Association News PS, Vol. 18, No. 4. (Autumn, 1985), pp. 797-832+834-838+840-848. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8269%28198523%2918%3A4%3C797%3AAN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z PS is currently published by American Political Science Association. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/apsa.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org Wed Feb 13 10:12:46 2008 Association News Reports on the Annual Meeting Annual Meeting TABLE 2 In New Orleans 1985 Annual Meeting APSA Organized Section Panels Well Attended Number A total of 2,842 people attended APSA's Section of Panels annual meeting in New Orleans, August 29-September 1, despite a hurricane Conflict Processes threat and a few cancelled airplane Federalism and Intergovern- flights. This figure compares well with mental Relations the 1983 meeting in Chicago and is more Law, Courts and Judicial than 500 above the 1973 New Orleans Process meeting, as shown in Table 1. Legislative Studies Pol~cyStudles Joseph Cooper of Rice University chaired Political Organizations and the Program Committee for the 1985 Parties conference which was responsible for Presidency Research Public Administration organizing 267 of the over 450 panels at Representation and Electoral the meeting. APSA's nine Organized Sec- Systems tions assembled 69 panels, an increase Total TABLE 1 over 1984 by one-third due to the Annual Meeting Registration, growth in the number of Organized Sec- 1967-85* tions since last year. The average attendance at panels 1967 2473 (Chicago) organized by the Program Committee 1968 3723 (Washington, D.C.) 1969 4142 (New York) was 20. The Sections with the highest 1970 2397 (Los Angeles) average attendance were Electoral 1971 2732 (Chicago) Behavior and Popular Control (whose 1972 3380 (Washington. D.C.) average attendance was 31); Legislative 1973 231 2 (New Orleans) Processes and Politics (30); Political 1 974 2773 (Chicago) Thought and Philosophy: Historical Ap- 1975 2478 (San Francisco) proaches (27); the Practice of Political 1976 2295 (Chicago) Science (27); and Political Executives 1977 2624 (Washington, D.C.) and the Presidency (26). 1978 2373 (New York) 1979 2687 (Washington, D.C.) Among the Organized Sections the 1980 2745 (Washington, D.C.) groups with the highest average atten- 1981 2887 (New York) dance was Political Organizations and 1982 2205 (Denver) Parties (28) which fielded only two 1983 2859 (Chicago) panels; Law, Courts and Judicial Process 1984 3391 (Washington, D.C.) 1985 2842 (New Orleans) (27); and Conflict Processes (23). The average attendance at Organized Section * 1972-85 figures include exhibitors regis- panels was 18. There was a negative tered at the meeting, since their fee for booth correlation between the number of rental includes the cost of their reglstratlon. panels offered by an Organized Section Association News and the average attendance at that Sec- Prospects for Arms Control tion's panels. Carol Nechemias Pennsylvania State University, Capitol Campus Best Attended Panels I. M. Destler, a Senior Fellow at the Insti- The best attended day-time panel at the tute of International Economics and convention was Political Knowledge for moderator for the plenary session on What? Two New Books on the State of "Arms Control: Problems and Pros- the Discipline, with 1 16 people in atten- pects," described the panel participants dance. The Roundtable on the Reagan as "doers and thinkers," individuals with Presidency was the next most popular high-level governmental experience who with 93 in attendance, followed by the now are actively engaged in the enter- Presidential Election of 1984 with an prise of analyzing current arms control audience of 76. dilemmas. The speakers were indeed The fourth best-attended panel with 67 illustrious. They included Robert S. was the Roundtable on Area Studies and McNamara, Secretary of Defense under Theory Building, followed by the Round- Presidents Kennedy and Johnson and table on In Search of France (66) and the President of the World Bank from Roundtable on Congressional Committee 1968-81; James R. Schlesinger, who Research to honor Richard F. Fenno, Jr. has held such diverse positions as Chair of the Atomic Energy Commission (65). (1971 -73), Director of the Central Intel- ligence Agency ( 1 9731, Secretary of Defense (1973.751, and Secretary of the Plenary Sessions Department of Energy (1977-79); and Lt. General Brent Scowcroft (USAF, ret.), The three plenary sessions, held on each a former assistant to the President for of the three evenings of the conference, national security affairs ( 1 975-1977), drew large audiences. At the first plenary member of the President's General session Program Chair Cooper presided Advisory Committee on Arms Control as APSA's awards were presented to (1977.801, and, more recently, chair of a outstanding scholars, and Richard F. commission established by President Fenno, Jr. delivered the Presidential Reagan on the MX issue. Address, which will appear in an up- All three panelists painted a gloomy pic- coming issue of the American Political ture of the prospects for arms control. Science Review. It was estimated that Schlesinger argued that public expecta- 375 people attended this session. tions about what arms control can ac- Fred I. Greenstein of Princeton University complish are exaggerated. In his view chaired the second plenary session on arms negotiations do not lead to cuts in Reform of the American Political System defense expenditures, except in a mar- with approximately 175 people in atten- ginal way, or eliminate the threat of dance. On the third evening I. M. Destler nuclear devastation. Moreover, the of the Institute for International Eco- public seems to believe that the United nomics presided over a packed house States alone can, if it wants, achieve (350 people) to hear Robert S. Mc- progress in managing the arms race; but Namara, James R. Schlesinger and Brent negotiations involve dialogue between Scowcroft discuss the problems of and two sovereign powers, the codification prospects for arms control. of decisions made by independent powers. Ed~tor'sNote: FUN reports of the plenary What, then, would successful arms talks sessions, Reform of the American Politi- entail? For Schlesinger, realistic goals cal System and Arms Control: Problems consist of stabilizing the military balance 7 - and Prospects, appear below. i between the two superpowers and in- 798 PS Fall 1985 President Richard F. Fenno, Jr. (right) at the annual meeting with Executive Director Thomas Mann (left) and Michael Preston, Chair of the Committee on the Status of Blacks in the Profession. creasing the probability that worthless volves the Reagan administration's reluc- weapons systems would not be deployed tance to accept American vulnerability as -goals that may fall short of public inevitable. The administration does not expectations. want U.S. survival to depend on Soviet But major obstacles block the achieve- forbearance. Schlesinger noted that ment of even these more modest aims. Western European countries, as well as Schlesinger singled out several impedi- the USSR, believe in their own vulnerabil- ments, including a lack of simultaneity in ity; only the American historical experi- the degree of interest in arms control ence generates this seeming inability to exhibited by the USA and the USSR in come to terms with this unpleasant the past 40 years. In the 1970s, for reality. example, the United States was prepared Unable to accept such vulnerability for to accept a stand-off under the rubric of the U.S., President Reagan hopes to detente but the USSR deployed large force the USSR to settle with us by numbers of missiles with heavy throw- engaging in an arms race that the USSR weight. American willingness to accept cannot afford to run. But Schlesinger dis- restraint was not reciprocated. In the missed this approach as an illusion, argu- 1980s, on the other hand, the Soviet ing that Congress has reached the "end side may be prepared to exercise re- of the road" with respect to defense straint but the United States appears un- spending; cuts in defense expenditures prepared for this at the moment. The indicate that we are in no position to run moods of the two superpowers simply do a strategic arms race. Indeed, by drawing not coincide. down expenditures on conventional Another barrier to arms negotiations in- weapons the United States is losing part Association News Robert S. McNamara, former Secretary of Defense, addresses the plenary session on arms control. of its deterrent. In Schlesinger's view, into a conflict in which they have no role the fond belief on the right that America and the fear of abandonment by the can remake the Soviet defense posture in United States.