Real-world Politics Research Articles

The Seventeenth Amendment and Federalism in an Age of National Political Parties

Despite it being the constitutional amendment that most altered the design of the federal government, and despite recent efforts by many prominent figures to repeal it, little is known about why the Seventeenth Amendment passed in 1913. Existing histories of why the Constitution was amended to require direct elections for U.S. Senators, rather than having them appointed by state legislatures, cannot account for two major historical puzzles. Why were state legislatures eager to give away the power to choose Senators? And why was there virtually no discussion of federalism during debates over removing a key constitutional protection for states?Using both positive political theory and historical evidence, this Article offers a theory that can provide an answer to these questions. Support for direct elections was, at least in part, a result of the rise of ideologically coherent, national political parties. The development of national parties meant that state legislative elections increasingly turned on national issues, from war to currency policy to international trade, as voters used these elections as means to select Senators. State politicians and interest groups supported direct elections as a way of separating national and state politics. Federalism was not invoked against the Seventeenth Amendment because state legislative appointment was frustrating a precondition for the variety of benefits that come from republican federalism, the ability of state majorities to choose state policies. Modern advocates of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment, from Justice Scalia to Gov. Rick Perry, claim the mantle of federalism, but they have the case almost entirely backwards. Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would reduce the benefits of federalism, as it would turn state legislatures into electoral colleges for U.S. Senators.While important in its own right, the history of the Seventeenth Amendment can also teach us a great deal about how federalism functions in the real world of politics more generally. First, contrary to the claims of scholars like Larry Kramer, national political parties do not necessarily serve as “political safeguards of federalism,” but instead can make state politics turn on national issues, reducing the influence of the preferences of state citizens on state policy. Second, certain state governmental powers – from the power to gerrymander to control over issues normally associated with the federal government – reduce the democratic accountability of state officials that undergirds most normative theories of federalism. Finally, despite the Seventeenth Amendment, state elections today still largely turn on national politics. Although state issues are sometimes important, the most important factor in state legislative elections is the popularity of the President. If the benefits for state democracy sought by supporters of the Seventeenth Amendment are to be achieved, electoral reform is a more promising avenue than structural constitutional change.

Evidence-based policy: a practical guide to doing it better

Over the last twenty or so years, it has become standard to require policy makers to base their recommendations on evidence. That is now uncontroversial to the point of triviality—of course, policy should be based on the facts. But are the methods that policy makers rely on to gather and analyze evidence the right ones? In Evidence-Based Policy, Nancy Cartwright, an eminent scholar, and Jeremy Hardie, who has had a long and successful career in both business and the economy, explain that the dominant methods which are in use now—broadly speaking, methods that imitate standard practices in medicine like randomized control trials—do not work. They fail, Cartwright and Hardie contend, because they do not enhance our ability to predict if policies will be effective. The prevailing methods fall short not just because social science, which operates within the domain of real-world politics and deals with people, differs so much from the natural science milieu of the lab. Rather, there are principled reasons why the advice for crafting and implementing policy now on offer will lead to bad results. Current guides in use tend to rank scientific methods according to the degree of trustworthiness of the evidence they produce. That is valuable in certain respects, but such approaches offer little advice about how to think about putting such evidence to use. Evidence-Based Policy focuses on showing policymakers how to effectively use evidence. It also explains what types of information are most necessary for making reliable policy, and offers lessons on how to organize that information.

The Impact Imperative: Here Come the Women :-)

The opposition between Flinders and John is largely a false one, and consequently the argument between them is rather ritualistic. On the major issue – that political science must engage in political and public debate – Flinders and John agree. Whether there was once a golden age of academic engagement or whether we are now at the high point, at one level does not really matter; what matters more is that political scientists should be engaging with, and responsive to, public debate. We set out an ‘impact imperative’ and its sister, the ‘feminist imperative', arguing that feminist scholarship has always sought to engage with the real world of politics. We set out a series of recommendations to institutionalise and normalise impact, engagement and dissemination into work models and working practices, which if well managed should not detract from serious scholarship or require an aggressive campaign strategy for dissemination. Instead our approach is based on cooperation between academics, across disciplinary silos and the methodological divide.

