Power, Conflict, and Democracy: American Politics into the 21st Century – serie

Since the late 1960s, the burgeoning gay rights movement has begun to have a profound effect on the politics of many American cities. This book presents a comprehensive exploration of gay and lesbian politics in urban settings. The study presents a window into how sexual identity has fostered political alliances and investigates the mayoral voting patterns in America's three largest cities - New York, Los Angeles and Chicago - offering case studies of specific urban political settings. The author addresses such issues as how policy is swayed in cities not known as gay centres and how specific issues are influenced in urban areas where gays and lesbians become part of the governing regime.

Since the late 1960s, the burgeoning gay rights movement has begun to have a profound effect on the politics of many American cities. This book presents a comprehensive exploration of gay and lesbian politics in urban settings. The study presents a window into how sexual identity has fostered political alliances and investigates the mayoral voting patterns in America's three largest cities - New York, Los Angeles and Chicago - offering case studies of specific urban political settings. The author addresses such issues as how policy is swayed in cities not known as gay centres and how specific issues are influenced in urban areas where gays and lesbians become part of the governing regime.

Over two centuries of American history the Supreme Court has often become a significant issue in presidential elections, with voters acutely aware that the dominance of one party at the polls may translate into that party's dominance on the nation's highest court. Should Americans presume that votes at the ballot box will have an effect on votes at the Supreme Court on what our Constitution means? Donald Grier Stephenson Jr. explores the periods when the Court has been an issue in elections-and when it has not--investigating ten elections in which the Court was clearly an issue and looking also at the election of 1992, in which it could have become a major issue but did not. Drawing from four areas of political history-party evolution, presidential campaigns, as well as judicial and constitutional development-Stephenson presents a sophisticated inquiry into the relationship of the Supreme Court to the electoral process and considers whether this recurring electoral phenomenon is a beneficial feature of democratic politics-or one that ought to be met with concern.

The first in-depth analysis of the link between politicians' behavior and opinion polls. Exploring political action within a broad historical context, the book develops a theory to show how the behavior of politicians, and the unfolding of political change, have been irrevocably altered since the advent of opinion polling in the 1930s.

Examines the impact of sex role stereotyping on the electability of women candidates, and as a central factor in the conduct and consequences of statewide campaigns.

What is the role of race in social policy? Have race-based programmes failed? Should welfare and civil rights be blind to colour? In this landmark book, two leading scholars challenge critics like William Julius Wilson and Theda Skocpol who seek to replace a "race-specific" agenda for African-Americans with class-neutral programmes. Dona Cooper Hamilton and Charles V. Hamilton transform our understanding of the history of civil rights. From the New Deal to the 1990s, they demonstrate the many ways in which the civil rights movement fought not only to end racial segregation and discrimination but also to support social and economic justice for all Americans. Drawing on an unprecedented range of data, the Hamiltons describe the complex connections between race and class that have marked American social reform since the beginning of the welfare state. They reveal an aspect of the civil rights struggle which has been too long overlooked or obscured - one that has fought for policies to expand social and economic welfare for blacks and whites alike.From the NRA and WPA to the Great Society and the War on Poverty, from the NAACP, National Urban League and the Congressional Black Caucus to A. Philip Randolph, Marian Wright Edelman and the Children's Defense Fund and many others, the Hamiltons chart the changing strategies and describe the often fierce battles that civil rights groups fought over this "dual agenda". Decade by decade, they demonstrate how the movement for African-American civil rights has always included economic and social welfare reform for everyone. "The Dual Agenda" is not only an indispensable new history of modern America, it is also a powerful critique of conventional wisdom of the left and right about the supposed failure of civil rights organizations to pay attention to "universal" social welfare policies. At a time of severe political retrenchment, either from the Republican right or the Democratic centre, the Hamiltons remind us, as the nation grapples with a major new welfare reform law, that the African-American struggle for civil rights has always been bound to the American ideal of equality and security for all.

