American Politics and Political Economy Series – serie

For decades, advocates of congressional reforms have repeatedly attempted to clean up the House committee system, which has been called inefficient, outmoded, unaccountable, and even corrupt. Yet these efforts result in little if any change, as members of Congress who are generally satisfied with existing institutions repeatedly obstruct what could fairly be called innocuous reforms. What lies behind the House's resistance to change? Challenging recent explanations of this phenomenon, Scott Adler contends that legislators resist rearranging committee powers and jurisdictions for the same reason they cling to the current House structure - the ambition for reelection. The system's structure works to the members' advantage, helping them obtain funding (and favor) in their districts. Using extensive evidence from three major reform periods - the 1940s, 1970s, and 1990s - Adler shows that the reelection motive is still the most important underlying factor in determining the outcome of committee reforms, and he explains why committee reform in the House has never succeeded and probably never will.

Seeking to debunk the conventional opinion that women had little impact on politics after gaining the vote, Kristi Andersen gives an account of both the accomplishments and the disappointments women experienced in the decade after suffrage. This revisionist history text traces how the entrance of women and their concerns into the public sphere transformed both the political system and women themselves.

This text examines the role played by the mass media and public opinion in the development of United States foreign policy in the Gulf War. Tracing the flow of news, public opinion and policy decisions from Saddham Hussein's rise to power in 1979, to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, through the outbreak and conclusion of the war, the contributors look at how the media have become key players in the foreign policy process. They examine the prewar media debate, news coverage during and after the war, how the news-gathering process shaped the content of the coverage and the media's effect on public opinion and decision-makers. "Taken by Storm" also examines more general patterns in post-Cold War journalism and foreign policy, particularly how contemporary journalistic practices determine whose voices and what views are heard in foreign policy coverage.

In recent years, many Americans and more than a few political scientists have come to believe that democratic deliberation in Congress - whereby judgments are made on the merits of policies reflecting the interests and desires of American citizens - is more myth than reality. Rather, pressure from special interest groups, legislative bargaining and the desire of incumbents to be re-elected are thought to originate in American legislative politics. While not denying such influences, Joseph M. Bessette argues that the institutional framework created by the founding fathers continues to foster a government that is both democratic and deliberative, at least to some important degree. Drawing on original research, case studies of policy-making in Congress and portraits of American law-makers, Bessette demonstrates not only the limitations of non-deliberative explanations for how laws are made, but also the continued vitality of genuine reasoning on the merits of public policy. Bessette discusses the contributions of the executive branch to policy deliberation, and looks at the controversial issue of the proper relationship of public opinion to policy-making.Informed by Bessette's nine years of public service in city and federal government, "The Mild Voice of Reason" offers insights into the real workings of American democracy, articulates a set of standards by which to assess the workings of our governing institutions, and clarifies the forces that promote or inhibit the collective reasoning about common goals so necessary to the success of American democracy.

In recent years, many Americans and more than a few political scientists have come to believe that democratic deliberation in Congress - whereby judgments are made on the merits of policies reflecting the interests and desires of American citizens - is more myth than reality. Rather, pressure from special interest groups, legislative bargaining and the desire of incumbents to be re-elected are thought to originate in American legislative politics. While not denying such influences, Joseph M. Bessette argues that the institutional framework created by the founding fathers continues to foster a government that is both democratic and deliberative, at least to some important degree. Drawing on original research, case studies of policy-making in Congress and portraits of American law-makers, Bessette demonstrates not only the limitations of non-deliberative explanations for how laws are made, but also the continued vitality of genuine reasoning on the merits of public policy. Bessette discusses the contributions of the executive branch to policy deliberation, and looks at the controversial issue of the proper relationship of public opinion to policy-making.Informed by Bessette's nine years of public service in city and federal government, "The Mild Voice of Reason" offers insights into the real workings of American democracy, articulates a set of standards by which to assess the workings of our governing institutions, and clarifies the forces that promote or inhibit the collective reasoning about common goals so necessary to the success of American democracy.

