We live in a tabloid era defined by The National Enquirer and The Star. How has it affected popular confidence in the criminal justice system? Richard L. Fox and Robert W. Van Sickel's study examines the mass media's tabloid news coverage of high-profile criminal cases that involve violence and race, gender, and social class issues. This news coverage, they argue, sacrifices the media's educational function, misinforms the public about the operation of the criminal justice system, and contributes to the public's lack of faith in criminal justice.

A growing chorus of academics, journalists, and politicos alike bemoans the state of American democracy. The symptoms are well known. Public trust in government has declined over time, the stock of social capital has shrunk, and turnout remains low. Some observers even argue that politicians now are less responsive to public opinion on various issues. Perhaps understandably, there is increasing pressure for reform of the electoral process, including campaign finance, the conduct of campaigns, media coverage of campaigns, and election rules themselves. In By Popular Demand, John Gastil joins the call for reform, but in an original and provocative way.

That environmental problems such as groundwater contamination, global warming, and loss of biodiversity pose mounting political challenges is now widely admitted. The meager progress in reversing these trends calls into question the adequacy of policy instruments conventionally used to address them. Gillroy maintains that the environmental policy failure stems from its grounding in economic reasoning. An alternative paradigm of Kantian inspiration is his proposed remedy.

“There remains,” writes Michael T. Hayes in his provocative new book, “a pressing need to educate the public—specialists and nonspecialists alike—on what politics can accomplish, and at what speed” (p. 189). To this end, Hayes challenges what Thomas Sowell (A Conflict of Visions, 1987) calls the tenets of “articulated rationality” (i.e., rational-comprehensive ideals) in the policy process. He vigorously asserts that the benefits of incrementalism (viz., its focus on “partisan mutual adjustment,” its understanding of “the importance of checks on the arbitrary abuse of power,” and “its ability to draw on the dispersion of knowledge throughout the political system” [p. 8]) exceed its costs (e.g., delay and incoherent policy outcomes). Moreover, on balance, “partisan mutual adjustment produces better [emphasis added] policy outcomes than any attempt at rational-comprehensive analysis” (p. 8).

The new monographs by R. Allen Hays and Allen F. Zundel are welcome additions to our effort to understand the processes by which Americans make social welfare policy. Hays's work looks at the set of interest groups that testified before Congress on poverty policy during the 28-year period from 1970 to 1997, a period characterized by both incremental change and major upheaval in poverty policymaking. Zundel's work examines the rhetorical frames that have driven major social welfare reform efforts over the past century and a half.

Robert Kagan has three main objectives in writing this book: to demonstrate that the American systems of criminal and civil law, social welfare, and environmental regulation are dominated by “adversarial legalism,” to critique and explain why it has taken hold in the United States, and to make proposals for reform in light of findings in the United States and the advanced capitalist nations of Europe, the Commonwealth, and Japan.

Rogan Kersh's ambitious and well-researched book traces the history of the concept of American national “union” from the middle of the eighteenth century to the end of the nineteenth century, when the concept lost the peculiar force it had had and fell out of use (more or less replaced by such concepts as “nation,” “country,” and, especially, “America”). The analysis demonstrates how the concept of national union has been used in exclusive as well as inclusive ways. The subject is an important one, especially to an America united by terrorist threats. And it is a topic made more conspicuous in the last decade by our ongoing discourse over multiculturalism. So the concept of national union is perhaps less obscure and more relevant than Kersh suggests (p. 3). Connections to the recent work of Rogers Smith (Civic Ideals, 1997) are also apparent. Still, the term itself has been out of favor for about a century now, so Kersh's study is a welcome effort to get us thinking about a relatively novel topic.

In recent decades, roughly 25 percent of major bills considered by the U.S. Congress have been omnibus measures—large, often unwieldy, legislative vehicles that touch on multiple policy areas. The 1981 reconciliation bill, which included much of President Reagan's economic agenda, is perhaps the best-known example. But many important policy proposals, from crime control to welfare reform, have passed as part of omnibus legislation.

Analysts of religion and American politics have been awaiting this book for some time. In The Great Divide, Geoffrey Layman brings together two strands of research in American political behavior in an elegant, systematic fashion: the study of party system change (often described as the literature on “party realignment”) and the analysis of religion in politics in the United States (long something of an esoteric speciality within political science). While Layman is not first to address the connection between the pew and the precinct, his impressive effort is at this point the authoritative source on religion and contemporary party politics.

Rarely is one invited to see the ingredients that go into the sausage, and if one plans only to eat sausage, this is an ideal situation. But the only way to make sausage is to take a close look at these ingredients, blemishes and all. Despite modeling shortcomings and disagreements that are evident among the authors, Elements of Reason is a remarkable book, both for its instructional value and the insight it offers into one of the most important problems in the social sciences.

Political consultants have become an omnipresent part of the election landscape. Almost no prominent campaign emerges without a group of paid advisors who raise money, poll, design ads, and craft messages for the candidate. Yet despite the extensive visibility of campaign consultants, few empirical studies exist that attempt to measure the impact of this important player in American elections.

