Racial sympathy, defined as white distress over Black suffering, is an influential, but understudied, force in American politics. This paper considers the behavioral consequences of racial sympathy. How does racial sympathy manifest into political behavior? To answer this question, I conduct a series of in-depth interviews with racial justice activists; these white Americans are unusually, deeply, and genuinely invested in eradicating Black suffering. Many also recognize the role that institutions and politics play in perpetuating racial inequality. However, many activists propose individual-level solutions, such as tolerance classes, eliminating prejudice at home, and empathizing with individual Black people, eschewing the importance of electoral politics. I complement the qualitative interviews with results from a national study of white Americans. Ultimately, I argue that white Americans’ emphasis on personal activities may limit the political impact of racial sympathy.
{"title":"Think Structurally, Act Individually?: Racial Sympathy and Political Behavior","authors":"Jennifer Chudy","doi":"10.1086/722820","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/722820","url":null,"abstract":"Racial sympathy, defined as white distress over Black suffering, is an influential, but understudied, force in American politics. This paper considers the behavioral consequences of racial sympathy. How does racial sympathy manifest into political behavior? To answer this question, I conduct a series of in-depth interviews with racial justice activists; these white Americans are unusually, deeply, and genuinely invested in eradicating Black suffering. Many also recognize the role that institutions and politics play in perpetuating racial inequality. However, many activists propose individual-level solutions, such as tolerance classes, eliminating prejudice at home, and empathizing with individual Black people, eschewing the importance of electoral politics. I complement the qualitative interviews with results from a national study of white Americans. Ultimately, I argue that white Americans’ emphasis on personal activities may limit the political impact of racial sympathy.","PeriodicalId":46912,"journal":{"name":"Polity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45243641","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
After the 2016 presidential election, a dominant media narrative emerged which claimed that Donald Trump’s 2016 electoral victory was due to an upsurge in support by working class White voters, largely due to economic anxiety experienced since the 2008 recession. But as survey data from the 2016 election became available, a different story began to emerge. The consensus among social scientists became that racial attitudes were the most important predictors of support for Trump among many White voters in 2016, including those with less than a college education (whose incomes it should be noted may or may not put them in the working class). The literature remains dominated by studies that focus on White hostility toward racial outgroups, but a number of studies have emphasized the importance of Whites’ ingroup attitudes. Trump lost reelection in 2020, but remains popular and most experts anticipate that he will run again in 2024. We therefore need to consider the still-unresolved question of if and how White ingroup identity is relevant to understanding Trump’s electoral success. Yet there are few studies that have actually examined the effects of the full range of ingroup and outgroup attitudes simultaneously. In this paper, we re-evaluate the relative importance of the effect of White Racial Identity (WRI) on vote choice in recent presidential elections. We find that, like indicators of outgroup attitudes, the level of WRI has remained stable over the last several elections and in recent years has actually decreased. We also find that WRI actually has no direct effect on vote choice in recent presidential elections, including the two elections (2016 and 2020) in which Trump ran as the Republican nominee. We find instead that WRI influenced the presidential vote at best indirectly, serving as a platform for expressing White outgroup hostility.
