Search

In this paper we reconsider the Riker thesis on the emergence of the slavery issue. We understand the central proposition of Riker?s analysis in the same terms as does Weingast, who defines ?the Riker thesis? as: ?the political use of slavery to break up the intersectional [Democratic] coalition of NW [northwest] and S [south]? (Weingast 1998, 164). Unlike Riker?s severest critics, we are inclined to accept his theoretical claims regarding the potential for political instability in democratic regimes and the opportunities this instability may present for astute political leaders. However, we think Riker errs in systematically understating the importance of ideas as opposed to strategic interests or calculations of politicians in causing the emergence of the slavery issue and generating disequilibrium in the 1850s. In this paper our primary objective is to raise a series of questions that we believe pose major challenges to the Riker thesis and point toward the need to revise Riker?s theory of issue selection in democracies to incorporate greater attention to the importance of ideas, especially ideas about fundamental principles underlying democratic regimes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why do potentially transformative U.S. reforms often prove incoherent and incremental? In the U.S., the cultural and institutional barriers to enacting major reforms are high. After reforms are enacted, their opponents retain many institutional pathways to challenge reforms. This paper focuses on presidents in emergent partisan regimes as uniquely-positioned actors who broker design compromises throughout the reform process. During presidential campaigns, opposition candidates have incentives to promise transformative reforms which offer a decisive break from the past. Upon entering the legislative arena, however, presidents' incentives shift toward supporting moderating design compromises. Finally, as reforms are implemented, presidents face intense demands to make administrative decisions which appease the business community. Through the layering of design compromises, reforms are watered down and made less coherent. This paper explores this dynamic by analyzing the design and implementation of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. Existing scholarship explains the Federal Reserve System's design through reference to discrete critical junctures: a clandestine retreat at a Georgia resort; a broad congressional compromise; or a partisan-controlled implementation process. These explanations each describe the emergence of a more coherent "Fed" than the fragmented organization which began operations in 1914. To understand why potentially transformative reforms often disappoint, one must account for the shifting pressures presidents encounter when guiding reforms to fruition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses on the period of Southern politics when black-white Democratic coalitions dominated the political landscape. Our questions boil down to to testing three possible realignment outcomes associated with these black-white coalitions. Did they represent a separate and distinct party alignment, comparable to the New Deal and New Right alignments? Or alternatively, were they a symptom of the dealignment of New Deal party system? Or alternatively did they represent a failed party alignment? Using a vote-shares county level data for presidential and gubernatorial contests, this paper re-evaluates contested presidential and gubernatorial elections in all eleven former Confederate states between 1952 and 2012. We find that there was a failed black-white party realignment in Alabama and Mississippi, a successful black-white party realignment in Georgia, Texas, North Carolina, and South Carolina, and a long period of dealignment starting in 1964 or 1968 and ending during the Reagan presidency in Arkansas, Louisiana, Florida, Tennessee, and Virginia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper provides a systematic definition for wave elections, a concept which has been used frequently in discussions of congressional elections throughout history, but which has previously lacked a precise definition. Tracing the usage of the term "wave election" (and similar variations) since the mid-1800s, this paper details the frequency and manner in which this concept has been used in considerations of congressional elections over time. Subsequently, this paper offers a definition for wave elections that is based on the seat gain and seat-level for parties following an election. This definition can be used to classify House and Senate elections throughout American history, and can also be applied to state legislative elections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The tradition of prayer to open a legislative session extends to the English tradition that influenced so many aspects of colonial and American government. For Congress, prayer has been an integral part of daily opening rituals since the time of the Continental Congress. This paper begins an examination of opening prayers by guest chaplains in the U.S. House of Representatives since 2000. The paper begins with an overview of legislative prayers and the guest chaplain program. Then, an analysis of the demographic characteristics of guest chaplains and their sponsors is conducted. Finally, the paper concludes with a preliminary examination of the rhetoric of guest chaplains and their message to Congress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A conference paper about the role of uncertainty in federalism's bailout game and its application to the Jacksonian era state debt crisis prepared for the presentation at the Southern Political Science Association Meetings in January 2013, is presented. Topics discussed include role of a political party during a fiscal crisis, bailouts and its implications for fiscal federalism and the Movement for Assumption in 1842-1843.