Tali Mendelberg's The Race Card offers a methodologically rich and convincing account of the impact of subtle race cues in contemporary American politics. Although her thesis is a controversial one, Mendelberg develops a careful and cogent argument that racial attitudes can have a substantial effect on candidate evaluations—provided that candidates craft a racial appeal that appears to be about something other than race. She argues that the success of implicit antiblack appeals, ones juxtaposing visual references to race with ostensibly nonracial verbal messages on issues such as crime or welfare, are due to four “A” factors: ambivalence about racial stereotypes, accessibility and priming, awareness of one's reliance on racial attitudes, and the ambiguity of the racial cue.

While most elections in the United States are simultaneous (with all voters casting their ballots on the same day), there are elections, such as the presidential primary system, in which voters cast their ballots over an extended period of time. Sequential voting poses an interesting puzzle for scholars of voting behavior, particularly given the information flow of elections, but also the strategic considerations of what is effectively an iterated process over time. Presidential primaries are essentially a sequence or series of state party races that begin in early February and last until June of a presidential election year. Although not precisely the same as the presidential primary process, mail-in balloting or early voting, whereby some voters, especially stronger partisans, choose to cast their ballots prior to election day, offers another example of sequential voting in the United States.

For those of us who watch Congress and steep ourselves in its history, there are a handful of theories purporting to explain how and why Congress changes. Political parties behave like cartels gathering power at another's expense. Election-minded members shape Congress to ease the passage of pork-barrel bills and to trade votes. Congress often seems designed to encourage legislators to become policy experts, and their expertise is protected by deference to committees that fairly closely represent the interests of the whole House or Senate. For at least the last 15 years, and in the name of New Institutionalism, full-throated fans of various theories have been arguing over which one is “right.”

The publication under review is the outcome of a Princeton University conference entitled “Unemployment's Effects” held in 1997. The themes of the chapters extend widely. Some authors focus on broad discussions of the possibilities for the “European model” to survive in a global economic setting, while others look at specific relations, for example, between unemployment and trade union strength, in just one European country. Some chapters have clear theoretical objectives, while others have a focus on empirical detail and statistical analysis. On the other hand, the majority of the chapters are related by a general positive view on the sustainability of the European model, even in the seemingly hostile environment of the global economy. Although the European welfare states and labor markets are often accused of being inflexible and hampered by “institutional sclerosis,” they may also foster the development of a soft and kind capitalism—or organized managed economy—as Nancy Bermeo puts it in her introduction to the book.

Since the 1980s, global financial integration and the rise of neoliberalism have significantly changed the terrain on which European social democratic parties operate. However, fierce debate persists over the evaluation of these changes. Some observers—from widely differing political standpoints—insist that social democracy and the free movement of capital across national boundaries are fundamentally incompatible. It follows that the only options for social democratic parties are either to embrace neoliberalism and dismantle much of the welfare state or organize concerted action to reshape the global financial architecture. An opposing group of analysts are equally adamant that while the terrain has certainly become more difficult, it is still possible for Social Democrats to preserve much of the welfare state and even launch new policy initiatives.

Standing the assumptions and causal propositions of established theories on their head, with an eye to refining them or pointing us to other theories, is a fruitful path to quickening the intellectual pulse, to reinvigorating a field of study, and to contributing to knowledge. The Other Mirror makes an eloquent and persuasive case for midrange theorizing as a tool for revitalizing area studies in general and Latin American studies in particular. If area studies are to recover from their marginality in the general disciplines, area specialists must once again engage the theory-building enterprise central to the disciplines that house them. By concentrating on midrange analysis, area studies have real contributions to make to general theory.

The approach to the design and revision of electoral districts in Canada is quite different from that found in the United States, despite the two countries' sharing of the same basic first-past-the-post electoral system. As John Courtney notes in his careful study of the topic, in Canada the emphasis in defining electoral districts, or constituencies or ridings, has been underpinned by concepts such as “community of interest” and “effective representation,” which encompass a wide range of political and social considerations—many local in nature—and which permit substantial deviation from the principle of one person, one vote. At the federal level, the allowable deviation in the size of constituencies can be plus or minus 25% within any given province, with the possibility of even greater variances under special circumstances. At the level of provincial electoral systems, the variances can be even larger, in part due to the fact that in certain provinces the ratio of urban to rural seats is specified in law. At the same time, the actual process of designing and reconfiguring the boundaries of constituencies, in the hands of independent, arm's-length commissions for the past 40 years, has been remarkably free of direct partisan influence. In fact, given the rather tattered state of current Canadian parliamentary democracy, characterized by one-party dominance in the federal parliament and a precipitous decline in voter turnout over the past three elections, the institution of arms-length boundary commissions stands out as something that works well and enjoys broad respect.

These two books deal with the legacy of apartheid for South Africa's democracy, approaching the problems posed by this legacy from differing perspectives about the role of the state. Pierre du Toit, in a thoughtful and well-researched book, addresses the problem of violence in post-apartheid South Africa. Peace in a society with a history of violence needs to be nurtured, he contends, and the state must play a central role.

Being one of a handful of opinion surveys conducted in China, this book should be of interest not only to China specialists but also to students of public opinion, political culture, and survey research. In 1990 and 1996, a joint team of American (University of Michigan) and Chinese (National Beijing University) scholars conducted surveys of the opinions of Chinese peasants and rural cadres in four Chinese counties in north and south China (in the provinces of Hebei, Hunan, Anhui, and the special municipality of Tianjin) concerning economic and political reforms in the post-Mao years. This book represents a partial analysis of the surveys.