Association News Charles O. Jones: Political Institutional Samuel C. Patterson Ohio State University Charles O. Jones, presently Glenn B. and Cleone Orr Hawkins Pro- fessor of Political Science at the Uni- versity of Wisconsin in Madison, will serve as the eighty-ninth president of the American Political Science Asso- ciation during 1993-94. No political scientist more richly merits the recog- nition the presidency of the Associa- tion brings to him or her than Chuck Jones, who has served on the faculty of five colleges and universities, won various accolades for professional and scholarly achievement (including a Guggenheim fellowship, a fellow- ship in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and an honorary doctorate from his alma mater), served on the editorial boards of nine journals and as editor of both the American Political Science Review and the Legislative Studies Quarterly, and served in several association offices including treasurer, chair of the Trust and Development Fund, vice president, and president-elect. He has been an active member and officer of two regional associations— the Midwest Political Science Asso- ciation and the Southern Political Science Association—and served as president of the former. Moreover, his presidencies also include the Policy Studies Organization and Pi Sigma Alpha. And, he chaired both the executive committee of the Social Science Research Council board of directors and the council of the Inter- university Consortium for Political and Social Research. On a much broader canvas than the strictly aca- demic, Jones has been a consultant or adviser to a wide variety of gov- ernment agencies and commissions, congressional committees, universi- ties, and private research institutes, epitomized by his long-time and con- tinuing relationship with the Brook- ings Institution in Washington, D.C. The Emerging Scholar We observe Charles O. Jones today as a mature, sophisticated, and very productive scholar, but I remember our days together in grad- uate school at the University of Wisconsin when both of us figured our chances of success were modest Charles O. Jones at best, and neither of us imagined what the road ahead would be like. For Chuck, the road ahead entailed an outpouring of scholarly research and writing, a lifetime of commit- ment to the life of a teacher and scholar. I vividly remember Chuck's elation upon the occasion of his first publication, a brief article on inter- viewing members of Congress pub- lished in the Public Opinion Quarter- ly (in 1959). Two years later, his first paper appeared in the American Political Science Review. From this beginning, there flowed fifteen books and monographs (the fifteenth just completed), and nearly ninety articles and book chapters. But, to me Chuck Jones is not merely a distinguished political scien- tist of immense scholarly achieve- ment. I have been a close personal friend of Chuck Jones for about forty-four years now. Both of us grew up in small towns in South Dakota—Chuck was born in the jerkwater of Worthing, but he grew up in Canton, a town of some "2,600 friendly citizens" in those days. He was raised by his grand- parents, Ruby and Oscar B. Jones, both loving and devoted parents who sacrificed much to see that Chuck was properly raised. Oscar Jones, " P a " to Chuck, was a crusty but very endearing man, whose cussing and irascible expressions often were a source of amusement and affection to Chuck (and to me) for as long as he lived. In 1949, we both went to college at the University of South Dakota in Vermillion. We met the first day, accidentally seated side-by-side in William O. " D o c " Farber's Ameri- can government class. We have been fast friends since that day. We were avid political science majors, guided by our devoted professors Bill Farber and Tom Geary. For one summer during our college days we both won internships (then called "student assistantships") in the Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors' Insurance, and we went off to work in the Bureau offices in Baltimore. That was the first time we lived together, enduring a sweltering top floor room of a boarding row house near the Enoch Pratt Free Library. We never had been much in cities, and we had very little money. As I recall, we sur- vived the summer on crab cakes and a lot of sightseeing on foot. We had done well in college courses at South Dakota U., so well that on graduation day in 1953 we led our graduating class down the aisle of Slagle Hall to get our bache- lor degrees with laude's. Since we both were in ROTC, we got Army commissions when we graduated, as well. I took off for a stint in the infantry, but Chuck's commission as a second lieutenant was in the Adju- tant General's corps of the army. He spent his two-year tour of duty most- ly in Washington, D.C. and on South Pacific atolls—watching 822 PS: Political Science & Politics Association News atomic weapons explode, and writing the official history of the testing program. During our service in the army, we were able to meet occasionally for visits, and at some point we both decided to go to graduate school in political science somewhere. " D o c " Farber advised us to apply to the University of Wisconsin, where he had gotten his Ph.D. We followed his advice, were offered assistant- ships there, and both decided to go to graduate school at Wisconsin. We moved into a seedy lakefront flat (landlorded by an odd chap we called "Father Divine") to attend the sum- mer school in 1955. I'll never forget the day we both went to South Hall, where the political science depart- ment was then located, to meet the chairman, the acerbic William S. Young, who did not give us much hope for success in graduate study. Our leading faculty lights were David Fellman, Ralph K. Huitt, Henry