Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:18:31.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Three General Laws of Politics and Government in America (with Apologies to Sir Isaac Newton)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2013

Craig Leonard Brians
Craig Leonard Brians*
Affiliation:
Virginia Tech
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since our earliest days as a profession, regularities of politics have been described in terms of laws of political behavior (Bryce 1909), but not without controversy. Reviewing a century of efforts to identify laws of politics yields numerous offerings, including Duverger's (1954) and Michels' (1915) well-known contributions. Following the structure embodied in Newton's Laws of Motion, I propose three general laws of politics and government in America: (1) political objects in motion tend to stay in motion, (2) the relationship between a candidate and his or her political force is the product of campaign funding and personal likability or appeal to the press, and (3) for every political action, there is an equal and opposite reaction (i.e., “Craig Leonard Brians Law of Unintended Political Consequences”). Each law is illustrated and discussed using examples drawn from US politics. Finally, I note several potential research limitations of these proposed laws, as well as their possible utility in teaching introductory political science courses.

Type
Features
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 125 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abrouezk, James. 1989. Advise and Dissent: Memoirs of South Dakota and the U.S. Senate. Chicago: Lawrence Hill.Google Scholar
Abramson, Paul, Aldrich, John, and Rohde, David W.. 2010. Change and Continuity in the 2008 Elections. Washington, DC: CQ Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, Gordon. 1989. The Politics of Defense Contracting: The Iron Triangle. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
Adkins, Randall E., and Dowdle, Andrew J.. 2005. “Do Early Birds Get the Worm? Improving Timeliness of Presidential Nomination Forecasts.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 35 (November): 646–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, G. 1988. “Facing up to a Super Trial.” Herald (March 8). Google Scholar
Brooks, Garth, and Davis, Stephanie. 1992. We Shall Be Free. Nashville, TN: Liberty Records.Google Scholar
Bryce, James. 1909. “The Relations of Political Science to History and to Practice: Presidential Address, Fifth Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.” American Political Science Review 3 (February): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Corey. 2002. “The Contemporary Presidency: The Permanence of the ‘Permanent Campaign’: George W. Bush's Public Presidency.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 32 (December): 753–64.Google Scholar
Dickson, Paul. 1978. The Official Rules. New York: Delacorte Press.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Edwards, George C. III, Wattenberg, Martin P., and Lineberry, Robert L.. 2011. Government in America: People, Politics, and Policy, 11th Brief Edition. New York: Longman. Google Scholar
Eisenhower, Dwight David. 1961. “Farewell Address” (January 17). http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3361.Google Scholar
Farr, James, Gunnell, John, Seidelman, Raymond, Dryzek, John S., and Leonard, Stephen T.. 1990. “Can Political Science History Be Neutral?” American Political Science Review 84 (June): 587–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farr, James, Hacker, Jacob S., and Kazee, Nicole. 2006. “The Policy Scientist of Democracy: The Discipline of Harold D. Lasswell.” American Political Science Review 84 (June): 579–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FEC. 2012. “Reports of Receipts and Disbursements for the Current Election Cycle,” ed. Federal Election Commission. Washington, DC. Google Scholar
Glickman, Rosalene. 2002. Optimal Thinking: How to Be Your Best Self. New York: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Griffin, Charles J. G. 1992. “New Light on Eisenhower's Farewell Address.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 22 (Summer): 469–79.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, Blais, André, and Bowler, Shaun, eds. 2009. Duverger's Law of Plurality Voting: The Logic of Party Competition in Canada, India, the United Kingdom and the United States. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. 1942. “The Function of General Laws in History.” The Journal of Philosophy 39 (2): 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inhofe, James. 1998. Senate Congressional Record. 144 (July 29): 17859. Google Scholar
