Harrell R. Rodgers

When the President Goes Public: The Consequences of Communication Mode for Opinion Change across Issue Types and Groups

Evidence is mounting that presidents find difficulty in leading public opinion. However, focusing on presidential ability to lead mass opinion may underestimate the degree to which presidents are able to rally key groups on political and personal characteristics. In this article, the authors use an experimental design to test the effect of communication mode across issue types and groups. From three of President Bush’s speeches on Iraq (the State of the Union, an Oval Office address, and a press conference), the data show that by going public the president can influence political opinions across certain issue types and groups. Among the findings are that the groups most affected by the president’s speeches are not always his core constituency but often his putative opponents. However, this opinion change by the noncore groups is often limited to direct presidential addresses and evaluations of the president’s personal qualities. The implication is that writing off presidential leadership as totally ineffective may be as yet premature.

Student Attitudes Toward Mr. Nixon The Consequences of Negative Attitudes Toward a President for Political System Support

A major thesis of political socialization research has been that preadolescence is a critical period in the development of children’s attitudes toward political figures and institutions, especially authority figures (for examples, see Hess and Torney, 1967; Easton and Dennis, 1969). No political figure seems to be as seminal in the political socialization process in this country as the president. In fact, there is considerable evidence that during early preadolescence the child’s conception of government is embodied primarily in the president (Easton and Dennis, 1969: 165-208; Hess and Easton, 1960: 632-644; Jaros, 1967: 368-387; Greenstein, 1960: 934-943). With few exceptions studies have revealed that presidents are typically viewed by children as warm, benign, and omnipotent; as a source of strength; and as a symbol of national pride. For example, Easton and Dennis (1969: 171 ) concluded that &dquo;From

Rural Poverty: Special Causes and Policy Reforms.

Introduction Rural and Urban Poverty: An Income/Net Worth Approach Rural-Urban Differences in the Utilization and Ameliorative Effects of Welfare Programs Labor Force Participation and Poverty Status among Rural and Urban Women Who Head Families Impacts of the Farm Financial Crisis of the 1980s on Resources and Poverty in Agriculturally Dependent Counties in the United States Rural Poverty, Welfare Eligibility, Farm Programs, and the Negative Income Tax Can Income Transfers Promote Economic Development in Poor, Rural Communities? Rural Economic Development Policies for the Midwestern States Bibliography Index

Civil Rights and the Myth of Popular Sovereignty

The civil rights movement ostensibly sought to bring black Americans into the mainstream of American life. However, it was purposely and specifically directed toward more limited goals. The laws passed were designed to free blacks from acts of overt or even violent racial bias, to provide social equality in public accommodations, and to extend traditional political rights to black citizens. Basically these goals have been achieved. The theory behind the civil rights movement was that, once freed from overt intimidation and given basic political rights, blacks would be able to translate their gains into political power and economic equality. These assumptions have, for the most part, proven wrong. In an elite/ special-interest-dominated system heavily influenced by wealth and based on an economic structure that neglects and exploits millions of citizens, genuine political power and economic quality have eluded black Americans. These points are easily proven and are increasingly obvious to blacks.