Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: To understand Thucydides one needs to consider the profound relationship between the author's narration and the speeches of characters. This paper examines that relationship in the first speech of King Archidamus and its subsequent implications.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This study aims at revisiting the leadership of King Sejong the Great, the fourth King of the Chosun Dynasty from 1418 to 1450, focusing on his bold and balanced sense of international cultural relations. King Sejong was regarded by his contemporary scholars from all over the Northeast countries as 'the Saint-Ruler of the East' and still respected by the most Koreans as 'Sejong the Great Monarch'. King Sejong's sense of balance and humane initiative in the making of Hangul, Korean letter, the nuclei of King Sejong's politico-cultural leadership, originated from the international cultural relations of the fifteenth century's Northeast Asian region. Through creating Hangul, King Sejong intended not only to build a political system for his people, but also to establish a regional and international peace system for the region. Drawing the image, with the real evidence from the Chosun Wangjo Shillok, the True Record Chosun Dynasty, of international cultural capacity and international political character of King Sejong, this thesis aims at theorizing the cultural leadership of King Sejong the Great.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: When George W. Bush announced that he would be nominating former US Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, as the next president of the World Bank, a collective groan of anguish rang through much of the development community. The spectre of Wolfowitz and his neo-conservative agenda induced a degree of nostalgia for Wolfensohn even before his term had formally ended. This paper examines the changes in development theory, rhetoric and policy practice within the Bank in the James Wolfensohn era at the Bank. By mapping the changes in both form (the way in which the Bank relates to client countries) and content (the policy prescriptions it promotes) of the Bank, we argue that the Wolfowitz era is unlikely mark a strong change in direction. In spite of differences of emphasis, there nonetheless remain strong continuities in both form and content between Wolfensohn’s era and the ‘pre-emptive development’ stance of the neo-conservative US executive branch, as demonstrated in its Millennium Challenge Account.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Social networks have long been established as a means for conveying information from the politically interested in society to the politically uninformed. (Lazarsfeld 1944; Katz and Lazarsfeld 1955; Katz 1957) Once early studies on political dialogue found the existence of the social networks, while later studies concentrated on the quality and sources of information flows. Many of the more recent studies (Huckfeldt and Sprague 1991 and 1995) have used “snowball” sampling to interview friends and family of the initial respondent. (This method of sampling attempts to pinpoint communication by interviewing the respondent’s discussion partners.) While these studies increased our understanding of social networks, they focus on domestic issues which are highly salient (i.e. presidential elections). But are these citizens only discussing popular issues?
This project attempts to combine two current research topics: social network theory and cues (Lupia and McCubbins 1998). It posits that citizens look to educated family and friends for advice on issues of low-salience because they trust their advice. The paper analyzes a new pilot survey, which was collected by the authors in October of 2003 in Southern California as a joint project. The first wave of the survey involved Los Angeles County, while the second wave interviewed friends of the initial respondents from Los Angeles County. The survey followed the structure of the Dalton, Huckfeldt and Sprague (1992) data set, while adding questions on international issues, the media and supranational organizations. The set also contains coded information on media coverage available to citizens at the time of polling.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Here I study the use of daring (i.e. prerogative)
presidential leadership in the Pre-Civil war presidential
administrations. In particular I look at what occasioned the use of
strong presidential leadership, how such presidential activity was
justified, and why, more often, strong presidential leadership was very
intentionally dismissed as a legitimate possibility. By bold or heroic
leadership I mean presidential leadership characterized by unilateral
action of great energy that runs up against considerable political
obstacles, including those of custom, public opinion, institutional
pressure, or even law. Given its potential assault upon political form
and procedure--that is, upon democracy rightly understood--prerogative
executive action always calls for special explanation. This is
especially true in the United States, whose citizens do not always
readily accept the necessity of a strong state--or even politics and
government. Though presidents in every age have been forced to craft
democratic justifications for their actions, this was especially true
in early American political history, when many persons viewed political
limits and adherence to political form as the essence of
constitutionalism.
One obvious reason for the dearth of studies on the use of decisive
executive powers in the early presidential administrations is that
these early presidents simply used such powers far less frequently than
we witness in later administrations. The reluctance of presidents to
use strong executive leadership is in itself revealing and worthy of
closer inspection. Certainly early American history was studded with
political emergencies which threatened to unravel the delicate American
experiment. Why did presidents so often refrain from using decisive
power? After all, Hamilton argues in The Federalist that the government
ought to exist in its appropriate sphere in effect without limitations
(NO. 23), and, moreover, that the president is the chief actor in
dealing both with arduous and extensive projects (NO. 72) as well as
emergency situations (NO. 22). Such an understanding of the American
system would seem to encourage strong executive leadership. Why then
did presidents feel constitutionally bound to defer to Congress even
when such deference could be nearly disastrous (e.g. Madison in the War
of 1812).
It is important to remember that some early presidents, sometimes
despite their own reservations, felt the need to do employ their
executive powers very boldly. Certainly Washington (in declaring
neutrality and in the Whiskey Rebellion) but also Jefferson (in
purchasing the Louisiana Territory), Jackson (dealing with the B.U.S.
and, sadly, the Cherokee Nation), and Polk (regarding Mexico and
expansion in general) exercised considerable executive power that was
even considered unconstitutional by some. Why did these presidents
choose to exercise their powers so expansively? Few if any scholars
have focused their scholarship to understand the use of presidential
emergency (or bold) powers in the early administrations. Looking at
earlier presidential administrations will help us to understand how a
restrained presidency was ever a choice.