Much has been written about John Brown and his ill-fated raid on Harpers Ferry, but as Brown himself recognized, his power would be greater in death than in life. This is the first book length examination of Brown's legacy: what different segment of American society, with their differing aspirations, fears, and purposes, made of Brown's attempt to foment a slave rebellion and his subsequent trial and execution.

This contributors' volume examines the ways in which public opinion affects public policy via the news media. Insofar as the media represent or characterize the public, they represent or frame policy questions and decisions. They convey--accurately or inaccurately--the overall climate of public opinion to policymakers, and are themselves used as evidence of public opinion by policymakers. This work draws together theory and original research concerning the role of the press in shaping public policy and links the fields of journalism, mass communications, and political science.

This work will be of interest to scholars and practitioners in journalism, communications studies, public policy, government, and political science.

This work analyses whether the polls in 1993 and 1994 misled US policy makers about the urgency of health care reform. It reviews the attitudes of Americans about their own health care, their concerns about reform of the system, and the views they hold about the importance of the issue.

Public opinion pools have become staples of contemporary political reporting, and most national news organizations have sophisticated in-house polling operations. The increased number and quality of polls conducted and reported by the press give the public a chance to help see the agendas of campaigns and define the meaning of elections. Yet competition and the need for fast responses to events often lead news organizations to misuse polls in a way that diminishes rather than enhances democracy. Polls can shape public opinion as well as describe it; they can set the news agenda and influence the coverage of political events in ways hostile to a constructive dialogue between citizens and their leaders. In this volume, media specialist and well-known reporters provide a comprehensive survey of the problems and possibilities of polling by media organizations in the 1990s and beyond. Thomas Mann and Gary Orren analyze the strengths and weaknesses of media polls and their impact on American politics. Everett Carll Ladd and John Benson discuss the extraordinary growth of polling in news organizations for the past two decades. Kathleen Frankovic addresses the tension between the needs of news organizations for quick results and the need to preserve the standards of survey research. Henry Brady and Gary Orren examine the most serious methodological problems with news media polls. Michael Kagay explores the sources of well-publicized variability in poll findings. Michael Traugott considers the complicated question of how polls influence the public and whether their effects are benign or harmful. Finally, E. J. Dionne, Jr. examines media organizations' obsession with polls and the impact polls have on reporters. The authors offer recommendations for improving the conduct and use of media polls so that citizens can make better informed and enlightened decisions about the public agenda.

Big Brother just gets bigger. Are we worried?

Distrust of a strong central government has been a recurrent theme in our political culture, from the Antifederalists through the Bush administration. What lies behind our preference for a weak central government? Are Americans still fearful of being swallowed whole by the leviathan?

The Bennetts say not. Charting trends in American public opinion about big government from the 1930s to 1989, with emphasis on the last 25 years, they trace how we have adapted to a growing national government. They analyze what these opinions tell us about changing themes in American popular culture and document the significant differences in public opinion about big government, the positive state, and citizens' obligations.

Typically, Americans want more government for less money. They want the feds out of their pockets but not necessarily off their backs. Reflexively opposed to higher taxes, they want more government spending for a host of programs and can be convinced of the need for more regulation.

The Bennetts also look at how Americans of all ages feel about their duties as citizens and what the declining sense of obligation, particularly among the young, means for American political culture. Their findings have relevance for public opinion, public policy, democratic theory, political socialization, and presidential studies.

The judicial system in a liberal democracy is deemed to be an independent branch of government with judges free from political agendas or societal pressures. In reality, judges are often influenced by their economic and social backgrounds, gender, race, religion, and sexuality. This volume explores the representation of different identities in the judiciary in the United States. The contributors investigate the pipeline, ambition, institutional inclusion, retention, and representation of groups previously excluded from federal, state, and local judiciaries. This study demonstrates how diversity on the bench improves the quality of justice, bolsters confidence in the legitimacy of the courts, and provides a vital voice in decision-making power for formerly disenfranchised populations.

Too often, elections around the globe are, unfortunately, deeply flawed or even fail. What triggers these problems? In this second volume of her trilogy on electoral integrity, Pippa Norris compares structural, international, and institutional accounts as alternative perspectives to explain why elections fail to meet international standards. The book argues that rules preventing political actors from manipulating electoral governance are needed to secure integrity, although at the same time officials also need sufficient resources and capacities to manage elections effectively. Drawing on new evidence, the study determines the most effective types of strategies for strengthening the quality of electoral governance around the world. With a global perspective, this book provides fresh insights into these major issues at the heart of the study of elections and voting behavior, comparative politics, democracy and democratization, political culture, democratic governance, public policymaking, development, international relations and conflict studies, and processes of regime change.

