Download Political Psychology syllabus - College of Social and Behavioral

Political Science 610
Seminar: American Politics
Fall 2010
T, Th 9:30-10:45
AH 223A
Instructor: Dr. Fred Slocum
Office: 204A Morris Hall
Phone: 389-6935
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: http://sbs.mnsu.edu/psle/faculty/slocum.html
Office Hours: M, W, F 11:00-12:30 and 3:00-4:00; T, Th 11:00-12:15; or by appointment
Introduction and Course Objectives:
This seminar course, for graduate students only, is designed to introduce students to some classic and
contemporary research literature in the subfield of American politics. The research literature in American
politics is vast, and our coverage of the field will necessarily be limited. That said, my goal is that students
will complete this course conversant with the American politics field and many of its “nooks and
crannies,” familiar with some of the major research traditions, questions and findings, and with improved
and sharpened skills in critical reading, speaking, thinking and writing. These skills will be important
contributors to your continued success in the MPA program, and in your future careers.
In this and other graduate seminars, it is essential that students take a consistently active role in class
discussions. I expect students to come to class every day having completed assigned readings in advance,
and prepared to contribute your opinions, observations, questions and efforts to relate readings to concepts
and tools you are learning in your other classes, and/or current developments and events in American
politics. In general, we will approach assigned readings with the following questions in mind:
Is this good research? Why or why not?
How does it contribute to our understanding of politics?
What are the limitations of this research? Are there any current/recent features or trends in
American politics that might call for modifying the research and/or its findings?
What questions does this research leave unanswered?
What would be one or more “next steps” toward improving or building upon this research?
Students should begin this course with a working knowledge of American politics, demonstrated at least by
successfully completing an introductory college-level American government course. If you think you
would benefit from more or refreshed knowledge of American government, let me know and I can
recommend, or even possibly lend out, a good textbook. I expect to maintain an atmosphere in which
students of all political persuasions will feel equally free to express their opinions during class discussions.
Assignments and Grading:
There will be a cumulative, take-home, open book/note final exam, consisting of essays. The exam
questions will be distributed in late November or early December, with exam answers due Fri. December
10. More details will be distributed as the exam period approaches.
Students will complete a literature-review paper , 20 to 25 pages in length. This paper should synthesize
and critically examine the research literature in a subfield of American politics of the student’s choice, but
outside public administration. Broadly speaking, the paper should pull together a number of (20 or more)
topically related scholarly sources (book chapters; journal articles; books) and address (1) what are the
major findings in this subfield; (2) what are the limitations of these findings – conflicting theories, conflict
between theory and observation, recent/current developments and trends, shortcomings in theory,
measurement, data, analysis techniques or of another nature; (3) what should be done to move the overall
body of research in this subfield forward. More details will be handed out separately. This assignment is
due Tuesday, November 23.
Each student will select any two weeks of the course and for those two weeks, take a more active role in
leading the class discussion. To facilitate this, for each chosen week, students are expected to prepare a
four-page summary on the readings for that week. This paper should discuss the readings for that week,
how they relate to each other, and what areas of disagreement or controversy they either set out to address,
or perhaps, leave unaddressed. Reading summaries are to be brought to class for both class meetings of a
particular week, and submitted after the Thursday meeting for that week. I will make a sign-up sheet
available the first day of class.
Class participation is essential. The overall success of this course hinges on each student’s consistently
active participation in class discussions.
Course grades will be determined as follows:
Literature-review paper: 40%
Take-home final exam: 20%
Reading summaries (10% x 2, total 20%)
Class participation: 20%
In this course, grades will not be curved, meaning that you will not be competing against your classmates
for a limited number of A’s, B’s and so on. Therefore, the grading scale is a straight scale (no pluses and
minuses), as follows:
A: 90%-100%
B: 80%-89.9%
C: 70%-79.9%
D: 60%-69.9%
F: 59.9% or less
Students whose point totals place them very near (within 0.1 points of) the cut point for the next higher
letter grade will be evaluated on an individual basis for promotion to the higher grade. In this evaluation, I
will consider factors such as class participation, attitude and improvement over the term.
Students with Disabilities:
I would like to hear (early in the semester is much preferred) from students with a documented learning or
other disability that might require some modification of seating, testing, or other class arrangements. I will
make every effort to accommodate students with these needs. If you have any questions, please see me or
contact Julie Snow in the Disability Services Office (132 Memorial Library, 389-1819).
Policy on Attendance:
As this is a seminar course, attendance is essential, as is participation. I reserve the right to note attendance
for any or all class sessions. Excused absences may be considered on a case-by-case basis in exceptional
cases (such as for certain medical reasons), or for significant opportunities, such as attending a professional
conference. Whenever possible, please notify me in advance of an absence, giving a valid reason.
Policy on Late Assignments:
Late literature-review papers and late final examinations will face a significant point deduction,
proportional to the length of delay. Computer-related problems (including hard drive or disk crashes) are
not an acceptable reason for late papers or extensions. Don’t wait until the last minute to print papers off!