Hart, and, above all, Leon D. Epstein. We both were avid students of Ralph Huitt's, with whom Chuck completed his Ph.D. dissertation. We worked equally with Leon Epstein, who was our idea of what a univer- sity professor should be like. He still is. Over the years since we lived and worked together as Wisconsin gradu- ate students, we have remained in close touch. I liked and admired Chuck Jones when we were college friends, and I still like and admire him. Now, I admire him as a leading scholar in political science, a crafts- man of research and teaching. He is my best friend, and, like a brother, has enriched my life. But, more important, his scholarly work has enriched the intellectual and profes- sional development of political sci- ence over the last 35 years or so. Investigating the Congressional Institution From the beginning, Jones's inter- est lay in political institutions—how they are ordered, how their processes work, what decisions are made within them, how public policies are shaped by them. His contributions to political science fall rather neatly into three classes: congressional politics, ublic policy, and the presidency. NOMINATIONS SOUGHT FOR 1994 APSA AWARDS Nominations are invited for the APSA awards to be presented at the 1993 Annual Meeting in New York City. Dissertations must be nominated by departments and submitted by January 15, 1994. Books must be nominated by publishers and submitted by February 1, 1994. Members are invited to nominate individuals for the career awards. Further details may be obtained by contacting the national office. Until the late 1960s, his writing focused mainly upon the United States Congress. Three books about Congress developed during this period—Party and Policy-Making: The House Republican Policy Com- mittee (1964), Every Second Year: Congressional Behavior and the Two-Year Term (1967), and The Minority Party in Congress (1970). These books illustrate Jones's interest in the party organization within Con- gress, and particularly in the peculiar role of the minority, usually Repub- lican, party. He was fascinated with the adapta- tion of the Republicans to their fate as the seemingly permanent congres- sional minority. He began to investi- gate this by dissecting the House Republican Policy Committee by way of personal interviews with commit- tee members. This effort led him to a larger analysis of the minority party's role in Congress, which he conducted under the aegis of Ralph K. Huitt's Study of Congress project. Jones analyzed crucial conditions inside and outside Congress since the turn of the 20th century affecting the capacity of the minority party to per- form as an effective "loyal opposi- tion." Interestingly, in The Minority Party in Congress Jones particularly considers the phenomenon of the "minority party mentality," the pro- clivity of members of the permanent minority to pursue individual goals and satisfy individual motivations rather than seeking to convert the minority into a majority party. In the midst of these concerns, Jones turned to a matter of the insti- tutional design of Congress—the term of office for members. He con- ducted a very thorough study of the issue of the congressional two-year term, under the auspices of the Brookings Institution. Nowadays, public attention is focused on the proposal to limit the number of terms legislators may serve. But in the mid-1960s public discussion addressed a proposal, made by Presi- dent Lyndon B. Johnson, to extend the term of office of House members from two to four years. Jones con- cluded that the term change was not a good idea. In the course of the argument in Every Second Year, by the way, he made himself one of the first congressional scholars to iden- tify the "incumbency effect" in elec- tions, although he had shown the high incumbent return rate in con- gressional elections in a seminal 1964 article in the Western Political Quar- terly (long before "incumbency" was worked to a frazzle by scholars in the 1980s and 90s). In the late 1970s, Jones wrote a synoptic book on Congress—The United States Congress: People, Place, and Policy (1982)—where he elaborated and adumbrated themes from his earlier congressional research. One theme was that of the formidibility of Congress as a polit- ical institution, a constitutional body grown more powerful over recent years. Another was that of the ubiquity of reform, in the form of the argument that "Congress changes whether or not specific reforms are enacted." Finally, Congress plays a central role in policy making as the institution is drawn into various salient "policy networks." Analyzing Public Policies The more deeply Jones plumbed the institutional life of Congress, the more interested he became in wider analysis of public policy processes. In a long-surviving and widely-used textbook (Introduction to the Study of Public Policy, 3rd ed., 1984), he marshalled the concepts and dynam- ics needed to comprehend the public December 1993 823 Association News CALL FOR NOMINATIONS APSA Council and President The APSA Nominations Committee seeks suggestions to fill eight upcoming vacancies on the APSA Council and the positions of APSA president-elect, secretary, treasurer, and three vice-presidents. Council members serve three-year terms; the treasurer serves a two-year term; president-elect, vice-presidents, and secretary serve one-year terms. Send names of nominees by January 1994. The Committee will meet in February and will report to the president no later than April 15. In the spaces below, you may name up to three individuals to serve on the APSA Council and one individual to serve as president, vice-president, secretary, or treasurer. Elections will take place at the 1994 Annual Meeting in New York City, September 1-4. Be sure to include address, phone