DOCSLIB.ORG

Profiles in Statesmanship: Seeking a Better World Bruce W. Jentleson

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

1 Profiles in Statesmanship: Seeking a Better World Bruce W. Jentleson Paper presented at the University of Virginia, International Relations Speaker Series April 12, 2013 Comments welcome; [email protected] Do not cite without permission 2 The usual metric for the world leaders’ scorecard is who has done the most to advance their own country’s national interests. The book I’m writing, Profiles in Statesmanship: Seeking a Better World, poses a different question: who has done the most to try to build peace, security and justice inclusive of, but not exclusive to, their own country’s particular national interests? There is statesmanship to make one’s own nation more successful. And there is Statesmanship to make the world a better place. This is not altruism, but it also is not just a matter of global interests as extensions of national ones as typically conceived. Both statesmanship and Statesmanship take tremendous skill and savvy strategy. The latter also takes a guiding vision beyond the way the world is to how it can and should be, as well as enormous courage entailing as it does great political and personal risk. Not surprisingly there are not a lot of nominees. Writing in 1910 and working with similar criteria --- not just “winning a brief popular fame . but to serving the great interests of modern states and, indeed, of universal humanity” --- the historian Andrew Dickson White identified Seven Great Statesmen.1 Two 19th century British historians compiled the four- volume Eminent Foreign Statesmen series, but using more the traditional small s-statesmanship criteria of just national interest. A library bibliographic search finds no book comparable to mine. A Google search doesn’t turn up much other than the homepage of the indie rock band Great Statesmen. 1 Andrew Dickson White, Seven Great Statesmen: In the Warfare of Humanity with Unreason (New York: The Century Company, 1910),p. ix. 3 With the approaching centennial of World War I --- the war that was to end all wars but didn’t – it seems fitting to focus my Profiles in Statesmanship book on the last 100 years. I include nine profiles (most individual, a few paired) selected to span the 100-year period, address a range of issues, provide nationality diversity, and make comparisons for insights and lessons. Four questions are probed in each case: who these leaders were as individuals, why they made the key choices they did, how they pursued their goals, and what was and wasn’t achieved. This not only tells the individual stories but as a structured comparative analysis identifies patterns across cases. As engaging reading as these stories are, and as biographically and historically valuable as their analysis is, the ultimate purpose is to draw lessons for today. The essence of the 21st century world is that there are very few challenges that can be met by any nation on its own. Yet there continues to be too much tunnel vision, thinking too narrowly about my own national interest, and too much myopia, focusing on today and not tomorrow. We need capital-S Statesmanship now more than ever. While making no claims to an off-the-shelf strategy, Profiles in Statesmanship provides insights and lessons for what it will take. Does History Make (Wo)Men or Do (Wo)Men Make History? Any study of political leadership has to start with this question. At one end of the debate is Thomas Carlyle’s heroic conception that “the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is at bottom the History of the Great Men who have worked here. all things that we see standing accomplished in the world are properly the outer material result, the practical 4 realization and embodiment of Thoughts that dwell in the Great Men sent into the world.” At the other is Herbert Spencer deriding the “universal love of personalities” --- going back well before People magazine and TMZ.com to when “round the camp-fire assembled savages tell the events of the day’s chase and he among them who has done some feat of skill or agility is duly lauded.” The truth lies in between. Carlyle is too much the romanticist overstating the role of individuals and undervaluing conducive conditions creating opportunities for leadership. Spencer is too much the sociologist overstating societal processes and context and undervaluing what Sidney Hook calls the “individual to whom we can justifiably attribute preponderant influence in determining an issue or event whose consequences would have been profoundly different if he had not acted as he did.”2 My own perspective based on my experience in the policy world as well as my work as an international relations scholar puts me in the History: Great Leaders middle ground. The academic literature digs deeper than just the latest who’s up and who’s down, but too often stays at a level of abstraction that glosses over the impact that leaders do have. The talk inside the Beltway and among journalists can get too caught up in personalities, but often does focus in on critical decision-making and strategizing. The analytic balance is in recognizing that history and broad social forces create constraints as well as conducive conditions shaping the range of available choices, but that they don’t determine which choices get made. No individual is so extraordinary that (s)he would have transformational impact irrespective of the context in 2 Barbara Kellerman (ed.), Political Leadership: A Source Book (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,1986), pp. 5, 12, 10, 25. 