to come in and say, knock it off, fellas, because this isn't good for the country. So the bitterness carried out in the press was with us from the founding. What changed over time is that it became in the interest of the newspapers particularly to appeal to a larger audience. That means you didn't want just the left or the right, you wanted both. And so that created a tradition along with a few other things where there was an attempt to give just the facts, a kind of middle of the road perspective. We are changing from that now where the economics of covering the news and the digital, the change where you now can have anybody speaking and gaining access to the public has created a situation where you have a more partisan press now. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
What changed over time is that it became in the interest of the newspapers particularly to appeal to a larger audience. That means you didn't want just the left or the right, you wanted both. And so that created a tradition along with a few other things where there was an attempt to give just the facts, a kind of middle of the road perspective. We are changing from that now where the economics of covering the news and the digital, the change where you now can have anybody speaking and gaining access to the public has created a situation where you have a more partisan press now. And we're in the middle of trying to figure out where that's going next. So this is interesting because a lot of people when they talk about, oh, well now it's getting polarized and partisan, you know, the good old days when you got the truth, the wisdom from Walter Cronkite or whoever. But what you're talking about is maybe what's going on now is a little bit of a reversion back to where we started. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
We are changing from that now where the economics of covering the news and the digital, the change where you now can have anybody speaking and gaining access to the public has created a situation where you have a more partisan press now. And we're in the middle of trying to figure out where that's going next. So this is interesting because a lot of people when they talk about, oh, well now it's getting polarized and partisan, you know, the good old days when you got the truth, the wisdom from Walter Cronkite or whoever. But what you're talking about is maybe what's going on now is a little bit of a reversion back to where we started. That's right. In terms of the partisanship of the press, it is a reversion towards the early days of America. And in terms of the partisanship of the individual members of Congress or of the White House, what is a little bit different is that the call to virtue, which would snap people out of their partisanship, is still up for grabs. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
But what you're talking about is maybe what's going on now is a little bit of a reversion back to where we started. That's right. In terms of the partisanship of the press, it is a reversion towards the early days of America. And in terms of the partisanship of the individual members of Congress or of the White House, what is a little bit different is that the call to virtue, which would snap people out of their partisanship, is still up for grabs. Whether the original, the founders when they fought like cats and dogs during the early years of the administrations, I mean, Thomas Jefferson was best friends with John Adams and essentially then hired a newspaper writer to undermine Adams when he was president. I mean, this was a very dirty pool. The argument they were making though was our country is new and what is at stake is the very survival of the American experiment. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
And in terms of the partisanship of the individual members of Congress or of the White House, what is a little bit different is that the call to virtue, which would snap people out of their partisanship, is still up for grabs. Whether the original, the founders when they fought like cats and dogs during the early years of the administrations, I mean, Thomas Jefferson was best friends with John Adams and essentially then hired a newspaper writer to undermine Adams when he was president. I mean, this was a very dirty pool. The argument they were making though was our country is new and what is at stake is the very survival of the American experiment. And so they were fighting for real stakes. They weren't just trying to primarily keep power. They were really trying to make this flower bloom that they had just planted. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
The argument they were making though was our country is new and what is at stake is the very survival of the American experiment. And so they were fighting for real stakes. They weren't just trying to primarily keep power. They were really trying to make this flower bloom that they had just planted. So now the question is what role does virtue play in the American experience to pull people away from their partisanship, to make them work together for common interests? And what is that shared area of common interest? What pulls them away from what the founders knew people would behave like dogs sometimes, but they thought they could pull away if they thought about the common interest. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
They were really trying to make this flower bloom that they had just planted. So now the question is what role does virtue play in the American experience to pull people away from their partisanship, to make them work together for common interests? And what is that shared area of common interest? What pulls them away from what the founders knew people would behave like dogs sometimes, but they thought they could pull away if they thought about the common interest. Well is that pull still there? So there's a lot of talk these days about the polarization of the media or the polarization of politics in general. How much of it do you think is due to things like social media or do you think it was inevitable? | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
What pulls them away from what the founders knew people would behave like dogs sometimes, but they thought they could pull away if they thought about the common interest. Well is that pull still there? So there's a lot of talk these days about the polarization of the media or the polarization of politics in general. How much of it do you think is due to things like social media or do you think it was inevitable? Well we've always had polarization in American politics, but there was a dose of something else which was a call to a higher American ideal. And also voters would vote on people based on their virtue, on their larger than life statesmanship which was not partisan. So you had to keep a balance. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
How much of it do you think is due to things like social media or do you think it was inevitable? Well we've always had polarization in American politics, but there was a dose of something else which was a call to a higher American ideal. And also voters would vote on people based on their virtue, on their larger than life statesmanship which was not partisan. So you had to keep a balance. If you were being highly partisan, you kind of did it in quiet. What's changed now with social media and also with the flood of money in politics is that it has encouraged people to be more and more partisan. The louder and hotter I talk on a specific issue, the more money I'm going to be able to raise, the more interest groups are going to like me, and the more clicks I'm going to get because I'm the one making the most flamboyant noise. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