Lasswell, Harold D. 1951. “The Immediate Future of Research Policy and Method in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 45 (March): 133–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavallee, Tara. 2003. “Globalizing the Iron Triangle: Policy-making within the US Defense Industrial Sector.” Defense and Security Analysis 19 (June): 149–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1996. American Exceptionalism: A Double-edged Sword. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Michels, Robert. 1915. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. Translated by Eden and Cedar Paul. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur H., and Wattenberg, Martin P.. 1985. “Throwing the Rascals Out: Policy and Performance Evaluations of Presidential Candidates, 1952–1980.” American Political Science Review 79 (June): 359–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omar, Kaleem. 2003. “Poetic Licence: Laws for Would-be Statesmen.” http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_13-1-2003_pg3_8 (Monday, January 13).Google Scholar
Ornstein, Norman J., and Mann, Thomas E., eds. 2000. The Permanent Campaign and Its Future. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute; Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Pelosi, Alexandra, and Bush, George W.. 2003. Journeys with George: A Home Movie. HBO Video. Google Scholar
Peterson, David A. M., Grossback, Lawrence J., Stimson, James A., and Gangl, Amy. 2003. “Congressional Response to Mandate Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (July): 411–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2004. Press Going Too Easy on Bush: Bottom-line Pressures not Hurting Coverage, Say Journalists. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
Reagan, Ronald. 1964. A Time for Choosing. Nationally televised speech (October 27). Google Scholar
Salter, Jim. 2011. “Meth: Tracking Laws Backfire, Create a New Illegal Market.” The Salt Lake City Tribune (January 10). Google Scholar
Schier, Steven E. 2009. Panorama of a Presidency: How George W. Bush Acquired and Spent his Political Capital. London: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Selznick, Philip. 1950. “The Iron Law of Bureaucracy: Michels' Warning to the Left.” Modern Review 3 (January): 157–63.Google Scholar
Smith, Rogers M. 1996. “Science, Non-science, and Politics.” In The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences, ed. McDonald, Terrance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press ( 119–160).Google Scholar
Steinberg, Alfred. 1975. Sam Rayburn: A Biography. New York: Hawthorn Books.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Richard W. 2004. “Confident Bush Outlines Ambitious Plan for 2nd Term.” The New York Times (November 5): A1. Google Scholar
Suellentrop, Chris. 2004. “America's New Political Capital: President Bush Infects Washington with His Favorite Buzzword.” Slate (November 30), www.slate.com/id/2110256/ Google Scholar
Taagepera, Rein. 1986. “Reformulating the Cube Law for Proportional Representation Elections.” American Political Science Review 80 (June): 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taagepera, Rein. 2008. Making Social Sciences More Scientific: The Need for Predictive Models. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, Chuck, Murray, Mark, Montanaro, Domenico, and Weinberg, Ali. 2011. “The Physics of American Politics.” First Read (February 18). Google Scholar
Vernon, Richard. 1979. “Unintended Consequences.” Political Theory 7 (February): 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viroli, Maurizio. 1998. Founders of Modern Political and Social Thought. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walters, Dan. 2006. “The law of Unintended Political Consequences Trumps All Others.” Sacramento Bee (June 21): A3. Google Scholar
Walters, Dan. 2008. “Election Day Maneuver Boomerangs.” Sacramento Bee (June 4): A3. Google Scholar
Weiner, Marc D., and Pomper, Gerald M.. 2006. “The 2.4% Solution: What Makes a Mandate?” The Forum 4 (2): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, Susan, Gruhl, John, Rigdon, Susan M., and Thomas, Sue. 2012. Understanding American Government. Boston: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Wilson, James Q. Jr., DiIulio, John J., and Bose, Meena. 2010. American Government: Institutions and Policies, 12th ed. Boston: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Wilson, Woodrow. 1916. “Address of President Wilson at Detroit, Michigan to the Salesmanship Congress and at Luncheon Tendered by the Salesmanship Congress at Toledo, July 10.” Google Scholar
Winters, Jeffrey A., and Page, Benjamin I.. 2009. “Oligarchy in the United States?” Perspectives on Politics 7 (4): 731–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar