DOCSLIB.ORG

Institutes, Foundations, and Think Tanks: Conservative Influences On

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Georgia State University Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Educational Policy Studies Faculty Publications Department of Educational Policy Studies 5-1-2005 Institutes, Foundations, and Think aT nks: Conservative Influences on U.S. Public Schools Deron R. Boyles Georgia State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/eps_facpub Part of the Education Commons, and the Education Policy Commons Recommended Citation Boyles, Deron R., "Institutes, Foundations, and Think aT nks: Conservative Influences on U.S. Public Schools" (2005). Educational Policy Studies Faculty Publications. Paper 1. http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/eps_facpub/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Educational Policy Studies at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Educational Policy Studies Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. pr public resistance www.publicresistance.org volume 1, number 1 May 1, 2005 Institutes, Foundations, & Think Tanks Conservative Influence on U.S. Public Schools Philip E. Kovacs & Deron Boyles Georgia State University In the middle of the “liberal” Clinton years, Stefancic and Delgado (1996) wrote presciently of a future dominated by ultra conservative ideology, established and maintained by well-funded think tanks. Black misery will increase. The gap between the rich and the poor (already the highest in the Western world) will widen. Women’s gains will be rolled back, foreigners will be exclud- ed…Conservative judges, appointed by conservative presi- dents with the encouragement of a conservative Congress, will repeal prisoners’ and children’s rights, and narrow women’s procreative liberties. Unregulated industries will require em- ployees to work in increasingly unsafe workplaces, pollute the air and water, and set aside less and less money for workers’ health benefits and retirement. Tort reform will ensure that con- sumers and medical patients injured by defective products, medical devices, and careless physicians will be unable to ob- tain compensation. Children will be required to pray in schools, absorb conservative principles of freemarket economics, salute the flag, and learn in English whether they know that language or not. (p. 155) Other scholars and social commentators have agreed: “Over 30 years after the cowardly murder of Martin Luther King, Jr., black America sits on the brink of collective disaster” (West, 2004/2005). “Income inequality is growing to levels not seen since the Gilded Age, around the 1880s” (Ever higher society, ever harder to as- cend, 2004). “As a result of more restrictions on entering the U.S. due to post-9/11 security concerns, fewer foreigners are visiting the U.S.” (Suskind, 2003). The Right controls all three branches of gov- ernment, and impending vacancies on the Supreme Court threaten Roe v. Wade. (Garrett & The Associated Press, 2003). “We have a higher percentage of our population in prison than any other nation. And, we keep building more prisons; in fact, may locales lobby for new prisons as a tool for economic recovery” (Prisons in America, 2003). Unregulated industries, in addition to ripping off millions of people on the West coast in the largest energy scandal ever, con- tinue to pollute the air and water (Bustillo, 2005; North County Times Wire Service, 2005). While corporate executives allegedly throw multimillion dollar birthday parties at their shareholders' ex- pense, their associates tell us that we cannot afford universal health care (Associated Press, 2005; Clark, 2005). Tort “reform,” one of the pinnacles of George W. Bush’s successful reelection campaign, is now being contested in congress, while at the same time the President works to make tax cuts to the wealthiest permanent (Havemann, 2001; Zion, 2005). Children are not only being forced to absorb free market economics, they are experiencing a freemar- ket revolution, as neoconservatives work diligently to end public schools as we know them, believing that market-based reform will save our “failing” education system. While a complete analysis of the effects of conservative think tanks is beyond the scope of this article, we include the above passage as evidence of what, on a broad scale, the “idea brokers” have been working towards. While education is only one area where neoconservative think tanks seek to influence public policy, it has become the issue for many neoconservatives. In this article, we fo- cus on four think tanks—The Manhattan Institute, The American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation, and The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation—and what they are doing to reshape public schools in