bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Generational Change and the Future of the Atlantic Alliance
Authors: Inglehart Ronald 
Published: April 2006

In 1968 a wave of student protest manifested itself throughout the Western world. Fifteen years later, a phenomenon variously described as the “Yuppies” or “Yumpies” began to be noted in the United States; a new environmentalist party entered the West German Bundestag for the first time; and a peace movement emerged in Western Europe that was able to mobilize an even larger and more mature segment of the public than did the anti-war movements of the Vietnam era.These seemingly dissimilar phenomena have something in common: they reflect a process of intergenerational value change that is gradually transforming the politics of Western societies. This process—a shift from Materialist to Postmaterialist value priorities—has brought new political issues to the center of the stage, and provided much of the impetus for new political movements. It has split existing political parties and given rise to new ones. And it raises serious doubts about the long-term viability of the Atlantic Alliance.
The Bifurcation of American and Non-American Perspectives in Foreign Policy
Authors: Holsti Ole R. 
Published: April 2006

The bifurcation of American and non-American perspectives in foreign policy analysis is a large topic to which justice cannot be done in limited space. To reduce the subject to somewhat more manageable scope, the focus here is on teaching and. more specifically, on undergraduate courses on American foreign policy. After examining some evidence that might shed light on the question, this essay will suggest some reasons, both within and outside the discipline, for this development, as well as some possible ways of avoiding undue parochialism by ensuring that non-American perspectives get some hearing.This is not the place to undertake extensive content analyses of foreign policy texts, but even a cursory glance at several recent, widely used volumes indicates that many students are exposed almost wholly to American perspectives. Materials cited in footnotes and as suggested readings are overwhelmingly written by American authors. That pattern also extends to three of the best recent collections of readings on American foreign policy. The first includes 32 essays, not one of which is by a non-American, all nine chapters in the second are by Americans, and only one of 12 essays in the third is co-authored by a foreign scholar. In fairness, it should be pointed out that these materials hardly present a homogeneous viewpoint on the sources, conduct, and consequences of American diplomacy; a collection of readings that includes essays by George Kennan, Carl Gershman, Henry Kissinger, and Stanley Hoffmann can hardly be accused of presenting a single outlook. Moreover, the diversity of choices among available texts provides a broad range of perspectives, from moderately hard-line to distinctly revisionist.
Notes on the 1980 Democratic Convention from a Confirmed “Hackademic”
Authors: Kamarck Elaine C. 
Published: April 2006

Upon advancement to candidacy in the political science department at the University of California, Berkeley, I joined the staff of the Democratic National Committee as Research Director for the Commission on Presidential Nomination and Party Structure. What was to be a short-term job ended up as a three and a half year commitment to the Democratic Party as I became, seriatim, program director for the Midterm Conference, executive director of the commission which established state party compliance with the delegate selection rules, and executive director of the 1980 Platform Committee.During my first month at the National Committee I had the pleasure of meeting one Mark Siegel, a political scientist with several years of involvement in national politics. One afternoon we were discussing the experiences of academic political scientists turned practitioners. Mark coined a term I have used frequently since then—“hackademic”—or someone who is partially an academic and partially a political hack.
The Inexact Science of Congressional Redistricting
Authors: Bullock Charles S. 
Published: April 2006

Incumbent politicians are understandably nervous when electoral rules are altered. In the case of the U.S. House of Representatives, members are well aware that a change in decade is accompanied by the near certainty that their own district lines will be redrawn. These incumbents know that changes resulting from the reallocation of congressional seats among states and the shift of population within states could have a shattering effect on their careers: their districts could be eliminated; they could be thrown into a district with another House incumbent; their district lines could be radically redrawn, destroying their traditional bases of support.Incumbents' unease is transformed into serious worry by one additional fact: de jure control of redistricting is out of their hands. State legislatures and governors, the Justice Department (for those states falling under the Voting Rights Act) and ultimately the courts determine the fate of incumbents.Of course, the ostensible purpose of congressional redistricting in accordance with the decennial census is to ensure that congressional representation reflects the changes in the geographical distribution of the nation's population and thus to ensure that the members of the House from each state represent approximately the same number of citizens. Putting that principle into practice creates opportunities for the parties to increase their strength in the House but it also causes tremendous uncertainty among incumbents.Looking at political science research on the effects of redistricting on the fortunes of incumbents, one might wonder why they worry. In 1972 I reported findings of my study on incumbents who lost their elections after redistricting.
Sex and Politics—New Alignments, Old Issues
Authors: Frankovic Kathleen A. 
Published: April 2006

