bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Even Paranoids Have Real Enemies
Authors: Diamant Alfred 
Published: September 2013

Buffeted from all sides because it is not sufficiently generalizing and scientific, because it sticks to outdated notion of field research, and because it is not “relevant” to the career concerns of the average American Student, the subfield of comparative politics seems to have fallen on evil days. Peter Sackman (PSSummer 1975 vol. VIII, no. 3, 262–263) singles out the subfield for adverse comment in his report on dissertations completed and in progress. One would not quarrel with his treatment if it were justified by even the simplest tests of statistical honesty. One doubts that Mr. Sackman is out to “get” comparative politics, but if he should claim to be a friend, then the subdiscipline has not need for enemies.In the last paragraph of his essay he notes the “marked decline of additions in category VII” (comparative politics). No quarrel with that, for it showed the largest numerical decline of any subdiscipline. But Figure I, showing dissertation increases and decreases for the subdisciplines, indicates that category IV (U.S. State and Local Government) suffered a greater percentage decline, 28% vs. 24% for comparative politics. Six of the eight subdisciplines suffered some decline. Only one, Public Administration, showed a marked increase, viz. 65%. So why single out comparative politics for special mention?
Student Power in the 1970 Elections: A Preliminary Assessment
Authors: Murphy William T. 
Published: September 2013

The Cambodian invasion and the tragedies at Jackson and Kent State this spring led to explosions on college campuses all across the country. There was a great deal of talk of massive student intervention in the fall congressional elections and universities adopted various measures in response to the crisis. Some abandoned institutional neutrality by taking positions condemning the President's actions, others scheduled fall courses on elections and “practical politics”, while others opted for some variant of the two week “Princeton Plan” pre-election recess.Most observers assumed that student political interest would remain high and that the student impact would be significant. By early summer university-based groups had been set up to lobby congressmen to support “end the war amendments”, to raise money for anti-war candidates, and to supply student volunteers to work actively for such candidates.
Dear Virginia
Authors: S.C.  
Published: September 2013

Congratulations on your admission and fellowship for graduate work at ………. It should be the beginning of a very promising career and I'll be glad to give you whatever advice I can on the subject.In answer to your question, there is probably less overt discrimination against women now. Graduate admissions and fellowships look fairly good on the record. And although departments are still lagging in professorial positions and salaries for women, some of them are making an effort to catch up. It shouldn't be too long before most departments have their “quota” of assistant professors. The problem now is with the subtler forms of discrimination — “Phase II” of whatever it is we are involved in. (Phase II, like Phase I, uses sex as a basis for choice, but its arguments are more sophisticated. Phase I says “A woman's place is in the home.” Phase II says “We'd like to hire a woman, but …”)
A Note on Behavioralists and Post-Behavioralists in Contemporary Political Science
Authors: Baker Kendall L. , Hajjar Sami G. , Schenker Alan Evan 
Published: September 2013

In 1969 David Easton argued that a new revolution was “underway in American political science.” This revolution, which he labelled the post-behavioral revolution, is motivated by a “deep dissatisfaction with political research and teaching, especially of the kind that is striving to convert the study of politics into a more rigorously scientific discipline modelled on the methodology of the natural sciences.” Specifically, post-behavioralists, according to Easton, attack the abstractness, irrelevance, “methodological purity” and conservatism of the existing literature, and argue that political scientists as well as the associations of which they are a part, must take a more active role in the solution of contemporary social problems. In short, post-behavioralists seek to “help create a ‘new political science’ that will not be trivial or misleading.” But, what is the nature of the support within the profession for this goal? In other words, what kinds of attitudes do American political scientists hold about this new revolution? In addition, what are their views on the behavioral revolution, the other major event in the recent history of the discipline?To answer these questions we recently conducted a mail survey of 176 political scientists in the Mountain West (i.e. Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.) Our questionnaire included twenty three items dealing with professional and related issues.
Report of the Managing Editor, The American Political Science Review, 1971–1972
Authors: Polsby Nelson W. 
Published: September 2013