{"title":"Pride or Prejudice? Clarifying the Role of White Racial Identity in Recent Presidential Elections","authors":"Richard C. Fording, S. Schram","doi":"10.1086/722807","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/722807","url":null,"abstract":"After the 2016 presidential election, a dominant media narrative emerged which claimed that Donald Trump’s 2016 electoral victory was due to an upsurge in support by working class White voters, largely due to economic anxiety experienced since the 2008 recession. But as survey data from the 2016 election became available, a different story began to emerge. The consensus among social scientists became that racial attitudes were the most important predictors of support for Trump among many White voters in 2016, including those with less than a college education (whose incomes it should be noted may or may not put them in the working class). The literature remains dominated by studies that focus on White hostility toward racial outgroups, but a number of studies have emphasized the importance of Whites’ ingroup attitudes. Trump lost reelection in 2020, but remains popular and most experts anticipate that he will run again in 2024. We therefore need to consider the still-unresolved question of if and how White ingroup identity is relevant to understanding Trump’s electoral success. Yet there are few studies that have actually examined the effects of the full range of ingroup and outgroup attitudes simultaneously. In this paper, we re-evaluate the relative importance of the effect of White Racial Identity (WRI) on vote choice in recent presidential elections. We find that, like indicators of outgroup attitudes, the level of WRI has remained stable over the last several elections and in recent years has actually decreased. We also find that WRI actually has no direct effect on vote choice in recent presidential elections, including the two elections (2016 and 2020) in which Trump ran as the Republican nominee. We find instead that WRI influenced the presidential vote at best indirectly, serving as a platform for expressing White outgroup hostility.","PeriodicalId":46912,"journal":{"name":"Polity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44653658","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Amanda Graham, Justin T. Pickett, F. Cullen, C. Jonson, Murat Haner, Melissa M. Sloan
After more than one million COVID-19 deaths and ninety-one million cases in the United States, it is clear that COVID-19 has and will continue to pose a threat to the health of the United States’ population and economy. However, despite the clear and early warnings from the CDC, many have continued to downplay the impact of the pandemic, which has arguably inflamed the perniciousness of the virus. Using data from national surveys conducted a year apart, in March 2020 and March 2021, we examine the perceived national and personal threat of COVID-19 in the United States. We argue that collective narcissism—in the form of White nationalism—has blinded some Americans to this national threat, leading to an inadequate collective response that was further exacerbated by the political leadership of former President Donald Trump. We demonstrate that White nationalism is associated with discounting the national but not personal threat of the virus. This was true both early in the pandemic (2020) and later (2021), after the virus had ravaged the country.
{"title":"Blinded by the White (Nationalism): Separatist Ideology and Discounting the Threat of COVID-19 to Society","authors":"Amanda Graham, Justin T. Pickett, F. Cullen, C. Jonson, Murat Haner, Melissa M. Sloan","doi":"10.1086/722762","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/722762","url":null,"abstract":"After more than one million COVID-19 deaths and ninety-one million cases in the United States, it is clear that COVID-19 has and will continue to pose a threat to the health of the United States’ population and economy. However, despite the clear and early warnings from the CDC, many have continued to downplay the impact of the pandemic, which has arguably inflamed the perniciousness of the virus. Using data from national surveys conducted a year apart, in March 2020 and March 2021, we examine the perceived national and personal threat of COVID-19 in the United States. We argue that collective narcissism—in the form of White nationalism—has blinded some Americans to this national threat, leading to an inadequate collective response that was further exacerbated by the political leadership of former President Donald Trump. We demonstrate that White nationalism is associated with discounting the national but not personal threat of the virus. This was true both early in the pandemic (2020) and later (2021), after the virus had ravaged the country.","PeriodicalId":46912,"journal":{"name":"Polity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42288831","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I am grateful for the opportunity to offer a response to the articles in the Polity symposium “White Identity Reconsidered” individually and as a group.My own research on the politics of white identity has centered on measurement and conceptualization, two challenges that come in the early stages of taking on an understudied topic in public opinion like white identity politics. The conversation about those challenges continues with the studies included in this symposium. Among the contributions to the literature presented here is a consideration of how difficult it is to capture what it is about white identity that renders it politically potent (or not). Several possibilities are found within these papers, and together, they illustrate the rich range of tools we have at our disposal. Further, they force us to grapple with the question of which concept(s) and measure(s) we might want to include and when. They also make clear that we are not yet at a point where the answer to that question is by any means obvious. It has been noted many times now that political science as a discipline was slow to contemplate white identity. The studies in this symposium illustrate the exciting pace at which we are making up for lost time. As a result, there is a wide range of measures out there now to get at different aspects of white identity and related forms of ingroup attachment. Collectively, we are in the process of figuring out what each one means, when we should use different ones, what causes their aggregate levels in the population to rise and fall, and how they work—either together
