DOCSLIB.ORG

Education Policy Think Tank Models and Mission by Callie Mclean & Lily Robin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Education Policy Think Tank Models and Mission by Callie Mclean & Lily Robin McLean & Robin Education Policy Think Tank Models and Mission by Callie McLean & Lily Robin his paper explores how two advocacy think tanks— the Heritage Foundation (Heritage) and Center Tfor American Progress (CAP)—engage in research on K-12 education and attempt to influence education policymaking. Through our research, we discovered both expected and surprising differences and similarities between the think tanks. Differences included topic choice, particularly around school choice and disadvantaged students, the use of data analyses to underpin positions, and the volume of publication. Similarities included the mix of output type. Our most notable finding was that the model and mission of each think tank drove topic choices and how each conducted research and interacted with the policy world and media. https://doi.org/10.4079/pp.v24i0.17601 33 Policy Perspectives / Volume 24 INTRODUCTION think tank.” Indeed, Heritage is widely This paper investigates how two advocacy considered to have created the first true model think tanks research and report on advocacy think tank. According to education issues and how they determine Weaver (1989), think tanks tend to follow impact on education policy. We chose one of three models: the “university to examine Heritage and CAP because without students,” contract, and advocacy they represent leading conservative and think tanks. The Brookings Institution, progressive advocacy think tanks and established in 1927, was the first think tank provide a stark contrast in organizational and fits the traditional “university without missions and education policy positions. student” mold, which emphasizes rigorous First, we examine each think tank’s academic quality and non-partisanship. background: its history, mission, model, Heritage started the advocacy model in and funding. Then we focus on the work the 1970s. This model has a policy and these think tanks did in K-12 education ideological focus, with an intention to during 2014 and 2015, when a shift in change policy and its debates. Advocacy active policymaking at the federal and state think tanks take existing research and levels took place due to the reauthorization summarize it into short, accessible pieces. of the Elementary and Secondary Both CAP and Heritage have a specific Education Act (ESEA). We examine all the ideological perspective that informs their written materials produced by each think research, and a primary goal in their tank and compare the topics and format research and outputs is to change minds. of each, including examining their data, CAP, for example, wants to reach the public sources, quality control, and transparency. to change the terms of the debate, but they Finally, we examine how each think tank especially want to change the actual policies, conceptualizes their impact on education so they work to target policy makers policymaking and compare the think tanks through both generalized media outreach in terms of media coverage, Congressional and targeted relationship-building (Scott testimony, and active engagement in Sargrad, personal communication, April policy making. This comparison allows 22, 2016). This model distinction becomes us to identify similarities in the approach important when understanding any output used by these two very distinct think analysis from either organization. tanks, as well as uncover key differences— Heritage and CAP are 501(c)(3) tax- differences that we can map directly back to exempt non-profit organizations, limiting differences in each organization’s mission the lobbying they can do. Heritage’s sister and the advocacy model. We conclude our organization, Heritage Action for America, paper by identifying the potential direction is a 501(c)(4) lobbying organization. of further research. Heritage Action’s lobbying efforts includes publishing the Heritage Action Scorecard, which rates how politicians’ votes align ADVOCACY THINK TANK with Heritage’s positions (Heritage Action MODEL America 2015). CAP coordinates with Both organizations fit the model of what a 501(c)(4) arm called the Center for academic researchers call an “advocacy American Progress Action Fund. In a site 34 McLean & Robin visit, CAP staff explained that all CAP 2012). Heritage’s target audiences include employees are also employees of both Congressional members and their staff, the 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4). This allows current presidential administrations, news employees to engage in both research and media (and therefore the general public), specific advocacy work such as lobbying. and the academic/policy field (Heritage 2016). HERITAGE HISTORY Edward Feulner served as president of The Heritage Foundation was founded in Heritage from its founding until 2013. Since 1973 as a conservative think tank created “to then, former US senator of South Carolina, deliver compelling and persuasive research Jim DeMint, has held the position. Jim to Congress providing facts, data, and DeMint is a Tea Party Republican, and his sound arguments on behalf of conservative appointment as president of the Heritage principles” (Heritage 2008). Paul Weyrich, Foundation was met with some controversy a leader in 1970s conservative politics, and (Steinhauer and Weisman 2014). Edwin Feulner, then-Executive Director of the Republican Study Committee, founded CAP HISTORY Heritage after receiving a $250,000 grant As Bai (2003) recounts, the origins of from business owner Joseph Coors