POLS 530 Seminar in American Politics and Government
1:25-4:25 Wednesday
Time
HSS 215
Room
Anthony Nownes
Instructor
9-12 Tuesday, 811 McClung Tower
 Office Hours
974-7052
 Telephone
anownes@utk.edu
 Email
Course Description
This is the core seminar in the field of American politics. It is designed to introduce students to
the field of American politics. Of course, neither this course nor any other can represent this vast
and rich field of study. Nonetheless, the coverage of the literature is sufficiently broad to give
students an introduction to the major empirical and theoretical approaches to the study of
American politics.
You will be expected to complete a large number of readings. As you will see, the
readings reflect a wide variety of theoretical approaches, research designs, and methodologies. I
hope that by the end of this course you will be able to assess the usefulness of many different
approaches to the study of American politics.
We begin with a look at the nation’s founding—especially the controversies surrounding
the ratification of the Constitution. Next, we take a brief look at how the system created by the
founders has evolved over time, paying special attention to how theorists and scholars have
conceptualized this evolution. From here, we turn to the institutions of American government. As
you will see, some of the best and most influential work in all of political science has focused
upon the institutions of American government. We conclude with an examination of American
political behavior.
Course Requirements
10% Weekly Memos. Weekly one (1) page memorandums are required. Each memorandum will
summarize an important theme in the week’s readings and will propose a question or topic to be
examined in class discussion. These one-page memorandums are due one full day before class.
30% Attendance and Participation. Attendance is mandatory. It is crucial that you come to
each class prepared to discuss the assigned material. You will be expected to show up ready to
discuss the week’s readings. Each student will lead at least one seminar discussion.
60% Big Paper. You have two options for the big paper. (1) The “Research” Option. You will
submit an original research paper. The paper will be from 15-45 pages long, and will report the
results of original research; (2) The Term Paper Option. You will submit two (2) term papers.
Each term paper will be 10-15 pages long and will trace the impact of one of the field’s classic
articles or books. Articles or books marked with an * are considered classics. You may choose
another article or book with my permission. Each term paper will take a close look at the classic
work, paying special attention to its theme, theoretical foundation, research design, methodology,
and conclusion. Each paper will also trace the impact of the classic work by examining the work
that followed it.
Other Issues
Disability Policy
If you need adaptations or accommodations because of a disability, please contact the Office of
Disability Services (ODS). The office is located at 191 Hoskins Library, and can be contacted at
974-6087. The ODS web page is found at http://ods.utk.edu/default.html.
Here is what the Student Handbook says about ODS and its services:
“The Office of Disability Services (ODS) seeks to eliminate the barriers persons with disabilities
encounter and to work with them to achieve and maintain individual autonomy. The office’s
primary objective is to provide faculty, staff, and students with access to the academic, social,
cultural, and recreational opportunities of the University.
Prospective students are encouraged to contact ODS personnel so that they can be
assured that the campus facilities and services are adequate to meet their needs. The office can be
of service to everyone to the extent that their individual needs are made known. Contact with
students prior to registration enables the office to better assess the need for interpreters, readers,
accessible facilities, and other support services. Van service is also provided to those individuals
with mobility limitations, whether permanent or temporary. Documentation of a disability from
an attending physician or the Student Health Center is required.
Registration with the office and use of services is on a voluntary basis, however,
accommodations will not be provided without notifying the office and providing proper
documentation. Confidentiality is maintained. Faculty, staff, and students desiring any services
are encouraged to contact the Office of Disability Services so that necessary arrangements can be
made. The office is located at 191 Hoskins Library.
Requests for interpreting services by enrolled deaf students should be made to ODS at
least one month prior to the beginning of the semester.” Hilltopics Student Handbook, p. 45.
Plagiarism
Plagiarism will not be tolerated. The following is an excerpt from the University of Tennessee’s
Honor Statement, which can be found in Hilltopics Student Handbook, which is the official
student handbook of the University of Tennessee: “Students shall not plagiarize. Plagiarism is
using the intellectual property or product of someone else without giving proper credit. The
undocumented use of someone else's words or ideas in any medium of communication (unless
such information is recognized as common knowledge) is a serious offense, subject to
disciplinary action that may include failure in a course and/or dismissal from the University.
Specific examples of plagiarism are: Using without proper documentation (quotation marks and a
citation) written or spoken words, phrases, or sentences from any source; Summarizing without
proper documentation (usually a citation) ideas from another source (unless such information is
recognized as common knowledge); Borrowing facts, statistics, graphs, pictorial representations,
or phrases without acknowledging the source (unless such information is recognized as common
knowledge); Collaborating on a graded assignment without the instructor's approval; Submitting
work, either in whole or in part, created by a professional service and used without attribution
(e.g., paper, speech, bibliography, or photograph).” Hilltopics Student Handbook, p. 31.
The entire text of Hilltopics can be found at
http://web.utk.edu/~homepage/hilltopics/default.html.
