John R. Hibbing – författare

The Authoritarian Personality, which was published by Theordor Adorno and a set of colleagues in the 1950s, was the first broad-based empirical attempt to explain why certain individuals are attracted to the authoritarian, even fascist, leaders that dominated the political scene in the 1930s and 1940s. Today, the concept has been applied to leaders ranging from Trump to Viktor Orban to Rodrigo Duterte. But is it really accurate to label Trump supporters as authoritarians?In The Securitarian Personality, John R. Hibbing argues that an intense desire for authority is not central to those constituting Trump's base. Drawing from participant observation, focus groups, and especially an original, nationwide survey of the American public that included over 1,000 ardent Trump supporters, Hibbing demonstrates that what Trump's base really craves is actually a specific form of security. Trump supporters do not strive for security in the face of all threats, such as climate change, Covid-19, and economic inequality, but rather only from those threats they perceive to be emanating from human outsiders, defined broadly to include welfare cheats, unpatriotic athletes, norm violators, non-English speakers, religious and racial minorities, and certainly people from other countries. The central objective of these "securitarians" is to strive for protection for themselves, their families, and their dominant cultural group from these embodied outsider threats.A radical reinterpretation of the support for Trumpism, The Securitarian Personality not only provides insight into a political movement that many find baffling and frustrating, but offers a compelling thesis that all observers of American political behavior will have to contend with, even if they disagree with it.

A unique analysis that looks at the true motivation of Trump supporters.The Authoritarian Personality, which was published by Theordor Adorno and a set of colleagues in the 1950s, was the first broad-based empirical attempt to explain why certain individuals are attracted to the authoritarian, even fascist, leaders that dominated the political scene in the 1930s and 1940s. Today, the concept has been applied to leaders ranging from Trump to Viktor Orban to Rodrigo Duterte. But is it really accurate to label Trump supporters as authoritarians?In The Securitarian Personality, John R. Hibbing argues that an intense desire for authority is not central to those constituting Trump's base. Drawing from participant observation, focus groups, and especially an original, nationwide survey of the American public that included over 1,000 ardent Trump supporters, Hibbing demonstrates that what Trump's base really craves is actually a specific form of security. Trump supporters do not strive for security in the face of all threats, such as climate change, Covid-19, and economic inequality, but rather only from those threats they perceive to be emanating from human outsiders, defined broadly to include welfare cheats, unpatriotic athletes, norm violators, non-English speakers, religious and racial minorities, and certainly people from other countries. The central objective of these "securitarians" is to strive for protection for themselves, their families, and their dominant cultural group from these embodied outsider threats.A radical reinterpretation of the support for Trumpism, The Securitarian Personality not only provides insight into a political movement that many find baffling and frustrating, but offers a compelling thesis that all observers of American political behavior will have to contend with, even if they disagree with it.

Americans often complain about the operation of their government, but scholars have never developed a complete picture of people's preferred type of government. In this provocative and timely book, Hibbing and Theiss-Morse, employing an original national survey and focus groups, report the governmental procedures Americans desire. Contrary to the prevailing view that people want greater involvement in politics, most citizens do not care about most policies and therefore are content to turn over decision-making authority to someone else. People's wish for the political system is that decision makers be empathetic and, especially, non-self-interested, not that they be responsive and accountable to the people's largely nonexistent policy preferences or, even worse, that the people be obligated to participate directly in decision making. Hibbing and Theiss-Morse conclude by cautioning communitarians, direct democrats, social capitalists, deliberation theorists, and all those who think that greater citizen involvement is the solution to society's problems.

This timely book describes and explains the American people's alleged hatred of their own branch of government, the US Congress. Intensive focus group sessions held across the country and a specially designed national survey indicate that much of the negativity is generated by popular perceptions of the processes of governing visible in Congress. John Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse argue that, although the public is deeply disturbed by debate, compromise, delicate pace, the presence of interest groups, and the professionalization of politics, many of these traits are actually endemic to modern democratic government. Congress is an enemy of the public partially because it is so public. Calls for reform, such as term limitations, reflect the public's desire to attack these disliked features. But the authors conclude, the public's unwitting desire to reform democracy out of a democratic legislature is a cure more dangerous than the disease.

This timely book describes and explains the American people's alleged hatred of their own branch of government, the US Congress. Intensive focus group sessions held across the country and a specially designed national survey indicate that much of the negativity is generated by popular perceptions of the processes of governing visible in Congress. John Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse argue that, although the public is deeply disturbed by debate, compromise, delicate pace, the presence of interest groups, and the professionalization of politics, many of these traits are actually endemic to modern democratic government. Congress is an enemy of the public partially because it is so public. Calls for reform, such as term limitations, reflect the public's desire to attack these disliked features. But the authors conclude, the public's unwitting desire to reform democracy out of a democratic legislature is a cure more dangerous than the disease.