MAIL ON SUNDAY BOOK OF THE YEAR OBSERVER BOOK OF THE WEEK 'A compelling book' Evening Standard 'Essential' Sunday Times 'His soldier's dispatch is easy to read and vividly illustrates a sense of rising panic and embattlement. If you want to know what it was like to be there at the time, in the eye of a frenzied storm, then [Unleashing Demons] should be bought...' Andrew Marr, Sunday Times 'Vivid and immediate...It paints a brutally honest portrait of the British political class' Mail on Sunday 'A must-read account of history as it happened' Matt D'Ancona 'Jauntily written...naughty fun' Quentin Letts 'Unleashing Demons...has the vividness and pace of a political thriller. Extraordinarily candid...' Financial Times 'A fascinating book' Robert Elms, BBC 'The book that will set Westminster ablaze' Mail on Sunday 'Gripping reading' New Statesman 'Utterly fascinating...indispensable to appreciating this extraordinary phase in our history.' John Simpson 'The compelling insider's account' Nick Robinson 'This is one of the most vivid, frank and exciting inside accounts to have been written for years.' Anthony Seldon 'A gripping fly-on-the-wall account.' Robert Peston As David Cameron's director of Politics and communications, Craig Oliver was in the room at every key moment during the EU referendum - the biggest political event in the UK since World War 2. Craig Oliver worked with all the players, including David Cameron, George Osbourne, Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, Jeremy Corbyn, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Theresa May and Peter Mandelson. Unleashing Demons is based on his extensive notes, detailing everything from the decision to call a referendum, to the subsequent civil war in the Conservative Party and the aftermath of the shocking result. This is raw history at its very best, packed with enthralling detail and colourful anecdotes from behind the closed doors of the campaign that changed British history.

Women have made significant inroads into political life in recent years, but in many parts of the world, their increased engagement has spurred attacks, intimidation, and harassment. This book provides the first comprehensive account of this phenomenon, exploring how women came to give these experiences a name: violence against women in politics. Tracing its global emergence as a concept, Mona Lena Krook draws on insights from multiple disciplines-political science, sociology, history, gender studies, economics, linguistics, psychology, and forensic science-to develop a more robust version of this concept to support ongoing activism and inform future scholarly work. Krook argues that violence against women in politics is not simply a gendered extension of existing definitions of political violence privileging physical aggressions against rivals. Rather, it is a distinct phenomenon involving a broad range of harms to attack and undermine women as political actors, taking physical, psychological, sexual, economic, and semiotic forms. Incorporating a wide range of country examples, she illustrates what this violence looks like in practice, catalogues emerging solutions around the world, and considers how to document this phenomenon more effectively. Highlighting its implications for democracy, human rights, and gender equality, the book asserts that addressing this issue requires ongoing dialogue and collaboration to ensure women's equal rights to participate-freely and safely-in political life around the globe.

Most members of Congress begin their careers through regularly scheduled elections, but terms may be cut short due to death, scandal, or different career opportunities. In these cases, special elections are held to fill vacancies. In fact, a number of prominent political figures, including Lyndon Johnson, Nancy Pelosi, and John Dingell, began their long and distinguished careers through special election to Congress. While the media often look to special elections as a way of measuring public sentiment on presidential performance, even though voter turnout tends to be significantly lower than in regular elections, these events have rarely attracted academic attention. Oftentimes, studies of these contests lead to generalizations about how a party should proceed if it hopes to wrest a seat away from the opposition in a special election. This book is the first large-scale scholarly treatment of special elections: both in terms of explaining what factors influence outcomes and in determining whether special elections are bellwethers for general elections. Charles S. Bullock, III and Karen L. Owen argue that special elections offer parties a testing ground for messaging and strategies for mobilizing voters in anticipation of general elections. Moreover, these elections provide opportunities for diversification of Congress as reduced commitment to resources for campaigning has led more women and candidates of color to compete in them-and win. Based on 75 years of data, the authors closely examine several competitive special elections during the first two years of the Trump era and quantitatively assess the almost 300 House special elections held since World War II.