Since Walker(1969) and Gray(1970) have pioneered in diffusion and innovation, for recent decades, a lot of scholars have paid attention to policy diffusion. Even though a couple of studies investigate the mechanisms of policy diffusion (Berry and Berry, 1990:1999; Shipan and Volden, 2008; Brooks, 2007; Gray, 1973, Mintrom and Vergari, 1998), these existing literatures do not examine network effect in policy diffusion in detail. Therefore, this paper takes notice that there might be network externalities in policy diffusion mechanisms, and through network externalities we might investigate the dynamic change and its process due to network in policy diffusion in more detail. Network externalities can constrain or stimulate policy diffusion. Specifically, this paper tries to theoretically scrutinize whether there are network externalities and how they happen in policy diffusion mechanisms. Political scientists and public administrators have until now overlooked network externalities of public policy diffusion. In order to more systematically explore network effect in policy diffusion, overcoming the limitation of path dependency, this paper first incorporates both path dependency and network externalities in policy diffusion. And then, the authors then build a policy diffusion mechanism, considering network externalities. Based on this mechanism and the natures of policy diffusion, the authors build propositions to investigate the impact of network externalities on policy diffusion. Lastly, this paper closes with discussion and policy implication. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Let's face it. The return of students to campus in the fall always brings about the same apprehensions. We have to prepare for the upper level political science classes. What papers should be assigned? What books should be used? What kind of standards should be pushed? Unfortunately, too often the preparation for the higher level classes means that many of us turn to an old reliable intro level text (or at least the newest edition of the same book). The problem always arises year after year however: How do we get the students to engage and digest the text, and not just open the book for the first time the day before the exam? I think that a solution is to use non-traditional methodology to reach and teach those students who are often written off as politics averse. By utilizing Jon Stewart's America: The Book as a primary text for intro classes and The Daily Show as a current events news source, especially in an election year, I believe that we are better able to introduce students to complex topics of political science as well as retain their attention and engagement levels throughout the semester. This paper examines the changes that have taken place since the transition from standard political science textbook to non-traditional source. It also suggests other ways that we might be able to reach students without sacrificing rigor and information. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two centuries after Hamilton and Jefferson staked out their controversy, we are still searching to understand how the state of the public mind affects the prospect for good government. How much should the electorate understand about government, its functions, its undergirding theories, the nature of man, and the lessons of history? By what signals can we perceive that public opinion in a representative democracy may not be adequately enlightened to preserve the nation's best interests? Is the protracted build up of national debt an indicator that the public mind is debilitated? To get at these matters I search the Federalist Papers for clues regarding the qualifications for a healthy public mind and an enduring democratic republican regime as understood by Publius. The paper concludes that our American heritage is not secure if the public does not understand the nature of their liberties and the requirements for enduring preservation of political institutions. The public must have the understanding and will to resist the accumulation of debt, such debt eventually hazarding the interests of the electorate. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Redistricting is the most nakedly partisan activity in American politics. Political science research and the courts generally acknowledge that redistricting undertaken in a partisan environment where one party completely controls the legislative process results in a perpetuation of the majority at the cost of the minority. The 2001 Georgia redistricting did precisely that, perpetuating a legislative majority that was a popular minority. The rejection of those maps by the federal courts in 2004 led to a politically-uncontrolled redistricting of the state legislature. In this paper, we examine the effect of changing legislative boundaries by court order on the political outcomes of the Georgia House of Representatives in 2004. By examining the changing partisan structure of the districts, the altered racial structure, and the treatment and placement of incumbents, we develop a multivariate analysis of the changing structure of seat possession in the Georgia House of Representatives. Our analysis indicates that there are significant political effects due to the unexpected redistricting. These changes were sufficient to change the control of the chamber, based on the assumption that the same relationships between predictor variables remained constant from 2002 to 2004. We also find, however, that there are changes in the relationship between predictor variables and the political outcomes, indicating that the remap alone does not explain the magnitude of political gains by the Georgia Republicans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Throughout the 1990s, citizens have used the initiative process to limit the behavior of their state legislatures. In several states, these initiatives have led to term limitations for state legislators (e.g., Arkansas, Ohio, Michigan). In other states, voters have chosen to limit the number of days legislators can meet in any given year (e.g., Colorado) and have cut legislative budgets, staffs, and pension benefits (e.g., California). It would seem that the public very much dislikes those occupying their statehouses. In this paper we investigate whether the public's punitive actions against state legislatures are the result of actual state-level conditions or whether the public is displacing their anger and disapproval of Congress onto their state legislative bodies. Early in the term limitation movement several states attempted to term limit their Congressional representatives as well as their state legislative representatives. The Supreme Court quickly ruled that term limiting members of Congress was unconstitutional, but upheld the term limiting of state legislators. Are citizens punishing their Statehouses for the sins of the Congress? Using a variety of available public opinion, policy, and