Matching Items (65)
Description
Voting in presidential primaries, compared to general elections, provides a challenging task for voters given the lack of party cues, the similarity of the candidates' policy positions, and the relatively low information levels. As trustworthy sources of local information, local news media in presidential primaries have a profound potential to shape voters' evaluations of candidates. I argue that the proximity of local news, its local nature, makes it a trusted and influential source of candidate information, moderated by candidates' prominence. Furthermore, variation in local news across states as a result of differences in standards of newsworthiness and organizational resources helps clarify the distinct role that local news plays in voter opinion of presidential primary candidates. Relying on an original content analysis of news coverage in 11 battleground and early primary states, and utilizing an extensive panel survey of 5,301 respondents over the course of the 2008 primary campaign, I am able to match primary voters with their local news content. I examine the influence of the quantity and tone of local news coverage on voters' evaluations of presidential candidates over the course of the primary season. The findings suggest that local news outlets provide voters with vastly different amounts and types of campaign news. I find that the amount of local news coverage influences people's willingness to evaluate presidential candidates. In addition, evaluations of low tier presidential candidates are significantly influenced by the tone of local news coverage, even after controlling for voters' ideological predispositions and local candidate activities. These findings suggest that local news coverage has a powerful effect on voters' evaluations of low tier candidates in particular, consistently shaping voters' recognition and evaluations of these candidates. The availability and bias of candidate information in presidential primaries may ultimately impact electoral outcomes in both nominating contests and general elections.
ContributorsCarle, Jill (Author) / Fridkin, Kim (Thesis advisor) / Kenney, Patrick (Committee member) / Espino, Rodolfo (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
Objective. Both the civic education literature and the political ambition literature leave a gap in addressing the impact of political science coursework on political ambition. I address this gap by specifying the relationships between civic education, political knowledge, and political ambition. Methods. I employ paired t tests, chi-square tests, and Fisher's exact probability tests on an original dataset of 174 paired pre- and post-test survey responses. My survey improves upon prior works in the ambition literature (Fox and Lawless 2013) by virtue of its field experiment design. Results. My findings indicate that political science coursework has a positive impact on political knowledge, but only among women, and that political science coursework has a negative impact (among women) on one of the most valid measures of political ambition—how likely one is to run for office in the future. Conclusions/Implications. The results have negative normative implications for those trying to use political education as an instrument to reduce the gender gap (see Lawless and Fox 2010, Fox and Lawless 2013) in political ambition. This suggests the need to explore further options for increasing political ambition, particularly among women.
ContributorsWiezel, Adi (Author) / Kittilson, Miki (Thesis advisor) / Fridkin, Kim (Committee member) / Woodall, Gina (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
This dissertation examines the intellectual debate over the concept of laissez faire in American political thought, which took place between 1880 and 1914. It presents an account of how the concept of laissez faire rose to prominence in American political thought during the Gilded Age as well as an account of how critics responded. The Gilded Age was a period of revolutionary economic change which prompted a renewed debate over the proper role of government. Much of the existing scholarship devoted to this period takes the form of historical overview or extensive focus on a particular thinker. My own analysis focuses on the specific arguments of three particular thinkers: Henry Demarest Lloyd, Thorstein Veblen, and Herbert Croly.
In order to explain the various features of this intellectual debate, I present a conceptual analysis of laissez faire and identify its key components. I also provide a critical comparison of the competing economic visions of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton to illustrate the relationship between laissez faire thinking and the American Founding. I then present the laissez faire arguments of nineteenth-century thinkers, particularly the Social Darwinists. Finally, I critically appraise the arguments presented by Lloyd, Veblen, and Croly in order to show how the prevailing notions about the proper role of government were changing.
In this research, I show that the debate over laissez faire was about more than identifying the appropriate economic policy for the United States. It centered upon competing theories of society, human nature, and economic progress. In criticizing laissez faire, Lloyd, Veblen, and Croly also challenged the traditional American commitment to individualism, and in so doing, they laid the intellectual groundwork for a more affirmative government and the emergence of the welfare state in the twentieth century.