The relationship between sex and political behavior has been discussed only in passing in the political science literature, if it is discussed at all. There has been little evidence from the 1940s to the 1970s that gender plays a role in determining issue positions, candidate evaluations, or candidate preference, as a quick perusal of some well-read political science works would confirm.Berelson, Lazarsfeld and McPhee in Voting, the seminal work on opinion formation in a presidential campaign, discovered no relationship between vote preference and sex. The researchers did discover a difference in reported interest in the 1948 campaign between men and women early in the campaign, but even that difference faded as the election drew near.Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes in The American Voter make no mention of either the existence or non-existence of sex difference in policy or candidate preference. They focus instead on differences in turnout, involvement and efficacy. Although they suggest that at one time opinions about Prohibition may have separated men from women, the authors conclude, “In the current era, there is no reason to believe that women as women are differentially attracted to one of the political parties.”Pomper in Voters' Choice does find a relationship between sex and one issue dimension–the dimension of war and peace. But Pomper, Campbell and Berelson agree that any sex differences cannot, by definition, be long-lasting. Berelson cites the lack of differentiation in the way policies affect the sexes, the lack of differences in intergenerational transmission, and the lack of segregation between the sexes.
Federal Management: Pathological Problems and Simple Cures
Authors: Rosenbaum Allan 
Published: April 2006

Like all of their recent predecessors, senior officials of the Reagan administration have spoken both frequently and with enthusiasm of their intention to save large amounts of taxpayers' money while making the federal government more responsive and dramatically increasing agency productivity. All of this is to be done by shaping up the federal bureaucracy.The main activity which has emerged so far has been to implement a hiring freeze, to reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy through firings and furloughs, and to advocate a barely specified form of cabinet governance. While these actions may save money in the short run, they will not improve the actual functioning of the federal bureaucracy.Indeed, ideas emerging from presidential appointees frequently tend to be irrelevant for one simple reason: most secretaries, assistant secretaries and even deputy assistant secretaries know very little about federal bureaucracy when they come to Washington and subsequently spend a remarkably small portion of their time learning about it—a fact that in itself is one of the major obstacles to improving the management of the federal government.Few secretaries, assistant secretaries and deputy assistant secretaries in any administration can resist the call of endless meetings with their counterparts from the states, other federal agencies or the big interest groups. Even more compelling for them is the siren call of travel to Paris, Peoria, and sundry places east and west to spread both enlightenment and the gospel of their administration and to revel in the attention automatically granted many visiting federal officials.
Beyond the Deadline
Authors: Palley Marian Lief 
Published: April 2006

Though the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) fell three states short of ratification, the women's movement seems to have learned from its mistakes and made some changes in its tactics, organization and focus. Specifically, feminist organizations—now stronger than ever—are stressing grass roots political activities and issues which are economic as well as social.Feminist groups seem to have been most successful in influencing public policy when they have focused on role equity issues rather than role change issues. As Joyce Gelb and I explained in a recent book on women and public policy,Role equity issues are those policies which extend rights now enjoyed by other groups (men, other minorities) to women and which appear to be relatively delineated or narrow in their implications, permitting policy makers to seek advantage with feminist groups and voters with little cost or controversy. In contrast, role change issues appear to produce change in the dependent female role of wife, mother and homemaker, holding out the potential of greater sexual freedom and independence in a variety of contexts. The latter issues are fraught with greater political pitfalls, including perceived threats to existing values, in turn creating visible and often powerful opposition.Of course, many issues deal both with role equity and role change. When feminist groups have failed, it has often been because their opponents have emphasized the role change aspects of an issue.Many of the issues which are primarily questions of role equity are economic. Thus, it was probably wise for the National Organization for Women (NOW) to emphasize in its ERA effort that the average female worker earns 59 cents for every dollar earned by her male counterpart.
Political Science and the Corporation
Authors: Menninger David 
Published: April 2006