CAP began as a response to the rise in (Fuelner 2003). Edwin Feulner was heavily conservative think tanks such as Heritage involved in policy analysis and politics and amidst the backlash to the George prior to founding Heritage (Edwards W. Bush presidency. Founded in 2003 by 2013). The founders wanted to create a President Bill Clinton’s former Chief of think tank to provide timely information Staff John Podesta, the organization aimed to politicians and inform their votes. This to create and coordinate progressive ideas goal remains critical to the present-day and messaging Podesta wanted to form Heritage Foundation. an organization with thought leaders and Heritage is the original advocacy think large funders in the mold of successful tank (Troy 2012). Heritage influenced influential conservative organizations. President Ronald Reagan’s policies during In its first year, CAP operated on a $10 his two terms. Heritage distributed the million budget, including donations from 1,093-page “Mandate for Leadership: George Soros. Policy Management” to every member of Podesta started CAP with a clear focus the Cabinet, and about two-thirds of the on generating ideas and advocacy. During 2,000 recommendations were adopted the Bush era, conservatives dictated the during Reagan’s presidency (Heritage legislative agenda and focused on unified 2008). Heritage created a network of messaging. While many Democrats felt conservative allies by founding the the left simply needed to reframe its Resource Bank in 1977, a group of positions to garner public support, Podesta more than 2,500 experts and nonprofits did not agree, saying “the ideas are most attending conferences and workshops put important” (Bai 2003). He argued that the on by Heritage. Heritage is a media-savvy only way to change the status quo would think tank and has its own media site, come from “substance” and new ideas. the Daily Signal (Crutchfield and Grant From the start, CAP followed the lead of 35 Policy Perspectives / Volume 24 conservative institutions like Heritage to the country” (CAP 2016a). CAP wants combat conservative views. In an on-site to effect real change, think innovatively, meeting with CAP, Winnie Stachelberg, and transmit ideas to policymakers. Key Executive Vice President for External tactics are effective communications and Affairs, said that, at their inception, CAP outreach efforts, adapting quickly to media met with Heritage to learn their model narratives, and tracking national policy (Appendix A). CAP began with a media debates to generate ideas in real time department that still thrives today, as well as (2016a). As part of the mission to improve an independent news site, ThinkProgress. education for all Americans, special org, and research arms whose topics span attention goes to disadvantaged students from poverty to foreign security and the (Sargrad 2016). CAP researchers tend to federal budget. use standard measures of achievement such as test scores and grades to gauge HERITAGE MISSION academic achievement. They also view Heritage’s mission is to create and improvements in teacher training and advocate for “conservative public skill, along with better teacher working policies based on the principles of free conditions, as important for improving enterprise, limited government, individual education outcomes. freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense” (Heritage FUNDING: BROAD BASE VS. 2016). Improving academic outcomes is FOUNDATIONS important to Heritage, but its researchers Heritage has a long tradition of are wary of exclusively relying on measures maintaining a broad, diverse funding base. such as test scores and grades, believing Heritage began fundraising by garnering such metrics may not portray an accurate support through direct mail, a method picture of achievement (Mary Clare Reim, learned from environmental organizations personal communication, April 15, 2016). such as the Sierra Club (Crutchfield and Heritage puts emphasis on other indicators Grant 2012). This practice continues as measures of success of schools, such as today. The Heritage
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Metrics Undermine the 'Indiana Miracle'
    V19, N4 Thursday, Aug. 29, 2013 Metrics undermine the ‘Indiana miracle’ 9 years of GOP gubernatorial rule, legislative majorities don’t bring prosperity By BRIAN A. HOWEY INDIANAPOLIS – For several years now, it’s been called the “Indiana Miracle” and touted across the nation. Beginning with then-Gov. Mitch Daniels, Indiana became a bastion of low taxes, balanced budgets, a fully financed 10-year road plan, and job creation. With the torch passed to Gov. Mike Pence, the theme is now taking “In- diana from good to great.” But some of the metrics are dis- turbing and may no long support some of the claims, and that was reflected in Gov. Pence’s national Republican radio address last Saturday. The “good to great” talk was shunted aside as Pence made his case above the national average, which stands a full point lower against Obamacare, telling Americans, “Everywhere I go in at 7.4%. Indiana, I meet business owners and workers who are in The address came a day after a Ball State Univer- survival mode.” sity study revealed that Indiana’s per capita income has Pence’s address comes with the state mired in an 8.4% jobless rate – the 16th consecutive month it’s been Continued on page 4 Pencing on the Ritz By BRIAN A. HOWEY INDIANAPOLIS – Craig Hartzer is a long time Statehouse veteran who has seen and heard a lot, but what appeared late last Friday afternoon was something he had never witnessed: An Indiana governor standing in “Change does not come from front of his desk.
