Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The causes and consequences of public support, or the lack thereof, for the overseas application of military force is a subject of longstanding scholarly debate. The most widely accepted explanations emphasize rational public responses to events as they unfold. Such “event-based” explanations hold that a president’s ability to sustain public support for a U.S. military engagement depends primarily on its degree of success, the number of or trend in U.S. casualties, or the U.S. goals in a given conflict. Yet, recent research into the framing of foreign policy has shown that public perceptions concerning, success or failure, the implications of casualties, and the offensive or defensive nature of U.S. military engagements are often endogenous to the domestic political circumstances surrounding them, including the efforts of political and media elites to frame events to their own advantage.
In this study, we develop and test a series of hypotheses concerning media coverage of, and public opinion regarding, the war in Iraq. In the former case, in prior research (Baum and Groeling 2004, 2005) we report evidence that journalists’ preferences lead traditional news programs to disproportionately feature instances of members of the presidential party criticizing their fellow partisan president and, albeit to a somewhat lesser extent, of the opposition party praising him. Moreover, because they represent costly speech, presidential party attacks are highly credible to consumers, as is opposition party praise. In contrast, in more ideologically narrow “new media” outlets, we anticipate that the balance will likely differ substantially.
We test our hypotheses concerning media coverage through a comprehensive content analysis of all coverage of the war from September 2004 through February 2007 appearing on the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and FOX’s Special Report with Brit Hume. We test our public opinion hypotheses using that same dataset, as well as an expert survey on conditions in Iraq and national opinion toward the Iraq War broken down by party. We find significant differences in both the composition and impact of partisan messages on public opinion across outlets.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper examines the divergent security agendas of the United States during the first and second Bush Administrations and the Vicente Fox sexenio. The principal thesis is that despite general convergence on bilateral security issues a wide gulf between Mexico City and Washington has opened up in recent years as a result of the different priorities assigned by each government to the key issues on the bilateral agenda.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: For generations, Pierson v. Post, the famous fox case, has introduced students to the study of property law. Two hundred years after the case was decided, this Article examines the history of the case to show both how it fits into the American ideology of property, and how the facts behind the dispute challenge that ideology. Pierson is a canonical case because it replicates a central myth of American property law, that we start with a world in which no one has rights to anything and the fundamental problem is how best to convert it to absolute individual ownership. The history behind the dispute, however, suggests that the heart of the conflict was a contest over which community would control the shared resources of the town and how those resources would be used.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper seeks to clarify whether Mexico’s democratic transition of 2000 and the subsequent four years of the Fox government have yielded significant modifications in patterns of exchanges and linkages of power between the state and independent labour unions (ILU) –i.e. those labour organizations which were not part of the corporatist framework underpinning the 1929-2000 civilian authoritarian regime. Results indicate that there has been no concrete democratization of state-ILU relations since 2000, due in particular to the continuation of restrictive provisions in Mexico’s Federal Labour Law under the Fox administration. Furthermore, interviews with prominent ILU leaders reveal that the manner in which the Fox government has implemented the Federal Labour Law has perpetuated the limitations put by the previous regime on the workers’ freedoms of association and organization, as well as on their right to strike. Nonetheless, findings also suggest that the Fox administration has ended the political marginalization of independent unions by consulting periodically with these groups and allowing them to play an enhanced –if still somewhat limited—role in the country’s political dynamics.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Mexico was unable to develop a national security doctrine before and after9/11 under the Vicente Fox administration. In fact, the lack of a national security doctrine and an unclear foreign policy illustrated the limits of the Fox administration internally as well as abroad. This paper will explore the implications and consequences of a new government in December 1st 2006 to 2012. In Mexico is urgent a State reform to consolidate democracy, redirect the foreign policy and develop a national security doctrine and structure to anticipate the threats and vulnerabilities of the XXI century. Under this circunstances, I will examine the coordination –or lack of- the Calderon administration on national security and foreign policy towards North America, Central America and Cuba. Finally, I will conclude with some policy recommendations on national security and foreign policy as well.