Academic Dishonesty:
A number of activities may be construed as academic dishonesty (cheating). These include, but are not
limited to: deliberately copying material from another source (book, manuscript or another student) without
proper acknowledgment, using crib sheets during an exam, talking during an exam, or looking at another
student’s exam. Any cheating will result in an automatic F in the course and possible further disciplinary
action, up to and including dismissal from the MPA program, academic probation and/or suspension.
Textbooks:
There are five required texts for this class, available at the CSU Bookstore and Maverick Bookstore. As we
will not read all of them, students are encouraged to use resources like amazon.com or interlibrary loan.





Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler, Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
David R. Mayhew, Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1974.
Richard E. Neustadt, Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents. New York: The Free Press, 1990.
E.E. Schattschneider, The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960.
Robert P. Steed and Laurence W. Moreland (eds.), Writing Southern Politics: Contemporary
Interpretations and Future Directions. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2006.
Course Calendar and Assignments:
I will make reasonable efforts to follow the schedule of topics below. However, as time and circumstances
dictate, the schedule may change somewhat. Thus, dates given below should be considered approximate.
If circumstances warrant, I may amend the schedule or modify reading assignments. I will announce any
such changes in class. Outside the five books, articles listed below are available on JSTOR
(http://www.jstor.org – best accessed from an on-campus computer).
Week 1 – August 24-26: Introductions; the American experience. Schattschneider, Chs. I-II.
Week 2 – August 31-Sept. 2: Government and the scope of conflict. Schattschneider, Chs. III-XIII.
Week 3 – September 7-9: Political participation and civic engagement.
1. Robert Putnam. 1995. “Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in
America.” PS: Political Science and Politics 28:664-683.
2. Richard Timpone. 1998. “Structure, Behavior, and Voter Turnout in the United States.”
American Political Science Review 92:145-158.
3. Feldman, S. and J. Zaller. 1992. "The Political Culture of Ambivalence." American Journal of
Political Science. 36:268-307.
4. Henry E. Brady, Sidney Verba, and Kay Lehman Schlozman. 1995. “Beyond SES: A Resource
Model of Political Participation.” American Political Science Review 89:271-294.
Week 4 – September 14-16: Public opinion.
1. Philip E. Converse. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and
Discontent, ed. David Apter. New York: Free Press, 206-261. Distributed in class.
2. John Zaller and Stanley Feldman. 1992. “A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering
Questions versus Revealing Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 36:579-616.
3. Milton Lodge, Marco R. Steenbergen, and Shawn Brau. 1995. “The Responsive Voter:
Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political
Science Review 89:309-326.
4. James A. Stimson, Michael B. MacKuen and Robert S. Erikson. 1995. “Dynamic
Representation.” American Political Science Review 89: 543-565.
Week 5 – September 21-23: Voting behavior.
1. Richard R. Lau and David P. Redlawsk. 1997. “Voting Correctly.” American Political Science
Review 91:585-598.
2. Richard R. Lau, David J. Andersen and David P. Redlawsk. 2008. “An Exploration of Correct
Voting in Recent U.S. Presidential Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 52:
395-411.
3. Larry M. Bartels. 2000. “Partisanship and Voting Behavior 1952-1996.” American Journal of
Political Science. 44:35-50.
4. Michael B. MacKuen., Robert S. Erikson, and James A. Stimson. 1989. “Macropartisanship.”
American Political Science Review, 83:1125-1142.
Week 6 – September 28-30: Campaigns and elections.
1. Barry C. Burden and David C. Kimball. 1998. “A New Approach to the Study of Ticket
Splitting.” American Political Science Review 92:533-544.
2. Thomas M. Holbrook. 1994. “Campaigns, National Conditions, and U.S. Presidential
Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 38: 973-998.
3. Richard Nadeau and Michael S. Lewis-Beck. 2001. “National Economic Voting in U.S.
Presidential Elections.” Journal of Politics 63: 159-181.
4. Jonathan GS Koppell and Jennifer A. Steen. 2004. “The Effects of Ballot Position on Election
Outcomes.” Journal of Politics 66: 267-281.
Week 7 – October 5-7: Media.
1. Shanto Iyengar, Mark D. Peters, and Donald R. Kinder. 1982. “Experimental Demonstrations of
the ‘Not-So-Minimal’ Consequences of Television News Programs.” American Political
Science Review 76:848-858.
2. Thomas E. Nelson, Rosalee Clawson, and Zoe Oxley. 1997. “Media Framing of a Civil
Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance.” American Political Science Review 91:567584.
3. Freedman, P., M. Franz, and K. Goldstein. 2004. “Campaign advertising and democratic
citizenship.” American Journal of Political Science. 48:723-41.
4. Markus Prior. 2005. “News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in
Political Knowledge and Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science, 49:577-592.
