DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. Public Response to Terrorism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. Public Response to Terrorism U.S. Public Response to Terrorism Panel Study 2001–2002 George H. W. Bush School of Government and Public Service Texas A&M University College Station, Texas August 2003 This research was conducted with support from National Science Foundation Award Number 0234119. George H.W. Bush School of Government and Public Service Texas A&M University College Station, Texas U.S. Public Response to Terrorism Panel Study 2001–2002 Kerry G. Herron, Ph.D. Research Scientist Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, Ph.D. Professor of Public Policy Joe and Teresa Long Chair in Business and Government August 2003 Acknowledgments The authors wish to express appreciation to the following organizations and individuals whose support made this project possible. The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM Roger L. Hagengruber, Ph.D., Director, UNM Institute for Public Policy Amelia A. Rouse, Ph.D., Deputy Director, UNM Institute for Public Policy Amy S. Goodin, Deputy Director of Research, UNM Institute for Public Policy Eric Whitmore, Program Coordinator, UNM Institute for Public Policy Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Richard Chilcoat, Dean, George H. W. Bush School of Government and Public Service F. P. Rick Johnson, George H. W. Bush School of Government and Public Service Carol L. Silva, Ph.D., George H. W. Bush School of Government and Public Service Rene Pitts, George H. W. Bush School of Government and Public Service Karla S. Stone, The Bush School’s Center for Policy & Governance The National Science Foundation This research was conducted with support from the National Science Foundation. Award Number 0234119 Abstract This report analyzes findings from a telephone survey of 935 members of the U.S. general public conducted between September 12 and November 4, 2001 and a subset or “panel” consisting of 474 of the original respondents who also participated in a follow-up study conducted between September 12 and November 11, 2002. Where possible, responses in 2001 and 2002 are compared to identical questions previously asked in 1995 or 1997. Key areas of investigation include the following: (1) assessments of the U.S. and international security environments; (2) nature and extent of the current and foreseeable threat of terrorism; (3) policy implications of terror- ism and government efforts to prevent terrorism; (4) assessments of the on- going war on terrorism and prospects for preventing future acts of terrorism; and (5) change in public opinion in the year following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11). More generally, we use the issue of terrorism to investigate and test key tenets of the ongoing debate about capacities and limitations of mass publics to contribute to complex policy domains in times of national stress. Compared to pre-9/11 measurements, respondent concerns about current and future threats posed by terrorism increased substantially immediately after 9/11, but support for intrusive measures to combat terrorism was modest, and public reactions did not evidence the kinds of emotional volatility asso- ciated with traditional concepts of mass opinion in times of national crises. Clear trends toward moderation of support for intrusive anti-terrorism meas- ures and declining support for the use of coercive force to punish terrorist states were evident among panel members one year after 9/11. The weight of our data contradict traditional assumptions about the instability of public opinion and narrow capacities of mass publics to contribute to foreign and security policy processes. iii Contents Front Matter Abstract iii Contents iv Chapter One: Introduction and Overview 1 Section 1.1: Background and Purpose of the Study 1 Section 1.2: Research Objectives 5 Section 1.3: Analytical Approach 6 Section 1.4: Organization of the Report 7 Chapter Two: Aggregate Trends 9 Section 2.1: Security Environment 10 Section 2.2: The Evolving Threat of Terrorism 16 Section 2.3: Countering Terrorism 28 Section 2.4: Responding to Terrorism 40 Summary of Key Points from Chapter Two 45 Chapter Three: Individual Level Analyses 49 Section 3.1: Demographic Attributes of the Panel 54 Section 3.2: Individual Views on the Threat of Terrorism 55 Section 