Search

The tendency of U.S. daily newspapers to endorse Republican presidential candidates is well documented. Editor & Publisher magazine has tracked presidential endorsements since 1940; in only three of the elections (1964, Goldwater vs. Johnson; 1992, Clinton, Bush and Perot; 2004 Kerry vs. Bush) did the majority of endorsing dailies fail to pick the GOP nominee.1The endorsement tendencies at the middle and bottom of the ballot are not quite so well documented. This article reviews what is known about U.S. daily newspaper non-presidential endorsements. The past work suggests a series of expectations, especially tendencies to favor Republicans, conservatives and incumbents. These expectations are tested against a national sample of endorsements from the 2002,2004 and 2006 general elections.Literature ReviewPast research reveals not only clues about national endorsement patterns, but also reasons that newspaper endorsements are important. Candidates certainly regard newspaper endorsements as "the single greatest free media support."2 Voters responding to one survey found Orlando Sentinel endorsements useful. Twenty-three percent said the endorsements had helped them decide for whom to vote; 47 percent considered the endorsements very or somewhat helpful. About one in three could name at least one candidate recommended by the newspaper.3The trade and popular press teem with testimonials to the value of newspaper endorsements. Recently newspaper endorsements have been credited with tightening the general election for U.S. Senate in New Jersey.4 However, the eventual winner, Jon Corzine, survived without getting major newspaper endorsements in both the primary and the general election.5Even those who doubt much endorsement influence admit some small effect, even if only a fraction of a percentage point.6 Of course, a fraction of a percentage point may be all that is needed to sway a very close election.Case studies make up much of the early work about non-presidential endorsements, and generally these found little, if any, effect. Howard Scarrow and Steve Borman, for example, focused on a November 1977 contest for Suffolk County, N.Y., district attorney. A twice-weekly paper, Suffolk Life, was distributed free in the eastern part of the county and claimed 98 percent coverage. The paper endorsed and promoted extensively the Democratic incumbent, Henry O'Brien, in a Long Island county dominated by Republicans. O'Brien carried the eastern part of the county, but lost the West and the election. The authors accounted for several potential alternate explanations, but still found an endorsement effect. They also warned that this race was unusually controversial, and casual one-shot endorsements in other low-key local races appeared to be worthless.7A previous case study in New York, the U.S. senatorial race in 1970, used an election night telephone poll of 1,000 voters. The authors, Irving Roshwalb and Leonard Resnicoff, concluded published polls, newspaper endorsements and endorsements by leading political figures can influence appreciable numbers of voters, but only when there is substantial indecision. The authors also warned that the direction of influence is not always predictable, and other issues and events will have greater effect.8Paul Raymond also surveyed voters about reasons for selecting candidates. He used the 1985 city council elections in Lexington, Ky. Active campaigning, radio and newspaper ads, campaign literature and conversations with family and friends all were factors, but newspaper endorsements were not.9These one-shot case studies-one newspaper or one election-generally failed to find much influence for newspaper endorsements. However, some multiple-election studies did ferret out some effect. Joel lieske collected and analyzed data on 103 Cincinnati city council campaigns in five successive elections over a ten-year time frame. He calculated that each newspaper endorsement was worth from 10,000 to 13,000 votes and speculated that endorsements add both legitimacy and name recognition. …

Frederick Douglass' post-abolitionist campaigns aimed at influencing public opinion were designed, in large measure, to bring about legal reform.(1) This effort paid off during Reconstruction when one of the most profound constitutional reforms in U.S. history was effected with adoption of the three War Amendments as well as several major civil rights laws.(2) But the antithesis to that emancipatory campaign had overwhelming political, economic, and cultural force. One source of this antithetical message was the newspapers of the day.(3) This study examines press opposition to the Civil Rights Bill of 1875.(4) During the 1860s, notable pro-Republican papers such as the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune supported the emancipatory policies championed by the Republicans and thus were often counted as allies by Douglass.(5) The friendship of these papers, however, was sorely tested during the later years of Reconstruction when the Civil Rights Bill became law. Most pro-Republican papers essentially drew a line, marking the limits of their support, at the law of 1875. Frederick Douglass was most disturbed by the editorial positions adopted by traditionally supportive newspapers, and he complained specifically about the "betrayal" by the Times and the Tribune.(6) 1875 Civil Rights Act The end of the Civil War and the subsequent adoption of the War Amendments raised the hopes of African Americans. But the amendments, which prohibited slavery, gave citizenship rights to blacks, and conferred voting privileges on the former slaves, did little to ameliorate the status of the intended beneficiaries.(7) In much of the South, for example, blacks became targets of greater hostility from former slave owners. Consequently, Frederick Douglass and other civil rights leaders implored Congress to "enact and provide for the enforcement of appropriate laws for the better protection of persons, property, and political rights" of the oppressed.(8) In 1870, Republican Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts introduced the initial version of what later became the Supplemental Civil Rights Act of 1875. This law was intended to give practical meaning to the 14th Amendment, and has been invariably described as the most important civil rights act of the 19th century.(9) It sought to improve equality for blacks by regulating the civil liberties of all citizens in the course of ordinary social interaction in public places. Although the most important clauses of the bill (on school desegregation) had been stripped away before passage,(10) the law, nevertheless, symbolized the egalitarian spirit of the Reconstruction period. But on October 15, 1883, the Supreme Court struck the law down as unconstitutional(11) - sparking cries of despair and frustration among civil rights leaders. In expressing this frustration, Douglass wrote: "The future historian will turn to the year 1883 to find the Supreme Court of the nation defeating the manifest purpose of the Constitution, nullifying the 14th Amendment, and placing itself on the side of prejudice, proscription, and persecution."(12) He worried that the Court had rolled back some 20 year's the clock of black legal and social progress. Influence of the 19th century press The media played an important role in the affairs of the nation as newspapers were influential framers of public opinion during the 19th century. Journalism historian Frank Luther Mott characterized the tremendous popularity of newspapers during the second half of the century as "one of the wonders of the time."(13) He attributed this popularity to a growing interest in public affairs at a time when "the chief source of political information was the newspaper."(14) Alexis de Tocqueville was struck by what he perceived as the pervasive influence of newspapers in 19th century America - especially in terms of molding public attitudes and/or opinion.(15) In Democracy in America, he observed that: The press' influence in America is immense. …