Week 8 – October 12-14: Race and gender.
1. Martin Gilens. 1996. “ ‘Race Coding’ and White Opposition to Welfare.” American Political
Science Review 90:593-604.
2. Charles Cameron, David Epstein, and Sharyn O’Halloran. 1996. “Do Majority-Minority
Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation in Congress?” American Political
Science Review 90:794-812.
3. R. Michael Alvarez and Lisa Garcia Bedolla. 2003. “The Foundations of Latino Voter
Partisanship: Evidence from the 2000 Election.” Journal of Politics 65: 31-49.
4. Carole Kennedy Chaney, R. Michael Alvarez, and Jonathan Nagler. 1998. “Explaining the
Gender Gap in U.S. Presidential Elections, 1980-1992.” Political Research Quarterly 51:311339.
5. Sue Thomas. 1991. “The Impact of Women on State Legislative Policies.” Journal of Politics
53:958-976.
Week 9 – October 19-21: Political parties.
1. John H. Aldrich. 1995. “Why Parties Form.” Chapter 2 in Why Parties? The Origin and
Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp.
28-61.
2. V.O. Key. 1959. “Secular Realignment and the Party System.” Journal of Politics 21:198-210.
3. Gary Miller and Norman Schofield. 2003. “Activists and Partisan Realignment in the United
States.” American Political Science Review 97: 245-260.
4. Layman, G. and T. Carsey. 2002. “Party Polarization and ‘Conflict Extension’ in the American
Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science. 46(4):786-802.
Week 10 – October 26-28: Interest groups.
1. Mancur Olson. 1965. “A Theory of Groups and Organizations.” Chapter 1 in The Logic of
Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press, pp. 5-52.
2. Jack L. Walker, Jr. 1983. “The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups in America.”
American Political Science Review 77:390-406.
3. David Austen-Smith and John Wright. 1994. “Counteractive Lobbying.” American Journal of
Political Science 38:25-44.
4. John Mark Hansen. 1985. “The Political Economy of Group Membership.” American Political
Science Review 79:79-96.
Week 11 – November 2-4: Congress.
1. Mayhew, pp. 13-158.
2. Richard F. Fenno Jr. 1977. “U.S. House Members in the Constituencies: An Exploration.”
American Political Science Review 71:883-917.
3. Balla, S., E. Lawrence, F. Maltzman, and L. Eigelman. 2002. “Partisanship, Blame Avoidance,
and the Distribution of Legislative Pork.” American Journal of Political Science. 46(3):51525.
4. Eric Schickler. 2000. “Institutional Change in the House of Representatives, 1867-1998: A Test
of Partisan and Ideological Power Balance Models.” The American Political Science Review,
94:269-288.
Week 12 – November 9-11: The presidency and bureaucracy.
1. Neustadt, pp. 3-90 and 103-127.
2. Stephen Skowronek. 2005. “Presidential Leadership in Political Time.” In The Presidency and
the Political System ed. by Michael Nelson. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Chapter 4.
3. Matthew N. Beckmann. 2008. “The President’s Playbook: White House Strategies for Lobbying
Congress.”Journal of Politics 70, #2: 407-419.
4. Brandice Canes-Wrone, William G. Howell and David E. Lewis. 2008. “Toward a Broader
Understanding of Presidential Power: A Reevaluation of the Two Presidencies Thesis.”
Journal of Politics 70, #1: 1-15.
5. Matthew D. McCubbins and Thomas Schwartz. 1984. “Congressional Oversight Overlooked:
Police Patrols versus Fire Alarms.” American Journal of Political Science. 28:165-179.
Week 13 – November 16-18: Law and the courts.
1. William Mishler and Reginald S. Sheehan. 1993. “The Supreme Court as a Countermajoritarian
Institution: The Impact of Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions.” American Political
Science Review 87:87-101.
2. Paul J. Wahlbeck, James F. Spriggs, II, and Forrest Maltzman. 1998. “Marshalling the Court:
Bargaining and Accommodation on the United States Supreme Court.” American Journal of
Political Science 42:294-315.
3. Jeffrey A. Segal and Harold J. Spaeth. 1996. “The Influence of Stare Decisis on the Votes of
United States Supreme Court Justices.” American Journal of Political Science. 40: 971-1003.
4. Paul Brace and Brent D. Boyea. 2008. “State Public Opinion, The Death Penalty, and the
Practice of Electing Judges.” American Journal of Political Science 52, #2: 360-372.
5. Timothy R. Johnson, Paul J. Wahlbeck, and James F. Spriggs II. 2006. “The Influence of Oral
Arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 100, #1: 99-113.
Week 14 – November 23: Southern regional politics.
Steed and Moreland (eds.), Introduction, and Chs. 1, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
(Tuesday, November 23: Literature-review paper due)
Week 15 – November 30-December 2: Polarization in modern American politics.
Hetherington and Weiler, all.
(Friday, December 10, 12:00 noon: Final exam due)