Americans today "know" that a majority of the population supports the death penalty, that half of all marriages end in divorce, and that four out of five prefer a particular brand of toothpaste. Through statistics like these, we feel that we understand our fellow citizens. But remarkably, such data--now woven into our social fabric--became common currency only in the last century. Sarah Igo tells the story, for the first time, of how opinion polls, man-in-the-street interviews, sex surveys, community studies, and consumer research transformed the United States public.

Igo argues that modern surveys, from the Middletown studies to the Gallup Poll and the Kinsey Reports, projected new visions of the nation: authoritative accounts of majorities and minorities, the mainstream and the marginal. They also infiltrated the lives of those who opened their doors to pollsters, or measured their habits and beliefs against statistics culled from strangers. Survey data underwrote categories as abstract as "the average American" and as intimate as the sexual self.

With a bold and sophisticated analysis, Igo demonstrates the power of scientific surveys to shape Americans' sense of themselves as individuals, members of communities, and citizens of a nation. Tracing how ordinary people argued about and adapted to a public awash in aggregate data, she reveals how survey techniques and findings became the vocabulary of mass society--and essential to understanding who we, as modern Americans, think we are.

This monumental study is a comprehensive critical survey of the policy preferences of the American public, and will be the definitive work on American public opinion for some time to come. Drawing on an enormous body of public opinion data, Benjamin I. Page and Robert Y. Shapiro provide the richest available portrait of the political views of Americans, from the 1930's to 1990. They not only cover all types of domestic and foreign policy issues, but also consider how opinions vary by age, gender, race, region, and the like.
The authors unequivocally demonstrate that, notwithstanding fluctuations in the opinions of individuals, "collective" public opinion is remarkably coherent: it reflects a stable system of values shared by the majority of Americans and it responds sensitively to new events, arguments, and information reported in the mass media. While documenting some alarming case of manipulation, Page and Shapiro solidly establish the soundness and value of collective political opinion. "The Rational Public" provides a wealth of information about what we as a nation have wanted from government, how we have changed our minds over the years, and why.
For anyone interested in the short- and long-term trends in Americans' policy preferences, or eager to learn what Americans have thought about issues ranging from racial equality to the MX missile, welfare to abortion, this book offers by far the most sophisticated and detailed treatment available.

Public opinion polls are everywhere. Journalists report their results without hesitation, and political activists of all kinds spend millions of dollars on them, fueling the widespread assumption that elected officials "pander" to public opinion--that they tailor their policy decisions to the results of polls.
In this provocative and engagingly written book, the authors argue that the reality is quite the opposite. In fact, when not facing election, contemporary presidents and members of Congress routinely ignore the public's policy preferences and follow their own political philosophies, as well as those of their party's activists, their contributors, and their interest group allies. Politicians devote substantial time, effort, and money to tracking public opinion, not for the purposes of policymaking, but to change public opinion--to determine how to craft their public statements and actions to win support for the policies they and their supporters want.
Taking two recent, dramatic episodes--President Clinton's failed health care reform campaign, and Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America"--as examples, the authors show how both used public opinion research and the media to change the public's mind. Such orchestrated displays help explain the media's preoccupation with political conflict and strategy and, the authors argue, have propelled levels of public distrust and fear of government to record highs.
Revisiting the fundamental premises of representative democracy, this accessible book asks us to reexamine whether our government really responds to the broad public or to the narrower interests and values of certain groups. And with the 2000 campaign season heating up, "Politicians Don't Pander" could not be more timely.
"'Polling has turned leaders into followers, ' laments columnist Marueen Dowd of "The New York Times." Well, that's news definitely not fit to print say two academics who have examined the polls and the legislative records of recent presidents to see just how responsive chief executives are to the polls. Their conclusion: not much. . . . In fact, their review and analyses found that public opinion polls on policy appear to have increasingly less, not more, influence on government policies."--Richard Morin, "The Washington Post"

The circumstances surrounding the collapse of the Camp David summit between U.S. president Bill Clinton, Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Yasser Arafat in July 2000 are still hotly debated by scholars and experts of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In pointing out the myriad of reasons for the breakdown, some have pointed to flaws in leaders' personalities and differences in negotiation styles; others have stressed the lack of sufficient preparations for the summit and the initial unbridgeable differences between the parties attending it. Most experts, however, agree that domestic considerations played a major role in the summit progression and eventual breakdown. This book highlights the attempts to salvage peace against the backdrop of intensifying violence during the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the role of domestic factors, particularly public opinion in determining the conduct of Israelis and Palestinians since the beginning of the second intifada. This book consists of public documents which have been located, gathered, combined, reformatted, and enhanced with a subject index, selectively edited and bound to provide easy access.

