Lawrence R. Jacobs – författare

Donald Trump's presidency offered Americans a dire warning regarding the vulnerabilities in their democracy, but the threat is broader and deeper-and looms still."January 6th was a disgrace," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell solemnly intoned at the end of Donald Trump's second impeachment trial on February 13, 2021. As to the culprit, Senator McConnell declared that "there is no question that President Donald Trump is practically and morally responsible." Before Trump even ran for President, his disdain for the rules, procedures, and norms of American democracy and the US Constitution was well-known and led prominent Republicans to repudiate him as "unfit" for the GOP nomination. Given the clear-eyed assessment of candidate Trump, why did the Republican Party nominate him as its presidential candidate in 2016 and then stand by him during the next four years? Much of the attention paid to Trump's rise to power has focused on his corrosive personality and divisive style of governing. But he alone is not the problem. The vulnerability is much broader and deeper. The ascendance of Trump is the culmination of nearly 250 years of political reforms that gradually ceded party nominations to small cliques of ideologically-motivated party activists, interest groups, and donors. Trump's rise is not an aberration but a predictable outcome of trends deeply rooted in American history but which accelerated in the last few decades.In Democracy under Fire, Lawrence Jacobs provides a highly engaging, if disturbing, history of political reforms since the late-eighteenth century that over time dangerously weakened democracy, widened political inequality as well as racial disparities, and rewarded toxic political polarization. Jacobs' searing indictment of political reformers concludes with recommendations to restrain the unbridled ambition of politicians who thrive on division and instead generate broad citizen engagement with tangible policy making.

America may be one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but its citizens rank near the bottom in health status. Americans have lower life expectancy, more infant mortalities and higher adolescent death rates than most other advanced industrial nations--and even some developing countries. Though Americans are famous for tolerating great inequality in wealth, the gross inequities in the health system are less well recognized. In Healthy, Wealthy and Fair, a distinguished group of health policy experts chart the stark disparities in health and wealth in the United States. The authors explain how the inequities arise, why they persist, and what makes them worse. Growing income inequality, high poverty rates, and inadequate health care coverage: all three trends help account for the U.S.'s health troubles. The corrosive effects of market ideology and government stalemate, the contributors argue, have also proved a powerful obstacle to effective and more egalitarian solutions. A clarion call for a populist uprising to end the stalemate over health reform, Healthy, Wealthy, and Fair outlines concrete policy proposals for reform--tapping bold new ideas as well as incremental changes to existing programs. This important work will be indispensable to all those who care about our people's health, inequality, and American democracy.

America may be one of the wealthiest countries in the world, yet its citizens have lower life expectancy, more infant mortalities, and higher adolescent death rates than those in most other advanced industrial nations--and even some developing countries. In Healthy, Wealthy, and Fair a distinguished group of health policy experts pointedly examines this troubling paradox, as they chart the stark disparities in health and wealth in the United States. Rich in insight and extensive in scope, these incisive essays explain how growing income inequality, high poverty rates, and inadequate coverage combine to create the U.S.'s current healthcare difficulties. Ultimately, Healthy, Wealthy, and Fair not only identifies the problems contributing to America's healthcare woes but also outlines concrete policy proposals for reform, issuing a clarion call to end the stalemate over health reform.

Donald Trump's presidency offered Americans a dire warning regarding the vulnerabilities in their democracy, but the threat is broader and deeper-and looms still."January 6th was a disgrace," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell solemnly intoned at the end of Donald Trump's second impeachment trial on February 13, 2021. As to the culprit, Senator McConnell declared that "there is no question that President Donald Trump is practically and morally responsible." Before Trump even ran for President, his disdain for the rules, procedures, and norms of American democracy and the US Constitution was well-known and led prominent Republicans to repudiate him as "unfit" for the GOP nomination. Given the clear-eyed assessment of candidate Trump, why did the Republican Party nominate him as its presidential candidate in 2016 and then stand by him during the next eight years, nominating him three times?Much of the attention paid to Trump's rise to power has focused on his corrosive personality and divisive style of governing. But he alone is not the problem. The vulnerability is much broader and deeper. The ascendance of Trump is the culmination of nearly 250 years of political reforms that gradually ceded party nominations to small cliques of ideologically motivated party activists, interest groups, and donors able to exploit the more open primary system that began in the 1970s?. Trump's rise is not an aberration, but a predictable outcome of trends deeply rooted in American history that have only accelerated in the last few decades.In the updated paperback edition of Democracy under Fire, Lawrence Jacobs provides a highly engaging, if disturbing, history of political reforms since the late-eighteenth century that over time dangerously weakened democracy, widened political inequality as well as racial disparities, and rewarded toxic political polarization. Jacobs' searing indictment of political reformers concludes with recommendations to restrain the unbridled ambition of politicians who thrive on division and instead generate broad citizen engagement with tangible policy making.