{"title":"Response to Polity Symposium: White Identity Reconsidered","authors":"Deborah J. Schildkraut","doi":"10.1086/722809","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/722809","url":null,"abstract":"I am grateful for the opportunity to offer a response to the articles in the Polity symposium “White Identity Reconsidered” individually and as a group.My own research on the politics of white identity has centered on measurement and conceptualization, two challenges that come in the early stages of taking on an understudied topic in public opinion like white identity politics. The conversation about those challenges continues with the studies included in this symposium. Among the contributions to the literature presented here is a consideration of how difficult it is to capture what it is about white identity that renders it politically potent (or not). Several possibilities are found within these papers, and together, they illustrate the rich range of tools we have at our disposal. Further, they force us to grapple with the question of which concept(s) and measure(s) we might want to include and when. They also make clear that we are not yet at a point where the answer to that question is by any means obvious. It has been noted many times now that political science as a discipline was slow to contemplate white identity. The studies in this symposium illustrate the exciting pace at which we are making up for lost time. As a result, there is a wide range of measures out there now to get at different aspects of white identity and related forms of ingroup attachment. Collectively, we are in the process of figuring out what each one means, when we should use different ones, what causes their aggregate levels in the population to rise and fall, and how they work—either together","PeriodicalId":46912,"journal":{"name":"Polity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45201694","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article explores the ethical and strategic thought of Bong Joon-ho’s Okja, a film about a Korean adolescent and a genetically modified pig who save each other’s lives. In part one, I convene Bong Joon-ho and Frank Wilderson to explore how human supremacy and White supremacy work together. I argue that Okja connects super-pigs’ suffering to Black, Indigenous, Latino/a, and Asian suffering in the Americas, with the implication that non-White and non-human struggles for liberation are inseparable. That said, Bong insists that the Americas are not the entire world, in order to imagine liberatory responses which arise and arrive elsewhere. Hence, in part two, I resituate the transatlantic question of racial/species oppression in Okja within a transpacific analytic of global capitalism and US empire. I investigate how both humans and super-pigs, across both racial and species lines, can forward liberation projects within asymmetrical situations of conflict. My thesis is that Bong Joon-ho proposes that, in such situations, subversions among intimates are more valuable and useful than alliances among strangers.
{"title":"Bong Joon-ho’s Okja: Transatlantic Racism, Transpacific Capitalism, and Intimate Subversion","authors":"Fred Lee","doi":"10.1086/722726","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/722726","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the ethical and strategic thought of Bong Joon-ho’s Okja, a film about a Korean adolescent and a genetically modified pig who save each other’s lives. In part one, I convene Bong Joon-ho and Frank Wilderson to explore how human supremacy and White supremacy work together. I argue that Okja connects super-pigs’ suffering to Black, Indigenous, Latino/a, and Asian suffering in the Americas, with the implication that non-White and non-human struggles for liberation are inseparable. That said, Bong insists that the Americas are not the entire world, in order to imagine liberatory responses which arise and arrive elsewhere. Hence, in part two, I resituate the transatlantic question of racial/species oppression in Okja within a transpacific analytic of global capitalism and US empire. I investigate how both humans and super-pigs, across both racial and species lines, can forward liberation projects within asymmetrical situations of conflict. My thesis is that Bong Joon-ho proposes that, in such situations, subversions among intimates are more valuable and useful than alliances among strangers.","PeriodicalId":46912,"journal":{"name":"Polity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46998779","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jefferson’s first draft of the Declaration of Independence condemned King George III for maintaining the international slave trade. The clause denounced the “execrable trade” for violating enslaved people’s “rights of life & liberty,” thus alienating slave-trading congressional delegates, who forced Jefferson to cut the clause. Generations of scholars have mourned this deletion. This essay offers an alternate reading of the clause. In drafting the clause, Jefferson reframed colonial legislatures’ slave importation bans—intended to control and promote the domestic slave trade—as a statement of antislavery principle. Specifically, Virginia’s colonial legislature had proposed protectionist tariffs to decrease the supply of enslaved people, lowering the likelihood of slave revolt while increasing the value of enslaved people remaining within the colony. Jefferson drafted several of these nonimportation resolutions, from which later he drew the Declaration’s clause, reframing the economic concern as a moral one. The resulting clause sandwiched a protectionist nonimportation argument, largely neglected by scholars, in the more famous language of antislavery moral appeal. By comparing the clause to other colonial nonimportation resolutions, the essay shows how this deleted section of the Declaration affirmed the interests of slaveholders.