    [Show full text]
  • How Intense Policy Demanders Shape Postreform Politics: Evidence from the Affordable Care Act Philip B
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by epublications@Marquette Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Political Science Faculty Research and Publications Political Science, Department of 4-1-2018 How Intense Policy Demanders Shape Postreform Politics: Evidence from the Affordable Care Act Philip B. Rocco Marquette University, [email protected] Simon F. Haeder West Virginia University Accepted version. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, Vol. 43, No. 2 (April 1, 2018): 271-304. DOI. © 2018 Duke University Press. Used with permission. Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Political Science Faculty Research and Publications/College of Arts and Sciences This paper is NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; but the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be accessed by following the link in the citation below. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, Vol. 43, No. 2 (April, 2018): 271-304. DOI. This article is © Duke University Press and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e- Publications@Marquette. Duke University Press does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from Duke University Press. Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Keywords ......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Election 2016 Section Frontline | Fall 2016 E-1 Election
    ELECTION 2016 SECTION FRONTLINE | FALL 2016 E-1 ELECTION Democratic Republican Clinton/Kaine Trump/Pence Tim Kaine Hillary Clinton Donald Trump Mike Pence PRESIDENT/VICE-PRESIDENT CANDIDATES of the United States of America he spring issue of FRONT LINE (presidential primary was March 15) raising of taxes, or national defense, the differences will make a significant impact documented Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s positions on issues. on the nation depending on who is ultimately elected. Since then, additional information has become available concerning Information is obtained from various reliable sources and presented through their backgrounds or stands on issues, which we have updated. the lens of the nation’s highest law: the United States Constitution. News sources TLibertarian Gary Johnson is now included in this summary, since he will be on all are footnoted; otherwise sources used were ProCon.org, Ballotpedia.com or the 50 state ballots. candidate’s websites. None of the information provided is intended, nor should it be This is not intended to be a comprehensive review, but it is a brief highlight construed, to be an endorsement of any party or candidate. It is presented to educate of what distinguishes each candidate. There are clear differences between the and inform our readers, so they can use their God-given discernment and exercise Democratic, Republican and Libertarian parties as well as the candidates themselves. their voting privilege for the good of the nation. We have not included candidates in (See Page E-5 for the comparisons of the Republican and Democrat Platforms.) this review who have not been certified for all 50 state ballots.
    [Show full text]
  • Access to Care for 24 Million at Stake As Republicans Debate The
    March 14, 2017 2:00PM EST Access to Care for 24 Million at Stake as Republicans Debate the American Health Care Act The Congressional Budget Office releases evaluation of the American Health Care Act indicating serious access to care issue; moderate and conservative Congressional Republicans express a variety of concerns with the Act while the White House praises it On March 6, 2017, Republican House leadership unveiled their proposal, the American Health Care Act (the AHCA), to replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and modify Medicaid’s funding structure. After a week, the response to the AHCA has been mixed at best, with the bill finding critics from both sides of the aisle. In addition to the universal and expected criticism from Democrats, the proposal has faced resistance from both moderate and far-right conservative Republicans. On the far right, conservatives in the House and Senate have objected that the bill does not go far enough in deconstructing the ACA. Moderate Senate Republicans, meanwhile, are concerned with the impact it could have on access to care, particularly in regard to Medicaid expansion. President Trump has embraced the bill however, and expressed confidence that it will become law. Further complicating the political dynamic around the AHCA, on Monday, March 13, 2017, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its evaluation of the proposal. In their report, the CBO concluded that the AHCA will reduce the federal deficit significantly, but it will also result in 24 million Americans losing health care coverage by 2026. CBO also noted that the AHCA will lead to severe cuts to Medicaid funding and an increase in premiums and cost sharing burdens for many Americans.
