The Determinants and Outcomes of Political Scandal in Post-Watergate America
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Politicians Behaving Badly: The Determinants and Outcomes of Political Scandal in Post-Watergate America Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Sarah McKinnon Bryner, M.A. Graduate Program in Political Science The Ohio State University 2014 Dissertation Committee: Kathleen McGraw, Advisor Thomas Nelson Nathaniel Swigger Copyright by Sarah McKinnon Bryner 2014 Abstract Scandals occur frequently in American politics. In this dissertation, I attempt to explore the concept of scandal in the post-Watergate era, by both creating a large database of political scandals and by exploring individual reactions to constructed scandals. I find that scandals tend to occur in bodies where politicians have greater access to power, that incumbency generally tends to protect politicians from electoral defeat, and that shared partisanship between individuals and the politicians involved in scandal protects the politician, but that this relationship is mediated by the role of emotions. Throughout, I discuss the potential role the media may play in the creation and mediation of scandal. ii Dedication For Austin iii Acknowledgements I would first like to acknowledge the tirelessness of the political science graduate student community at the Ohio State University. You are my comrades in arms. I entered with one of the largest cohorts in the history of our program, and am continually honored to count myself as one of that cohort’s members. The world-class Ohio State faculty, particularly Kathleen McGraw, Tom Nelson, and Nathanial Swigger are really the reason this document exists. Kathleen helped me take what felt like a jumble of thoughts and form them into a serviceable document, and Tom asked critical questions and has always encouraged me to think outside of the box. Together, they got me through this in spite of the challenges of working on a dissertation while also working full-time. Nathaniel Swigger also provided critical feedback and ultimately shaped the direction the document took. Jeff Budziak was an ever present, always energetic, supporter of my work. Were it not for his insight, sometimes offered through Gmail’s chat tool, I would have been a far lonelier person. Emily Lynch was, and remains, a partner in this process, and I am happy for her calm presence and generous services as a sounding board. Chryl Laird, with whom I spent many an evening reviewing conditional logistic regression, was a terrific ally. Jason Keiber, Bentley Allen, Steve Nawara, Chris Devine, Kyle Kopko, Erin Graham, Dane Immerman, Nyron Crawford, Amanda Yates, Kathleen Winters, Allyson iv Shortle, Dana Wittmer, Justin Acome, Malkah Bird, Broxton Bird, and Lindsay Bernhagan: you are my peers, and my friends, and for that I am proud. Thank you to Georgia Duerst-Lahti and Amy Sarno for encouraging me to attend graduate school and making sure I had the tools to get there. I am forever indebted to the entire staff of the Center for Responsive Politics, particularly Sheila Krumholz. Sheila provided me with critical flexibility so that I was able to complete a dissertation while also working for a national nonprofit. She also took a risk, and in doing so changed my life, by promoting a 28-year-old dissertation student to a position of occasionally terrifying authority. Every day, I try to make sure she does not regret that decision. Bob Biersack, scholar extraordinaire, also helped the development of this project. I would also like to thank Team 2012 (Robert Maguire, Doug Weber, Dan Auble, Mark Mullaney, and Carolyn Chambers) whose unflinching support helped me survive the 2012 presidential election. More recently, I can attribute a lightness in my footsteps to the current research department at the Center. Thank you for making me happy to come to work. Nicole Mauri provided invaluable research assistance and also kept me sane as I finished the last bits of data collection. I kept my wonderful family, including Mary McKinnon, Scott Bryner, Andrew Bryner, Mike McKinnon, John McKinnon and Maggie McKinnon, at arm’s length throughout my dissertation process. However, there is little doubt about whether I would even be in a PhD program were it not for my parents. From the moment they elected to enroll me in an open optional education program, to the time they let me move away v from home at the age of 17 so that I could work in the Alaska legislature, to their support in the form of airplane tickets and phone calls – I am incredibly lucky to have such a support network. And finally, there is no question that Austin Carson was one of the most critical people involved in this dissertation. He remains my strongest tether to the academic universe, inspiring