5 which (s)he ends up operating. But it also is not a given that just anyone could have pulled off the Statesmanship that the particular leader did. It’s man (woman) and moment, fit and timing. In the burgeoning literature on leadership3, and in curriculums geared to its study and programs seeking to foster and develop it4, one gets a sense of both fascination and frustration. Fascination in how time and again explanations of success and failure – be it in politics, business, higher education, or other professions and pursuits --- hone in on leadership as the key factor. Yet frustration in how difficult it is to define the elements with any degree of generality let alone teach and cultivate them. Profiles in Statesmanship will connect to this fascination, and contribute at least to diminishing the frustration. The Profiles and “SBW Statesmanship” Analytic Framework The statesmanship-Statesmanship distinction and goal of “seeking a better world” provide three criteria guiding selection of the individuals profiled: n “Transformational” leadership, as James MacGregor Burns coined the term, efforts to change the course of history; 3 Kellerman, Political Leadership; James Macgregor Burns, Leadership (New York: Harper and Row, 1979) and Transforming Leadership: A New Pursuit of Happiness (New York: Grove Press, 2003); Nannerl O. Keohane, Thinking about Leadership (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010); Thomas E. Cronin and Michael A. Genovese, Leadership Matters: Unleashing the Power of Paradox (Boulder, Colo.: Paradigm Publishers, 2012); Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Presidential Leadership and the Creation of the American Era (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013); Fred I. Greenstein, Personality and Politics: Problems of Evidence, inference and Conceptualization (Chicago: Markham publishing, 1969);Ronald A. Heifetz, Leadership Without Easy Answers (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994); Marshall Sashkin and Molly G. Sashkin, Leadership that Matters (San Francisco: Berrett- Koehler, 2003). 4 U Va’s Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy is unique among policy schools in making “leadership” part of its name. But Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy, Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and a number of other policy schools have programs and courses on leadership. 6 n Impact that is more globally inclusive than just nationally exclusive; e.g., not Henry Kissinger, master at the realpolitik of managing the superpower rivalry but with benefits beyond the U.S. national interest seen as at most secondary effects; n Those who may not have fully succeeded – in some cases paid with their lives --- but did have significant positive impact: the “seeking” part. On this basis, and also taking into account the diversity considerations noted earlier (span the 100-year period, nationality variation, issue range), the following world leaders are included: Woodrow Wilson, for his vision of a peaceful international order and the mix of strengths and weaknesses in at, and success and failure in achieving it. Winston Churchill, for the leadership crucial to winning World War II; Franklin D. Roosevelt for forging the institutions for a durable postwar order; and Eleanor Roosevelt for fostering the values undergirding and indeed pushing that postwar order for justice not just stability. Mahatma Gandhi, for his nationalism and pacifism that not only shaped India but resonated globally as the world transitioned from the imperial age to post-colonialism. Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman and Konrad Adenauer, for European unity and peace after centuries of war. Dag Hammarskjöld, for showing how crucial an international institution the United Nations can be. Anwar Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin, for their pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace. 7 Mikhail Gorbachev, for his role in ending the Cold War. Nelson Mandela, for ending apartheid through peaceful means and the global icon he has embodied. Gro Harlem Brundtland, for advancing sustainable development, global public health and women’s rights as key issues on the global agenda. Drawing on the broader leadership literature, I develop a comparative case framework along the lines of the “structured focused” methodology developed by Alexander George and collaborators Richard Smoke and Andrew Bennett.5 The “SBW” (Seeking a Better World) Statesmanship profiles are structured around four probing questions: n Who were these leaders as individuals? n Why did they make the crucial choices they did? n How did they pursue their goals? n What was and wasn’t achieved? These are elaborated below.
Recommended publications
  • This Constitution: a Bicentennial Chronicle, Nos. 14-18

