Search

This chapter takes a brief look at the history of the intersection of political scandal and pop culture starting with the editorial cartoon era, with particular note of Grover Cleveland and the work of Thomas Nast. A definition of pop culture which focuses on transmission of an idea or symbol to a large audience via a contemporary mechanism is followed by a definition of scandal that dismisses ordinary corrupt behavior from the more narrow construction of scandal used to focus the discussion in subsequent chapters.

Donald Trump is a master of distraction, seemingly diverting the public’s attention away from whatever accusation may be hurled at him, in part, through skillful use of social media. Once again, this chapter looks at the same question as in the previous chapter, if an individual’s status as a pop culture icon prior to revelations of politically related bad behavior affects the appearance of scandal. In this case, certainly more attention and more forgiveness come with Trump’s celebrity status. Trump himself notes this both on the now famous Access Hollywood tape and in his campaign statement about shooting people in the middle of 5th Avenue and not losing any support. Clearly, late-night comedy’s obsession with Trump qualifies for his continued contribution to pop culture.

While the political science literature has addressed the general philosophical debate of unicameralism vs. bicameralism (see, for example Riker 1992), it has left the more practical discussion of unicameral legislative structure for state governments, for the most part, alone. Political science discussion has tended to focus, though not exclusively, on the benefits of bicameralism in national legislatures. Some discussion of unicameralism has appeared in legal journals (for example Ross 2010), and from time to time in local periodicals as reformers have reanimated the debate in various U.S. state government reform efforts. Alaska and Minnesota are two such states where the issue was part of the discussion about reforms of state government and, in Alaska, considered by a state constitutional convention. Of course, there is the state of Nebraska, which still stands, since 1934,1 as the only state with a unicameral legislature. Some may argue that the debate is settled and bicameralism is the appropriate legislative form, while others will point to the predominance of unicameral legislatures in all forms of local governments as evidence that unicameral governance is a more effective and efficient structural choice. In this paper, which is the development of a larger treatment of the issue, I revisit the debate and argue that some states may find the unicameral approach a better choice.

All personal choices by individuals, what they drink, what kind of products they buy, what kind of candy they consume, can reveal the type of political ideologies those individuals hold. Campaigns utilize available data to their advantage and are able to combine all of this information to learn about voters and what they like to increase their chances at getting elected. Extant studies of micro-targeting and consumer behavior have indicated relationships between drink preference, candy preference (and other consumer choices) and political preferences. Such studies have revealed a link between Democrats and light-colored spirits and more moderate political thinkers and their choice Butterfingers as their favorite candy. In spite of critiques of the usefulness of micro-targeting and earlier work by two of us finding little to no relationship between consumer electronics choices and partisanship or political preference, we extended the body of research by looking to the next level of purchaser. With encouragement from those results, we added to the data with more respondents and a small group of students from a public institution. Though the results here are less encouraging, we still seek to determine if such consumer preferences tell us anything more about the differences, particularly in thought processes, between Democrats and Republicans, and can that knowledge aid in attempts to bridge our political divide?

All personal choices by individuals, what they drink, what kind of products they buy, what kind of candy they consume can reveal the type of political ideologies those individuals hold. “Campaigns have entered the era of „Big Data‟ - they target voters based on scraps of information they gather from unlikely places” (Wadhwa 2012). Campaigns utilize this available data to their advantage and are able to combine all of this information to learn about voters and what they like to increase their chances at getting elected. Extant studies of microtargeting and consumer behavior have indicated relationships between drink preference, candy preference (and other consumer choices) and political preferences. Such studies have revealed a link between Democrats and light-colored spirits and more moderate political thinkers and their choice Butter Fingers as their favorite candy. In spite of critiques of the usefulness of microtargeting (Hersh 2015) and earlier work by two of us (Woolf and Twombly 2014) finding little to no relationship between consumer electronics choices and partisanship or political preference, we extend the body of research by looking to the next level of purchaser. In the initial Woolf and Twombly (2014) study, the purchasing and political preferences of college freshmen were examined. The authors themselves, as well as conference discussants, noted that at the time of purchase the actual purchasers may well be the students‟ parents. In this study we examine that relationship; the one between the parental partisanship and purchase of electronic device. Yet, in rerunning the original tests with tests better suited to the data, we find support for the original hypothesis as well. The data is from the same survey of college freshmen entering a small liberal arts college in south central New York State in the fall of 2014. The survey included questions regarding the students‟ perceptions of their parents‟ political preferences. We still seek to determine if such consumer preferences tell us anything more about the differences, particularly in thought processes, between Democrats and Republicans, and can that knowledge aid in attempts to bridge our political divide?