In recent years, the executive branch's ability to maneuver legislation through Congress has become the measure of presidential success or failure. Although the victor of legislative battles is often readily discernible, debate is growing over how such victories are achieved. In The President in the Legislative Arena, Jon R. Bond and Richard Fleisher depart dramatically from the concern with presidential influence that has dominated research on presidential-congressional relations for the past thirty years. Of the many possible factors involved in presidential success, those beyond presidential control have long been deemed unworthy of study. Bond and Fleisher disagree. Turning to democratic theory, they insist that it is vitally important to understand the conditions under which the executive brance prevails, regardless of the source of that success. Accordingly, they provide a thorough and unprecedented analysis of presidential success on congressional roll-call votes from 1953 through 1984. Their research demonstrates that the degree of cooperation between the two branches is much more systematically linked to the partisan and ideological makeup of Congress than to the president's bargaining ability and popularity. Thus the composition of Congress "inherited" by the president is the single most significant determinant of the success or failure of the executive branch.

Relying on an astounding collection of more than three decades of firsthand research, Frank M. Bryan examines one of the purest forms of American democracy, the New England town meeting. At these meetings, usually held once a year, all eligible citizens of the town may become legislators; they meet in face-to-face assemblies, debate the issues on the agenda, and vote on them. And although these meetings are natural laboratories for democracy, very few scholars have systematically investigated them.A nationally recognized expert on this topic, Bryan has now done just that. Studying 1,500 town meetings in his home state of Vermont, he and his students recorded a staggering amount of data about them—238,603 acts of participation by 63,140 citizens in 210 different towns. Drawing on this evidence as well as on evocative "witness" accounts—from casual observers to no lesser a light than Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn—Bryan paints a vivid picture of how real democracy works. Among the many fascinating questions he explores: why attendance varies sharply with town size, how citizens resolve conflicts in open forums, and how men and women behave differently in town meetings. In the end, Bryan interprets this brand of local government to find evidence for its considerable staying power as the most authentic and meaningful form of direct democracy.Giving us a rare glimpse into how democracy works in the real world, Bryan presents here an unorthodox and definitive book on this most cherished of American institutions.

The U.S. Congress is typically seen as an institution filled with career politicians who have been seasoned by experience in lower levels of political office. In fact, political amateurs have comprised roughly one quarter of the House of Representatives since 1930. The effect of amateurs' inexperience on their political careers, roles in Congress, and impact on the political system has never been analyzed in detail. Written in a lucid style accessible to the nonspecialist, David T. Canon's Actors, Athletes, and Astronauts is a definitive study of political amateurs in elections and in Congress. Canon examines the political conditions that prompt amateurs to run for office, why they win or lose, and whether elected amateurs behave differently from their experienced counterparts. Challenging previous work which presumed stable career structures and progressively ambitious candidates, his study reveals that amateurs are disproportionately elected in periods of high political opportunity, such as the 1930s for Democrats and 1980s for Republicans. Canon's detailed findings call for significant revision of our prevailing understanding of ambition theory and disarm monolithic interpretations of political amateurs. His unique typology of amateurism differentiates among policy-oriented, "hopeless," or ambitious amateurs. The latter resemble their professional counterparts; "hopeless" amateurs are swept into office by strong partisan motivations and decision-making styles of each type vary, affecting their degree of success, but each type of amateur provides a necessary electoral balance by defeating entrenched incumbents rarely challenged by more experienced politicians.

