University of Florida - Department of Political Science

Speaker: Richard Conley

Title: Reform, Reorganization, and the Renaissance of the Managerial Presidency: The Impact of 9/11 on the Executive Establishment

Abstract: In the wake of 9/11, realigning the human and financial resources of the executive branch to fight the war on terrorism quickly became the defining mission of George W. Bush’s transformed presidency. This article assesses the ways in which 9/11 impacted on the executive branch of the U.S. government, using a framework of “punctuated equilibrium” to posit that the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington added considerable force to trends already in motion. September 11 proved a catalyst for significant institutional changes, such as the enhanced role of the vice president in policy making and the reorganization of the federal government and intelligence apparatus. Organizational reforms, driven in a top-down fashion by the White House, reflect President Bush’s confidence in the managerial presidency: the notion that preventing future terror threats is effectively a problem of executive control, bureaucratic coordination, and adequate funding.

Paper: PDF Format

Speakers: Steve Craig, Jason Gainous, and Michael Martinez

Title: Political Trust and Support for Social Welfare: The Role of Ambivalence

Abstract: Although the decline in Americans' levels of political trust since the 1960s has been viewed with alarm by some scholars, others maintain that the trend reflects growing skepticism (rather than genuine cynicism) about government's capacity to deal effectively with important social problems – and that this development poses relatively little threat to the overall health of the polity. We extend the argument by hypothesizing that many citizens are, in fact, ambivalent in that they simultaneously hold positive and negative feelings about government and the role that it should play in society today. Based on our analysis of data from a 2004 telephone survey of Florida residents, we conclude that (a) ambivalence about the federal, state, and local levels of government in the United States is fairly common; (b) ambivalence has consequences for people's opinions on matters of public policy, specifically, those with conflicted feelings are less likely to endorse progressive action in the social welfare realm; (c) self-identified conservatives are more ambivalent about government than liberals; and (d) the negative relationship between ambivalence and social welfare liberalism is especially pronounced among conservatives.

Paper: PDF Format

Speaker: Kenneth Wald

Title: Ethnic Diasporas in American Politics: Mobilizing Arabs and Jews

Abstract: Diaspora ethnic communities differ in their readiness for mobilization on behalf of homeland interests. Using three ethnonational groups in the United States, each of which has ties to the Middle East, this paper develops and tests a multilevel model of politicized ethnic identity. The empirical analysis confirms that individuals differ in their readiness for mobilization based on the strength of ties to the ethnic community and, net of such differences, each group varies based on the contexts of exit and reception at the time of immigration.

Paper: PDF Format

Speaker: Leslie Paul Thiele

Title: The Heart of Judgment: Practical Wisdom, Neuroscience, and Narratives

Abstract: In his most recent book, The Heart of Judgment: Practical Wisdom, Neuroscience, and Narrative (Cambridge University Press, 2006), Leslie Thiele explores the nature, historical significance, and contemporary relevance of practical wisdom. Primarily a work in moral and political thought, the book also relies extensively on the latest research in cognitive neuroscience to confirm and extend our understanding of the faculty of judgment. Ever since the ancient Greeks first discussed practical wisdom, the faculty of judgment has been an important topic for philosophers and political theorists, and remains one of the virtues most demanded of our public officials. The greater the liberties and responsibilities accorded to citizens in democratic regimes, the more the health and welfare of society rest upon their exercise of good judgment. While giving full credit to the roles played by reason and deliberation in good judgment, the book underlines the central importance of intuition, emotion, and worldly experience.