institutional measures, we seek to understand the extent to which citizen disapproval of state legislative performance is related to feelings about Congress. We find only limited evidence that the public displaces their anger, and more support for the idea that they transfer their pleasure with Congress to state actors. There seems to be little association between negative ratings of Congress and punitive ballot measures at the state level, but improved Congressional ratings seem to lead to the passage of fewer restrictive measures at the state level, as well as the proposal and passage of more measures expanding state power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we look again at the distinction between independent voters "leaners" and partisans. We find some important similarities between "pure" independents and independents classified as "leaners." We argue that although independent leaners may be similar to partisans on some measures, they are behaviorally and attitudinally distinct from partisans in important ways. Even more importantly, the behavioral similarity between partisans and leaners changes when there are more than two candidates on offer. The behavioral similarity of leaners to partisans emphasized in previous studies can thus be understood as a product of the forced choice between the two parties that typifies the American political system. When more options are available, independent leaners take advantage of those options and do not remain loyal to the two big parties in the same measure as partisans. The position of independent leaners in the US is thus loosely analogous to the position tactical voters in multi-party systems in that they are compelled by the party system to choose between the lesser of two evils. Our argument suggests that earlier results and interpretations of independents reflected the specific two party choice settings of the 1950s through the 1980s. Furthermore, even assuming a behavioral similarity to partisans, leaners have distinct attitudes towards politics and the political system that put them far away from being standard Michigan model-type voters. We begin by presenting a brief review of the sizable literature on this topic. From here we present some simple evidence that supports an alternative interpretation of leaners as neither partisans nor "pure" independents, but as "critical citizens." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract The most prominent theories of electoral participation focus on the individual-level characteristics of citizens as the primary determinants of turnout. More recently, scholars have sought to re-incorporate politics into the study of electoral participation, turning their attention specifically toward political campaigns. Findings thus far have been mixed and somewhat limited. In this paper, we further this latter line of inquiry by conducting the most broad-based study to date of the impact of state-level campaigns on individual voter turnout. Merging state-level measures of U.S. Senate and gubernatorial campaigns with individual-level data from the 1998 National Election Study and the Voter Supplement File of the November 1998 Current Population Survey, we find strong support for a mobilization effect. Employing newly available data on the TV advertising of the Senate campaigns, we further demonstrate that the mobilization effect of these advertising campaigns results almost entirely from the volume of negative ads aired. Our results help to clarify the role of campaigns in general, and negative campaigning in particular, in bringing voters to the polls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 1974 midterm congressional election is considered to be a watershed event in American politics, as the Class of 1974 fundamentally reshaped the U. S. House of Representatives (Loomis 1988; Smith 1988; Schneider 1989). Not only was it successful in instituting a number of internal reforms, but it also was responsible for honing a new type of politics: Technical competence became as important, if not more important, than political ideology. The cohort mastered the art of incumbency, which helped a large number of "careerists" retain their seats nearly twice as long as the average House member. Their style of politics has since become the norm for others who are interested in making careers of serving their congressional districts. The paper examines the art of incumbency, as practiced by the Watergate Babies, and tracks the post-congressional careers of those who served at least eight terms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A majority of American voters currently have a meaningful opportunity to vote before Election Day, whether in person or by mail. As such, voter mobilization experiments and observational studies of turnout need to consider voting as a dependent variable that occurs over time. This paper presents three statistical methods for estimating turnout across a multi-day voting period: binary logistic regression, multinomial logistic regression, and Cox proportional hazards survival analysis. Ultimately, survival analysis allows for the estimation of treatment effects over time and the potential to test for interactions between covariates and time. A discussion of the implications for researchers and campaign professionals is also included. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Partisan stability has received a lot of attention in American politics. MacKuen et al. and Green et al. disagree over the strength of partisan ties nationally. Less work has been done on the state level to judge if the stability of partisanship differs across states. Using data from Enns and Koch (2013), methodology from Green et al. (2002), and a random effects model, this paper shows that partisan stability varies widely across states. Confirming what others have found, the South does more permanently respond to shocks over time to macropartisanship. In addition to the traditional explanation of economic performance and presidential approval, ideology is introduced as another important factor in explaining macropartisan change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines how intense policy minorities within the majority party in the House of Representatives affect House procedure, particularly the rules placed on legislation. Existing theories suggest that when an intense policy minority within the majority party exist party leaders will alter procedures and rules to benefit the intense minority instead of the party median. We apply the first empirical test of this theory by looking at legislation supported by the Congressional Black Caucus and the Blue Dog Democrats in the 111th session of the House of Representatives, as well as legislation from the Tea Party Caucus in the 112th session. Results suggest that majority party leaders do indeed allow special rules to deviate to the intense minority, on issues pursued by the intense