Suchergebnisse

A Brookings Institution Press and Russell Sage Foundation publication The extraordinary swings in the scope and content of the policy agenda during the first Clinton administration revealed a fundamental partisan divide over the social role of the federal government. This book argues that the recent conflicts over social policy represent key elements in strategies that parties designed in an attempt to consolidate their hold over the federal government. Long frustrated by divided government, each party exceeded its electoral mandate in hopes of enacting major policy reforms aimed to shift politics in their direction for the foreseeable future. The book traces the overreaching and limited legislative success that characterized the first Clinton administration's approach to three distinctive features of politics and policymaking: the polarization of political elites; the predominance of advertising campaigns and intense interest group politics as political parties have ceased to mobilize ordinary people; and the unprecedented role that budgetary concerns now play in social policymaking. Although neither party managed to enact its major transforming agenda, Congress did pass new policies--most notably welfare reform--that together with a host of other changes in the states and the private sector altered the landscape for social policy. The poor have been the biggest losers as Democrats and Republicans have fought to win the middle class over to their vision of the future. The authors first analyze the institutions and tools of policymaking, including Congress, the political use of public opinion polling, and the politics of the deficit. They then consider policies designed to win over the middle class, including health care policy, employer-provided social benefits, wages and jobs, and crime policy. Last, they address policies targeted at the

Whether as a solution to problems of political legitimacy or social mistrust, as a way of involving civil society, or as a method of crafting more effective "third way" policies, collaborative governance has been a topic of renewed interest for political scientists and policy intellectuals. Carmen Sirianni's Investing in Democracy: Engaging Citizens in Collaborative Governance (Brookings, 2009) is an important new book that raises many of these issues. Perspectives on Politics is a forum for raising questions of interest to a broad range of political scientists. In this symposium, we have asked a number of prominent political scientists and policy analysts to assess the book and to address two broader questions: in what ways does the book draw from and add to political science scholarship, and in what ways does political science scholarship help to shed light on the book's core themes?

There is no escaping the New Deal's pivotal place in studies of twentieth-century American politics. Social scientists have vigorously debated the causes of the New Deal's distinctive features and continue to argue about its consequences for subsequent American political development. The predominant perspective advances a coherent linear history in which the central features of New Deal reform shape the understanding of political developments both before and after the 1930s. The era of Progressive reform is viewed as a precursor to the expanded public power and the practice of activist government that was consolidated in the 1930s. The Great Society is the effort to extend the benefits of liberal reform to African Americans, who had reaped only scant benefits from the central achievements of New Deal reform. When this effort went "too far," it resulted in a far-reaching backlash against activist government. The "rise and fall" of a New Deal order that had the creation of active government at its core has thus provided a central narrative for the study of twentieth-century politics.

In this article, the author argues that the national focus of the New Deal narrative neglects crucial aspects of state politics & policy that limited liberalism & contributed to its political failure. By characterizing states as political arenas rather than from a strict federalist logic, the author asserts that two waves of of political change emerged in the early twentieth century. The author's historical approach to federalism emphasizes the role of individual states & multiple orders in the demise of liberalism. Federalism & American political development are discussed in terms of decentralization, demobilization, progressive reform, & federal attempts to build state capacity. The author concludes that the New Deal demobilized liberal activists at the state level that worked with institutional diversity to shape capacity & political will to limit liberal policy. J. Harwell

A critique of the APSA Task Force on Inequality & American Democracy report challenges claims that the US is experiencing a reinforcing cycle of political & economic inequality. Attention is called to countertendencies & opportunities to lessen the forces that create inequality in voice, governance, & public policy. It is maintained that political scientists must focus more on the internal dynamics/processes of groups like the Sierra Club which have the potential to create a more engaged & mobilized base. State & local factors that produce or exacerbate inequality are explored, especially the concentration of Latinos & African Americans in low-income urban areas; the ineffectiveness of policies designed to address problems of low-income minorities; & the impact of large-scale immigration. Emphasis is placed on the capacity of churches to teach the skills of participation & the importance of the "war of ideas." It is concluded that discussions about inequality must move beyond the realm of government responsibility to cultural outlets that will encourage people to imagine new forms of democratic engagement. 20 References. J. Lindroth

This chapter explores the implications of growing economic and social inequality in California for the state's social contract, as well as the role of government and other institutions in addressing the new polarization. Data from the ILE's 2001-02 California Workforce Survey reveal that a majority of Californians are seriously concerned about the widening economic divide and support public policy measures that would help to narrow it. Respondents with lower incomes and less education are especially supportive of a strong government role in this area, as are noncitizens, Latinos, and African Americans. Because of the concentration of low-wage workers, immigrants, and Latinos in the southern part of the state, attitudes there belie the conservative stereotype of Southern California, traditionally juxtaposed to the relatively liberal attitudes assumed to be typical of the Bay Area. The survey results suggest that today, southern Californians are in fact more supportive of a strong government role than are people in the rest of the state. Southern Californians are also more pro-union than their counterparts elsewhere in the state. Another important topic in the chapter is public policy in regard to the problem of combining work and family responsibilities, with a large majority of survey respondents reporting that they favor compensating workers for family leave, and making child care and elder care more affordable.