Search

The article focuses on the Federalist Papers' theory of institutional power in the United States. It mentions that public views institutional power as the dynamic relationship between and among formal constitutional powers, institutional organization, and constituency. It discusses the strengths and weaknesses in the theory. It adds that the theory relates with American political science to study each institution separately instead of as a system.

Various media and academic sources alleged the politicization of United States intelligence leading to the 2003 Iraq War. However, two government bodies tasked to investigate the overall intelligence prior to the Iraq War, the Senate Select Committee and the Silberman-Rob Commission, concluded that intelligence was not politicized prior to the war. These conflicting views create a puzzle. Was intelligence politicized prior to the Iraq War or was it not? This question addresses the larger issue of the nexus between the intelligence community and decision-makers in the U.S. foreign policy-making process. Recognizing the intelligence community as an important actor in foreign policy-making, this paper first examines the meaning of intelligence politicization within the existing academic literature. Building upon Alexander George's framework of trade-off dilemmas in Presidential decision-making, it places existing concepts of intelligence politicization into an adapted framework that accounts for both policy-makers and intelligence professionals. The paper then uses this framework to assess the specific case of the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War, analyzing the period between the 9/11 attack and the start of the 2003 war. It most specifically scrutinizes the official reports issued by the above investigative bodies and concludes that intelligence politicization did indeed occur prior to the Iraq War. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the appropriateness of the use of religious language in the American political sphere. The paper will make use of public reason and public discourse theories by John Rawls, Jurgen Habermas, and Michael Walzer. Rawls, Habermas' and Walzer's theories have ample overlap despite their many disagreements. Their primary agreement is that the highest levels of government must remain secular, a stance I adopt. However, Habermas and Walzer see religion as a part of general will formation. Religion helps to form morals and values, so completely striping religion from the public sphere would overly restrict who could participate in public debate. I agree with Walzer and Habermas on this point and argue that Rawls' public reason (without his postscript) was overly restrictive and ultimately undemocratic. I then applied my theory to examine three recent examples of religious language in the political sphere: a speech by presidential candidate Mike Huckabee stating that the U.S. Constitution should better adhere to the bible; a statement opposing abortion released by the Society of Jesus; and the Supreme Court case questioning whether "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was a violation of the Establishment Clause's rules regarding separation of church and state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent scholarship has gauged the growing significance of political satire in our current political climate (Baumgartner 2007, 2008; Baumgartner and Morris 2006, 2007, 2008; Baym 2005, 2007; Holbert 2007; Prior 2005; Young 2004). This paper is part of a lager project that asks why there are so few conservative satirists in American politics today. There are several possibilities, to include the satirists? inherent liberal nature, the entertainment media?s liberal bias, and the liberal inclinations of the younger viewers who comprise much of satire?s audience. Two more possible explanations are the focus of this paper: That satire is steeped in an anti-establishment tradition; and that satire mirrors the existing political climate, which today is cynical, sarcastic and untrusting of government. This is the second half of an historical examination of political satire. The first half looked at early satire, from the Founding to the post-WWII era. This paper begins with the advent of television and moves to the 1970s. Richard Nixon said "Sock it to me" on Laugh In, which led to President Gerald Ford announcing: "Live from New York, it's Saturday Night!" Following that was presidential candidate Bill Clinton on the Arsenio Hall Show, Attorney General Janet Reno?s SNL "Dance Party," and presidential candidate John Edwards announcing his intention to run on The Daily Show. This paper uses historical analysis to show that when society is amenable to political criticism (an inherently liberal notion), satire will flourish and in post-War America the changing nation was indeed amenable. By examining the past we can better understand the present significance of American political satire. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Tea Party movement is poised to become a significant political force in the American landscape. In this paper I look closely at the movement through the lens of Rosenstone, Behr and Lazarus' third party model presented in Third Parties in America (1984). I begin by outlining the model, and analyzing other polls that attempt to measure the Tea Party. I then examine data collected in New Jersey via the RutgersEagleton Poll in February, 2010, and discuss what this data adds to an overall understanding the movement. The resulting aggregated survey data gives us a preliminary picture of the Tea Party movement in its first phase, including the demographic makeup of supporters, and the larger political context in which it functions. Findings further lead to the suggestion that the movement should perhaps be regarded not as a third party, but as a social movement seeking reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the media coverage relating to the crisis of the former U.S. presidents including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in context to the paper from the conference entitled "Northeastern Political Science Association Conference" on November 11, 2010. It mentions the changes of the American media in the last 10 years and highlights the broadcast of the character and psychology of politicians by the media

Do individual-level student characteristics affect appreciation for and benefit from the use of student response system technology? This paper will investigate the benefit of in-class electronic student response systems ('classroom clickers'). With these systems, students answer questions posed to them in a PowerPoint presentation through the use of handheld remote control devices. Aggregate results can be immediately displayed and discussed. Though this technology is rapidly gaining use in university classrooms across the nation, most academic research on the use of student response systems focuses on the "nuts and bolts" of using the system or on ways that such systems might be useful to all students in particular courses. Little has been done to assess the ways in which individual-level student characteristics might influence the utility of this technology. We investigate the usefulness of this increasingly common classroom technique to understand if it benefits some college students more than others. Specifically, we investigate whether shyer students benefit more from the use of the student response system, with the expectation that shyer students will appreciate using the system more and consequently make more positive gains in attitudes about the class, knowledge of politics, and political engagement. Utilizing original survey data collected from two, Fall 2009 introductory American Government courses, we find that shyer students show greater attitude improvement over the course of the semester, gain more knowledge about politics, and engage in more outside-of-class political discussions than less shy students. Overall, the findings presented here suggest that, at least marginally, the use of in-class electronic response systems can improve the educational experience of students who are typically isolated by traditional classroom teaching methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper charts the historical development of the conservative critique of capitalism in 20th century American thought. Capitalism is commonly assumed as an uncontested concept in American conservative political discourse. This paper illustrates that this commonly held assumption is false. Twentieth century American conservative thinkers have tendered a wide variety of criticisms of modern industrial and post-industrial capitalism during their lifetimes. In addition, there is evidence that the emphasis of the conservative critique of capitalism has changed over the course of the 20th century. This paper describes the shift in the critique of American capitalism by addressing key conservative thinkers from different streams of conservative thought. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Both in its rhetoric and in its practice, the George W. Bush administration has pursued policies consistent with a grand strategy of primacy. Its policy actions toward Iraq reflect that orientation. However, in the context of its ongoing commitment to Iraq, the United States also has been confronted with a variety of other ongoing and emerging policy problems, including, but not limited to North Korea, Iran, ballistic missile defense, Darfur, and global climate change. As the Bush administration has sought to formulate consistent policies toward these other issue areas, it has become increasingly clear that in light of continued operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in the context of the on-going war on terror, current capabilities of the US have seriously constrained the ability of the US to effectively pursue policy options consistent with an overarching strategy primacy in these areas. This paper will examine the ways in which current US conventional force structure has been and remains inadequate to meet the requirements for a unilateral approach in addressing additional problem areas. The paper will also examine the extent to which various aspects of the US fiscal position have acted as a practical limit upon an effective grand strategy of primacy. In combination, these two constraining factors increasingly may force the US and the Bush administration to shift to a strategy of selective engagement or cooperative international engagement, regardless of its rhetorical position. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I would also be willing to serve as a discussant for papers in the areas of American foreign policy, international law, or international relations theory. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The theoretical legacy of the New Deal is its redefinition of liberalism. What makes that legacy remarkable is that Roosevelt and his allies managed to reinvent the term, and with it the role of government in everyday life, while working within a system famous for its inertia, and dealing with an electorate still attracted to ideas of rugged individualism and suspicious of dramatic change. This paper argues that what made the New Deal successful was its ability to update Machiavelli's tactical understanding of the connection between ideology and power to a modern democratic state. The paper will focus in particular on the work of New Dealer Thurman Arnold, who provides the most articulate and nuanced explanation of the New Deal's Machiavellian approach to political theory and political practice.Briefly, Arnold argues that while ideals ultimately inform our political goals, once we agree to enter the political realm it is essential that we make sure ideology does not limit our political possibilities. Effective leadership understands that necessity and the day-to-day reality of political life has to trump our theoretical commitments. The right actions are the ones that secure the power necessary to achieve our desired goals, rather than the ones that maintain ideological purity. Likewise, Arnold argues that power can only be secured with a deep understanding and exploitation of the central myths and symbols of the electorate. This paper will explore the connection between Machiavelli and the New Deal in more detail, and examine its consequences. If Machiavelli provides the theoretical model for practical political change in the United States, what does this say about our understanding of democracy, and its future? ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study on the role played by Mormon theology in shaping political thought in the context of the U.S. It states that a divinely inspired Constitution and belief in purely heterosexual marriage are the two Mormon theology which influences the political thought. The research was conducted by understanding the theological and political ideas of political impact of Latter Day Saints in American politics and society of contemporary times.

