{"title":"Hegemony and Hamburger: Migration Narratives and Democratic Unionism among Mexican Meatpackers in the U.S. West","authors":"Paul Apostolidis","doi":"10.1177/106591290505800412","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290505800412","url":null,"abstract":"This essay considers how the narrated experiences of immigrant workers in the United States could help promote organized labor’s participation in a transnational movement to democratize globalization processes. I draw on interviews with immigrant meatpackers working for the Tyson Corporation, who since the late 1990s have mounted an impressive and unusual effort to democratize their workplace and union as well as to improve worker safety and dignity. Although the union has elaborated an effective discourse concerning injustice in the workplace and the need for action to remedy these problems, it has not developed any comparable interpretation of workers’ migration experiences. Workers’ migration narratives often reinforce the liberal assumptions guiding the union’s campaigns as well as the U.S. labor movement in general. They occasionally intimate, however, how migration processes can aid in the formation of counter-hegemonic subjectivities, developing these workers’ practical orientations toward resisting mistreatment both individually and in solidarity with others. Thus, creating more institutionalized spaces for workers to communicate about their migration experiences not only could help unions achieve their organizational goals—it also could help shift the political orientation of the labor movement toward a more transnational, social-democratic approach to regulating immigration and capitalist production alike.","PeriodicalId":394472,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132407164","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Working on the Democratic Imagination and the Limits of Deliberative Democracy","authors":"S. Chambers","doi":"10.1177/106591290505800409","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290505800409","url":null,"abstract":"Now is not a period of “normal science” for the field of political theory, whatever we (or Kuhn 1970) might mean by that phrase. Many political theorists will today be found toiling in fields that ostensibly belong to other disciplines, and some of the best work done “in” political theory proves interdisciplinary by its very nature. The essays in this symposium offer a vibrant cross-section of what one might then call the “new” political theory: they exemplify the diversity of writing that currently marks the field of political theory. They are impressively broad in scope yet powerfully concrete in their implications. In their diversity, they show us something absolutely crucial about the practice of political theory today. But the pieces collected here also prove to be marginal in a number of important senses. They live and breathe “at the edge” of political theory in those spaces where they have easier access to other fields. They run the risk of further marginalization by posing unexpected questions and by suggesting unconventional responses. At their core lies a refusal of the standard themes and the typical problems of political theory. They come together to find common ground only from their respective margins of the subfield. Thus, they share the project of not only operating at those margins but also working on them. Perhaps this is precisely the type of work that the “new” political theory must do today. In this essay I argue that such a project always proves to be a labor of imagination. Imagination must be considered here neither as flight of fancy, nor disregard of reality; imagination cannot be reduced to representation. The power of imagination is a synthetic power of creation and of reconstruction—an ability to combine the uncombinable, to surpass binaries without merely collapsing them, to fashion something new. “Working on the democratic imagination” means, then, to think the limits (and their transgression) of democratic theory and of democracy as well.","PeriodicalId":394472,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","volume":"6 12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123736535","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Institutional Foundations of the President’s Issue Agenda","authors":"Jeff Yates, Andrew B. Whitford","doi":"10.1177/106591290505800405","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290505800405","url":null,"abstract":"In this study, we focus on an unresolved problem in our understanding of the construction of the presidential issue agenda: how to reconcile the president’s responsiveness to public opinion with his institutionalized electoral cycle. We argue that the president’s responsiveness is contingent: that the president allocates agenda space to discretionary issues when the strength of public opinion is high and the electoral cycle dictates responsiveness. We provide evidence for this claim by simultaneously addressing the potential influence of other relevant political actors, intra-administration considerations, and objective phenomena in the case of the president’s attention to crime issues over the second half of the twentieth century. Our statistical models show that while the president also responds to cues from other political actors, executive attention to public opinion depends on the president’s electoral circumstances. At the same time, because crime is a discretionary issue, we also find that presidents adjust their agenda to address competing domestic priorities.","PeriodicalId":394472,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125321434","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Gubernatorial Coattail Effects in State Legislative