Suchergebnisse

United States; based on conference paper. Issues involving the use of force or violence, compassion issues, regulation and protection, traditional values, women's issues.

Responses to 267 repeated policy questions (at 962 time points), selected from numerous national surveys, are used to examine gender differences in policy choices, focusing on how they have changed between the 1960s & 1980s. The average gender differences in preferences toward policies involving the use of force have consistently been moderately large. Sex differences in opinion toward other policies -- eg, regulation & public protection, "compassion" issues, traditional values -- have been about half as large, but they also warrant more attention than in the past. Analysis suggests that the salience of issues has increased in ways consistent with the interests of women & the intentions of the women's movement. 4 Tables, 51 References. AA

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

Using data from the Citizenship & Service: 2004 Survey of Army Personnel, a probability sample of active duty soldiers and officers, this study examines key questions concerning success in the military for racial and ethnic minorities. It focuses on the degree to which Hispanics are integrated into the Army and compares the experiences of Hispanics to the experiences of whites and blacks. After assessing why Hispanics join the Army and choose their occupational specialties, the study looks at how Hispanics perceive Army life, their personal experiences with discrimination, and the progress of the Army in the area of racial and ethnic integration. By comparing the attitudes of Hispanics to those of whites and blacks, it explores the degree to which race and ethnicity influence life in the Army and the implication of this for the military's future. Adapted from the source document.

Using data from the Citizenship & Service: 2004 Survey of Army Personnel, a probability sample of active duty soldiers and officers, this study examines key questions concerning success in the military for racial and ethnic minorities. It focuses on the degree to which Hispanics are integrated into the Army and compares the experiences of Hispanics to the experiences of whites and blacks. After assessing why Hispanics join the Army and choose their occupational specialties, the study looks at how Hispanics perceive Army life, their personal experiences with discrimination, and the progress of the Army in the area of racial and ethnic integration. By comparing the attitudes of Hispanics to those of whites and blacks, it explores the degree to which race and ethnicity influence life in the Army and the implication of this for the military's future.

The partisan and ideological polarization of American politics since the 1970s appears to have affected public opinion in striking ways. The American public has become increasingly partisan and ideological along liberal-conservative lines on a wide range of issues, including even foreign policy. This has raised questions about how 'rational' the public is, in the broad sense of the public's responsiveness to objective conditions. Widespread partisan disagreements over what those conditions are-i.e., disagreements about 'the facts'-suggest that large proportions of the public may be perceiving the facts incorrectly. The facts in question are important enough that these partisan disagreements may translate into sub-optimal policy preferences and electoral decisions. Adapted from the source document.