    [Show full text]
  • NOTABLE NORTH CAROLINA 12 Things to Know About Former North
    NOTABLE NORTH CAROLINA 12 Things to Know About Former North Carolina 11th District Congressman and New Presidential Chief of Staff Mark Meadows1 Compiled by Mac McCorkle, B.J. Rudell, and Anna Knier 1. Friendship with His Recently Deceased Counterpart on the House Oversight Committee, Congressman Elijah Cummings (D‐MD) Despite political differences, Rep. Meadows and recently deceased Democratic Congressman Elijah Cummings (D‐MD) developed an uncommonly strong friendship that helped bridge partisan divides on the procedures of the House Oversight Committee. NPR | Washington Post 2. A Founder of the House Freedom Caucus Along with outgoing Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney (a former South Carolina congressman), Rep. Meadows was one of the nine founding members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus in January 2015. Time | Washington Post | Pew Research Center 3. Support for Governmental Shutdown in the Cause of Limited Government A GOP attempt to stop implementation of the Affordable Care Act resulted in a 16‐day government shutdown in October 2013. As a newly elected representative, Rep. Meadows helped galvanize the effort by circulating a letter urging the GOP House leadership to take action. The letter gained signatures of support from 79 GOP House members. CNN | Fox News | New York Daily News | Asheville Citizen‐Times 4. Meadows Versus GOP House Speaker John Boehner On July 28, 2015, Rep. Meadows introduced H. Res. 385 to “vacate the chair”—a resolution to remove Speaker John Boehner. No House member had filed such a motion since 1910. Boehner announced his resignation as Speaker less than two months later on September 25, 2015. New York Times | National Review | Ballotpedia 1 For historical background on recent chiefs of staff, see Chris Wipple, The Gatekeepers: How the White House Chiefs Define Every Presidency (2017).
    [Show full text]
  • The House Freedom Caucus: Extreme Faction Influence in the U.S
    The House Freedom Caucus: Extreme Faction Influence in the U.S. Congress Andrew J. Clarke∗ Lafayette College Abstract While political observers frequently attribute influence to ideological factions, politi- cal scientists have paid relatively little attention to the emergence of highly organized, extreme, sub-party institutions. In the first systematic analysis of the House Free- dom Caucus, I argue that non-centrist factions embolden lawmakers to push back against their political party by offsetting leadership resources with faction support. As a result, extreme blocs in the House of Representatives can more effectively dis- tort the party brand. To test these claims, I analyze the impact of Freedom Caucus affiliation on changes in legislative behavior and member-to-member donation pat- terns. I find that Republican lawmakers become (1) more obstructionist and (2) less reliant on party leadership donations after joining the conservative faction. These findings suggest that Freedom Caucus institutions empower lawmakers to more ag- gressively anchor the Republican Conference to conservative policy positions by off- setting the informational and financial deficits imposed by party leaders. ∗Assistant Professor, Department of Government & Law. [email protected], http://www. andrewjclarke.net 0 In 2015, the highly organized and deeply secretive House Freedom Caucus formed in the U.S. Congress. Journalists credited the faction with overthrowing the Speaker of the House, hand-packing his successor, and pushing the House Republican Conference to adopt an increasingly extreme and aggressive posture with the Obama administration — all within a year. Shortly after, Republicans won unified control of the federal government, and the Freedom Caucus quickly reasserted its role a major player in legislative affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage Foundation
    LEADING THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM & OPPORTUNITY ANNUAL REPORT 2012 LEADING THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM & OPPORTUNITY ANNUAL REPORT 2012 The Heritage Foundation Leading the Fight for Freedom & Opportunity OUR MISSION: To formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values and a strong national defense. BOARD OF TRUSTEES PATRON OF THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION Thomas A. Saunders III, Chairman The Right Honourable The Baroness Thatcher, LG, PC, OM, FRS Richard M. Scaife, Vice Chairman J. Frederic Rench, Secretary SENIOR MANAGEMENT Meg Allen Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D., President Douglas F. Allison Jim DeMint, President-elect Larry P. Arnn, Ph.D. Phillip N. Truluck, Executive Vice President The Hon. Belden Bell David Addington, Senior Vice President Midge Decter Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D. Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D., Distinguished Fellow Steve Forbes James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., Vice President Todd W. Herrick Becky Norton Dunlop, Vice President Jerry Hume John Fogarty, Vice President Kay Coles James Michael G. Franc, Vice President The Hon. J. William Middendorf II Michael M. Gonzalez, Vice President Abby Moffat Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D., Distinguished Fellow Nersi Nazari, Ph.D. Geoffrey Lysaught, Vice President Robert Pennington Edwin Meese III, Reagan Distinguished Fellow Emeritus Anthony J. Saliba Derrick Morgan, Vice President William E. Simon, Jr. Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., Vice President Brian Tracy Michael Spiller, Vice President Phillip N. Truluck John Von Kannon, Vice President and Senior Counselor Barb Van Andel-Gaby Genevieve Wood, Vice President Marion G. Wells Robert E. Russell, Jr., Counselor HONORARY CHAIRMAN AND TRUSTEE EMERITUS David R.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservatives Balk at Budget Deal Process (Roll Call)
    Conservatives balk at budget deal process http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/conservatives-budget-debt-limit-paul-ryan/?dcz October 27, 2015 SIGN IN | REGISTER ROLL CALL VIDEO PICKS Conservatives Balk at Budget Deal Process More videos: By Lindsey McPherson 1 Share 31 Tweet 17 © Reprints Posted at 10:07 p.m. on Oct. 26 ABOUT 218 218 will tell you what the House is up to, and why. It will analyze the effectiveness of Democrats and Republicans and how their actions will affect each party writ large. Ryan heads into a House Republican Conference meeting Monday with Majority Whip Steve Scalise. (Al Drago/CQ Roll Call) Conservatives who supported an effort to oust Speaker John A. Boehner pointed to a budget deal emerging Monday as a prime example of why the House needs new leadership. “To me it’s business as usual for Speaker Boehner,” Rep. John Fleming, R-La., a House Freedom Caucus founding member, said after a GOP conference meeting. Members were briefed on the outline of an agreement that would set top-line funding levels for fiscals 2016 and 2017 and suspend the debt ceiling through the 2016 elections. Members said they were not provided enough details Monday evening to judge the substance of the deal but complained about the process by which it came together and the way it could advance quickly in a matter of days, just before Boehner’s departure. Despite the consternation, there appeared to be a pathway with a combination of Democratic votes and national security hawks in both chambers. “Members are cautiously supportive but they have a lot of questions,” Rep.
    [Show full text]
  • Leading America's Resurgence
    LEADING AMERICA’S RESURGENCE 2016 ANNUAL REPORT Building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish. LEADING AMERICA’S RESURGENCE THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION The Heritage Foundation | heritage.org The Heritage Foundation might be the biggest winner of 2016. —WASHINGTON EXAMINER, NOV. 10, 2016 2 2016 ANNUAL REPORT A MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT t was, by any measure, an extraordinary year. And for The When House Republicans launched a late-year bid to revive IHeritage Foundation, it was extraordinarily successful— earmarks, we raised the alarm. Outraged conservatives re- not just in the national policy arena, but in the states and sponded, reminding lawmakers that they had just been elect- abroad as well. ed to “drain the swamp, not fill it.” The grassroots backlash led lawmakers to abandon the attempt. At the state level, we helped expand school choice in Maryland and South Dakota. Mississippi passed a religious freedom law And, in what was one of the loneliest policy battles of the based on federal policy advanced by our scholars. year, Heritage fought off, at least temporarily, the United Mineworkers’ attempt to get the government to bail out Testimony from our experts helped convince legislators their failing pension plan. The bailout could cost taxpayers to rein in stifling occupational licensing requirements in hundreds of billions of dollars—and set a precedent that Tennessee and abuse-prone civil asset forfeiture practices in might wind up costing trillions more. Despite the high stakes, Florida, Nebraska, and California. Heritage was the only organization willing to take on the union in public.