So you had to keep a balance. If you were being highly partisan, you kind of did it in quiet. What's changed now with social media and also with the flood of money in politics is that it has encouraged people to be more and more partisan. The louder and hotter I talk on a specific issue, the more money I'm going to be able to raise, the more interest groups are going to like me, and the more clicks I'm going to get because I'm the one making the most flamboyant noise. The problem is that means the arguments are always containing flamboyant noise. And the people who want a calm, steady, measured conversation, well they're not getting read on social media. They're not in charge of the interest groups that pay millions and millions of dollars. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
The louder and hotter I talk on a specific issue, the more money I'm going to be able to raise, the more interest groups are going to like me, and the more clicks I'm going to get because I'm the one making the most flamboyant noise. The problem is that means the arguments are always containing flamboyant noise. And the people who want a calm, steady, measured conversation, well they're not getting read on social media. They're not in charge of the interest groups that pay millions and millions of dollars. So the system encourages people to stay apart. And that's one of the biggest challenges. Secretary of Defense James Mattis says it may be the greatest threat to American democracy, that polarization. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
They're not in charge of the interest groups that pay millions and millions of dollars. So the system encourages people to stay apart. And that's one of the biggest challenges. Secretary of Defense James Mattis says it may be the greatest threat to American democracy, that polarization. And do you see a way of this getting resolved? Or does it get worse? Does it get better? | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
Secretary of Defense James Mattis says it may be the greatest threat to American democracy, that polarization. And do you see a way of this getting resolved? Or does it get worse? Does it get better? There have been periods of American history where we have been the split. Obviously the Civil War was a period of great rending in the American fabric. What changed it was an actual conflict. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
Does it get better? There have been periods of American history where we have been the split. Obviously the Civil War was a period of great rending in the American fabric. What changed it was an actual conflict. And so that, God forbid, would be one way to do it. Another would be if there was a threat to America from outside its borders and people would feel an acute sense of national pride and patriotism. But other than that, there doesn't appear to be at the moment a quick fix for what is a complicated problem for why the two parties have gotten into a kind of inescapable fight that they can't seem to get themselves out of. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
What changed it was an actual conflict. And so that, God forbid, would be one way to do it. Another would be if there was a threat to America from outside its borders and people would feel an acute sense of national pride and patriotism. But other than that, there doesn't appear to be at the moment a quick fix for what is a complicated problem for why the two parties have gotten into a kind of inescapable fight that they can't seem to get themselves out of. It's like we need a shock to remind ourselves how much commonality there is so all of the polarizing quibbling kind of goes away or at least gets covered up a little bit. Big changes in American history usually happen from a shock and it's what breaks people out of their behavior and also which tells a lot of the people in the rest of the country who don't participate in presidential elections and don't participate in congressional elections. It reminds them that something real is at stake. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
But other than that, there doesn't appear to be at the moment a quick fix for what is a complicated problem for why the two parties have gotten into a kind of inescapable fight that they can't seem to get themselves out of. It's like we need a shock to remind ourselves how much commonality there is so all of the polarizing quibbling kind of goes away or at least gets covered up a little bit. Big changes in American history usually happen from a shock and it's what breaks people out of their behavior and also which tells a lot of the people in the rest of the country who don't participate in presidential elections and don't participate in congressional elections. It reminds them that something real is at stake. And there is a vast group of Americans who really want solutions in the middle, who don't care about the bickering and the ideology. But a lot of them don't participate in politics. And so the kind of shock that would make people behave who are partisans is also the kind of shock that might draw in people who were just apathetic and not participating in the political system. | The media and partisanship Political partecipation AP US Government and Politics Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
And we also talk about, in that video on linkage institutions, how political parties are involved in voter mobilization, which is a fancy way of saying, hey, getting people to vote, getting people energized about the election, to actually get to the polls, sometimes going as far as getting buses, transporting them to the polling stations, and campaign management, campaign management. And one thing that is really interesting to appreciate, and it's really the focus of this video, is that both of these things have evolved over time. So for example, George Washington, the first president of the United States, he was not affiliated with any party, and our first two presidential elections had no party association. But as soon as we get to the election of 1796, we start to see the development of faction. You have Hamilton on one side becomes head of the Federalist Party, and on the other side, headed by Madison, you have the Democratic-Republican Party. Democratic-Republican. And there is a nice irony to this, because it was exactly those two gentlemen that not too far before 1796, if we go to the late 1780s, in their attempt to get the Constitution ratified in the Federalist Papers, they argue against faction, how faction can be bad for a government, for a nation. | Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization Khan Academy.mp3 |