    This Constitution: a Bicentennial Chronicle, Nos. 14-18

    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 300 290 SO 019 380 AUTHOR Mann, Shelia, Ed. TITLE This Constitution: A Bicentennial Chronicle, Nos. 14-18. INSTITUTION American Historical Association, Washington, D.C.; American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.; Project '87, Washington, DC. SPONS AGENCY National Endowment for the Humanities (NFAH), Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 87 NOTE 321p.; For related document, see ED 282 814. Some photographs may not reproduce clearly. AVAILABLE FROMProject '87, 1527 New Hampshire Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036 nos. 13-17 $4.00 each, no. 18 $6.00). PUB TYPE Collected Works - Serials (022) -- Historical Materials (060) -- Guides - Classroom Use - Guides (For Teachers) (052) JOURNAL CIT This Constitution; n14-17 Spr Sum Win Fall 1987 n18 Spr-Sum 1988 EDRS PRICE MFO1 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS Class Activities; *Constitutional History; *Constitutional Law; History Instruction; Instructioral Materials; Lesson Plans; Primary Sources; Resource Materials; Secondary Education; Social Studies; United States Government (Course); *United States History IDENTIFIERS *Bicentennial; *United States Constitution ABSTRACT Each issue in this bicentennial series features articles on selected U.S. Constitution topics, along with a section on primary documents and lesson plans or class activities. Issue 14 features: (1) "The Political Economy of tne Constitution" (K. Dolbeare; L. Medcalf); (2) "ANew Historical Whooper': Creating the Art of the Constitutional Sesquicentennial" (K. Marling); (3) "The Founding Fathers and the Right to Bear Arms: To Keep the People Duly Armed" (R. Shalhope); and (4)"The Founding Fathers and the Right to Bear Arms: A Well-Regulated Militia" (L. Cress). Selected articles from issue 15 include: (1) "The Origins of the Constitution" (G.
  • Waltz's Theory of Theory

    Waltz's Theory of Theory

    WALTZ’S THEORY OF THEORY 201 Waltz’s Theory of Theory Ole Wæver Abstract Waltz’s 1979 book, Theory of International Politics, is the most infl uential in the history of the discipline. It worked its effects to a large extent through raising the bar for what counted as theoretical work, in effect reshaping not only realism but rivals like liberalism and refl ectivism. Yet, ironically, there has been little attention paid to Waltz’s very explicit and original arguments about the nature of theory. This article explores and explicates Waltz’s theory of theory. Central attention is paid to his defi nition of theory as ‘a picture, mentally formed’ and to the radical anti-empiricism and anti-positivism of his position. Followers and critics alike have treated Waltzian neorealism as if it was at bottom a formal proposition about cause–effect relations. The extreme case of Waltz being so victorious in the discipline, and yet being so consistently misinterpreted on the question of theory, shows the power of a dominant philosophy of science in US IR, and thus the challenge facing any ambitious theorising. The article suggests a possible movement of fronts away from the ‘fourth debate’ between rationalism and refl ectivism towards one of theory against empiricism. To help this new agenda, the article introduces a key literature from the philosophy of science about the structure of theory, and particularly about the way even natural science uses theory very differently from the way IR’s mainstream thinks it does – and much more like the way Waltz wants his theory to be used.
  • Analyzing Change in International Politics: the New Institutionalism and the Interpretative Approach

    Analyzing Change in International Politics: the New Institutionalism and the Interpretative Approach