3.3: Intrusive Policies for Preventing Terrorism 59 Section 3.4: Using Force to Respond to Terrorism 66 Section 3.5: Cross Sectional Comparisons of Subgroups 69 Chapter Four: Emerging Perspectives 73 Section 4.1: Assessing Ongoing Efforts to Combat Terrorism 73 Section 4.2: Implications of 9/11 for Respondents’ Behaviors 79 Section 4.3: Summarizing Outlooks 83 iv Appendix 1: Research Methodology 85 Section 1: Analytical Approach 85 Section 2: Attributes of Panel Studies 86 Section 3: The Role of Statistical Weighting 87 Section 4: Sampling 88 Section 5: Data Collection 91 Section 6: Cooperation Rates 92 Appendix 2: Questions, Distributions, and Means 93 References 111 v Intentionally Blank vi Chapter One Introduction and Overview This report presents findings from a survey of 935 randomly selected mem- bers of the U.S. general public in 2001 and a subset or “panel” consisting of 474 of the original respondents who also participated in a follow-up survey in 2002. The purpose of the study is to better understand how public views of terrorism and its implications are evolving in the wake of the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001 (hereafter referred to as “9/11”). The survey in 2001 was conducted between September 12 and No- vember 4; the follow-up survey was conducted one year later between Sep- tember 12 and November 11, 2002. Section 1.1: Background and Purpose of the Study Beyond the intrinsic importance of gaining insight into how Americans’ understanding of terrorism is evolving in the post-9/11 period, these panel data contribute to better understanding the capacities and roles of the public in collective decision making under stress. Modern concepts of public opin- ion in the U.S. and its proper role in policy processes evolved to an elitist perspective by the middle of the 20th century characterized by the following: (1) a presumption of minimal capacities of mass publics to understand and contribute to complex policy domains—especially foreign and security poli- cies; (2) empirical evidence suggesting that belief systems of ordinary citi- zens are insufficiently structured to inform and constrain policy choices in areas where individuals lack specialized knowledge or experience; and (3) criticism of means for systematically measuring and understanding public views. These concepts gained wide acceptance among political sophisti- cates, theorists, and academics, and, together, helped shape the “traditional” view of limited public capacities that continues to inform contemporary as- sumptions about what elites should expect from the general public. Argu- ments for the traditionalist perspective have been advanced, among others, by Lippmann (1922, 1925), Bailey (1948), Morgenthau (1948), Markel (1949), Almond (1950), Kennan (1951), Converse (1964, 1970), Zaller (1992), and Weissberg (2001). The traditionalist perspective rests on three key propositions concerning public capacities: 1 • Ordinary citizens lack the cognitive capacities to understand politically so- phisticated and technically complicated issues and are insufficiently knowl- edgeable about complex policy domains to develop reasoned preferences. • Underlying dispositions among the general public are insufficient to provide systematic structure and coherence of views about complex policy issues. • Public opinion at the individual level is unstable, subject to rapid swings, and susceptible to overreaction. By the latter part of the 20th century, traditionalist concepts came under critical scrutiny for several reasons. Methods for systematically measuring public perspectives became more widely accepted, and mounting evidence from opinion survey research contradicted traditionalist concepts. Com- bined with widespread distrust of foreign and security policy decisions made during the Vietnam era and a normative desire to illustrate that de- mocratic governance need not limit public participation in public policy making, revisionists began to seriously question the tenets of traditional views of public capacities. Among the revisionist challenges were published findings by Caspary (1970), Achen (1975), Wittkopf (1981, 1986, 1990, 1994), Oldendick and Bardes (1982), Wittkopf and Maggiotto (1983), Pef- fley and Hurwitz (1985), Sniderman and Tetlock (1986), Hurwitz and Pef- fley (1987, 1990), Shapiro and Page (1988, 1994), Sniderman, Brody, and Tetlock (1991), Page