The U.S. Congress is typically seen as an institution filled with career politicians who have been seasoned by experience in lower levels of political office. In fact, political amateurs have comprised roughly one quarter of the House of Representatives since 1930. The effect of amateurs' inexperience on their political careers, roles in Congress, and impact on the political system has never been analyzed in detail. Written in a lucid style accessible to the nonspecialist, David T. Canon's Actors, Athletes, and Astronauts is a definitive study of political amateurs in elections and in Congress. Canon examines the political conditions that prompt amateurs to run for office, why they win or lose, and whether elected amateurs behave differently from their experienced counterparts. Challenging previous work which presumed stable career structures and progressively ambitious candidates, his study reveals that amateurs are disproportionately elected in periods of high political opportunity, such as the 1930s for Democrats and 1980s for Republicans. Canon's detailed findings call for significant revision of our prevailing understanding of ambition theory and disarm monolithic interpretations of political amateurs. His unique typology of amateurism differentiates among policy-oriented, "hopeless," or ambitious amateurs. The latter resemble their professional counterparts; "hopeless" amateurs are swept into office by strong partisan motivations and decision-making styles of each type vary, affecting their degree of success, but each type of amateur provides a necessary electoral balance by defeating entrenched incumbents rarely challenged by more experienced politicians.

Since the creation of minority-dominated congressional districts in 1991, the Supreme Court has condemned the move as akin to "political apartheid", while many African-American leaders argue that such districts are required for authentic representation. In this treatment of the subject, David Canon shows that the unintended consequences of black majority districts actually contradict the common wisdom that whites will not be adequately represented in these areas. Not only do black candidates need white votes to win, but this crucial "swing" vote often decides the race. And, once elected, even the black members who appeal primarily to black voters usually do a better job than white members of walking the racial tightrope, balancing the needs of their diverse constituents. Ultimately, Canon contends, minority districting is good for the country as a whole. These districts not only give African Americans a greater voice in the political process, they promote a politics of commonality - a biracial politics - rather than a politics of difference.

Although economic reasoning has infiltrated many fields in the social sciences, those who study value conflicts have resisted rational choice approaches to the subject. Instead, most contend that political conflict over cultural values is best explained by group loyalties, symbolic motives and other "nonrational" factors. In this book, Dennis Chong shows that a single model can explain how people make decisions across both social and economic realms. He argues that preferences result from a combination of psychological dispositions, which are shaped by social influences and developed over the life span, as well as costs and benefits calculated according to our desire for material gain and social acceptance. Chong's book yields insights about the circumstances under which preferences, beliefs, values, norms and group identifications are formed. Most significantly, it offers an explanation of how ingrained social norms and values can change over time in spite of the myriad forces working to maintain the status quo.

Collective Action and the Civil Rights Movement is a theoretical study of the dynamics of public-spirited collective action as well as a substantial study of the American civil rights movement and the local and national politics that surrounded it. In this major historical application of rational choice theory to a social movement, Dennis Chong reexamines the problem of organizing collective action by focusing on the social, psychological, and moral incentives of political activism that are often neglected by rational choice theorists. Using game theoretic concepts as well as dynamic models, he explores how rational individuals decide to participate in social movements and how these individual decisions translate into collective outcomes. In addition to applying formal modeling to the puzzling and important social phenomenon of collective action, he offers persuasive insights into the political and psychological dynamics that provoke and sustain public activism. This remarkably accessible study demonstrates how the civil rights movement succeeded against difficult odds by mobilizing community resources, resisting powerful opposition, and winning concessions from the government.

"To discover who rules, follow the gold." This is the argument of this book, a history of modern American politics. Although the role big money plays in defining political outcomes has long been obvious to ordinary Americans, most pundits and scholars have virtually dismissed this assumption. Even in the light of sky-rocketing campaign costs, the belief that major financial interests primarily determine who parties nominate and where they stand on the issues - that, in effect, Democrats and Republicans are merely the left and right wings of the "Property Party" - has been ignored by most political scientists. Offering evidence ranging from the 19th century to the 1994 mid-term elections, this book shows that voters are "right on the money." Thomas Ferguson breaks completely with traditional voter-centred accounts of party politics. In its place he outlines an "investment approach," in which powerful investors, not unorganized voters, dominate campaigns and elections. Because businesses "invest" in political parties and their candidates, changes in industrial structures - between large firms and sectors - can alter the agenda of party politics and the shape of public policy.This book presents revised versions of essays in which Ferguson advanced and tested his theory, including his study of the role played by capital intensive multinationals and international financiers in the New Deal. The chapter, "Studies in Money Driven Politics", brings this aspect of American politics into better focus, along with other studies of Federal Reserve policy-making and campaign finance in the 1936 election. Ferguson analyzes how a changing world economy and other social developments broke up the New Deal system in our own time, through careful studies of the 1988 and 1992 elections. The essay on 1992 contains an extended analysis of the emergence of the Clinton coalition and Ross Perot's dramatic independent insurgency. A postscript on the 1994 elections demonstrates the controlling impact of money on several key campaigns.