All students are expected to be familiar with the University of Tennessee Honor Statement and to
abide by its terms. The entire Honor Statement can be found in Hilltopics.
Texts
The following texts are required, and can be purchased at the UTK bookstore:
 Richard G. Niemi and Herbert F. Weisberg, eds., Controversies in Voting Behavior, 4th ed.
(Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2001).
 Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press,
1965).
 Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New
York: Touchstone Books, 2000).
 Kenneth A. Shepsle and Mark S. Bonchek, Analyzing Politics: Rationality, Behaviors, and
Institutions (New York: W.W. Norton, 1997).
 Barbara Sinclair, Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress,
2nd ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2000).
 Stephen Skowronek, The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to Bill
Clinton (Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard, 1997).
 James Q. Wilson, Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It, New
Ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2000).
We will make arrangements to make the other readings available.
For each week, you will see two sets of readings. The numbered set contains the required
readings. The other set contains additional readings that may be of help to you in understanding
the required readings, and may also prove useful for your research/term papers. These “second
lists” are by no means definitive. They are meant only to steer you toward certain articles and
books. Many important pieces of research are excluded (for various reasons). You must not
conclude that because a particular work is missing that it is not useful. Part of your job in writing
your paper(s) is to locate the material you need to make your case.
Schedule
Theme: Ideas, Principles, and Foundations
Week 1, January 15 Introduction
Week 2, January 22 The Constitution
1. The Constitution of the United States. Available on-line at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
2. “Reasons of Dissent,” and “Letter of an Officer of the Late Continental Army,” in John D.
Lewis, ed., Anti-Federalists versus Federalists (Scranton, PA: Chandler Publishing
Company, 1967).
3. Michael E. Bailey. “Surrogates for Deliberation and the United States Constitution.” Polity
(Summer 2002): 533-552.
4. *Charles Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (New
York: The Free Press, 1966 [1913]), excerpts.
5. *Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, The Federalist Papers (New York: The
Modern Library, 1937 [1787-88]), nos. 9, 10, 23, 37, 49, 51, 70, 78. Available on-line at
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fedpapers.html.
6. Rogan Kersh, “The Rhetorical Genesis of American Political Union.” Polity (Winter 2000):
229-257.
7. James Wilson, “Interests and Deliberation in the American Republic,” PS 23 (December
1990): 558-562.
For further consideration:
*Robert A. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956).
Calvin Jillson, “Constitution-making: Alignment and Realignment in the Federal Convention of
1787,” American Political Science Review 75 (September 1981): 598-612.
Robert A. McGuire, “Constitution Making: A Rational Choice Model of the Federal Convention
of 1787,” American Journal of Political Science 32 (May 1988): 483-522.
William Riker, The Strategy of Rhetoric (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996).
James L. Sundquist, Constitutional Reform and Effective Government (Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution, 1986).
Barry Weingast, “The Political Foundations of Democracy and Rule of Law.” American Political
Science Review 91 (March 1997): 245-263.
Week 3, January 29 American Political Thought, Part 1: Pluralism, Elitism, and
Interest Group Liberalism
1. *David B. Truman, The Governmental Process (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1951), chs. 2,
3, 16.
2. *C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956), ch. 1.
3. *E.E. Schattschneider, The Semi-Sovereign People (Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press, 1975
[1960]), ch. 2.
4. Jack L. Walker, “A Critique of the Elitist Theory of Democracy,” American Political Science
Review 60 (March 1966): 285-295.
5. *Theodore Lowi, “The Public Philosophy: Interest Group Liberalism,” American Political
Science Review 61 (March 1967), pp. 5-24.
For further consideration:
Peter Bachrach, A Theory of Democratic Elitism (Boston: Little Brown, 1967)
*Peter Bachrach, and Morton Baratz. 1962. “The Two Faces of Power,” American Political
Science Review 56 (December, 1962), pp. 947-952.
*Robert Dahl, Who Governs (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1961).
Robert A. Dahl, “Further Reflections on ‘The Elitist Theory of Democracy,’” American Political
Science Review 60 (June 1966): 296-305.
Robert A. Dahl, Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982).
*Murray J. Edelman, The Symbolic Uses of Politics, 2nd edition (Urbana, IL: University of
Illinois Press, 1985).
*John Gaventa, Power and Powerlessness (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1980).
Week 4, February 5 American Political Thought, Part 2: New Approaches and Issues
and the Dominant Paradigm
1. Kenneth A. Shepsle and Mark S. Bonchek, Analyzing Politics, chs. 1-7.
For further consideration:
Gabriel Almond, “The Return to the State,” American Political Science Review 82 (September
1988): 853-874.
Daniel Bell, “American Exceptionalism Revisited: The Role of a Civil Society,” The Public
Interest 95 (Fall 1989): 38-56.
*Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1957).
*James M. Enelow and Melvin J. Hinich, The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1984).