Politically independent central banks such as America's Federal Reserve have enormous sway over the financial lives of citizens globally and often affect citizens differently according to their wealth. In Picking Winners, editors Lawrence R. Jacobs and Desmond King curate a selection of chapters with innovative theoretical frameworks and new research about political institutions and organized interests to demonstrate that central banks and financial regulators are not neutral servants of the "public good." The research introduced here spans several countries and includes findings from interviews with senior government officials and financiers. In Picking Winners, the contributors reveal how theoretically independent central banks and financial regulators are often swayed instead, by deeply resourced financial interests, the values and perspectives of capital over those of wage earners, and institutional designs that are biased to favor those with greater capital and income.

Politically independent central banks such as America's Federal Reserve have enormous sway over the financial lives of citizens globally and often affect citizens differently according to their wealth. In Picking Winners, editors Lawrence R. Jacobs and Desmond King curate a selection of chapters with innovative theoretical frameworks and new research about political institutions and organized interests to demonstrate that central banks and financial regulators are not neutral servants of the "public good." The research introduced here spans several countries and includes findings from interviews with senior government officials and financiers. In Picking Winners, the contributors reveal how theoretically independent central banks and financial regulators are often swayed instead, by deeply resourced financial interests, the values and perspectives of capital over those of wage earners, and institutional designs that are biased to favor those with greater capital and income.

Public opinion and the media form the foundation of the United States' representative democracy. They are the subject of enormous scrutiny by scholars, pundits, and ordinary citizens. This Oxford Handbook takes on the 'big questions' about public opinion and the media-both empirical and normative-focusing on current debates and social scientific research. Bringing together the thinking of a team of leading academic experts, its chapters provide a cutting assessment of contemporary research on public opinion, the media, and their interconnections. Emphasizing changes in the mass media and communications technology-the vast number of cable channels, websites and blogs, and the new social media, which are changing how news about political life is collected and conveyed-they describe the evolving information interdependence of the media and public opinion. In addition, the volume reviews the wide range of influences on public opinion, including the processes by which information communicated through the media can affect the public. It describes what has been learned from the latest research in psychology, genetics, and studies of the impact of gender, race and ethnicity, economic status, education and sophistication, religion, and generational change on a wide range of political attitudes and perceptions. The Handbook includes extensive discussion of how public opinion and mass media coverage are studied through survey research and increasingly through experiments using the latest technological advances.The Oxford Handbooks of American Politics are a set of reference books offering authoritative and engaging critical overviews of the state of scholarship on American politics. Each volume focuses on a particular aspect of the field. The project is under the General Editorship of George C. Edwards III, and distinguished specialists in their respective fields edit each volume. The Handbooks aim not just to report on the discipline, but also to shape it as scholars critically assess the scholarship on a topic and propose directions in which it needs to move. The series is an indispensable reference for anyone working in American politics.

Public opinion and the media form the foundation of the United States' representative democracy. They are the subject of enormous scrutiny by scholars, pundits, and ordinary citizens. This Oxford Handbook takes on the 'big questions' about public opinion and the media-both empirical and normative-focusing on current debates and social scientific research. Bringing together the thinking of a team of leading academic experts, its chapters provide a cutting assessment of contemporary research on public opinion, the media, and their interconnections. Emphasizing changes in the mass media and communications technology-the vast number of cable channels, websites and blogs, and the new social media, which are changing how news about political life is collected and conveyed-they describe the evolving information interdependence of the media and public opinion. In addition, the volume reviews the wide range of influences on public opinion, including the processes by which information communicated through the media can affect the public. It describes what has been learned from the latest research in psychology, genetics, and studies of the impact of gender, race and ethnicity, economic status, education and sophistication, religion, and generational change on a wide range of political attitudes and perceptions. The Handbook includes extensive discussion of how public opinion and mass media coverage are studied through survey research and increasingly through experiments using the latest technological advances.The Oxford Handbooks of American Politics are a set of reference books offering authoritative and engaging critical overviews of the state of scholarship on American politics. Each volume focuses on a particular aspect of the field. The project is under the General Editorship of George C. Edwards III, and distinguished specialists in their respective fields edit each volume. The Handbooks aim not just to report on the discipline, but also to shape it as scholars critically assess the scholarship on a topic and propose directions in which it needs to move. The series is an indispensable reference for anyone working in American politics.

The 2010 election serves as a bookend to one of the remarkable political periods in recent U.S. history. Amidst a profound economic crisis, Americans elected an African American to the presidency and massive Democratic majorities to Congress. Beginning in 2009, the President and Congress put forward a sweeping agenda to both address the economic crisis and enact progressive policies that liberals had been advocating for decades. Within a year and a half, they would pass health care reform and financial reform alongside a stimulus package of nearly a trillion dollars. Democrats also rescued the auto industry via a partial government takeover and expanded the Bush administration's incipient program for saving the banking sector by pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into it. Finally, the Obama administration dramatically increased our commitment in Afghanistan while simultaneously winding down our presence in Iraq.In Obama at the Crossroads, eminent political scientists Desmond King and Larry Jacobs have gathered some of the best scholars in American politics to take stock of this extraordinary period. Covering the financial crisis, health care reform, racial politics, foreign policy, the nature of Obama's leadership, and the relationship between the administration's agenda and broader progressive goals, this will serve as a comprehensive overview of the key issues facing the Obama administration as it entered office.

The 2010 election serves as a bookend to one of the remarkable political periods in recent U.S. history. Amidst a profound economic crisis, Americans elected an African American to the presidency and massive Democratic majorities to Congress. Beginning in 2009, the President and Congress put forward a sweeping agenda to both address the economic crisis and enact progressive policies that liberals had been advocating for decades. Within a year and a half, they would pass health care reform and financial reform alongside a stimulus package of nearly a trillion dollars. Democrats also rescued the auto industry via a partial government takeover and expanded the Bush administration's incipient program for saving the banking sector by pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into it. Finally, the Obama administration dramatically increased our commitment in Afghanistan while simultaneously winding down our presence in Iraq.In Obama at the Crossroads, eminent political scientists Desmond King and Larry Jacobs have gathered some of the best scholars in American politics to take stock of this extraordinary period. Covering the financial crisis, health care reform, racial politics, foreign policy, the nature of Obama's leadership, and the relationship between the administration's agenda and broader progressive goals, this will serve as a comprehensive overview of the key issues facing the Obama administration as it entered office.

Despite George W. Bush's professed opposition to big government, federal spending has increased under his watch more quickly than it did during the Clinton administration, and demands on government have continued to grow. Why? Lawrence D. Brown and Lawrence R. Jacobs show that conservative efforts to expand markets and shrink government often have the ironic effect of expanding government's reach by creating problems that force legislators to enact new rules and regulations. Dismantling the flawed reasoning behind these attempts to cast markets and public power in opposing roles, "The Private Abuse of the Public Interest" urges citizens and policy makers to recognize that properly functioning markets presuppose the government's ability to create, sustain, and repair them over time.The authors support their pragmatic approach with evidence drawn from in-depth analyses of education, transportation, and health care policies. In each policy area, initiatives such as school choice, deregulation of airlines and other carriers, and the promotion of managed care have introduced or enlarged the role of market forces with the aim of eliminating bureaucratic inefficiency.But in each case, the authors show, reality proved to be much more complex than market models predicted. This complexity has resulted in a political cycle - strikingly consistent across policy spheres - that culminates in public interventions to sustain markets while protecting citizens from their undesirable effects. Situating these case studies in the context of more than two hundred years of debate about the role of markets in society, Brown and Jacobs call for a renewed focus on public-private partnerships that recognize and respect both sectors' vital - and fundamentally complementary - roles.

Despite George W. Bush's professed opposition to big government, federal spending has increased under his watch more quickly than it did during the Clinton administration, and demands on government have continued to grow. Why? Lawrence D. Brown and Lawrence R. Jacobs show that conservative efforts to expand markets and shrink government often have the ironic effect of expanding government's reach by creating problems that force legislators to enact new rules and regulations. Dismantling the flawed reasoning behind these attempts to cast markets and public power in opposing roles, "The Private Abuse of the Public Interest" urges citizens and policy makers to recognize that properly functioning markets presuppose the government's ability to create, sustain, and repair them over time.The authors support their pragmatic approach with evidence drawn from in-depth analyses of education, transportation, and health care policies. In each policy area, initiatives such as school choice, deregulation of airlines and other carriers, and the promotion of managed care have introduced or enlarged the role of market forces with the aim of eliminating bureaucratic inefficiency.But in each case, the authors show, reality proved to be much more complex than market models predicted. This complexity has resulted in a political cycle - strikingly consistent across policy spheres - that culminates in public interventions to sustain markets while protecting citizens from their undesirable effects. Situating these case studies in the context of more than two hundred years of debate about the role of markets in society, Brown and Jacobs call for a renewed focus on public-private partnerships that recognize and respect both sectors' vital - and fundamentally complementary - roles.