In 1977, Charles Lindblom concluded his study of Politics and Markets with the assertion that “the large private corporation fits oddly into democratic theory and vision. Indeed, it does not fit.” In 1983, Robert Reich envisioned The Next American Frontier as the eradication of the distinction between business culture and civic culture in the United States and the full integration of the corporation into the country's key political and social processes. Failure to achieve such a new political-economic compact could mean, Reich asserted, the end of democracy's progress in America. Between Lindblom and Reich lie six short years in time and one vast gulf in political theory and policy perspective. Their positions set the framework for a whole series of political choices confronting American politics today. They also set an agenda for political science as a discipline that studies power, authority, and social change—an agenda calling for an expansion of both intellectual focus and analytical paradigms.Differences between the purposes and contents of Lindblom's and Reich's studies can be cited, of course. Politics and Markets presents itself as a scholarly work in the theory of political economy, whereas The Next American Frontier has a definite prescriptive flavor designed to influence current political debate. But such differences do not obscure the important element shared by the two books: recognition of the power and position of large corporations as the determining factor in the political-economic future of liberal democracy. Generated from this are several critical questions both authors confront: What is the purpose of public power and that of private economic power in advanced industrial societies today? What should be the relationship between the two as regards the preservation of liberal democracy? What is that relationship when the large corporation is taken into account? What redirection of corporate power is necessary or possible? What blending of corporate institutions and political institutions does liberal democracy allow—or demand?
The Paranoia of the Powerful: Thucydides on World War III
Authors: Lebow Richard Ned 
Published: April 2006

In the sixteenth year of the Peloponnesian War, an Athenian expedition descended upon the small island of Melos, about 90 miles south of Athens in the Aegean Sea, and demanded that the Melians join in alliance or be destroyed. Although a Spartan colony, Melos had remained scrupulously neutral in the war. Her citizens, unwilling to renounce their independence, sought unsuccessfully to dissuade the Athenians from attacking them. The Athenians explained that an independent Melos situated in the very heart of the Athenian imperium encouraged other island allies to aspire toward independence. Their failure to put an end to the anomaly of Melian independence would therefore be seen by friend and foe alike as a sign of weakness on Athens' part.The really intriguing question about the Melian dialogue is not the Athenian decision to invade Melos but rather Athenian toleration of Melian independence for the first sixteen years of the Peloponnesian War. For surely, if Melian independence constituted a threat to Athens in 416 B.C. it must have done so in 430 B.C., the year in which the war broke out, and in all of the years in between. Why then did Athens wait so long to impose its hegemony over the island? The answer, implicit in Thucydides' narrative history of the Peloponnesian War, contains an important insight into the nature of aggression, one, moreover, that is particularly germane to contemporary international relations.The Athenian reply to the Melians stresses the subjective nature of power; if others think of you as powerful, you are powerful andvice versa. For this reason, states must be concerned about their image abroad and must from time to time offer vivid demonstrations of their capability and resolve. The Athenian invasion of Melos, unnecessary for any strategic reason, was envisaged as such a display.
The Madness beyond MAD—Current American Nuclear Strategy
Authors: Jervis Robert 
Published: April 2006

A rational strategy for the employment of nuclear weapons is a contradiction in terms. The enormity of the destruction, either executed or threatened, severs the nexus of proportionality between means and ends which used to characterize the threat and use of force. This does not mean, however, that all nuclear strategies are equally irrational. The nuclear policy of the Reagan administration—which is essentially the same as that of the Carter administration and which has its roots in developments initiated by even earlier administrations—is particularly ill-formed. As I will demonstrate, the basic reason for this is that the strategy rests on a profound underestimation of the impact of nuclear weapons on military strategy and attempts to understand the current situation with intellectual tools appropriate only in the pre-nuclear era.American strategy for the past several years—the “countervailing strategy”—has been based on the assumption that what is crucial is the ability of American and allied military forces to deny the Soviets military advantage from any aggression they might contemplate. The U.S. must be prepared to meet and block any level of Soviet force. The strategy is then one of counterforce—blocking and seeking to destroy Soviet military power. The goal is deterrence. Although it is concerned with how the U.S. would fight many different kinds of wars, both nuclear and non-nuclear, it is not correct to claim that the strategy seeks to engage in wars rather than deter them.
Health Care in the United States: Access, Costs, and Quality
Authors: Hoadley John F. 
Published: April 2006

Fact: As a nation, medical care expenditures represent 10.6% of the gross national product. The portion of the nation's medical care dollar coming from federal sources declined slightly (42.6% to 41.4%) between 1981 and 1984, but this share is more than 15 percentage points above the comparable figure from the years prior to 1965 (Anderson, 1985).As these numbers illustrate, paying for health care is a very expensive proposition in the United States, consuming a higher proportion of our nation's resources than is true for most developed nations. While we have strongly resisted any move to a government-run system of health care delivery, the above numbers also show clearly that the federal government pays for a substantial share of all health care in this country.Three major themes have dominated the health policy agenda during recent years: access to health care, cost containment, and quality of care. The fates of these issues have waxed and waned over the years as changes in health care delivery, federal budgetary politics, and shifting public opinion have altered the environment over time. In the 1960s, access was the key issue, as Democratic administrations used government programs to make health care more readily available to all Americans. As inflation levels soared in the 1970s, cost containment was forced onto the agenda, resulting in a series of attempts to reduce federal expenditures on hospital care. Finally, by the mid-1980s, cost containment pressures were modifying slightly; we have recently witnessed a return to access issues and the emergence of quality as a new political issue.
What Do They Know and When Do They Know It? Health Staff on the Hill
Authors: Whiteman David 
Published: April 2006