and Shapiro (1992), Chittick, Billingsley, and Travis (1995), Holsti (1996), Page and Barabas (2000), and Herron and Jenkins- Smith (2002). Countervailing propositions suggested by this body of revi- sionist research include the following: • Reasonably well-defined belief systems and complex heuristics support and constrain mass public opinions in both domestic and foreign policy domains in much the same ways in which they provide structure and co- herence to views of elite publics. • While over-time variation in individual opinions and issue salience is evi- dent, such variation should not be equated with broadly unstable and vola- tile public opinion. Longitudinal analyses of aggregate public views show long-term stability in collective opinions that are related to underlying be- liefs or that are events-driven. • Complete information is not required for reasoned policy choice. Ordinary citizens are cognitive misers who choose to disregard most of the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Marketing Fragment 6 X 10.5.T65
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-85427-6 - New Race Politics in America: Understanding Minority and Immigrant Politics Edited by Jane Junn and Kerry L. Haynie Frontmatter More information NEW RACE POLITICS IN AMERICA Foreign migration to the United States is dramatically altering the demo- graphic profile of the American electorate. Nearly a third of all Americans are of nonwhite and non-European descent. Latinos and Hispanics have recently eclipsed African Americans as the largest minority group in the United States. Between 1990 and 2000, Asians doubled the size of their population to more than 4 percent of Americans. Although immigration has altered the racial and ethnic composition of every state in the nation, surprisingly little is known about the consequences of this new heterogeneity for American politics. This book explores the impact and political consequences of immigration. After considering the organizations that mobilize new citizens to politics, the authors examine the political psychology of group consciousness for political mobiliza- tion. Finally, they consider the emerging patterns and choices of new voters. Jane Junn is Associate Professor in the Political Science Department and the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University. She is the author of Civic Education: What Makes Students Learn (with Richard Niemi; 1998) and Education and Democratic Citizenship in America (with Norman Nie and Ken Stehlik-Barry; 1996), which won the Woodrow Wilson Foundation Award, American Polit- ical Science Association. Her research interests include political participation and elections, education and democracy, immigration, and racial and ethnic politics. Kerry L. Haynie is Associate Department Chair and Associate Professor of Political Science at Duke University.
    [Show full text]
  • JANE JUNN Department of Political Science University of Southern California 327 Vonkleinsmid Center Los Angeles, CA 90089 E-Mail: [email protected] Phone: 908.399.6186
    JANE JUNN Department of Political Science University of Southern California 327 VonKleinSmid Center Los Angeles, CA 90089 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 908.399.6186 ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT 1993 – 1994 Rutgers University, Instructor of Political Science 1994 – 2000 Rutgers University, Assistant Professor of Political Science 2003 Columbia University Teachers College, Sussman Visiting Professor 2000 – 2009 Rutgers University, Associate Professor of Political Science 2002 – 2009 Rutgers University, Research Professor, Eagleton Institute of Politics 2009 Rutgers University, Professor of Political Science 2009 – present University of Southern California, Professor of Political Science OTHER PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS & APPOINTMENTS 1999 Senior Scientist, Knowledge Networks, Palo Alto, California 2000 – 2004 Director, Assessing Quality of University Education and Research, Association of American Universities, Washington, DC 2007 – 2008 Program Co-Chair, American Political Science Association 2008 – 2009 Faculty Director, Rutgers-Eagleton Poll 2009 – 2010 Vice President, American Political Science Association (APSA) 2009 – 2010 Administrative Committee, APSA Council 2009 – 2010 Research Director, USC College-Los Angeles Times Poll 2016 – 2017 Co-President, APSA Race, Ethnicity and Politics organized section 2017 – 2018 Vice President, Western Political Science Association (WPSA) 2018 – 2019 President, Western Political Science Association (WPSA) 2018 – 2020 Co-Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics EDUCATION 1985 A.B., University of