America's model of representational government rests on the premise that elected officials respond to the opinions of citizens. This is a myth, however, say James N. Druckman and Lawrence R. Jacobs. In Who Governs?, Druckman and Jacobs combine existing research with novel data from US presidential archives to show that presidents make policy by largely ignoring the views of most citizens in favor of affluent and well-connected political insiders. Presidents treat the public as pliable, priming it to focus on personality traits and often ignoring it on issues that fail to become salient. Melding big debates about democratic theory with existing research on American politics and innovative use of the archives of three modern presidents - Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan - Druckman and Jacobs deploy lively and insightful analysis to show that the conventional model of representative democracy bears little resemblance to the actual practice of American politics. The authors conclude by arguing that polyarchy and the promotion of accelerated citizen mobilization and elite competition can improve democratic responsiveness.An incisive study of American politics and the flaws of representative government, this book will be warmly welcomed by readers interested in US politics, public opinion, democratic theory, and the fecklessness of American leadership and decision-making.

Public opinion polls are everywhere. Journalists report their results without hesitation, and political activists of all kinds spend millions of dollars on them, fuelling the widespread assumption that elected officials "pander" to public opinion -that they tailor their policy decisions to the results of polls. In this provocative and engagingly written book, the authors argue that the reality is quite the opposite. In fact, when not facing election, contemporary presidents and members of Congress routinely ignore the public's policy preferences and follow their own political philosophies, as well as those of their party's activists, their contributors and their interest group allies. Politicians devote substantial time, effort and money to tracking public opinion, not for the purposes of policymaking, but to change public opinion - to determine how to craft their public statements and actions to win support for the policies they and their supporters want.Taking two recent, dramtic episodes - President Clinton's failed health care reform campaign and Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" - as examples, the authors show how both used public opinion research and the media to change the public's mind. Such orchestrated displays help explain the media's preoccupation with political conflict strategy and, the authors argue, have propelled levels of public distrust and fear of government to record highs. Revisiting the fundamental premises of representative democracy, this accessible book asks us to reexamine whether our government really responds to the broad public or to the narrower interests and values of certain groups. And with the 2000 campaign season heating up, "Politicians Don't Pander" could not be more timely.

Public opinion polls are everywhere. Journalists report their results without hesitation, and political activists of all kinds spend millions of dollars on them, fuelling the widespread assumption that elected officials "pander" to public opinion -that they tailor their policy decisions to the results of polls. In this provocative and engagingly written book, the authors argue that the reality is quite the opposite. In fact, when not facing election, contemporary presidents and members of Congress routinely ignore the public's policy preferences and follow their own political philosophies, as well as those of their party's activists, their contributors and their interest group allies. Politicians devote substantial time, effort and money to tracking public opinion, not for the purposes of policymaking, but to change public opinion - to determine how to craft their public statements and actions to win support for the policies they and their supporters want.Taking two recent, dramtic episodes - President Clinton's failed health care reform campaign and Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" - as examples, the authors show how both used public opinion research and the media to change the public's mind. Such orchestrated displays help explain the media's preoccupation with political conflict strategy and, the authors argue, have propelled levels of public distrust and fear of government to record highs. Revisiting the fundamental premises of representative democracy, this accessible book asks us to reexamine whether our government really responds to the broad public or to the narrower interests and values of certain groups. And with the 2000 campaign season heating up, "Politicians Don't Pander" could not be more timely.

Challenging the conventional wisdom that Americans are less engaged than ever in national life and the democratic process, "Talking Together" paints the most comprehensive portrait available of public deliberation in the United States and explains why it is important to America's future. The authors' original and extensive research reveals how, when, and why citizens talk to each other about the issues of the day. They find that - in settings ranging from one-on-one conversations to e-mail exchanges to larger and more formal gatherings - a surprising two-thirds of Americans regularly participate in public discussions about such pressing issues as the Iraq War, economic development, and race relations. Pinpointing the real benefits of public discourse while considering arguments that question its importance, "Talking Together" presents an authoritative and clear-eyed assessment of deliberation's function in American governance. In the process, it offers concrete recommendations for increasing the power of talk to foster political action.