ways more suitable to neoconservative and corporate ends. Our goal is to problematize and critique the assertions of these think tanks, with the hope of generating a counter-narrative to their bold and influential proclamations. A Brief History Quite simply, think tanks are nonprofit organizations that both pro- duce and rely on research and expertise to aggressively influence the public, political leaders, and policy. (For lengthier definitions, see Abelson, 2002; Rich, 2004). While most claim to be nonparti- san, part of the requirement to remain tax-exempt, the institutes we focus on support legislation that furthers a neoconservative agenda. It should be noted here that Left-leaning think tanks do exist, but they are outnumbered 2 to 1, outspent 3 to 1 and have failed to counter the advocacy or activity of the Right (Rich). “Con- servatives,” explain Stefancic and Delgado (1996), “tend to have more money than liberals. They raise it more effectively and spend it more wisely than their counterparts on the left” (p. 142). As a re- sult, the voice dominating discourse over public education in Amer- ica has a distinctly neoconservative tone. Things were not always this way. Before the 1960s there was a healthier balance of institutes representing a host of viewpoints. In fact, the first think tanks were progressive. Rich (2004) traces the beginning of the conservative think tank explosion to Barry Gold- water’s 1964 presidential defeat, after which the business commu- nity committed itself to influencing national policy. “For scholars of modern conservatism,” writes Rich, “the emergence of conservative think tanks, in particular, is attributable to the efforts of conservative intellectuals along with corporate and ideological patrons, who formed think tanks and other organizations in order to disrupt the political status quo” (p. 32). Disrupting the status quo was contingent upon increasing the num- ber of corporate representatives in Washington. As a result, the number of trade associations with offices in the District of Columbia went from 99 at the beginning of 1960 to 229 by the end of the decade (Rich, 2004). An increased number of “agents” in the capital guaranteed corporate access to policy makers. While access is one matter, influence is entirely another. To shape policy in manners fa- vorable to their needs, corporations sponsored research, rewarding individuals whose work furthered their various causes (Rich), one of which was, and continues to be, ending the government “monopoly” on public schools. Central to corporate needs is deregulation, less interference by the government in business affairs. In the mid-1970s, William Simon, former Secretary of the Treasury in both the Nixon and Ford ad- ministrations and head of the ultraconservative John M. Olin Foun- dation, called on business leaders to support and finance a “coun- terintelligentsia” which would check the activities of “leftist” univer- sities, considered by many on the right to be dens of socialism (Spring, 2001). Not limiting himself to a counterattack, Simon “urged the business community to support intellectuals who advo- cated the importance of the free market. Simon called on busi- nesspeople to stop supporting colleges and universities that pro- duced ‘young collectivists by the thousands’ and media ‘which serve as the megaphones for anticapitalist opinion’” (p. 38). A num- ber of wealthy foundations, corporations, and individuals re- sponded, and conservative activists continue to echo Simon’s words, blaming left leaning teachers’ colleges, among others, for public education’s “failure” (e.g., D'Souza, 1991). Tactics and Techniques Since Simon’s clarion call, the Right has grown stronger. Today the actions of neoconservative think tanks continue to further a corpo- ratist agenda, inhibiting participatory and deliberative democracy by dominating the discourse that influences agenda setting. Because neoconservative think tanks are so well funded, they have freedom, access, and influence that the average American citizen simply does not have. Indeed, they have freedom, access, and influence that the so called “liberal intelligentsia” can only dream of. For ex- ample, The Heritage Foundation (n.d.b) spent over $34 million to influence policy in 2003 alone. Of that figure, more than $14 million went to research, $6 million went to media and government rela- tions, and an additional %7 million went to educational programs. (The remaining $6 million and change went to "supporting serv- ices.") One can’t help wondering what liberal minded scholars might actually be able to accomplish given such budgets, which include over $2 million
Recommended publications
  • Oil and Gas Industry Investments in the National Rifle Association and Safari Club International Reshaping American Energy, Land, and Wildlife Policy