me to work when it is easier to sleep, to think when it is easier just to type, and to talk things over when it is easier to ruminate. He also refused to let me quit, and attending his graduation was an inspiring event that ultimately lead to the fulfillment of this long, long project. Austin leads by example, and in doing so helps me be a better person. And, on a lighter note, he also simultaneously keeps me grounded, helps me believe in myself, and makes me laugh. vi Vita May 2002....................................................Steller Secondary School, Anchorage AK 2006............................................................B.A. Political Science, Beloit College 2008............................................................M.A. Political Science, Ohio State University 2008-2011……..........................................Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of Political Science, Ohio State University 2011-2012…..………………….................Lobbying Researcher, Center for Responsive Politics, Washington D.C. 2012 to present…………………………....Research Director, Center for Responsive Politics, Washington D.C. Publications Kopko, Kyle C., Bryner, Sarah McKinnon., Budziak, Jeffrey L., Devine, Christopher J., Nawara, Steven P. 2011. “In the eye of the beholder: Motivated reasoning in disputed elections.” Political Behavior 33(2): 271 Nelson, Thomas E., Bryner, Sarah McKinnon, Carnahan, Dustin. 2011. “Media and Politics.” In J.N.Druckman, J.Kuklinski, D.P. Green, and A. Lupia. (Eds.). Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge University Press: 202-213. Field of Study Major Field: Political Science vii Table of Contents Abstract…………………………………………………………………………… ii Dedication………………………………………………………………………… iii Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………….. iv Vita………………………………………………………………………………… vii Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………. viii List of Tables……………………………………………………………………… x List of Figures…………………………………………………………………….. xii Chapter 1: Conceptualizing Scandal……………………………………………… 1 Scandal versus Corruption………………………………………… 3 Phases of Scandal…………………………………………………. 17 Chapter 2: Origins of Scandal…………………………………………………….. 29 Phases One and Two: Situational vs. Individualist Factor……........ 30 Exploring Phase Three: The media intervention………………….. 42 Hypotheses………………………………………………………… 44 The Data………………………………………………………….. 48 Descriptive Data…………………………………………………… 52 Estimation………………………………………………………… 60 Discussion…………………………………………………………. 71 Chapter 3: Survival of Scandal……………………………………………………. 76 Literature Review…………………………………………………. 79 Hypotheses………………………………………………………… 84 viii Data……………………………………………………………….. 86 Results…………………………………………………………….. 88 Estimation………………………………………………………… 90 Discussion…………………………………………………………. 97 Chapter 4: Scandals and Morality…………………………………………………. 101 Hypotheses………………………………………………………… 114 Experimental Design………………………………………………. 116 Descriptive Data…………………………………………………… 121 Estimation…………………………………………………………. 129 Discussion…………………………………………………………. 142 Chapter 5: Conclusions…………………………………………………………… 145 Appendix A: Sources……………………………………………………………… 142 Appendix B: Coded Variables…………………………………………………….. 160 Appendix C: List of Scandals……………………………………………………... 164 Appendix D: Devices……………………………………………………………… 159 Appendix E: Experimental Questions…………………………………………….. 187 Works Cited……………………………………………………………………….. 197 ix List of Tables Table 1:1 Definitions of Scandal………..………..………..………..…………….. 13 Table 1:2 Scandal vs. Corruption………..………..………..………..…………….. 16 Table 2:1 Number of scandal events, by office………..………..………..………... 54 Table 2:2 Number of scandal events, by State………..………..………..…............ 56 Table 2:3 Number of scandal events, by party and office………..………..………. 57 Table 2:4: Count of Scandal by Gender ………..………..………..………………. 58 Table 2:5: Scandals by Type and Party………..………..………..…………………59 Table 2:6: Number of state-level scandals per state………..………..…………….. 62 Table 2:7 Count of Scandals, Election and Non-Election Years………………….. 63 Table 2:8 Number of Scandals, by party, comp to US Cong membership………... 66 Table 2:9 Rare Events Logistic Regression results for invlmt in Scandal………... 67 Table 2:10 Poisson Count model of determ. of the # of scandals, per year………..70 Table 3:1 Counts of Scandal Outcomes ………..………..………..………………. 87 Table 3:2 Logistic Regression of Survival………..………..………..…………….. 94 Table 3:3 Logistic Regression Models predicting scandal survival……………… 96 Table 4:1 Participant Scores on MFT scale………..………..………..…………… 122 Table 4:2 Correlations between Moral Foundations………..………..…………….. 123 Table 4:3 Reliability of Moral Foundations Scales………..………..……………... 124 Table 4:4 Emotion activation by treatment condition, means………..……………. 126 x Table 4:5 Correlation between emotions and resulting factor