bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
“Those Aspects of the Social Sciences…”
Authors: Frey Cynthia Wolloch 
Published: April 2006

For a discipline that lies beyond the boundaries of what traditionally has been considered the domain of the humanities, political science has not fared badly at the endowment established to promote humanistic knowledge. However, that is a subjective judgment: One of the dubious charms of the NEH has been its failure, until recently, to implement a data collection and retrieval system that could yield information concerning the magnitude of support received by a given discipline. At long last an ADP system, known to its friends as AUGUSTUS (its enemies call it other things), is undergoing debugging. It is scheduled to be fully operational by the end of the current fiscal year.Two additional factors make it difficult to isolate grants awarded in political science. The Endowment, unlike the National Science Foundation, divides its workload principally by the type of audiences at which funded projects are aimed—e.g., the general public, research scholars, educators, community groups—rather than by discipline. Thus, just as there is no English program, so there is no political science program at the Endowment. Projects conducted by political scientists are eligible to compete in all of the funding categories administered by the Divisions of Fellowships, Research Grants, Public Programs, and Education Programs. To the extent that they express local or regional interests and involve a general out-of-school public, they may also compete for funds offered by the State Humanities Committees which serve as regrant agencies for the Endowment.
Reconciliation 1982: What Happened?
Authors: Peters Jean 
Published: April 2006

Reconciliation was marked by confusion and misunderstanding on Capitol Hill. Still, this unusual procedure permitted the Reagan Administration to have its budget considered and approved as a single package.In 1974, Congress passed a budget act to assert control over the federal budget and free itself from executive dominance over spending plans. In 1981, that act instead provided the Reagan Administration with a tool to put forth its economic program as a single philosophical package and to restructure basic social legislation to reflect that philosophy. The tool is reconciliation.Reconciliation has been slowly ripening on the budgetary vine for several years. The combined adroitness of key Administration budgeteer, David Stockman, who went from Michigan congressman to director of the Office of Management and Budget, along with the current economic climate, provided a unique opportunity for the executive branch to use congressional procedures to bypass normal congressional control over the federal budget.
Projecting the Outcome in 1984
Authors: Shafer Byron E. 
Published: April 2006

A catalog of the general sources of change in the politics of presidential selection, with applications to 1984, might suggest that this politics has become more changeable—and hence more unpredictable—in the modern era, the period marked off by the extensive procedural reforms enacted after 1968. Yet an initial comparison of the period from 1968 through 1980 with the period from 1848 through 1860, from 1876 to 1888, or from 1912 through 1924—to pick several periods of a dozen years each—does not suggest that the ultimate decisions on nomination and even election in the modern era are any more (or less) unpredictable than in certain earlier periods.What such a comparison does suggest is that the sources of unpredictability in presidential nomination and election contests are different than they once were. Once, the difficulty in calculating presidential outcomes was rooted in the fact that nominations were often realized inside national party conventions, where the bloc structure of the official party and the rules for balloting itself made all sorts of outcomes—many of them unforeseen—politically possible. Now, the comparable difficulty in calculating presidential outcomes is rooted in the process of delegate selection, where volatile public preferences and levels of participation, the constantly changing formal course of nomination politics, and the interaction among the candidates, the issues, and the other participants continue to make projection (equally) difficult.
Teaching About and Educating for Citizenship
Authors: Porter Mary Cornelia , Vanning Corey 
Published: April 2006