Chicago and New York share similar backgrounds but have had strikingly different fates. Tracing their fortunes from the 1930s to the present day, Ester R. Fuchs examines key policy decisions which have influenced the political structures of these cities and guided them into, or clear of, periods of economic crisis.

Are the views of Latinos and African Americans under represented in our federal government? For that matter, what does it mean to be represented equitably? Rather than taking for granted a single answer to these complex questions, John D. Griffin and Brian Newman use different measures of political equality to reveal which groups get what they want from government and what factors lead to their successes.One of the first books to compare the representation of both African Americans and Latinos to that of whites, "Minority Report" shows that congressional decisions and federal policy tend to mirror the preferences of whites as a group and as individuals better than the preferences of either minority group, even after accounting for income disparities. This is far from the whole story, though, and the authors' multifaceted approach illustrates the surprising degree to which group population size, an issue's level of importance, the race or ethnicity of an office holder, and electoral turnout can affect how well government action reflects the views of each person or group.Sure to be controversial, "Minority Report" ultimately goes beyond statistical analyses to address the root question of what equal representation really means.

Are the views of Latinos and African Americans underrepresented in our federal government? For that matter, what does it mean to be represented equitably? Rather than taking for granted a single answer to these complex questions, John D. Griffin and Brian Newman use different measures of political equality to reveal which groups get what they want from government and what factors lead to their successes.One of the first books to compare the representation of both African Americans and Latinos to that of whites, "Minority Report" shows that congressional decisions and federal policy tend to mirror the preferences of whites as a group and as individuals better than the preferences of either minority group, even after accounting for income disparities. This is far from the whole story, though, and the authors' multifaceted approach illustrates the surprising degree to which group population size, an issue's level of importance, the race or ethnicity of an office holder, and electoral turnout can affect how well government action reflects the views of each person or group.Sure to be controversial, "Minority Report" ultimately goes beyond statistical analyses to address the root question of what equal representation really means.

Through a comprehensive analysis of American agricultural politics in the past half-century, Gaining Access shows when, how, and why interest groups gain and lose influence in the policy deliberations of the United States Congress. By consulting with policy advocates, John Mark Hansen argues, lawmakers offset their uncertainty about the policy stands that will bolster or impede their prospects for reelection. The advocates provide legislators with electoral intelligence in Washington and supportive propaganda at home, earning serious consideration of their policy views in return. From among a multitude of such informants, representatives must choose those they will most closely consult. With evidence from congressional hearings, personal interviews, oral histories, farm and trade journals, and newspapers, Hansen traces the evolution of farm lobby access in Congress. He chronicles the rise and fall of the American Farm Bureau, the surge and decline of party politics, the incoporation of the commodity lobbies, the exclusion of the consumer lobbies, and the accommodation of urban interests in food stamps. Brilliantly combining insights from rational choice theory with historical data, Gaining Access is an essential guide for anyone interested in the dynamics of interest group influence.

Quantifying the American mood through opinion polls appears to be an unbiased means for finding out what people want. But in Numbered Voices, Susan Herbst demonstrates that the way public opinion is measured affects the use that voters, legislators, and journalists make of it. Exploring the history of public opinion in the United States from the mid-nineteenth century to the present day, Herbst shows how numbers served both instrumental and symbolic functions, not only conveying neutral information but creating a basis authority. Addressing how the quantification of public opinion has affected contemporary politics and the democratic process, Herbst asks difficult but fundamental questions about the workings of American politics.