Paper: PDF Format

Speaker: Marcus Hendershot

Title: Assessing External Sources of Temporal Change in the Lower Federal Court Appointment Process

Abstract: Marcus Hendershot presents a macro-level analysis of change in the lower court appointment process. He evaluates three competing explanations of temporal variance in the forms of strong / weak political party coalitions, the changing judicial agenda, and the rise of political interest groups. The conclusion is that altered political party coalitions and greater Supreme Court attention to civil liberties disputes provide the best explanation of temporal change in the appointment process. Support for interest groups as an immediate source of this change is lacking and less robust than the competing political party and judicial agenda account. However like the appointment process itself, the emergence of interest groups, and their participation in federal courts, seems to be a function of the federal judiciary's attention to civil liberties disputes. Thus, Hendershot concludes that the interest group account of change in the appointment process typically has been overstated. Interest group influence within the appointment process lags behind the competing political party and civil liberties explanations, which produce immediate and measurable changes in the appointment of federal judges.

Paper: PDF Format

Speaker: Daniel Smith

Title: Mass Support for Redistricting Reform: Partisanship and Representational Winners and Losers

Abstract: We examine popular support for altering the method of redistricting in two American states—California and Ohio. In 2005, a majority of voters in both states rejected statewide ballot initiatives that would have created non-partisan redistricting commissions. Despite widespread evidence of public support for redistricting reform, why did the two 2005 redistricting ballot measures fail? The two elections make for an intriguing comparative case study, as we are able to hold constant the mechanism (ballot initiative) used to alter an electoral institution (redistricting), while varying the partisan context in each state (Democratic control of gerrymandering in California; Republican control of gerrymandering in Ohio). Drawing theoretically from the growing literature on electoral winners and losers, we explain why representational winners and losers at the statewide and district levels might vote strategically to alter an electoral institution. We are interested in whether some citizens—specifically those who are represented by legislators who are members of the “out” political party—are more likely to support institutional change of election rules than others. Are those who perceive themselves to be representational losers, or who are representational losers under a given system of redistricting, more predisposed to support changes in the way districts are gerrymandered? Does either partisan control of the state legislature or representation at the district level condition the strategic choices of voters when it comes to supporting redistricting reform? We suggest that individual citizens may act strategically when making decisions about institutions that give them political voice. Using unique pre- and post-election survey data from the two states, merged with district-level (US House, state Assembly, and state Senate) data on legislative members, we test hypotheses concerning an individual’s status as a winner or loser with regard to legislative representation at both the statewide and district levels. In doing so, we explain why only a minority of voters supported the redistricting reform ballot measures in the two states. Our research should be of interest not only to political scientists, but to politicians and electoral reformers as well.

Paper: PDF Format

Speaker: Jessica Peet

Title: Traffic Persons or Gender Constructions: An Analysis of the Protocol to Prevent and Suppress the Trafficking of Persons, especially Women and Children

Abstract: Trafficking in persons is an epidemic. In 2004, the U.S. State Department estimated 600,000-800,000 people per year are trafficked across international borders, and over one million per year are trafficked within their own borders. The United Nations’ Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish the Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children is the most recent tool and represents the most encompassing document to be produced to date in the international system’s fight against trafficking. Peet’s interest lies in the Protocol itself. Does the Protocol contribute to, or fight against, the power relationships and gender constructions upon which trafficking is based? Specifically, does the language of the Protocol reflect traditional power relationships and gender constructions or does it address these traditional relationships in an effort to combat them? Through the use of discourse analysis and critical feminist methodology I analyze the Protocol to determine what types of power relationships and gender constructions exist within the Protocol and how these reflect or address the relationships and constructions that contribute to trafficking.

Speaker: Hans Schmeisser

Title: Strategy Mis-communicated: An Analysis of President Bush’s and the Media’s Representation of the Iraq War

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to analyze changes over time in the stated justifications for the war in Iraq, determine if the President was able to set the media's agenda in their coverage of the war, and examine the causes behind the public's general disapproval for continued conflict. Using agenda-setting as our theoretical framework, a content analysis of major presidential addresses concerned with the war and of media coverage of these speeches revealed significant findings. There was a considerable shift in the Administration's rationale, where calls for the spread of democracy while battling terror abroad replaced warnings about weapons of mass destruction and the lack of consequences resulting from unfulfilled United Nations sanctions. Further, while media portrayal of presidential addresses did not accurately reflect the Administration's initial justifications, a strong correlation exists between these new justifications and their representation in the news media. Finally, we postulate that the absence of a consistent message on the part of the President has contributed to the continued decline in public support for the war in Iraq.