In my last report I described some attempts at innovation in the management and format of theReview; this year I can report that we have settled into our routines. The increased readability and literacy which some readers have noticed in theReviewI attribute primarily to the alert and sensitive manuscript editing of Dr. Ellen Siegelman, a remarkable person who combines wide learning in the social sciences with an unusual feel for language. Jeanne Dritz, our hawkeyed proofreader, is responsible for aReviewincreasingly free from typographical error. The energy and imagination of Professor Philip Siegelman, our book editor, has in my opinion brought the book review section to a new level of usefulness to the profession. The work of these gifted professionals has not only lifted the quality of theReviewbut also the spirits of the managing editor. Barbara Hight, Norma Jean Minor, Lenny Cooper and, for a time, Margaret Carlson, performed the mundane tasks that kept the machinery going: placing the calls and opening the mail, unwrapping the books and sending out reminders, snipping authors' names off manuscripts and balancing our bank account, collating galleys and bringing back coffee.The sum total of these routine tasks is, I suppose, what producing a scholarly journal is all about. An editorial office cannot write a scholarly journal — scholars do that. It is our job to see that what scholars do write and send to us is evaluated fairly — and so far as we can extort cooperation from our referees, promptly — presented attractively and with fidelity and delivered seasonably into the hands of readers.
Inside the Courts: The Judicial Fellows Program
Authors: Cannon Mark W. , Morris Jeffrey B. 
Published: September 2013

It is three minutes of ten on a Monday morning. A long buzzer sounds. Quickly sweeping papers and books aside, climbing the 40 steps in a score of bounds, crossing the wooden barrier to enter by a side door, one slips into a chair in the extreme back and side of the courtroom, at the foot of one of the great columns of Italian marble, in time to hear Al Wong, the Marshal,intone“Oyez, oyez….”The formal announcement of the Judicial Fellows program which appears annually inPSand other professional journals, and the posters which are seen outside placement offices, convey little of the essence of the experience. Since the Judicial Fellows Program is not only the younger sibling of the Congressional and the White House Fellows, but much, much smaller—with only two or three Fellows selected annually—relatively little is known about it.
Political Science Departments: Reputations Versus Productivity
Authors: Robey John S. 
Published: September 2013

This brief essay is written in an attempt to provide a comparison of the reputed quality of political science departments with measures of their productivity. The first study done in the last two decades which purported to assess the “quality” of political science departments was published in 1959 by Hayward Keniston. Keniston's study relied on a survey of the chairpersons of 25 departments and was greatly improved upon by Professors Albert Somit and Joseph Tanenhaus who attempted to measure the strength of political science doctoral programs by drawing a random sample of more than 400 political scientists who were members of the American Political Science Association. In 1966 Professor Allan M. Cartter published the results of his survey of 35 chairpersons, 66 “senior scholars” and 64 “junior scholars” and obtained virtually identical results as the Somit-Tanenhaus study. The results of these studies may be seen in Table 1.These studies are all valuable additions to the literature; however, the concepts of reputed “quality” or “strength” may suffer from many of the same drawbacks as the concept of reputed “power.”That is, a department may have a reputation of excellence and yet publish very little. Converse.
The Mershon Center at The Ohio State University
Authors: Snyder Richard C. 
Published: September 2013

Although the Mershon Center was formally established by The Ohio State University Trustees in 1967, it is necessary and accurate to add that its origins can be traced back to 1954 when the will of Colonel Ralph D. Mershon, an alumnus, was probated. That document provided that not less than 50 percent of the income from the bequest be spent for the promotion of activities that can be said to fall within the area of national security.Following a period of years during which a university-wide faculty committee administered the funds made available from the restricted endowment income, the Trustees approved what amounted in essence to a social science program of national security studies to be administered by a director. The late Edgar S. Furniss, Jr., came from Princeton in 1963 to conceive and implement the new program. Until his untimely death in 1966, Furniss' extremely effective leadership made possible a series of faculty appointments, doctoral fellowships, widely heralded international conferences, and high quality, scholarly publications whose enduring relevance and impact are plainly visible years later.
Political Scientists and the Republican National Conventions
Authors: Bibby John F. 
Published: September 2013

During the early 1960s, political scientists were afforded an opportunity to serve as participant-observers at both national party conventions under the convention fellowship program of the old National Center for Education in Politics (NCEP). With NCEP sponsorship, political scientists attached themselves to state delegations, convention committees and candidate organizations to observe at first hand the work of the conventions. A significant segment of our knowledge of conventions was derived from the writing of these NCEP fellows (see, for example, Paul Tillet, editor,Inside Politics: The National Party Conventions, 1960, which was cited frequently in the early editions of such standard texts as Polsby and Wildavsky'sPresidential Elections. The NCEP fellows' work also provided a basis for more sophisticated research. Although the NCEP has lapsed, its national convention and national committee fellowship programs resulted in continuing participation by political scientists at Republican national conventions.Involvement at the staff level in Republican conventions by political scientists has been most extensive in the work of the Committee on Resolutions (Platform). Arthur L. Peterson, formerly of Ohio Wesleyan University and now Dean at Eckard College, was a key staff member (Executive Director in 1964, 1968, 1972) of the Platform Committees between 1960 and 1976.
Mass Media and Presidential Selection
Authors: Rubin Richard L. 
Published: September 2013