But as soon as we get to the election of 1796, we start to see the development of faction. You have Hamilton on one side becomes head of the Federalist Party, and on the other side, headed by Madison, you have the Democratic-Republican Party. Democratic-Republican. And there is a nice irony to this, because it was exactly those two gentlemen that not too far before 1796, if we go to the late 1780s, in their attempt to get the Constitution ratified in the Federalist Papers, they argue against faction, how faction can be bad for a government, for a nation. But they were the ones that led the split into faction and the split into party. And from that time, for over 100 years, all the way until we get to the early 1900s, early 1900s, you have some situations where the party leadership might pick candidates, and some situation where the party members pick candidates in conventions. And so you have party leadership, leadership slash members, we could say handpick, handpick candidates. | Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization Khan Academy.mp3 |
And there is a nice irony to this, because it was exactly those two gentlemen that not too far before 1796, if we go to the late 1780s, in their attempt to get the Constitution ratified in the Federalist Papers, they argue against faction, how faction can be bad for a government, for a nation. But they were the ones that led the split into faction and the split into party. And from that time, for over 100 years, all the way until we get to the early 1900s, early 1900s, you have some situations where the party leadership might pick candidates, and some situation where the party members pick candidates in conventions. And so you have party leadership, leadership slash members, we could say handpick, handpick candidates. So this part of the process was not so broadly democratic, especially as we get to the second half of the 1800s. You have very strong party leaders, often called party bosses, who almost had the individual power to pick candidates to represent one party or another. But in the early 1900s, there was a movement to say, hey, you know what, this is not so democratic to handpick the candidates that people have to choose from. | Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization Khan Academy.mp3 |
And so you have party leadership, leadership slash members, we could say handpick, handpick candidates. So this part of the process was not so broadly democratic, especially as we get to the second half of the 1800s. You have very strong party leaders, often called party bosses, who almost had the individual power to pick candidates to represent one party or another. But in the early 1900s, there was a movement to say, hey, you know what, this is not so democratic to handpick the candidates that people have to choose from. And so this is when you start to have the direct primary system, where to choose the candidates that represent one party or another, you will hold elections. And those elections could be closed primaries, where you have to be a registered Republican to vote for who represents Republican Party or registered Democrat to see who represents the Democratic Party. But they also have open primaries, where anyone could vote in the Democratic primary, or anyone could vote in the Republican primary. | Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization Khan Academy.mp3 |
But in the early 1900s, there was a movement to say, hey, you know what, this is not so democratic to handpick the candidates that people have to choose from. And so this is when you start to have the direct primary system, where to choose the candidates that represent one party or another, you will hold elections. And those elections could be closed primaries, where you have to be a registered Republican to vote for who represents Republican Party or registered Democrat to see who represents the Democratic Party. But they also have open primaries, where anyone could vote in the Democratic primary, or anyone could vote in the Republican primary. And this is happening to this day. Now, this change that has happened over roughly the last 100 years, you could imagine this has changed the power dynamic between the parties and the candidates. For this first over 100 years, the party is where a lot of the power was. | Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization Khan Academy.mp3 |
But they also have open primaries, where anyone could vote in the Democratic primary, or anyone could vote in the Republican primary. And this is happening to this day. Now, this change that has happened over roughly the last 100 years, you could imagine this has changed the power dynamic between the parties and the candidates. For this first over 100 years, the party is where a lot of the power was. But once you start having the direct primary, it becomes a lot more about candidate-centered campaigns. Where things become much more about the position and the personality of the candidate than maybe as much about the party platform. And because of that, it has become more common in the last 100 or so years, where even if someone is a registered Republican, they might vote the other way, or if someone is a registered Democrat, they might vote the other way if a candidate is particularly appealing. | Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization Khan Academy.mp3 |
For this first over 100 years, the party is where a lot of the power was. But once you start having the direct primary, it becomes a lot more about candidate-centered campaigns. Where things become much more about the position and the personality of the candidate than maybe as much about the party platform. And because of that, it has become more common in the last 100 or so years, where even if someone is a registered Republican, they might vote the other way, or if someone is a registered Democrat, they might vote the other way if a candidate is particularly appealing. For example, John F. Kennedy was a Democratic candidate for president in 1960, but many Republican Irish Catholics voted for him. Similarly, there's a group of folks known as the Reagan Democrats, who are famous for, despite their party affiliation with the Democrats, voted for President Reagan. And that was all around this idea that it was more about the candidate, especially at the presidential level, than it is about the party. | Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization Khan Academy.mp3 |
And because of that, it has become more common in the last 100 or so years, where even if someone is a registered Republican, they might vote the other way, or if someone is a registered Democrat, they might vote the other way if a candidate is particularly appealing. For example, John F. Kennedy was a Democratic candidate for president in 1960, but many Republican Irish Catholics voted for him. Similarly, there's a group of folks known as the Reagan Democrats, who are famous for, despite their party affiliation with the Democrats, voted for President Reagan. And that was all around this idea that it was more about the candidate, especially at the presidential level, than it is about the party. Now, just as how the candidate-picking process has evolved over time, so has the voter mobilization and the campaign management. In the early days, a lot of the voter mobilization, in fact, if we think about the late 1800s, where you have this party boss structure, you had people sometimes going as far as even giving people things in order to go and vote for one candidate or another, or exerting some type of pressure. The late 1800s, or the second half of the 1800s, especially in places like Chicago and New York, were sometimes infamous for not the necessarily cleanest elections. | Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization Khan Academy.mp3 |
