Of course, it’s not easy to discern what precisely the “Trump effect” is from our current vantage point. But if it speaks to a basic rejection of globalization and a new kind of nationalism, I think it will be around for a while.
That’s not least because the American left is reconstituting itself around issues of identity politics and technocracy and leaving behind the ideas and supporters of the New Deal and Great Society that delivered its huge electoral mandates from the 1930s to late 1960s.
Trump’s brand of politics has become popular as a counter-weight to the contemporary American left.
I don’t see a “liberal revolution”, just like I don’t see a Trump majority. Americans are too attached to the core ideas of what many call classical liberalism—such as individual liberty and free markets—to fully embrace either.
What would the layman find most interesting and accessible within your research?
I teach at a land-grant public institution of higher education, NC State. Consequently, I have always thought I should tackle the important normative questions in my field.
Of course, I’ve researched many technical and narrow matters as well (an unfortunate function of the tenure process), but I’ve always been driven to help find answers to questions about which I think the public should be concerned.
Such questions have driven my three books on American politics—The Elephant’s Edge, The Floor in Congressional Life, and Congress: A Performance Appraisal.
I also like to write in a “chatty” style, integrating data with lively and accessible prose. I intend the two book projects I’ve recently embarked upon to be in the same tradition.
The first is also on Congress and looks at the events across American history when members have placed congressional interests above personal, partisan, and ideological concerns.
The second is an attempt to explain economic inequality as a product of public inputs and a political system that is working better than most critics give it credit.
In your book Elephants Edge: The Republicans as a Ruling Party, you explain how republicans were seizing political power, but you were skeptical of a long-term political reign. Now that the pendulum seems to have thoroughly swung into the conservative camp, what is your current perspective on their ability to maintain power?
The book’s thesis was that within a broader context of electoral parity the Republicans enjoyed a series of innate advantages that gave them an “edge”. I’ve been asked whether I stick by the argument many times since the book came out in 2005. Don’t forget, many thought the Obama election in 2008 heralded a Democratic realignment.
Obviously the parties’ fortunes ebb and flow. However, I think it’s fair to say that they are still both very competitive nationally. The 2016 election, despite delivering Republican unified government, still showed this country to be “purple”. And if there is a party that currently has the “edge” it is the GOP.
Polarization is greater than ever and there is a discernible awakening on the far left, but the Democrats are not cohesive enough to turn things around in the near term.
The great strides Republicans have made at the local level in the past 20 years and redistricting make it even more difficult for the Democrats to win federal and state legislative majorities.
What is the most interesting story in your academic career? Your greatest adventure, mishap, fortuitous incident etc.
I’ve really got to meet a lot of interesting people. Obviously many of them are faculty colleagues and students, but I also bump into a lot of journalists and practitioners. I was honored to be the American Political Science Association’s Steiger Congressional Fellow in 1999-2000.
The time I spent on the Hill was invaluable and I would encourage any young scholar of American politics to apply for the program.
One particularly interesting experience from that year was attending Bill Clinton’s last State of the Union address. As I left, I walked out chatting with Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and John Edwards (D-NC).
With all the funding in the world, what would you have researched and how?
I’m not sure political science research is the best use of all of our finite resources, but certainly what we do is important. It seems to me that political science should be in the business of elevating people’s quality of life.
I’m personally convinced that is done by maximizing individual liberty under a set of broadly agreed-upon rules.
Others might disagree and I’m certainly willing to entertain the notion that there may be places and times when that system doesn’t work as well as I think it does.
So I guess I would test my hypothesis that this is the best kind of social arrangement on a huge data set of societies across human history.