Presidential candidates know that the “press” (that is, print and electronic media) is often a decisive force in American electoral politics and spend much of their time trying to manipulate it for their own benefit. To politicians it is really a personal political matter, and the tendency when they speak about it is to both personalize and over-generalize the decisiveness of its influence. Thus, in 1976, Ted Kennedy stated flatly, “The press made Carter,” whereas Jimmy Carter repeatedly complained of the press's crucial role in “unmaking him” as president.To political scientists the impact of the press, particularly television, is of primarily “systematic” importance rather than of personal interest—except of course, for those who would like to spend some years in Washington as advisor-practitioners. Scholars and students know that television has changed things a lot, but we are not exactly sure how much and what kind of responsibility the press as a whole bears for the substantial institutional changes that have occurred in the last two decades. Let me offer briefly some of the conclusions I have come to after researching, thinking, and writing for some years on this topic. I shall look, first, at what is new about television news compared to the pre-electronic era and, second, how the most significant of these mass communications changes have affected our electoral institutions and the presidency itself.
In Congress Reassembled: Reconciliation and the Legislative Process
Authors: Schick Allen 
Published: September 2013

Reconciliation forces Congress to consider issues in redistributive terms and alters traditional roles and relationships, but this legislative technique may be short-lived.The 1981 battle of the budget might leave a deeper imprint on legislative behavior than on federal programs and expenditures. The process that produced the omnibus reconciliation bill was extraordinary in its scope and in its integration of diverse legislative activities. More than 30 House and Senate committees were drawn into the reconciliation process and more than half of the Members of Congress participated in the conferences that resulted in the reconciliation decision. The outcome was not a perfectly consistent set of budget decisions, but for a legislature that thrives on the dispersion of power, reconciliation demanded much more cohesion and coordination than Congress normally achieves.It is too early to determine whether reconciliation will become a permanent feature of the congressional budget process or whether it will be applied as extensively in the future as it was in 1981. If it were confined to a few committees and only changed the budget at the margins, reconciliation might not affect basic legislative roles and relationships. But if it continues to demand the active cooperation of numerous committees and tries to change major parts of the budget, reconciliation would certainly lead to a redistribution of legislative power.
Fear and Loathing on Capitol Hill: The 99th Congress and Economic Policy
Authors: Van Horn Carl E. 
Published: September 2013

The first session of the 99th Congress was a year of wrenching institutional and political realignment. Facing monstrous structural budget deficits in excess of $200 billion a year. Congress struggled to adjust its distributive urges to the unpleasant realities of a redistributive era. Unlike previous budget crises that were caused by economic events beyond Congress's control, the current problem was created by an unwillingness to raise sufficient revenues to pay for the nation's defense and social program commitments. Frustration, gridlock, and partisan warfare eventually ended in surrender to the Executive Branch: a balanced-budget act was adopted that could radically alter Congress's power of the purse.During the 99th Congress, many Democratic members also continued to realign their policy positions in accordance with contemporary economic and political forces. Democrats in Congress searched for an appealing formula that would ensure political survival and continued control of the House. But the strain of reconciling their traditional public philosophy with conservative trends left Democrats demoralized and in disarray.
Easy Riders: Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and the Legislative Fast Track
Authors: Hoadley John F. 
Published: September 2013

Conventional wisdom suggests that the legislative process is not an efficient or speedy one when it comes to major legislation or significant policy changes. According to Price (1985, p. 162), “Congress is often difficult to mobilize, particularly on high-conflict issues of broad scope.” The multiyear effort to enact Medicare legislation and the inability of Congress to enact comprehensive energy legislation in the 1970s are but two examples of the deliberate pace of the deliberative process.Yet in 1985, a major reform of the budgetary process, popularly known as Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, was enacted in a relatively short time without the benefit of extended subcommittee and committee deliberation. This “fast track” legislation, on the heels of other accelerated decisions since 1981, makes it difficult to draw the conclusion that Congress is unable to act quickly on major policies. In fact, the nature of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings debate suggests that modifications to our theories of the legislative process are needed.No one who has watched Congress would labor under the misconception that legislation routinely follows the process outlined on those neat charts in introductory American government textbooks. There are all too many examples of major bills that were approved as riders to minor legislation or that bypassed the normal committee process. For example, portions of President Carter's energy package were approved as amendments to tariff bills on bicycle parts and bobsleds. Furthermore, there are many examples of steps taken to bypass a powerful committee chairman, such as the drafting of the 1963 civil-rights bill so that it would go to the Senate Commerce Committee instead of the Judiciary Committee where it would be killed by Chairman James Eastland (D-Miss.).
Leadership in the Slow Lane
Authors: Deering Christopher J. 
Published: September 2013