Recent battles in Washington over how to fix America's fiscal failures strengthened the widespread impression that economic issues sharply divide average citizens. Indeed, many commentators split Americans into two opposing groups: uncompromising supporters of unfettered free markets and advocates for government solutions to economic problems. But such dichotomies, Benjamin I. Page and Lawrence R. Jacobs contend, ring false. In "Class War?" they present compelling evidence that most Americans favor free enterprise and practical government programs to distribute wealth more equitably. At every income level and in both major political parties, majorities embrace conservative egalitarianism - a philosophy that prizes individualism and self-reliance as well as public intervention to help Americans pursue these ideals on a level playing field. Drawing on hundreds of opinion studies spanning more than seventy years, including a new comprehensive survey, Page and Jacobs reveal that this worldview translates to broad support for policies aimed at narrowing the gap between rich and poor and creating genuine opportunity for all.They find, for example, that across economic, geographical, and ideological lines, most Americans support higher minimum wages, improved public education, wider access to universal health insurance coverage, and the use of tax dollars to fund these programs. In this surprising and heartening assessment, Page and Jacobs provide our new administration with a popular mandate to combat the economic inequity that plagues our nation.

Recent battles in Washington over how to fix America's fiscal failures strengthened the widespread impression that economic issues sharply divide average citizens. Indeed, many commentators split Americans into two opposing groups: uncompromising supporters of unfettered free markets and advocates for government solutions to economic problems. But such dichotomies, Benjamin I. Page and Lawrence R. Jacobs contend, ring false. In "Class War?" they present compelling evidence that most Americans favor free enterprise and practical government programs to distribute wealth more equitably. At every income level and in both major political parties, majorities embrace conservative egalitarianism - a philosophy that prizes individualism and self-reliance as well as public intervention to help Americans pursue these ideals on a level playing field. Drawing on hundreds of opinion studies spanning more than seventy years, including a new comprehensive survey, Page and Jacobs reveal that this worldview translates to broad support for policies aimed at narrowing the gap between rich and poor and creating genuine opportunity for all.They find, for example, that across economic, geographical, and ideological lines, most Americans support higher minimum wages, improved public education, wider access to universal health insurance coverage, and the use of tax dollars to fund these programs. In this surprising and heartening assessment, Page and Jacobs provide our new administration with a popular mandate to combat the economic inequity that plagues our nation.

Richard Neustadt's seminal work Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership has endured for nearly four decades as the core of academic study of the American presidency. Now, building on and challenging many of the arguments in Neustadt's work, Presidential Power: Forging the Presidency for the Twenty-first Century offers reflections and implications from what we have learned about presidential power as the new century dawns. These essays-including a new contribution by Neustadt himself-forge a solid reexamination of Neustadt's Presidential Power that address questions raised but not resolved by his work. A notable aspect of this volume's analysis is the transformed institution of the presidency in the wake of the impeachment hearings of the country's last twentieth-century president, Bill Clinton. From the portrayal of presidents as persuaders to the politics of presidential transitions, each of the constituent essays in this volume provides an engaging look at the state of the American presidency.

Richard Neustadt's seminal work Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership has endured for nearly four decades as the core of academic study of the American presidency. Now, building on and challenging many of the arguments in Neustadt's work, Presidential Power: Forging the Presidency for the Twenty-first Century offers reflections and implications from what we have learned about presidential power as the new century dawns. These essays-including a new contribution by Neustadt himself-forge a solid reexamination of Neustadt's Presidential Power that address questions raised but not resolved by his work. A notable aspect of this volume's analysis is the transformed institution of the presidency in the wake of the impeachment hearings of the country's last twentieth-century president, Bill Clinton. From the portrayal of presidents as persuaders to the politics of presidential transitions, each of the constituent essays in this volume provides an engaging look at the state of the American presidency.

America's model of representational government rests on the premise that elected officials respond to the opinions of citizens. This is a myth, however, say James N. Druckman and Lawrence R. Jacobs. In Who Governs?, Druckman and Jacobs combine existing research with novel data from US presidential archives to show that presidents make policy by largely ignoring the views of most citizens in favor of affluent and well-connected political insiders. Presidents treat the public as pliable, priming it to focus on personality traits and often ignoring it on issues that fail to become salient. Melding big debates about democratic theory with existing research on American politics and innovative use of the archives of three modern presidents-Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan-Druckman and Jacobs deploy lively and insightful analysis to show that the conventional model of representative democracy bears little resemblance to the actual practice of American politics. The authors conclude by arguing that polyarchy and the promotion of accelerated citizen mobilization and elite competition can improve democratic responsiveness.An incisive study of American politics and the flaws of representative government, this book will be warmly welcomed by readers interested in US politics, public opinion, democratic theory, and the fecklessness of American leadership and decision-making.