In order to explain the various features of this intellectual debate, I present a conceptual analysis of laissez faire and identify its key components. I also provide a critical comparison of the competing economic visions of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton to illustrate the relationship between laissez faire thinking and the American Founding. I then present the laissez faire arguments of nineteenth-century thinkers, particularly the Social Darwinists. Finally, I critically appraise the arguments presented by Lloyd, Veblen, and Croly in order to show how the prevailing notions about the proper role of government were changing.
In this research, I show that the debate over laissez faire was about more than identifying the appropriate economic policy for the United States. It centered upon competing theories of society, human nature, and economic progress. In criticizing laissez faire, Lloyd, Veblen, and Croly also challenged the traditional American commitment to individualism, and in so doing, they laid the intellectual groundwork for a more affirmative government and the emergence of the welfare state in the twentieth century.
ContributorsBlanchard, Brian (Author) / Ball, Terence (Thesis advisor) / Simhony, Avital (Committee member) / Crittenden, William (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
In 1985 Schotland made the observation that judicial campaigns were becoming “nosier, nastier, and costlier.” Because judicial campaigns are one of very few occasions in which individuals receive information about the bench (Schaffner and Diascro 2007), there is a possibility that such negativity in judicial elections could harm individual perceptions of the legitimacy of state supreme courts (Gibson 2008). This dissertation seeks to uncover the amount of negativity present in judicial campaigns, and to understand the effects of such negativity on perceptions of state courts’ specific and diffuse legitimacy.
To accomplish this goal I first conduct a content analysis of all televised judicial advertisements aired from 2005-2016. While other scholars have examined the use of attack advertisements in judicial elections (Hall 2014), my study is the first to consider ads airing before and after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that removed spending limits for political groups. I find that neither the use of attack nor contrast advertisements appears to be increasing, though the sponsors of such ads have changed such that candidates and political parties air far fewer negative advertisements, but political groups air more negative ads than they did before Citizens United.
I then conduct a unique experiment to examine the effects of negativity on perceptions of specific and diffuse legitimacy. Unlike previous studies, I include a treatment group for contrast advertisements, which are advertisements containing elements of negativity about a target, as well as positive information about the target’s opponent. I find that, perceptions of the court’s diffuse legitimacy are only moderately influenced by exposure to negative ads. I do however find that contrast advertisements appear to depress perceptions of the court’s diffuse legitimacy by a significant amount for individuals with high knowledge of the courts.
To accomplish this goal I first conduct a content analysis of all televised judicial advertisements aired from 2005-2016. While other scholars have examined the use of attack advertisements in judicial elections (Hall 2014), my study is the first to consider ads airing before and after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that removed spending limits for political groups. I find that neither the use of attack nor contrast advertisements appears to be increasing, though the sponsors of such ads have changed such that candidates and political parties air far fewer negative advertisements, but political groups air more negative ads than they did before Citizens United.
I then conduct a unique experiment to examine the effects of negativity on perceptions of specific and diffuse legitimacy. Unlike previous studies, I include a treatment group for contrast advertisements, which are advertisements containing elements of negativity about a target, as well as positive information about the target’s opponent. I find that, perceptions of the court’s diffuse legitimacy are only moderately influenced by exposure to negative ads. I do however find that contrast advertisements appear to depress perceptions of the court’s diffuse legitimacy by a significant amount for individuals with high knowledge of the courts.
ContributorsThompson, Joshua Robert (Author) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Thesis advisor) / Fridkin, Kim (Committee member) / Ramirez, Mark (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
This study examines the factors that shape the timing of a passage of a piece of controversial gender equality legislation by conducting a case study of the abolition of the family-head system in South Korea. This study draws on the method of process tracing with the data collected from the archives and the interviews. The case study mainly compares the legislative processes for the bills on the abolition of the family-head system in 16th and the 17th National Assemblies, in which the bills resulted to opposite outcomes.
