On April 18th, you will turn in a three to five page paper (double spaced, reasonably sized font with page numbers) answering the following question:
What type of government does the United States have in the year 2018?
There is no right or wrong answer for this question; reasonable people can honestly come to different conclusions. Given this, your grade will depend on you demonstrating that you are being reasonable in your conclusions, that is, when I have read your paper, I should be able to at least say, “Well, I’m not sure I agree with them, but I can see how a reasonable person can believe that.”
Based on the experience of grading papers on this topic since the turn of the century, I would say that doing the following gives you the best chance at getting a good grade on this paper:
First, explicitly answer the question.
As with the first paper, you’d be surprised how often I’ve come to the end of the paper and had no idea what kind of government the student thought the United States had. Needless to say, they didn’t do very well, gradewise. So, answer the question; in fact, you should really do it do this in the very first paragraph. For example, you might say, “The United States in 2018 is a republic” or “I believe the U.S. is a representative democracy in 2018.”
PLEASE NOTE: When I refer to types of government I mean concepts such as (but not restricted to) democracies, republics, oligarchies, dictatorships, etc. You can then modify the basic forms with various adjectives if you so wish, e.g., representative democracy, constitutional republic, democratic republic, etc.
Second, define your terms.
Terms such as “democracy,” “republic,” “oligarchy,” “plutocracy,” etc. have different meanings depending on whom you ask. Given this, you will need to define your terms so that I know where you’re coming from. When defining your terms I ask you keep certain things in mind:
One, make sure you define all your terms. If you want to argue we’re a constitutional federal republic, for example, make sure you define what you mean by “constitutional,” “federal,” and “republic.”
Two, give the complete definitions of whatever terms you’re using at the start of the paper. Defining your terms is setting out the markers by which the reader (me) will be able to measure your argument when determining if it is a reasonable one. Making changes and additions to the definitions as you go along means you are moving the markers, which makes it harder for the reader (me again) to determine you are making a reasonable argument; in fact, moving the goalposts (to use a relevant metaphor) is generally indicative of a bad argument. So don’t add to or tweak your definition as you go along, because doing so will adversely affect your grade.
Three, only give as many definitions as you have to. If you are going to argue we’re constitutional republic, all you have to do is define what you mean by “constitutional” and “republic”; it isn’t necessary to explain what “democracy,” “oligarchy,” or any other type of government is. Also, your definitions should be fairly brief; if you find yourself on page three and you’re still defining terms then you need to go back and edit your definitions (remember, this is only a three to five page paper).
Third, provide proof that we fit the definition.
Once you have put down the markers (by defining your terms) you need to provide some indication that we have reached those markers. If you were trying tell someone that the bird you’re looking at is a duck, you’d first define a duck by saying it’s a bird with a flat bill and webbed feet that quacks. Those are the markers. You would then point out that the bird you’re looking at has a flat bill, webbed feet, and is quacking. That’s the proof that it’s reaching those markers.
How much proof will you need? You will need at least THREE (3) pieces of proof no matter what you’re arguing – think of the proof as the table supporting your argument; a stable table needs at least three legs. Beyond that, you will need to provide proof for each component of your answer. That means that if, for example you say the United States is a constitutional federal republic, you will need to provide proof in support of the “constitutional” part, the “federal” part, and the “republic” part; or if you say we’re a procedural democracy and a procedural democracy is a government that meets certain procedural norms, namely, universal participation, political equality, majority rule, and responsiveness, then you would need at least four proofs, one for each of those procedural norms (and don’t forget, you’ll have to explain what each of those norms means when you’re defining your terms).
What constitutes proof?
For this paper, what constitutes proof depends in large part on what your argument is. Some definitions will focus on the structure and processes of government, while others will focus on who actually wields power, while still others will look at how the government functions in terms of results. Given the different ways of approaching this question, different types of proof will be possible. For example, for a number of arguments, the Constitution and its amendments would provide all the evidence necessary. Other arguments might use the demographics of those in power (race, gender, income, etc.), the amount of money spent in political campaigns, the number of interest groups in the country, etc. Once you have an idea of what it is you want to argue, I suggest you talk to me about what might constitute proof for your argument.
