Suchergebnisse

While existing scholarship addresses the influence of religious affiliation on political attitudes and behaviors in the United States, a number of puzzling questions remain unanswered. In response, Matthew Miles demonstrates that a more complete conceptualization of religion as a social identity can help to explain many of those puzzles. As he explores the impact, both positive and negative, of religious identity on political attitudes, he also shows that the religion-politics relationship is not a one-way street

One challenge a president faces is convincing those on the other side of the aisle to support their policies. But can presidents convince people from the opposite party by framing issues consistently with their moral values? To investigate, Matthew R. Miles analyzes voters' reactions to President Obama's rhetoric when it is framed to appeal to their moral foundations. He finds that such appeals can be convincing and persuasive, trumping voters' political ideology.

Many assume that modern presidents cannot persuade cross‐ideologues to support their policy proposals. The idea that a conservative would support a liberal policy advocated by a cross‐partisan president seems ludicrous. However, recent research suggests that conservatives will support liberal policies that are framed consistent with moral foundations. Using a national survey experiment that carefully manipulates the actual text of a speech given by President Obama, this article demonstrates that fairness frames in presidential speeches motivate liberal policy support among conservative, moderate, and liberal Americans who value fairness.

Among the more robust fields of study in American politics is presidential approval. The influence of rally events, the economy, political sophistication, and partisanship on political attitudes began with explorations into the dynamics of presidential approval. Despite this, we lack a complete understanding of the processes through which people evaluate presidential performance. This article proposes a theoretical model that explains how presidential performance evaluations are strongly influenced by one's genetic makeup. The model is tested using twin data to estimate the genetic heritability of presidential performance evaluations and finds that presidential approval has a strong genetic component.

The dominant view assumes that people vote to influence election outcomes. As such, most assume that campaign contact, election competitiveness, and the probability of one's voting influencing the outcome of an election are the primary forces motivating voter participation. However, some people may view elections as a referendum on system performance and may participate in elections regardless of the electoral outcome. Voting is one means for the public to express their consent to be governed. If so, we should expect higher voter participation in systems that generate public approbation. This article uses a national survey experiment, a cross-national panel of thirty-five advanced democracies, and aggregate voter turnout data to demonstrate that people in systems that control corruption, govern effectively, and have fair judicial processes are more likely to vote. This is because systems that treat people fairly in their day-to-day operations make people feel valued by their political system. Particularly when the probability of changing the composition of government with a single vote is small, voting is a tacit endorsement of the existing regime.

Why do so many people in advanced democracies choose not to vote? While many scholars focus on electoral systems as an explanation for this trend, Matthew R. Miles argues that citizens' experience with bureaucracy may be equally important. In new research which examines government and institutions in 35 countries, he finds that when people perceive that the courts, civil service, and other bureaucratic institutions are unfair, the less they are likely to vote.

Though modern presidents seem to be less persuasive in their public campaigns for policy, they are more likely to go public. In addition, they publicly campaign for policies that they could enact without the support of Congress or the public. The dominant view emphasizes the persuasive capacity of the president or his ability to set the agenda of various government institutions; however, this neglects one of the more powerful components of the bully pulpit. I demonstrate that presidents can use the bully pulpit to remove issues from the national news agenda with relative ease. By modeling the daily change in national media content, I show that presidents can divert the attention of the national media away from issues that are less desirable toward more favorable issues with a single televised address. This suggests that the bully pulpit is more powerful than the current literature expects. [Reprinted by permission; copyright Sage Publications Inc.]

Though modern presidents seem to be less persuasive in their public campaigns for policy, they are more likely to go public. In addition, they publicly campaign for policies that they could enact without the support of Congress or the public. The dominant view emphasizes the persuasive capacity of the president or his ability to set the agenda of various government institutions; however, this neglects one of the more powerful components of the bully pulpit. I demonstrate that presidents can use the bully pulpit to remove issues from the national news agenda with relative ease. By modeling the daily change in national media content, I show that presidents can divert the attention of the national media away from issues that are less desirable toward more favorable issues with a single televised address. This suggests that the bully pulpit is more powerful than the current literature expects.

Despite greater access to the media, greater resources to craft the perfect message and greater knowledge of the contours of public opinion (Heith 2000), presidents seem to be less persuasive (Edwards 2003, 2007, 2009). Paradoxically, modern presidents are more likely to take their message to the public than their predecessors. This paradox motivates continued exploration of the persuasive capacity of modern presidents, despite the flaws in the original "going public" paradigm. This dissertation explores several aspects of this paradox and in some instances clarifies and in others innovates on the existing literature. The focus of the existing literature on speech content and the tone of news coverage neglects individual level causal mechanisms that influence public acceptance of presidential messages. Sometimes persuasion is less a matter of the content of the message and more related to psychological motivations that influence how individuals respond to the person presenting the message. This dissertation adds both breadth and precision to the existing literature by exploring the influence of these psychological mechanisms on individual acceptance of presidential messages. In addition, this dissertation shows that sometimes our myopic focus on presidential persuasion is misplaced. Under certain conditions, presidents may use a public campaign for policy as a diversion, rather than an attempt to persuade the public. Thus, modern presidents may use the bully pulpit to exercise negative control of the public agenda rather than to persuade potential political converts.

AbstractDrawing on the descriptive representation literature, we argue that religious identity is a social identity similar to gender or race, which leads a person to feel represented by someone who shares their religious identity. We argue that religious identity motivates approbation for public officials that is distinct from partisanship. We find that constituents who share the religious identity of their congressional representatives are significantly more likely to approve of their representative's performance in office. In addition, those who share a religious identity with President Obama are more trusting of him; particularly among those for whom religion is important. Finally, we find that shared religious identity moderates the relationship between partisanship and trust in the President. All else equal, Republicans who share a religious identity with President Obama are 500% more likely to trust him than a Republican who does not.