David G. Barnum

Why Politicians Are More Tolerant: Selective Recruitment and Socialization Among Political Elites in Britain, Israel, New Zealand and the United States

In this article, we present data showing that national legislators are more tolerant than the public in Britain, Israel, New Zealand and the United States. Two explanations for this phenomenon are presented and assessed. The first is the selective recruitment of Members of Parliament, Knesset and Congress from among those in the electorate whose demographic, ideological and personality characteristics predispose them to be tolerant. Although this process does operate in all four countries, it is insufficient to explain all of the differences in tolerance between elites and the public in at least three countries. The second explanation relies on a process of explicitly political socialization, leading to differences in tolerance between elites and their public that transcend individual-level, personal characteristics. Relying on our analysis of political tolerance among legislators in the four countries, we suggest how this process of political socialization may be operating.

The Supreme Court and Public Opinion: Judicial Decision Making in the Post- New Deal Period

The countermajoritarian activism of the Supreme Court is usually assessed in terms of the willingness of the Court to overturn legislation and/or to protect minorities. Using these criteria, the post-New Deal Supreme Court emerges as an exceptionally active countermajoritarian decision-making institution. It is also important, however, to examine the relationship between the Courts decisions and public opinion. Such an examination reveals that the Courts decisions overturning legislation and/or protecting minority rights were often supported by the distribution or at least the trend of nationwide public opinion and that when such support was lacking, the Court seemed reluctant to act. Thus, the policymaking activism of the post-New Deal Supreme Court was perhaps more consistent with majoritarian principles than is sometimes supposed.

Attitudinal Tolerance and Political Freedom in Britain

Tolerance is an important concept in democratic theory and a recurring issue in British history. With rare exceptions, however, conclusions about tolerance in Britain have been based on impressionistic rather than empirical evidence. This Note examines patterns of attitudinal tolerance in Britain and speculates about the impact of those patterns on the status of political freedom. The analysis is based on recently collected survey data on attitudinal tolerance among members of the public and Members of Parliament in Britain.

The Elusive Foundations of Political Freedom in Britain and the United States

Political freedom is relatively secure in both Britain and the United States. Its foundations, however, are obscure. We explore four possibilities: (1) that tolerant attitudes are widely held by members of the general public; (2) that those who hold intolerant views are unlikely to act on their beliefs; (3) that tolerant attitudes are widely held by members of the political elite; and (4) that constitutional organization plays a salutary role in the protection of political freedom. We conclude that neither public tolerance nor public apathy is a promising source of political freedom in either Britain or the United States. The critical underpinnings of political freedom in both countries, we conclude, seem to be elite tolerance and constitutional organization.

Decision Making in a Constitutional Democracy: Policy Formation in the Skokie Free Speech Controversy

In the United States, a complex set of relationships exist between levels of expressed support for democratic norms among the general public, levels of support for such norms among political elites, and the actual status of constitutional and political rights in American society. The present study endeavors to shed some light on these relationships by examining the request by American Nazis for permission to hold a demonstration in Skokie, Illinois, a predominantly Jewish community, and the two-year decision-making process that ensued. The article attempts to extract from this controversy certain general propositions about the role of various actors -- the general public, community leaders, public officials, and the courts -- in the creation and resolution of a challenge to the right to demonstrate in the United States.

Freedom of Assembly and the Hostile Audience in Anglo-American Law

Public conflict between rival factions creates one of the most persistent and difficult dilemmas in Anglo-American Civil Liberties. This paper examines the decisions and actions of courts and other policy makers in Britain and the United States when faced with the need to protect freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in the context of disorder and violence arising out of confrontations between speakers and demonstrators, on the one hand, and an audience or a community hostile to their message or their mere presence, on the other.