This research is an extension of the body of work seeking to explain variation in levels of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) enforcement as a function of national and local variation in the agency's political environment. Although we examine a number of relationships, the new question is whether legislative oversight affects the behavior of OSHA compliance officers at the district level. OSHA is an interesting test case of the impact of oversight on bureaucratic output because of the way policy is implemented—enforcement takes place in the field by street-level bureaucrats, far removed from the federal office. Using data gathered at the congressional district level(1983-1995), results suggest that variation within OSHA's enforcement behavior is influenced by oversight committee assignment, overall oversight committee's and appropriations subcommittee's attitudes toward labor, and the district representative's disposition toward labor issues. We conclude legislative oversight indeed imposes limitations on compliance officers' district-level enforcement actions.

Political scientists have always been interested in presidential influence in American politics, but they have rarely explored the process of centralization as a mechanism for presidents to exert their influence. To date, Terry Moe has developed the best conceptual framework for understanding presidential influence in general and centralization in particular. We rely on and go beyond Moe's concept of centralization in a study of fair housing policy during the Nixon administration. Though we conclude that centralization may potentially be detrimental to existing democratic structures, there are cases where centralization may be the only viable alternative for a president to secure policy outputs in accordance with his desired outcomes.

All personal choices by individuals, what they drink, what kind of products they buy, what kind of candy they consume can reveal the type of political ideologies those individuals hold. “Campaigns have entered the era of „Big Data‟ - they target voters based on scraps of information they gather from unlikely places” (Wadhwa 2012). Campaigns utilize this available data to their advantage and are able to combine all of this information to learn about voters and what they like to increase their chances at getting elected. Extant studies of microtargeting and consumer behavior have indicated relationships between drink preference, candy preference (and other consumer choices) and political preferences. Such studies have revealed a link between Democrats and light-colored spirits and more moderate political thinkers and their choice Butter Fingers as their favorite candy. We focus on choices made by consumers of technology and the potential link between choice of electronic device (laptop, tablet, and smartphone) and that consumer‟s political preferences. Using a survey of incoming freshman at a small liberal arts college we attempt to demonstrate just such a link. Further, do such consumer preferences tell us anything more about the differences, particularly in thought processes, between Democrats and Republicans, and can that knowledge aid in attempts to bridge our political divide?

The 1960s was a time of upheaval and just as Americans were learning to be more accepting of one another in society and African Americans and women were asserting their rights, politics was also changing. Some of the political change was directly related to the civil rights movement and the protests against the war, but some political change came about from a more generic need for reform and an opening up of the political process. Two campaigns, the 1960 John Kennedy campaign and the 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign, had profound impact on the internal politics of political parties. These two campaigns, one from the left and one from the right, attracted new political amateurs to party politics. Regardless of party, these reformers were individuals with high hopes and high ideals who were perhaps taken aback by what they observed as they worked for their candidates (Wilson 1966). Most assuredly, the Democratic amateurs must have been horrified at the idea that a candidate (Vice President Hubert Humphrey) who hadn’t entered a single primary and who, at least symbolically, represented Lyndon Johnson’s position on the war in Vietnam would get their party’s nomination for president. They, and even their Republican counterparts, must have been further horrified by the events in the streets of Chicago during the Democratic Convention.

The history of the American presidency can be broken down into three basic periods or eras, and our perception of the office can be categorized into a number of views. The interpretations of context, boundaries, and purpose of the office from those who have served in it or studied it provide two basic functions. First, from both former presidents and observers, we are provided with plentiful fuel for debates over the extent and proper use of presidential power. Was there justification, for example, from these perspectives on the presidency for George W. Bush’s expansion of presidential power immediately after the attacks of 9/11 (and throughout his presidency)? Do such points of view allow us to be more accepting of presidents who are less active than others are? Second, the observations and reflections allow both average citizens and students of politics to see the presidency in a different light, perhaps, from the light in which it is regularly portrayed in the media.