Norman Frolich and Joe A. Oppenheimer, Modern Political Economy (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1978).
Donald Green and Ian Shapiro, Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1994).
Karen M. Kaufmann and John R. Petrocik, “The Changing Politics of American Men:
Understanding the Sources of the Gender Gap,” American Journal of Political Science 43 (July
1999): 864-997.
*Robert Lane, Political Life (Glencoe: Free Press, 1959).
*Charles E. Lindblom, Politics and Markets (New York: Basic Books, 1977).
*James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, “The New Institutionalism and Organized Factors in
American Life,” American Political Science Review 78 (September 1984): 734-749.
Iain McClean, “William H. Riker and the Invention of Heresthetics.” British Journal of Political
Science 32 (July 2002): 535-558.
*William H. Riker, Liberalism against Populism: A Confrontation between the Theory of
Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1988).
Herbert Simon, “Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science,”
American Political Science Review 79 (January 1985): 293-304.
Kenneth Shepsle, “Studying Institutions: Some Lessons from the Rational Choice Approach,”
Journal of Theoretical Politics 1 (April 1989): 131-147.
Paul Sniderman, Richard Brody, and Phil Tetlock, Reasoning and Choice (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1991).
Sue Thomas, “The Impact of Women on State Legislative Policies,” Journal of Politics 53
(November 1991): 958-976.
Symposium on Sidney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady’s Voice and
Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics,” American Political Science Review 91 (June
1997): 421-430.
Laura R. Winsky Mattei, “Gender and Power in American Legislative Discourse,” Journal of
Politics 60 (May 1998): 440-61.
Sidney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. Voice and Equality: Civic
Voluntarism in American Politics. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995)
Theme: The Institutions of American Government
Week 5, February 12 Congress
1. Barbara Sinclair, Unorthodox Lawmaking.
For further consideration:
R. Douglas Arnold, The Logic of Congressional Action (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1990).
Gary W. Cox and Matthew D. McCubbins, Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the
House (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993).
*Richard F. Fenno, Jr. Congressmen in Committees (Boston: Little Brown, 1973)
*Richard F. Fenno, Jr. Home Style: House Members in their Districts (Boston: Little Brown,
1978)
Claudine Gay, “The Effect of Black Congressional Representation on Political Participation.”
American Political Science Review 95 (September 2001): 589-602.
*Keith Krehbiel and Douglas Rivers, “The Analysis of Committee Power: An Application to
Senate Voting on the Minimum Wage,” American Journal of Political Science 32 (December
1988): 1151-1174.
*Nelson W. Polsby, “The Institutionalization of the House of Representatives,” American
Political Science Review 62 (March 1968): 144-168.
Kenneth Shepsle and Barry Weingast, “Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions,”
Legislative Studies Quarterly 19 (May 1994): 149-179.
Kenneth Shepsle, “The Changing Textbook Congress,” in John Chubb and Paul Peterson, eds.,
Can the Government Govern? (Washington: Brookings Institution), pp. 238-267.
Steven S. Smith, Call to Order: Floor Politics in the House and Senate (Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution, 1989).
John Wilkerson, “Analyzing Committee Power: A Critique,” American Journal of Political
Science (August 1991): 613-623.
On the incumbency effect:
Stephen Ansolabehere, David W. Brady, and Morris P. Fiorina, “The Vanishing Marginals and
Electoral Responsiveness.” 22 (January 1992): 21-38.
Roger H. Davidson and Walter J. Oleszek, Congress and Its Members, 7th edition (Washington,
DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2000).
*Morris P. Fiorina, Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1989).
Richard L. Hall, Participation in Congress (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996).
Gary C. Jacobson, Gary C., “The Marginals Never Vanished: Incumbency and Competition in
Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives, 1952-1982.” American Journal of Political
Science 31 (February 1987): 126-141.
Keith Krehbiel, and John R. Wright, “The Incumbency Effect in Congressional Elections: A Test
of Two Explanations.” American Journal of Political Science 27 (February 1983): 140-57.
*David R. Mayhew, Congress: The Electoral Connection (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1974).
Week 6, February 19 The President
1. Stephen Skowronek, The Politics Presidents Make.
For further consideration:
*James David Barber, The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House
(New York: Prentice-Hall, 1977).
Matthew A. Baum, and Samuel Kernell, “Has Cable Ended the Golden Age of Presidential
Television?” American Political Science Review 93 (March 1999): 99-114.
Brandice Canes-Wrone, “The President's Legislative Influence from Public Appeals.” American
Journal of Political Science 45 (April 2001): 313-329.
Paul Goren, “Character Weakness, Partisan Bias, and Presidential Evaluation.” American
Journal of Political Science 46 (July 2002): 627-641.
Tim Groeling and Samuel Kernell, “Is Network News Coverage of the President Biased,”
Journal of Politics 60 (November 1998): 1063-1087.
