|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|||||||||||||
|
|
Ask L. Sandy Maisel, the William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of Government, about who is running–and who is not–and you'll get the informed insights of an expert who has studied Congress for three decades. Who is not running is now Maisel's primary research interest, and it's also research that generated more controversy than the National Science Foundation (NSF) would have predicted when it offered funding. Maisel and Walter Stone, a professor of political science at the University of Colorado, received $175,000 from the NSF for their Candidate Emergence Study, which started in 1997. The goal was to understand the decision-making process of potential candidates–those who run and especially those who decide not to. First Maisel and Stone obtained the names of Democrats and Republicans considered strong potential candidates for Congress in 200 selected U.S. House districts, whether or not those possible candidates had shown any interest in running. Next they surveyed these ideal candidates about their political ambitions, likelihood of running for office, perceptions of their districts and incumbents, view of their chances of winning and what opportunities, costs and benefits were associated with seeking a seat in the House. The inquiry made some members of Congress nervous. The initial mailing prompted calls from about 20 congressional staffs, most of whom were mollified once Maisel and Stone explained the scientific nature of the study, that it addressed 200 districts and that it involved both Democrats and Republicans. One was unconvinced, however, and this Congressman went on the attack. Rep. Bill Clay (D-Mo.) issued a press release in June of 1997 expressing "outrage" that tax dollars were being "wasted" when "there is never any shortage of good and qualified people who feel they could serve in Congress." When the press picked up the story, "our phones rang nonstop," said Maisel. Clay and three other House members pressed for investigations of the study by the NSF's inspector general and the General Accounting Office (GAO). Though the NSF investigation cleared the study as being "fully consistent" with the research proposal the foundation had agreed to fund, Clay and his colleagues attacked the study on the House floor and implied that the NSF regretted funding it. The controversy did not fade after this symbolic attack, and things got hairy when the GAO's investigation ordered Maisel and Stone to breach the confidentiality of their informants (confidentiality is required by guidelines of the NSF and guaranteed in the human subjects law governing scientific research). Colby and University of Colorado attorneys entered negotiations with the GAO and the NSF's unsympathetic general counsel and, at one impasse, "were prepared to fight a congressional subpoena," Maisel said. At that point Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and others persuaded Rep. Clay to ask the GAO to wrap up its investigation. The subsequent GAO report blandly concluded that the grant proposals "were submitted, reviewed, and processed according to the NSF's grant policies and procedures." The political science lesson for Maisel was one of political power. "Just because you know you're right, and everyone knows that you're right, doesn't mean you're going to come out ahead," he said. The sideshow overshadowed research that reached interesting conclusions and warranted a follow-up study on how potential candidates' views change. "The NSF said ‘of course you can apply,'" Maisel said of the sequel study, "but they begged us not to." In September he and Stone received $138,580 from the Smith Richardson Foundation for a two-year study titled "Who Runs for Congress and Who Doesn't Run: The Candidate Emergence Study." The initial study found that "the better they [potential candidates] were, the less likely they would run," Maisel said. Often it was a practical decision based on their sense that they couldn't win against incumbents. But a greater concern was the perception that Congress is no longer a place where people can solve the nation's problems, a phenomenon Maisel attributes to the success of the Reagan revolution, which shifted power to state and local policymakers. That and the perception that politics and Congress are too negative and are held in low regard have had a notable effect on people's willingness to serve. The negativity–the partisan bitterness–worries Maisel most. "I have always enjoyed having conservative students in the classroom. I love having someone like Joe Reisert [assistant professor of government], who is very conservative, in the department." Congress, however, has changed greatly in the last 15 or 20 years and has lost the code of comity that permits friendships across the aisle, Maisel says. "How do you maintain a civil debate when the other side takes an absolute position?" he asked. It's a dilemma that he attacks as a teacher by making students take the side of a debate that runs contrary to their own beliefs. The study's findings underline the need to maintain civil discourse in politics as one foundation of a functional democratic system. Otherwise, "you don't have people dedicating their lives to making the system better," Maisel said. "That's scary as hell to me." |
|
readers write | periscope | from the hill | student life | faculty file | books & authors gifts and grants | alumni at large | obituaries | final period
©1999 COLBY COLLEGE |