    Analyzing Change in International Politics: The New Institutionalism and the Interpretative Approach - Guest Lecture - Peter J. Katzenstein* 90/10 This discussion paper was presented as a guest lecture at the MPI für Gesellschaftsforschung, Köln, on April 5, 1990 Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung Lothringer Str. 78 D-5000 Köln 1 Federal Republic of Germany MPIFG Discussion Paper 90/10 Telephone 0221/ 336050 ISSN 0933-5668 Fax 0221/ 3360555 November 1990 * Prof. Peter J. Katzenstein, Cornell University, Department of Government, McGraw Hall, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853, USA 2 MPIFG Discussion Paper 90/10 Abstract This paper argues that realism misinterprets change in the international system. Realism conceives of states as actors and international regimes as variables that affect national strategies. Alternatively, we can think of states as structures and regimes as part of the overall context in which interests are defined. States conceived as structures offer rich insights into the causes and consequences of international politics. And regimes conceived as a context in which interests are defined offer a broad perspective of the interaction between norms and interests in international politics. The paper concludes by suggesting that it may be time to forego an exclusive reliance on the Euro-centric, Western state system for the derivation of analytical categories. Instead we may benefit also from studying the historical experi- ence of Asian empires while developing analytical categories which may be useful for the analysis of current international developments. ***** In diesem Aufsatz wird argumentiert, daß der "realistische" Ansatz außenpo- litischer Theorie Wandel im internationalen System fehlinterpretiere. Dieser versteht Staaten als Akteure und internationale Regime als Variablen, die nationale Strategien beeinflussen.
  • Truman, Congress and the Struggle for War and Peace In

    Truman, Congress and the Struggle for War and Peace In

    TRUMAN, CONGRESS AND THE STRUGGLE FOR WAR AND PEACE IN KOREA A Dissertation by LARRY WAYNE BLOMSTEDT Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 2008 Major Subject: History TRUMAN, CONGRESS AND THE STRUGGLE FOR WAR AND PEACE IN KOREA A Dissertation by LARRY WAYNE BLOMSTEDT Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved by: Chair of Committee, Terry H. Anderson Committee Members, Jon R. Bond H. W. Brands John H. Lenihan David Vaught Head of Department, Walter L. Buenger May 2008 Major Subject: History iii ABSTRACT Truman, Congress and the Struggle for War and Peace in Korea. (May 2008) Larry Wayne Blomstedt, B.S., Texas State University; M.S., Texas A&M University-Kingsville Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Terry H. Anderson This dissertation analyzes the roles of the Harry Truman administration and Congress in directing American policy regarding the Korean conflict. Using evidence from primary sources such as Truman’s presidential papers, communications of White House staffers, and correspondence from State Department operatives and key congressional figures, this study suggests that the legislative branch had an important role in Korean policy. Congress sometimes affected the war by what it did and, at other times, by what it did not do. Several themes are addressed in this project. One is how Truman and the congressional Democrats failed each other during the war. The president did not dedicate adequate attention to congressional relations early in his term, and was slow to react to charges of corruption within his administration, weakening his party politically.
  • The Potential for Presidential Leadership

    The Potential for Presidential Leadership

    THE WHITE HOUSE TRANSITION PROJECT 1997-2021 Smoothing the Peaceful Transfer of Democratic Power Report 2021—08 THE POTENTIAL FOR PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP George C. Edwards III, Texas A&M University White House Transition Project Smoothing the Peaceful Transfer of Democratic Power WHO WE ARE & WHAT WE DO The White House Transition Project. Begun in 1998, the White House Transition Project provides information about individual offices for staff coming into the White House to help streamline the process of transition from one administration to the next. A nonpartisan, nonprofit group, the WHTP brings together political science scholars who study the presidency and White House operations to write analytical pieces on relevant topics about presidential transitions, presidential appointments, and crisis management. Since its creation, it has participated in the 2001, 2005, 2009, 2013, 2017, and now the 2021. WHTP coordinates with government agencies and other non-profit groups, e.g., the US National Archives or the Partnership for Public Service. It also consults with foreign governments and organizations interested in improving governmental transitions, worldwide. See the project at http://whitehousetransitionproject.org The White House Transition Project produces a number of materials, including: . WHITE HOUSE OFFICE ESSAYS: Based on interviews with key personnel who have borne these unique responsibilities, including former White House Chiefs of Staff; Staff Secretaries; Counsels; Press Secretaries, etc. , WHTP produces briefing books for each of the critical White House offices. These briefs compile the best practices suggested by those who have carried out the duties of these office. With the permission of the interviewees, interviews are available on the National Archives website page dedicated to this project: .
  • Introduction to Political Science

