Suchergebnisse

This book evaluates the democratic theory of America's Christian Right (CR). The CR has been examined extensively in academic literature. However, most analyses focus on its origins, policy preferences, or successful mobilization. Hudson instead examines the normative assumptions about governance that inform CR activism. The CR has its own answers to the core questions asked in democratic theory, such as "What legitimizes power?" and "What is the proper relationship between the state and the individual?" The author outlines ten normative assumptions of the CR and compares each to its counterpoint in liberal democratic theory. Much of what the CR believes about democracy comes from the same authors as modern and postmodern democratic theory but differs in its interpretation and application. The book describes in detail the theory of CR and demonstrates how the CR operates from a different view of governance than is usually associated with the United States

In a democracy, we generally assume that voters know the policies they prefer and elect like-minded officials who are responsible for carrying them out. We also assume that voters consider candidates' competence, honesty, and other performance-related traits. But does this actually happen? Do voters consider candidates' policy positions when deciding for whom to vote? And how do politicians' performances in office factor into the voting decision? In Follow the Leader?, Gabriel S. Lenz sheds light on these central questions of democratic thought. Lenz looks at citizens' views

In a democracy, we generally assume that voters know the policies they prefer and elect like-minded officials who are responsible for carrying them out. We also assume that voters consider candidates' competence, honesty, and other performance-related traits. But does this actually happen? Do voters consider candidates' policy positions when deciding for whom to vote? And how do politicians' performances in office factor into the voting decision? In Follow the Leader?, Gabriel S. Lenz sheds light on these central questions of democratic thought. Lenz looks at citizens' views.

According to numerous studies, campaign and news media messages can alter the importance individuals place on an issue when evaluating politicians, an effect called priming. Research on priming revived scholarly interest in campaign and media effects and implied, according to some, that campaigns and the media can manipulate voters. There are, however, alternative explanations for these priming findings, alternatives that previous studies have not fully considered. In this article, I reanalyze four cases of alleged priming, using panel data to test priming effects against these alternatives. Across these four cases, I find little evidence of priming effects. Instead, campaign and media attention to an issue creates the appearance of priming through a two‐part process: Exposing individuals to campaign and media messages on an issue (1) informs some of them about the parties' or candidates' positions on that issue. Once informed, (2) these individuals often adopt their preferred party's or candidate's position as their own.