2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

1/53

Class 10: August 15, 2011

John McAndrews

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

2/53

Todays Agenda

1. Review of Material from Last Class

2. Additional details about final exam format

3. Group Activity: Bumper sticker summaries

4. Lecture: Race, Gender, and Politics5. Course Evaluations

6. BREAK

7. Lecture: Domestic and Foreign Policy

8. Group Activity: Designing and Answering EssayQuestions

9. Concluding Remarks

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

3/53

Todays Agenda





6. BREAK




8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

4/53

Review of Material From Last Class

1. Groseclose and Milyo argue that themainstream media has a liberal bias. How dothey measure this ideological bias in the mass

media?a. Based on the party identification of journalists.

b. Based on which MCs journalists quote in their newsstories.

c. Based on which think tanks journalists quote in theirnews stories.

d. None of the above

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

5/53


1. Groseclose and Milyo argue that themainstream media has a liberal bias. How dothey measure this ideological bias in the mass

media?a. Based on the party identification of journalists.

b. Based on which MCs journalists quote in their newsstories.

c. Based on which think tanks journalists quote intheir news stories.

d. None of the above

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

6/53


2. Carson et al. (2007) investigate the effect ofredistricting on party polarization in Congress.What do they conclude about its effect?

a. Redistricting is the main reason why the House ofRepresentatives has polarized along party lines.

b. Redistricting is one of several different causes ofparty polarization in the House of Representatives.

c. Redistricting is one of several different causes ofparty polarization in the Senate.

d. Redistricting is not the cause of party polarization inthe House of Representatives.

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

7/53


2. Carson et al. (2007) investigate the effect ofredistricting on party polarization in Congress.What do they conclude about its effect?

a. Redistricting is the main reason why the House ofRepresentatives has polarized along party lines.

b. Redistricting is one of several different causes ofparty polarization in the House of Representatives.

c. Redistricting is one of several different causes ofparty polarization in the Senate.

d. Redistricting is not the cause of party polarization inthe House of Representatives.

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

8/53


3. Which of the following is a predictor of vote

choice?

a. Party identificationb. Race

c. Policy preferences both prospective and

retrospective

d. All of the above

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

9/53


3. Which of the following is a predictor of vote

choice?

a. Party identification

b. Race

c. Policy preferences both prospective and

retrospective

d. All of the above

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

10/53

Todays Agenda





6. BREAK




8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

11/53

Addt. Details About Final Exam

Graded out of 50 points, but worth 25% of

final grade

Distribution: 15 MC questions, worth 1 pt each. Total=15 pts.

5-10 short answer questions. Total=20 pts.

2 long answer questions. Total=15 pts.

Duration: 2 hour max. (Expected time:

approx. 1 hour)

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

12/53

Addt. Details About Final Exam

Example of short answer question:

Define and give an example of the presidential

strategy of going public. (2 points)

Remember: examples may help clarify a

definition, but they are not a substitute for it.

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

13/53

Todays Agenda





6. BREAK




8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

14/53

Group Activity: Bumper Sticker

Summaries

Groups of 3-4

1. I will assign selected citations and key terms

2. Write summary of reading or term on front offolded page. Tape on wall.

3. Gallery walk with group. Guess based on

summary. Lift page to check answer.4. 5 min. debrief at end

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

15/53

Race, Gender, and Politics

In some respects, returning to where we

started, with Smith (1993) in Beyond

Tocqueville

Barbour and Wright (2011) provide survey of

history of racial, ethnic, and gender inequality;

allows me to focus lecture on present

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

16/53


Two key questions:

1. How does race shape political preferences?

2. How well are historically disadvantage groupsrepresented?

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

17/53


Two key questions:


2. How well are historically disadvantage groupsrepresented?

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

18/53

Race, Gender, and Politics Prefs.

Gilens, Martin. 1996. Race Coding and

White Opposition to Welfare. The American

Political Science Review90(3): 593-604.

1988 Willie Horton Attack Ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y

&feature=related

Research question: Do white Americansracial attitudes shape their positions on

ostensibly race-neutral welfare policy?

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

19/53


Gilens (1996):

Definition of welfare: means-tested transferprograms that provide benefits directly to

individuals (594). E.g., food stamps. Argument: Trad. explanations of welfare program

support focus on econ. self-interest andindividualism, but failed to consider racial views

2 types of evidence: (1) a trad. telephone survey;and (2) an experiment embedded in a telephonesurvey

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

20/53


Gilens (1996):

Trad. telephone survey:

DVs: support for welfare programs

IVs: Rs (1) perception of blacks as lazy, (2) perception

of poor people as lazy, (3) income, etc.

Main finding: Perception of blacks as lazy single largest

predictor

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

21/53


8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

22/53


Gilens (1996):

Embedded experiment:

Treatment?

Main finding: While avr. belief about welfare mother

same in both treatments, neg. beliefs about black

welfare mothers associated with much more neg. view

of welfare

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

23/53


8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

24/53


Abramowitz (2010): The Triumph of

Diversity in Kernell and Smith

Barbour and Wright (2011) Obamas eventual

victory over McCain certainly suggest that racism,

too, is on the wane (147). Really?

Some preliminaries:

2008 ANES: 20% of white and 18% of Hispanics andAsian Amer. said idea of black president made them at

least slightly uncomfortable (578)

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

25/53

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

26/53


Abramowitz (2010):

Two Main Findings:

1. Racial prejudice, esp.

among high-school-educated whites, had

negative impact

probability of voting for

Obama in 2008

2. Nonwhite share of US

electorate increased

from 13% in 1992 to

26% in 2008

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

27/53


Abramowitz (2010):

Conclusion: The growth of the nonwhite

electorate as a whole made Barack Obamas

election possible, as African-American and other

nonwhite voters provided him with a large enough

margin to offset a substantial deficit among white

voters (582)

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

28/53


Two key questions:


2. How well are historically disadvantage groups

represented?

