 |
Macro-Politics: The Dimensions and Dynamics of Public Opinion
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
them say it in many different ways and not appear repetitive. And of courseone way of saying it is to call their opponents “liberals,” which they also do asoften as opportunity permits. The Republican tack on policies is to talk endsover means, general dispositions over specific plans. Matched head to head,Republican policy proposals will usually lose the competition to Democraticproposals. Republicans cannot credibly claim to do more or spend morethan the party that is known for doing and spending. So not allowing thathead to head matching is the smart thing for Republicans to do. Democratssay “I will do x.” Republicans say “I have a plan to achieve x” and do nottalk about its details. They would avoid policy proposals altogether if theycould, but it would be a disadvantage for one party to appear to have a planand the other not. So talking about goals and talking about plans withoutspecifying details is what works. George W. Bush illustrates to Republicanstrategy well. Calling himself a “compassionate conservative,” the practicalmeaning of which was conservative who would spend money on education,he at once combined the symbolic appeal of conservatism and neutralized aDemocratic advantage on education spending. His every speech and debateemphasized his general conservative orientation toward government. Hisopponent, Gore, said what he would do. Faced with the same questions,Bush said what attitude he would bring (pragmatic conservatism) towarddealing with the same issues.
If they do not bring order to American politics, the conflicted conser-
vatives do provide some entertainment.
References
Adams, Greg D. 1997. “Abortion: Evidence of Issue Evolution.” American
Journal of Political Science 41:718–737.
Carmines, Edward G. & James A. Stimson. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race
and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.
Conover, Pamela Johnston & Stanley Feldman. 1981. “The Origins and
Meaning of Liberal/Conservative Self-Identifications.” American Jour-nal of Political Science 25:617–645.
Converse, Philip E. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In
Ideology and Discontent, ed. David E. Apter. Ann Arbor: Universityof Michigan Press.
37
|
| |
| |
|
|
them say it in many different ways and not appear repetitive. And of course
one way of saying it is to call their opponents “liberals,” which they also do as
often as opportunity permits. The Republican tack on policies is to talk ends
over means, general dispositions over specific plans. Matched head to head,
Republican policy proposals will usually lose the competition to Democratic
proposals. Republicans cannot credibly claim to do more or spend more
than the party that is known for doing and spending. So not allowing that
head to head matching is the smart thing for Republicans to do. Democrats
say “I will do x.” Republicans say “I have a plan to achieve x” and do not
talk about its details. They would avoid policy proposals altogether if they
could, but it would be a disadvantage for one party to appear to have a plan
and the other not. So talking about goals and talking about plans without
specifying details is what works. George W. Bush illustrates to Republican
strategy well. Calling himself a “compassionate conservative,” the practical
meaning of which was conservative who would spend money on education,
he at once combined the symbolic appeal of conservatism and neutralized a
Democratic advantage on education spending. His every speech and debate
emphasized his general conservative orientation toward government. His
opponent, Gore, said what he would do. Faced with the same questions,
Bush said what attitude he would bring (pragmatic conservatism) toward
dealing with the same issues.
If they do not bring order to American politics, the conflicted conser-
vatives do provide some entertainment.
References
Adams, Greg D. 1997. “Abortion: Evidence of Issue Evolution.” American
Journal of Political Science 41:718–737.
Carmines, Edward G. & James A. Stimson. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race
and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Conover, Pamela Johnston & Stanley Feldman. 1981. “The Origins and
Meaning of Liberal/Conservative Self-Identifications.” American Jour-
nal of Political Science 25:617–645.
Converse, Philip E. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In
Ideology and Discontent, ed. David E. Apter. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.
37
|
|
 Convention | | Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events! | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