The objective of liberal education is, surely, to help students develop the skills, capacities, perceptions, and imagination to enable them to enrich and enhance not only their own lives, but the life of the community as well. Educating for citizenship, thus broadly defined, is an endeavor shared by political scientists with colleagues in related fields, in the arts, the sciences, and the humanities. Citizenship as subject matter, however, has fallen within our purview. Put differently, as educators all of us consider, in a diffuse sort of way, the relationship between our teaching on the one hand and the polity on the other. Those of us who are political scientists must consciously concern ourselves with matters that fall under the rubric of citizenship. Notwithstanding the high purposes of the Academy as a whole, citizenship has for all practical purposes been defined in terms of the political, and political science has been charged with providing an academic experience that should inform and inspire the citizen experience. A tension, therefore, may be said to exist between political science's competency to teach about and its more general responsibility to educate for citizenship. The writers here address the question of how we can best teach about citizenship, ply our trade as it were, in ways that educate for citizenship.First, it would be useful to remind ourselves how we typically teach about citizenship. That some subfields of the discipline lend themselves more readily than others to the enterprise is not at issue. Whatever the emphasis in a wide variety of courses, our students should leave our tutelages with an understanding of citizenship as a status, a cluster of activities, a concept, and a value. More tellingly, most of us would like to think that we expose our students to frames of reference and modes of analysis that encourage them to make and act upon informed, critical, and sophisticated judgments about political phenomena and public affairs.
Political Language and Political Reality
Authors: Edelman Murray 
Published: April 2006

The most incisive twentieth century students of language converge from different premises on the conclusion that language is the key creator of the social worlds people experience, and they agree as well that language cannot usefully be understood as a tool for describing an objective reality. For the later Wittgenstein there are no essences, only language games. Chomsky analyzes the sense in which grammar is generative. For Derrida all language is performative, a form of action that undermines its own presuppositions. Foucault sees language as antedating and constructing subjectivity. The “linguistic turn” in twentieth century philosophy, social psychology, and literary theory entails an intellectual ferment that raises fundamental questions about a great deal of mainstream political science, and especially about its logical positivist premises.While the writers just mentioned analyze various senses in which language use is an aspect of creativity, those who focus upon specifically political language are chiefly concerned with its capacity to reflect ideology, mystify, and distort. The more perspicacious of them deny that an undistorting language is possible in a social world marked by inequalities in resources and status, though the notion of an undistorted language can be useful as an evocation of an ideal benchmark. The emphasis upon political language as distorting or mystifying is a key theme in Lasswell and Orwell, as it is in Habermas, Osgood, Ellul, Vygotsky, Enzensberger, Bennett, and Shapiro.
The Elections, the Economy and Public Opinion: 1984
Authors: Lipset Seymour Martin 
Published: April 2006

Many commentaries on the recent American elections conclude that the United States has taken a long-term move to the right. This shift seemingly began in the late sixties as a reaction to the turmoil occasioned by militant, sometimes violent protest tactics used by the civil rights and antiwar movements, and by the sharp challenge to traditional values encompassed in the changes in family and sex behavior, dress styles, the increased use of drugs, and the like. The Republicans have been victorious in four out of the last five presidential elections, those held from 1968 on. Only one of these, that in 1968, was close, but in that contest a right-wing and racist candidate, George Wallace, received 13 percent. The one election of the five which the Democrats won, that in 1976, was the first one after Richard Nixon's resignation following the Watergate scandal.Yet the conclusion that America has been in a conservative mood for some time is challenged by the results of the races for Congress and state offices and by the findings of the opinion polls. In 1984, in the same election in which Ronald Reagan received 59 percent of the vote, eight percent more than in 1980, his party lost two seats in the Senate and gained only 14 in the much larger House, leaving it behind the Democrats by 252 to 183. The Democrats still hold 34 of the 50 governorships, down by only one. Judged by which party holds most electoral offices, the Democrats remain the majority party.
The 1984 Election: The Irrelevance of the Campaign
Authors: Frankovic Kathleen A. 
Published: April 2006