What is the role of race in social policy? Have race-based programmes failed? Should welfare and civil rights be blind to colour? In this landmark book, two leading scholars challenge critics like William Julius Wilson and Theda Skocpol who seek to replace a "race-specific" agenda for African-Americans with class-neutral programmes. Dona Cooper Hamilton and Charles V. Hamilton transform our understanding of the history of civil rights. From the New Deal to the 1990s, they demonstrate the many ways in which the civil rights movement fought not only to end racial segregation and discrimination but also to support social and economic justice for all Americans. Drawing on an unprecedented range of data, the Hamiltons describe the complex connections between race and class that have marked American social reform since the beginning of the welfare state. They reveal an aspect of the civil rights struggle which has been too long overlooked or obscured - one that has fought for policies to expand social and economic welfare for blacks and whites alike.From the NRA and WPA to the Great Society and the War on Poverty, from the NAACP, National Urban League and the Congressional Black Caucus to A. Philip Randolph, Marian Wright Edelman and the Children's Defense Fund and many others, the Hamiltons chart the changing strategies and describe the often fierce battles that civil rights groups fought over this "dual agenda". Decade by decade, they demonstrate how the movement for African-American civil rights has always included economic and social welfare reform for everyone. "The Dual Agenda" is not only an indispensable new history of modern America, it is also a powerful critique of conventional wisdom of the left and right about the supposed failure of civil rights organizations to pay attention to "universal" social welfare policies. At a time of severe political retrenchment, either from the Republican right or the Democratic centre, the Hamiltons remind us, as the nation grapples with a major new welfare reform law, that the African-American struggle for civil rights has always been bound to the American ideal of equality and security for all.

The first comprehensive analysis of the impact of the Reagan revolution on African-American political life, this book explores the ways in which conservative elites mobilized the American public around issues of race as ideology, discourse, strategy, and political elections from the Reagan victory of 1980 to the Republican congressional triumphs of 1994. The book also critically assesses the Clinton administration's record on race and the Democratic party response to affirmative action, welfare, and other aspects of the African-American political agenda.

The first comprehensive analysis of the impact of the Reagan revolution on African-American political life, this book explores the ways in which conservative elites mobilized the American public around issues of race as ideology, discourse, strategy, and political elections from the Reagan victory of 1980 to the Republican congressional triumphs of 1994. The book also critically assesses the Clinton administration's record on race and the Democratic party response to affirmative action, welfare, and other aspects of the African-American political agenda.

Has black inclusion in the political process changed political institutions and led to more black influence in the governmental process? How do African American legislators balance racial interests with broader issues of government? And how is their effectiveness subjectively perceived and objectively evaluated? In one of the first book-length studies to analyze the behavior of African American state legislators in multiple legislative sessions across five states, Kerry Haynie has compiled a wealth of valuable data that reveals the dynamics and effectiveness of black participation in the legislative process. Owing to the increasing role of state government in administering what he defines as key "black issues"- education, healthcare, poverty/social welfare, civil rights, and children's issues-Haynie focuses on bills introduced in these categories in Arkansas, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, and North Carolina. The book reveals how responsive political institutions have been to the nation's largest minority group.It explores the question of how legislators deal with the "duality dilemma"-which requires them to be both responsible legislators and race representatives-and whether agendas should be "deracialized" in order to appeal to a broader constituency. Along with numerous statistical charts illustrating everything from representation on house standing committees to a ranking of the fifteen legislative sessions by quartiles of African American political incorporation, a useful and revealing portrait emerges-one that will fuel debate and inform future discussions of the role of African Americans in the political process.