    [Show full text]
  • Participatory Propaganda Model 1
    A PARTICIPATORY PROPAGANDA MODEL 1 Participatory Propaganda: The Engagement of Audiences in the Spread of Persuasive Communications Alicia Wanless Michael Berk Director of Strategic Communications, Visiting Research Fellow, SecDev Foundation Centre for Cyber Security and International [email protected] Relations Studies, University of Florence [email protected] Paper presented at the "Social Media & Social Order, Culture Conflict 2.0" conference organized by Cultural Conflict 2.0 and sponsored by the Research Council of Norway on 1 December 2017, Oslo. To be published as part of the conference proceedings in 2018. A PARTICIPATORY PROPAGANDA MODEL 2 Abstract Existing research on aspects of propaganda in a digital age tend to focus on isolated techniques or phenomena, such as fake news, trolls, memes, or botnets. Providing invaluable insight on the evolving human-technology interaction in creating new formats of persuasive messaging, these studies lend to an enriched understanding of modern propaganda methods. At the same time, the true effects and magnitude of successful influencing of large audiences in the digital age can only be understood if target audiences are perceived not only as ‘objects’ of influence, but as ‘subjects’ of persuasive communications as well. Drawing from vast available research, as well as original social network and content analyses conducted during the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, this paper presents a new, qualitatively enhanced, model of modern propaganda – “participatory propaganda” - and discusses its effects on modern democratic societies. Keywords: propaganda, Facebook, social network analysis, content analysis, politics A PARTICIPATORY PROPAGANDA MODEL 3 Participatory Propaganda: The Engagement of Audiences in the Spread of Persuasive Communications Rapidly evolving information communications technologies (ICTs) have drastically altered the ways individuals engage in the public information domain, including news ways of becoming subjected to external influencing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Swamp Nominees Nearly 70% of Trump’S Picks for Top Administration Jobs Have Corporate Ties
    The Swamp Nominees Nearly 70% of Trump’s Picks for Top Administration Jobs Have Corporate Ties Lobbyists, Lawyers and Corporate Executives Thrive in Trump’s D.C. Swamp Despite Pledge to Clean up Washington, Analysis Finds “Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment with a new government controlled by you, the American people.” Donald J. Trump campaign ad, November 2016. “I am not beholden to any political or financial interest. I don’t care. I'm here to do a job. I'm doing a job for the American worker. I really don’t care. I'm not thinking about my business or anybody's business,” President Trump, March 31, 2017 By Alan Zibel, Research Director, Public Citizen’s Corporate Presidency Project, with research and writing from Public Citizen interns Nico Alliaga, George Kronlage and Micah Rosen. June 21, 2017 – With each passing day, Donald Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp” in Washington and root out special interests feels about as valid as a degree from Trump University. A Public Citizen analysis of 115 sub-Cabinet officials nominated or announced by the White House reveals extensive ties to corporate America. The analysis includes all of Trump’s nominees for sub-Cabinet roles such as deputy secretary and general counsel at federal agencies. It excludes ambassadors due to their lack of involvement in domestic policy. Only 15 of the sub-Cabinet nominees analyzed have been confirmed, according to the Partnership for Public Service.1 Of the White House’s nominees for these jobs, 80 people, or nearly 70 percent of sub-Cabinet officials, had a clear corporate connection, having worked in a corporate job, done corporate legal work or corporate consulting.
    [Show full text]
  • Partisan Policymaking: Research and Advocacy in an Era of Polarization
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations Dissertations and Theses July 2019 Partisan Policymaking: Research and Advocacy in an Era of Polarization Zachary Albert University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2 Part of the American Politics Commons Recommended Citation Albert, Zachary, "Partisan Policymaking: Research and Advocacy in an Era of Polarization" (2019). Doctoral Dissertations. 1571. https://doi.org/10.7275/3pfx-my30 https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2/1571 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations and Theses at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PARTISAN POLICYMAKING: RESEARCH AND ADVOCACY IN AN ERA OF POLARIZATION A Dissertation Presented by ZACHARY ALBERT Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 2019 Department of Political Science c Copyright by Zachary Albert 2019 All Rights Reserved PARTISAN POLICYMAKING: RESEARCH AND ADVOCACY IN AN ERA OF POLARIZATION A Dissertation Presented by ZACHARY ALBERT Approved as to style and content by: Raymond J. La Raja, Chair Brian Schaffner, Member Jesse Rhodes, Member Bruce A. Desmarais, Member Brenda K. Bushouse, Member Jesse Rhodes, Chair of the Faculty Department of Political Science DEDICATION To my parents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The dissertation process is long and daunting, and even more so without the generosity of colleagues, family, and friends. I was lucky enough to be surrounded by people willing to give their time and encouragement throughout this process.
    [Show full text]