    [Show full text]
  • The Double Bind: the Politics of Racial & Class Inequalities in the Americas
    THE DOUBLE BIND: THE POLITICS OF RACIAL & CLASS INEQUALITIES IN THE AMERICAS Report of the Task Force on Racial and Social Class Inequalities in the Americas Edited by Juliet Hooker and Alvin B. Tillery, Jr. September 2016 American Political Science Association Washington, DC Full report available online at http://www.apsanet.org/inequalities Cover Design: Steven M. Eson Interior Layout: Drew Meadows Copyright ©2016 by the American Political Science Association 1527 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 All rights reserved. ISBN 978-1-878147-41-7 (Executive Summary) ISBN 978-1-878147-42-4 (Full Report) Task Force Members Rodney E. Hero, University of California, Berkeley Juliet Hooker, University of Texas, Austin Alvin B. Tillery, Jr., Northwestern University Melina Altamirano, Duke University Keith Banting, Queen’s University Michael C. Dawson, University of Chicago Megan Ming Francis, University of Washington Paul Frymer, Princeton University Zoltan L. Hajnal, University of California, San Diego Mala Htun, University of New Mexico Vincent Hutchings, University of Michigan Michael Jones-Correa, University of Pennsylvania Jane Junn, University of Southern California Taeku Lee, University of California, Berkeley Mara Loveman, University of California, Berkeley Raúl Madrid, University of Texas at Austin Tianna S. Paschel, University of California, Berkeley Paul Pierson, University of California, Berkeley Joe Soss, University of Minnesota Debra Thompson, Northwestern University Guillermo Trejo, University of Notre Dame Jessica L. Trounstine, University of California, Merced Sophia Jordán Wallace, University of Washington Dorian Warren, Roosevelt Institute Vesla Weaver, Yale University Table of Contents Executive Summary The Double Bind: The Politics of Racial and Class Inequalities in the Americas .
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Christian R. Grose University of Southern California 818-277-6789
    Christian R. Grose University of Southern California 818-277-6789 (cell) Los Angeles, California 213-740-1683 (office) June 2021 [email protected] Current Academic Appointments Univ. of Southern California, Dept. of Political Sci. & Intl. Relations, Associate Professor, 2012- (75%). Univ. of Southern California, Price School of Public Policy, Associate Professor, 2018- (25%). Administrative and Other Appointments Editor, Research and Politics, 2021-. Academic Director, USC Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy, USC Price School of Public Policy, 2018-. Director of Graduate Studies, Political Science and International Relations (POIR) Ph.D. program, USC Dornsife, 2015-2018. Founder and Administrator, USC Predoctoral Institute for Scholars of Color and First-generation Scholars, 2016-19 (with Veri Chavarin). Previous Academic Appointments University of Southern California, Assistant Professor of Political Science, 2010-12. Vanderbilt University, Assistant Professor of Political Science, 2005-10. Lawrence University, Assistant Professor of Government, 2003-05. Education Ph.D., University of Rochester, Political Science, 2003. B.A., Duke University, Political Science and History, 1996. Articles in Peer-reviewed Journals 1. “Crossing Over: Majority Party Control Affects Legislator Behavior and the Agenda.” With Nicholas G. Napolio (Ph.D. student). American Political Science Review. (2021, accepted and forthcoming). 2. “Campaign Finance Transparency Affects Legislators’ Election Outcomes and Behavior.” With Abby K. Wood. American Journal of Political Science (2021, accepted and forthcoming). 3. “Social Lobbying.” With Pamela Lopez, Sara Sadhwani (former Ph.D. student), and Antoine Yoshinaka. Journal of Politics (2021). https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/714923 4. “Towards an Institutional and Behavioral Public Administration: How do Institutions Constrain or Exacerbate Behavioral Biases of Administrators?” Journal of Behavioral Public Administration (2021, forthcoming).