    Oil and Gas Industry Investments in the National Rifle Association and Safari Club International Reshaping American Energy, Land, and Wildlife Policy

    JOE RIIS JOE Oil and Gas Industry Investments in the National Rifle Association and Safari Club International Reshaping American Energy, Land, and Wildlife Policy By Matt Lee-Ashley April 2014 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG Oil and Gas Industry Investments in the National Rifle Association and Safari Club International Reshaping American Energy, Land, and Wildlife Policy By Matt Lee-Ashley April 2014 Contents 1 Introduction and summary 3 Oil and gas industry investments in three major sportsmen groups 5 Safari Club International 9 The National Rifle Association 11 Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation 13 Impact of influence: How the oil and gas industry’s investments are paying off 14 Threats to endangered and threatened wildlife in oil- and gas-producing regions 19 Threats to the backcountry 22 Threats to public access and ownership 25 Conclusion 27 About the author and acknowledgments 28 Endnotes Introduction and summary Two bedrock principles have guided the work and advocacy of American sports- men for more than a century. First, under the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, wildlife in the United States is considered a public good to be conserved for everyone and accessible to everyone, not a commodity that can be bought and owned by the highest bidder.1 Second, since President Theodore Roosevelt’s creation of the first wildlife refuges and national forests, sportsmen have fought to protect wildlife habitat from development and fragmentation to ensure healthy game supplies. These two principles, however, are coming under growing fire from an aggressive and coordinated campaign funded by the oil and gas industry. As part of a major effort since 2008 to bolster its lobbying and political power, the oil and gas industry has steadily expanded its contributions and influ- ence over several major conservative sportsmen’s organizations, including Safari Club International, or SCI, the National Rifle Association, or NRA, and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation.
  • The Impact of the Compact by Dr. Mario Garcia

    The Impact of the Compact by Dr. Mario Garcia

    THE IMPACT OF THE COMPACT BY DR. MARIO GARCIA AN IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATION WITH CASE STUDIES INCLUDING: OF THE RENAISSANCE 20 Cent, Germany OF THE TABLOID FORMAT 24 SATA, Croatia Bohuslaningen, Sweden Crain’s Chicago Business, USA De Standaard, Belgium Diario de Noticias, Portugal El Litoral, Argentina El Mercurio, Chile Goteborgs Posten, Sweden Het Parool, Holland Kleine Zeitung, Austria Liberation, France Newsday, USA Philadelphia Weekly, USA VERSION 1.0 Quick, USA A GARCIA MEDIA WHITE PAPER Reflejos, USA APRIL 25, 2005 S.F. Examiner, USA THE IMPACT OF THE COMPACT 1 The big buzz about small formats E VERYTHING MAKES A COMEBACK. There is an eternal renaissance of essential things. In journalism, design, literature and art. Things tend to simplify themselves. As life in big cities turns more chaotic, technology becomes more accessible with wireless, fast communication available to larger mass- es of the population. For the printed media, this translates into smaller formats, more reader-friendly for users who seek simpler storytelling, quicker messages, and who seem to prefer, as in everything else, the smaller packages. In the case of newspapers, we have had to wait a long time and climb a steep mountain to get to this exciting moment in which more newspapers are look- ing at smaller formats as an option. For many, it is already a reality. Conversion from broadsheet to tabloid has paid off: Readers like it, advertisers get used to it faster than anyone thought, and the “wave” of tabloid conversions extends globally. Even the United States is taking a peek into what some of their news- papers will look like in a format other than the huge broadsheet that has served as the canvas for decades.
  • Online Media and the 2016 US Presidential Election

    Online Media and the 2016 US Presidential Election

    Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Faris, Robert M., Hal Roberts, Bruce Etling, Nikki Bourassa, Ethan Zuckerman, and Yochai Benkler. 2017. Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Paper. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33759251 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA AUGUST 2017 PARTISANSHIP, Robert Faris Hal Roberts PROPAGANDA, & Bruce Etling Nikki Bourassa DISINFORMATION Ethan Zuckerman Yochai Benkler Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is the result of months of effort and has only come to be as a result of the generous input of many people from the Berkman Klein Center and beyond. Jonas Kaiser and Paola Villarreal expanded our thinking around methods and interpretation. Brendan Roach provided excellent research assistance. Rebekah Heacock Jones helped get this research off the ground, and Justin Clark helped bring it home. We are grateful to Gretchen Weber, David Talbot, and Daniel Dennis Jones for their assistance in the production and publication of this study. This paper has also benefited from contributions of many outside the Berkman Klein community. The entire Media Cloud team at the Center for Civic Media at MIT’s Media Lab has been essential to this research.
  • Download the Paper (PDF)

    Download the Paper (PDF)

    Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy Discussion Paper Series Leading the Way to Better News: The Role of Leadership in a World Where Most of the “Powers That Be” Became the “Powers That Were” By Geoffrey Cowan Shorenstein Center Fellow, Fall 2007 University Professor and Annenberg Family Chair in Communication Leadership, University of Southern California February 15, 2008 #D-44 © 2008 President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved. Abstract During the past several years, as traditional news operations have faced sharp declines in circulation, advertising, viewership, and audiences, and as they have begun to make a seemingly unrelenting series of cuts in the newsroom budgets, scholars and professionals have been seeking formulas or models designed to reverse the trend. During those same years, many of the major news organizations that dominated the landscape a generation ago, those that David Halberstam called “The Powers That Be,” have lost their leadership role and been absorbed by other companies. This paper argues that while there is good reason to worry about the decline in what might be called “boots-on-the-ground” journalism, there are reasons to be hopeful. While most of those concerned with the topic have urged structural changes in ownership, this paper argues that the key is leadership. To understand the demands on leaders, it is essential to understand which of three motives is most important to the publication’s owners: profits, influence, or personal prestige. Each motive presents distinct challenges and opportunities. Looking at the fate of a number of large media organizations over the past decade, the paper argues that the most important model for success is outstanding leadership that combines a talent for business, entrepreneurship and innovation with a profound commitment to great journalism.
  • National Security and Local Police

    National Security and Local Police

    BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE NATIONAL SECURITY AND LOCAL POLICE Michael Price Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law ABOUT THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that seeks to improve our systems of democracy and justice. We work to hold our political institutions and laws accountable to the twin American ideals of democracy and equal justice for all. The Center’s work ranges from voting rights to campaign finance reform, from racial justice in criminal law to Constitutional protection in the fight against terrorism. A singular institution — part think tank, part public interest law firm, part advocacy group, part communications hub — the Brennan Center seeks meaningful, measurable change in the systems by which our nation is governed. ABOUT THE BRENNAN CENTER’S LIBERTY AND NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM The Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program works to advance effective national security policies that respect Constitutional values and the rule of law, using innovative policy recommendations, litigation, and public advocacy. The program focuses on government transparency and accountability; domestic counterterrorism policies and their effects on privacy and First Amendment freedoms; detainee policy, including the detention, interrogation, and trial of terrorist suspects; and the need to safeguard our system of checks and balances. ABOUT THE BRENNAN CENTER’S PUBLICATIONS Red cover | Research reports offer in-depth empirical findings. Blue cover | Policy proposals offer innovative, concrete reform solutions. White cover | White papers offer a compelling analysis of a pressing legal or policy issue.
  • The Weekly Standard…Don’T Settle for Less

    The Weekly Standard…Don’T Settle for Less

    “THE ORACLE OF AMERICAN POLITICS” — Wolf Blitzer, CNN …don’t settle for less. POSITIONING STATEMENT The Weekly Standard…don’t settle for less. Through original reporting and prose known for its boldness and wit, The Weekly Standard and weeklystandard.com serve an audience of more than 3.2 million readers each month. First-rate writers compose timely articles and features on politics and elections, defense and foreign policy, domestic policy and the courts, books, art and culture. Readers whose primary common interests are the political developments of the day value the critical thinking, rigorous thought, challenging ideas and compelling solutions presented in The Weekly Standard print and online. …don’t settle for less. EDITORIAL: CONTENT PROFILE The Weekly Standard: an informed perspective on news and issues. 18% Defense and 24% Foreign Policy Books and Arts 30% Politics and 28% Elections Domestic Policy and the Courts The value to The Weekly Standard reader is the sum of the parts, the interesting mix of content, the variety of topics, type of writers and topics covered. There is such a breadth of content from topical pieces to cultural commentary. Bill Kristol, Editor …don’t settle for less. EDITORIAL: WRITERS Who writes matters: outstanding political writers with a compelling point of view. William Kristol, Editor Supreme Court and the White House for the Star before moving to the Baltimore Sun, where he was the national In 1995, together with Fred Barnes and political correspondent. From 1985 to 1995, he was John Podhoretz, William Kristol founded a senior editor and White House correspondent for The new magazine of politics and culture New Republic.
  • Efraim Karsh

