Brian Newman

Are Voters Better Represented

Studies of political participation and representation often contend that elected officials respond more to the preferences of voters than those of nonvoters, but seldom test this claim. This is a critical assumption because if true, biases in who participates will lead to biased representation. Office holders might respond disproportionately to voters’ preferences because voters tend to select like-minded representatives, voters tend to communicate their preferences more, and only voters can reelect representatives. We find that voter preferences predict the aggregate roll-call behavior of Senators while nonvoter preferences do not. We also present evidence supporting the three explanations advanced to account for the preferential treatment of voters.

FDR to Clinton, Mueller to ?: A Field Essay on Presidential Approval

Since the 1930s, polling organizations have asked Americans whether they “approve or disapprove of the job [the incumbent] is doing as president.” In the early 1970s, John Mueller started an academic industry by asking what drives these evaluations. American politics and the tools available to examine it have changed dramatically since then, inspiring a burst of research on presidential approval in the 1990s. We review this new body of literature, arguing that it builds on but differs importantly from earlier approval studies. Since Mueller’s writing, scholars have expanded his relatively simple model, taking account of presidents’ goals and personal characteristics, other political actors, the ubiquitous media, and an inattentive public. We describe three waves of research, focusing on the most recent wave. We suggest that history, along with new intellectual currents, data, and methods have enabled each wave to incorporate more of political, social, and psychological reality. Finally, we identify the issues most likely to motivate presidential approval research for the next ten years.

Bill Clinton's Approval Ratings: The More Things Change, The More They Stay the Same

Over the past three decades, political scientists have been developing general models of presidential approval ratings, seeking to determine the structure of aggregate approval. This endeavor has culminated in the broad claim that “peace, prosperity, and probity” drive the publics approval. The unprecedented events of the Clinton Presidency, especially his high approval during and after impeachment, present a strong chal- lenge to this model. However, the existing model explains Clintons approval remarkably well, suggesting that the public punished and rewarded him for the state of the economy, major political events, and his integrity. Passing this strong test constitutes considerable support for the existing model of approval.

Fanning the Flames: Religious Media Consumption and American Politics

Both religion and mass media are politically important in the United States. However, little is known about the political role of religious media. Religious media might be politically influential because they help translate religion into political thinking and because their consumers are likely to internalize the political cues these media provide. We find that almost a quarter of the public claims to have relied on religious media when making voting decisions in 2000. Religious media users felt significantly closer to George W. Bush and Pat Buchanan and farther away from Al Gore and were more likely to vote for Bush and Republican House candidates than nonusers, even after controlling for a host of religious and political variables. These findings reflect more than self-selection effects and suggest that religious media have a polarizing effect on the candidate evaluations and voting behavior of their core audience of political conservatives.

Voting Power, Policy Representation, and Disparities in Voting’s Rewards

Reelection-minded officials have motivations to represent some of their constituents more than others when casting roll-call votes. In particular, reelection seekers have incentives to appeal to those with greater “voting power” (Bartels 1998): those who are likely to vote, are not strongly predisposed to vote for one of the parties, and are members of large groups within a particular constituency. We present two novel findings stemming from these incentives. First, we find that those with greater voting power tend to enjoy better policy representation. Second, the rewards of voting are greater for those belonging to groups with more voting power. Since voting power varies across racial/ethnic and income lines, these findings hold significant normative implications.

Religion and environmental politics in the US House of Representatives

ABSTRACT Does religion affect legislators’ behavior on environmental policy in the US? Studies of environmental policy making have not examined this question, although the literature suggests that religion might affect legislative behavior on environmental policy. This study examines the relationship between US House members’ religion and roll-call voting on environmental legislation from 1973 to 2009. It finds significant differences across religious traditions. Legislators’ party and characteristics of constituencies relevant to environmental politics increasingly, but not entirely, mediate these differences.

The Presidency and Political Equality

When black Americans and white Americans want the president to do different things, who wins? When low-income earners prefer different government action than do middle and high-income earners, whose preferences are reflected in presidential behavior? Recent studies show that congressional behavior often most closely follows the preferences of the white and the wealthy, but we know relatively little about presidential behavior. Since the president and Congress make policy together, it is important to understand the extent of political equality in presidential behavior. We examine the degree to which presidents have provided equal representation to these groups over the past four decades. We compare the preferences of these groups for federal spending in various budget domains to presidents’ subsequent budget proposals in those domains from 1974 to 2010. Over this period, presidents’ proposals aligned more with the preferences of whites and high-income earners. However, Republican presidents are driving this overall pattern. Democratic presidents represent racial and income groups equally, but Republicans’ proposals are much more consistent with the spending preferences of whites and high-income earners. This pattern of representation reflects the composition of the presidents party coalition and the spending preferences of groups within the party coalition.

Political inequality in America: Who loses on spending policy? When is policy less biased?

ABSTRACT Rapid growth in America’s economic inequality and endemic disadvantages among racial minorities have deepened fears about unequal political influence. From separate studies, it appears that the government responds more to the wealthy and to whites. But critical questions remain unanswered. What are relative contributions of race and class to government responsiveness? Why do these inequalities exist in the first place? And under what contexts are disparities in responsiveness reduced? To answer these questions, we assess the congruence between individual-level policy preferences and policy outcomes using the General Social Survey. We match individual spending preferences in 11 policy areas with actual federal spending to see whose preferences are realized. We find that race, more regularly than class, shapes government responsiveness. We also find that Democratic Party control eliminates most of the racial bias in responsiveness. Economic growth also narrows racial inequalities.