Iran's lively newspaper scene reflects the variety of opinions within the country on everything from Condi Rice's views on democracy to the candidates for the presidential elections later this year

When one considers the ratio of wheat to chaff in the material passing their way, book review editors may be excused for having the blues. And in such a funk, it is not easy to resist the temptation to lambaste those works which are plainly a waste of time, money, and paper. But it is probably wisest to let the losers sink from sight without comment and to accentuate the positive. In that spirit, reviewed below are a variety of items which the readers of this journal might appreciate as adding something to the art and science of public administration.

This article re-examines the problem of EU subsidiarity in the light of the political economy of federalism and centre–right thinking. It argues that if Christian Democratic, conservative and liberal parties are serious about strengthening subsidiarity, they should urge the EU to take steps in the direction of scenario four of the European Commission’s White Paper on the Future of Europe. Misleadingly titled ‘Doing less more efficiently’, this scenario is in fact about ‘delivering more and faster in selected policy areas, while doing less elsewhere’, as the subtitle correctly states. A new compact combining the targeted strengthening of key federal policies at the EU level with the EU’s gradual disengagement from other policy areas seems the most promising way to take the Union out of the doldrums and strike a compromise between Eurosceptics and Europhiles.

A London‐based specialist on Brazil looks at the country's new constitution Brazil marked a further stage in its transition from military dictatorship to democratic government with the promulgation in September of a new constitution. After 21 years of military rule which ended in 1985, public interest in the matter was high, and the constituent assembly ‐ which sat for more than 18 months drafting, debating and voting the 245 articles which make up the new charter ‐ became the focus of a widely shared national concern that the institutions of democratic government should be strengthened against further eventual coups.

Pre-1994, South Africa was a country riddled with inequality and discrimination stemming from the policy of ‘apartheid’. Since 1994, there have been considerable efforts made to enable the country to move toward becoming non-racial and democratic, with a culture of human rights and social justice. One of the primary tasks of the new democratically elected government was a reform of the education system. Specialized Education was initially neglected, but then in 1996 a National Commission was appointed to investigate Special Needs in Education and Education Support Services, of which the author was one of the co-ordinators. The timeline for the full implementation of the resulting White Paper 6 on Inclusive Education is 20 years. Inclusive Education in South Africa aims to meet the needs of all learners by addressing barriers to learning, welcoming diversity and fostering maximum participation by all in the culture of the school. This article, based on the author’s experience, will discuss the challenges for implementation of the policy in one of the South African districts which field-tested the recommendations in White Paper 6, a district with diverse contexts, the emerging promising practice, and the implications for specialized support professionals, in particular the role of school psychologists.