And that was all around this idea that it was more about the candidate, especially at the presidential level, than it is about the party. Now, just as how the candidate-picking process has evolved over time, so has the voter mobilization and the campaign management. In the early days, a lot of the voter mobilization, in fact, if we think about the late 1800s, where you have this party boss structure, you had people sometimes going as far as even giving people things in order to go and vote for one candidate or another, or exerting some type of pressure. The late 1800s, or the second half of the 1800s, especially in places like Chicago and New York, were sometimes infamous for not the necessarily cleanest elections. But as you get into the 20th century, especially the second half of the 20th century, and now the 21st century, things have become much, much more sophisticated. So if we go to the 20th century, you have significant use of mass media, mass media. And as you go into TV, newspaper, radio, and newspaper has always been a factor in political elections, going all the way back to the founding of the United States, and then as you go into the 21st century, things have gotten a lot more targeted. | Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization Khan Academy.mp3 |
The late 1800s, or the second half of the 1800s, especially in places like Chicago and New York, were sometimes infamous for not the necessarily cleanest elections. But as you get into the 20th century, especially the second half of the 20th century, and now the 21st century, things have become much, much more sophisticated. So if we go to the 20th century, you have significant use of mass media, mass media. And as you go into TV, newspaper, radio, and newspaper has always been a factor in political elections, going all the way back to the founding of the United States, and then as you go into the 21st century, things have gotten a lot more targeted. Obviously, you can have email campaigns. You can start to leverage social media. And the 21st century in particular, things like email campaigns and social media, has allowed for very specific targeting to voters. | Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization Khan Academy.mp3 |
And as you go into TV, newspaper, radio, and newspaper has always been a factor in political elections, going all the way back to the founding of the United States, and then as you go into the 21st century, things have gotten a lot more targeted. Obviously, you can have email campaigns. You can start to leverage social media. And the 21st century in particular, things like email campaigns and social media, has allowed for very specific targeting to voters. What do I mean by targeting? Well, let's say you really care about economic issues while your cousin who lives across town really cares about social issues. The same candidate, instead of sending both of you the same email, might send you a targeted message that speaks to what you care about. | Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization Khan Academy.mp3 |
And the 21st century in particular, things like email campaigns and social media, has allowed for very specific targeting to voters. What do I mean by targeting? Well, let's say you really care about economic issues while your cousin who lives across town really cares about social issues. The same candidate, instead of sending both of you the same email, might send you a targeted message that speaks to what you care about. And this has actually become very, very sophisticated in the last few years. I'll leave you there. But the big takeaway here is, political parties have been around for a while in the United States, but they have been evolving. | Evolution of political parties in picking candidates and voter mobilization Khan Academy.mp3 |
Congressional elections used to be separate from the presidential elections. One of the great examples is in 1938, FDR, who we all look back and think of as a president who had such extraordinary power and who could do no wrong. Well, in 1938, he tried to see if he could exercise that power. So he tried to kick some Democrats out of the Democratic Party who didn't agree with him. And he was spectacularly unsuccessful. Lots and lots of the Democrats, he put his finger on and told his fellow Democrats, you vote for my man, and they lost. Other Democrats won. | How have congressional elections changed over time US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So he tried to kick some Democrats out of the Democratic Party who didn't agree with him. And he was spectacularly unsuccessful. Lots and lots of the Democrats, he put his finger on and told his fellow Democrats, you vote for my man, and they lost. Other Democrats won. And that gives you a sense of how the president, even a popular and successful one, was very separate from his own party. Well, what's happened since then is that presidents have started to have much more control over the members of their own party and voters, who in 1938, thought it was outrageous that a president would force Democrats of his own party to vote the way he wanted them to because they saw such a separation between the presidency and the Congress. Those voters don't exist much anymore. | How have congressional elections changed over time US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Other Democrats won. And that gives you a sense of how the president, even a popular and successful one, was very separate from his own party. Well, what's happened since then is that presidents have started to have much more control over the members of their own party and voters, who in 1938, thought it was outrageous that a president would force Democrats of his own party to vote the way he wanted them to because they saw such a separation between the presidency and the Congress. Those voters don't exist much anymore. Voters now penalize a member of a party who doesn't stick with their president of that same party. So that connectedness tends to create a situation in which congressional elections in the midterms tend to be a referendum on the president, even though the president's not in the ballot. What's also the other big change in American politics is the amount of money. | How have congressional elections changed over time US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Those voters don't exist much anymore. Voters now penalize a member of a party who doesn't stick with their president of that same party. So that connectedness tends to create a situation in which congressional elections in the midterms tend to be a referendum on the president, even though the president's not in the ballot. What's also the other big change in American politics is the amount of money. In 2018, it's very likely that according to the Center for Responsive Politics, $5 billion will be spent on the election. 10 years ago, in the election of 2008, spending was half that, $2.5 billion. And that was a presidential year in which there's more spending. | How have congressional elections changed over time US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