{"title":"The Lost Clause: Reinterpreting the Declaration’s Silence on the Atlantic Slave Trade","authors":"Robinson Woodward-Burns","doi":"10.1086/722745","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/722745","url":null,"abstract":"Jefferson’s first draft of the Declaration of Independence condemned King George III for maintaining the international slave trade. The clause denounced the “execrable trade” for violating enslaved people’s “rights of life & liberty,” thus alienating slave-trading congressional delegates, who forced Jefferson to cut the clause. Generations of scholars have mourned this deletion. This essay offers an alternate reading of the clause. In drafting the clause, Jefferson reframed colonial legislatures’ slave importation bans—intended to control and promote the domestic slave trade—as a statement of antislavery principle. Specifically, Virginia’s colonial legislature had proposed protectionist tariffs to decrease the supply of enslaved people, lowering the likelihood of slave revolt while increasing the value of enslaved people remaining within the colony. Jefferson drafted several of these nonimportation resolutions, from which later he drew the Declaration’s clause, reframing the economic concern as a moral one. The resulting clause sandwiched a protectionist nonimportation argument, largely neglected by scholars, in the more famous language of antislavery moral appeal. By comparing the clause to other colonial nonimportation resolutions, the essay shows how this deleted section of the Declaration affirmed the interests of slaveholders.","PeriodicalId":46912,"journal":{"name":"Polity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44245205","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the interim between the writings that would eventually anchor his legacy, Frantz Fanon spent most of his career as a radical psychiatrist in a small town in colonial Algeria. In his recently anthologized clinical writings, Fanon uses the tools of socialthérapie to confront the simultaneous impossibility of healthy reconciliation to colonial sociality and the necessity of sociality as a basic therapeutic condition with reference to which desire can be cultivated. This article argues for the political theoretical importance of Fanon’s clinical writings, which respond to this impasse and its symptoms, including exhaustion and refusal, with experiments in world-making within the bounds of his clinic, while making critically visible the eventual collapse of this possibility and the turn of his therapeutic imagination outwards. Reframing Fanon’s late work on African Solidarity, the problem of war, and the internationalist critique of neocolonial false peace from this perspective, the article closes by drawing together two otherwise opposed contemporary interpretive legacies that have broader resonance for antiracist and democratic thought today, those which affirm the persistence of world-making praxis in institutional terms, and those which draw from Fanon’s legacy a pessimism that radically disavows the possible success of such efforts.
{"title":"Fanon’s Clinic: Revolutionary Therapeutics and the Politics of Exhaustion","authors":"Nica Siegel","doi":"10.1086/722764","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/722764","url":null,"abstract":"In the interim between the writings that would eventually anchor his legacy, Frantz Fanon spent most of his career as a radical psychiatrist in a small town in colonial Algeria. In his recently anthologized clinical writings, Fanon uses the tools of socialthérapie to confront the simultaneous impossibility of healthy reconciliation to colonial sociality and the necessity of sociality as a basic therapeutic condition with reference to which desire can be cultivated. This article argues for the political theoretical importance of Fanon’s clinical writings, which respond to this impasse and its symptoms, including exhaustion and refusal, with experiments in world-making within the bounds of his clinic, while making critically visible the eventual collapse of this possibility and the turn of his therapeutic imagination outwards. Reframing Fanon’s late work on African Solidarity, the problem of war, and the internationalist critique of neocolonial false peace from this perspective, the article closes by drawing together two otherwise opposed contemporary interpretive legacies that have broader resonance for antiracist and democratic thought today, those which affirm the persistence of world-making praxis in institutional terms, and those which draw from Fanon’s legacy a pessimism that radically disavows the possible success of such efforts.","PeriodicalId":46912,"journal":{"name":"Polity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45683560","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Recent scholarship across a range of disciplines has illuminated how the rhetoric of an “obesity epidemic” in public health converges with everyday fat-shaming rhetoric to mark particular bodies as indicative of moral failing, intellectual debility, and civic unfitness. Sabrina Strings, Rachel Sanders, Amy Farrell, and others have shown that this stigmatization also reinforces racialized, gendered, and neoliberal conceptions of responsible citizenship. Yet critical analysis of these discursive effects rarely highlights their relationship to democratic theory and practice. Accordingly, this paper examines how anti-obesity and fat-shaming discourse casts doubt on the worthiness and capacity of fat subjects, especially women of color, to participate as full members of the demos whose needs, desires, and concerns merit democratic consideration. Crucially, the mechanisms of marginalization through fat-shaming function across a range of approaches to democratic theory, including liberal, republican, and deliberative approaches. Furthermore, the exclusion of fat subjects from the demos contributes to an impoverished and perverse image of democracy itself as a politics of austerity, self-denial, and separation from others.