"Every once in a while somebody has to get the bureaucracy by the neck and shake it loose and say, 'Stop doing what you're doing.'" -Ronald Reagan How did senior career civil servants react to Ronald Reagan's attempt to redirect policy and increase presidential control over the bureaucracy? What issues molded their reactions? What motivates civil servants in general? How should they be managed and how do they affect federal policies? To answer these questions, Marissa Martino Golden offers us a glimpse into the world of our federal agencies. What Motivates Bureaucrats? tells the story of a group of upper-level career civil servants in the Reagan administration at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, the Food and Nutrition Service, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The book reveals that most career civil servants were usually responsive to executive direction-even with a president attempting to turn agency policy 180 degrees from its past orientation.By delving deeply into the particular details of Reagan's intervention into the affairs of upper-level career civil servants, Golden also fulfills her broader mission of improving our understanding of bureaucratic behavior in general, explaining why the bureaucracy is controllable and highlighting the limits of that control.

From the abolition of slavery to the civil rights movement one hundred years later, one of the primary characteristics of America's development as a nation has been the steady struggle for and expansion of the horizons of citizenship. Pivotal in any equal rights movement is the response of the White House: how the president addresses any such movement profoundly affects its chances for success. Russell L. Riley examines the logic of presidential behavior with regard to equality movements. Focusing on the most explosive and enduring of such movements--the struggle for social and economic parity by African Americans--Riley argues that the president's unwritten mandate as the designated protector of domestic social order is to suppress or moderate major social change. Consequently, only in extreme circumstances have presidents become advocates of serious reform. The Presidency and the Politics of Racial Inequality goes beyond the triad of Lincoln, Kennedy, and Johnson with discussions of F.D.R., Truman, and Eisenhower to see how these presidents dealt with situations that forced them into the fray.Riley questions the positive role played by some presidents--and contends that their failure to suppress racial unrest has not been adequately discussed.As Riley convincingly demonstrates, American political culture made it unlikely that any president would invest executive power in a deeply controversial enterprise. His study goes far toward explaining why significant change has been slow to take hold, even in one of the most open democratic systems in the world.

From the abolition of slavery to the civil rights movement one hundred years later, one of the primary characteristics of America's development as a nation has been the steady struggle for and expansion of the horizons of citizenship. Pivotal in any equal rights movement is the response of the White House: how the president addresses any such movement profoundly affects its chances for success. Russell L. Riley examines the logic of presidential behavior with regard to equality movements. Focusing on the most explosive and enduring of such movements--the struggle for social and economic parity by African Americans--Riley argues that the president's unwritten mandate as the designated protector of domestic social order is to suppress or moderate major social change. Consequently, only in extreme circumstances have presidents become advocates of serious reform. The Presidency and the Politics of Racial Inequality goes beyond the triad of Lincoln, Kennedy, and Johnson with discussions of F.D.R., Truman, and Eisenhower to see how these presidents dealt with situations that forced them into the fray.Riley questions the positive role played by some presidents--and contends that their failure to suppress racial unrest has not been adequately discussed.As Riley convincingly demonstrates, American political culture made it unlikely that any president would invest executive power in a deeply controversial enterprise. His study goes far toward explaining why significant change has been slow to take hold, even in one of the most open democratic systems in the world.

Ten years ago the Iran-Contra affair swept the headlines as the nation watched an indignant Lt. Col. Oliver North testify before a congressional committee. Although polls showed that most Americans were critical of North's actions and ambivalent toward the man himself, media coverage left the opposite impression, with its broadcasts of "Ollie-for-president" rallies and stories of congressional aides overwhelmed by a torrent of pro-North mail. In this book, public opinion is more than the sum of a pollster's tally; instead, Amy Fried defines it as a political tool, integral to the political process, where vested interests compete to legitimize their interpretation of the public voice. Fried explores the construction, interpretation, and uses of public opinion, raising important questions about the media and the role of special interest groups in determining policy.