minority, as long at the issues are not salient to the full caucus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Party capability theory often assumes that governments, due to their immense amount of resources and status as repeat players, hold an immense advantage over individuals and organizations pursuing litigation in courts. What is less known is whether all levels of government enjoy this advantage, how they fare against one another and how an institutional arrangement such as federalism complicates these relationships. In this paper, we investigate this question using decisions made by the high courts of Australia, Canada, and the United States. We find that institutional arrangements, such as federalism, complicate traditional notions of which governments come out ahead. Our findings yield important implications for party capability theory, specifically, and comparative federalism, generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In today's era of an extremely polarized Congress, it becomes increasingly important for political scientists to study and understand the effects of polarization on Congress as well as its institutional features and subsystems. While scholars in the field have made much of the study of polarization on roll call votes on the floor of Congress, the study of the effects of polarization on much else has been overlooked in the literature. Surely, polarization has an effect on roll call voting on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives and indeed scholars have demonstrated that it does. However, this paper seeks out the effect of polarization on other aspects of House institutional structure and dynamics. Specifically, it asks: what is the effect of polarization (and/or the presence or absence of moderates) and majority party cohesion on the percentage of bills gatekept in House committees? To answer this question, I test competing theories of congressional party dynamics using two different measures of polarization and a measure of party cohesion and their effects on the percentage of bills gatekept in U.S House committees over time. I find that neither polarization measure adequately explains House Committee gatekeeping, but the majority party cohesion measure is a statistically significant predictor thereof. This leads to my conclusion that majority House members act strategically when deciding what bills to gatekeep and act as a party in so doing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a long-term process of partisan realignment in Southern states and, more recently, in the Northeast. These trends have been described and explained by a wealth of scholarship. The pattern of sustained electoral shifts started with Presidential contests and spread over time to encompass Congressional and eventually state legislative races. The paper addresses the following question: Does such top-down regional realignment eventually impact sub-county party politics? After discussing top-down regional realignment and the numerous and diverse barriers that insulate local governments from the influence of political shifts occurring at the national and state level, I focus on the central New York town of Cazenovia, which has undergone a clear albeit limited degree of realignment. However, the nature of this sustained change in partisanship should not be understood simply as an extension of the changes in voting patterns the town has experienced in state and national elections. The reasons for the new normal in Cazenovia's Town Council party politics should include a bottom-up explanation of partisan change that supplements the top-down process posited in traditional realignment theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interest groups are important intermediaries in western democracies, with the potential to offer political linkage. They can function as filter or barometer of the preferences of particular groups in society, and in that way form a bridge between the concerns of citizens and the agenda of political elites. And while we know an increasing amount about the issue-based activity of groups, we do not as yet know much at all about how they selected these issues to work on, or why they decide not to focus their activities on particular matters.. This raises the question: How do groups prioritize issues? In this paper, we provide a first empirical assessment of this question, relying on a data from surveys of interest groups in the United States and Australia [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What happens when the American states are pitted against each other in a national competition for federal aid? In 2009, President Obama announced "Race-to-the-Top" (RTT), a program in which states could apply for grant money to improve their education systems. Critics charge that the program favored certain states and regions the president wished to please, while Obama defended the program as an innovative alternative to conventional methods for determining the distribution of federal outlays. This paper explores which of these claims has more merit: did Obama politicize the process and funnel money to certain states, or did institutional capacity at the state level determine who won and who lost? Results suggest that institutional capacity, and coalition-building in particular, were central drivers of RTT outcomes. The results have important implications our understanding of national education policy and our distributive politics in general. In addition, the results suggest that RTT-like competitions can be administered fairly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Do the circuit courts shape public policy through their treatment of lower court injunctions? Does their treatment of injunctions serve as a mechanism for reigning in "activist" lower courts? Are circuit courts more likely to reverse injunctions issued by state courts as a means of unifying public policy across the states? These are a sample of the questions I seek to address in this paper through the analysis of the twelve U.S Courts of Appeals treatment of injunction orders issued by lower federal and state courts. Utilizing the Songer database, I have identified a random sample of cases considering injunction orders from 1925-2001 and have coded these cases for several different variables including injunction type, treatment of precedent, and the treatment of federal and state statutes. Using logistic regression analysis, I analyze how circuit courts advance different agendas through the review of lower court injunctions. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper studies the Medicare debate through the eyes of U.S. Sen. Lister Hill (D.