In the 2008 presidential selection process, Barack Obama came from virtual political oblivion with a Messianic message and image to defeat the odds on favorite in the Democratic contest—Hillary Clinton—to become his party’s nominee for president. His message of “hope and change” resonated once the economic crisis hit hard in the fall and allowed him to easily paint his Republican opponent—John McCain—as more of the same. Only two years before his election, Obama was a member of the Illinois State Senate.

Any examination of the presidency as an institution, especially one that focuses on the role and impact of the individual on the institution, must pay attention to the manner by which the individuals are selected. In the United States, it is essentially a two-stage process. The selection of candidates by political parties is the first stage, the second being the electoral contest between those candidates and any others who have made it to the ballot by some other means.

Of all the parts of government the president must interact with, it is the bureaucracy that is most pervasive. The president must work with the bureaucracy on a daily basis and must appear to be in command of it. Few expect the president’s relationship with Congress to be smooth or commanding in the same way. The president’s impact on the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, is more long term and in many ways more complex.

Every recent president has been well aware of his1 standing in the polls and has often commissioned his own polls. One should not take from this that presidents are passive observers of public opinion. Rather, they actively engage in activities to shape opinion. As noted in chapter 13, presidents employ strategies to ensure that interpretation of their statements and actions favor them, and these same strategies are used to influence how their policies are viewed by the American public. Other than to massage their own egos, why would presidents feel the need to shape opinion, whether about themselves or their policies? The answer lies in their ability to work with others, both domestically and in foreign affairs. A president’s standing and reputation, both partly a function of popularity, impact whether he or she is in a position of dominance when dealing with leaders of Congress or foreign leaders.

The general election phase of the campaign for president has many similarities to, and differences from, the nomination phase. While the emphasis is still quite heavily on states, the particular states and their characteristics change dramatically. In the nomination phase, candidates focused on exceeding expectations and adding delegates, even if they didn’t win a particular contest. In the general election, nearly all the contests are winner-take-all and all of them are at the same time—momentum is of a different kind. During the effort to gain the party nomination, candidates had to make their cases to party activists—the voters most likely to turn out to vote in primaries and caucuses and thus are more ideological. In the general election, the appeal must be to independent and middle-of-the-road voters who will decide the election, while at the same time keeping one’s base1 sufficiently motivated to work and vote. Lastly, time is even more of the essence. Where during the primaries and caucuses the campaign was at work for months and may still have had months to go before the party contest was settled, in the general election time is measured in weeks and days.

Where the president’s relationships with Congress, the media, the public, and the bureaucracy all take daily nurturing, the relationship between the president and the judicial branch of government takes far less care and feeding. Of course, there are circumstances that influence the interactions of the two branches in either a positive or negative way. The most significant manner in which a president can influence his or her relationship with the judiciary is through the appointments process, where he or she attempts to fill a vacancy on a court with an individual who most represents the president’s thinking on policy, the law, and the Constitution.

The relationship between the president and the media is crucial to any president’s success, particularly in this age when there is 24-hour access to news and information. The so-called news cycle doesn’t end with the later edition of the newspaper or the evening news on three major TV networks anymore. Certainly, the media is important in any democracy (or republic) where citizens need to have information in order to make educated choices among candidates for office or on ballot propositions. With 535 elected members of Congress, too many bureaucrats to count, and justices who operate more out of the public eye, the presidency, with its singular nature, is much easier to cover. As viewers of broadcast and cable news, we gain some measure of familiarity with the individuals assigned to cover the president and would no doubt have an easier time identifying a White House correspondent over one assigned to cover Congress.

This article explores how “New Federalism” under President Ronald W. Reagan manifested itself in the implementation of fair housing policy. We examine the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) and how it led to state and local civil rights agencies playing an increasingly vital role in implementing the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Relying on data provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), we show that a significant number of fair housing complaints were shifted from HUD to state and local agencies.

Local partisan activities of legislators and their electoral coalitions systematically influence field office activities of federal bureaucracies in their electoral districts. This alternative to centralized democratic controls over bureaucracy occurs because discretionary policy decisions made at the field office level are influenced by local resources generated through partisan activities. Our study of county-level Occupational Safety and Health Administration enforcement in New York (1976–85) finds that county, state, and federal elected officials influence local enforcement activities, with liberal, Democratic legislators associated with more active enforcement. The county political parties are most influential for activities with the most local discretion, while members of Congress are more influential for local activities more readily controlled by the national office.