number(s), and, if possible, a current vita of the nominee(s). I nominate the following for the APSA Council: (1). Name (2). Name (3). Address Address Address City, State, Zip City, State, Zip City, State, Zip Phone Phone Phone I nominate for Secretary: Name Treasurer: (2). Name Vice-President: (3) Address Address Address City, State, Zip City, State, Zip City, State, Zip Phone Phone Phone I nominate for President-Elect: (i) Name Address Your Name: Your Phone: , City, State, Zip RETURN TO: APSA-Nominations 1527 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone 824 PS: Political Science & Politics Association News Nominations Sought for Managing Editor of American Political Science Review In July 1995 APSR Managing Editor G. Bingham Powell, Jr.'s four-year term will end. The Council has appointed a search committee to work with APSA President Charles O. Jones to identify Powell's successor. The Council will elect the next editor at its August 31, 1994 meeting after learning of the Search Committee's deliberations and hearing the recommendation of the President. The new editor will begin mid-summer 1995. The purpose of this notice is to invite you to submit suggestions for editor to the Search Committee. Please send your nominations to the APSA headquarters by December 15, 1993. Members of the Search Committee are: Emanuel Adler, University of Wisconsin-Madison Jean Bethke Elshtain, Vanderbilt University John Hibbing, University of Nebraska, Lincoln Matthew Holden, University of Virginia Keith Krehbiel, Stanford University G. Bingham Powell, Jr., University of Rochester Kay Schlozman, Boston College Sidney Verba, Harvard University, Chair Charles O. Jones, University of Wisconsin-Madison, ex officio Please send nominations to: APSR Managing Editor Search Committee, 1527 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036. Fax (202)483-2657. December 1993 825 Association News policy process as a whole. His vari- ant of an organizational scheme, a typology, for analyzing policy pro- cesses became the standard of prac- tice. The typology emphasizes policy "problems" that make it to the agenda, and their fate in policy for- mulation, legitimation, appropria- tion, implementation, and evalua- tion. Jones's policy interests have always been diverse: his writing about public policies has included illustrations from a wealth of arenas. He edited an anthology on urban policies (The Urban Crisis in America, 1969), and served as a consultant to the National Academy of Sciences on energy policy, among other things. But his most sustained research effort concerned air pollution policy. His book, Clean Air: The Policies and Politics of Pollution Control (1975) developed while Jones was on the faculty of the University of Pitts- burgh, located in an historically- polluted industrial environment. Naturally, the conceptualization for this study carries the typology he elaborated in his introductory public policy book. Clean Air begins with the highly polluted air of industrial Pittsburgh, but the purview is explicitly federal. One of this study's signal contribu- tions is that it shows unmistakably the intertwining of policy making at multiple levels of government. Jones analyzed air pollution policy as a case of what he called "speculative augmentation," where policy solu- tions are imposed that lie beyond what is technically or administrative- ly feasible at the time the policy is hammered out. His air pollution policy case study convinced Jones that speculative augmentation is a basis for decision making fraught with grave shortcomings. Firmly grounded in John Dewey's rational- ism, Jones concluded that policy making in a scientific and technical arena like that of air pollution "must be based on research as well as full awareness of the consequences of choices made," so that decisions can be made "within a realistic range of available knowledge." The Enduring Presidency Beginning in the early 1980s, Jones turned to the presidency as the focus 826 for his intellectual curiosity. He had not written extensively about the presidency of Richard M. Nixon, although he fantasized once about what subsequent history might have been like if Watergate had not trans- pired (in a clever book, What If. . .?, edited by Nelson W. Polsby). He argued that Nixon's relations with Congress would have been about what they came, in fact, to be like; and, "Jimmy Carter would have remained 'Jimmy who?' in 1976." Long interested in presidential elec- tions, Jones's affiliation with the White Burkett Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia beginning in 1981 involved him in an emerging oral history study of the presidency of Jimmy Carter. The Miller Center project entailed interviews in depth with members of the Carter White House staff, conducted in Charlottesville, Virginia by a number of scholars of the presidency. Moreover, President Carter was interviewed in Plains, Georgia by the research group. Jones's participation in these oral history interviews, and the availabil- ity to him of the extensive transcripts they yielded, led him to think in a searching way about the presidency as an institution, and about the par- ticular presidential experience of Jimmy Carter. The ultimate product of this thinking was his book, The Trusteeship Presidency: Jimmy Carter and the United States Con- gress (1988). Jones analyzes Carter as a "trusteeship" president, a president whose conception of his representa- tive role centered around the notion that he was "an official entrusted to represent the public or national inter- est, downplaying short-term electoral considerations." Jones masterfully unfolds the story of Jimmy Carter's rise to the presidency. But it is in Carter's relationship to Congress that Jones sees the key to understanding the trusteeship