Search

The first three “scandals” to follow Watergate are discussed in this chapter. Using summaries of the bad behavior by government officials the chapter examines whether or not these behaviors meet our criteria for scandals (they do not), yet they do get some credit for their crossover to pop culture. Koreagate is the first time the “gate” suffix is used on a national scandal and Abscam, many years later, gets its own movie—American Hustle.

Benghazi and “her emails” became mantras for the right wing during the lead up to and during the 2016 presidential campaign. These two incidents are less scandal than poorly executed policy and bad judgment, but they raise the interesting proposition that Hillary Clinton’s prior celebrity and the animosity that came with it may have generated sufficient fervor to make these incidents appear to be scandals. Certainly, the prevalence of Republican rallying cries of “lock her up” have become a part of our pop culture and the analysis of YouTube clips containing references to the incidents in the chapter demonstrates their penetration into our pop culture.

Client #9, Elvis impersonations, and a bad sense of geography highlight this chapter dealing with three governors who behaved badly. Two governors—Spitzer and Sanford—were guilty of sexual transgression and the third—Blagojevich—took the idea of “pay to play” to the highest level, trying to sell the US Senate seat just vacated by President Obama to the highest bidder. All three qualify as scandals, but perhaps Spitzer and Blagojevich get much more credit for contributing to pop culture than Sanford and his poor attempt at covering up his affair.

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.

The Watergate scandal—the break-in and cover-up—is the starting point of the discussion as many observers of subsequent scandals seek to elevate or emphasize particular scandals by appending “gate” as a suffix to the scandal’s name. The events and “appeal” of Watergate are summarized and presented to demonstrate how the definitions provided in Chapter 1 can be applied to other scandals.

Gary Hart’s involvement with Donna Rice and his mishandling of the media firestorm following its revelation perhaps made it possible for Bill Clinton to get away with his bad behavior with respect to extramarital relations. Short summaries of the events surrounding Hart’s political demise and Clinton’s slide to impeachment help to identify these behaviors as scandals and make note of the many ways in which each contributed to our 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?

Election law, while seeking to provide a level playing field and reasonably fair elections, often contains certain quirks that make political activists and good government-minded individuals scratch their heads. The combination of a provision for the presumption of the validity of designating petitions, and the signatures on those petitions, with a late deadline for the filing of documents allowing candidates from outside a political party to run on the party‟s line creates one such quirk. This paper proposes to examine the loophole and its potential to tarnish a clear and fair process of candidate selection and the control of the nominating process by party regulars. Chemung County, NY, is home to two cases dealing with this issue which, together, establish and affirm the legal precedent of the presumption of validity. Using the case history, interviews, and first-hand knowledge of the most recent case, I will examine the law, suggest potential problems, and offer a simple solution.

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?

Nyhan (2015) has pointed to the lack of a good definition of political scandal, that many are too focused on evidence and not on the larger picture of context. He attempts to bring together some prior definitions to fit a study of the effects of media coverage on scandal. What is still missing, however, is a definition of scandal that applies more broadly to its inclusion in what Thompson (2008) calls ―the larger audience‖ beyond more traditional media coverage. How do we account for why some scandals capture the imagination of that larger audience better than others? Further, what makes some scandals a better fit for more contemporary, non-traditional forms of media? This paper is a first step at trying to find that definition and how it leads to the "pop culturization" of scandal.

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 contemporary system for advising presidents is a reflection of the modern presidency. It could also be seen as a remnant of the modern presidency in a postmodern era. The dawn of the modern presidency wasn’t, however, the beginning of the presidential advisory system, but the reforms associated with the New Deal administration of Franklin Roosevelt certainly provide the foundation of the system we can observe today.

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.

“The term public policy always refers to the actions of government and the intentions that determine those actions. Making policy requires choosing among goals and alternatives, and choice always involved intention” (Cochran et al. 2006, 1). For our purposes, public policy and the making of it, is about the intentions of the president and about his or her choices among goals and alternatives. It’s about decision making, but it’s more than decision making; it’s also about the follow-through. In the preceding chapters we have discussed the electorate’s choice between candidates—an alternate way of saying a choice between one set of preferences and another—the character or personality of presidents, how they get advice, how they interact with other political actors, and the tools available to them. In other words, we have discussed how presidents make decisions—how they go about making policy.

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.

When discussing vice-presidential selection a few chapters ago, I stated that one of the reasons why this was so important was that it was an early indicator of the president’s character and his ability to make decisions. Certainly, picking a vice president is not the only decision a president will make over the course of his or her tenure. Many decisions are made, some rather small and with relatively little impact on politics or history, while others can be monumental and change the political landscape or the course of history. In this chapter, we will discuss two rather significant decisions in the area of national security and foreign relations, decisions that could have led to war in each scenario. Both decisions come from the same presidency and demonstrate what Barber (1992) and others would argue are positive characteristics for a president to have, namely the ability to admit to a mistake and learn from it.

American humorist Will Rogers once joked, “The man with the best job in the country is the vice president. All he ever has to do is get up every morning and say, ‘How is the President?’” (Rogers n.d.). This political humor by Rogers certainly cuts right to the heart of the need for a vice president. As such, it also points to one of the, if not the, most significant decisions a president will make. It is so significant because it is an early decision, made even before the fall campaign begins—or soon after a vacancy. It is also a decision that is dissected by the media and academics, is debated by members of the party, and is the focus of nearly all the speculation just prior to a convention. Since the heart of this whole discussion has been about the individuality of the office, choosing one’s potential successor is a singular indicator of the character, personality, and style any president brings to the office.

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.