In 1948, pollsters and journalists learned that campaigns mattered. In 1984, the lesson may be that sometimes campaigns may not matter at all. The major question for analysis of this election, therefore, is not what did Ronald Reagan do to insure victory, but why did anyone think Ronald Reagan could lose?This year is an awkward year for analysis for other reasons as well. This was a landslide election; landslides tend to be massive rejections of one candidate or massive affirmations of the winner's policies or performance. This year, the voters were clear in their approval of Ronald Reagan's economic programs. They were less clear in their support for increased spending on defense or in support of the Reagan social agenda. Straightforward analysis of the election provides indications of somewhat increased confidence in government and the prevalence of economic issues dominating the reasons for candidate support. The election seems a mandate for continued economic success, with little concern for how that is achieved. The groups who voted against Ronald Reagan were those who did not think they benefited from administration policies—blacks, Hispanics, and the poor—as well as self-described liberals and the traditional supporters of American liberalism, Jews.
The Prospects for Contemporary Partisan Realignment
Authors: Brady David W. , Hurley Patricia A. 
Published: April 2006

With the exception of 1976, all national elections since 1964 have generated commentary among both media analysts and political scientists about the possibility of realignment. Reports have varied from the straightforward—yes or no—to the contrived—realignment has been realized at the presidential but not the congressional level. In this essay, we outline our view of those factors that are necessary for a realignment, and we evaluate the 1984 elections with respect to those factors. Our focus in this analysis is on the tripartite structure of American party systems: party in the electorate, party in government, and party as organization. In addition, we discuss the policy consequences associated with realignments.Theories of RealignmentsSchlesinger (1984: 371) reminds us that “[the parts of parties] are treated as though each leads a life of its own with little attention to what if anything holds them together.” This admonition also holds for students of realignments. One school of thought, centering around the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center, focuses attention on party in the electorate. In this view, a realigning election is one in which the normal party vote shifts from one party to another, and because of the influence of individual partisan identification on electoral outcome, this new majority party dominates elections for a generation or more. This emphasis on the distribution of party identification in the electorate is beneficial in that it gives us an operational definition of realignment and allows us to assess both critical and secular (gradual) realignments.
The U.S. and Soviet Stakes in Nuclear Nonproliferation
Authors: Nye Joseph S. 
Published: April 2006

In the aftermath of the invasion of Afghanistan and the advent of the Reagan Administration, cooperation between the U.S. and the Soviet Union seems to have diminished, particularly in the area of arms control. Nuclear non-proliferation is the oldest area of Soviet-American cooperation in arms control, dating back to the establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the 1950s. But the fact that the two countries have a common interest does not mean that there is necessarily an equal interest or that it can survive the current tension.Some analysts argue that the Soviet Union has more at risk from proliferation than does the United States. For example, many of the potential new entrants to nuclear weapons status–India, Pakistan, Korea, Taiwan, Iraq–are countries geographically close to the Soviet Union and distant from the United States. Thus, it could be argued that the Soviet Union has more to fear than we do, and from the zero-sum perspective of U.S.-Soviet hostility, further proliferation may hurt the Soviet Union more than the United States. To judge whether this is a sensible basis for policy, or whether cooperative action is a better basis requires a closer look at the skeptical arguments.
Political Scientists and the Republican National Conventions
Authors: Bibby John F. 
Published: April 2006

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's Presidential 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.
Realignment: The Eternal Question
Authors: Schneider William 
Published: April 2006

Realignment is one of the few political science concepts that have made their way into the popular culture. Writers like Samuel Lubell, Kevin Phillips, and David Broder, borrowing heavily from the political science literature, have made informed political observers aware of the cyclical nature of party dominance in American political history and of the fact that the demise of the so-called “fifth” or New Deal party system has been overdue since about 1968. It is not unusual for political reporters to ask each other after a presidential election whether it was a “critical election” or not. They are, in other words, hip to our jargon.What most journalists and politicians understand by realignment, however, is a good deal less complex than what political scientists mean. Realignment, to most people in Washington, means a Republican take-over. It means that the GOP will replace the Democrats as the “normal” governing majority in this country for the next generation, just as the Democrats replaced the Republicans as the “normal” governing party after 1932.Certain facts suggest that things are changing in that direction. The Republicans have won three out of the last four presidential elections. The Democrats have obtained a majority of the presidential vote only twice in nine elections since 1944. The once-Solid South did not hold for the Democrats in 1964, 1968, 1972, or 1980. On the other hand, Democratic predominance has continued at most levels of office-holding below that of president and in party registration figures.
Of Palates and Politics: New York City as a Case Study
Authors: Chambers John Whiteclay 
Published: April 2006