-AL). His reaction to national health insurance bills was common among Southern liberals. Yet as Mr. Health, Hill found himself in a uniquely powerful role. Many Southerners were willing to dispense with relatively inexpensive health care offered them because they feared “socialized medicine.” During the Great Depression, Hill developed his advocacy for federal government aid to include unemployment relief, old age pensions, and especially medical assistance. Still, his efforts on behalf of his constituents were widely criticized as Alabamians were averse to a big government financed with big taxes. By the late 1950s, Hill had to become more conservative regarding race, or his liberalism would haunt him. Yet he continued to have a wide progressive imprint, notably in hospital construction and medical research. Why did he vote for a bold scheme like Medicare despite knowing many considered it “socialism?” Certainly, Lister Hill’s relationships with so many doctors colored his appraisal of legislation like Medicare. He struggled to find a middle ground on national health insurance even as he sought to provide government medical care for his poor constituents. Hill welcomed new ideas but did not want to endanger the private medical community’s status as key provider of health care. Over time his views evolved so he felt comfortable enough with the governing mechanisms and compromises in the Medicare bill to support it. The senator came to believe Medicare was not “socialized medicine” in any nefarious form. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the political controversies involving the American national anthem, "The Star Spangled Banner." National anthems are powerful political symbols. In the United States, the anthem has become a significant cultural icon that arouses passions strongly. It motivates the citizenry at a fundamental level. Indeed, the national anthem has served as a signficant tool in political power play. As part of the fabric of normal American life, taking it for granted is easy. It is sung in a variety of public gatherings such as business conventions, civic meetings, graduation ceremonies, and sporting events. But Americans have a longstanding tradition of being outraged periodically by artistic interpretations of "The Star Spangled Banner." It has also been a medium for numerous protests. The song has become a pawn in the culture wars as different communities offer alternative versions and language translations. Perceived lack of diligence paid to proper etiquette while singing the national anthem has become a litmus test in some quarters to measure the patriotism of political candidates for high office. And on a fairly regular basis, other songs compete in the public arena for status as the most patriotic hymn. Many see the militaristic overtones of "The Star Spangled Banner" as inappropriate for the world's sole superpower. In a nation not based on a single ethnicity or culture, the American symbols of flag and song are raised to outsized proportion compared to most other nations. The American national anthem should therefore endure as an important nexus for political competition. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates how citizens react to political conflict as depicted by the media. Partisan conflict, particularly between parties in government, has increased in recent years. As a result, the news media have increasingly featured partisan conflict in their coverage of political events. Using an analysis of mainstream newspaper sources from 1990-2000, I find that increased political conflict negatively affects trust in government overall, but strong partisans and the politically knowledgable trust government more as political conflict increases. Aditionally, using an error correction model, I find a strong macrolevel relationship between partisan conflict portrayed by the media and aggregate trust. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines how, and how successfully, electorally vulnerable legislators adjust their behavior to attract voters. Decomposing the electoral connection into "distributive" and "ideological" components, we test how legislators choose between position-taking and pork-barreling and to what extent voters reward such behaviors. This examination is important, because scholarship in American politics offers two, mutually exclusive accounts of the electorate. While many legislative politics theories assume that voters possess the information necessary to reward or punish their agents in Congress based on the amount of pork delivered to the district, behavioral studies of the electorate suggest that most voters lack the political sophistication to vote based on pork-barreling. We thus expect voters to base their votes on a legislator's overall ideological profile and rational, vulnerable legislators to prefer position-taking over pork barreling. We test our theoretical predictions with data from the 2004 and 2006 U.S. House elections. We first examine whether legislators respond to electoral vulnerability by increasing particularistic benefits to their districts or by adjusting their roll-call votes to appeal to their districts' median voters. We find that legislators do not deliver more pork under conditions of electoral vulnerability; rather, certain vulnerable legislators moderate their ideological profile through roll-call votes. Second, our examination of voter behavior reveals that increased pork to a district does not increase vote share but that ideological moderation does yield an increase in vote share. These findings paint a more nuanced picture of the electoral connection and are relevant for both electoral behavior and legislative scholars. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we will explore voter turnout and political engagement by younger political cohorts in the 2008 presidential elections. After presenting data from representative studies, we will turn to a group of youth who took part in a rigorous civic education high school program, We the People; the Citizen and the Constitution. Following the November elections, we will survey a sample of over 6,000 youth who have joined the We the People alumni network. We will use items from the American National Election studies, but also delve deeper through open-ended responses. We will present comparative data on alumni turnout and political participation, but also ask alumni about their why they voted, how much attention they paid to politics, and let them explain how they conceived of their civic duty. If youth were contacted by politicians, did it make them want to vote? Did they feel their votes made a difference? ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we explore and develop various links between solution concepts such as the core, the uncovered set, and the Banks set, and the institutions of the United States Federal government. While significant advances were made in understanding the role of certain widely used legislative procedures (e.g. voting structure) in determining choices within a single majoritarian body (e.g. Shepsle & Weingast 1984a,1984b; Ordeshook & Schwartz 1986), very little work to date has applied these tools to the study of structures more frequently observed in judicial settings, supermajoritarian institutions, and multicameral settings. We use to theory to examine several examples -- across judicial, executive, and legislative settings -- of the theoretical principles in action, examining developments of the understanding of judicial review in the 20th century administrative state, modern legislative debates concerning the proper use of restrictive "majoritarian" procedures in both the U.S. House and Senate, and the rhetorical evolution of "equal protection arguments" in the national political discourse. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Music provides the soundtrack for American politics. Songs have a long and enduring tradition of alerting the public to international issues and mobilizing public opinion with calls to action. Music has become a primary means of giving voice to patriotism and even its darker twin, nationalism. Music-based political movements have been forceful in protesting unpopular wars, providing debt-relief for third world nations, promoting human rights around the globe—countering apartheid and other oppressive policies, coordinating famine relief, and informing listeners about the global consequences of destructive environmental policies. Music even provided solace for Americans enduring the pain of such international events as the terrorist attacks of September 11. Through songs, Americans express their hope in the competence and justness of their government. And through songs, Americans communicate their concerns and criticisms over American policies played out in the wider global arena. International musical artists have leveraged their songcraft to redirect the parochial sensibilities that typically characterize the American public and bring attention toward issues of more international concern. This paper examines the meaning and influence of particular popular songs in the realm of foreign policy. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) voters are a distinctively liberal group in American politics whose members tend to affiliate with the Democratic Party and support its candidates at much greater rates than heterosexuals. To the extent that scholars have offered explanations for this distinctiveness, they have attributed it to mobilization efforts that focus on group benefits for LGBs. In this paper, I show instead that it is the life event of "coming out" as lesbian, gay or bisexual—above and beyond any subsequent mobilization efforts—that gives LGBs their political distinctiveness. I first show that LGBs are politically distinctive from the moment they come of age and begin participating in electoral politics, regardless of the extent of their contact with other gay people. I then demonstrate that among Americans who report having same-sex sexual partners, only a subset are politically distinctive: those who accept the morality of their homosexual behavior. These findings indicate that the adoption of gay identity is a catalyzing life event with major implications for individual political behavior and attitudes. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the 1970s and 1980s the United States government, primarily under President Reagan, initiated what we call the "War on Drugs." Soon after, state governments began to enact new legislation imposing mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders, and eliminating judicial discretion in imposing sentences. It was not long, however, before the public began to react to the impacts of the sentencing laws, and to voice their opinions along with numerous public interest groups. After several years of sentencing under the new laws, many states, politicians, and judges became disenchanted with the harsh requirements and called for change. Since then some states have amended their drug laws to remove some of the previous mandatory sentences and restore judicial discretion. Some states, however, have declined to do so. What is known about criminal drug sentencing policies is that many state legislatures have become disenchanted with harsh policies to the extent that they have taken steps toward changing their policies, in some cases coming close to completely repealing the policies. It is not as clear, however, how public opinion has been impacted by this process, or whether it has played a role at all. Perhaps more importantly, even less is known about levels of support for drug policies from minorities who are disproportionately affected by sentencing policies such as mandatory minimum sentences for some drug offenses. This paper poses the question of whether there are variations in support for drug policies along racial lines and gender lines. The question will be approached with a statistical analysis as well as application of the relevant literature. This project will be an attempt to determine whether there are higher or lower levels of support among different groups, and to explore why these differences might exist. My research will cover levels of public support for the criminal justice system in general and drug sentencing policies in particular. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In light of the United States' recently elevated attention to terrorism, the issue of national security has become of great importance to the American public in recent years. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) is one of the most significant courts in the judiciary to deal with such issues. Curiously, the business of the court is very different in comparison to other federal courts. The problem is attempting to balance important national security issues with ensuring that civil rights are not violated due to the secret nature of the court. The paper delves into analyzing known functions of the court, reasons for secrecy, structural issues, the quasi-executive nature, affects of the Patriot Act,wiretapping issues and purpose as stated in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. In doing so, we reveal problems that arise with lack of oversight, the non-adversarial process, the structure of the court, ex parte opinions, and the constitutional and civil liberties issues in general. We believe the court could be structured otherwise and still achieve national security objectives. Among the suggestions are using a panel of judges, a Special Amicus to represent the accused, and doing away with the current appeals process the court has. Our arguments are normative due to the secrecy of the court, and our suggestions will promote legitimacy and accountability within the FISA Court. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