Quantifying the American mood through opinion polls appear to be an unbiased means for finding out what people want. But in this study the author demonstrates that the way public opinion is measured affects the use that voters, legislators, and journalists make of it. Exploring the history of public opinion in the United States from the mid-19th century to the present day, Herbst shows how numbers served both instrumental and symbolic functions, not only conveying neutral information but creating a basis authority. Addressing how the quantification of public opinion has affected contemporary politics and the democratic process, Herbst asks fundamental questions about the workings of American politics.

A disturbingly cautionary tale, Is Anyone Responsible? anchors with powerful evidence suspicions about the way in which television has impoverished political discourse in the United States and at the same time molds American political consciousness. It is essential reading for media critics, psychologists, political analysts, and all the citizens who want to be sure that their political opinions are their own.

This analysis of the 1992 US presidential campaign looks at how citizens use information in the media to make their voting decisions and how politicians and the media interact to shape that information. Examining political advertisements, news coverage, ad watches and talk shows in Los Angeles, Boston, Winston-Salem, and Fargo/Moorhead, the authors chart the impact of different information environments on citizens and show how people developed images of candidates over the course of the campaign. The text also presents evidence that campaigns do matter, that citizens are active participants in the campaign process, and that their perceptions of a candidate's character is the central factor in the voting process. Although the focus is on the 1992 presidential race, the study is intended to contribute to understanding of campaigns in general, and show how election campaigns can play an important role in the long-term vitality of democracy.

Why do majority congressional parties seem unable to act as an effective policy-making force? They routinely delegate their power to others—internally to standing committees and subcommittees within each chamber, externally to the president and to the bureaucracy. Conventional wisdom in political science insists that such delegation leads inevitably to abdication—usually by degrees, sometimes precipitously, but always completely. In The Logic of Delegation, however, D. Roderick Kiewiet and Mathew D. McCubbins persuasively argue that political scientists have paid far too much attention to what congressional parties can't do. The authors draw on economic and management theory to demonstrate that the effectiveness of delegation is determined not by how much authority is delegated but rather by how well it is delegated. In the context of the appropriations process, the authors show how congressional parties employ committees, subcommittees, and executive agencies to accomplish policy goals. This innovative study will force a complete rethinking of classic issues in American politics: the "autonomy" of congressional committees; the reality of runaway federal bureaucracy; and the supposed dominance of the presidency in legislative-executive relations.

Why do majority congressional parties seem unable to act as an effective policy-making force? They routinely delegate their power to others—internally to standing committees and subcommittees within each chamber, externally to the president and to the bureaucracy. Conventional wisdom in political science insists that such delegation leads inevitably to abdication—usually by degrees, sometimes precipitously, but always completely. In The Logic of Delegation, however, D. Roderick Kiewiet and Mathew D. McCubbins persuasively argue that political scientists have paid far too much attention to what congressional parties can't do. The authors draw on economic and management theory to demonstrate that the effectiveness of delegation is determined not by how much authority is delegated but rather by how well it is delegated. In the context of the appropriations process, the authors show how congressional parties employ committees, subcommittees, and executive agencies to accomplish policy goals. This innovative study will force a complete rethinking of classic issues in American politics: the "autonomy" of congressional committees; the reality of runaway federal bureaucracy; and the supposed dominance of the presidency in legislative-executive relations.

When news of the O.J. Simpson verdict swept across the United States, a nation stood divided as blacks and whites reacted differently to the decision. Seldom has the racial division that permeates American society come so clearly and prominently into view. This book aims to supply the reasons for this division, asserting that racial resentment continues to exist. Despite a parade of recent books optimistically touting the demise of racial hostility in the United States, the authors marshal a wealth of the most current and comprehensive evidence available to prove their case. They reveal that racial resentment remains the most powerful determinant of white opinion on such racially-charged issues as welfare, affirmative action, school desegregation, and the plight of the inner city. The book seeks to explain just why black and white Americans believe what they do. It analyzes the critical factors that shape people's opinion on race-related issues, uncovering the relative importance of self-interest, group identity, ideological principles, as well as racial animosity.Finally, the authors explore how the racial divide has insinuated itself into the presidential election process, and they examine the role of political elites in framing racial issues for ordinary citizens.

