William Hrdina
Final Exam

This was my final exam for my Polysci class. I am so enamored of my answers to these questions I had to put them up.

Essay Questions

1. Outline and explain Max Weber’s Ideal bureaucracy.

1) One of my favorite oxymorons of all time is the phrase “Ideal Bureaucracy.” It’s not as good as “Intelligence Services”, but it’s close. Even the spelling of the word bureaucracy is an atrocity of language. A better term might be, Oh God I’ve been in the DMV for three hours.
Weber’s ideal bureaucracy comes from law as opposed to from God (in the form of some charismatic guy or gal who says they’ve got God’s ear) or a King. Being based on law gives Weber’s bureaucracy a consistency you don’t find in a charismatic leader or a line of Kings.
The hallmark of this is where one’s loyalties lie. In the ideal bureaucracy your loyalty is to the institution, not to the individuals that make up the institution. This way, if the charismatic leader dies or the King goes berserk, the structure of society and the way it is run remains intact. It also creates a “schema” where our courts have become so enamored of our institutions that they’ve convinced themselves corporations have individual rights and existences outside of the people making them up.
Another characteristic of this ideal bureaucracy is a stable salaried career. A paycheck. A new idea during Weber’s time, the salaried career was immediately identified as a good way of creating institutional stability.
Because bureaucracies are by their very nature immense things, Weber recognized that it would be necessary to specialize, creating niches of intelligence that work together through the policies and procedures of the institution creating a whole made up of many different individuals. This too has upsides and downsides. On the upside we can bore deeply into a thing and learn all about it’s parts. On the downside, by specializing to such a high degree people also become stupid about everything except the one thing they know all about. It also leads to a kind of metaphysical naval gazing that allows for things like what we saw in the Pentagon movie about the Bradley.
Finally, the bureaucracy’s rules have to be written down so that loopholes can be found. Oh wait, no. I meant that Weber says you write down the rules because it creates consistency. Which it does. Only it’s a rigid, stupid consistency massively lacking in common sense. “It’s not my fault, it clearly says here in paragraph 3; section 9, that I’m allowed to steal your sandwich at lunch.

2. According to Patterson, (in his book about politics and the media called "Out of Order") why is the news media not the appropriate organization to organize campaigns (e.g., be the coalition builders between candidates and voters)?

2) First and foremost because of the reasons given in answer 4; but also because the traditional role of the press is as a watchdog over the government. This is where the nickname the “4th branch of government” comes from. “The critical task of the watchdog is not to be confused with the constructive task of the coalition-builder.” Patterson argues the media had the role of coalition-builder forced up on it and because of the necessity of being a watchdog and a coalition builder, fails at both.
p. 52 puts it succinctly
A) Journalistic values and political values are at odds.
B) Journalistic values, introduce an element of random partisanship which works to the advantage of one side or another.
C) Election news serves to drive a wedge between voters and candidates.


3. Patterson argues that political parties use to be the coalition builders and now we (society) ask the news media to play this role. What, according to Patterson, brought about this change?

3) Patterson blames the foisting of elections away from parties and onto the media on the Reform Democrats of the early 70’s. They wanted a system where “the rank and file voters would be the kingmakers.” (p.33) This was opposed to the old system where the party bosses picked the candidates. Now, all the candidates would be running against one another in a free for all and it would be up to the voters to choose the candidates. Patterson argues that it became necessary for the press to step in to magnify the exposure of the candidates in order that the public learn about them.
This is inherently problematic. The press isn’t necessarily interested in politics. It certainly isn’t their reason for the press’s existence. The media is mostly about entertainment. Patterson puts it, “The party has the incentive- the possibility of acquiring political power- to give order and voice to society’s values. Its raison d’ etre is to articulate interests and to forge them into a winning coalition. The press has no such incentive and no such purpose” (P.37). I find this is questionable. I would argue the hard right attitudes of many of the hyper-rich media moguls are indeed about forging the masses of people into coalitions in political support of whatever millionaire is most looking out for their interests.

4. Define schema and then explain and discuss the two types of schemas Patterson presented in Chapter 2.

4) “A schema is a cognitive structure that a person uses when processing new information and retrieving old information. It is a mental framework the individual constructs from past experiences that helps make sense of a new situation.” In other words, a schema is the particular bias structure of an individual. It is the lens through which a reporter reports the news.
Patterson’s 2 conflict schemas:
1) Governing vs. Game
According to Patterson, governing is boring and not particularly interesting as news. Thus, the media has increasingly over time come to view election campaigns as games. The focus of media coverage is about the tactics and positions of different candidates in the “horse race” as opposed to their positions on issues. Everything they do is seen as being done as a maneuver within the game called, “Become the most powerful person on earth.”
Where I think Patterson is wrong is that those who govern no longer see the act of governing as different from the Game the reporters are covering. I understand his point, that the things you want to do to govern, change social security, etc. are not supposed to be directly linked to where a candidate stands on an issue. Patterson sees a disconnect between these things. Only I don’t think there is a disconnect anymore, even if there was one once. Lee Atwater changed governing into a game and it has been ever since. Checkmate on Dukakis was Willie Horton and that ridiculous picture of him in the tank wearing an oversized helmet. He looked like a total jackass. The last 4 Presidents have been all about whose political spin genius was better at transforming politics into a game. You win if you manipulate the media into portraying your image in the way you want to be portrayed. This image is politics now. The actual positions of politicians have no necessary relation to actual policy goals. All that matters is what we think the politician stands for. Atwater did this for Reagan and Bush I, Carville did it for Clinton, and Rove, the biggest evil genius of them all, tells Bush II when he’s allowed to sneeze.
Because of the standardized nature of stump speeches the media will focus on a gaff or the candidates overall position in the field instead of reporting that Bush once again told the crowd he was a uniter not a divider.
2) Reporters vs. voters
I agree with Patterson on this second point. The interests of the reporters (as defined by their view of the campaign as a game) have little to no relation to what the voters actually need. I think far too few voters have any real interest in the issues, they mostly want gossip and rumors, but what they need is information on the issues, whether they think it’s interesting or not.
Focusing on whether or not a candidate is winning or losing does nothing to forward our knowledge about what they will do in office. It also makes it difficult for candidates who lack the “sexy” quality the media is looking for to get any traction, which means the voters never get to find out their names, let alone their positions on issues. Dennis Kucinich vs. Al Sharpton is a perfect example. Al Sharpton got media attention because he’s charismatic and controversial, yet they ignored his progressive agenda on rebuilding US infrastructure because it wasn’t interesting. Dennis Kucinich, in my opinion the Democrat’s best candidate and the only guy who was openly and completely against the Gulf War disaster never got any attention at all from the media. Sharpton and Kucinich had very similar support numbers in the polls, but Sharpton got all the ink. (Don’t get me wrong, even Al’s ink paled in comparison to Bush’s because Bush had all of the money in 2000, and therefore was immediately the guy to beat no matter how many people voted for him in the early primaries, not even being VP trumped Bush’s War Chest.) The result being we elected the dumbest man ever to sit in the White House.
Twice.