Is it possible that despite the many studies of political leadership that social scientists have overlooked the most obvious determinant of politicians' behavior?Right under their noses all along, so to speak, was what I shall call, for want of a better descriptive title, the Food Connection. You are what you eat, health food people say, and this aphorism may disclose an entirely new area of study, a new subfield for political science. It certainly merits investigation.The possibilities are tantalizing. Is there a correlation between gastronomical and political style and success? Does digestion determine decision-making? What, in fact, is the connection between a politician's head and stomach.Consider the importance of such psychology of food. American presidents have already been analyzed as psychological types. Now astute observers could also arrange them into epicurean categories. If food input does affect political output, a study of their eating habits could increase our understanding of their performance in office.
Changes in State Party Organization 1960–1980: A Preliminary Report and Request for Data
Authors: Cotter Cornelius P. , Bibby John F. , Gibson James L. , Huckshorn Robert J. 
Published: April 2006

We are engaged in a study of the current and past condition of party organizations in the United States. The research examines parties within an institutional framework and seeks to measure the strength of party organizations at the national, state, and local levels. But in order to compare parties over time it is necessary to have longitudinal data. The purpose of this note is to ask interested researchers to share with us documented data on state party central committee staff and annual operating budgets or expenditures for the period 1960–1978. We would also appreciate suggestions for sources of such data for any of the state parties.Table 1 presents the state party central committee budget and staff data collected to date. The 21-year period 1960–1980 yields 2,100 possible data points for the 100 state party organizations. We have collected budget data for 964 (45.9 percent) and staff data for 1,000 (47.6 percent) of the data points. These data have come from a variety of sources:1. interviews with state party officials in 27 sample states (states selected for analysis in the cross-sectional portion of our research;2. questionnaires sent to 556 former state party chairmen;3. surveys by Roland H. Ebel, Cornelius P. Cotter, and Bernard C. Hennessy;4. data collected and generously made available by William J. Crotty;5. Jerome M. Mileur's 1977 survey of state party central committees;6. Robert J. Huckshorn's collection of state party data;7. surveys conducted by the Democratic National Committee in 1962, the Republican National Committee in 1968–69, and by the president of the Association of State Democratic Chairmen in 1974.
Political Science Departments: Reputations Versus Productivity
Authors: Robey John S. 
Published: April 2006

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.
Nursing Home Reform and the Politics of Long-Term Care
Authors: Hawes Catherine 
Published: April 2006

Nursing home care has been described as the most troubled and troublesome segment of the American health care system. Despite the annual expenditure of billions of dollars, extensive regulation, and the emergence of an increasingly sophisticated and concentrated industry, significant problems persist. Inadequate quality of care continues to be a serious and pervasive problem. Discrimination against patients whose care is paid for by Medicaid and Medicare, as well as against those with “heavy care” or extensive needs, is rampant. Costs have escalated at a phenomenal rate and continue to represent a substantial fiscal burden, causing one state Medicaid director to refer to nursing home payments as “the black hole of state budgets.”These circumstances are neither new nor surprising. They are, in fact, the result of rather startling failures in the public sector that are rooted in the special nature of the politics of long-term care. This article discusses the history of public policy toward nursing homes and the politics of long-term care, emphasizing problems in assuring acceptable quality of care. It also addresses the possibilities for reform during the next two years, particularly in light of new patient advocate and nursing home reform coalitions that promise to change the face of long-term care politics.