    Introduction to Political Science

    Introduction to Political Science Professor Scott Williamson Fall 2021, Bocconi University e-mail: [email protected] Office hours: TBD Office: TBD Office room: TBD Class hours: TBD Class room: TBD Course Description What explains the rise of populism? How do authoritarian regimes hold onto power? Who opposes migration and why? When is the public more likely to hold political leaders accountable for poor governance? This course introduces the academic discipline of political science by exploring what its literatures have to say about these topics and others with substantive importance to global politics. We will read and discuss recent academic work utilizing a variety of methodological tools to answer these questions. In addition, the course is designed to help students navigate practical issues related to the effective conduct of political and social science research. We will review research practicalities ranging from choosing a research question to finding data and submitting articles to journals. Throughout the course, students will prepare a research proposal on a topic of their choice, which they will present to the class and submit in written format at the conclusion of the term. Course Objectives Throughout the course, students should expect: ▪ To develop knowledge about several major literatures in political science, gaining familiarity with ongoing debates and established findings. ▪ To acquire familiarity with a variety of primarily quantitative research methods used in political science and other social science disciplines. ▪ To develop understanding of how to consume and evaluate academic research, including how to recognize positive contributions, identify weaknesses, and provide constructive feedback in oral and written forms.
  • Paths to a Sound Governance of the World

    Paths to a Sound Governance of the World

    Governance in a Changing World: Meeting the Challenges of Liberty, Legitimacy, Solidarity, and Subsidiarity Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, Extra Series 14, Vatican City 2013 www.pass.va/content/dam/scienzesociali/pdf/es14/es14-kuan.pdf Paths to a Sound Governance of the World HSIN-CHI KUAN Introduction In his paper “Accountability, Transparency, Legitimacy, Sustainable De- velopment and Governance”, Buttiglione takes governance as “the product or the activity of government” that is in turn defined as “a system of organs that govern a community”. This understanding is not very useful for our search for a better gover- nance of the world. It only suggests that the most distinct feature of gover- nance is the lack of a government. It remains uncertain whether the world is being “governed” by a system of organs that is however not qualified as a government. The distinction between government and governance ap- parently lies not in the activity. The activity of government varies radically from time to time and from country to country. In the past when govern- ment governed much less, the destiny of a people was also influenced by decisions that were not taken by their government authorities but by other domestic subjects whose actions were relevant to their welfare. This is, struc- turally speaking, the same kind of situation like what Buttiglione has de- scribed as of today, except that there are subjects acting from outside the affected country. In an indirect way, Buttiglione has attempted to clarify the difference between government and governance by reference to the erosion of state sovereignty.
  • Realist Thought and the Future of American Security Policy

