Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In terms of racial contentiousness, the 2007-2008 Democratic presidential primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton ended much different than it started. In the summer of 2007 both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had strong support among African Americans, but both also had substantial white support. Much of Obama’s White support was due to his deracialized or racially transcendent image. This led many Black leaders to question Obama’s racial authenticity, which in turn may have influenced his early favorability ratings among African Americans. But, there were few calls about the extent to which Clinton was racially acceptable (although her husband was presumably acceptable). In this research, I take a retrospective look at how African Americans were viewing Obama relative to Clinton in terms of which candidate would better represent “black interests.” Is it that African Americans support Black candidates when they view them as representing black interests, but will support white candidates regardless of perceived substantive representation? Using 2007 Gallup race relations data—including oversamples of African Americans—I address the questions of racial double standards within the black electorate.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Since 1998, one of the most remarkable developments in European integration has taken place in the defense field. On paper, all member-states but Denmark now support the idea of a common European security and defense policy (ESDP). Political-military structures have been created and new initiatives are launched almost every month, but the nature of the beast remains unclear. Should it become the independent defense arm of the European Union or a subsidiary of NATO? Should it remain an intergovernmental political forum or move towards the multinational integration of armed forces? And what should it do? Rational-choice theorists usually explain the difficult emergence of a European defense identity by focusing on supposedly conflicting state interests. On the contrary, I argue in this paper that the �objective� (i.e. material and geopolitical) interests of European states dictate that a strong version of the European security and defense policy be put in place. However, �subjective� (i.e. organizational and ideal) interests slow down the process of military integration because the most important member-states, for organizational and historical reasons, differ substantially in their perceptions of what the �military� should be.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The paper identifies common elements and differences in interest group activity in non-pluralist, transitional democracies and developing systems to provide an explanation of the development of interest groups in these systems.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: When the EU elephant accepts another pack into its jungle, it might lack the resources to teach all its members. To assess a stage of learning, this paper examines the impact that type of interest has on the Europeanization of interest group discours

Publication Type: Proceeding
Abstract: Recent work suggests that the most fruitful approach to accounting for variations in interest system diversity of any type lies in understanding variations in interest system density (Lowery, Gray and Fellowes 2005). We build on this insight by examining the sources of variation in the substantive diversity of health interests in the American states, focusing on how the densities of several sub-guilds of health interest organizations vary in their responses to changes in the sizes of the constituencies that give rise to them and variations in the policy and political energy supporting their mobilization. We discuss the concept of interest system diversity in the first section of the paper, highlighting its multiple meanings and the limits of prior research. This is followed by a close empirical examination of 14 sub-guilds of state health interest organizations. We conclude by discussing the inherent difficulties of understanding interest system diversity.