PLEASE NOTE: Since we’re talking about the United States, make sure your proofs apply to the national government; for example, do not argue we’re a direct democracy and point to initiatives and referenda as proof, because we do not have initiatives and referenda at the national level.
If you have questions about whether what you have is usable as proof ask me.
ALSO NOTE: Since your proof will be coming from outside sources, you must provide BOTH citations AND a works cited page. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN THE REDUCTION OF YOUR GRADE BY AT LEAST ONE FULL LETTER (for example, if you write a B level paper but fail to include both citations and a works cited page, you will get a C). In terms of format, the details (parenthetical reference, footnote, endnote, etc.) I leave to you, but remember that whenever you cite something you found on the internet, on your works cited page you MUST provide the EXACT web address of the page you found the information on.
When citing the U.S. Constitution in the text of the paper simply reference the relevant portion, e.g., Article I, section one or the 17th Amendment, section one, and on the works cited page say The Constitution of the United States of America.
Fourth, explain how the proof fits the definition you have provided.
People often forget to do this because to their mind it just seems obvious how the proof fits the definition, so why bother to point out something that’s so obvious? Here’s the thing, though: just as your reader (me) may not define certain terms the same way you do – which is why you need to explicitly define your terms – they may not think the same way you do, so what is obvious to you may not be obvious to them.
I admit it: I am not telepathic. That means that when you assert something you can’t be sure that I will understand what you are thinking unless you explain it to me. For the best results, assume I’m a little slow, but not stupid; if you take me by the hand and carefully walk me through your reasoning, I will be able to follow along.
This is why defining your terms clearly at the beginning is important: because you will need to explain how the proof you provided fits that definition. Think of it like giving me a connect-the-dots puzzle but my hands are broken: you tell me it’s supposed to be a dog (that’s the definition part); you then point out all the dots (that’s the providing proof part); and then you draw the connecting lines for me to show me that it is, in fact, a dog (that’s the explaining how the proof fits the definition part).
Hypothetical situation: suppose you want to argue we’re a procedural democracy, and you’re looking at the universal participation part of the definition of procedural democracy. You could look at the freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the First Amendment as proof of that, explaining that those First Amendment protections allow everyone to participate by guaranteeing that anyone can express their views without fear of censorship.
Fifth, wrap the whole thing up with a concluding paragraph.
This is not a writing class, but a well-crafted argument should follow the basic structure of introduction – body – conclusion.
In the introduction you should at least answer the question; depending on the length of your definitions you may also put them in the introductory paragraph or in a separate paragraph. Then, in your body you will lay out your proof and explain how each piece of proof fits your definition. Ideally, each proof and its explanation should have its own paragraph (so, for example, three proofs, three paragraphs in the body). Finally, you should have a concluding paragraph where you tie everything together, e.g., “This paper has said that a X is a type of government in which A, B, and C occur. Looking at provisions of L, M, and N of the Constitution, it has been seen that in our system of government A, B, and C occur. Since our type of government fits the conditions that exist in X, it is reasonable to conclude that the United States in 2018 is X.”
A (hopefully) useful illustration of some of the things I’ve been talking about:
Suppose you wanted to argue that the United States is a republic. You approach it something like this:
I believe that the United States in the year 2018 is a republic. A republic is “a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.” (dictionary.com).
A “head of government” is defined as “the chief officer of the executive branch.” (yourdictionary.com) According to Article II, section one of the U.S. Constitution, “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,” and the Twelfth Amendment describes how the president is chosen every four years. (Art. II, sect. 1; Twelfth Amendment) Since the person in whom executive power is vested is elected on a regular basis, the head of government in the United States clearly not a hereditary position, and so the United States fits the definition of a republic.
Since the head of government in the United States is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state, the United States in 2017 is clearly a republic.
Works cited
The Constitution of the United States
“Head of Government”
http://www.yourdictionary.com/head-of-government
“Republic”
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/republic?s=t
As you can see, the question was answered, the all the terms were defined, proof was provided (with citations), and it was explained how the proof connected to the definitions.
You may have noticed something else: that was the entire paper, and it wasn’t very long. There are some definitions for some types of government that are fairly simple. The problem is that they are so simple that you can’t do very much with them. Remember, you will need at least THREE proofs, so make sure your definition is robust enough to support your paper.