History has often dictated variations in the role of Secretary of State due to external factors such as peacetime or wartime, but internal factors such as the personality and leadership style of various officeholders have also influenced the approaches to this office. Of particular interest is an examination of the only two female Secretaries' of State to date and their individual approaches to the role of Secretary. Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice are the only two women to hold this office and serve as the "face" of United States Foreign Policy. While similar in gender and education, these two women differ in numerous respects. Albright served a Democratic president and operated in a less volatile period (before 9/11) but still dealt with foreign policy crises of significant magnitude during her time in office. Rice is currently serving a Republican president and has taken the foreign policy reins under the auspices of the post -9/11 environment. This paper will discuss and detail the differing approaches and leadership styles these two women have brought to the office of Secretary of State, as well as the influences each may have had on foreign policy initiatives in their respective administrations. Specifically, the approaches, successes and failures of each Secretary with regard to the particularly difficult and volatile area of Middle East policy will be examined. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For nearly fifty years judicial politics scholars have labored to define a measure of political salience for U.S. Supreme Court cases. By our conservative count, no fewer than eight distinct measures have been offered as solutions. And yet, none of these measures is able to capture what scholars truly seek: a strictly contemporary measure of political salience. In this paper we introduce the aggregate number of questions asked at oral arguments as a novel way of assessing contemporary case salience. Using data gathered from nearly 3000 oral argument transcripts that span from 1979-2005, we provide empirical diagnostics of our measure and extensive comparisons with previous measures. We also provide several applications to relevant research questions such as self-assignment by the Chief Justice, fragmented opinion coalitions, and unanimous decisions. Our theoretical arguments and empirical results demonstrate the validity of the measure. We conclude by providing initial results of a related project, which creates a question-based measure of salience defined by the number of questions asked by each individual justice at oral arguments. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper attempts to determine whether citizens that "drive" changes in public opinion share certain demographic characteristics. Extant theory informs us that these citizens should be attentive to media signals (sophisticated) and unattached to either side of the ideological spectrum (moderate). Conversely, unsophisticated ideologues should be unresponsive because they do not pay attention to media signals and are attached to an ideology that mitigates their response. I analyze three time series from the General Social Survey. In each, I find parallel opinion movement from sophisticated moderates and unsophisticated ideologues. Using regression analysis, I find that sophisticated moderates contribute significantly more to changes in executive confidence, unsophisticated ideologues contribute significantly more to changes in welfare spending preferences, and both strata contribute equally to changes in defense spending preferences. I conclude that the extant theory is not supported empirically; there is no evidence that sophisticated moderates consistently "drive" changes in public opinion. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is a study in how minorities create legitimacy from their inferior position in Congress. As majorities design rules and norms that restrict the minority's legislative influence, these barriers limit the available strategies a minority can utilize to affect the legislative process. In the face of such institutional barriers, minorities must learn creative ways to challenge the dominance of existing rules and norms, assert their claim to a legislative role in Congress, and thereby gain growing policy influence. While such struggles are at one level a fight over specific rules and norms, at a deeper level they are disputes over what constitutes political legitimacy within a particular historical era. These disputes are to a considerable extent ideational in nature, involving divergent understandings of what constitutes a proper means of gaining and maintaining power in Congress.Of central concern is not simply or primarily how and when oppositions changed the rules and norms of Congress, their party, or the electoral processes. The deeper issue is how they developed and propagated their critique of the majorities legitimizing norms and how they crafted their own alternatives to a system of congressional control. How is it that minorities, lacking access to the institutional mechanisms of congressional control, nevertheless generate and sustain powerful critiques of the majorities that ultimately aid their own rise to power? Through a content analysis of Washington Post articles, I examine the evolution of liberal and conservative arguments as they struggled to change the legitimate organization of congressional power. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Provides an empirical support to the party-centered models, which specify conditions of party influence and power, in the context of the party influence in the U.S. House. Problems that plague the contemporary literature on congressional party; Assumptions that some majority party members vote against their preferences in granting their leadership procedural powers; Analysis of the party persuasion assumption.

Examines controversial elections in the history of U.S. and evaluates major recommendations that advocates have proposed for reforming the electoral college. Factors which accounted for accepting the electoral college as the presidential selection mechanism; One factor that discourages more minor candidates to seek the presidency; Role of the basic two party system.

Assesses the attitudes of Hispanics toward the U.S. government and society. Role of politics in the Hispanics' prospects for the future; Changes in the political orientations of the U.S. population; Information on the straight-line model of ethnic assimilation.

Outlines a model of foreign policy development that explains changes in the U.S. grand strategy. Changes in the U.S. foreign policy orientation under conditions of structural uncertainty; Factors that affect the reorientation of grand strategy; Comparison of the foreign policy orientation during the administration of former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush.

Explores two different dimensions of respect within American politics. Evaluation of how the media plays a role in decreasing the level of respect throughout the American political system; Consideration of the U.S. Senate's norm of comity, suspecting that it has precipitously declined recently to create more divisiveness and ill will; Discussion on respect as a civic virtue.