What's also the other big change in American politics is the amount of money. In 2018, it's very likely that according to the Center for Responsive Politics, $5 billion will be spent on the election. 10 years ago, in the election of 2008, spending was half that, $2.5 billion. And that was a presidential year in which there's more spending. The enormous amount of money means you have more ads, you means you have a whole group of people whose job it is to make decisions that are subtle and complicated and complex seem easy and to intensify the partisan battles between each other. And that also creates a situation in which candidates are always running for office because they're always having to raise the money to pay for all of those ads and all of those experts and all of those social media campaigns. Speaking of social media, we now have an instance in which you have real-time up or down votes from constituents and people on the sidelines telling members of Congress whether they're doing the right thing or doing the wrong thing, either in office or in elections. | How have congressional elections changed over time US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And that was a presidential year in which there's more spending. The enormous amount of money means you have more ads, you means you have a whole group of people whose job it is to make decisions that are subtle and complicated and complex seem easy and to intensify the partisan battles between each other. And that also creates a situation in which candidates are always running for office because they're always having to raise the money to pay for all of those ads and all of those experts and all of those social media campaigns. Speaking of social media, we now have an instance in which you have real-time up or down votes from constituents and people on the sidelines telling members of Congress whether they're doing the right thing or doing the wrong thing, either in office or in elections. And that creates a real time jitteriness to elections. It used to be you could have a long time conversation. Heck, when Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debated in those famous Lincoln-Douglas debates for a Senate seat, those debates took place over three hours. | How have congressional elections changed over time US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
What we're going to do in this video is start to think about voting behavior. And in particular, we're going to start classifying motivations for why someone votes for a particular candidate. And I'm going to introduce some terms that will impress your political science friends, but you'll see that they map to things that we see every day, or even behaviors that we see in ourselves in a pretty intuitive way. So one pretty clear reason why someone might vote for one candidate or another is because of their political party. And so this would be referred to as party line voting. Party line voting. So if your family has always been a Republican and you're a Republican, and you just always support the Republican candidate, that would be party line voting. | Models of voting behavior Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So one pretty clear reason why someone might vote for one candidate or another is because of their political party. And so this would be referred to as party line voting. Party line voting. So if your family has always been a Republican and you're a Republican, and you just always support the Republican candidate, that would be party line voting. Now, another behavior that political scientists will often talk about is the idea of rational choice. Rational choice. And this is the idea that someone would choose to vote for one candidate or another based on a perception of which candidate is going to benefit them the most. | Models of voting behavior Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So if your family has always been a Republican and you're a Republican, and you just always support the Republican candidate, that would be party line voting. Now, another behavior that political scientists will often talk about is the idea of rational choice. Rational choice. And this is the idea that someone would choose to vote for one candidate or another based on a perception of which candidate is going to benefit them the most. Which one would it be rational for their own well-being? So for example, if you said, hey, you know what? I really care about the corporate tax rate. | Models of voting behavior Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And this is the idea that someone would choose to vote for one candidate or another based on a perception of which candidate is going to benefit them the most. Which one would it be rational for their own well-being? So for example, if you said, hey, you know what? I really care about the corporate tax rate. I'm the CEO of a corporation. If my corporate tax rate were to go down, then I would be able to have a more thriving business and I think one candidate is going to do better for me on the corporate tax rate, and I'm gonna vote for them because of that. That would be your rational choice, your model, what's driving your voting behaviors, what's gonna benefit me? | Models of voting behavior Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
I really care about the corporate tax rate. I'm the CEO of a corporation. If my corporate tax rate were to go down, then I would be able to have a more thriving business and I think one candidate is going to do better for me on the corporate tax rate, and I'm gonna vote for them because of that. That would be your rational choice, your model, what's driving your voting behaviors, what's gonna benefit me? Now, another classification that you will hear talked about is retrospective voting. Retrospective. And this is the idea that, hey, I'm just gonna vote for someone if it seems like they've been doing a good job or if it seems like things have been improving under their watch. | Models of voting behavior Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
That would be your rational choice, your model, what's driving your voting behaviors, what's gonna benefit me? Now, another classification that you will hear talked about is retrospective voting. Retrospective. And this is the idea that, hey, I'm just gonna vote for someone if it seems like they've been doing a good job or if it seems like things have been improving under their watch. You're looking in retrospect, and this will often be for incumbents, and saying, hey, look, yeah, the last term was pretty good with them, so I'm gonna vote for them again. Now, the last classification we will introduce in this video is the opposite of retrospective voting, and this is looking into the future. Prospective voting, prospective voting. | Models of voting behavior Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And this is the idea that, hey, I'm just gonna vote for someone if it seems like they've been doing a good job or if it seems like things have been improving under their watch. You're looking in retrospect, and this will often be for incumbents, and saying, hey, look, yeah, the last term was pretty good with them, so I'm gonna vote for them again. Now, the last classification we will introduce in this video is the opposite of retrospective voting, and this is looking into the future. Prospective voting, prospective voting. And here, you might look at one candidate and say, look, I think that they will be better for the country over the next four years. You're not even necessarily thinking about your own personal benefit. You're thinking about the country as a whole, but you're looking forward. | Models of voting behavior Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Prospective voting, prospective voting. And here, you might look at one candidate and say, look, I think that they will be better for the country over the next four years. You're not even necessarily thinking about your own personal benefit. You're thinking about the country as a whole, but you're looking forward. You're looking prospectively and thinking about, hey, candidate A I think is gonna do a better job, so I'm gonna vote for her. So with these classifications out of the way, let's look at some statements that you might hear from folks when they think about who they are voting for. So here, it says, the economy has been growing under Clinton so he has my vote. | Models of voting behavior Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
