Books in the Chicago Studies in American Politics series

Combining existing research with novel data from US presidential archives, this book shows that presidents make policy by largely ignoring the views of most citizens in favor of affluent and well-connected political insiders. It is suitable for those interested in US politics, public opinion, democratic theory, and more.

As Washington elites drifted toward ideological poles over a few decades, did ordinary Americans follow their lead? This book reveals that we have responded to this trend - but not, for the most part, by becoming more extreme ourselves.

From World War II to the war in Iraq, periods of international conflict seem like unique moments in US political history - but when it comes to public opinion, they are not. This work explodes conventional wisdom about American reactions to World War II, as well as the more recent conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

In a democracy, we have come to assume that people know the policies they prefer and elect like-minded officials who are responsible for carrying them out. But does this actually happen? This book looks at citizens' views on candidates both before and after periods of political upheaval, including campaigns, wars, and natural disasters.

Backed by careful analysis of public opinion surveys, the authors show how, despite changing American politics, those issues that receive extended coverage in the national news become more important to viewers, while those that are ignored lose credibility.

Although their leaders and staff are not elected, bureaucratic agencies have the power to make policy decisions that carry the full force of the law. This book explores an issue central to political science and public administration: How do Congress and the president ensure that bureaucratic agencies implement their preferred policies?

Drawing on the analysis of counterterrorism in the years after 9/11 - including the issuance of terror alerts and the decision to invade Iraq - this title presents a case that the Bush administration hyped fear, while obscuring civil liberties abuses and concrete issues of preparedness.

Barack Obama's presidential victory naturally led people to believe that the United States might finally be moving into a post-racial era. This title argues that the 2008 election was more polarized by racial attitudes than any other presidential election on record.

With the 2012 presidential election upon us, will voters cast their ballots for the candidates whose platforms and positions best match their own? Or will the race for the next president of the United States come down largely to who runs the most effective campaigning? This book reveals how both factors come into play.

Surveying critical episodes in the development of American political parties, this book shows how they address three fundamental problems of democracy: how to regulate the number of people seeking public office, how to mobilize voters, and how to achieve and maintain the majorities needed to accomplish goals once in office.

Throughout the contest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, politicians and voters alike worried that the outcome might depend on the preferences of unelected superdelegates. This book shows that for several decades, unelected insiders in both major parties effectively selected candidates long before citizens reached the ballot box.

Responds to the growing chorus of critics who fear that the politics of running for office undermine judicial independence. The author presents a comprehensive study of the impact of campaigns on public perceptions of fairness, impartiality, and the legitimacy of elected state courts - and his findings are both counterintuitive and controversial.

Ethnocentrism - our tendency to partition the human world into in-groups and out-groups - pervades societies around the world. This book explains how ethnocentrism shapes American public opinion.

In the modern Congress, one of the highest hurdles for major bills or nominations is gaining the sixty votes necessary to shut off a filibuster in the Senate. But this wasn't always the case. This title shows that filibustering is a game with slippery rules in which legislators who think fast and try hard can triumph over superior numbers.

How do threats of terrorism affect the opinions of citizens? This book demonstrates how our strategies for coping with terrorist threats significantly influence our attitudes toward fellow citizens, political leaders, and foreign nations.

The Obama administration has been criticized for its inability to convey how much it has accomplished for ordinary citizens. This title argues that this difficulty is not merely a failure of communication; rather it is endemic to the formidable presence of the 'submerged state.'