    [Show full text]
  • Chinese Americans' Ethnic Identity and Its Dynamic with Political
    CHINESE AMERICANS’ ETHNIC IDENTITY AND ITS DYNAMIC WITH POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Conflict Resolution By Yanxi Liu, B.A. Washington, D.C. December 10, 2020 Copyright 2020 by Yanxi Liu All Rights Reserved ii CHINESE AMERICANS’ ETHNIC IDENTITY AND ITS DYNAMIC WITH POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT Yanxi Liu, M.A. Thesis Advisor: Jamil S. Scott, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Chinese Americans, as a subgroup of Asian Americans, have lower levels of political participation, while having higher levels of educational attainment and a higher socioeconomic status. This inconsistency challenges the traditional political participation theory, which holds that political participation rates are higher among the wealthy and better-educated than among the disadvantaged. The current literature fails to elaborate on the root of this mismatch. Most literature illustrates the heterogeneity in Asian Americans, but does not delve deep into each subgroup to examine their motivations for political participation separately. Therefore, in this thesis, I focus on Chinese Americans to explore why they do not fit the traditional theoretical model for political participation. Most Chinese Americans have preferences for maintaining cultural and language attachments to their national origin that are distinct from other subgroups of Asian Americans. From this perspective, I argue that Chinese Americans ’ ethnic identity colors their political participation. Specifically, Chinese Americans value their ethnic identity and are more likely to engage in politics when they identify more strongly with their ethnic identity. In addition, ethnic identity also impacts Chinese Americans ’ party preference.
    [Show full text]
  • Racial Identity and Voting: Conceptualizing White Identity in Spatial Terms Nicholas Weller and Jane Junn
    Reflections Racial Identity and Voting: Conceptualizing White Identity in Spatial Terms Nicholas Weller and Jane Junn Recent political events have prompted an examination of the analytical tools and conceptual frameworks used in political science to understand voting and candidate choice. Scholars in the behavioral tradition have highlighted the empirical relationship between racial resentment and anti-black affect among white voters during and after President Obama’s successful run for re- election. The theoretical role of white identity within the context of the privileged status of this racial group has seen much less scholarly attention by political scientists, particularly with respect to racial group identification and its implications. To address this lacuna, we argue that racial identification among white voters can be conceived of as a utility-based trait relevant to candidate choice, combining a social-psychological approach of group membership together with a rational choice perspective. This conceptualization of the political utility of white racial identity provides wider conceptual latitude for empirical tests and explanations of voting in U.S. elections. ince the advent of the large-N survey in the party identification were developed before the enactment S mid-twentieth century, the study of voting in the of federal voting rights legislation, prior to party realign- United States among political scientists has pro- ment among voters in the American South, and during gressed along two conceptually distinct tracks. The social- a time in which nine out of ten Americans were white. At psychological approach, exemplified by The American the inception of the American National Election Study Voter,1 forwarded a “funnel of causality” model based on (ANES), and despite the explicit and strong expression of social group identification.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding and Confronting Barriers to Youth Voting in America Jared A. Mcdonald Postdoctoral Fellow Political Psychology
    Understanding and Confronting Barriers to Youth Voting in America Jared A. McDonald Postdoctoral Fellow Political Psychology Research Group Stanford University Michael J. Hanmer Professor Department of Government and Politics University of Maryland A previous version of this report was presented at the Data-Driven Strategies to Promote Youth Turnout workshop at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, August 29, 2018. We thank the Mellon Foundation for funding and the University of Michigan and Massachusetts Institute of Technology for hosting. All views and errors are our own and do not represent the funding or supporting organizations. “The blunt truth is that politicians and officials are under no compulsion to pay much heed to classes and groups of citizens who do not vote” -V.O. Key, 1949 The Problem of Low Youth Turnout Political scientists have long known that voting provides a key link to substantive representation in America (Pitkin 1967). Scholars have focused on the disparities in substantive representation across racial and ethnic groups (see e.g. Barreto, Segura, and Woods 2004; Rouse 2013; Tate 2003), gender (see e.g. Mansbridge 1999; Mendelberg, Karpowitz, and Goedert 2013; Reingold and Harrell 2010), economic groups (see e.g. Gilens 2012), and age groups (see e.g. Wattenberg 2008). Although scholars have taught us a great deal in each area, we are far from finding reliable ways to reduce the inequalities in participation, and thus representation. This is particularly true with regard to gaps in voting between younger and older citizens. For example, in 2016, a highly contested election with well-known candidates who presented starkly different platforms, the gap in turnout between 18-24-year-olds and those 25 and older was over 20 percentage points.