The mixed life of Plato’s Philebus in Psellos’ Chronographia (6a.8)

Michael Psellos (1018-1081) used neoplatonic ethics in Chronographia 6a8 in order to discredit Leo Paraspondylos. He was accused of being too strict and distant from the real world of politics. By claiming that the intellect also needs a natural environment, Psellos endorses the neoplatonic reading of Plato?s Philebus and at the same time the contemplation of nature of Maximus the Confessor. In other words he claims the Leo was neither a philosopher nor an accurate theologian and therefore could not be in charge of political affairs.

Justice, Disagreement and Democracy

Is democracy a requirement of justice or an instrument for realizing it? This article argues that the correct answer to this question depends on the background circumstances against which democracy is defended. In the presence ofthin reasonable disagreementabout justice, we should value democracy only instrumentally (if at all); in the presence ofthick reasonable disagreementabout justice, we should value it also intrinsically, as a necessary demand of justice. Since the latter type of disagreement is pervasive in real-world politics, the conclusion is that theories of justice designed for our world should be centrally concerned with democracy.

Waar en wanneer spreken mannen en vrouwen over politiek?

Deliberative democrats claim that political deliberation among citizens increases the legitimacy of and support for democratic decision-making. The question is, however, whether deliberative democracy can realize its added value in the real world of politics where political discussion is characterized by persisting inequalities. This paper tries to contextualize the gender gap in political talk by taking into account the social (i.e., discussion networks) and political context (i.e., campaign effects) in which political debate takes place. Based on previous research we argue that women prefer to discuss politics in relatively like-minded, cohesive networks, while men prefer more confrontational networks. Moreover, we expect the gender gap to depend on the electoral context, in that the gender gap disappears in later campaign phases. These two arguments were tested and confirmed using data gathered in the Partirep Regional Election Survey in 2009.

A Pedagogy of Engagement in Higher Education

This paper examines the relationship between youth, citizenship and political science education. It argues that, at present, false barriers exist between research and teaching and between learning and experiences in society, which unnecessarily create distance between political science and real-world politics. Through a ‘pedagogy of engagement’, we have the power to break down these barriers: research and teaching are mutually beneficial as are learning and life beyond the classroom. For political scientists, this can lead to a closer coupling of their work to real-world politics, increasing its relevance beyond the academy reach out to policy-makers. The paper begins by showing how research into political science education can shed light on existential questions in political science, such as: ‘What is politics?’ and ‘How do (young) people come to understand politics?’. It then discusses how education, politics, and society are interlinked – for researchers and students to understand how politics works, it is necessary for them to engage in ‘experiential learning’. The paper then explores the intimate connections between political science education and civic education. Finally, it reflects upon how a closer relationship between teaching, research and ‘public engagement’ has the potential to give political science education a greater relevance beyond the academy.

The Justice and Development Party in Turkish Politics: Islam, Democracy and State

Reviewed Books: • Umit Cizre, Secular and Islamic Politics in Turkey: The Making of the Justice and Development Party (New York: Routledge, 2008). • Cihan Tugal, Passive Revolution: Absorbing the I...

Learning in Public: Connecting Politics Students with Practitioners in ‘the Edgeless University’

Teaching politics shouldn't stop at the campus gates, writes Steven Curtis. Students can beneft greatly from direct experience with real-world situations. Learning should not stop at the campus gates, says Steven Curtis. Direct experience with real-world politics can enrich students’ understanding of politics and international relations, and also enhance their personal development and employability.

