First the press became the media, and now the media have become the Imperial Media—or have they? In this timely and comprehensive analysis, Michael Robinson and Margaret Sheehan examine how the news media behaved (or misbehaved) in covering the 1980 presidential campaign.

Using the media's own traditional standards as a guide, Robinson and Sheehan measure the level of objectivity, fairness, seriousness, and criticism displayed by CBS News and United Press International between January and December of 1980. Drawing on statistical analyses of almost 6,000 news stories and dozens of interviews with writers and reporters, the authors reach convincing and sometimes surprising conclusions. They demonstrate, for example, that both CBS and UPI strictly avoided subjective assessments of the candidates and their positions on the issues. Both gave the major parties remarkably equal access. But the media seem to give more negative coverage to front-runners, treating serious challengers less harshly. Perhaps the most surprising finding is that networks were not more superficial than print; CBS attended to the issues at least as often as UPI.

Robinson and Sheehan find television coverage more subjective, more volatile, and substantially more negative than traditional print. But CBS behaved neither imperially nor irresponsibly in Campaign '80. The networks did, however, emulate the more highly charged journalism of the eastern elite print press.

By blending the quantitative techniques of social science and the tools of Washington-based journalism, Robinson and Sheehan have produced a book that will be essential reading for students and practitioners of politics, public opinion research, journalism, and communications. Lively and readable, it should also appeal to anyone interested in the role of the news media in contemporary politics.

MICHAEL J. ROBINSON is associate professor of politics at Catholic University and director of the Media Analysis Project at George Washington University.

MARGARET A. SHEEHAN is research analyst for a law firm in Washington, D.C.

Although tolerance is one of our most cherished ideals, history suggests it is not an inborn human trait. Tolerance must be learned, and the sophisticated arguments on which it is based make it much harder to learn than intolerance. In this extensive study of civil liberties, Herbert McClosky and Alida Brill attempt to discover who learns the norms of tolerance and why.

Reaching well beyond traditional categories of analysis, McClosky and Brill have surveyed civil libertarian attitudes among the general public, opinion leaders, lawyers and judges, police officials, and academics. They analyze levels of tolerance in a wide range of civil liberties domains—first amendment rights, due process, privacy, and such emerging areas as women's and homosexual rights—and along numerous variables including political participation, ideology, age, and education.

This landmark study offers a comprehensive assessment of the viability—and vulnerability—of beliefs central to the democratic system. It makes an invaluable contribution to the study of contemporary American institutions and attitudes.

Herbert McClosky was research director at the Survey Research Center in Berkeley and professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley.

Alida Brill was program director and scholar in residence at the Russell Sage Foundation.

Winner of the 2019 Don T. Nakanishi Award for Distinguished Scholarship and Service from the Western Political Science Association Committee on the Status of Asian Pacific Americans

“Immigrants are not necessarily liberals, and religion is a large factor in predicting immigrant conservatism. These points are often overlooked by scholars and policymakers alike, and Janelle Wong’s path-breaking work shines much needed light on the ways in which religion—particularly evangelical Christianity—shapes immigrants’ politics, with considerable implications for the future of American party coalitions.”

—Michael Jones-Correa, professor of political science, University of Pennsylvania

“This is the perfect time for this important book. With evangelicals again in the bright political spotlight over their role in electing Donald Trump, it is essential to understand Janelle Wong’s exploration of evangelical religion, interests, and identities. Evangelical is clearly not a synonym for white Republican. But the steady diversification of evangelicalism will not necessarily entail a moderation of white evangelical politics either. There is fascinating work to be done on how people wrestle with competing racial and religious identities and Wong’s Immigrants, Evangelicals, and Politics in an Era of Demographic Change paves the way.”

—Paul A. Djupe, associate professor of political science, Denison University

As immigration from Asia and Latin America reshapes the demographic composition of the U.S., some analysts have anticipated the decline of conservative white evangelicals’ influence in politics. Yet, Donald Trump captured a larger share of the white evangelical vote in the 2016 election than any candidate in the previous four presidential elections. Why has the political clout of white evangelicals persisted at a time of increased racial and ethnic diversity? In Immigrants, Evangelicals, and Politics in an Era of Demographic Change, political scientist Janelle Wong examines a new generation of Asian American and Latino evangelicals and offers an account of why demographic change has not contributed to a political realignment.