The article offers a new perspective on the Founding and slavery by turning to social commentator Montesquieu's political theory and the constitutional convention notes in tandem with each other. It compares the Montesquiean response to American slavery with the American Constitution and historical evidence from the American Founding era. It suggests that a Montesquiean interpretation of the American founding with regard to slavery brings possibilities to consider nation's history and future.

The article focuses on the issue of practices of politics in the U.S. in context to the qualitative and quantitative work for the development of the country regarding the issue of legal, social and political development by the Republican Party of the U.S. It mentions the incidence of null votes for the 2009 Stimulus Bill by the Republican Party and highlights the slowing of the Government.

The article discusses the relationship between citizenship and territory in context to the overseas American of the U.S. It mentions the combination of the presence of territorial and ethnic conception of the status of citizenship of any individuals, and mentions the difficulties of the democratic nation-states regarding the concepts of territory, government and citizenship.

The article discusses about literary structure and the Republican political science in context with the book "Notes on the State of Virginia," by Thomas Jefferson. It informs that Jefferson has been absent in conventions and his absence led to a common assumption that he had no impact on political affairs in the U.S.

The article discusses the growing interest in studying the historical development of national administrative politics and government in the U.S. It further presents a review of the American Political Development literature by dealing with the issue of national administrative politics and development in late 19th century American history. It also argues for studying the ideology in terms of the tradition's application to national administrative politics in the American context.

Political scientists working in the area of American Political Development (APD) focus on America?s political history with the goal of explaining why the nation?s often peculiar collection of institutions and policies grew the way they have. Two primary approaches or schools of inquiry shape much APD scholarship, though a great deal of very fine work falls outside of them. Historical institutionalists study actors pursuing interests through a political arena bounded by institutions. Ideational scholars, by contrast, seek to understand how norms, narratives, and outlooks influence the framing of debates and their outcomes. Although there are exceptions, especially at the margins, each of the two schools is marked by a general outlook. Previous discussions of the two schools have focused on the place of culture and ideas in relation to institutions. I argue that the two schools split along more fundamental lines, and suggest that the crucial distinction between them centers on the nature of causation and on an often-unstated understanding of what political development is. By mapping out the theoretical underpinnings of each, we can introduce APD?s methods to researchers outside the subfield, and also ask how they might be drawn together for even more powerful inquiry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the Civil War, the party of the incumbent president has lost seats in all but three national midterm election cycles. The midterm loss phenomenon has been a popular topic with researchers and generated a wide range of theories. Some have argued that voters seek to "balance" the ideology of the government by choosing a Congress which rivals the party of the president. Other theories have attributed midterm loss to voter turnout norms, the popularity of the president, or national economic and security conditions. As the degree of variation in these ideas suggests, no consensus view has been reached on this subject.Midterm loss theories are about voters, not Congress or the presidency. Hence, applying them to separate arenas in which voters operate in a similar environment helps better assess their respective strengths and weaknesses. States serve as these arenas, as they, like the national government, are typically governed by one high-profile chief-executive, as well as a bicameral legislature. States not only provide a new and valuable testing venue, but also offer a vast number of observations over a relatively short time-period.By analyzing available data on state election results, state economic conditions (per capita income growth and unemployment), gubernatorial approval ratings, and national election results, we are able to demonstrate the prevalence of state midterm loss over a 29-year period (1978-2006). More importantly, we are able to test the degree to which the loss is driven by factors previously advanced in national studies on the subject. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]