"Many citizens, politicians, and pundits routinely complain about the health of the political system, but few attempt a systematic diagnosis and even fewer recommend treatments. In this highly readable book, Anthony Gierzynski identifies many of the shortcomings in U.S. politics and offers some provocative prescriptions to address them." - Paul S. Herrnson, University of Maryland "For those anxious about the health of American democracy, they can do no better than read Gierzynski's book, which offers a sane and informed approach to making our political institutions work better. And like a good doctor, Gierzynski wisely avoids recommending many of the conventional remedies that might do more harm than good." - Ray La Raja, University of Massachusetts "Unlike myopic specialists who are prone to treat only a specific part of the body, Dr. Gierzynski offers scholars, students, and laymen a holistic and rich understanding of what ails us and what we can do to make things better. This is a readable and important book for anyone who cares about the health of our democracy." - David T. Z. Mindich, Saint Michael's College

The role of money in the U.S. electoral process has become more and more controversial in recent years. Following the Buckley ruling and other legislation in 1996, candidates and political parties are free to raise virtually unlimited ?soft? money, making money perhaps the most significant factor in a campaign's success. In Moey Rules, Anthony Gier

The role of money in the U.S. electoral process has become more and more controversial in recent years. Following the Buckley ruling and other legislation in 1996, candidates and political parties are free to raise virtually unlimited "soft" money, making money perhaps the most significant factor in a campaign's success. In Moey Rules, Anthony Gierzynski theorizes that, under our current system of financing elections, our political process has tilted too far in favor of political freedom, at the expense of political equality. Gierzynski examines the historical roots of the campaign finance dilemma, demonstrates its effects on the local, state, and national levels, and projects the long-term outcomes for American politics.

In a time of increasing campaign costs and decreasing state political party activity, legislative party campaign committees have grown to play a major role in the politics of elections in a large number of American states. Anthony Gierzynski's book focuses on these committees. In this first multi-state analysis, Gierzynski explores the nature and practices of the committees through interviews with legislative leaders and staff and through statistical analyses of campaign finance data from ten representative states. In addition to direct cash contributions, legislative caucus campaign committees provide candidates with a multitude of support and services and usually target their resources on close races where they will have the greatest impact. Leadership PACs, the campaign committees of individual legislators, also allocate their resources strategically. The existence of such committees and the fact that the caucus campaign committees resemble political parties in both structure and behavior leads Gierzynski to pose interesting normative and practical questions. The answers to such questions have major implications for political parties and legislative politics.

Without a doubt the Harry Potter series has had a powerful effect on the Millennial Generation. Millions of children grew up immersed in the world of the boy wizard-reading the books, dressing up in costume to attend midnight book release parties, watching the movies, and even creating and competing in Quidditch tournaments. Beyond what we know of the popularity of the series, however, nothing has been published on the question of the Harry Potter effect on the politics of its young readers - now voting adults. Looking to engage his students in exploring the connections between political opinion and popular culture, Anthony Gierzynski conducted a national survey of more than 1,100 college students and examined these connections as well as Millennial politics. Harry Potter and the Millennials tells the fascinating story of how the team designed the study and gathered results, explains what conclusions can and cannot be drawn, and reveals the challenges social scientists face in studying political science, sociology, and mass communication. Specifically, the evidence indicates that Harry Potter fans are more open to diversity and are more politically tolerant than nonfans; fans are also less authoritarian, less likely to support the use of deadly force or torture, more politically active, and more likely to have had a negative view of the Bush administration. Furthermore, these differences do not disappear when controlling for other important predictors of these perspectives, lending support to the argument that the series indeed had an independent effect on its audience. In this clear and cogent account, Gierzynski demonstrates how social scientists develop and design research questions and studies. An appendix of questions and resulting data, including graphs and diagrams, will appeal especially to instructors seeking to explain the nuances of political socialization. Gierzynski's captivating analysis of media's impact on political views, combined with the enjoyable Potter story details, makes for an irresistible project that social scientists can use to work a little magic in their classrooms.

Entertainment media are rife with material that touches on the political. The stories with which we entertain ourselves often show us, for better or worse, that everything can be solved by the rise of an individual hero, and that the "best way" to deal with a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Our stories portray individuals along the lines of gender, racial, and ethnic stereotypes; offer us villains that are one-dimensional characters driven by evil; and show us politicians who are almost always corrupt, self-serving, and/or incompetent. They offer up models for how to deal with oppressive authority and they typically portray worlds that are just, where those who do the right thing come out on top. Entire entertainment genres, with their shared story telling conventions and common plot devices, provide lessons and perspectives that are relevant to how the public sees political issues. The stories that entertain us show us all these things and more, but to what effect? Does the pervasive politically relevant content that can be found not just in political entertainment shows, like House of Cards, but also in entertainment like Game of Thrones, that, on the surface, has nothing to do with modern politics, affect people's perspectives on the political world? That is the central question of this volume. This book discusses the type of content in entertainment media that has the best chance of influencing political beliefs, draws from the work of scholars in a number of disciplines in order to forge a theory explaining how and when entertainment media will affect political perspectives, and presents a series of empirical studies using experiments and surveys that demonstrate the effect of politically relevant content in shows such as Game of Thrones, House of Cards, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, in genres such science fiction, and through pervasive villain and leader character types.

Entertainment media are rife with material that touches on the political. The stories with which we entertain ourselves often show us, for better or worse, that everything can be solved by the rise of an individual hero, and that the "best way" to deal with a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Our stories portray individuals along the lines of gender, racial, and ethnic stereotypes; offer us villains that are one-dimensional characters driven by evil; and show us politicians who are almost always corrupt, self-serving, and/or incompetent. They offer up models for how to deal with oppressive authority and they typically portray worlds that are just, where those who do the right thing come out on top. Entire entertainment genres, with their shared story telling conventions and common plot devices, provide lessons and perspectives that are relevant to how the public sees political issues. The stories that entertain us show us all these things and more, but to what effect? Does the pervasive politically relevant content that can be found not just in political entertainment shows, like House of Cards, but also in entertainment like Game of Thrones, that, on the surface, has nothing to do with modern politics, affect people's perspectives on the political world? That is the central question of this volume. This book discusses the type of content in entertainment media that has the best chance of influencing political beliefs, draws from the work of scholars in a number of disciplines in order to forge a theory explaining how and when entertainment media will affect political perspectives, and presents a series of empirical studies using experiments and surveys that demonstrate the effect of politically relevant content in shows such as Game of Thrones, House of Cards, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, in genres such science fiction, and through pervasive villain and leader character types.