The American public's level of hostility toward government became a major issue in the 1990s. In this edited volume, first published in 2001, 24 of the country's leading students of public attitudes toward government in the United States address the reasons for this hostility. In 14 original articles, the authors explain why people's approval of government dropped so precipitously in the late 1960s, why some parts of the government (such as the Supreme Court) are better liked than others (such as the Congress), and why certain actions by political elites are particularly upsetting to much of the American public. Uniting several of the contributions is the theme that dissatisfaction with government occurs not just when people dislike governmental policies but also when they dislike the manner in which those policies are made. Another unifying theme is the potential danger of a public with nothing but its own disdain for its own political system.

The American public's level of hostility toward government became a major issue in the 1990s. In this edited volume, first published in 2001, 24 of the country's leading students of public attitudes toward government in the United States address the reasons for this hostility. In 14 original articles, the authors explain why people's approval of government dropped so precipitously in the late 1960s, why some parts of the government (such as the Supreme Court) are better liked than others (such as the Congress), and why certain actions by political elites are particularly upsetting to much of the American public. Uniting several of the contributions is the theme that dissatisfaction with government occurs not just when people dislike governmental policies but also when they dislike the manner in which those policies are made. Another unifying theme is the potential danger of a public with nothing but its own disdain for its own political system.

Americans often complain about the operation of their government, but scholars have never developed a complete picture of people's preferred type of government. In this provocative and timely book, Hibbing and Theiss-Morse, employing an original national survey and focus groups, report the governmental procedures Americans desire. Contrary to the prevailing view that people want greater involvement in politics, most citizens do not care about most policies and therefore are content to turn over decision-making authority to someone else. People's wish for the political system is that decision makers be empathetic and, especially, non-self-interested, not that they be responsive and accountable to the people's largely nonexistent policy preferences or, even worse, that the people be obligated to participate directly in decision making. Hibbing and Theiss-Morse conclude by cautioning communitarians, direct democrats, social capitalists, deliberation theorists, and all those who think that greater citizen involvement is the solution to society's problems.

According to a Gallup poll, 70 percent of Americans want elected officials to serve only a limited number of terms. Nevertheless, every two years American voters return, on average, more than 95 percent of incumbents to the U.S. House of Representatives. John Hibbing's book provides unique evidence of the problems that would result from congressional term limitations. The first scholar to analyze congressional careers using longitudinal data, Hibbing looks at how the career patterns of a typical House member have evolved over the last forty years. By showing that the gap between the legislative contributions of junior and senior members has grown in recent years, Hibbing contends that as members gain in seniority they become more knowledgeable, efficient, and valuable legislators. Thus he argues against congressional term limitations. Hibbing's findings illuminate other fundamental and surprising changes. House members now are as electorally secure early in their careers as they are late, and they are less likely to deviate from their previously established roll call voting pattern. Members acquire positions of authority (subcommittee chairs) more quickly than they used to, but these more rapid gains evaporate by the sixth or seventh term of service. Also, House members travel to their home districts less frequently than they did ten years ago. Congressional Careers is a fascinating portrait of the evolution of American legislators during their congressional service. It is the only study of congressional behavior that is both comprehensive and longitudinal -- valuable features in an era when congressional careerism is coming under acute public scrutiny.

This thoughtfully updated revision of a classic text sheds new light on the potential sociological and biological differences that result in deep, seemingly unbridgeable political divisions.Renowned social scientists and experts in biopolitics, John R. Hibbing, Kevin B. Smith, and John R. Alford present overwhelming evidence that political opinion is shaped not just by cultural background or information bias but is rather the result of diverse psychological, physiological, and genetic traits. This new edition shifts the emphasis from differences between the political left and the right (liberals and conservatives) as they have traditionally been understood and explores specific brands of liberalism and conservatism such as ardent supporters of politicians such as Donald Trump.An essential read for students and scholars of political psychology and party politics, this book invites the reader to reconsider their perspectives on public opinion and partisan conflict.

This thoughtfully updated revision of a classic text sheds new light on the potential sociological and biological differences that result in deep, seemingly unbridgeable political divisions.Renowned social scientists and experts in biopolitics, John R. Hibbing, Kevin B. Smith, and John R. Alford present overwhelming evidence that political opinion is shaped not just by cultural background or information bias but is rather the result of diverse psychological, physiological, and genetic traits. This new edition shifts the emphasis from differences between the political left and the right (liberals and conservatives) as they have traditionally been understood and explores specific brands of liberalism and conservatism such as ardent supporters of politicians such as Donald Trump.An essential read for students and scholars of political psychology and party politics, this book invites the reader to reconsider their perspectives on public opinion and partisan conflict.