    Efraim Karsh

    EFRAIM KARSH Contact: [email protected]; [email protected] PRESENT POSITIONS Professor of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies, King’s College London, since 1996. Personal website Professor of Political Studies, Bar-Ilan University, since 2013 Senior Research Associate, Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, Bar-Ilan University, since 2013 Principal Research Fellow, Middle East Forum, Philadelphia, since 2013 PREVIOUS POSITIONS Director, Middle East Forum, Philadelphia, 2011-12 Founding Director, Middle East & Mediterranean Studies Program, King’s College London, 1994-2010: Offers research and teaching on the history, politics, economics and international relations of the Middle East and Mediterranean at postgraduate level. Currently includes 9 fulltime members of staff, 6 visiting fellows, and over 120 students. Reader (Associate Professor) in War Studies, King’s College London, 1992-96 Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in War Studies, King’s College London, 1989-92 Senior Research Fellow, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel-Aviv University, 1984- 89 Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Political Science, Tel-Aviv University, 1986-89 Director of Studies in International Relations, Israel’s Open University, 1982-85 Intelligence Analyst, Israel Defense Forces (IDF), attained rank of Major, 1974-81 VISITING POSITIONS First Nachshon Visiting Professor in Israel Studies, Harvard University, Fall Semester 2003 Starr Fellow in Jewish Studies, Harvard University, Spring Semester 2003 Visiting Professor, Universite Assas
  • From Mass Incarceration to Mass Control, and Back Again: How Bipartisan Criminal Justice Reform May Lead to a For-Profit Nightmare

    From Mass Incarceration to Mass Control, and Back Again: How Bipartisan Criminal Justice Reform May Lead to a For-Profit Nightmare

    FROM MASS INCARCERATION TO MASS CONTROL, AND BACK AGAIN: HOW BIPARTISAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM MAY LEAD TO A FOR-PROFIT NIGHTMARE CARL TAKEI* Since 2010, advocates on the right and left have increasingly allied to denounce mass incarceration and propose serious reductions in the use of prisons. This alliance serves useful shared purposes, but each side comes to it with distinct and in many ways incompatible long-term interests. If progressive advocates rely solely on this alliance without aggressively building our own vision of what decarceration should look like, the unintended consequences could be serious. This Article describes the current mass incarceration paradigm and current left-right reform efforts. It then outlines how, if progressives do not set clear goals for what should replace mass incarceration, these bipartisan efforts risk creating a nightmare scenario of mass control, surveillance, and monitoring of Black and Brown communities. Finally, the Article explains why this mass control paradigm would lay the groundwork for a heavily-privatized, extraordinarily difficult-to-end resurgence of mass incarceration in subsequent decades. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 126 I. MASS INCARCERATION AND THE CARCERAL STATE ................................................. 128 A. Birth of a Carceral Nation .......................................................................................... 128 B. Why Did Mass Incarceration Happen?
  • Judicial Politics

    Judicial Politics

    CHAPTER 7 Judicial Politics distribute or Photo 7.1 Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy swears in Neil Gorsuch as a new member of the Court while President Trump and Gorsuch’spost, wife, Louise, look on. oday politics lies squarely at the heart of the federal judicial selection Tprocess. That is nothing new, but partisan maneuvering in the Senate, which has the power to confirm or reject Supreme Court and lower federal court nominees put forward by the president, went to new extremes dur- ing the last year of the Obama administration and the opening months of the Trumpcopy, administration. The lengths to which the Republican-controlled Senate went to block the confirmation of Obama’s judicial nominees gave Trump the opportunity to appoint a backlog of judges when he took office. The most visible, and arguably the most audacious, obstruction came at the Supreme Court level when Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Court’s notmost reliably conservative voters, died unexpectedly on February 13, 2016. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) almost immediately declared that the Republican-controlled Senate would not even consider any nominee put forward by President Obama. Retorting that the Senate had Do a constitutional duty to act on a nominee, Obama nonetheless nominated Merrick Garland, the centrist chief judge of the D.C. Circuit, on March 16, 401 Copyright ©2021 by SAGE Publications, Inc. This work may not be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without express written permission of the publisher. 2016. He did so with more than ten months left in his term—more than enough time to complete the confirmation process.
  • Target San Diego