You're thinking about the country as a whole, but you're looking forward. You're looking prospectively and thinking about, hey, candidate A I think is gonna do a better job, so I'm gonna vote for her. So with these classifications out of the way, let's look at some statements that you might hear from folks when they think about who they are voting for. So here, it says, the economy has been growing under Clinton so he has my vote. So pause this video, and how would you classify this motivation for voting? Well, here, the person, the voter, is talking about the economy in the recent past. So this right over here is retrospective voting. | Models of voting behavior Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So here, it says, the economy has been growing under Clinton so he has my vote. So pause this video, and how would you classify this motivation for voting? Well, here, the person, the voter, is talking about the economy in the recent past. So this right over here is retrospective voting. So I'll draw a line right over there. That is retrospective voting. Clinton seems to have been doing a good job or the economy's been growing under him, so he has my, he has my vote. | Models of voting behavior Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So this right over here is retrospective voting. So I'll draw a line right over there. That is retrospective voting. Clinton seems to have been doing a good job or the economy's been growing under him, so he has my, he has my vote. Now, what about this statement? I am a lifelong Democrat, so Obama has my vote. Pause this video. | Models of voting behavior Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Clinton seems to have been doing a good job or the economy's been growing under him, so he has my, he has my vote. Now, what about this statement? I am a lifelong Democrat, so Obama has my vote. Pause this video. What type of voting behavior is that? Well, here, the individual is clearly motivated by their party line. They're not talking about Obama being good for them in particular, they're not talking about what Obama's gonna do in the future or what he's done in the recent past. | Models of voting behavior Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Pause this video. What type of voting behavior is that? Well, here, the individual is clearly motivated by their party line. They're not talking about Obama being good for them in particular, they're not talking about what Obama's gonna do in the future or what he's done in the recent past. They're just talking about his party and that being the motivation for voting for him. So that would be party line voting. Now, what about this statement? | Models of voting behavior Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
They're not talking about Obama being good for them in particular, they're not talking about what Obama's gonna do in the future or what he's done in the recent past. They're just talking about his party and that being the motivation for voting for him. So that would be party line voting. Now, what about this statement? Bush has ideas that will be really good for this country, so I'm going to vote for him. Pause this video. What type of voting behavior is that? | Models of voting behavior Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Now, what about this statement? Bush has ideas that will be really good for this country, so I'm going to vote for him. Pause this video. What type of voting behavior is that? Well, here, the voter's thinking prospectively, thinking about, well, what will Bush do for the country in the near future, ideas that will be really good for this country, so that is prospective voting. And then one more example. So if someone were to say, I think Mitt Romney will lower my taxes, so I'm going to vote for him. | Models of voting behavior Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
What type of voting behavior is that? Well, here, the voter's thinking prospectively, thinking about, well, what will Bush do for the country in the near future, ideas that will be really good for this country, so that is prospective voting. And then one more example. So if someone were to say, I think Mitt Romney will lower my taxes, so I'm going to vote for him. What would that be? Pause the video again. Well, we have one choice left here, and that is indeed rational choice. | Models of voting behavior Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So if someone were to say, I think Mitt Romney will lower my taxes, so I'm going to vote for him. What would that be? Pause the video again. Well, we have one choice left here, and that is indeed rational choice. This voter is voting based on what is going to benefit them. Mitt Romney's gonna lower their taxes, so they're gonna vote for them. And to be clear, it's not that everyone's behavior falls clearly into one of these categories. | Models of voting behavior Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Well, we have one choice left here, and that is indeed rational choice. This voter is voting based on what is going to benefit them. Mitt Romney's gonna lower their taxes, so they're gonna vote for them. And to be clear, it's not that everyone's behavior falls clearly into one of these categories. It oftentimes will be a mix of these categories. In fact, oftentimes, someone might say, hey, I like Obama because he's a Democrat, and I think he's going to be good for me, and things might have been good under him, or their perception is that things are good under him, and they might believe that it's gonna be good going forward. Many voters will be motivated by a combination of these. | Models of voting behavior Political participation US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
And by the 1830s, the right to vote extended to all white men, regardless of whether they owned property. Although they were citizens, white women could not vote. Indigenous people, enslaved people, and free black people weren't permitted to be US citizens or to vote. So let's pick up the story now in the 1840s, when the United States rapidly colonized North America. As part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the peace treaty that ended the Mexican-American War, the Mexican government ceded the territory that's now most of the Western half of the United States. The Mexican people who were already living in that territory were granted US citizenship, although the indigenous people who were living there were not. Although the Mexican-American citizens were eligible to vote in theory, in practice, they faced intimidation from white Americans that limited their access to voting. | Citizenship in early America, 1840s-1870s Citizenship High school civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So let's pick up the story now in the 1840s, when the United States rapidly colonized North America. As part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the peace treaty that ended the Mexican-American War, the Mexican government ceded the territory