Ten years ago the Iran-Contra affair swept the headlines as the nation watched an indignant Lt. Col. Oliver North testify before a congressional committee. Although polls showed that most Americans were critical of North's actions and ambivalent toward the man himself, media coverage left the opposite impression, with its broadcasts of "Ollie-for-president" rallies and stories of congressional aides overwhelmed by a torrent of pro-North mail. In this book, public opinion is more than the sum of a pollster's tally; instead, Amy Fried defines it as a political tool, integral to the political process, where vested interests compete to legitimize their interpretation of the public voice. Fried explores the construction, interpretation, and uses of public opinion, raising important questions about the media and the role of special interest groups in determining policy.

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.

The closely contested presidential election of 2000, which many analysts felt was decided by voters for the Green Party, cast a spotlight on a structural contradiction of American politics. Critics charged that Green Party voters inadvertently contributed to the election of a conservative Republican president because they chose to "vote their conscience" rather than "choose between two evils." But why this choice of two? Is the two-party system of Democrats and Republicans an immutable and indispensable aspect of our democracy? Lisa Disch maintains that it is not. There is no constitutional warrant for two parties, and winner-take-all elections need not set third parties up to fail. She argues that the two-party system as we know it dates only to the twentieth century and that it thwarts democracy by wasting the votes and silencing the voices of dissenters. The Tyranny of the Two-Party System reexamines a once popular nineteenth-century strategy called fusion, in which a dominant-party candidate ran on the ballots of both the established party and a third party.In the nineteenth century fusion made possible something that many citizens wish were possible today: to register a protest vote that counts and that will not throw the election to the establishment candidate they least prefer. The book concludes by analyzing the 2000 presidential election as an object lesson in the tyranny of the two-party system and with suggestions for voting experiments to stimulate participation and make American democracy responsive to a broader range of citizens.

The closely contested presidential election of 2000, which many analysts felt was decided by voters for the Green Party, cast a spotlight on a structural contradiction of American politics. Critics charged that Green Party voters inadvertently contributed to the election of a conservative Republican president because they chose to "vote their conscience" rather than "choose between two evils." But why this choice of two? Is the two-party system of Democrats and Republicans an immutable and indispensable aspect of our democracy? Lisa Disch maintains that it is not. There is no constitutional warrant for two parties, and winner-take-all elections need not set third parties up to fail. She argues that the two-party system as we know it dates only to the twentieth century and that it thwarts democracy by wasting the votes and silencing the voices of dissenters. The Tyranny of the Two-Party System reexamines a once popular nineteenth-century strategy called fusion, in which a dominant-party candidate ran on the ballots of both the established party and a third party.In the nineteenth century fusion made possible something that many citizens wish were possible today: to register a protest vote that counts and that will not throw the election to the establishment candidate they least prefer. The book concludes by analyzing the 2000 presidential election as an object lesson in the tyranny of the two-party system and with suggestions for voting experiments to stimulate participation and make American democracy responsive to a broader range of citizens.

Does the public alter American foreign policy choices, or does the government change public opinion to supports its policies? In this detailed study, Douglas Foyle demonstrates that the differing influence of public opinion is mediated in large part through each president's beliefs about the value and significance of public opinion.Using archival collections and public sources, Foyle examines the beliefs of all the post-World War II presidents in addition to the foreign policy decisions of Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Bill Clinton. He finds that some presidents are relatively open to public opinion while others hold beliefs that cause them to ignore the public's view. Several orientations toward public opinion are posited: the delegate (Clinton) favors public input and seeks its support; the executor (Carter) believes public input is desirable, but its support is not necessary; the pragmatist (Eisenhower, Bush) does not seek public input in crafting policy, but sees public support as necessary; and finally, the guardian (Reagan) neither seeks public input nor requires public support.The book examines the public's influence through case studies regarding decisions on: the Formosa Straits crisis; intervention at Dien Bien Phu; the Sputnik launch; the New Look defense strategy; the Panama Canal Treaties; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; the Strategic Defense Initiative; the Beirut Marine barracks bombing; German reunification; the Gulf War; intervention in Somalia; and intervention in Bosnia.