Asian Americans and Latinos currently constitute more than one in every seven evangelicals, and their churches are among the largest, fastest growing organizations in their communities. While evangelical identity is associated with conservative politics, Wong draws from national surveys and interviews to show that non-white evangelicals express political attitudes that are significantly less conservative than those of their white counterparts. Black, Asian American, and Latino evangelicals are much more likely to support policies such as expanded immigration rights, increased taxation of the wealthy, and government interventions to slow climate change. As Wong argues, non-white evangelicals’ experiences as members of racial or ethnic minority groups often lead them to adopt more progressive political views compared to their white counterparts.

However, despite their growth in numbers, non-white evangelicals—particularly Asian Americans and Latinos—are concentrated outside of swing states, have lower levels of political participation than white evangelicals, and are less likely to be targeted by political campaigns. As a result, white evangelicals dominate the evangelical policy agenda and are overrepresented at the polls. Also, many white evangelicals have adopted even more conservative political views in response to rapid demographic change, perceiving, for example, that discrimination against Christians now rivals discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities.

Wong demonstrates that immigrant evangelicals are neither “natural” Republicans nor “natural” Democrats. By examining the changing demographics of the evangelical movement, Immigrants, Evangelicals, and Politics in an Era of Demographic Change sheds light on an understudied constituency that has yet to find its political home.

JANELLE S. WONG is professor of American Studies at the University of Maryland.

Winner of the 2019 Alexander George Book Award from the International Society of Political Psychology (ISPP)

"Why do so many Americans both depend on public programs and express distrust and opposition to the federal government that provides them? Suzanne Mettler, one of the most original political scientists working today, offers crucial answers to this puzzle. Her important new book, The Government-Citizen Disconnect, will engage citizens and scholars alike at a juncture of crisis, controversy, and revitalization for American democracy."

—Theda Skocpol, director, Scholars Strategy Network, and Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology, Harvard University

"Americans hate government. They also depend on it more and more. In this compelling and deeply researched book, Suzanne Mettler shows that this paradox is at the heart of our current political crisis. Anyone who cares about the future of the country should read The Government-Citizen Disconnect."

—Jacob S. Hacker, Stanley B. Resor Professor of Political Science, Yale University

Americans’ relationship to the federal government is paradoxical. Polls show that public opinion regarding the government has plummeted to all-time lows, with only one in five saying they trust the government or believe that it operates in their interest. Yet, at the same time, more Americans than ever benefit from some form of government social provision. Political scientist Suzanne Mettler calls this growing gulf between people’s perceptions of government and the actual role it plays in their lives the "government-citizen disconnect." In The Government-Citizen Disconnect, she explores the rise of this phenomenon and its implications for policymaking and politics.

Drawing from original survey data which probed Americans’ experiences of 21 federal social policies -- such as food stamps, Social Security, Medicaid, and the home mortgage interest deduction -- Mettler shows that 96 percent of adults have received benefits from at least one of them, and that the average person has utilized five. Overall usage rates transcend social, economic, and political divisions, and most Americans report positive experiences of their policy experiences. However, the fact that they have benefited from these policies bears little positive effect on people’s attitudes towards government. Mettler finds that shared identities and group affiliations are more powerful and consistent influences. In particular, those who oppose welfare tend to extrapolate their unfavorable views of it to government in general. Deep antipathy toward the government has emerged as a conservative movement waged a war on social welfare policies for over forty years, even as economic inequality and benefit use increased.

Mettler finds that patterns of political participation exacerbate the government-citizen disconnect, as those holding positive views of federal programs and supporting expanded benefits have lower rates of involvement than those holding more hostile views of the government. As a result, the loudest political voice belongs to those who have benefited from policies but who give government little credit for their economic well-being, seeing their success more as a matter of their own deservingness. This contributes to the election of politicians who advocate cutting federal social programs. According to Mettler, the government-citizen disconnect frays the bonds of representative government and democracy.

The Government-Citizen Disconnect illuminates a paradox that increasingly shapes American politics. Mettler's examination of hostility toward government at a time when most Americans will at some point rely on the social benefits it provides helps us better understand the roots of today's fractious political climate.

SUZANNE METTLER is the Clinton Rossiter Chair of American Institutions at Cornell University.