Interest Group Survival: Shared Interests Versus Competition for Resources

Population ecology theory on interest group populations is examined to determine the implications for group membership levels in the states. Using the assumptions of the competitive exclusion principle, it is hypothesized that relatively new interest groups should not directly compete for space, but should instead have a positive influence on each other's membership levels. A group's membership level should also be a function of space, energy, and political mobilization factors. Multiple regression analysis is applied to a fifty-state data set using the membership levels of five gay and lesbian interest groups as dependent variables. The hypotheses are confirmed—interest groups avoid direct competition for space by adapting into different issue niches. The results of these findings for a population ecology theory of interest groups are discussed along with directions for future research

Perception and misperception in urban criminal justice policy - The case of hate crime

An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Political Science Association, March 2002.Perceptions of an issue, problem, or policy might differ depending on the organizational context in which one is located. The importance of perception has been a concern for students of international relations, political institutions, organizational theory, and public policy, but less so for scholars of urban politics. This study contributes to the understanding of how organizational and community context influences perceptions by examining the perceptions of interest group leaders and police related to law enforcement activity on hate crime with survey data from each group in a sample of the 250 largest American cities. The author presents a basic theoretical framework for understanding how perceptions may differ depending on organizational and community context. He then tests for differences in perceptions using both simple and more advanced statistical methods, controlling for community context. The results suggest organizational and community context influence perceptions of law enforcement activity. The implications of the findings for urban politics and democratic political systems more generally are discussed.This research was funded by a 1998 Wayne F. Placek Award from the American Psychological Foundation

The Role of Intersectional Stereotypes on Evaluations of Gay and Lesbian Political Candidates

This is the publisher's version, which is also available electronically from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X09990511Social scientists are increasingly taking a more complex theoretical approach to the role of stereotyping in the electorate’s evaluation of political candidates.Within this literature, most studies investigate the impact of one stereotype on the public’s evaluation of candidates from an underrepresented group. We build on and extend this literature by exploring what we term “intersectional stereotyping”: The role of stereotypes in shaping the electorate’s evaluation of political candidates who share dual membership in stigmatized groups — women and sexual minorities. We empirically examine the impact of intersectional stereotyping in a unique 2003 survey of national adults. Our results indicate that gender, both of the respondent and the candidate, plays a key role in shaping attitudes toward gay and lesbian political candidates. These findings suggest that intersectional stereotyping plays a nuanced role in evaluations of candidates; in certain contexts gender stereotypes are more significant, and at other times stereotypes about sexual minorities appear to be driving evaluations of candidates

Gender and Conditional Support for Torture in the War on Terror

The events of September 11 have clearly changed the way that Americans think about politics and policy and may have changed attitudes about the treatment of America’s perceived enemies. At the same time, revelations about American interrogation techniques in the war on terror have forced a national dialogue on human rights during a time of war. Americans do tend to oppose a variety of harsh interrogation techniques, but opposition appears to be conditioned by gender, partisanship, and the context in which an interrogation might take place. We explore how conditions shape attitudes on interrogation techniques in the war on terror, with a particular focus on gender and contextual framing. We analyze data from a unique 2004 national survey of American adults to test several hypotheses. Our results suggest that gender strongly shapes opposition to harsh interrogation techniques, but contextual framing also shapes opposition. Partisanship and contextual framing also mediate the influence of gender on attitudes

The Politics of Gay and Lesbian Rights: Expanding the Scope of the Conflict

This is the published version also available here http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2960229Morality politics theory predicts that gay rights policy will reflect the influence of religious groups, party competition, and partisanship while interest group theory suggests that these policies will correspond with interest group resources, elite values, and past policy actions. Using multiple regression on a 50-state data set and a county-level data set for gay rights initiatives in Oregon and Colorado, we found gay and lesbian politics are no different from those for other policy issues. When gay and lesbian rights are not salient, the pattern of politics resembles that of interest group politics. If individuals opposed to gay and lesbian rights are able to expand the scope of the conflict, the pattern of politics conforms to morality politics

Gun Policy, Opinion, Tragedy, and Blame Attribution: The Conditional Influence of Issue of Frames