that's now most of the Western half of the United States. The Mexican people who were already living in that territory were granted US citizenship, although the indigenous people who were living there were not. Although the Mexican-American citizens were eligible to vote in theory, in practice, they faced intimidation from white Americans that limited their access to voting. During the 1850s, debate over the institution of slavery and the status of black Americans consumed the country. In the midst of this turmoil in 1857, the Supreme Court issued the Dred Scott opinion, which we'll talk about in more detail in another video, ruling that black people were not guaranteed birthright citizenship and had no pathway to citizenship. Asian immigrants who started coming to the United States in larger numbers in the 1850s were also not considered eligible for citizenship. | Citizenship in early America, 1840s-1870s Citizenship High school civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Although the Mexican-American citizens were eligible to vote in theory, in practice, they faced intimidation from white Americans that limited their access to voting. During the 1850s, debate over the institution of slavery and the status of black Americans consumed the country. In the midst of this turmoil in 1857, the Supreme Court issued the Dred Scott opinion, which we'll talk about in more detail in another video, ruling that black people were not guaranteed birthright citizenship and had no pathway to citizenship. Asian immigrants who started coming to the United States in larger numbers in the 1850s were also not considered eligible for citizenship. And in the late 19th century and early 20th century, the US government banned immigration from China and Japan altogether. In the 1860s, the tensions between slave and free states boiled over into war. The Southern states seceded from the Union to protect slavery, starting a civil war that lasted for four years. | Citizenship in early America, 1840s-1870s Citizenship High school civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Asian immigrants who started coming to the United States in larger numbers in the 1850s were also not considered eligible for citizenship. And in the late 19th century and early 20th century, the US government banned immigration from China and Japan altogether. In the 1860s, the tensions between slave and free states boiled over into war. The Southern states seceded from the Union to protect slavery, starting a civil war that lasted for four years. During the civil war, the US government issued the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring the end of slavery in the Southern states. And after the war ratified the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery everywhere in the country. But ending slavery didn't automatically guarantee citizenship rights for black people in the United States. | Citizenship in early America, 1840s-1870s Citizenship High school civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
The Southern states seceded from the Union to protect slavery, starting a civil war that lasted for four years. During the civil war, the US government issued the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring the end of slavery in the Southern states. And after the war ratified the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery everywhere in the country. But ending slavery didn't automatically guarantee citizenship rights for black people in the United States. In 1868, the ratification of the 14th Amendment established that all persons born or naturalized in the United States were citizens. This ensured that black people, both men and women had citizenship, as well as the US born children of Asian immigrants. Although again, it was still not interpreted to mean that indigenous people had citizenship at this time. | Citizenship in early America, 1840s-1870s Citizenship High school civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
But ending slavery didn't automatically guarantee citizenship rights for black people in the United States. In 1868, the ratification of the 14th Amendment established that all persons born or naturalized in the United States were citizens. This ensured that black people, both men and women had citizenship, as well as the US born children of Asian immigrants. Although again, it was still not interpreted to mean that indigenous people had citizenship at this time. In addition, a new Naturalization Act of 1870 broadened the people who were eligible for citizenship to include aliens of African nativity and persons of African descent. But just like the end of slavery didn't automatically guarantee citizenship rights, citizenship didn't automatically guarantee voting rights. Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights was the right to vote protected. | Citizenship in early America, 1840s-1870s Citizenship High school civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Although again, it was still not interpreted to mean that indigenous people had citizenship at this time. In addition, a new Naturalization Act of 1870 broadened the people who were eligible for citizenship to include aliens of African nativity and persons of African descent. But just like the end of slavery didn't automatically guarantee citizenship rights, citizenship didn't automatically guarantee voting rights. Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights was the right to vote protected. Elections then as now were controlled by the states. And although the 14th Amendment stipulated that states would lose representation in Congress if they denied the vote to any male citizen of voting age, this was the first time that the word male was introduced into the Constitution, which we'll see the importance of in just a sec. It quickly became clear that a stronger amendment was needed to ensure black citizens could vote. | Citizenship in early America, 1840s-1870s Citizenship High school civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights was the right to vote protected. Elections then as now were controlled by the states. And although the 14th Amendment stipulated that states would lose representation in Congress if they denied the vote to any male citizen of voting age, this was the first time that the word male was introduced into the Constitution, which we'll see the importance of in just a sec. It quickly became clear that a stronger amendment was needed to ensure black citizens could vote. So in 1870, Congress passed and the states ratified the 15th Amendment, which prohibited the federal government and the states from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's race, color, or previous condition of servitude. This was intended to ensure that black men had the right to vote, which they exercised in the South for several years until the US government stopped enforcing the rights of black citizens in the South and white supremacist governments returned to power. The 15th Amendment also did not prevent the denial of voting rights on the basis of sex, which was a major blow for the women's suffrage movement. | Citizenship in early America, 1840s-1870s Citizenship High school civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
