On his book Presidents and Parties in the Public Mind
Cover Interview of March 20, 2019
Lastly
The central implications of my research are inherent in the
findings themselves: Whether intentional or not, a president’s words and
actions profoundly affect how the public regards his party on virtually every
dimension (and, if only by contrast, the rival party as well). Presidents who
govern well (as the public sees it) benefit their parties—and therefore
themselves if they care about reelection or historical reputation—which is a
good thing insofar as it gives them an incentive to govern well. Presidents who
do not govern successfully or who otherwise manage to alienate large portions
of the public weaken their parties at least temporarily and potentially long
after they are gone. This puts their fellow partisans in something of a
quandary: They have every reason to help their president enhance his public
standing if they can, and panning his words and actions will not help. But
individual and collective affirmation of an unpopular president may compromise
their own and their party’s political futures. Watching this quandary play out
in real time is fascinating and, at times, more than a little unnerving.
[T]he Holocaust transformed our whole way of thinking about war and heroism. War is no longer a proving ground for heroism in the same way it used to be. Instead, war now is something that we must avoid at all costs—because genocides often take place under the cover of war. We are no longer all potential soldiers (though we are that too), but we are all potential victims of the traumas war creates. This, at least, is one important development in the way Western populations envision war, even if it does not always predominate in the thinking of our political leaders.Carolyn J. Dean, Interview of February 01, 2011
The dominant premise in evolution and economics is that a person is being loyal to natural law if he or she attends to self’s interest and welfare before being concerned with the needs and demands of family or community. The public does not realize that this statement is not an established scientific principle but an ethical preference. Nonetheless, this belief has created a moral confusion among North Americans and Europeans because the evolution of our species was accompanied by the disposition to worry about kin and the collectives to which one belongs.Jerome Kagan, Interview of September 17, 2009
Lastly
The central implications of my research are inherent in the findings themselves: Whether intentional or not, a president’s words and actions profoundly affect how the public regards his party on virtually every dimension (and, if only by contrast, the rival party as well). Presidents who govern well (as the public sees it) benefit their parties—and therefore themselves if they care about reelection or historical reputation—which is a good thing insofar as it gives them an incentive to govern well. Presidents who do not govern successfully or who otherwise manage to alienate large portions of the public weaken their parties at least temporarily and potentially long after they are gone. This puts their fellow partisans in something of a quandary: They have every reason to help their president enhance his public standing if they can, and panning his words and actions will not help. But individual and collective affirmation of an unpopular president may compromise their own and their party’s political futures. Watching this quandary play out in real time is fascinating and, at times, more than a little unnerving.