Gregory Hager, and Terry Sullivan, “President-Centered and Presidency-Centered Explanations
of Presidential Public Activity." American Journal of Political Science 38 (November 1994):
1079-1103.
Samuel Kernell, “Explaining Presidential Popularity.” American Political Science Review 72
(June 1978): 506-22.
*Samuel Kernell, Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership, 3rd edition
(Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1997).
David E. Lewis and James Michael Stine, “What Time is It? The Use of Power in Four Different
Types of Presidential Time,” Journal of Politics 58 (August 1996): 682-706.
Theodore J. Lowi, The Personal Presidency: Power Invested, Power Unfulfilled (Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, 1986).
Kenneth R. Mayer, “Executive Orders and the Presidential Power,” Journal of Politics 61 (May
1999): 445-466.
*John E. Mueller, “Presidential Popularity from Truman from Johnson,” American Political
Science Review 64 (March 1970): 18-34.
Richard E. Neustadt. 1991. Presidential Power and the Modern Presidenst. New York: Free
Press.
Stephen P. Nicholson, Gary M. Segura, and Nathan D. Woods. “Presidential Approval and the
Mixed Blessing of Divided Government." Journal of Politics 64 (August 2002): 701-720
Michael P. Rogin. Ronald Reagan, the Movie: And Other Episodes of Political Demonology.
(Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1988)
*Richard Rose, The Postmodern President: George Bush Meets the World (Chatham, NJ:
Chatham House, 1991).
Terry Sullivan, “The Bank Account Presidency: A New Measure and Evidence on the Temporal
Path of Influence,” American Journal of Political Science 35 (August 1991): 963-975.
Aaron Wildavsky. “The Two Presidencies,” in S. Z. Theodoulou & M. A. Cahn eds., Public
Policy: The Essential Readings. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1966) pp. 237-250.
Week 7, February 26 The Bureaucracy
1. James Q. Wilson, Bureaucracy.
For further consideration:
Joel D. Aberbach and Bert A. Rockman, “The Political Views of U.S. Senior Federal Executives,
1970-1992,” Journal of Politics 57 (August 1995): 838-852.
R. Douglas Arnold, Congress and the Bureaucracy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979).
Bendor, Jonathan, “A Model of Muddling Through.” American Political Science Review 89
(December 1995): 819-40.
John Brehm, and Scott Gates, Working, Shirking, and Sabotage: Bureaucratic Response to a
Democratic Public (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997).
Daniel Carpenter, “Adaptive Signal Processing, Hierarchy, and Budgetary Control in Federal
Regulation.” American Political Science Review 90 (June 1996): 283-302.
William T. Gormley, Jr., “Regulatory Enforcement Styles,” Political Research Quarterly 51
(June 1998): 363-383.
John D. Huber, Charles R. Shipan, and Madelaine Pfahler, “Legislatures and Statutory Control of
Bureaucracy,” American Journal of Political Science 45 (April 2001): 330-345.
*Charles Lindblom, “The Science of Muddling Through,” Public Administration Review 19
(Spring 1959): 79-88.
*Matthew D. McCubbins and Thomas Schwartz, “Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police
Patrols versus Fire Alarms,” American Journal of Political Science 28 (February 1984), pp. 165179.
Terry M. Moe, “Control and Feedback in Economic Regulation: The Case of the NLRB,”
American Political Science Review 85 (December 1985): 1094-1116.
John T. Scholz, Jim Twombly, and Barbara Headrick, “Street-Level Controls Over Federal
Bureaucracy,” American Political Science Review 79 (September 1991): 829-850.
John T. Schloz and B. Dan Wood, “Controlling the IRS: Principals, Principles, and Public
Administration,” American Journal of Political Science 42 (January 1998): 141-162.
John T. Scholz, and B. Dan Wood, “Efficiency, Equity, and Politics: Democratic Controls Over
the Tax Collector,” American Journal of Political Science 43 (October, 1999): 1166-1188.
*George J. Stigler, “The Theory of Economic Regulation,” Bell Journal of Economics and
Management Science (Spring 1971), pp. 3-21.
B. Dan Wood and Richard A. Waterman, “The Dynamics of Political Control of the
Bureaucracy,” American Political Science Review 85 (September 1991): 801-828.
Week 8, March 5 The Judiciary
1. Richard A. Brisbin, Jr., “Slaying the Dragon: Segal, Spaeth, and the Function of Law in
Supreme Court Decision-Making,” American Journal of Political Science 40 (November
1996): 1004-1017.
2. Rosalee A. Clawson, Elizabeth R. Kegler, and Eric W. Waltenburg. 2001. “The LegitimacyConferring Authority of the U.S. Supreme Court: An Experimental Design.” American
Politics Research 29: 566-591.
3. Lee Epstein, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Harold J. Spaeth, "The Norm of Consensus on the U.S.
Supreme Court," American Journal of Political Science 45 (April 2001): 362-377.