    [Show full text]
  • Message from the Director
    2008-2009 Annual Report MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR July 2009 Only a year ago, intense interest in presidential politics seemed nearly universal and passions ran high. Now, that drama has faded into sobered recognition. The hard work of governing more closely resembles engineering roadways yard-by-yard across mountain peaks than waving magic wands to transform daunting landscapes. Both moods are grist for our mill at the Eagleton Institute of Politics. Whether in research projects, classroom settings, or public programs, a fundamental premise underlying Eagleton’s work is that change is either stalled or facilitated by politics. Throughout academic year 2008-09, old-fashioned politics occupied center stage. In the fi rst election season since 1952 with no incumbent president or vice president on either ticket, the primaries and caucuses had already generated unprecedented interest, and by autumn, matters of politics fi lled the headlines, airwaves, cyberspace – and the Rutgers campus. Unfolding economic events, natural disasters, and international confl icts further channeled public attention toward the political system and the capabilities of governments at every level to address problems large and small, mass and individual. Young people became increasingly aware of the ways in which their futures will be intertwined with political considerations and with the strength of political leaders. In this climate, Eagleton’s work aroused more interest than usual. Graduate students from fi elds as varied as anthropology and ecology/evolution, along with those from political science, law, and public policy, took advantage of our fellowship programs to fi nd linkages between their scholarship and the politics of policymaking.
    [Show full text]
  • Taeku Lee Spring 2016 Vp
    TAEKU LEE University of California, Berkeley [email protected] 210 Barrows Hall #1950 492 Simon Hall Department of Political Science School of Law Berkeley, CA 94720-1950 Berkeley, CA 94720-7200 BIO Taeku Lee is Professor of Political Science and Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a specialist in racial and ethnic politics, Asian American politics and policy, opinion polling and survey research, and election law and political participation. He has (co)written or (co)edited Mobilizing Public Opinion (2002); Transforming Politics, Transforming America (2006), Why Americans Don't Join the Party (2011), Accountability through Public Opinion (2011), Asian American Political Participation (2011), and the Oxford Handbook of Racial and Ethnic Politics in the United States (2015). Lee is also Associate Director of the Haas Institute at Berkeley, Non- Resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, Managing Director of Asian American Decisions, and co-Principal Investigator of the National Asian American Survey. Prior to Berkeley, Lee was Assistant Professor of Public Policy at Harvard and Robert Wood Johnson Scholar at Yale. Lee currently serves as Treasurer and Executive Council for the American Political Science Association, as well as on the Board of the American National Election Studies and the Board of the General Social Survey. Lee previously served as Department Chair and is active on editorial boards, non- profit and community-based organization boards. Lee was born in South Korea, grew up in rural Malaysia, Manhattan, and suburban Detroit, and is a proud graduate of K-12 public schools, the University of Michigan (A.B.), Harvard University (M.P.P.), and the University of Chicago (Ph.D.).
