ABSTRACTChristopher Achen and Larry Bartels argue, in Democracy for Realists, that voters tend to be not only politically ignorant but irrationally attached to group identities. That they use group identities is not in dispute, but the irrationality of doing so is questionable. The instability and malleability of group identities suggests that they are more than primal, illogical attachments. While Achen and Bartels assume that they must be affective, they may in fact be rational. They may, for example, serve as heuristics (...) for individual interests. (shrink)

"What culture war? Abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, gun control. Is the nation really polarized on these hot-button moral, religious, and cultural issues? Should we believe the media pundits and politicians who tell us that Americans are deeply divided? No, says Morris Fiorina. At a time when the rift between the "red" and the "blue" states can seem deeper than ever, Fiorina debunks the assumption that Americans are deeply split over national issues. He presents quite a contrary picture -- that (...) most Americans stand in the middle of the political landscape and are in general agreement even on those issues thought to be most divisive. Poking holes in the concept of a "culture war," Fiorina explains that the majority of Americans are both moderate and tolerant, and that their greatest concerns are leadership and security, not moral values. Fiorina supports this position with newly released data from the 2004 election and a variety of other recent surveys. According to Fiorina, the view of a divided America is simply false. By recognizing our common ground, we have a basis for creating a more unified and moderate approach to government and politics in the near future."--. (shrink)

Don Green and Ian Shapiro's Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory, despite the impressive amount of work that has gone into it, is undercut by a number of serious misunderstandings of the use of the rational choice approach by students of American politics. Furthermore, Green and Shapiro adopt an extremely pinched notion of an empirical contribution and an outmoded and idealized view of the scientific method. If their standards were adopted, it would be difficult to allow that anyone in political science (...) has made an empirical contribution, or that political science is a scientific enterprise. (shrink)