4. Lee Epstein, and Jack Knight, “Field Essay: Toward a Strategic Revolution in Judicial
Politics: A Look Back, A Look Ahead.” Political Research Quarterly 53 (September 2000):
625-661.
5. Roy B. Flemming and B. Dan Wood, “The Public and the Supreme Court: Individual Justice
Responsiveness to American Policy Moods,” American Journal of Political Science 41
(April 1997): 468-498.
6. *Alexander Hamilton, “Federalist #78,” in The Federalist Papers.
7. Mark J. Richards and Herbert M. Kritzer, “Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court
Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 96 (June 2002): 305-320.
8. Jeffrey A. Segal and Harold J. Spaeth, “The Influence of Stare Decisis on the Votes of
United States Supreme Court Justices,” American Journal of Political Science 40 (November
1996): 971-1003.
9. Christopher J. W. Zorn, “U.S. Government Litigation Strategies in the Federal Appellate
Courts.” Political Research Quarterly 55 (March 2002): 145-166.
For further consideration:
Robert Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1990).
Paul Brace, Melinda Gann Hall, and Laura Langer, “Placing State Supreme Courts in State
Politics.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 1 (Spring 2001): 81-108.
*Robert Dahl, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy
Maker,” Journal of Public Law 6 (1957): 279-295.
Lee Epstein and Jack Knight, The Choices Justices Make (Washington, DC: Congressional
Quarterly Press, 1997).
Timothy R. Johnson, “Information, Oral Arguments, and Supreme Court Decision Making.”
American Politics Research 29 (July 2001): 331-351.
Gerald N. Rosenberg, The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1991).
*Jeffrey A. Segal and Harold J Spaeth, Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1993).
*Glendon Schubert, The Judicial Mind: The Attitudes and Ideologies of Supreme Court Justices,
1946-1963 (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1965).
Harold Spaeth and Jeffrey Segal, Majority Rule or Minority Will: Adherence to Precedence on
the U.S. Supreme Court (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
*Cass Sunstein, One Case at a Time: Judicial Munimalism on the Supreme Court (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1999)
Week 9, March 12 Political Parties
1. Christopher H. Aachen, “Parental Socialization and Rational Party Identification.” Political
Behavior 24 (June 2002): 151-170.
2. John Aldrich, “Political Parties in a Critical Era,” American Politics Quarterly 27 (January
1999): 9-32.
3. Larry M. Bartels, “Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996.” American Journal of
Political Science 44 (February 2000): 35-50
4. *Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1965),
Chapters 2 and 8.
5. Diana Dwyre and Robin Kolodny, “Throwing Out the Rule Book: Party Financing of the
2000 Elections,” in Financing the 2000 Election, ed. David Magleby. (Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution Press, 2002).
6. Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal, “The Hunt for Party Discipline in
Congress.” American Political Science Review 95 (September 2001): 673-687.
7. Daniel Shea, “The Passing of Realignment and the Advent of the ‘Base-less’ Party System,”
American Politics Quarterly 27 (January 1999): 33-57.
For further consideration:
Paul R. Abramson, John H. Aldrich, Philip Paolino, and David W. Rohde, "Challenges to the
American Two-Party System: Evidence from the 1968, 1980, 1992, and 1999 Presidential
Elections," Political Research Quarterly 53 (September 2000): 495-522.
*John Aldrich, Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995).
Donald Green, Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Schickler, “Macropartisanship: A Replication and
Critique,” American Political Science Review 92 (December 1999): 883-899.
Samuel Huntington, American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony (Cambridge, Mass:
Belknap/Harvard University Press, 1981.
*V.O. Key, “Secular Realignment and the Party System,” Journal of Politics 17 (March 1959):
98-210.
Vincent G. Moscardelli, Moshe Haspel, and Richard S. Wike, “Party Building through Campaign
Finance Reform: Conditional Party Government in the 104th Congress,” Journal of Politics 60
(August 1998): 691-704.
Peter Nardulli, “The Concept of a Critical Realignment, Electoral Behavior, and Political
Change,” American Political Science Review 89 (March 1995): 10-22.
*Joseph A. Schlesinger, “On the Theory of Party Organization,” Journal of Politics 46 (May
1984): 369-400.
*Joseph A. Schlesinger, “The New American Political Party,” American Political Science
Review 79 (December 1985): 1152-1169.
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., The Cycles of American History (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1986).
James M. Snyder, Jr., and Tim Groseclose, “Estimating Party Influence in Congressional RollCall Voting,” American Journal of Political Science 44 (April 2000): 193-211.
John J. Coleman, Party Decline in America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996).
Paul Allen Beck, Russell J. Dalton, Audrey Haynes, and Robert Huckfeldt, “Presidential
Campaigning at the Grassroots,” Journal of Politics 59 (November 1997): 1264-1275.
Martin P. Wattenberg, The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952-1996 (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1998).