Elections","authors":"R. Hogan","doi":"10.1177/106591290505800406","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290505800406","url":null,"abstract":"This work explores the influence of gubernatorial coattails in state legislative elections. Through a district-level analysis conducted in nine states, I measure how party support for the governor affects the percentage of the vote received by candidates running for the legislature. Findings indicate that gubernatorial coattails do influence candidate vote margins, even when factors such as campaign spending, past party performance, and other district-level conditions are controlled. However, the magnitude of this effect is mitigated by candidacy status and the closeness of the gubernatorial election. Specifically, coattail effects are dampened by the presence of an incumbent, while their influence is enhanced in states with competitive gubernatorial elections.","PeriodicalId":394472,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124585183","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Democratic Progress and Regress: The Effect of Parties on the Transitions of States to and Away from Democracy","authors":"B. Lai, Ruth M. Melkonian-Hoover","doi":"10.1177/106591290505800403","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290505800403","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines how political parties and party competition affect the likelihood of nations becoming and remaining democracies. While many scholars have long assumed that this is the case, the roles of parties and party competition are indeed affected, such a likelihood has rarely been examined rigorously in cross-national evaluations. In addition to examining the links between parties and political transitions, our analysis controls for other factors purported to have a significant effect on democratization. To test the effects of parties and party competition on the transition to and survival of democracies and autocracies, this article utilizes event history analysis on all countries in political transition between the years of 1950-1992, using three different measures of democracy. Through this multifaceted and unique approach, we are able to demonstrate that across all three measures of democracy, parties do indeed play an important role in causing authoritarian states to transition to democracy and helping democratic nations remain democracies.","PeriodicalId":394472,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126662372","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Personal and the Political in Repeat Congressional Candidacies","authors":"Andrew J. Taylor, R. Boatright","doi":"10.1177/106591290505800407","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290505800407","url":null,"abstract":"Analyses of the decision to run for the U.S. House are generally based on the self-reported motivations of a sample of candidates or potential candidates. In this article we take a different approach. We use a quasi-experimental design to model the decision of a losing candidate to initiate or reject an immediate repeat match-up against the person to whom they lost in the general election of the previous cycle. Of these potential repeaters we look at “strong” challengers—those who lost but secured more than 40 percent of the vote. We find the decision to repeat to be shaped at least somewhat by evaluations of the candidate’s chances of winning the party’s nomination and her personal desires and abilities. However, when we examine only “strategic” potential repeaters—those who lost in an open seat contest the first time around—we find the decision to repeat to be driven largely by broader political or partisan trends that affect the candidate’s evaluation of her chances of winning the general election. This finding confirms analyses of strategic candidates using other data.","PeriodicalId":394472,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126065850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"2005 Manuscript Reviewers","authors":"Karen McCullough","doi":"10.14430/arctic472","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic472","url":null,"abstract":"Ahuja, L.R. Anapalli, S. Anderson, D. Andres, B.A. Babaluk, J.A. Beamish, R. Bear, K. Beltaos, S. Berkes, F. Bigelow, N. Black, L. Blake, W., Jr. Blomqvist, S. Boonstra, R. Bordin, D. Boyce, M.S. Boyce, R.L. Bradford, M. Breiwick, J.M. Brown, S. Burn, C.R. Carey, S.K. Carmack, E.C. Carpenter, K. Cartan, W.M. Chan, L. Chardine, J. Clark, D.A. Colman, J.E. Cooper, L.W. Cosens, S. Cott, P.A. Covey, C. Crichton, V. Csillag, F. Dau, J. Davidson-Hunt, I.J. Davis, R.A. DeMaster, D.P. Derocher, A.E. Desloges, J.R. Douglas, M.S.V. Dumond, D.E. Durner, G.M. Edwards, M.E. Evans, M.S. Fenge, T. Ferguson, S. Fitzhugh, W. Fletcher, C. Follmann, E.H. Fondahl, G. Ford, J. Frame, P.F. Friesen, M.T. Fritts, S. Furgal, C.M. Gajewski, K. Garcia, E. Gaston, A.J. Gau, R. Giberson, D. Giroux, J.-F. Hameedi, J. Hannon, S. Harington, C.R. Hatch, S.A. Hayton, A. Hedenström, A. Hoover, A. Howland, K. Huebert, R. Huntington, T.G. Jefferies, R.L. Jeffries, M.O. Johnson, P.G. Johnson, S.R. Johnston, V. Kamler, J.F. Kellett, D.K. Kendrick, A. Korsmo, F.L. Kuhnlein, H.V. Kuzmin, I.V. Lafleur, P. Lamoureux, S. Lanctot, R. Latour, P. Lunn, N. Macdonald, R.W. Maher, P. Mallory, M.L. Manseau, M. Martin, K. Matthews, J.A. McFarlane, K. McLaughlin, J. McLoughlin, P.D. Mech, L.D. Meltofte, H. Michaelson, G.J. Miller, F.L. Mol, D. Mørk, T. Mote, V. Mulvihill, P.R. Murray, M.S. Myers, H. Nadasdy, P. Naylor, B. Nobmann, E.D. Nol, E. Notzke, C. Odess, D. Otto, R.D. Ouellet, J.