Matching Items (4)
Filtering by
- Member of: ASU Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Description
Contemporary Christian American politicians have diverse identities when integrating their faith with their political ideology and have developed their worldviews and interpretive schemas and have defended, enacted, and given meaning to their positions, knowingly or unknowingly. There are two distinct theoretical clusters which are a result of an already existing dichotomy. This ideological divide happens along the philosophical notions of individualism or communitarianism, libertarianism or egalitarianism, capitalism or collectivism, literalism or hermeneutics, orthodoxy or praxis. One cluster, Institutional Christianity, exerts a dominating influence on the political and cultural landscape in the US, particularly during the last ten years, and could be considered a hegemonic discourse; while the other, Natural Christianity, serves as the counter-hegemony within a political landscape characterized by a two party system. This study explores the relationship of these dichotomous clusters with contemporary Arizona Christian politicians. Using a phenomenological, qualitative study, interviewing sixteen Arizona Christian politicians, this study yielded ten themes, and binary meaning units within each theme, that describe the essence of politicians' faith and political behavior as they intersect. Finally, this study found, as reported by each subject, what political perspectives generally created a sense of dissonance with one's faith and what perspective exhibited a unified sense of congruence with their faith and political behavior.
ContributorsAbleser, Edward (Author) / Gomez, Alan (Thesis advisor) / Oliverio, Annamaria (Committee member) / Herrera, Richard (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
The 2016 election brought to light a political climate change in the United States and showed that questions scholars and pundits alike thought were answered perhaps had not been completely addressed. For some, the main question left unanswered was what would it take for a woman to become President of the United States? For others, the question of fear politics and the effects of social media were raised. Perhaps, the most intriguing was exactly who has influence over US elections? While these, and other, questions were asked in the context of the presidential election, they are also applicable to all political races. This dissertation examines how voter perceptions based on stereotypes and racial threat can affect Latina candidates’ prospects for election. Using an online experiment with 660 subjects and two elite interviews to test four hypotheses in order to determine whether or not racial resentment and stereotypes play a role in voter perceptions of Latina political candidates. The results show that racial resent and gender stereotypes play a role in voter perception of Latina political candidates. The results have theoretical and practical implications.
ContributorsHernandez, Samantha L. (Author) / Herrera, Richard (Thesis advisor) / Navarro, Sharon (Committee member) / Magaña, Lisa (Committee member) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
The American courts have become increasingly central to many important political debates. The marriage equality debate, the boundaries between religious freedom and society, the death penalty, eminent domain and many other contemporary issues that have direct effects on the lives of all Americans continue to play out in the court systems. While Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 82 sees the federal and state courts as complementary, this research sees these courts as often-rival political venues that political interests make strategic choices about taking legal actions in.
Prior research finds that political interests turn to the state courts for two reasons: The structure of law creates a legal incentive and the political interests have access to state level resources, e.g. attorneys skilled in the laws of a state. Yet, there appear to be important gaps in existing theory. A distinction between state and national political interests is seemingly important. State political interests are embedded within their state political communities; consequently these interests should have strong attachments with their respective state courts. Also, state political interests can be expected to select courts on the basis of political ideology and state judicial selection methods. Prior research has shown the connection between these factors and judicial decision-making, but not interest group participation.
To examine these areas of uncertainty, this research collected more than 3500 observations of the participation of political interests in the American courts. Two legal areas were selected: eminent domain and marriage equality. Ultimately, this study finds that state political interests develop strong attachments to their respective state courts and are more likely to enter into the state courts than their nationally-oriented counterparts. This research also finds that judicial ideology and state judicial selection both influence the decision to enter into the state courts. This shows a relationship between these factors and the decision to enter into the state courts. It also suggests that these factors not only affect the choices that judges make, but other actors as well, including political interests.
Prior research finds that political interests turn to the state courts for two reasons: The structure of law creates a legal incentive and the political interests have access to state level resources, e.g. attorneys skilled in the laws of a state. Yet, there appear to be important gaps in existing theory. A distinction between state and national political interests is seemingly important. State political interests are embedded within their state political communities; consequently these interests should have strong attachments with their respective state courts. Also, state political interests can be expected to select courts on the basis of political ideology and state judicial selection methods. Prior research has shown the connection between these factors and judicial decision-making, but not interest group participation.
To examine these areas of uncertainty, this research collected more than 3500 observations of the participation of political interests in the American courts. Two legal areas were selected: eminent domain and marriage equality. Ultimately, this study finds that state political interests develop strong attachments to their respective state courts and are more likely to enter into the state courts than their nationally-oriented counterparts. This research also finds that judicial ideology and state judicial selection both influence the decision to enter into the state courts. This shows a relationship between these factors and the decision to enter into the state courts. It also suggests that these factors not only affect the choices that judges make, but other actors as well, including political interests.
ContributorsLohse, Paul Bryan (Author) / Lewis, Paul B (Thesis advisor) / Herrera, Richard (Committee member) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
Description
Presidents exercise influence over policy discussion and options in America by the frequency and language they use to describe the current conditions, the perceived problems, and the solutions. The ability for presidents to articulate problems and solutions assumes an underlying purpose exists. This study examines how presidents frame the policy discussion for education in America and how they describe the purpose of education in the public record: the benefit of education is for society (common good), or the benefit it to the student (private good). Then the study examines the extent to which those frames stay consistent or are variable within and between administrations. The study utilizes presidential issue framing and agenda-setting to examine historical documents in the Public Papers of the President archive to determine the articulated purpose using the framework proposed by David Labaree. This study focuses on three administrations of the most recent period of federalism in education policy in America, starting with Bill Clinton and ending with Barack Obama. The study found that President William Clinton used the purposes of Social Mobility and Social Efficiency most frequently, President George W. Bush used Social Efficiency – Public Good and Social Efficiency – Private Good most, and President Barack Obama used Social Efficiency – Public Good more than all other frames. All three presidents maintained relatively consistent use of their prominent frames throughout their administrations with some indication that slight shifts may occur. All three presidents had low utilization of the frame Democratic Equality, and all used the combined frame Social Efficiency the most. Some variation between the utilization of the second-level codes of Private Good and Public Good do exist between administrations. The prominence of the combined frame Social Efficiency across administrations may suggest a more crystalized definition for the purpose of K-12 education in America.
ContributorsBryant, Aaron C (Author) / Dorn, Sherman (Thesis advisor) / Herrera, Richard (Thesis advisor) / Judson, Eugene (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023