    Target San Diego

    Target San Diego The Right Wing Assault on Urban Democracy and Smart Government Lee Cokorinos Target San Diego The Right Wing Assault on Urban Democracy and Smart Government A Report for the Center on Policy Initiatives Lee Cokorinos November 2005 Table of Contents Acknowledgments . ii Foreword . iii Executive Summary . v Introduction: The National Significance of the Battle for San Diego . 1 1. The National Context: Key Organizations Leading the Right’s Assault on the States and Cities . 5 A. The American Legislative Exchange Council . 7 B. The State Policy Network . 13 C. The Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy . 17 D. The Pacific Research Institute . 21 E. Americans for Tax Reform and the Project for California’s Future . 25 F. The Reason Foundation . 33 2. The Performance Institute and the Assault on San Diego . 39 3. The Battle for America’s Cities: A National Engagement . 49 Endnotes . 57 I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Acknowledgments This report was made possible through the generous support of the New World Foundation. Special thanks go to Colin Greer and Ann Bastian of New World for their leadership in fostering the movement for progressive renewal. Thanks also to Donald Cohen of the Center on Policy Initiatives for contributing keen insights and the benefit of his ground level experience at engaging the right at every step of the research and writing, to Murtaza Baxamusa of CPI for sharing his expertise, and to veteran political researcher Jerry Sloan for his valuable advice. Jerry’s decades of research on the California and the national right have educated a generation of activists.
  • Children Children

    Children Children

    September/October 2008 PuttingPutting CChildrenhildren FFBest practicesirstirst in Kenya Immigrant Families Interviews with California social workers McCain vs. Obama Where they stand on children’s issues Improving Your Agency Becoming a higher performance organization Volume 17, Number 5 September/October 2008 page 16 Features 26 Putting Children First Departments New Life Homes is Supporting the 4 Editor’s Note 10 changing cultural attitudes Nation’s Future toward adoption in 5 Leadership Lens Kenya through best 6 Spotlight On practice care for infants. 8 National Newswire 22 Exceptional Children: Navigating Special Education and Learning Disabilities WWW.OBAMA.SENATE.GOV WWW.MCCAIN.SENATE.GOV How to gauge your teen’s A comparison of where readiness for college. Senators John McCain and Barack Obama stand on the 25 Down to Earth Dad well-being of America’s children. Fathers can make positive changes by becoming engaged with their children. 16 Helping California’s Immigrant Families 40 CWLA Short Takes Four state social workers talk 42 End Notes about their experiences with immigrant parents and children. 45 OneOnOne A conversation with David Roth, Senior Fellow, ManagementMatters CWLA Mid-Atlantic Region Becoming a Higher Advertisers Index Performance 44 Association for Childhood Organization Education International 24 Child Care Exchange CWLA consultant 21 Children’s Voice Paid Subscription Jeffrey Bormaster 48 Child Welfare Journal Subscription helps agencies improve 38 CWLA Giftables 33 CWLA National Conference with his assessment, 46 CWLA Protect America’s Children training, and 39 CWLA White House Conference consultation page 15 Centers for Disease Control matrix. 47 Defran 34 19 Father Source 23 Furniture Concepts 2 Handel Information Technologies 37 National Adoption Day COVER PHOTO COURTESY OF EMILY SHENK www.cwla.org ■ Children’s VOICE 3 EditorsEditorsNoteNote Children’s Voice Steven S.
  • The Tea Party in Local Politics Jeffrey M. Berry Department of Political

    The Tea Party in Local Politics Jeffrey M. Berry Department of Political

    The Tea Party in Local Politics Jeffrey M. Berry Department of Political Science Tufts University Kent E. Portney Bush School of Government and Public Service Texas A&M University Robert Joseph Department of Political Science Tufts University Paper prepared for delivery at the annual conference of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., August, 2014. © American Political Science Association. Corresponding author: [email protected] or @JeffreyMBerry 1 The Tea Party in Local Politics Abstract Since 2009 the Tea Party has disrupted and deeply influenced American politics. The force of the movement has been felt not only in the three election cycles since then, but also in the development of public policy. One area where Tea Party influence has been said to be significant is in the area of environmental sustainability. As local governments have moved toward adopting environmental measures aimed at promoting sustainability, there have been some cases where local Tea Parties have emerged as aggressive and strident opponents of related policy changes. How widespread this behavior has been is unclear. In this paper we look broadly at the Tea Party movement across the country and systematically assess its influence in urban America. Based on evidence we’ve gathered for a number of different databases, we find that the Tea Party has not had a measurable impact on city policymaking in the area of sustainability. Moreover, we find that local Tea Party chapters generally have very limited organizational capacity to engage in advocacy. Across 50 large American cities, our findings indicate that the typical Tea Party chapter is at best a modest presence in local politics.