{"title":"Weight Stigma, Citizenship, and Neoliberal Democracy","authors":"Sharon A. Stanley, Kathryn Hicks","doi":"10.1086/722744","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/722744","url":null,"abstract":"Recent scholarship across a range of disciplines has illuminated how the rhetoric of an “obesity epidemic” in public health converges with everyday fat-shaming rhetoric to mark particular bodies as indicative of moral failing, intellectual debility, and civic unfitness. Sabrina Strings, Rachel Sanders, Amy Farrell, and others have shown that this stigmatization also reinforces racialized, gendered, and neoliberal conceptions of responsible citizenship. Yet critical analysis of these discursive effects rarely highlights their relationship to democratic theory and practice. Accordingly, this paper examines how anti-obesity and fat-shaming discourse casts doubt on the worthiness and capacity of fat subjects, especially women of color, to participate as full members of the demos whose needs, desires, and concerns merit democratic consideration. Crucially, the mechanisms of marginalization through fat-shaming function across a range of approaches to democratic theory, including liberal, republican, and deliberative approaches. Furthermore, the exclusion of fat subjects from the demos contributes to an impoverished and perverse image of democracy itself as a politics of austerity, self-denial, and separation from others.","PeriodicalId":46912,"journal":{"name":"Polity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47799174","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Michael Lewis-Beck holds the title F. Wendell Miller Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the University of Iowa. His interests are comparative elections, election forecasting, political economy, and quantitative methodology. Professor Lewis-Beck has authored or coauthored over 315 articles and books, including Economics and Elections, The American Voter Revisited, French Presidential Elections, Forecasting Elections, The Austrian Voter, Latin American Elections: Choice and Change, The Danish Voter, and Applied Regression. He has served as Editor of the American Journal of Political Science, Electoral Studies, and the Sage QASS series (the green monographs) in quantitative methods. He is past Associate Editor of International Journal of Forecasting and current Associate Editor of French Politics. In addition to his position at Iowa, he has held various positions abroad including, more recently, Visiting Professor, GESIS, University of Mannheim; Paul Lazersfeld University Professor at the University of Vienna; Visiting Professor at Center for Citizenship and Democracy, University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Belgium; Visiting Professor at LUISS University, Rome; Visiting Senior Scholar, Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark. He can be reached at michael-lewis-beck@uiowa.edu. Mary Stegmaier is Vice Provost for International Programs and Associate Professor in the Truman School of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Missouri. Her research interests include international elections, voting behavior, and forecasting. Her work has been published in numerous peer-reviewed journals including Electoral Studies, the International Journal of Forecasting, Political Behavior, and Political Science Research & Methods. She can be reached at stegmaierm@missouri.edu. Charles Tien is Professor of Political Science at Hunter College and the Graduate Center, CUNY. He was a Fulbright Scholar in American Politics at Renmin University in Beijing, China. His recent publications have appeared in Italian Journal of Electoral Studies, The Forum, and Electoral Studies. He can be reached at ctien@hunter.cuny.edu. 1. Michael S. Lewis-Beck, William G. Jacoby, Helmut Norpoth, and Herbert F. Weisberg, The American Voter Revisited (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2008).