Week 10, March 26 Interest Groups
*William P. Browne, “Organized Interests and Their Issue Niches,” Journal of Politics 52
(May 1990), pp. 477-509.
2. *Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action.
1.
3. *Robert H. Salisbury, “An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups,” Midwest Journal of
Political Science 13 (February 1969), pp. 1-32.
4. Robert H. Salisbury, “Interest Representation: The Dominance of Institutions,” American
Political Science Review 78 (March 1984), pp. 64-70.
5. *Jack L. Walker, “The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups in America,” American
Political Science Review 77 (June 1983): 390-405.
For further consideration:
Frank R. Baumgartner and Beth L. Leech, Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics
and in Political Science (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998).
Jeffrey M. Berry, “Subgovernments, Issue Networks, and Political Conflict,” In Anthony King,
ed., The New American Political System, Second Edition (Washington, DC: The American
Enterprise Institute, 1989), Chapter 9.
William P. Browne and Won K. Paik, “Beyond the Domain: Recasting Network Politics in the
Postreform Congress,” American Journal of Political Science 37 (November 1993), pp. 10541078.
Art Denzau and Michael Munger, "Legislators and Interest Groups: How Unorganized Interests
Get Represented." American Political Science Review 80 (March 1986): 89-106.
Elizabeth Gerber, The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct
Legislation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999)
*John Mark Hansen, “The Political Economy of Group Membership,” American Political
Science Review 79 (March 1985): 79-96.
Richard Harris, “Politicized Management: The Changing Face of Business in American Politics,”
in Sidney Milkus, ed. Remaking American Politics (Boulder, CO.: Westview Press, 1989), pp.
261-288.
Hugh Heclo, “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment,” In Anthony King, ed., The New
American Political System (Washington, DC: The American Enterprise Institute, 1978), Chapter
3.
Jan Leighley, “Attitudes, Opportunities and Incentives: A Field Essay on Political Participation.”
Political Research Quarterly 48 (March 1995): 181-209.
*Terry Moe, "A Calculus of Group Membership,” American Journal of Political Science 24
(August 1980): 593-632.
Andrew McFarland, “Interest Groups and the Policy-Making Process: Sources of Countervailing
Power in America,” in Mark Petracca, editor, The Politics of Interests (Boulder, CO.: Westview
Press, 1989), pp. 58-79.
Will Moore, “Rational Rebels: Overcoming the ‘Free-rider’ Problem,” Political Research
Quarterly 48 (June 1995): 417-454.
*Francis F. Piven and Richard A. Cloward, Poor People’s Movements: Why They Succeed and
How They Fail (New York: Pantheon, 1977).
John R. Wright, "Interest Groups, Congressional Reform, and Party Government in the United
States," Legislative Studies Quarterly 25 (May 2000): 217-235.
Theme: Political Behavior
Week 11, April 2 Voting, Part 1: The Classics
1. *Angus Campbell, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, Donald E. Stokes, The American
Voter (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1960) Chapters 1-5.
2. *Philip E. Converse, “The Stability of Belief Elements over Time,” In Richard Niemi and
Herbert F. Weisberg, eds. Classics in Voting Behavior (Washington, DC: Congressional
Quarterly Press, 1993), Chapter 5.
3. *Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1965),
Chapters 3, 11, 12, and 14.
4. *Herbert McCloskey, Paul J. Hoffman, and Rosemary O’Hara, “Issue Conflict and
Consensus Among Party Leaders and Followers,” American Political Science Review 54
(June 1960), pp. 406-427.
5. *William H. Riker and Peter C. Ordeshook, “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting,” American
Political Science Review 62 (March 1968), pp. 25-42.
For further consideration:
*Bernard R. Berelson, Paul F. Lazarsfeld, and William N. McPhee, Voting (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1954).
Herbert Hyman, Political Socialization (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1959).
V.O. Key, The Responsible Electorate (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966).
Robert Lane, Political Thinking and Consciousness (Glencoe, IL: Markham, 1969).
Sidney Verba and Norman Nie, Participation in America (New York: Harper and Row, 1972).
Week 12, April 9 Voting, Part 2: Refinements
1. Randall D. Lloyd, “Voter Registration Reconsidered: Putting First Things First Is Not
Enough.” American Politics Research 29 (November 2001): 649-664.
2. Michael P. McDonald and Samuel L. Popkin, “The Myth of the Vanishing Voter.” American
Political Science Review 95 (December 2001): 963-974.
3. Richard G. Niemi and Herbert F. Weisberg, eds., Controversies in Voting Behavior, chs. 2, 4,
8, 9, 10, 11, 14.
For further consideration:
Alan I. Abramowitz and Kyle L. Saunders, “Ideological Realignment in the U.S. Electorate,”
Journal of Politics 60 (November 1998): 634-652.
John H. Aldrich, “Rational Choice and Turnout,” American Journal of Political Science
(February 1993), pp. 246-278.
