|
Showing 1 - 13 of
13 matches in All Departments
Despite the early prospects for bipartisan unity on terrorism
initiatives, government gridlock continues on most major issues in
the wake of the 2004 elections. In this fully revised edition,
political scientists David W. Brady and Craig Volden demonstrate
that gridlock is not a product of divided government, party
politics, or any of the usual scapegoats. It is, instead, an
instrumental part of American government, built into our
institutions and sustained by leaders acting rationally not only to
achieve set goals but to thwart foolish inadvertencies. Looking at
key legislative issues from the divided government under Reagan,
through Clinton's Democratic government to complete unified
Republican control under George W. Bush, the authors clearly and
carefully analyze important crux points in lawmaking: the swing
votes, the veto, the filibuster, and the rise of tough budget
politics. They show that when it comes to government gridlock, it
doesn't matter who's in the White House or who's in control of
Congress; it's as American as apple pie, and its results may
ultimately be as sweet in ensuring stability and democracy.
This work addresses the development of congressional practices and
institutions and ties the changes to key political and economic
events. In connecting political and economic events with changes in
Congress, the authors examine the political economy of the history
of Congress. They draw upon history to offer insights about
contemporary issues such as party polarization, filibuster reform,
direct election of politicians, intercameral bargaining, and the
role of committees in the political process. Through this approach
the authors help us to understand how politics and economics
interact to affect Congress.
In recent decades, political scientists have produced an enormous
body of scholarship dealing with the U.S. Congress, and in
particular congressional organization. However, most of this
research has focused on Congress in the twentieth
century--especially the post-New Deal era--and the long history of
Congress has been largely neglected. The contributors to this book
demonstrate that this inattention to congressional history has
denied us many rich opportunities to more fully understand the
evolution and functioning of the modern Congress.
In striking contrast to the modern era, which is marked by only
modest partisan realignment and institutional change, the period
preceding the New Deal was a time of rapid and substantial change
in Congress. During the nation's first 150 years, parties emerged,
developed, and realigned; the standing rules of the House and
Senate expanded and underwent profound changes; the workload of
Congress increased dramatically; and both houses grew considerably
in size.
Studying history is valuable in large part because it allows
scholars to observe greater variation in many of the parameters of
their theories, and to test their core assumptions. A historical
approach pushes scholars to recognize and confront the limits of
their theories, resulting in theories that have increased validity
and broader applicability. Thus, incorporating history into
political science gives us a more dynamic view of Congress than the
relatively static picture that emerges from a strict focus on
recent periods.
Each contributor engages one of three general questions that have
animatedthe literature on congressional politics in recent years:
What is the role of party organizations in policy making? In what
ways have congressional process and procedure changed over the
years? How does congressional process and procedure affect
congressional politics and policy?
For two decades, extending from the early 1970s to the early 1990s,
elections to the U.S. House of Representatives were highly
predictable. More than 90 percent of incumbents would seek
reelection and more than 90 percent of those incumbents would
win--by larger vote margins than in earlier decades. The
once-dependable presidential coattail effect diminished, as
one-quarter to one-third of all voters split their tickets,
supporting presidential and House candidates of different parties.
These trends helped the Democrats retain control of the House even
while Republican presidential candidates won five of six elections
beginning in 1968. An era of "incumbency and insulation" seemed
firmly in place.
Then came the 1994 midterm elections. The Republicans gained 52
seats in the House, taking control for the first time in 40 years.
Incumbency appeared to have lost its semi-magical status as three
dozen incumbents fell. Insulation, too, appeared to have failed,
with all the losing incumbents being Democrats, most of them from
districts where President Clinton had run poorly in 1992. But did
1994 herald a new era, or was it an aberration?
In some ways, the 1996 elections, which reelected President
Clinton, ratified the 1994 upheaval. Republicans retained control
of the House, despite the decline of ticket-splitting as more
voters aligned their presidential and House voting decisions. The
1998 election results added to the picture of a new era in
congressional elections as the presidential party gained seats in a
midterm election for the first time since 1934.
Most of the essays in this volume closely examine these recent
elections, documenting the erosion of incumbency and insulation,
but pointing out important continuities as well. Other essays
address the electoral consequences of political change in the
South, majority-minority redistricting, PAC contributions, and the
changing image of Congress.
As early as 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville found the House of
Representatives 'remarkable for its vulgarity and its poverty of
talent'. In 1925, House Speaker Nicholas Longworth said, 'we the
House] were unpopular when Lincoln was a Congressman. We were
unpopular even when John Quincy Adams was a Congressman. We were
unpopular even when Henry Clay was a Congressman. We have always
been unpopular'. One of the major causes of the House's
unpopularity throughout the years has been its inability to
legislate broad public policies. Yet for all the criticism directed
at the House, we know that at certain critical points it has
legislated major, long-lasting public policy changes. This book
examines the House during three such periods of policy innovations:
the Civil War, the 1890's, and the New Deal. How and under what
conditions does the House - noted for obstructionism - create
majorities capable of governing? The author asserts that critical
elections create conditions in the House that enable the majority
party to legislate significant policy changes. House elections are
normally determined by local factors, but certain elections are
dominated by national, cross-cutting issues.