Twenty-four news networks, a plethora of newspapers and magazines, vibrant news-talk radio, and the ubiquitous Internet highlight our society as information-driven. With such a steady stream of hard facts mixed with publicised opinions, the mainstream population has an opinion on everything. Most anyone seems itching to argue their side of an issue, making once private beliefs fodder for general consumption. A staple of any medium's content is a regular public opinion poll on whatever hot topic strikes the editor's fancy. From the significant to the mundane, public opinion permeates society. Accordingly, politicians have taken note of these opinions and adopted stands and values that put them in tune with public sentiment. An understanding of the nature of public opinion, therefore, is paramount in today's world. This book assembles and presents a carefully chosen bibliography on public opinion in its many forms. The collection of references makes for a valuable resource in studying and researching the critical issue of public opinion. Easy access to these pieces of literature are then provided with author, title, and subject indexes.

Human rights organizations have grown exponentially across the globe, particularly in the global South, and the term human rights is now common parlance among politicians and civil society activists. As international donors pour money into global human rights promotion, some governments, scholars, activists, and other critics fear a subtle, Western-led campaign for political, economic, and cultural domination. While debates about human rights are waged in elite circles, what do publics in the global South think about human rights ideas and the organizations that promote them? Drawing on large-scale public opinion surveys and interview with human rights practioners in India, Mexico, Morocco, and Nigeria, Taking Root finds that most people are in fact broadly supportive of human rights discourse, trust local human rights groups, and do not view human rights as a tool of foreign powers. Pro-human rights constituencies also tend to be highly skeptical of the U.S. government, multinational corporations, and their own governments. However, this general public support for human rights isn't grounded in strong commitments of public engagement, money, or local ties to the human rights sector. Publics in the global South do donate to charitable causes and organizations, but rarely give to local rights groups. Rights organizations instead seek aid from foreign sources, an increasingly untenable strategy as foreign aid to civil society declines. The book also describes the complex relations between religiosity and support for human rights as faith communities, worldviews, and traditions strongly influence the public's views of human rights, but often in contradictory ways. As the most informative and comprehensive account available of public perceptions of human rights across several regions of the world, Taking Root will challenge a number of accepted truths held by human rights supporters and skeptics alike.

Pollsters and pundits armed with the best public opinion polls failed to predict the election of Donald Trump in 2016. Is this because we no longer understand what the American public is? In A Troubled Birth, Susan Herbst argues that we need to return to earlier meanings of "public opinion" to understand our current climate. Herbst contends that the idea that there was a public-whose opinions mattered-emerged during the Great Depression, with the diffusion of radio, the devastating impact of the economic collapse on so many people, the appearance of professional pollsters, and Franklin Roosevelt's powerful rhetoric. She argues that public opinion about issues can only be seen as a messy mixture of culture, politics, and economics-in short, all the things that influence how people live. Herbst deftly pins down contours of public opinion in new ways and explores what endures and what doesn't in the extraordinarily troubled, polarized, and hyper-mediated present. Before we can ask the most important questions about public opinion in American democracy today, we must reckon yet again with the politics and culture of the 1930s.

From World War II to the war in Iraq, periods of international conflict seem like unique moments in U.S. political history--but when it comes to public opinion, they are not. To make this groundbreaking revelation, "In Time of War" explodes conventional wisdom about American reactions to World War II, as well as the more recent conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Adam Berinsky argues that public response to these crises has been shaped less by their defining characteristics--such as what they cost in lives and resources--than by the same political interests and group affiliations that influence our ideas about domestic issues.

With the help of World War II-era survey data that had gone virtually untouched for the past sixty years, Berinsky begins by disproving the myth of "the good war" that Americans all fell in line to support after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The attack, he reveals, did not significantly alter public opinion but merely punctuated interventionist sentiment that had already risen in response to the ways that political leaders at home had framed the fighting abroad. Weaving his findings into the first general theory of the factors that shape American wartime opinion, Berinsky also sheds new light on our reactions to other crises. He shows, for example, that our attitudes toward restricted civil liberties during Vietnam and after 9/11 stemmed from the same kinds of judgments we make during times of peace.