Title: Time’s Up for Civic Duty: Round Table on Upcoming Elections

Speakers: Richard Scher, Michael Martinez, Lynn Leverty, Roger Austin and Jason Kassel

Moderator: Daniel Smith

Speaker: Thomas Biebricher

Title: Law, Discipline, Governmentality: Taking a Revisionist Look at Foucauldian Power

Abstract: The books of Michel Foucault have left a lasting imprint on the way power is conceived of in the social sciences and philosophy. At times Foucault's view has been reduced to the formula of "cutting off the king's head in political theory", which has been interpreted to demand a shift away from juridical conceptions of power towards a notion of power as discipline.
The paper takes a look at these issues through the lens of the recently published lectures delivered by Foucault at the College de France. It concludes that a Foucauldian approach to power does not demand that we replace conventional (juridical) views of power along the lines of sovereignty with a new one called discipline. Rather, discipline has to be seen as operating alongside and in interaction with other forms of power such as sovereignty and security. Furthermore, such a three-dimensional approach is coupled to the concept of government(ality) that stands in marked contrast to Foucault's earlier genealogical approach to power as warlike relations of force and might open up the possibility for a – controversial – connection between this novel analysis of power and normative commitments.

Paper: .DOC Format

Speaker: Kathryn Oates

Title: The Expansion of Interest Power: Religion in the Courts

Abstract: This paper is an exploratory analysis of religious activity in the courts. It examines Supreme Court cases going back to the 1950s and the amicus briefs filed by various religious and secular interests. Building on the premise that the power of the judiciary has been expanding, it seeks to discover whether interest groups have taken advantage of this avenue for political participation and lays the groundwork for further analysis of an increasingly salient area of study. [Work in progress]

Paper: .DOC Format

Speaker: Ana Margheritis

Title: State-Led Transnationalism and International Migration: Reaching Out to the Argentine Community in Spain

Abstract: Ana Margheritis focuses on when and how states develop transnational policies. She presents a case study of a relatively small emigrant community, whose departure was not simply caused by poverty or crisis, but most recently by an economic and political debacle that questioned people's values and expectations. Margheritis focuses on the state side of the equation and identifies a shift in Argentina's policy after 2003, showing how such policies came out of a long history of state intervention in population migration and how they are now related to human rights concerns and the unfinished process of democratic consolidation. Margheritis argues that the state initiates political transnationalism, not the migrants, thus highlighting the importance of some unexplored factors in the understanding of the motivation, intensity and impact of the state's involvement, such as the characteristics of the emigrant community, the existence of specific political projects, the role of some domestic actors and processes, and the nature of international agreements.

Speaker: Benjamin Smith

Title: Why Minorities Don’t Rebel: Accounting for the Missing Separatists Among the Kurds of Iran and Syria

Abstract: Smith explores the long-term presence or absence of ethnonational conflict by employing a natural experiment involving cross-border Kurdish minorities in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. Smith argues that differential patterns of state penetration of rural social structures--especially the degree to which the traditional power of rural notables was replaced by central state authority—explains much of the for variation in the likelihood and persistence of ethnonational separatism. Whether separatist movements, subsequently, took radical or conservative characteristics, depended on whether rural notables who maintained their power sided with state elites or opposed them. In Turkey, tacit alliances between rural Kurdish elites and the Turkish state catalyzed lower-class support against them and the state in the Kurdish Worker's Party; in Iraq, by contrast, rural elite conflict with the state from independence led to Kurdish party formation as offshoots of major tribal groups. Smith concludes by using the insights from these four cases to explicate the foundations of a broader research project on states and communal conflict.