“You could tell by their blank faces that most of them had no idea what the provisions really meant.” Using almost these identical words, two different congressional staff members described two separate groups: (a) the members of a congressional committee considering a Medicare reform provision at a committee mark-up and (b) the personal staff of these same members at a briefing on the provision prior to the mark-up. So what can we conclude about the level of information in Congress? Has the massive expansion of congressional information resources over the past two decades—including vast increases in the number of personal and committee staff and support agency personnel—been for naught?During the past three years, I have been conducting a study of the approach taken by members and staff of Congress in learning about policy issues and the implications of that approach for congressional decisionmaking. In the fall of 1984, I selected several discrete health and transportation issues which seemed likely to receive significant attention over the entire two years of the 99th Congress. My strategy was to study, for each issue, a sample of congressional “enterprises”—each made up of a member of Congress and his or her staff—as they followed and became involved in the development of the issue. My interest was in communication about these issues both within each enterprise and among all the various enterprises. At this point, nearing the conclusion of the fieldwork, I have conducted over 300 interviews, including meeting with certain key staff members as often as six times in order to monitor their evolving understanding of the issues.
Biracial Coalition Politics in Los Angeles
Authors: Sonenshein Raphe 
Published: April 2006

In their 1984 bookProtest Is Not EnoughBrowning, Marshall, and Tabb suggest that biracial coalitions are powerful vehicles for achieving minority incorporation in the political life of cities. They argue that black electoral mobilization and subsequent incorporation depend on both the relative size of the black community and white support. Similarly, Hispanic incorporation is a function not only of the percentage of Hispanics in the population but also joint membership with blacks in a liberal coalition (pp. 245–246).Their optimistic view of biracial and multiracial coalitions contrasts strikingly with the more common pessimism about cross-racial politics. Racial polarization in such major cities as New York, Chicago and Philadelphia (as well as in a number of medium and smaller-sized cities) has fed the belief that the black protests and white backlash of the 1960s have doomed biracial politics.Protest Is Not Enoughfocuses on ten small and medium-sized Northern California cities. The largest, San Francisco, is the 16th most populous city in the U.S. But biracial coalition politics has been most advanced in Berkeley, a city of only 103,328 in 1980. Thus the book's argument is vulnerable to the challenge that full-blown biracial politics worked only in a rather small, unusual city and otherwise had a significant impact in cities of only moderate size in the traditionally liberal Bay Area.
Excerpts from Declaration of Gordon E. Baker in Badham v. Eu
Authors: Baker Gordon E. 
Published: April 2006

Gerrymandering—the intentional manipulation of legislative boundaries for political advantage—is a venerable practice. Why, then, some might wonder, should we pay greater attention to it at this time? In particular, should judicial inquiry into constitutional issues of fair representation, intense for some two decades, now turn to what may well seem to comprise the heart of the “political thicket”? Throughout this period of reapportionment litigation, federal courts have alluded to the problem, with increasing concern shown by members of the Supreme Court of the United States, about its importance (e.g., Karcher v. Daggett, 103 S. Ct. 2653: 1983). Is the time ripe for a direct judicial examination of the gerrymander on constitutional grounds? And, if so, does California comprise an appropriate test case?Prerequisite to answering such questions are: (1) an understanding of how and why gerrymandering, in magnitude, extent, and impact, has become an essentially new kind of issue rather than a mere extension of a traditional practice; and (2) a need to develop judicially manageable standards of identifying gerrymanders.Prior to the reapportionment revolution of the 1960s, there existed a variety of constraints that conditioned boundary manipulation. For one thing, a large number of states simply failed to redistrict for several decades, the situation that triggered Baker v. Can (369 U.S. 186: 1962), Wesberry v. Sanders (376 U.S. 1: 1964), et al. This resulted in great disparities in population among districts, a form of “silent” or “status quo” gerrymander that in practice minimized periodic boundary manipulation. For example, district lines for Congress were typically redrawn only in states—usually a minority—that lost or gained seats.