This is the publisher's version, which is also available electronically from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00077.Political events and policy discussion set parameters for debate and help to determine how an issue comes to be defined. Though existing research has examined the effects of alternative representations of political issues on public opinion, less attention has been given to highly salient issues, such as gun policy, and the potential effect of framing on causal attributions of blame for tragic events. This study expands the framing research to include opinion on policies concerning guns as well as the attributions of blame following the school shooting in Littleton, Colorado. We test several hypotheses using data from two field polls—one examining support for concealed handgun laws and the other examining blame attribution following the shootings at Columbine High School. We find that alternative gun frames influence opinion about concealed handgun laws as well as attributions of blame for Columbine. However, the effect is conditional, hinging on the nature of respondents’ predisposition and existing knowledge. We consider these findings within the context of the policy-making process. “The aftermath of that shooting . . . has had an even more profound impact on the country than all the school shootings last year did. And you can see it by what is happening in the Congress now.” —President Clinton referring to the impact of the Littleton, Colorado, school shootings on the gun policy debate (Sobieraj 1999) “I have to tell you, it’s amazing to us, there’s a whole lot of us going “Wow” . . . After all these school shootings we thought maybe we could get a discussion going, introduce some ideas, but this is tremendous.” —Janet Parshall of the Family Research Council after the House passed three religious amendments meant to reduce school violence following the Littleton shootings (Rosin 1999

Minority Group Interests and Political Representation: Gay Elected Officials in the Policy Process

This is the publisher's version, which is also available electronically from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00026Of key importance to groups in a democracy is the political representation of their interests in the policy process. The most obvious strategy of groups to achieve representation is to elect officials that identify with group interests. Our research examines the political representation of lesbian and gay interests, exploring the influence of openly gay elected officials on domestic partner policies. Based on the literature, we select and operationalize variables that may influence policy adoption. Analysis on a dataset of 270 localities suggests that elected gay officials are an important determinant for achieving substantive political representation. Our findings also suggest that supportive non-gay elected officials can effectively represent gays in the policy process

Public Attitudes on Transgender Military Service: The Role of Gender

Policy regarding the inclusion of transgender soldiers in the U.S. military has shifted back and forth in recent years, with public opinion likely a significant factor shaping the eventual policy outcome. As such, this study examines the factors that shape public attitudes toward military service by transgender people. In particular, we examine the influence of sex, social gender roles, and attitudes toward gender in shaping transgender military service attitudes. Further, we hypothesize that personal experiences with the military and with transgender people, along with values, personality predispositions, and religion, are likely to influence individual attitudes. We test these hypotheses using data from a unique October 2015 national survey of American adults. The results suggest that personal experiences, attitudes toward gender roles, and religion have substantial, but sometimes conditional effects on attitudes towards military service by transgender people.University of toledoUniversity of KansasUCLA school of lawOhio Universit

Review of \u3ci\u3eWelcome to the Homeland: A Journey to the Rural Heart of America\u27s Conservative Revolution\u3c/i\u3e By Brian Mann

Brian Mann\u27s Welcome to the Homeland weaves together astute observations of the American political system with a personalized journey into the oonservative base of American politics. Mann\u27s thesis is that the political divisions in America can be best characterized by an urban versus rural divide that has evolved over the past eighty or so years. Mann refers to rural voters as homelanders who have increasingly turned to the Republican Party in pursuit of their version of an America with nineteenth-century traditional values. City folk, meanwhile, are dubbed metros, and their increasingly cosmopolitan, multiethnic, and secular world view has led them to turn to the Democratic Party. Unlike Thomas Frank in What\u27s the Matter with Kansas?, Mann does not argue that the Republican Party is duping homelander voters by paying homage to traditional values. Instead, he outlines how the Republican Party strategy of building a rural base takes full advantage of the rural biases inherent in the design of American political institutions, including the Electoral College and the u.s. Senate, which disproportionately provide more relative political influence to low population states. Historically, the biased design advantaging small states mattered little, but the development of a two-party system with bases divided among rural versus urban voters has contributed to a divided polis. Mann also clearly outlines that homelanders do not maintain a false consciousness about economic issues, and they do hold Republican feet to the fire when their values are not pursued. Thus, Mann conceives of a homelander movement that seeks to take back American politics, largely through controlling the Republican Party, but also Democrats with the right stripes. Indeed, major players in the Democratic Party have and still do depend on homelander support (e.g., Senate leaders Tom Daschle and Harry Reid)