Introduction: Youth, Citizenship, and Political Science Education: Questions for the Discipline

The introduction to this volume examines the relationship between youth, citizenship, and political science education. It argues that, at present, false barriers exist between research and teaching, which unnecessarily create distance between political science and real-world politics. In fact, research and teaching are mutually beneficial. The article begins by showing how research into political science education can shed light on existential questions in political science, such as: “What is politics?” and “How do (young) people come to understand politics?” It then discusses how education, politics, and society are interlinked—for researchers and students to understand how politics works, it is necessary for them to engage in “experiential learning.” Finally, the introduction demonstrates how good political science education enhances both pedagogical and democratic goals (as illustrated by the other contributions to this volume), given that good teaching in our discipline inevitably supports the central pillars of civic education.

Justice, Democracy and Reasonable Agreement, by Colin Farrelly.

John Rawls’s theory of justice has often been accused of being too detached from the complexities of real-world politics to offer useful guidance for policy decisions. Colin Farrelly’s new book works out a version of this line of criticism targeted at the deficiencies of what he calls ‘the principled paradigm of ideal theory’. Farrelly argues that this paradigm, with its heavy reliance on simplifying and idealizing assumptions, has seriously impoverished political theory. The position he defends is that we should turn to a form of non-ideal theory, reconnecting normative theorizing to the urgent challenges of everyday politics. Farrelly’s examination of the gap between normative theory and political practice vividly brings out how many forms of ideal theory fail to offer much of relevance to the most pressing disagreements and competing claims in present political debates. The book’s 11 chapters are primarily devoted to criticism of ideal theory in its many incarnations. Farrelly’s own positive views are not worked out in detail but he presents the contours of a ‘non-ideal theory’ called civic liberalism. This view is guided by a commitment to four main concerns: liberalism (limited government), distributive prioritarianism, deliberative democracy, and, finally, the need to leave significant room for relational duties (‘partiality’).

A Political Scientist's Experience in the Real World of Politics

Doctoral candidates in political science have a universe of potential career options to choose from. These include not only academia, but also the non-governmental sector, political consulting, and government work. When I obtained my doctoral degree in 1993, little did I imagine that within fifteen years I would have tried my hand in all of these fields, including serving as a cabinet minister. In this article, I reflect on how this professional whirlwind came about, how each field helped and/or hindered the others, what these wanderings taught me about post-communist democratic politics, and particularly what lessons a political scientist learned from entering, albeit briefly, the ‘real world’ of politics.

Integration - ein Trojanisches Pferd in der demokratischen Gesellschaft?

Dictatorships and democracies have very different records regarding human rights. In most of the latter, their human rights legislation or their constitutions treat everyone as equal and recognize that each person should have equal status before the law. In the real world of politics, however, there are tensions even within democratic societies between the claims of nationalism and the ways in which human rights are exercised. For the most part, only citizens are granted the full range of liberties and enjoy all the rights of political participation. In Germany, this can be seen by the limits which are placed on the rights of asylum seekers. In 2006 21000 asylum seekers came to this country, but only 251 were granted asylum. Those whose applications were rejected were for the most part deported. Some however managed to go underground and remain here as "illegals". Their fate is here described, and can be likened to scenes from some fictional manuscript. Their struggle to exist and their daily lives usually lead to homelessness and escaping from the police. Their situation often leads to confrontations with the local residents, due to cross-cultural misunderstandings, or to open xenophobia. The author seeks to promote a climate of cross-cultural understanding which would benefit both the immigrants and the residents.

Theory as a Hermeneutical Mechanism: The Democratic-Peace Thesis and the Politics of Democratization

This article seeks to explain the influence of the democratic-peace thesis on politics by offering a new understanding of theory: as a hermeneutical mechanism of attaching meaning to political concepts. The hermeneutical mechanism is understood as a three-stage model in which theoretical constructions transform into public conventions and then into political convictions. By using discourse-tracing—analyzing the process in which the theoretical discourse was transformed into political discourse—the article explores two case studies in which the democratic-peace thesis played a political role: the Israeli Right and its criticism of the Oslo accords, and the American neoconservatives and their policies in the Middle East. En route, I will apply Antonio Gramsci’s theory of hegemony to reconstruct constructivism from a purely social theory to a sociopolitical theory that considers seriously the political dimension of social reality. The model that is developed here advances our metatheoretical understanding of theory as offering a holistic understanding of reality, rather than a mere limited explanation of specific phenomena; highlights theory’s involvement in real-world politics; and emphasizes theory’s political capital, with the resulting moral responsibility of theoreticians.