This study argues that the institutions of the legislative process mediate the impact of relevant actors for gender equality policymaking. In the bill initiation stage, only a small number of the elected officials are required to introduce a bill, and women representatives serve a vital role as they are more likely to introduce feminist bills than their male colleagues. This study argues that 1) the background of the women influencing their commitment to feminist agendas, 2) strong women’s movements contributing to issue saliency, and thereby the policy priorities of the issue, and 3) the resources and constraints inside the party for feminist policymaking influenced by party ideology, shape how active women representatives will be in advocating controversial gender equality agendas.
In the later stages of policymaking, the efforts of a small number of women members are offset by that of political parties. Emphasizing the positive agenda control of the majority party and the negative agenda control of the minority parties, this study suggests that party issue positions are critical for the outcome of the bill. To explain the party issue position (re)shape, this study underlines 1) public opinion, 2) the emergence of new voter groups leading to the decline of the cleavage politics, 3) new party entry, and 4) women in the party and the party leadership. The findings highlight that the major parties’ issue positions shift in the 17th National Assembly greatly contributed to amplifying the bargaining power of the key allies and weakening the institutional leverage of the opponents, leading to the successful legislation of the bill.
This study argues that the institutions of the legislative process mediate the impact of relevant actors for gender equality policymaking. In the bill initiation stage, only a small number of the elected officials are required to introduce a bill, and women representatives serve a vital role as they are more likely to introduce feminist bills than their male colleagues. This study argues that 1) the background of the women influencing their commitment to feminist agendas, 2) strong women’s movements contributing to issue saliency, and thereby the policy priorities of the issue, and 3) the resources and constraints inside the party for feminist policymaking influenced by party ideology, shape how active women representatives will be in advocating controversial gender equality agendas.
In the later stages of policymaking, the efforts of a small number of women members are offset by that of political parties. Emphasizing the positive agenda control of the majority party and the negative agenda control of the minority parties, this study suggests that party issue positions are critical for the outcome of the bill. To explain the party issue position (re)shape, this study underlines 1) public opinion, 2) the emergence of new voter groups leading to the decline of the cleavage politics, 3) new party entry, and 4) women in the party and the party leadership. The findings highlight that the major parties’ issue positions shift in the 17th National Assembly greatly contributed to amplifying the bargaining power of the key allies and weakening the institutional leverage of the opponents, leading to the successful legislation of the bill.
ContributorsLee, Mijun (Author) / Kittilson, Miki (Thesis advisor) / Simhony, Avital (Committee member) / Shair-Rosenfield, Sarah (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
ABSTRACT
Although the US government has been using remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), more commonly referred to as drones, to conduct military strikes against terrorists and insurgents since at least 2001, only around 2011 did media outlets and polling organizations began assessing the attitudes of Americans towards the use of drones as a weapon of war. Initially, public support for drone strikes was robust with nearly 70 percent of Americans expressing approval. As the discussion of drone strikes intensified however, public support declined over 10 percentage points.
Only a handful of studies have examined public opinion and drone strikes, and all have focused exclusively on explaining support. This study seeks to fill this gap in the literature and explain opposition to drone strikes. The primary argument put forth in this dissertation is that people’s beliefs determine their opinions, and their morality determines their beliefs. Although independent opinion formation is often considered a cognitive process, I argue that, at least in the case of drone strikes, the opinion formation process is largely an affective one.
By examining media coverage and elite discourse surrounding drone strikes, I isolate three narratives which I believe communicate certain messages to the public regarding drone strikes. I argue that the messages produced by elite discourse and disseminated by the media to the public are only influential on opinion formation once they have been converted to beliefs. I further argue that conversion of message to belief is largely dependent on individual moral attitudes.
