How Bad is Bad?: Dispositional Negativity in Political Judgment

Author(s):  
Damarys Canache ◽  
Jeffery J. Mondak ◽  
Mitchell A. Seligson ◽  
Bryce Tuggle
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Joshua M. Sharfstein

An effective communications approach starts with a basic dictum set forth by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: “Be first, be right, be credible.” Agencies must establish themselves as vital sources of accurate information to maintain the public’s trust. At the same time, public health officials must recognize that communications play out in the context of ideological debates, electoral rivalries, and other political considerations. During a public health crisis, this means that health officials often need to constructively engage political leaders in communications and management. Navigating these waters in the middle of a crisis can be treacherous. Figuring out the best way to engage elected leaders is a core aspect of political judgment.


2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Han van Wietmarschen

I argue that reliance on political testimony conflicts with two democratic values: the value of mutual justifiability and the value of equality of opportunity for political influence. Reliance on political testimony is characterized by a reliance on the assertions of others directly on a political question the citizen is asked to answer as part of a formal democratic decision procedure. Reliance on expert testimony generally, even in the context of political decision-making, does not similarly conflict with democratic values. As a consequence of the argument, citizens have a pro tanto reason to rely on their own political judgment when determining their vote, and democratic societies have a reason to only ask citizens questions they are able to answer without reliance on political testimony.


1993 ◽  
pp. 296-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor C. Ottati ◽  
Robert S. Wyer
Keyword(s):  

1962 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver J. Lissitzyn

The purpose of this comment is not to pass legal or political judgment on the actions of the governments involved in the U-2 and the RB-47 incidents of 1960, but to note and analyze, now that the passions aroused by the incidents have subsided, some of the legal implications of the positions taken by these and other governments in connection with these incidents, particularly with respect to sovereignty and jurisdiction in space.


Author(s):  
Jason Brennan

This chapter studies and rebuts a variety of objections to the argument that hold that abstention involves a loss of autonomy for the individual. Some might see abstention as a violation of autonomy. To abstain means to cede political judgment to others and to give up one's own independent judgment. The chapter argues against this. First, deferring to others does not always involve a troubling loss of autonomy. Second, the idea that voting gives the voter significant autonomy or control is implausible anyway. So long as one has an equal right to vote, choosing not to vote can be an autonomous act, a way of expressing one's will that the best outcome be achieved.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document