-P. Patterson, B.R. Petrone, R.M. Prowse, T.D. Reed, E.T. Reeves, R.R. Remmel, T. Richard, P. Richardson, E.S. Riewe, R. Riseborough, D. Robertson, G.J. Rockwell, R.F. Rotella, J. Rouse, W.R. Russell, D.E. Samelius, G. Schaefer, J. Schindler, D.W. Schwarz, C.J. Schweger, C. Sedinger, J.S. Sharratt, B. Shimada, K. Shipitalo, M. Slattery, S. Sletten, R. Smith, D. Smith, P.A. Smith, S. Smith, W.K. Stirling, I. Suydam, R. Taylor, M.K. Tonn, W. Troy, D. Van Franeker, J.A. Veitch, A.M. Vetter, M.A. Vincent, W.F. Walsh, J.E., Jr. Warnock, N. Wartinbee, D.C. Watson, E. Wiig, Ø. Wiles, G. Wipfli, M.S. Woodgate, R. Zdanowicz, C. Zhang, X. Zwiers, F.","PeriodicalId":394472,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128245866","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"States Are Not People: Harold Laski on Unsettling Sovereignty, Rediscovering Democracy","authors":"J. Morefield","doi":"10.1177/106591290505800413","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290505800413","url":null,"abstract":"This essay examines the relationship between democratic theory and historical critiques of state sovereignty by analyzing Harold Laski’s geneological approach to the history of political thought. This approach led Laski to conclude that the apparently “unified” character of soveriegn statehood made differences within states invisible, rendered similarities across states meaningless, obscured the liberal state’s connections to capitalism, and supported order and authority over the less predictable qualities of democratic freedom. Laski’s critique of sovereignty ultimately suggested that true democracy was impossible within the context of sovereingty and that real “international cooperation” could only happen under conditions in which individual states were prevented from speaking in the unified voice of their people. The esssay suggests that contemporary democratic theorists and international ethicists could have much to learn from Laski’s refusal to relegate democracy to the internal boundaries of states.","PeriodicalId":394472,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115622321","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Impact of Political Advertising in the 2001 U.K. General Election","authors":"David Sanders, P. Norris","doi":"10.1177/106591290505800401","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290505800401","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the extent to which advocacy and attack Party Election Broadcasts (PEBs) affected voters’ party preferences during the British general election campaign of 2001. The analysis uses an experimental design that involved conducting “media exposure” tests on a representative sample of Greater London voters (N = 919) during the final weeks of the June 2001 election campaign. Respondents completed a pre-test questionnaire before being exposed to a variety of different media stimuli. Their political attitudes were then measured again in a post-test questionnaire. The empirical findings suggest that, in general, PEBs exerted little direct effect on voters’ images of the main political parties in 2001. However, there were a series of “partial” exposure effects confined to particular sub-groups of voters. For example, for non-partisan voters, “attack” advertising appears to have been less effective than “advocacy” advertising. Indeed, in the U.K. in 2001 there were contexts in which negative campaigning was explicitly counter-productive in the sense that it appears to have actively stimulated sympathy for the target of the attack rather than strengthened the relative position of the sponsor.","PeriodicalId":394472,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125272448","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Information Flow and Voter Decision Making in the 2001 Australian Federal Election: The Role of International and Domestic Issues","authors":"David Denemark","doi":"10.1177/106591290505800303","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290505800303","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the role of TV coverage in voter decision making during the 2001 Australian federal election campaign, called just weeks after a major asylum seeker incident and the September 11 terrorist attacks. It does so by exploring voters’ differential reliance on two distinct, high profile sets of issues that dominated media election campaign coverage: the domestic issues that had been the focus throughout the election year (especially health, education, and taxes) and the international issues that assumed centre stage just before the election was called (refugees and asylum seekers, terrorism, and defence and national security). Using an original content analysis of TV coverage and the 2001 Australian election survey, interaction effects models yield significantly different patterns of reliance on international and domestic for groups of voters. These effects are distinguished by the timing of individuals’ vote choice, and the level of their existing political interest and information. Moderately interested voters, who largely decided their vote choice about the time the election was called, were the most likely to cite international issues as the key to their vote choice. Voters with lower levels of political interest, deciding just before or on election day, were significantly more reliant on domestic issues. These patterns represent a variant on Zaller’s (1989) model of campaign information flow, and suggest a single, high-intensity campaign—especially in Australia’s compulsory voting system, which forces the participation of the country’s least interested and informed individuals—can sustain within it two distinct issue agendas which voters with different cognitive skills and responsiveness to TV cues differentially utilize to inform their vote choice.","PeriodicalId":394472,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122882681","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}