Political Communication: The Public Language of Political Elites in India and the United States. By Satish K. Arora and Harold D. Lasswell. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969. viii, 312 pp. Appendixes, Index, n.p.

1969 ◽  
Vol 29 (01) ◽  
pp. 180-181
Author(s):  
David J. Elkins
1970 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 144
Author(s):  
George H. Gadbois ◽  
Satish K. Arora ◽  
Harold D. Lasswell

1971 ◽  
Vol 86 (2) ◽  
pp. 354
Author(s):  
Richard L. Merritt ◽  
William P. Towell ◽  
Satish K. Arora ◽  
Harold D. Lasswell

1993 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
John L. Sullivan ◽  
Pat Walsh ◽  
Michal Shamir ◽  
David G. Barnum ◽  
James L. Gibson

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.


1975 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-142
Author(s):  
Robert G. Craig ◽  
Harry P. Mapp

“There is more than enough evidence to show that the states and localities, far from being weak sisters, have actually been carrying the brunt of domestic governmental progress in the United States ever since the end of World War II … Moreover, they have been largely responsible for undertaking the truly revolutionary change in the role of government in the United States that has occurred over the past decade.”–Daniel J. Elazar, The Public Interest


1997 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 400-410
Author(s):  
E. S. Calvert

This paper was first published in 1960 (Vol. 13, p. 127). It is followed by comments from John Kemp. The paper has been abridged, including the omission of section 5 which described a proposal for a new radar display.When the problem of collision in the air is discussed, it is usual to start by pointing out the enormous closing speed of two modern aircraft meeting head-on, and to conclude from this that avoidance on the ‘see and be seen’ principle has ceased to be possible. The fact is, however, that the great majority of mid-air collisions (about 85 percent) occur within five miles of an airport and the typical case is not the head-on one, but the case in which the two aircraft crab into one another from a direction which may be anywhere around the whole enclosing sphere. Since the field of view of the aircrew covers only about 20 percent of the enclosing sphere, the aircrew of colliding aircraft seldom see each other. It would seem, therefore, that the ‘see and be seen’ principle never did afford much protection, even when speeds were low. In other words, the fact that the number of mid-air collisions in Europe has hitherto been small is not primarily due to seeing and evading, although this sometimes happens, but to the fact that the airspace is very large compared to the volume of all the aircraft in it at any given time. However, as traffic densities go up, the risk rapidly increases, and in congested airspace, such as that around New York, the problem of avoiding collision has already become acute. In the period 1948–57, there were 159 mid-air collisions in the United States, and many of these made headlines in the world press. One can imagine the public outcry if two large transports were to collide over a housing estate; but unless something effective is done, something like this will presumably happen eventually. At very high altitudes the ‘see and be seen’ principle certainly fails, by day, because the speed will be high, and in addition, the range at which a pilot can see an object the size of an aircraft may be less than 1½ miles due to what is sometimes called ‘high-altitude myopia’.


Author(s):  
Susan Goodier ◽  
Karen Pastorello

This chapter examines the woman suffrage movement during the outbreak of war in Europe. Contradictions and upheaval related to the war marred the last three years of the suffrage campaign in New York. Most suffragists and anti-suffragists turned their attention from suffragism to patriotism, war preparedness, or pacifism between August 1914 and April 1917, when the United States entered the war. The movement, which previously faced divisions among members of its rank and file over tactics and strategies related to women's enfranchisement, now divided along new lines of patriotism and militarism. Sensitive to citizenship rights and responsibilities, most suffragists felt compelled to choose a position in response to the war. Nevertheless, they insisted on keeping their campaign before the public, most often linking suffrage with patriotism to highlight their worthiness for full citizenship.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document