It quickly became clear that a stronger amendment was needed to ensure black citizens could vote. So in 1870, Congress passed and the states ratified the 15th Amendment, which prohibited the federal government and the states from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's race, color, or previous condition of servitude. This was intended to ensure that black men had the right to vote, which they exercised in the South for several years until the US government stopped enforcing the rights of black citizens in the South and white supremacist governments returned to power. The 15th Amendment also did not prevent the denial of voting rights on the basis of sex, which was a major blow for the women's suffrage movement. Women would not succeed in their campaign for the vote until 1920. So that's a very brief overview of the changes in citizenship and voting rights in the first 100 years after the founding of the United States. I'll leave you to reflect on a few questions. | Citizenship in early America, 1840s-1870s Citizenship High school civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
The 15th Amendment also did not prevent the denial of voting rights on the basis of sex, which was a major blow for the women's suffrage movement. Women would not succeed in their campaign for the vote until 1920. So that's a very brief overview of the changes in citizenship and voting rights in the first 100 years after the founding of the United States. I'll leave you to reflect on a few questions. Why do you think that citizenship changed over time? What does the history of who did and didn't have citizenship at various points tell us about the concept of citizenship in the United States? And what's the relationship between citizenship and voting rights? | Citizenship in early America, 1840s-1870s Citizenship High school civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Henry Clay, an early Speaker of the House who had three different terms as Speaker of the House, used the position to shepherd all kinds of legislation to improve America. He also played a crucial role in John Quincy Adams' becoming president because the election was thrown into the House. He was quite powerful. Then the job kind of got less powerful. There were periods during the Civil War where there wasn't a Speaker of the House for long periods because there was so much contention in the Congress, they couldn't pick a Speaker of the House. The modern Speaker of the House has become increasingly powerful, really growing with the growth of the federal government around, let's say, the Second World War. Various different Speakers gaining more power. | How has the position of Speaker changed over time US Government and Civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
Then the job kind of got less powerful. There were periods during the Civil War where there wasn't a Speaker of the House for long periods because there was so much contention in the Congress, they couldn't pick a Speaker of the House. The modern Speaker of the House has become increasingly powerful, really growing with the growth of the federal government around, let's say, the Second World War. Various different Speakers gaining more power. And in the recent incarnation, the Speaker is particularly powerful in two different ways. One is shepherding a president's legislation if the Speaker's from the same party, and the other is in opposition. They become essentially the opposition speaking against a president of an opposite party. | How has the position of Speaker changed over time US Government and Civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
In the last video, we gave a basic outline of the different scenarios that might play out in 2013, or at least the different budgetary proposals on the table from the administration, from the Republicans, and what'll happen if they don't come into agreement, which was the fiscal cliff, which is this fairly unusual situation where the both parties to the negotiation set up this thing that will automatically happen at the beginning of 2013 that it would be painful for both parties, and the thinking being that it'll force them to come maybe to some type of an agreement sooner than later. The fiscal cliff is what neither the Republicans or the administration want because it raises taxes, which the Republicans don't want, and it reduces spending, which the president doesn't want, and the core argument, and we touched it on the last video and we'll go in more depth in this one, is just as we are beginning to recover from our last recession, it might not be useful for our economy to try to suck out half a trillion dollars. So let's think about the different issues at play. So right over here, let's have some charts. Most of these are from the Congressional Budget Office, and there's a bunch of assumptions that go into this, and there are many people who will debate the assumptions that they make, but they at least directionally show the right things. So this right over here, this first chart, is compares deficits or surpluses, and really ever since the early 2000s, we've been running deficits, and as we got into the late, I guess, 10s, or 2008, 2010 time frame, 2009 time frame, as we went into a financial crisis, when you go into a, when the economy contracts, you get hit in two ways when you think about deficit spending. On one end, you bring in less revenues. | More fiscal cliff analysis American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
So right over here, let's have some charts. Most of these are from the Congressional Budget Office, and there's a bunch of assumptions that go into this, and there are many people who will debate the assumptions that they make, but they at least directionally show the right things. So this right over here, this first chart, is compares deficits or surpluses, and really ever since the early 2000s, we've been running deficits, and as we got into the late, I guess, 10s, or 2008, 2010 time frame, 2009 time frame, as we went into a financial crisis, when you go into a, when the economy contracts, you get hit in two ways when you think about deficit spending. On one end, you bring in less revenues. The economy is shrinking, and on the other end, you have to spend more. You have to give people more benefits, more unemployment benefits, things like that. So whenever you see the economy shrink, you will see naturally all other things being equal. | More fiscal cliff analysis American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |
On one end, you bring in less revenues. The economy is shrinking, and on the other end, you have to spend more. You have to give people more benefits, more unemployment benefits, things like that. So whenever you see the economy shrink, you will see naturally all other things being equal. You will see deficits increase, and that's what you saw right over here, and on top of that, the government is trying to bail things out, is doing stimulus spending and all that in order to minimize the effect of the deficit, and that's why you see here in 2008, 2009, we start running significant, significant deficits. Now, what's interesting, what's interesting is what's going to happen going forward, and going forward, there's two of these scenarios right here. There is the CBO's baseline projection, and then there's the alternative fiscal scenario, and just to be clear where we are, we are entering this phase right over here in 2013, and the baseline projection is essentially if the government takes no more action, and if the government takes no more action, then the fiscal cliff will be triggered. | More fiscal cliff analysis American civics US government and civics Khan Academy.mp3 |