God, give us the grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things that should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other. .Reinhold NiebuhrINTRODUCTIONREINHOLD NIEBUHR'S FAMOUS 1943 PRAYER is as useful a guide to public policy as it is to personal reformation. Applying the noted theologian's construct to the ever-present and ever-thorny issue of how to peacefully and usefully share the bounty of North America between the peaceable kingdom of Canada and the mighty republic of the United States, Niebuhr's injunction impels us to determine carefully realities or interests on the ground, to assess the normative values or goals of the two societies, and to avoid the twin delusions of wishful thinking or deadening cynicism in reshaping the relationship to meet the needs of our citizens in the 21st century.The requirement to think through the basics of our relationship with the United States is perhaps the single largest challenge in the ambitious review of international policy launched by the Martin government. In announcing the new review, the prime minister said he wanted to recapture "Canada's sense of international purpose." The last review of defence policy was in 1994, the last foreign policy white paper, "Canada in the world," was completed in 1995.Since 1995, there have been many changes but three are uppermost in assessing a new relationship with the United States. The first, of course, is 11 September 2001 : targets in the continental United States were attacked by al Qaeda terrorists and at a stroke the benign world of the 1995 white paper-with the end of the Cold War there was no perceived direct security threat to North America-was irreversibly transformed. As expressed by Chris Patten, the European Union's commissioner for external relations, September 11th showed that the United States, whilst "invincible is not invulnerable."In 1995, too, the NAFTA agreement had only been signed a year earlier and Mexico was still not on the priority agenda. We in Canada must now decide whether we want a bilateral relationship with the United States or a trilateral relationship with both our North American partners. My focus is the United States, but Canada should not forget that while we agonized over whether to join the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq in 2003, Mexico was going through the same process-but with the pressure intensified a hundredfold because Mexico was on the United Nation's security Council. Mexico, like Canada, declined to join the US coalition. In North America, Mexico is an ally, not a rival, and should be treated as such. Lastly, in 1995, Canada was in the midst of a. severe budgetary crisis; to discuss increased investment in international policy in 1995 was whistling in the wind. Today the federal government has a large surplus. The case for more international capacity, which is a key argument of this paper, is still difficult when competing with other priorities like health, but it is possible. Today, unlike 1995, we have a real choice if we want to do more in foreign policy.COMPLEX INTERDEPENDENCECanadians have had experience in dealing with Americans for over 400 years. For a time-between 1763 and 1776-we were even loosely united with our American cousins in an early British empire experiment of sovereignty-association. (For proponents of sovereignty-association in general, or union with the United States in particular, this initial integration of North America may not be the happiest of precedents!)But from the first moments of Canadian history, as the Huron nation worried about the Iroquois moving north, or Champlain heard about Plymouth Rock, or a young John Macdonald joined the militia to repel agitators intoxicated with the American invention of mass democracy, to the present day issues of the border, trade, migration, and security, the United States has been a daily presence in the lives of Canadians. …

The new president of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff, who resisted the civilian-military rule (1964–1985) in her youth, has been engaging civil society and congress in security and defence issues for the production of the first national defence white paper. Her performance in this area is a good indication of the state of democracy in post-transition Brazil. Using the literature on third wave democracy transition and consolidation, this piece examines how previous presidents dealt with the main security and defence issues in order to identify change and continuity early in the Rousseff administration and also what sort of challenges the new president must rise to. As part of Latin America, Brazil lies in a largely demilitarized, but at the same time extremely violent region of the world. As an emerging soft power, Brazil has recently made defence a bigger issue in the national political agenda but still struggles to deal with its dark history of human rights abuses in the civilian-military dictatorship. Rousseff has shown an awareness of civilian-military issues, but it is still unclear whether she has enough political capital and whether that will translate into the required political support to democratically define the role of the armed forces in Brazil.

The recent White Paper, 'Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People' summarised Labour's project to modernise local government and to renew local democracy. Through the mediating concepts of accountability, responsiveness and representation, it is argued that the modernisation project will renew local authorities' political authority and legitimacy. However, a critical review of the White Paper and other Government's publications which discuss the modernisation of local government suggests that there are discrepancies between the claims to improve democratic local government and the role of councils in the provision of nationally decided andffunded welfare services.

The chairman of the Press Complaints Commission argues vigorously against legislation on privacy and intrusion. He writes: "Statutory regulation is objectionable in principle and incompatible with a properly functioning democracy. (I would be ready to bet that one of these days the State will get out of the business of regulating content in television and radio; and that an expanded system of self-regulation will cover all forms of content delivery.) There are also practical problems. When I became the Prime Minister's press secretary in 1994, the first thing I found in my in-tray was a draft White Paper proposing a Privacy Bill. After innumerable redrafts, it foundered on the intractable problem of defining where private space met public interest; and on the political objection to passing a law from which only those who could afford the legal bills would benefit. None of these objections has gone away."

Liberal-democratic polities stand on two principles of representation: political and pluralistic. Industrial relations (and social dialogue) are of great importance in the framework of the second. This is the starting point of this article dedicated to the relationships and implications of European ‘governance’ vis-à-vis democratic representation and social dialogue. Two important documents issued by the Commission (the White Paper of July 2001 and the Communication of June 2002) suggest that the three keywords are governance, representation, and industrial relations. The discussion of the democratic weakness of the European institutions is at the core of this article. As far as possible solutions are concerned, the main thesis is that the procedures of social dialogue may provide a suitable basis for the creation and reinforcement of an economic-social citizenship which, although it is not yet a true political citizenship, may prepare the ground for it. In order to play this role, it will be necessary to prevent the over-representation of particularistic interests unable to generate solidarity, and to democratise the procedures of social dialogue.

In this position paper we outline the major problems that exist in the U.S. health care system and present a proposal for addressing them. This paper contains the major health proposal put forward by the Jesse Jackson 1988 Campaign, calling for the establishment in the United States of a universal and comprehensive National Health Program (NHP) that will be federally funded and administered and be equitably financed. We also discuss how the NHP will affect patients, unions, corporations and employers, practitioners and other health workers, hospitals, and the insurance industry. Specific proposals are made for the transition from the current system to the proposed NHP, with a discussion of the major differences between national health proposals put forward by the two major Democratic contenders for the U.S. Presidency. This position paper also includes a brief appendix sketching some of the major differences between the U.S. and the Canadian medical care systems.