Does the public alter American foreign policy choices, or does the government change public opinion to supports its policies? In this detailed study, Douglas Foyle demonstrates that the differing influence of public opinion is mediated in large part through each president's beliefs about the value and significance of public opinion.Using archival collections and public sources, Foyle examines the beliefs of all the post-World War II presidents in addition to the foreign policy decisions of Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Bill Clinton. He finds that some presidents are relatively open to public opinion while others hold beliefs that cause them to ignore the public's view. Several orientations toward public opinion are posited: the delegate (Clinton) favors public input and seeks its support; the executor (Carter) believes public input is desirable, but its support is not necessary; the pragmatist (Eisenhower, Bush) does not seek public input in crafting policy, but sees public support as necessary; and finally, the guardian (Reagan) neither seeks public input nor requires public support.The book examines the public's influence through case studies regarding decisions on: the Formosa Straits crisis; intervention at Dien Bien Phu; the Sputnik launch; the New Look defense strategy; the Panama Canal Treaties; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; the Strategic Defense Initiative; the Beirut Marine barracks bombing; German reunification; the Gulf War; intervention in Somalia; and intervention in Bosnia.

It is often noted that the public is frustrated with the news media. But what do American voters really think about how the media present political information? While studies have examined how the news shapes opinions as well as what people respond to and remember, this is the first book to provide an in-depth analysis of how voters use and evaluate the news media in political elections and the impact these trends have on their use of the news. Kenneth Dautrich and Thomas H. Hartley performed a four-wave national panel survey of voters during the 1996 presidential campaign. They found that although voters are profoundly dissatisfied with the usefulness of news in helping them make decisions, they are unlikely to stop using the news media or switch media (from network news to public broadcasting, for instance). Thus the media have little incentive to adjust to the needs or wishes of voters. Here is an important contribution to the debate about the responsibilities of the news media raging among pundits and policymakers.

Why has child care legislation developed along its present course? How did the political players influence lawmakers? What do the politics of child care legislation over the past thirty years indicate for the future? Based on more than one hundred interviews with legislators and executive branch officials, archival research, and secondary sources, this book looks at the politics behind child care legislation, rather than analyzing child care as a work and family issue. Identifying key junctures at which major child care bills were introduced and debated (1971, 1990, and 1996), Sally Cohen examines the politics surrounding each of these events and identifies the political structures and negotiations that evolved in the intervening years. In addition, Cohen looks at the impact the election of President Clinton has had on child care policymaking, and how child care legislation became part of other issues, including welfare reform, crime prevention, school readiness, and tax policy revisions.

Why has child care legislation developed along its present course? How did the political players influence lawmakers? What do the politics of child care legislation over the past thirty years indicate for the future? Based on more than one hundred interviews with legislators and executive branch officials, archival research, and secondary sources, this book looks at the politics behind child care legislation, rather than analyzing child care as a work and family issue. Identifying key junctures at which major child care bills were introduced and debated (1971, 1990, and 1996), Sally Cohen examines the politics surrounding each of these events and identifies the political structures and negotiations that evolved in the intervening years. In addition, Cohen looks at the impact the election of President Clinton has had on child care policymaking, and how child care legislation became part of other issues, including welfare reform, crime prevention, school readiness, and tax policy revisions.

In this hard-hitting analysis of the war on poverty, Judith Russell charges that since FDR's New Deal, the U.S. government has introduced many public policies attempting to address poverty, yet it has failed to produce coherent programs to combat it. Focusing on the genesis of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the core of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson's antipoverty crusade, Russell asserts that the war on poverty could have been an inclusive policy of government-sponsored jobs programs, but it failed to confront the deep-rooted problems endemic to American poverty. While the macroeconomic strategies devised by the Keynesian Council of Economic Advisors in 1963 and 1964 eventually rejected proposed jobs programs to combat unemployment, Russell argues that this was the wrong strategy for fighting the structural unemployment at the center of hard-core poverty. At the same time, liberal policymakers ignored direct calls for jobs programs emanating from black Americans who were disproportionately affected by structural unemployment. Without these programs at the center of the war on poverty, it was doomed to fail.Drawing on a plethora of archival sources, including the Kennedy and Johnson Presidential Libraries, and interviews and a ten-year correspondence with former Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wirtz, this forceful examination brings a fresh perspective to a key era in American economic policymaking and to contemporary policy debates.