To test my arguments, I conduct a survey-experiment using subjects recruited from Arizona State University’s School of Politics and Global Studies student subject pool. My research findings lead to two key conclusions. First, opposition to drone strikes is largely the product of the belief(s) that drone strikes are not necessary for protecting the United States from terrorist attack, and that drone strikes kill more civilians than do strikes from conventional aircraft. Second, whether an individual expresses support or opposition to drone strikes, moral attitudes are a relatively good predictor of both beliefs and disposition.
Although the US government has been using remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), more commonly referred to as drones, to conduct military strikes against terrorists and insurgents since at least 2001, only around 2011 did media outlets and polling organizations began assessing the attitudes of Americans towards the use of drones as a weapon of war. Initially, public support for drone strikes was robust with nearly 70 percent of Americans expressing approval. As the discussion of drone strikes intensified however, public support declined over 10 percentage points.
Only a handful of studies have examined public opinion and drone strikes, and all have focused exclusively on explaining support. This study seeks to fill this gap in the literature and explain opposition to drone strikes. The primary argument put forth in this dissertation is that people’s beliefs determine their opinions, and their morality determines their beliefs. Although independent opinion formation is often considered a cognitive process, I argue that, at least in the case of drone strikes, the opinion formation process is largely an affective one.
By examining media coverage and elite discourse surrounding drone strikes, I isolate three narratives which I believe communicate certain messages to the public regarding drone strikes. I argue that the messages produced by elite discourse and disseminated by the media to the public are only influential on opinion formation once they have been converted to beliefs. I further argue that conversion of message to belief is largely dependent on individual moral attitudes.
To test my arguments, I conduct a survey-experiment using subjects recruited from Arizona State University’s School of Politics and Global Studies student subject pool. My research findings lead to two key conclusions. First, opposition to drone strikes is largely the product of the belief(s) that drone strikes are not necessary for protecting the United States from terrorist attack, and that drone strikes kill more civilians than do strikes from conventional aircraft. Second, whether an individual expresses support or opposition to drone strikes, moral attitudes are a relatively good predictor of both beliefs and disposition.
ContributorsDavis, Christopher Todd (Author) / Wood, Reed (Thesis advisor) / Fridkin, Kim (Committee member) / Kubiak, Jeffrey (Committee member) / Wright, Thorin (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
In Arizona's early history, Females garnered more independence than most other women in the United States because they were forced to build a completely new life in settlements with little to no infrastructure. Now, Arizona has achieved a level of equality that no other state has yet to achieve in regard to gender representation. Yet, we have yet to achieve total equity. This paper looks to analyze responses that female senators from the Arizona State Legislature gave while being interviewed by the author. With questions derived from previous research conducted on women in politics at the state and federal level, this paper will delve into the personal experiences of six female senators. Although their personal narratives differ, their stories seem to reflect a collective tie that unites the female members together, beyond party allegiance. Each of the responses given by the senators had some aspects that showed trends supporting the majority of the hypotheses. Moving forward, in order to achieve 50% equality, two more senators would need to be elected and replace male senators.
ContributorsMacdonald, James Nicholson (Author) / Woodall, Gina (Thesis director) / Lyon, Jenna (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Sustainability (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05
Description
Even at the start of the twenty-first century, gender stereotypes continue to guide how people perceive men and women. Given the power of gender stereotypes, I expect that these stereotypes will constrain how women campaign for positions on state supreme courts. In particular, I expect that women candidates for state supreme court will try to revise potentially damaging stereotypes by detailing their possession of agentic traits, while men candidates for state supreme court will have more flexibility when describing their possession of particular traits. When discussing issues in their campaigns, I expect women to highlight issues that correspond to their stereotypical strengths (i.e., communal issues) since by stressing these issues, the candidates hope to prime issues that may benefit their candidacies. In contrast, I expect male candidates for state supreme court to be less constrained by persisting stereotypes and be equally likely to emphasize communal or competitive issues in their campaigns. To test my expectations, I conduct a content analysis of judicial campaign advertisements among the states holding elections for state supreme court. The evidence I find from my analysis strongly supports my hypothesis. This suggests that women are still confined by gender stereotypes when it comes to campaigning in judicial elections.
