Does Federalism Weaken Democratic Representation in the United States?

The framers of the U.S. Constitution explicitly designed federalismto enhance representation. Because powers are divided amongmultiple governments, citizens are able to exert pressure onthe elected officials of various governments in an effort toachieve desired outcomes. If one government is not doing whatcitizens prefer, they can seek it from a different government.This assumes that individuals form opinions about the functionsperformed by different governments. Given the complexity offederalism, this may be an unrealistic assumption for many citizens.Original survey data uniquely suited to explore this questionsuggest that citizens do behave in a fashion consistent withthe federalist framework. Moreover, the actual change in theassignment of functional responsibilities across governmentsbehaves as if it responds to public opinion.     

Australia's Political Institutions and the Corruption of Public Opinion1

This article explores structural causes for the decline in the quality of Australia's political and policy conversations. Three are nominated. The first concerns the changing role of the major party organisations. These no longer contribute to agenda setting; they are no longer forums for activist and interest mobilisation; they no longer mobilise and cue a mass base. The second structural change concerns the rise in the role of the media. This is now the primary bridge between the formal political system and the surrounding society, a role for which it is singularly ill‐equipped. The third change concerns the misalignment between the formal political system and Australian society. The formal system was formed in the early twentieth century when Australian society was broadly divided by class allegiance. Those days are long gone. Class has decomposed. A variety of new concerns differentiate and pluralise social attitudes. Possible remedies are then discussed.     

Asian values revisited

  With Asia's economy still booming in the second half of the 1990's “Asian values” were announced by some politicians (Lee Kuan Yew, Mahatir, Ishihara, Mahbubani etc.) and contrasted with “Western values”. Soon a controversial debate within Asia ensued (Kim, Fidel Ramos ea..), into which also the western democracies joined. The “West” however reacted rather defensively to the new assertiveness of some Asian statesmen, inspite of the fact that the authors of this debate put into question the western dominance in global value setting which has been in existence since the French revolution. But has this debate withstood the test of time, the challenges posed by the recession in Asia and by the ever increasing globalization? Hardly. The crisis has destroyed the notion that “Asian values” had been the main cause and guarantor of Asia's exorbitant growth rates. While in the West Christianity forms the essential basics of culture, in Asia there is a multitude of coexisting - and frequently confronting world religions. There is no other continent which in cultural and political terms is so contradictory and potentially conflict ridden like Asia. “Asianism” as a concept was surely also intended as an instrument to integrate multiethnic Asian societies with weak internal cohesion. At the same time it served to neutralize the human rights issue. In the meantime the debate has become quieter and more dispassionate. In the developed West the notion gained acceptance to abandon “Eurocentrism”. At the same time there is recognition that “Asian values” are not exclusive. Also in Europe the family plays a special role. A debate on values is needed for societal integration – also in the “West” which should become more aware of the need to reassert the origins of its own spiritual foundations. Following September 11th the west is well advised to continue the dialogue on values with Asia. Update and expanded version of an article first published in: Au?enpolitik IV/1996, p. 326 “Beginnt das pazifische Jahrhundert?” I would like to thank Julia Prati for the translation of the updated and expanded version of this article     

Race as a factor in university admissions

In two recent cases, Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306. (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244. (2003), the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause permitted state schools to use race-sensitive admissions in order to obtain the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. The diversity-based argument for race-sensitive admissions, scholarships, awards, and other opportunities at universities should have been rejected because it does not consider the full range of costs and benefits and because the more narrow educational effects probably weigh against such programs. However, this does not suggest that applicants’ race, ethnicity, and gender should be ignored. Rather the same consideration that led to the defeat of the diversity argument, i.e., reasoning capacity, supports the consideration of demographic factors. However, attention to such factors further undermines the consequentialist case for affirmative action.