Michael Lewis-Beck是爱荷华大学F. Wendell Miller杰出政治学教授。他的研究兴趣是比较选举、选举预测、政治经济学和定量方法论。刘易斯-贝克教授撰写或合作撰写了超过315篇文章和书籍，包括经济学和选举，美国选民重访，法国总统选举，预测选举，奥地利选民，拉丁美洲选举:选择和变化，丹麦选民和应用回归。他曾担任《美国政治学杂志》、《选举研究》和Sage QASS系列(绿色专著)定量方法的编辑。他曾任《国际预测杂志》副主编，现任《法国政治》副主编。除了在爱荷华州的职位外，他还在国外担任过各种职务，包括最近担任曼海姆大学(University of Mannheim) GESIS客座教授;维也纳大学Paul Lazersfeld大学教授;比利时鲁汶大学公民与民主研究中心客座教授;罗马LUISS大学客座教授;丹麦奥胡斯大学政治学高级访问学者。您可以通过michael-lewis-beck@uiowa.edu与他联系。玛丽·斯特格迈尔是密苏里大学杜鲁门政府与公共事务学院国际项目副教务长兼副教授。她的研究兴趣包括国际选举、投票行为和预测。她的作品发表在许多同行评议的期刊上，包括《选举研究》、《国际预测杂志》、《政治行为》和《政治学研究与方法》。可以通过stegmaierm@missouri.edu与她联系。Charles Tien是纽约市立大学亨特学院和研究生中心的政治学教授。他是中国人民大学美国政治富布赖特学者。他最近的出版物出现在《意大利选举研究杂志》、《论坛》和《选举研究》。您可以通过ctien@hunter.cuny.edu与他联系。1. Michael S. Lewis-Beck, William G. Jacoby, Helmut Norpoth和Herbert F. Weisberg，《重新审视的美国选民》(Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2008)。
{"title":"Ask a Political Scientist: A Conversation with Michael S. Lewis-Beck about Vote Choice, Election Forecasting, and the 2022 Midterms","authors":"Mary Stegmaier, C. Tien","doi":"10.1086/721674","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/721674","url":null,"abstract":"Michael Lewis-Beck holds the title F. Wendell Miller Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the University of Iowa. His interests are comparative elections, election forecasting, political economy, and quantitative methodology. Professor Lewis-Beck has authored or coauthored over 315 articles and books, including Economics and Elections, The American Voter Revisited, French Presidential Elections, Forecasting Elections, The Austrian Voter, Latin American Elections: Choice and Change, The Danish Voter, and Applied Regression. He has served as Editor of the American Journal of Political Science, Electoral Studies, and the Sage QASS series (the green monographs) in quantitative methods. He is past Associate Editor of International Journal of Forecasting and current Associate Editor of French Politics. In addition to his position at Iowa, he has held various positions abroad including, more recently, Visiting Professor, GESIS, University of Mannheim; Paul Lazersfeld University Professor at the University of Vienna; Visiting Professor at Center for Citizenship and Democracy, University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Belgium; Visiting Professor at LUISS University, Rome; Visiting Senior Scholar, Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark. He can be reached at michael-lewis-beck@uiowa.edu. Mary Stegmaier is Vice Provost for International Programs and Associate Professor in the Truman School of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Missouri. Her research interests include international elections, voting behavior, and forecasting. Her work has been published in numerous peer-reviewed journals including Electoral Studies, the International Journal of Forecasting, Political Behavior, and Political Science Research & Methods. She can be reached at stegmaierm@missouri.edu. Charles Tien is Professor of Political Science at Hunter College and the Graduate Center, CUNY. He was a Fulbright Scholar in American Politics at Renmin University in Beijing, China. His recent publications have appeared in Italian Journal of Electoral Studies, The Forum, and Electoral Studies. He can be reached at ctien@hunter.cuny.edu. 1. Michael S. Lewis-Beck, William G. Jacoby, Helmut Norpoth, and Herbert F. Weisberg, The American Voter Revisited (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2008).","PeriodicalId":46912,"journal":{"name":"Polity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41795590","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：