    Realist Thought and the Future of American Security Policy

    We encourage you to e-mail your comments to us at: [email protected]. The Past as Prologue Realist Thought and the Future of American Security Policy James Wood Forsyth Jr. Realism is dead, or so we are told. Indeed, events over the past 20 years tend to confirm the popular adage that “we are living in a whole new world.” And while some have proclaimed the death of power politics, it is worth remembering that we have heard this all before. Over the past 60 plus years, realism has enjoyed its time in the sun. Within the United States, realism initially arose during the interwar period in response to the perceived failures of Pres. Woodrow Wilson’s internationalism. By 1954, with the publication of the second edition of Hans Morgenthau’s Politics among Nations, those ideas had been discredited. During the 1970s, with gasoline shortages and a long, unsuccessful war in Vietnam tearing at America, the inadequacies of policy makers to properly frame world events led many to pursue other alternatives. Economic, political, and social changes led to the rise of topics such as transnational politics, international interdepen­ dence, and political economy, each of which allowed nonrealist perspec­ tives to carve out a substantial space for themselves. The dramatic ending of the Cold War—combined with the inability of policymakers to adequately explain, anticipate, or even imagine peaceful global change—ushered in a new round of thinking. Today many decision makers frame their policies around democracy, seeing it as the historical force driving the apparent peace among the world’s leading powers.
  • Leaders/Scholars Association

    Leaders/Scholars Association

    Selected Proceedings 1998 Annual Meeting: Leaders/Scholars Association Meeting of the Minds— between those who study leadership and those who practice it The James MacGregor Burns Center for the Advanced Study of Leadership of Study Advanced the for Center ACADEMY OF LEADERSHIP The James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership is committed to strengthening leadership of, by, and for the people.The Academy fosters responsible and ethical leadership through scholarship, education, and training in the public interest. The Center for the Advanced Study of Leadership is located in the James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership.The Center is dedicated to increasing the quantity and quality of scholarship in the field of Leadership Studies. It provides leadership scholars and reflective practitioners with a unique community, one that fosters intellectual discourse and mutual support among women and men from diverse backgrounds, disciplines, and areas of the world. For additional copies of this report, or for other publications from the Burns Academy, contact: The James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742-7715 301/405-6100, voice 301/405-6402, fax [email protected] http://academy.umd.edu *The Center for the Advanced Study of Leadership thanks the W.K.Kellogg Foundation for its generous support. Cover photo: James MacGregor Burns (left), Senior Scholar at the James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership, and Warren Bennis, Founding Chairman of the Leadership Institute at the University of Southern California, at the Center for the Advanced Study of Leadership’s November 1998 conference in Los Angeles, California. Selected Proceedings 1998 Annual Meeting: Leaders/Scholars Association Meeting of the Minds— between those who study leadership and those who practice it Center for the Advanced Study of Leadership THE JAMES MACGREGOR BURNS ACADEMY OF LEADERSHIP Copyright © 1999 Copyright © 1999 by the James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership.
  • 'Second State Debate' in International Relations: Theory Turned Upside-Down

    'Second State Debate' in International Relations: Theory Turned Upside-Down

    Review of International Studies (2001), 27, 395–414 Copyright © British International Studies Association The ‘second state debate’ in International Relations: theory turned upside-down JOHN M. HOBSON Abstract. This article argues that conventional understanding of how IR theory concep- tualizes the state is in need of revision. By relocating IR theories of the state within the ‘second state’ debate, we find that neorealism underestimates the power of the state in world politics, while neoliberal institutionalism exaggerates its power. Moreover, liberalism, con- structivism, Marxism, postmodernism, and ‘second-wave’ Weberian historical sociology, all endow the state with greater degrees of agential power in the international realm than does neorealism. The significance of the second state debate will be not merely to reconfigure our understanding of how IR theory conceptualizes the state, but to turn conventional under- standing of IR theory upside-down. Introduction In this article I argue that conventional interpretive frameworks for understanding how IR theory conceptualizes the state are highly problematic, and are accordingly in need of revision. In particular, I argue that we can reconfigure traditional under- standing through the lens of what I propose to call the ‘second state debate’. In the process, I suggest that we emerge with a more accurate and nuanced understanding of IR theories of the state as well as of IR theory more generally. This essentially involves relocating IR theories of the state within the agent-structure problematic. In particular, I introduce two concepts when understanding the state: (1) domestic agential state power, (2) international agential state power. For the purposes of this article the most significant concept is the international agential power of the state.
  • American Political Science Review