*George E. Bishop and Robert W. Oldendick, “Change in the Structure of American Political
Attitudes: The Nagging Question of Question Wording,” American Journal of Political Science
22 (May 1978): 250-269.
Andrea Louise Campbell, “Self-Interest, Social Security, and the Distinctive Participation
Patterns of Senior Citizens.” American Political Science Review 96 (September 2002): 565-574.
Benjamin Highton and Raymond E. Wolfinger, “Estimating the Effects of the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993,” Political Behavior 20 (1998), pp. 79-104.
R. Robert Huckfeldt and John Sprague, Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication:
Information and Influence in an Election Campaign (New York: Cambridge University Press,
1995).
William G. Jacoby, “The Structure of Ideological Thinking in the American Electorate,”
American Journal of Political Science (May 1995): 314-335.
*Robert Jackman, “Political Institutions and Voter Turnout in Industrial Democracies,”
American Political Science Review 81 (June 1987): 405-424.
Satoshi Kanazawa, “A Possible Solution to the Paradox of Voter Turnout,” Journal of Politics 60
(November 1998): 974-995.
Warren E. Miller, “Party Identification, Realignment and Party Voting: Back to the Future,”
American Political Science Review 85 (June 1991): 557-568.
*Warren E. Miller and J. Merrill Shanks, The New American Voter (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1996).
Samuel L. Popkin, The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential
Campaigns (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991).
*G. Bingham Powell, Jr., “Voting Turnout in Thirty Democracies: Partisan, Legal, and SocioEconomic Influences,” In Richard Rose, ed., Electoral Participation: A Comparative Analysis
(London: Sage Ltd, 1980).
Eric Pulzer, “Becoming a Habitual Voter: Inertia, Resources, and Growth in Young Adulthood.”
American Political Science Review 96 (March 2002): 41-56.
Kay Lehman Schlozman, Sidney Verba, and Henry E. Brady, “Participation’s Not a Paradox:
The View from American Activists,” British Journal of Political Science 25 (January 1995), pp.
1-36.
David O. Sears and Nicholas A. Valentino, “Politics Matters: Political Events as Catalysts for
Preadult Socialization,” American Political Science Review 91 (March 1997): 45-65.
*Eric R.A.N. Smith, The Unchanging American Voter (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1989).
*John J. Sullivan, James E. Piereson, and George E. Marcus, “Ideological Constraint in the Mass
Public: A Methodological Critique,” American Journal of Political Science (May 1978) pp. 233249.
*Ruy Teixera, The Disappearing American Voter (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution,
1992).
Week 13, April 16 Campaigns and Elections
1. Larry M. Bartels, "Partisanship and Voting Behavior," American Journal of Political Science
44 (January 2000): 35-50.
2. *V.O. Key, “A Theory of Critical Elections,” Journal of Politics 17 (February 1955): 3-18.
3. Richard G. Niemi and Herbert F. Weisberg, eds., Controversies in Voting Behavior, chs. 21,
22, 23.
4. Christopher Wlezien and Robert S. Erikson, “Campaign Effects in Theory and Practice.”
American Politics Research 29 (September 2001): 419-436.
For further consideration:
John Aldrich, “Political Parties in a Critical Era,” American Politics Quarterly 27 (January
1999): 9-32.
*Walter Dean Burnham. 1970. Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New
York: Norton.
*Morris P. Fiorina, “Some Problems in Studying the Effects of Resource Allocation in
Congressional Elections,” American Journal of Political Science 25 (August 1981), pp. 543-567.
Donald Philip Green and Jonathan S. Krasno, “Rebuttal to Jacobson’s ‘New Evidence for Old
Arguments,” American Journal of Political Science 34 (May 1990), pp. 363-372.
Thomas M. Holbrook, Do Campaigns Matter? (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996).
*John R. Johannes and John C. McAdams, “The Congressional Incumbency Effect: Is it
Casework, Policy Compatibility, or Something Else? An Examination of the 1978 Election,”
American Journal of Political Science (August 1981), pp. 512-540.
*Gary C. Jacobson, “Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of U.S. House Elections,” American
Political Science Review 83 (September 1989): 773-793.
Gary C. Jacobson, The Politics of Congressional Elections, 5th ed. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
*Gary C. Jacobson, “The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: New Evidence for
Old Arguments,” American Journal of Political Science 34 (May 1990), pp. 334-362.
Richard R. Lau, Lee Sigelman, Caroline Heldman, and Paul Babbitt, "The Effects of Negative
Political Advertisements: A Metaanalytic Assessment," American Political Science Review 93
(December 1999): 851-876.
James McCann, Ronald B. Rapoport, Walter J. Stone, “Heeding the Call: An Assessment of
Mobilization into H. Ross Perot’s 1992 Presidential Campaign,” American Journal of Political
Science 43 (January 1999): 1-28.
*Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes, “Constituency Influence in Congress,” American
Political Science Review 62 (March 1963): 45-56.
Steven J. Rosenstone and John Mark Hansen, Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in
America (New York: MacMillan, 1993).
Patrick J. Sellers, “Strategy and Background in Congressional Campaigns,” American Political
Science Review 92 (March 1998): 159-171.
Daron R. Shaw, “A Study of Presidential Campaign Effects,” Journal of Politics 61 (May 1999):
387-422.
Week 14, April 23 The Media
1. *Lutz Ebring, Edie N. Goldenberg, and Arthur H. Miller, “Front-Page News and Real-World
Cues: A New Look at Agenda-Setting by the Media,” American Journal of Political Science
24 (February 1980), pp. 16-49.
2. Franklin D. Gilliam, Jr., and Shanto Iyengar, "Prime Suspects: The Influence of Local
Television News on the Viewing Public," American Journal of Political Science 44 (July
2000): 560-573.
3. Gregory W. Gwiasda, “Network News Coverage of Campaign Advertisements: Media’s
Ability to Reinforce Campaign Messages.” American Politics Research 29 (2001): 461-482.
4. *Shanto Iyengar, Mark D. Peters, and Donald R. Kinder, “Experimental Demonstrations of
the ‘Not-So-Minimal’ Consequences of Television News Programs,” American Political
Science Review 76 (December 1982): 848-858.
5. Daron R. Shaw, “The Effect of TV Ads and Candidate Appearances on Statewide
Presidential Votes, 1988-1996,” American Political Science Review 93 (June 1999): 345361.
6. Nicholas A. Valentino, Vincent L. Hutchings. And Ismail K. White, “Cues that Matter: How
Political Ads Prime Racial Attitudes During Campaigns.” American Political Science Review
96 (March 2002) 75-90.
For further consideration:
*Stephen Ansolabehere, Shanto Iyengar, Adam Simon, and Nicholas Valentino, “Does Attack
Advertising Demobilize the Electorate?” American Political Science Review 88 (December
1994): 829-838.
Stephen Ansolabehere, Roy Behr, and Shanto Iyengar, The Media Game: American Politics in
the Television Age (New York: MacMillan, 1993).
Craig Leonard Brians and Martin P. Wattenberg, “Campaign Issue Knowledge and Salience:
Comparing Reception from TV Commercials, TV News, and Newspapers,” American Journal of
Political Science 40 (February 1996), pp. 172-193.
Timothy Cook. 1998. Governing With the News: The News Media As a Political Institution.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kenneth Dautrich and Thomas H. Hartley, How the News Media Fail American Voters: Causes,
Consequences, and Remedies (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999).
*Thomas Dye, Harmon Zeigler, S. Robert Lichter, American Politics in the Media Age (New
York: Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1997).
Robert K. Goidel, Todd G. Shields, and Mark Peffley, “Priming Theory and RAS Models,”
American Politics Quarterly 25 (July 1997), pp. 287-318.
Darrell M. West, Air Wars: Television Advertising in Election Campaigns, 1952-1996
(Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1997).
Week 15, April 30 The Controversy Over Social Capital
1. *Robert Putnam. Bowling Alone.
For further consideration:
*Gabriel A. Almond, and Sidney Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and
Democracy in Five Nations. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
John Brehm and Wendy Rahn, “Individual-Level Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of
Social Capital,” American Journal of Political Science 41 (July 1997): 999-1023.
Stephen Knack, “Social Capital and the Quality of Government: Evidence From the States.”
American Journal of Political Science 46 (October 2002): 772-785.
Richard G. Niemi and Herbert F. Weisberg, eds., Controversies in Voting Behavior, chs. 2, 3, 4.
Kevin Phillips, Arrogant Capital: Washington, Wall Street, and the Frustration of American
Politics. (New York: Little-Brown, 1994).
Andrew Sabl, “Community Organizing as Tocquevillean Politics: The Art, Practices, and Ethos
of Association.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (February 2002): 1-19.
Steven Schier, By Invitation Only: The Rise of Exclusive Politics in the United States.
(Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2000).
Mark Schneider, Paul Teske, Melissa Marschall, and Christine Roch, “Institutional
Arrangements and the Creation of Social Capital: The Effects of Public School Choice,”
American Political Science Review 91 (March 1997): 82-93.
Theda Skocpol and Morris Fiorina, eds. Civic Engagement in American Politics (Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution, 1999).
Theda Skocpol, Marshall Ganz, and Ziad Munson, "A Nation of Organizers: The Institutional
Origins of Civic Voluntarism in the United States," American Political Science Review 94
(September, 2000): 527-546.
Theda Skocpol, “The Tocqueville Problem: Civic Engagement in American Democracy," Social
Science History 21 (1996): 455-479.
Robert Wuthnow, Sharing the Journey: Joining Together in America's Fragmented
Communities. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994).