Reconstructive Realism: Satire in Miss Ravenel's Conversion from Secession to Loyalty

Winner of Best Graduate Student Paper Award at 2006 American Culture Association Conference ... I never forgot that my main duty should consist in educating entire population around me to settle their differences by civil law; in other words, I considered myself an instrument of reconstruction. -John W. De Forest, Union Officer (29) Already a promising author when he was commissioned as Captain of Twelfth Connecticut Volunteers, John W. De Forest turned a writerly eye on war he began fighting in 1862. Then, after Appomattox, De Forest moved to South Carolina in 1866 to serve as a subassistant commissioner for Freedman's Bureau, giving him rare insight into, as well as an active role in, Reconstruction. He recorded his experiences both in and after war in a series of articles for Harper's New Monthly Magazine (and published in book form posthumously as A Volunteer's Adventures and A Union Officer in Reconstruction). De Forest's nonfiction accounts of his service constituted much of raw material for Miss Ravenel's Conversion from secession to Loyalty, his attempt at The Great American Novel (a term he would coin in 1868). De Forest, in his dual role of author and officer, is an important cultural-historical figure whose life and work highlight potential connections between political and aesthetic attempts at rebuilding Union. Because initial ideas for Reconstruction were speculative visions of a new nationhood, articulations of these ideas-even though they derived from military or political viewpoints-can themselves be considered imaginative works. Conversely, De Forest's Miss Ravenel, as an imaginative work about Civil War and Reconstruction, in a sense enacts practical politics through literary means. As we will see, De Forest's literary agenda is also a political agenda: national unification through satire. In short, politics of De Forest's aesthetic Reconstruction and aesthetics of his efforts at onthe-ground political Reconstruction collapse distance between aesthetic products and realworld politics. De Forest uses satiric realism in an aesthetic attempt to implement a conciliatory Reconstruction as imagined and expressed by his Commanderin-Chief, Abraham Lincoln. Throughout Miss Ravenel, De Forest relies on satire to reveal distance between reality and idealistic presentations of it, to aesthetically undermine what he sees as limited, socially conservative worldview of popular sentimental novels. De Forest fears that sentimental fiction's privileging of private sphere encourages provincialism and insularity, and as a result endangers what he sees as ultimate goal of postbellum art and politics: political and moral reconstruction of national Union. Through satire of sentimental novels and notions, as well as of provincial characters and feminine, domestic institutions, De Forest in Miss Ravenel purports to neutralize their political power. In their stead he imagines a Union based on trust in public institutions of a national scope, a vision of American life and literature consistent with views of Reconstruction that President Lincoln expressed before he was assassinated. Like Lincoln, De Forest-in both his war novel and his memoirs from his days in Freedman's Bureau-advocates Reconstruction through legislation that stresses the law of solidarity and fact that the perfect prosperity of whole depends on prosperity of all parts (Union Officer 198). Miss Ravenel and Satire as Realism Miss Ravenel's marriage plot-designed, like that of many Civil War-era novels, to signify an end to animosities between North and Southwas in some ways quite familiar to readers of Civil War romances, as postbellum reconciliation romance was a popular genre in years after war. Such romances, according to critic Gregory S. Jackson, elided sectional differences by staging elaborate plots in which love, sorrow, and grief-induced insanity transcended (or obscured) racial and cultural difference, interregional animosity, sectional ideology, and ultimately even internecine conflict (284). …