For most bills in American legislature, the issue of turf - or which committee has jurisdiction over a bill - is crucial. This study explains how jurisdictional areas for committees are created and changed in Congress, and dissects the politics of "turf-grabbing". Political scientists have long maintained that jurisdictions are relatively static, changing only at times of dramatic reforms. David King disagrees with this premise and, combining quantitative evidence with interviews and case studies, he shows how ongoing turf wars make jurisdictions fluid. He argues that jurisdictional change stems both from legislators seeking electoral advantage and from nonpartisan House parliamentarians referring ambiguous bills to committees with the expertise to handle the issues. King shows how parliamentarians have become institutional guardians of the legislative process.

For most bills in American legislature, the issue of turf - or which committee has jurisdiction over a bill - is crucial. This study explains how jurisdictional areas for committees are created and changed in Congress, and dissects the politics of "turf-grabbing". Political scientists have long maintained that jurisdictions are relatively static, changing only at times of dramatic reforms. David King disagrees with this premise and, combining quantitative evidence with interviews and case studies, he shows how ongoing turf wars make jurisdictions fluid. He argues that jurisdictional change stems both from legislators seeking electoral advantage and from nonpartisan House parliamentarians referring ambiguous bills to committees with the expertise to handle the issues. King shows how parliamentarians have become institutional guardians of the legislative process.

Direct democracy continues to grow in importance throughout the United States. Citizens are increasingly using initiatives and referendums to take the law into their own hands, overriding their elected officials to set tax, expenditure, and social policies. John G. Matsusaka's "For the Many or the Few" studies a century of budget data from states and cities to provide the first comprehensive, empirical picture of how direct democracy is changing government policies.Matsusaka argues against the popular belief that initiatives empower wealthy special interest groups that neglect the majority view. Examining demographic, political, and opinion data, he demonstrates how initiatives led to significant tax and expenditure cuts over the last thirty years and that these cuts were supported by a majority of citizens. He concludes that, by and large, direct democracy in the United States has worked for the benefit of the many rather than the few.

Direct democracy continues to grow in importance throughout the United States. Citizens are increasingly using initiatives and referendums to take the law into their own hands, overriding their elected officials to set tax, expenditure, and social policies. John G. Matsusaka's "For the Many or the Few" studies a century of budget data from states and cities to provide the first comprehensive, empirical picture of how direct democracy is changing government policies.Matsusaka argues against the popular belief that initiatives empower wealthy special interest groups that neglect the majority view. Examining demographic, political, and opinion data, he demonstrates how initiatives led to significant tax and expenditure cuts over the last thirty years and that these cuts were supported by a majority of citizens. He concludes that, by and large, direct democracy in the United States has worked for the benefit of the many rather than the few.

The task of deliberating public policy falls preeminently to Congress. But decisions on matters ranging from budget deficits to the war with Iraq, among others, raise serious doubts about its performance. In "Deliberative Choices", Gary Mucciaroni and Paul J. Quirk assess congressional deliberation by analyzing debate on the House and Senate floors. Does debate genuinely inform members of Congress and the public? Or does it mostly mislead and manipulate them? Mucciaroni and Quirk argue that in fashioning the claims they use in debate, legislators make a strategic trade-off between boosting their rhetorical force and ensuring their ability to withstand scrutiny. Using three case studies - welfare reform, repeal of the estate tax, and telecommunications deregulation - the authors show how legislators' varying responses to such a trade-off shape the issues they focus on, the claims they make, and the information they provide in support of those claims. Mucciaroni and Quirk conclude that congressional debate generally is only moderately realistic and informed. It often trades in half-truths, omissions, and sometimes even outright falsehoods. Yet some debates are highly informative.Moreover, the authors believe it's possible to improve congressional deliberation, and they recommend reforms designed to do so.