Showing papers on "NOMINATE published in 1995"
Book•
1 Jan 1995
TL;DR: Fernández et al. as discussed by the authors argue that powerful investors, not unorganized voters, dominate campaigns and elections, and that changes in industrial structures - between large firms and sectors - can alter the agenda of party politics and the shape of public policy.
Abstract: "To discover who rules, follow the gold." This is the argument of this book, a history of modern American politics. Although the role big money plays in defining political outcomes has long been obvious to ordinary Americans, most pundits and scholars have virtually dismissed this assumption. Even in the light of sky-rocketing campaign costs, the belief that major financial interests primarily determine who parties nominate and where they stand on the issues - that, in effect, Democrats and Republicans are merely the left and right wings of the "Property Party" - has been ignored by most political scientists. Offering evidence ranging from the 19th century to the 1994 mid-term elections, this book shows that voters are "right on the money." Thomas Ferguson breaks completely with traditional voter-centred accounts of party politics. In its place he outlines an "investment approach," in which powerful investors, not unorganized voters, dominate campaigns and elections. Because businesses "invest" in political parties and their candidates, changes in industrial structures - between large firms and sectors - can alter the agenda of party politics and the shape of public policy. This book presents revised versions of essays in which Ferguson advanced and tested his theory, including his study of the role played by capital intensive multinationals and international financiers in the New Deal. The chapter, "Studies in Money Driven Politics", brings this aspect of American politics into better focus, along with other studies of Federal Reserve policy-making and campaign finance in the 1936 election. Ferguson analyzes how a changing world economy and other social developments broke up the New Deal system in our own time, through careful studies of the 1988 and 1992 elections. The essay on 1992 contains an extended analysis of the emergence of the Clinton coalition and Ross Perot's dramatic independent insurgency. A postscript on the 1994 elections demonstrates the controlling impact of money on several key campaigns.
219 citations
TL;DR: The Constituent Assembly is convened to declare the decadence of the Monarchy and proclaim the Social Republic.
Abstract: Abstract The Constituent Assembly is convoked, a sovereign power of popular origin, to declare the decadence of the Monarchy, and solemnly condemn the treachery of the last king, to proclaim the Social Republic and nominate its Leader. The Republican Constituent assembly has the duty to guarantee to citizens, soldiers, workers, and taxpayers the right to exercise control and responsible criticism of the acts of the public administrations; every five years the citizen will be called upon to pronounce on the nomination of the Leader of the Republic.
6 Apr 1995
TL;DR: The Court-packing scheme led to a vacancy on the Supreme Court, which allowed Roosevelt to nominate a successor.
Abstract: Abstract On August 12, 1937, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, rebounding from the worst setback of his long Presidency, took the first of a series of steps toward creating what historians would one day call “the Roosevelt Court.” Galling defeat had come less than a month before when the Senate had killed his “Court-packing” scheme, amid loud rejoicing from his opponents. The President was not finished yet, however, for one legacy of the protracted struggle was the creation of a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and it was FDR’s prerogative to nominate a successor. The choice he finally made would trigger an acrimonious controversy and would have a momentous impact on the disposition of the Court. The vacancy may have resulted from FDR’s Court-packing plan. Roosevelt had advanced his bold proposal in February because he was frustrated by the performance of the Supreme Court, particularly the “Four Horsemen,” Willis Van Devanter, Pierce Butler, James McReynolds, and George Sutherland. In May, during the heated Congressional battle, Van Devanter had announced his retirement in what some thought was a well-timed move to dispose of the plan, though his action may instead have come in response to more favorable retirement legislation or other considerations.