Pitfalls to avoid, or, the dreaded DO NOT DO section:
While I hate to be a downer trying to cramp your style, years of experience have indicated that there are certain things that just don’t work for this paper. Writing can be a minefield; think of this section as a map to where the mines are so you don’t step on them and blow away your chance for a good grade.
Let’s start with the big one:
DO NOT make any argument that relies on the political parties in the United States (for example, do not argue that since the president is a Republican and both houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans that the United States is a republic).
Why not? Because the names of the political parties are just that: names of political parties. The fact that we have a Republican Party and a Democratic Party has no impact on whether the United States is a republic, a democracy, a monarchy, or whatever other form of government may exist. MAKING SUCH AN ARGUMENT WILL RESULT IN AUTOMATIC FAILURE.
Experience has shown that you are safest if you avoid any mention of the political parties whatsoever.
And now, some (slightly) less dire do nots:
When defining your terms:
DO NOT spend the bulk of your paper defining your terms; as noted above, if you find yourself on the third page and you’re still defining terms, go back and start pruning.
DO NOT add additional nuances to your definition as you go along in the paper; doing so will adversely affect your grade.
DO NOT use a definition that is insufficiently robust enough to build a three-to-five page paper with at least three proofs around.
DO NOT rely on the fact that the Pledge of Allegiance refers to the country as a republic, or that Article IV of the Constitution contains the guarantee that the states shall have a republican form of government as proof that we are a republic.
Why not?
Because merely saying something does not make it so. Likewise, the fact that Benjamin Franklin, upon the creation of the Constitution, deemed the United States a republic does not mean it is (not only does saying not make it so, he said it over 200 years ago and the paper is about the United States today). Relying on any of these as proof for your paper will affect your grade in an extremely adverse manner.
DO NOT try to argue we are one thing by proving we are not something else.
This is NOT an either/or question; the range of possible answers is virtually unlimited. As such, you cannot prove that we are one thing by disproving we are something else (e.g., you cannot argue that since we are not a democracy, we must be a republic; there are a lot of other options).
DO NOT get into how our government has changed over time.
This paper asks about the United States in the year 2018, not 1776, or 1789, or 1900, or any other time.
DO NOT get into the question of “why” we have the type of government we do.
All this paper asks you to do is explain what type of government we have. All the historical and social context behind why we have that type of government is well beyond the scope of this paper, so do not attempt to go into it.
DO NOT get into a discussion of what you think about the government.
This paper is supposed to be an objective analysis of American thinking, that is, the purpose of this paper is for you to look at the United States in a calm, coolheaded manner, and answer the question based upon your interpretation of the evidence. Consequently, there should be no statements in your papers along the lines of “We have the greatest form of government” or “Our system stinks.” The reader should have no idea as to whether you approve of the sort of government we have or not. Editorializing of any sort will adversely affect your grade. Remember, these are papers about what you think is the case, NOT what ought to be; time spent passing judgment is time not spent answering the question you’re supposed to.
Finally, this one isn’t so much a DO NOT as a BE CAREFUL:
Every year at least a few people want to argue that the United States is an oligarchy in general (rule by the few) or specifically a plutocracy (rule by the rich). This is perfectly acceptable for you to do, but experience has shown that it is a lot harder to make this argument than most people realize; the mere fact that there is a lot of money in politics is not proof that we’re an oligarchy, and the assertion that “public policies serve the interests of the well-off” isn’t as easy to prove as you might think. In addition, people who make the argument that the United States is run by the rich very often fall into the trap of editorializing.
If you want to argue the United States is an oligarchy, plutocracy, or anything along those lines, come talk to me first.
Finally,
If you have any questions about this paper, please ask. I STRONGLY encourage you to do rough drafts and have me look them over and discuss them with you. The only thing I ask is that you bring me the rough draft in a timely fashion – and the day before the paper is due is NOT “in a timely fashion.” Even if you do not have a full rough draft, I will look at whatever you have, and at the very minimum I suggest that you run the definition you want to use by me to make sure there are no problems – and I may be able to offer some suggestions as to how you might proceed from there.