    American Political Science Review

    AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW AMERICAN https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000060 . POLITICAL SCIENCE https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms REVIEW , subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at 08 Oct 2021 at 13:45:36 , on May 2018, Volume 112, Issue 2 112, Volume May 2018, University of Athens . May 2018 Volume 112, Issue 2 Cambridge Core For further information about this journal https://www.cambridge.org/core ISSN: 0003-0554 please go to the journal website at: cambridge.org/apsr Downloaded from 00030554_112-2.indd 1 21/03/18 7:36 AM LEAD EDITOR Jennifer Gandhi Andreas Schedler Thomas König Emory University Centro de Investigación y Docencia University of Mannheim, Germany Claudine Gay Económicas, Mexico Harvard University Frank Schimmelfennig ASSOCIATE EDITORS John Gerring ETH Zürich, Switzerland Kenneth Benoit University of Texas, Austin Carsten Q. Schneider London School of Economics Sona N. Golder Central European University, and Political Science Pennsylvania State University Budapest, Hungary Thomas Bräuninger Ruth W. Grant Sanjay Seth University of Mannheim Duke University Goldsmiths, University of London, UK Sabine Carey Julia Gray Carl K. Y. Shaw University of Mannheim University of Pennsylvania Academia Sinica, Taiwan Leigh Jenco Mary Alice Haddad Betsy Sinclair London School of Economics Wesleyan University Washington University in St. Louis and Political Science Peter A. Hall Beth A. Simmons Benjamin Lauderdale Harvard University University of Pennsylvania London School of Economics Mary Hawkesworth Dan Slater and Political Science Rutgers University University of Chicago Ingo Rohlfi ng Gretchen Helmke Rune Slothuus University of Cologne University of Rochester Aarhus University, Denmark D.
  • 1987 Spring – Bogue – “The History of the American Political Party System”

    1987 Spring – Bogue – “The History of the American Political Party System”

    UN I VERS I TY OF WI SCONSIN Department of History (Sem. II - 1986-87) History 901 (The History of the American Political Party System) Mr. Bogue I APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES Robert R. Alford, "Class Voting in the Anglo-American Political Systems," in Seymour M. Lipsett and Stein Rokkan, PARTY SYSTEMS AND VOTER ALIGNMENTS: AN APPROACH TO COMPARATIVE POLITICS, 67-93. Gabriel W. Almond, et al., CRISIS, CHOICE AND CHANGE: HISTORICAL STUDIES OF POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT. *Richard F. Bensel, SECTIONALISM AND AMERICAN POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT, 1880-1980. Lee Benson, et al., "Toward a Theory of Stability and Change in American Voting Patterns, New York State, 1792-1970," in Joel Silbey, et al, THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN ELECTORAL BEHAVIOR, 78-105. Lee Benson, "Research Problems in American Political Historiography," in Mirra Komarovsky, COMMON FRONTIERS OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, 113-83. Bernard L. Berelson, et al., VOTING: A STUDY OF OPINION FORMATION IN A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. Allan G. Bogue et al., "Members of the House of Representatives and the Processes of Modernization, 1789-1960," JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HISTORY, LXIII, (September 1976), 275-302. Cyril E. Black, THE DYNAMICS OF MODERNIZATION Paul F. Bourke and Donald A. DeBats, "Individuals and Aggregates: A Note on Historical Data and Assumptions," SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY (Spring 1980), 229-50. Paul F. Bourke and Donald A. DeBats, "Identifiable Voting in Nineteenth Century America, Toward a Comparison of Britain and the United States Before the Secret Ballot," PERSPECTIVES IN AMERICAN HISTORY, XI(l977-78), 259-288. David Brady, "A Reevaluation of Realignments in American Politics," American Political Science Review 79(March 1985), 28-49.