In this hard-hitting analysis of the war on poverty, Judith Russell charges that since FDR's New Deal, the U.S. government has introduced many public policies attempting to address poverty, yet it has failed to produce coherent programs to combat it. Focusing on the genesis of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the core of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson's antipoverty crusade, Russell asserts that the war on poverty could have been an inclusive policy of government-sponsored jobs programs, but it failed to confront the deep-rooted problems endemic to American poverty. While the macroeconomic strategies devised by the Keynesian Council of Economic Advisors in 1963 and 1964 eventually rejected proposed jobs programs to combat unemployment, Russell argues that this was the wrong strategy for fighting the structural unemployment at the center of hard-core poverty. At the same time, liberal policymakers ignored direct calls for jobs programs emanating from black Americans who were disproportionately affected by structural unemployment. Without these programs at the center of the war on poverty, it was doomed to fail.Drawing on a plethora of archival sources, including the Kennedy and Johnson Presidential Libraries, and interviews and a ten-year correspondence with former Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wirtz, this forceful examination brings a fresh perspective to a key era in American economic policymaking and to contemporary policy debates.

Can grassroots interest groups ever win the wars they wage in the political arena against big business in America? Praised by some as a crucial component of the democratic system and criticized by others as stubborn, single-issue factions that pose a threat to the equitable progress of political change, interest groups are considered by many detractors to have a success rate directly related to their alliance with wealthy, powerful corporations. As Ronald T. Libby asserts in Eco-Wars, viable strategies are available to environmental, food safety, animal rights, gun control, and other organizations that seek to challenge business interests in the political arena. Employing newly released documents culled from five non-business-related alliances with mostly social concerns, known today as "expressive" interest groups, Libby examines how they confront powerful industries.Eco-Wars investigates an antibiotechnology campaign aimed at drug companies; an animal rights effort directed against the agricultural industry; an anti-pesticide campaign focused on the chemical industry; a property rights fight against environmental groups; and a secondhand smoke campaign opposing tobacco companies. Drawing upon previously classified files, Eco-Wars also draws from interviews with both activists and the industry representatives they oppose.With his balanced analysis, Libby goes beyond the polemical nature of much work on this subject, offering a new avenue for research in the social sciences and a useful tool for interest groups.

Can grassroots interest groups ever win the wars they wage in the political arena against big business in America? Praised by some as a crucial component of the democratic system and criticized by others as stubborn, single-issue factions that pose a threat to the equitable progress of political change, interest groups are considered by many detractors to have a success rate directly related to their alliance with wealthy, powerful corporations. As Ronald T. Libby asserts in Eco-Wars, viable strategies are available to environmental, food safety, animal rights, gun control, and other organizations that seek to challenge business interests in the political arena. Employing newly released documents culled from five non-business-related alliances with mostly social concerns, known today as "expressive" interest groups, Libby examines how they confront powerful industries.Eco-Wars investigates an antibiotechnology campaign aimed at drug companies; an animal rights effort directed against the agricultural industry; an anti-pesticide campaign focused on the chemical industry; a property rights fight against environmental groups; and a secondhand smoke campaign opposing tobacco companies. Drawing upon previously classified files, Eco-Wars also draws from interviews with both activists and the industry representatives they oppose.With his balanced analysis, Libby goes beyond the polemical nature of much work on this subject, offering a new avenue for research in the social sciences and a useful tool for interest groups.