Although women have made significant strides in politics, differences between the sexes persist in the electoral arena. Some of these differences concern how voters perceive female and male candidates. Others involve how these candidates campaign, including their willingness to employ negative campaign tactics. Theories of contextual politics suggest that attack politics violate traditional female stereotypes, and they should discourage women candidates from attacking an opponent. We find evidence that these stereotypes encourage women to eschew most but not all negative campaigning. Indeed, we show that female candidates approve of raising negative campaign issues that have gender-related implications and the potential to work to their advantage, such as sexual harassment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a given election, some voters do not cast votes for all offices on the ballot. This behavior is commonly termed roll-off. Some voters also engage in what I refer to whimsically as ?roll-on? ? failing to vote for top of the ticket races yet casting votes for races farther down the ballot. A more accurate term for the cognitive process that voters engage in is selective abstention: choosing to vote for some races while abstaining from others on the same ballot. I develop a more encompassing theory of roll-off and roll-on as two aspects of a voter behavior of selective abstention. I then perform a state-level analysis of the causal relationships posited to explain roll-off to explain roll-on. I find that many of the factors that explain roll-off also explain roll-on, which suggests that the two are indeed two different aspects of the same behavior. In addition, I use the model of roll-on to predict the total ballots cast for states that do not report this number, so as to produce an overall estimate of turnout in United States national elections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While declining trust in the national government over recent decades is well documented, there remains uncertainty about the causes of political trust. We argue that policy calculations play a prominent role in the trust calculus. Because most citizens have limited awareness of political issues, their faith in the government to do what is right relies on partisan cues. Specifically, citizens who share party identification with the party in government should be more trusting than those not identifying with the controlling party. Using data from pre- and post-2002 election surveys conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut, we find support for our hypotheses. The Republican takeover of the Senate led Republicans to evaluate the Senate more favorably and become more trusting of the government. In contrast, Democrats' evaluated the Senate more negatively after the election and experienced a decline in their level of trust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Offers a look at the factors that influence congressional campaign crises in the U.S. Notions about the role of political parties in campaign crises; Views of political professionals on congressional campaign decision making; Theoretical principle underlying crisis management in congressional campaigns.

This research attempts to illustrate the power of small states to influence legislation through the accumulation of seniority in the United States Senate. After reviewing the apportionment in the Senate, I argue that less competitive elections in lower population states result in comparatively less Senate turnover in these smaller states. This results in greater seniority in smaller state senators, which provides these senators with more influence and power than the populations of their state would warrant under a traditional democratic framework. Using an OLS regression analysis, I will illustrate that the population of a state is a significant predictor of turnover in the Senate and will discuss the implications of this finding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I examine the incidence of limitation riders in appropriations legislation from the Republican ascendancy to majority party status in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1995 to 2002. I hypothesize that the use of such riders is a function of disagreement between coalitions who control outcomes in the House Appropriations Committee and the authorizing committees with oversight jurisdiction over agencies whose regulatory authority is circumscribed by the riders, controlling for disagreement between Congress and the President, and various elements of the policy process. Employing data on the use of these riders within different policy jurisdictions, I find that policy disagreement between the specified coalitions and the authorizing committees does lead to a higher incidence of riders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on one dimension of political appointee behavior, the determinants of their duration of service and associated risk of leaving public service in the U.S. Role of political appointees in accomplishing the chief executive function; Importance of the behavior of political appointees in presidential goal attainment and achieving bureaucratic accountability; Implication of the duration of appointee service for administrative competence and the president's ability to secure an effective and responsive bureaucracy; Determinants of appointee departures.

After the attack on the World Trade Center, a struggle immediately began over how to characterize that event. Was it an act of war or a crime? Those who wanted to contain the event within the framework of ordinary politics, to be handled by properly designated officials within pre-existing procedures and language, said the act was a crime, the perpetrators were criminals, and those who aided the criminals should be apprehended and tried in a court of justice. The resulting punishment would complete the event and everything would proceed within ordinary, diachronic, time. The lyrics of God Bless America that spontaneously sounded throughout the country drowned out the discourse of crime. War became the defining word. The country began to speak in a different voice and entered a different mode of time ? a synchronic time in which past, present, and future become mixed up, reversed, and conflated. That song was in fact a late and generic coda to a host of patriotic hymns written by Unionists in the massively disruptive period of the American Civil War. The most famous is Battle Hymn of the Republic (technically, Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory) whose verses track the path of the nation through the apocalyptic Book of Revelation in the Bible: ?He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat; / He is sifting out the hearts of men before his judgment seat.? Equally famous is another hymn of that era, My Country, Tis of Thee. It begins with the Puritan nation founders and ends: ?Our father?s God, to thee, / Author of liberty, / To thee we sing; / Long may our land be bright / With freedom?s holy light; / Protect us by thy might, / Great God, our King.? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]