    [Show full text]
  • Amidst Pandemic and Racial Upheaval: Where Asian Americans Fit
    The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics (2021), 6,16–32 doi:10.1017/rep.2020.46 RESEARCH ARTICLE Amidst pandemic and racial upheaval: Where Asian Americans Fit Whitney Hua* and Jane Junn University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] (Received 6 October 2020; accepted 6 October 2020) Abstract As racial tensions flare amidst a global pandemic and national social justice upheaval, the centrality of structural racism has renewed old questions and raised new ones about where Asian Americans fit in U.S. politics. This paper provides an overview of the unique racial history of Asians in the United States and analyzes the implications of dynamic racializa- tion and status for Asian Americans. In particular, we examine the dynamism of Asian Americans’ racial positionality relative to historical shifts in economic-based conceptions of their desirability as workers in American capitalism. Taking history, power, and insti- tutions of white supremacy into account, we analyze where Asian Americans fit in con- temporary U.S. politics, presenting a better understanding of the persistent structures underlying racial inequality and developing a foundation from which Asian Americans can work to enhance equality. Keywords: Asian Americans; racial hierarchy; settler colonialism; BLM Introduction As racial tensions flare amidst a global pandemic and national social justice upheaval, the centrality of structural racism has renewed old questions and raised new ones about where Asian Americans fit in U.S. politics. The death of George Floyd on May 25, 2020 at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer shook the nation because it exposed in vivid detail the reality that racism, specifically anti-Black rac- ism (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Tali Mendelberg Department of Politics (609
    Tali Mendelberg Department of Politics (609) 977-9329 Princeton University [email protected] Princeton, NJ 08544-1012 http://www.princeton.edu/~talim/ EMPLOYMENT Associate Professor with tenure, Department of Politics, Princeton University (2002 --) Assistant Professor, Department of Politics, Princeton University (1994 -- 2002) EDUCATION University of Michigan, Ph.D. in Political Science (December 1994) University of Wisconsin, B.A. with Honors (1985) • Graduated with Distinction (Psychology) • Phi Beta Kappa HONORS Woodrow Wilson Foundation Award of the American Political Science Association for “the best book published in the United States during the prior year on government, politics or international affairs”, 2002. Erik H. Erikson Early Career Award for Excellence and Creativity in the Field of Political Psychology, International Society of Political Psychology, 2002. Goldsmith Research Award, Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 1996. GRANTS AND FELLOWSHIPS Bobst Center for Peace and Justice, 2006-08, grant for research on deliberation. Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, 2005-06. NSF-funded survey module in Time-Share Experiments in the Social Sciences (TESS), 2003, with Adam Berinsky. Center for the Study of Democratic Politics, Princeton University, 2000-2001. Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Princeton University, 1999-2000. Annenberg Fellowship, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, 1996-97. 250th Anniversary Fund for Innovation in Undergraduate Education, Princeton University, 1997. Committee on Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences, Princeton University, 1995, 1996, 1998-2008. University of Michigan, Rackham Pre-Doctoral Fellowship, Rackham One-Term Dissertation Fellowship, Rackham Thesis Award, Gerald R.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political and Civic Engagement of Immigrants
    The Political and Civic Engagement of Immigrants Caroline B. Brettell american academy of arts & sciences The Political and Civic Engagement of Immigrants Caroline B. Brettell © 2020 by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. All rights reserved. ISBN: 0-87724-131-7 This publication is available online at www.amacad.org/project/practice-democratic -citizenship. Suggested citation: Caroline B. Brettell, The Political and Civic Engagement of Immigrants (Cambridge, Mass.: American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2020). Cover image: “The Day Without an Immigrant,” demonstration on May 1, 2006, in Los Angeles, California, © iStock.com/elizparodi. This paper is part of the American Academy’s Commission on the Practice of Democratic Citizenship. The statements made and views expressed in this publication are those held by the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Officers and Members of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. Please direct inquiries to: American Academy of Arts & Sciences 136 Irving Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone: 617-576-5000 Fax: 617-576-5050 Email: [email protected] Web: www.amacad.org Contents 1 Introduction 4 Inclusion and Exclusion: Rates of and Barriers to Participation 4 Latino Participation and the Latino Vote 9 Asian American Participation and the Asian American Vote 13 The Importance of Naturalization 17 The Second Generation 21 From Civic to Political Engagement: The Role of Associations and Organizations 33 Conclusion: Solutions and Best Practices 36 About the Author Introduction In 2000, Robert Putnam published his influential book,Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, in which he argued that so- cial capital, civic engagement, and a sense of community have been on the decline in America since the 1960s.1 Putnam noted that participation in social organizations and associations, which presumably fostered trust, had diminished, and this had serious implications for the strength of democ- racy and democratic values.
    [Show full text]