Publication Type: Proceeding

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In the summer of 2000, Russian President Vladimir Putin told the European press that his country straddled an ?arc of instability extending from the Philippines to Kosovo,? and was alone in its fight against Islamic fundamentalism. It took a spectacular terrorist attack carried out a year later by al Qaeda to lend weight to Putin?s arguments. Putin subsequently pounced on the opportunity to reaffirm his previously suspect contention that Chechnya was the epicenter of Islamist terrorism. While not all of Europe?s elites were dazzled by this political sleight-of-hand, Washington accepted the Kremlin?s new marketing of the Chechen conflict. Within days of the September 11th attacks, Putin began a systematic effort to re-brand the Second Chechen War as the most important front in the struggle between ?civilization? and international terror. Moscow quickly began framing both Chechen terror attacks and its own counter-terror measures within a discourse shaped by the post-9/11 world. This shift in strategy effectively remade perceptions on Chechnya on both the domestic and international levels. This paper explores the use of 9/11, Washington?s ?War on Terror,? and Al Qaedism to provide legitimacy to Putin?s war in the Caucasus and his larger neo-authoritarian policy agenda. I explore the Russian response to the 2001 attacks in New York and Washington, as well as the framing of both the Dubrovka Theatre siege (2002) and Beslan (2004) as ?Russia?s 9/11.? I argue that Putin?s deft manipulation of September 11th endowed him with a powerful mandate?one which currently extends well beyond the realm of counter-terrorism. Putin has used his political capital to roll back Russia?s freedom of the press, remake military doctrine, and eliminate many of his country?s post-Soviet democratic reforms.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Using time series methods, we determine the causal relationship between declining public support for George W. Bush's Social Security reform plan, his handling of the Iraq war and the energy crisis, and his performance as president in general.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Securitization theory has not provided a coherent model of failed securitizing moves. In this comparison of several American counter-terrorism programs that were rejected or withdrawn, this paper articulates a model of failed securitizing move. The Total

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In this paper we consider a model in which lobbyists have two possible venues in which to lobby for policy changes. The motivation of the model is the choice faced by lobbyists in deciding whether to lobby a bureaucratic agency or the legislature from which the bureaucracy derives its policy making authority. We examine conditions under which venue choice can actually matter in equilibrium, and analyze the implications of venue choice for legislative preferences over the structure of the bureaucracy. In particular, since the legislature makes an inference if it, and not the bureaucracy, is lobbied, venue choice can lead the legislature to grant more discretion to an agency the more their preferences conflict, and to prefer agencies with policy preferences that diverge from its own.