While slightly unconventional, the earnest request of Indiana Republican Sen. Dan Quayle's six-year-old daughter (Conconi, 1985, p. B3) is nothing new to Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole (R-Kan.). Indeed, Majority Whip Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) has said that the senators Dole must lead are “like children lining up in the elementary school classroom asking when they can go to the bathroom” (Granat, 1983, p. 1429). They are all impatient, and they all want their way.When Quayle was elected in 1980 no one suggested that it would be a 9-to-5 job. And it has not been. Late night sessions, filibusters, endless quorum calls, repeated and repetitive votes numbering in the hundreds, crowded schedules, and yes, even the plaintive request of a six-year-old daughter conspire to make life difficult for a senator. On this particular night, Quayle could make his daughter's performance. Not so much because of the note she had sent to Dole, but because Dole and other Republican senators were scheduled to roast Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and then quickly return to the House to hear President Reagan report on his Geneva summit meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev.As majority leader, Dole must play to at least five closely related constituencies and overcome numerous obstacles to succeed. He must represent Reagan. He must represent his Republican Party colleagues. He must protect the interests of the 22 Republican Senate seats at risk in the 1986 election—including his own. He must represent and to some extent promote the interests of the entire Senate. And, of course, he must represent the people of Kansas. It need hardly be added that the interests of these constituencies frequently conflict.
Young vs. Old in 1984: Generations and Life Stages in Presidential Nomination Politics
Authors: Beck Paul Allen 
Published: September 2013

Amidst changing voter preferences and unexpected volatility in candidate fortunes, the 1984 contest for the Democratic presidential nomination contained at least one constant. From Iowa and New Hampshire through “Super Tuesday” and the middle round in big industrial states to the early June finale, voter preferences among the major contenders for the Democratic nomination diverged sharply by age.Gary Hart enjoyed his greatest support among young voters, while Walter Mondale's strength was drawn from older voters, especially those over 65. The appeal of Jesse Jackson varied by age as well. Young blacks flocked to the Jackson banner. Older blacks, perhaps no less excited by the presence of an attractive black candidate for president, were more reluctant to follow, giving a greater share of their vote than did young blacks to Walter Mondale. Not since the protest candidacies of McCarthy and Kennedy in 1968 or the more successful insurgency of McGovern in 1972 has so much attention been paid to the contrasting responses of Americans of different ages to candidates for the presidency.Popular accounts of the relationship of age to presidential choice in 1984 have treated these differences as indicative of generational conflict. The epicenter of the Hart constituency is located in the “Vietnam” or “baby boom” generation, while Mondale's generational home base has been placed among voters who came of age politically during the New Deal. The implication is that Mondale represented vestiges of the old Democratic New Deal coalition, whereas Hart was the candidate of Americans for whom the New Deal is only an historical footnote. Simply put, the 1984 Democratic battle commonly has been described as pitting the old coalition against the new ideas.
The Division of Political Science Into American and Non-American Politics: The Case of Legislatures
Authors: Loewenberg Gerhard 
Published: September 2013

When undergraduates want to study legislatures, more often than not their choice is limited to a course on Congress, although they may find a course on the legislative process which includes attention to state legislatures. This is hardly a cause for student discontent. The first, and often the only, ambition of political science students is to learn about the American system of government. That is why the introductory course in the discipline is usually a course in American government, why courses on state and local politics are entirely concerned with the United States, why courses on political parties are really about the Democratic and Republican parties, and why there are hardly any courses on the executive at all since the only subject in that area which is taught is the American presidency.It was not always so. A century ago, as curricula in political science developed in American universities, a general, theoretical concept of politics, derived from continental and particularly German approaches to the subject predominated. The focus on American politics came a full generation later, inspired by a concern for citizenship training and by the prospect of large captive audiences in classrooms of students fulfilling teacher certification requirements.America First was consistent with the mood of the United States in the 1920s, but less so in the 1930s and 1940s. In those decades student interest in non-American politics revived in response to the nation's involvement in world affairs, and this interest was expressed in the curriculum by separate courses, often misnamed “comparative government.” These were frequently courses in a series of major foreign governments, shaped by the writing and teaching of a new cohort of emigré faculty who revived the European influence on American political science. In this form the study of what was called “comparative government” gained a larger place in the curricula of departments of political science. But as a subfield of the discipline, comparative government remained too small, and the approach was too country-specific, to permit sub-specialization except by geographic areas. There was no place in it for courses on non-American legislatures, or executives, or political parties.