Search

This article describes congressional handling of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) longitudinally, linking particularly bicameral differences and institutional reform within Congress to arts funding. It argues that the House and Senate have approached the arts very differently because of the distinctive character of the two institutions; that sharp funding increases for the NEA coincided with the decentralization of political power on Capitol Hill; that creative use of rules within the House sustained arts funding at the time that it was most vulnerable politically; that fiscal issues have been accompanied (if not actually supplanted) by cultural concerns for a subset of members; and, that conflict over arts funding on Capitol Hill has followed regular patterns that are now in jeopardy with a new Republican majority., This article examines the history of congressional support of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), with particular attention to the effect of chamber differences and institutional reform on funding [...]

School prayer is a "politics of life-style concern" issue, i.e., a group of traditionalists is attempting to reinstate prayer as an affirmation of their cherished and once dominate values, and a group of modernists is attempting to maintain the ban on prayer as an affirmation of their cherished, contemporary values. (RM)

Matthew C. Moen, University of Maine For two decades, scholars have chronicled the rise and institutionalization of the Christian Right in American politics, as well as examined its fractures and [...]

This book examines the political thought espoused by leaders of the Christian Right in their published work. It is a welcome addition to existing scholarship, which focuses disproportionately on the [...]

The central purpose of this research is to examine the quality of the investigation of the House and Senate Select Committees examining the Iran‐Contraaffair. Our argument is that the Committees uncovered relatively little, especially given the scope of their inquiry, above and beyond what was already uncovered by the previous Senate Intelligence Committee and the Tower Commission Reports. We attribute the shortcomings of the Committees’ investigation to the partisan nature of the inquiry, which was evidenced from the very outset in the creation and duration of the Committees. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]