With Iraq and Afghanistan now competing for attention with urgent issues within the United States, "In Time of War "offers a timely reminder of the full extent to which foreign and domestic politics profoundly influence--and ultimately illuminate--each other.

Political scientists and political theorists have long been interested in social and political performance. Theatre and performance researchers have often focused on the political dimensions of the live arts. Yet the interdisciplinary nature of this labor has typically been assumed rather than rigorously explored. Further, it is crucial to bring the concepts of theatre and performance deployed by other disciplines such as psychology, law, political anthropology, sociology among others into a wider, as well as deeper, interdisciplinary engagement. Embodying and fostering that engagement is at the heart of this new handbook. The Handbook brings together leading scholars in the fields of Politics and Performance to map out the evolving interdisciplinary engagement. The authors-drawn from a wide range of disciplines-investigate the relationship between politics and performance to show that certain features of political transactions shared by performances are fundamental to both disciplines, and that they also share, to a large extent, a common communicational base and language. The volume is organized into seven thematic sections: the interdisciplinary theory of politics and performance; performativity and theatricality (protest, regulation, resistance, change, authority); identities (race, gender, sexuality, class, citizenship, indigeneity); sites (states, borders, markets, law, religion); scripts (accountability, authority and legitimacy, security, ceremony, sustainability); body, voice, and gesture (representation, leadership, participation, rhetoric, disruption); and affect (media, care, love empathy, comedy, populism, memory).

What motivates us to rethink and act on our opinions during times of political and social unrest? To investigate this question, Taeku Lee's smartly argued book looks to the critical struggle over the moral principles, group interests, and racial animosities that defined public support for racial policies during the civil rights movement, from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s. Challenging the conventional view that public opinion is shaped by elites, Lee crafts an alternate account of the geographic, institutional, historical, and issue-specific contexts that inform our political views. He finds that grassroots organizations and local protests of ordinary people pushed demands for social change into the consciousness of the general public. From there, Lee argues, these demands entered the policy agendas of political elites. Evidence from multiple sources, including survey data, media coverage, historical accounts, and presidential archives, animates his argument.
Ultimately, "Mobilizing Public Opinion" is a timely, cautionary tale about how we view public opinion and a compelling testament to the potential power of ordinary citizens.

Public opinion about homosexuality varies substantially around the world. While residents in some nations have embraced gay rights as human rights, people in many other countries find homosexuality unacceptable. What creates such big differences in attitudes? This book shows that cross-national differences in opinion can be explained by the strength of democratic institutions, the level of economic development, and the religious context of the places where people live. Amy Adamczyk uses survey data from almost ninety societies, case studies of various countries, content analysis of newspaper articles, and in-depth interviews to examine how demographic and individual characteristics influence acceptance of homosexuality.

From World War II to the war in Iraq, periods of international conflict seem like unique moments in U.S. political history--but when it comes to public opinion, they are not. To make this groundbreaking revelation, "In Time of War" explodes conventional wisdom about American reactions to World War II, as well as the more recent conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Adam Berinsky argues that public response to these crises has been shaped less by their defining characteristics--such as what they cost in lives and resources--than by the same political interests and group affiliations that influence our ideas about domestic issues.

With the help of World War II-era survey data that had gone virtually untouched for the past sixty years, Berinsky begins by disproving the myth of "the good war" that Americans all fell in line to support after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The attack, he reveals, did not significantly alter public opinion but merely punctuated interventionist sentiment that had already risen in response to the ways that political leaders at home had framed the fighting abroad. Weaving his findings into the first general theory of the factors that shape American wartime opinion, Berinsky also sheds new light on our reactions to other crises. He shows, for example, that our attitudes toward restricted civil liberties during Vietnam and after 9/11 stemmed from the same kinds of judgments we make during times of peace.

With Iraq and Afghanistan now competing for attention with urgent issues within the United States, "In Time of War "offers a timely reminder of the full extent to which foreign and domestic politics profoundly influence--and ultimately illuminate--each other.

The "British Elections and Parties" series publishes research on parties, elections and voting behaviour in Britain, providing analyses of current and historical developments. It is produced under the auspices of the Political Studies Association's Election, Public Opinion and Parties study group.
Volume 9 includes research based around four themes: electoral reform; partisanship and voting; parliamentary behaviour; and the attitudes of the young. It provides a source of data on public opinion polls, a summary of local election results, UK referendums, key economic indicators, political parties and a chronology of major political events in 1998.