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

29/53

Race, Gender, and Politics -

Representation

Griffin and Newman. 2007. The Unequal

Representation of Latinos and Whites. JOP.

2 research questions:

1. Are prefs. of whites better represented than Latinos

in congressional voting?

2. What affects relative representation of two groups?

Method: Make assumptions in order to place MCs and voters on

same scale

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

30/53


Representation

Griffin and Newman (2007):

Main findings:

1. white constituents preferences are much closer

ideologically to their MCs behavior than are Latinos

preferences

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

31/53


Representation

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

32/53


Representation


Main findings:

1. white constituents preferences are much closer

ideologically to their MCs behavior than are Latinos

preferences

2. Latinos relative proximity to their MCs does not

increase linearly in electoral districts as they comprise

a larger share of the population; evidence of whitebacklash

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

33/53


Representation

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

34/53


Representation


Main findings:

1. that white constituents preferences are much

closer ideologically to their MCs behavior than areLatinos preferences

2. that Latinos relative proximity to their MCs does notincrease linearly in electoral districts as they comprisea larger share of the population; evidence of white

backlash3. turnout, higher incomes, and representation by

Democrats put Latinos on more equal footing withwhites (1032).

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

35/53


Representation

MacDonald and OBrien. 2011. Quasi-

Experimental Design, Constituency, and

Advancing Womens Interests PRQ.

Research Question: Do female MCs better

represent womens interests than male MCs?

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

36/53


Representation

MacDonald and OBrien (2011):

Methods problem: Prev. work often omitted

measures of constituency preferences, potentially

biasing effects of gender

Solution: Sample pairs of MCs in which female

MC succeeded or preceded male MC.

Data: # of sponsorships of feminist and socialwelfare bills

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

37/53


Representation

MacDonald and OBrien (2011):

Main findings:

1. Women, on average, sponsored more feminist bills

2. Effect of gender on feminist bill sponsorship increased

as # of female MCs increased

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

38/53


Representation

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

39/53

Todays Agenda





6. BREAK




8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

40/53

Todays Agenda





6. BREAK




8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

41/53

Domestic and Foreign Policy

Main Argument: US foreign policy-making is

influenced by US domestic politics and

institutions.

Thus, tools you already have to understand

domestic politics can be extended to foreign

policy making

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

42/53


Jacobs and Page. 2005. Who Influences USForeign Policy?APSR

Data: Surveys of US foreign policymakers

Finding: Business leaders > experts > labor > publicopinion.

Bartels. 1991. Reagan Defense Build Up.APSR.

Data: MCs voting behavior and NES survey Finding: In early 1980s, MCs votes on defense budget

related to constituency preferences

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

43/53


Will, George F. 2011. Obama and free trade:

Appease big labor. The Washington Post.

Argument?

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

44/53


Rubenzer. 2011. Campaign Contributionsand U.S. Foreign Policy OutcomesAJPS.

Research Question: To what extent are ethnic

minority interest groups able to influence U.S.foreign policy? (105)

Data and Method: Statistical analyses of impactof individual and interest group campaign

contributions on 2005 House votes regardingCuban embargo. In particular, took advantage of similar roll calls

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

45/53


Rubenzer. 2011. Campaign Contributionsand U.S. Foreign Policy OutcomesAJPS.

Main findings:

1. Campaign contributions from pro-embargo PACs andindivs. significantly increased probability of pro-embargo vote, but campaign contributions from anti-embargo PACs mostly did not increase probability ofanti-embargo vote.

2. Impact of campaign contributions on congressionalroll calls was more limited when vote concernedclear, non-technical, and salient issue

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

46/53


Lieberman. 2009. The Israel Lobby and

American Politics. Perspectives on Politics

7(02): 235-257.

Purpose: Reexamine Mearsheimer and Walts

(2007) claim that Americas pro-Israel foreign

policy caused by Israel Lobby -- a collection of

individuals and organizations (both Jewish andChristian)

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

47/53


Lieberman (2009):

Approach: Tease out causal claims in Mearsheimer

and Walts (2007) book and then evaluate them

against available evidence and leading theories of USpolicymaking

Sample of findings:

In 2004, pro-Israel contributions to presidential candidates

amounted to $300,000 out of total of $528 million In 2004 pres. election, mathematically impossible for

Jewish voters to have been decisive (247). Bush would still

have won.

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

48/53


8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

49/53


Lieberman (2009):

Main Conclusion:

Evidence of direct influence of Israel Lobby is weak

Although harder to test Mearsheimer and Walts argumentsabout role of Israel Lobby in shaping policy discourse (e.g.,in media, academia, etc.).

Key point for us: Not so much whether M&W(2007) or Lieberman (2009) is correct; rather that

scholarly debate centered on claims aboutdomestic politics and used tools we already knowabout to adjudicate these claims

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

50/53

Todays Agenda





6. BREAK




8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

51/53

Group Activity: Essay Questions

1. Each group assigned topic from syllabus

2. Develop 2-3 essay questions related to topic.

Write these (Q:) at top of flipchart paper.

3. Give Qs to different group, which answers on

flipchart paper in pt form. Tape paper to

wall.

4. Gallery walk as group. Discuss Qs and As.

5. 5 min. debrief at end

8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

52/53

Todays Agenda





6. BREAK




8/3/2019 2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

53/53

Concluding Remarks

Reminders:

Last 2 summaries due Wednesday at noon

Fukuyama may be on final exam (but easy

question only)

2011 08 15 Lecture Posted

Documents