The Possible World and the Actual State

The World Social Forum's slogan proclaims that another world is possi ble. That possible world came up against the real world of politics when the forum met in Caracas, Venezuela, from January 24 to 29, 2006. Like the five previous forums, it was a big, chaotic, and exciting gathering of a broad array of activists, movements, and organizations seeking to make a differ ent world. The social forum brings together what is often called the antiglobalization movement, but activists reject the term. Opposed to neoliberal corporate globalization, they prefer to be thought of as the global justice movement, working toward a world that is integrated from below. But more than its predecessors, the Caracas meeting hosted a vigorous debate about what the forum should be and how it should engage the world that it wants to change. The 2006 social forum was polycentric. For the first time since annual meetings began in 2001, it did not meet at a single location (the previous meetings were in Porto Alegre, Brazil, except for the 2004 meeting in Mumbai, India). Instead it was slated to have three simultaneous meetings? in Caracas; Bamako, Mali; and Karachi, Pakistan?all to coincide with the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, which the social forum was created to challenge.1 The decision to decentralize the forum was part of the organizers' effort to make it more open, democratic, and participatory (Hammond, 2005). In

Playing Pin the War on the Lobby

International Relations (IR) “Realists” John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have entered the realm of identity politics. Their maiden voyage inside the “black box” of the state, a recent paper entitled “The Israel Lobby,” is likely their most famous but least credible work. In apportioning blame for the US invasion of Iraq, they dismiss any influence of energy dependence or geopolitical interests, while attributing causal responsibility to an expansively defined “Israel Lobby,” claims as specious as they are ethnically charged. Where their critique of US and Israeli policies is right, it suggests that key parts of their theories of international politics are wrong. In ivory tower IR, “The Israel Lobby” represents a theoretical transgression on the part of orthodox “Realists.” In real-world politics, Mearsheimer and Walt’s essay presents d/Democratic opponents of the US invasion of Iraq and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank with the opportunity to distinguish principled protest from scapegoating.

IGRA's Imbalance

Indian gaming is headed in a direction that benefits neither tribes nor states. Tribes and states are caught in a prisoner's dilemma, with no side trusting the other and Congress refusing to see the forest for the trees. Tribes and states are in need of a vision and a simple legislative fix that benefits both sides and cuts right to the heart of the imbalance in IGRA. The solution to these salient political issues is not piecemeal legislative efforts initiated in response to these alleged problems. These problems are symptoms of an imbalance in the overarching federal statutory scheme - IGRA. The Act created a balanced and careful relationship between Indian tribes (and to a lesser extent, the federal government) and the various states. The crux of that statutory scheme was a Congressional waiver of state sovereign immunity that allowed Indian tribes to sue the states and force their governors to negotiate with tribes over gaming compacts. The Supreme Court, however, in Florida v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, obliterated that balance in favor of the sovereign immunity of the states. This paper will show how the alleged problems relating to off-reservation gaming, tribal lobbying matters, taking of land into trust for gaming purposes, and the regulation of Indian gaming that attract Congressional attention can be traced back to that moment when the Court ruptured the balance. Indian tribes and the federal government took several steps in order to alleviate the negative impact of Seminole Tribe on Indian gaming. Indian tribes and the states began to negotiate broader revenue sharing agreements, a process some have labeled extortion of Indian tribes by states. Concurrently, the federal government, specifically the Secretary of Interior, proposed an administrative fix to the Seminole Tribe problem that would allow the Secretary to promulgate Class III gaming procedures for tribes that do not have the opportunity to negotiate a gaming compact. The Congressional agenda evidenced by the Senate Committee's hearing schedule and the subject matter of the various bills being debated amounts to looking at the question of Indian gaming in a superficial and inefficient manner. The origin and the core of the disputes between tribes, tribal constituents, states, state constituents, private economic interests, and the federal government is the fact that IGRA is unbalanced. The Congressional agenda ignores an elephant in the room, one that neither states nor Indian tribes wish to litigate or even discuss. That issue is whether revenue sharing agreements contained in gaming compacts are valid in accordance with IGRA. These revenue sharing agreements are the creaky bridge between the states and the tribes that operates as the de facto Seminole Tribe fix. In short, many Indian tribes have agreed to pay the states a portion of their net win in exchange for a favorable gaming compact. The critical weakness in this plan is the fact that IGRA prohibits state taxation of Indian gaming revenues. This paper proposes a legislative fix to IGRA that would validate both the current revenue sharing agreements and the administrative solution to Seminole Tribe. The proposal would provide all sides with a significant win-win opportunity. Moreover, this proposal avoids the constitutional jaws of the federal courts that sunk the original intent of IGRA by offering the choice to states to waive their immunity. Unlike most other proposals or analyses designed to fix IGRA proposed by legal commentators, this proposal is salable as a matter of real-world politics and is a practical solution to real-world problems. This paper's legislative proposal is neither wishful thinking nor comprised of pie-in-the-sky arguments. It is a pragmatic view of the state of modern Indian affairs on the controversial and enormous issue of Indian gaming. It proposes legislation that recognizes the governmental parties affected by Indian gaming, provides benefits to all of them, and preserves Indian gaming in the long-term by strengthening the operative statute.

