Suchergebnisse

Draft ; Glen Browder is Eminent Scholar in American Democracy at Jacksonville State University (in Alabama) and Distinguished Visiting Professor of National Security Affairs at Naval Postgraduate School (in California). Dr. Browder has bridged the gap between classroom civics and real-world government during a diverse career as public official, political activist, and professional educator. His extensive public service (as United States Congressman, Alabama Secretary of State, and Alabama State Legislator), political experience (as party official and campaign consultant), and academic background (as political science professor) have focused on political reform and adjustment to a changing world. In The Future of American Democracy: A Former Congressman's Unconventional Analysis (University Press of America, 2002), Browder questions America's democratic destiny and encourages national dialogue about the uncertain future of our "Great Experiment".

"Professor-Politician challenges common depictions of politics as a constant struggle of good-versus-evil and heroes-versus-villains, with "dirty politics" usually winning. The truth is that good government can prevail in Montgomery and Washington. Journalist Geni Certain recounts Glen Browder's civic adventures as one of Alabama's prominent scholars and public officials over the past half-century. This is a story of practical and reform politics told by someone specially positioned to comment on Alabama government and American democracy. Certain interviewed knowledgeable people, researched public records, and scoured the Browder Collection at Jacksonville State University for this intriguing and inspiring biography of a civic-oriented leader."--Publisher's website

Personal interviews, employing both open & closed-ended items, were conducted among 166 active leaders (precinct chairmen, district chairmen, & county-wide officials) of the Democratic & Republican party org's in DeKalb County, Ga, between Jul & Sep of 1970. Attempts were made to interview all individuals occupying positions in these org's, resulting in response rates of 88% among Democrats (81 R's) & 83% among Republicans (85 R's). The study is concerned generally with the relevance of the "amateur" & "professional" models of pol'al activism to the party org's in this affluent Southern community. The data deal with the existence & maintenance of amateur activism in this locale, the manner in which the incentive character of the activist is translated into the party's recruitment process, the activist's perception of the party as an incentive system & as an instrument for pol'al action, & the congruence between precinct chairmen & upper-echelon leaders in terms of these selected aspects of grassroots party pol. The findings, with only minor interparty diff's, suggest that: (1) the pol'al org's in this locale are "amateur-oriented" & this orientation appears to be quite stable; (2) most of the activists emphasize amateur reasons for party work in recruiting new activities; (3) although the activists perceive the party as offering more personally-instrumental (professional) than impersonal (amateur) satisfactions, they give the party a favorable rating, in comparison with other org's, as an instrument for affecting gov & pol's & (4) hierarchical diff's within each party are minor. In sum, the findings relating to these Southern party leaders provide support for the proposition that the Mc suburb is an appropriate environment for amateur activism. AA.

I must admit that, after more than a decade of teaching and researching political parties, I found being selected to and participating in the 1980 Democratic National Convention an exhiliarating experience.The Alabama delegate-selection process was a very competitive primary with extensive activity by the Carter and Kennedy organizations and by the individual delegate candidates. In varying degrees, the delegate candidates stumped their constituencies with personal appearances, letters, rallies, sample ballots, newspaper ads, group endorsements, and assorted other campaign gimmicks.The selection process consisted primarily of a statewide primary (1) to allocate Alabama's delegates and alternate delegates among the presidential candidates, and (2) to elect the members of that delegation. Over 500 candidates ran for the 45 delegate and 32 alternate delegate positions in that primary. The primary actually was conducted by congressional district, with 33 candidates running for four delegate and three alternate delegate positions in my CD. The ballot was structured by sex (females listed first) and the voter was instructed to vote for up to four females and up to four males. Delegates were allocated to presidential candidates according to a formula which was roughly proportional; and individual delegates were selected by an equally fair but more complex formula.

I must admit that, after more than a decade of teaching and researching political parties, I found being selected to and participating in the 1980 Democratic National Convention an exhiliarating experience.The Alabama delegate-selection process was a very competitive primary with extensive activity by the Carter and Kennedy organizations and by the individual delegate candidates. In varying degrees, the delegate candidates stumped their constituencies with personal appearances, letters, rallies, sample ballots, newspaper ads, group endorsements, and assorted other campaign gimmicks.The selection process consisted primarily of a statewide primary (1) to allocate Alabama's delegates and alternate delegates among the presidential candidates, and (2) to elect the members of that delegation. Over 500 candidates ran for the 45 delegate and 32 alternate delegate positions in that primary. The primary actually was conducted by congressional district, with 33 candidates running for four delegate and three alternate delegate positions in my CD. The ballot was structured by sex (females listed first) and the voter was instructed to vote for up to four females and up to four males. Delegates were allocated to presidential candidates according to a formula which was roughly proportional; and individual delegates were selected by an equally fair but more complex formula.