ContributorsKahn, Jennifer Gail (Author) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Thesis director) / Fridkin, Kim (Committee member) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05
Description
This honors thesis proposes a hypothetical solution to the political problems facing the modern nation of Afghanistan. Using the model of the Roman Republic as presented by the political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli, I explain what institutions are necessary for the survival and success of a republic. These include a citizen militia composed entirely of equal citizens; “political class tension,” or political compromise between the elite and the common people of a republic through observance of the rule of law; and civic virtue, which stems from participation in these two institutional aspects of a republic and assists in bolstering them.
After this examination of necessary republican components, I describe the institution of constitutional dictatorship, which I devised based on the ideas of Machiavelli and the legal theorist Carl Schmitt. I then use all the institutions and ideas discussed within the framework of a thought exercise to examine possible recommendations for action by a constitutional dictatorship operating in Afghanistan, which are to bolster the Afghan National Army and neutralize the corrupting influence of Afghanistan’s “gentlemen,” or selfishly-motivated partisan leaders. Although the recommendations attempt to be as close to feasible policy as possible, they are not written with the goal of actual implementation in mind due to their lack of empirical basis.
I conclude by examining possible domestic and strategic implications of these hypothetical recommendations. This portion is also not empirically-based, merely concluding the examination of the thought exercise. An appendix uses visual aids to demonstrate the composition of the resulting Afghan government.
After this examination of necessary republican components, I describe the institution of constitutional dictatorship, which I devised based on the ideas of Machiavelli and the legal theorist Carl Schmitt. I then use all the institutions and ideas discussed within the framework of a thought exercise to examine possible recommendations for action by a constitutional dictatorship operating in Afghanistan, which are to bolster the Afghan National Army and neutralize the corrupting influence of Afghanistan’s “gentlemen,” or selfishly-motivated partisan leaders. Although the recommendations attempt to be as close to feasible policy as possible, they are not written with the goal of actual implementation in mind due to their lack of empirical basis.
I conclude by examining possible domestic and strategic implications of these hypothetical recommendations. This portion is also not empirically-based, merely concluding the examination of the thought exercise. An appendix uses visual aids to demonstrate the composition of the resulting Afghan government.
ContributorsBrunner, Jordan Alexander (Author) / Simhony, Avital (Thesis director) / Wood, Reed (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2014-12
Description
Congress has grown increasingly partisan since the 1970's, with the most extreme levels of partisanship occurring in the last few years. The media has also reflected on the loss of bipartisanship in Congress. However, the media often cites women as one of the last groups in the Senate willing to cross party lines. I analyze party unity scores from 1993-2013 to see if women senators are less partisan than their male counterparts, and if Democratic women senators are more or less partisan than Republican women senators. From these results, I find that Republican female senators are less partisan than Republican male senators and Democratic senators of either gender. I also find Democratic female senators are more partisan than Republican female senators, and just as partisan or more partisan than Democratic male senators. However, when analyzed through co-sponsorship data from 2009-2015, women senators are seen as more bipartisan than men. Finally, through anecdotal research, I find that both Republican and Democratic men and women in the Senate believe women legislate differently than men and view them as more willing to find common ground. I also find Republican and Democratic women of the Senate have shared experiences that lead them to forge bipartisan relationships that could lead them to work in a more bipartisan way. An interview with former Senator Olympia Snowe reveals that she believes women are results oriented and willing to work together on a range of issues, and especially those that benefit women.
ContributorsBennett, Linnea Christine (Author) / Woodall, Gina (Thesis director) / Lennon, Tara (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2015-05