Critical Thinking in Political Science: Evidence from the Introductory Comparative Politics Course

ABSTRACT Political Science programs have long seen part of their mission as the cultivation of “critical thinking” among their undergraduates. But what exactly does critical thinking mean in our Political Science courses? Can we foster critical thinking in our classes and, if so, how? This article, based on a yearlong systematic study of an introductory Comparative Politics course undertaken as part of a university-wide “Critical Thinking Project,” looks at these questions. In this article we consider how critical thinking can be defined, fostered and assessed in the introductory Comparative Politics course; the implications these may have for students' performance in other Political Science courses; and how students themselves view critical thinking. Our data suggests students define critical thinking broadly in accord with those definitions of teachers of Political Science, believe these skills were fostered in the introductory Comparative Politics course and are certain that they carry over into their academic experiences with upper-division Political Science courses and later life experiences more generally. Moreover, we argue here that the most important variable in fostering critical thinking skills in the introductory Comparative Politics course (and perhaps in all Political Science courses) is the development of students' ability to think as social scientists do and the opportunity to apply this thinking skill to concrete puzzles or problems from the real world of politics.

The Man Who Changed China: The Life and Legacy of Jiang Zemin. By ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN. [New York: Crown Publishers, 2005. 688 pp.+two 16-page photo inserts. $35.00. ISBN 1-4000-5474-5.

Robert Kuhn's lengthy biography of Jiang Zemin sets out to tell the inside story of this unlikely leader of China from 1989 to 2004. An American investment banker and television producer with business interests in China, Kuhn was given access to many of Jiang's closest friends, aides and political allies. Yet the long-anticipated result is short of expectations. Much of the book is a dry rehashing of Jiang's official schedule from year to year, with Trollopian chapter subtitles like “How could I not know?” The occasional glimpses into the inner political and personal world of the man are so fleeting as to leave the reader more frustrated than gratified.To be sure, the careful reader will turn up a host of interesting facts here that enhance our understanding of Jiang: for example, he began his life as an anti-drugs protestor not aware that the protests he joined were organized by the CCP. There is also a vivid James Bond-like scene of Jiang speeding a friend to safety in Shanghai at the wheel of an American jeep in 1948. And there are glimpses of real world politics. Jiang's chief mentor, Wang Daohan, commented candidly to Jiang in 1989 on the “many complications and contradictions” of politics in Beijing “especially all the subtle conflicts between different interest groups.” His sister notes of his elevation to Party chief: “We certainly didn't celebrate. His appointment wasn't worth celebrating.” Later, Jiang's wife, Wang Yeping, is quoted as saying she was always dismayed by the files on her husband's desk that suggested a daily crisis of governance. “Explosions here, rioting there. Murders, corruption, terrorism – little that was nice.” Unfortunately, these factional conflicts and governance crises are nowhere to be found in the narrative, which offers instead a steady diet of Jiang's meetings with foreign leaders and “important” speeches.