Examining three decades of legislative history, the authors contend
that gridlock is not a product of divided government and party
politics - rather it is an instrumental part of American government
Despite the early prospects of bipartisan unity on terrorism
initiatives, gridlock within the American government continues on
most major issues in the wake of the 2004 elections. In this fully
revised edition, political scientists David W Brady and Craig
Volden demonstrate that gridlock is not a product of divided
government, party politics or any of the usual scapegoats. Rather,
it is an instrumental part of American government, built into
American institutions and sustained by leaders acting rationally
not only to achieve set goals but to thwart foolish inadvertencies.
Looking at key legislative issues from the divided government under
Ronald Reagan, through Clinton's Democratic government, to complete
unified Republican control under George W Bush, the authors clearly
and carefully analyze important crux points in lawmaking: the swing
votes, the veto, the filibuster and the rise of tough budget
politics. in the White House or who's in control of Congress.
Political gridlock is as American as apple pie, and its results may
ultimately be as sweet in ensuring stability and democracy.
This work addresses the development of congressional practices and
institutions and ties the changes to key political and economic
events. In connecting political and economic events with changes in
Congress, the authors examine the political economy of the history
of Congress. They draw upon history to offer insights about
contemporary issues such as party polarization, filibuster reform,
direct election of politicians, intercameral bargaining, and the
role of committees in the political process. Through this approach
the authors help us to understand how politics and economics
interact to affect Congress.
In recent decades, political scientists have produced an enormous
body of scholarship dealing with the U.S. Congress, and in
particular congressional organization. However, most of this
research has focused on Congress in the twentieth
century--especially the post-New Deal era--and the long history of
Congress has been largely neglected. The contributors to this book
demonstrate that this inattention to congressional history has
denied us many rich opportunities to more fully understand the
evolution and functioning of the modern Congress.
In striking contrast to the modern era, which is marked by only
modest partisan realignment and institutional change, the period
preceding the New Deal was a time of rapid and substantial change
in Congress. During the nation's first 150 years, parties emerged,
developed, and realigned; the standing rules of the House and
Senate expanded and underwent profound changes; the workload of
Congress increased dramatically; and both houses grew considerably
in size.
Studying history is valuable in large part because it allows
scholars to observe greater variation in many of the parameters of
their theories, and to test their core assumptions. A historical
approach pushes scholars to recognize and confront the limits of
their theories, resulting in theories that have increased validity
and broader applicability. Thus, incorporating history into
political science gives us a more dynamic view of Congress than the
relatively static picture that emerges from a strict focus on
recent periods.
Each contributor engages one of three general questions that have
animatedthe literature on congressional politics in recent years:
What is the role of party organizations in policy making? In what
ways have congressional process and procedure changed over the
years? How does congressional process and procedure affect
congressional politics and policy?
For two decades, extending from the early 1970s to the early 1990s,
elections to the U.S. House of Representatives were highly
predictable. More than 90 percent of incumbents would seek
reelection and more than 90 percent of those incumbents would
win--by larger vote margins than in earlier decades. The
once-dependable presidential coattail effect diminished, as
one-quarter to one-third of all voters split their tickets,
supporting presidential and House candidates of different parties.
These trends helped the Democrats retain control of the House even
while Republican presidential candidates won five of six elections
beginning in 1968. An era of "incumbency and insulation" seemed
firmly in place.
Then came the 1994 midterm elections. The Republicans gained 52
seats in the House, taking control for the first time in 40 years.
Incumbency appeared to have lost its semi-magical status as three
dozen incumbents fell. Insulation, too, appeared to have failed,
with all the losing incumbents being Democrats, most of them from
districts where President Clinton had run poorly in 1992. But did
1994 herald a new era, or was it an aberration?
In some ways, the 1996 elections, which reelected President
Clinton, ratified the 1994 upheaval. Republicans retained control
of the House, despite the decline of ticket-splitting as more
voters aligned their presidential and House voting decisions. The
1998 election results added to the picture of a new era in
congressional elections as the presidential party gained seats in a
midterm election for the first time since 1934.
Most of the essays in this volume closely examine these recent
elections, documenting the erosion of incumbency and insulation,
but pointing out important continuities as well. Other essays
address the electoral consequences of political change in the
South, majority-minority redistricting, PAC contributions, and the
changing image of Congress.
As early as 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville found the House of
Representatives 'remarkable for its vulgarity and its poverty of
talent'. In 1925, House Speaker Nicholas Longworth said, 'we the
House] were unpopular when Lincoln was a Congressman. We were
unpopular even when John Quincy Adams was a Congressman. We were
unpopular even when Henry Clay was a Congressman. We have always
been unpopular'. One of the major causes of the House's
unpopularity throughout the years has been its inability to
legislate broad public policies. Yet for all the criticism directed
at the House, we know that at certain critical points it has
legislated major, long-lasting public policy changes. This book
examines the House during three such periods of policy innovations:
the Civil War, the 1890's, and the New Deal. How and under what
conditions does the House - noted for obstructionism - create
majorities capable of governing? The author asserts that critical
elections create conditions in the House that enable the majority
party to legislate significant policy changes. House elections are
normally determined by local factors, but certain elections are
dominated by national, cross-cutting issues.
"America's polarized politics are largely disconnected from
mainstream public preferences. This disconnect poses fundamental
dangers for the representativeness and accountability of
government, as well as the already withering public trust in it. As
the 2008 presidential race kicks into gear, the political climate
certainly will not become less polarized. With important issues to
address-including immigration policy, health care, and the funding
of the Iraq war-it is critical that essential policies not be
hostage to partisan political battles. Building upon the findings
of the first volume of Red and Blue Nation? (Brookings, 2006),
which explored the extent of political polarization and its
potential causes, this new volume delves into the consequences of
the gulf between ""red states"" and ""blue states."" The authors
examine the impact of these political divisions on voter behavior,
Congressional law-making, judicial selection, and foreign policy
formation. They shed light on hotly debated institutional reform
proposals-including changes to the electoral system and the
congressional rules of engagement-and ultimately present
research-supported policies and reforms for alleviating the
underlying causes of political polarization. While most discussion
of polarization takes place in separate spheres of journalism and
academia, Red and Blue Nation? brings together a unique set of
voices with a wide variety of perspectives to enrich our
understanding of the issue. Written in a broad, accessible style,
it is a resource for anyone interested in the future of electoral
politics in America. Contributors include Marc Hetherington and
John G. Geer (Vanderbilt University), Deborah Jordan Brooks
(Dartmouth College), Martin P. Wattenberg (University of
California, Irvine), Barbara Sinclair and Joel D. Aberbach (UCLA),
Christopher H. Foreman (University of Maryland), Keith Krehbiel
(Stanford University), Sarah A. Binder, Benjamin Wittes, Jonathan
Rauch, and William A. Galston (Brookings), Martin Shapiro
(University of California-Berkeley), Peter Beinart (Council on
Foreign Relations), James Q. Wilson (Pepperdine University), John
Ferejohn and Larry Diamond (Hoover Institution), Laurel Harbridge
(Stanford University), Andrea L. Campbell (MIT), and Eric M.
Patashnik (University of Virginia). "
"Analysts and pundits increasingly perceive a widening gulf between
""red states"" and ""blue states."" Yet the research to support
that perception is scattered and sometimes difficult to parse.
America's polarized politics, it is said, poses fundamental dangers
for democratic and accountable government. Heightened partisanship
is thought to degrade deliberation in Congress and threaten the
integrity of other institutions, from the courts to the media. But,
how deep do the country's political divisions actually run? Are
they truly wreaking havoc upon the social fabric? Has America
become a house divided? This important new book, Red and Blue
Nation?, gets to the bottom of this perplexing issue. The first of
two volumes cosponsored by Brookings and the Hoover Institution
carefully considers the extent to which polarized views among
political leaders and activists are reflected in the population at
large. It pays particular attention to factors such as the
increased influence of religion and the changing nature of the
media. The authors show that while the severity of the country's
""culture wars"" is often overstated, significant fissures have
opened. In Red and Blue Nation? leading journalists and scholars
combine their different insights to enrich our understanding of the
issue, offering thoughtful analyses of the underlying problems.
This comprehensive and accessible discussion of the polarization
debate will be an essential resource for policymakers, scholars,
and anyone interested in the health of American public discourse.
Contributors include Alan I. Abramowitz (Emory University), David
W. Brady (Hoover Institution), Peter Beinart (The New Republic),
Sarah A. Binder (Brookings Institution), James Campbell (State
University of New York at Buffalo), Carl Cannon (National Journal),
E.J. Dionne, Jr. (Brookings Institution), Gregg Easterbrook
(Brookings Institution), Thomas B. Edsall (Washington Post), Morris
P. Fiorina (Hoover Institution), William A. Galston (Brookings
Institution), Hahrie C. Han (Wellesley College), Gary C. Jacobson
(University of California, San Diego), Andrew Kohut (Pew Research
Center for The People & The Press), Matthew Levendusky
(Stanford University), Thomas E. Mann (Brookings Institution),
Diana C. Mutz (University of Pennsylvania), Pietro S. Nivola
(Brookings Institution), Tom Rosenstiel (Project for Excellence in
Journalism), and Alan Wolfe (Boston College). "
Expert contributors examine the challenges of fully implementing
the rule of law in South Korea's fledgling democracy and market
economy. The expert contributors detail the obstacles that must be
overcome, such as corruption in politics and corporate governance
and a deep-rooted cultural indifference to the rights of the
individual, and offer suggestions on what can--and what should
not--be done.
|
You may like...
Poldark: Series 1-2
Aidan Turner, Eleanor Tomlinson, …
Blu-ray disc
(1)
R55
Discovery Miles 550
Barbie
Margot Robbie, Ryan Gosling
Blu-ray disc
R266
Discovery Miles 2 660
|