presidency. Neverthe- less, the heart of the analysis is the portrayal of changes taking place in Congress in the 1970s, and the par- ticular relations between the Carter White House and Capitol Hill. Jones insightfully characterizes the ways in which the White House organized itself to deal with Congress, and dissects the public policy issues which the Carter administration worked on the Hill during the 95th and 96th Congresses. Like other presidencies, much of the time the Carter administration enjoyed successes in the congres- sional reception of its policy pro- posals and initiatives. The thrust of Jones's critique of the Carter presi- dency goes not primarily to its vic- tories and defeats in Congress, but to Carter's own syndrome of attitudes about congressional representation, the natural proclivities of politicians, and his own trusteeship orientation. Carter, Jones argues, thought "it was far better to lose for the right reasons than to win for the wrong reasons"; he rejected " a politics based on bargaining among special interests with inside access to deci- sion makers"; he persisted as a dedi- cated "outsider" in Washington; he was "anti-political." Yet, Jones acquired a grudging admiration for Jimmy Carter; in the end, Jones acknowledges that "it will be diffi- cult in the long run to sustain cen- sure of a president motivated to do what is right." Like Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan had not enjoyed congres- sional experience prior to becoming president; the main pre-presidential political experience of both had been as state governors. Like Carter, Reagan was an outsider, a moralizer, a president determined to make important changes in the system. Yet, Jones considers the two presi- dents to be fundamentally different. At least during the early years of the Reagan era, the president enjoyed good personal relations with Con- gress, he cultivated and nursed con- gressional leaders, and he won strik- ing legislative successes in 1981. Jones treats the Reagan legislative "triumph"—reducing taxes and spending, cutting federal welfare and health programs, and substantially increasing defense spending—as on a par with the Great Society programs of the 1960s (in The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance (1988), which he edited). In their relations with Congress, Carter and Reagan differed in their approaches and agenda entries: Carter remained distant, and "over- loaded" the congressional agenda; Reagan "achieved a policy break- through in his first year and then PS: Political Science & Politics Association News engaged in a holding action" (remarked in a chapter in The Reagan Presidency and the Govern- ing of America (1985), edited by Lester M. Salamon and Michael S. Lund). But it is Reagan's personal appeal and popularity that seem to have endeared him most to Jones. In the end, he quotes (in his The Reagan Legacy chapter) a Wall Street Journal story: "Ronald Reagan is going to be a tough act to follow." The act that followed was, of course, the presidency of George Bush. Jones entitled his essay on the Bush presidency "Meeting Low Expectations. . . " (in The Bush Presidency: First Appraisals, edited by Colin Campbell and Bert Rock- man and published in 1991). Since Bush espoused little in the way of a program and won no mandate in 1988, he did not need to "hit the ground running" in his relations with Congress. Jones characterized the politics of the Bush years as "co- partisanship," believing that both political parties won the 1988 elec- tion, and each could thereafter govern through negotiation with the other. The unfolding consequences of divided party control of government during the Bush administration increasingly agitated Jones's curios- ity. Political reality, as Jones per- ceived it, had become a condition in which competition between the national political parties "has occurred within the context of insti- tutional balance, with each party rather solidly staked out at each end of Pennsylvania Avenue." Because "policy and political processes have adjusted to that reality . . . it is time," Jones asserted, "that we understand what those processes are " That understanding has preoccu- pied Chuck Jones for the past few years. In a book soon to be pub- lished, The Presidency in a Separated System, he anatomizes the condition of the presidency and the strategic position of presidents in the context of split party control of White House and Capitol Hill. Noting that divided control has been the usual state of affairs in Washington in the post- World War II era—mainly with a Republican president and a Demo- cratic congressional majority—he argues that "responsible party gov- ernment" advocates are simply un- realistic. Our system, says Jones, is one of diffused responsibility, mixed representation, and institutional com- petition. Political actors at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue adjust their behavior accordingly in order to make the system work. Jones observes: The participants in this system of mixed representation and diffused responsibility naturally accommodate their political surroundings. Put other- wise, congressional Democrats and presidential Republicans learn how to do their work. Not only does each side adjust to its political circumstances, but both may be expected as well to provide itself with the resources to participate meaningfully in policy politics. The institutional matrix molds and shapes the behavior of those who count themselves part of the existing structure. The particular form of adaptation can vary. Jones develops a four-fold typology of patterns of adaptation. Where the president's party enjoys a congressional majority, the pattern is one of partisanship, as in the first two years of the Johnson administra- tion. This is the type "that best suits the conditions of the party govern- ment model." Where split party con- trol develops, with a Republican in the White House and a Democratic majority in the congressional houses, the pattern is that of co-partisanship, "typified by parallel development of proposals at each end of the Avenue or by the two parties in each house of Congress." Presumably, this mode was exemplified by much of the Eisenhower administration, or by the first year of the Reagan presi- dency, or by moments early in the Bush administration. When the two parties, and presi- dent and Congress, cooperate a good deal, the pattern is one of bipartisan- ship, classically illustrated by the foreign policy comity of the years immediately after World War II. This type differs from co-partisan- ship mainly in the timing of negotia- tions between contending sides, and in the breadth and sweep of support from partisans. Finally, where a seg- ment of one congressional party col- laborates persistently with the other party so that it can be counted on for support, the pattern is one of cross partisanship, as occurs when there is a "conservative coalition" vote in the House of Representatives or Senate. This mode usually is nega- tive in character, seeking to stop or inhibit rather than to construct policy, and probably occurs most notably when a Republican president employs a "southern strategy"— seeking to win over the support of congressional conservative Democrats from the South. In The Presidency in a Separated System, Jones dissects these varying patterns or conditions with an especially keen eye to the role and performance of the presi- dent (a teaser for the forthcoming book is Jones's chapter, "The Sep- arated Presidency—Making It Work in Contemporary Politics," in the revised edition of The New American Political System (1990), edited by Anthony King). Because split party control has been commonplace, Jones asserts that we do not have "presidential government" in the United States, we have "separated government." The Methodology of "Doing Before Knowing" Jones, always the perceptive ana- lyst, does not take his institutions lightly, nor merely dabble at the periphery with weak politics or par- ticularistic rules. With the study of Congress, the public policy process, and the presidency, his purposes are to plumb deeply, to work beyond the institutional formation itself to analyze the broader contexts and cir- cumstances, and to bring order out of disarray by classifying, construct- ing working typologies, and engaging in thick description or rich illustration. Jones's work consistently demon- strates his close attention to the problems and promise of clear con- ceptualization. His writing is replete with examples of his self-conscious- ness and a sense of obligation to other scholars regarding conceptual ideas, and his research persistently features typological and classificatory efforts. He especially elaborated his broadly methodological commitments in a "workshop" paper for the American Journal of Political Sci- December 1993 827 Association News ence in 1974 ("Doing Before Know- ing: Concept Development in Polit- ical Research"). Drawing very much on the notions adumbrated by Abraham Kaplan, Jones argues the necessity for working out conceptual- ization of a research problem at the stage of the design of the study. Classification can take on three dis- tinct purposes—for general under- standing, to order research expecta- tions, and to sort out empirical results. His argument runs as follows: The first is classification for general understanding—ordering a universe of discourse with a set of concepts so as to state one's own best understanding of that subject matter and be able to communicate with others about it. We do this whenever we write about a subject, whether we intend to do research about it or not. The second is classification of research expecta- tions—projecting what is to be found. The concepts used here may be iden- tical with or logically derived from the preceding, and aid one in designing a specific research project. The third is classification of empirical findings— ordering findings so as to add to, modify, or reject the expectations. . . . Jones's research corpus strongly reflects this straightforward set of intellectual practices, this process of "doing before knowing." Epilogue I often think about my friend Chuck Jones. Over the years, I have gotten his books, received offprints of his articles from him, and read each publication as it came into print. Still, I never before this read the scholarly productivity of his entire career in one swoop. My admiration for my friend as a fellow political scientist has grown with this experience, though I always held his research in very high esteem. Still, in the end it is my personal relationship with Chuck Jones that counts the most. A friend is a prec- ious gift. Not too many people are blessed with a close and lifetime friend. Henry Adams thought "one friend in a lifetime is much; two are many; three are hardly possible." He perceptively added, "friendship needs a certain parallelism of life, a com- munity of thought, a rivalry of aim." It may have been an accident that Chuck Jones and I came to experience parallel life experiences, but this has reinforced our lifelong friendship. " A friend," wrote Ralph Waldo Emerson, "is a person with whom I may be sincere. Before him, I may think aloud. . . . " Chuck Jones and I "think aloud" whenever we meet. I am proud of my friend that he has achieved eminence in our discipline so substantial as to earn him the presidency of the American Political Science Association. Washington Annual Meeting Largest Ever The 89th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Associa- tion set a new attendance record for APSA meetings, drawing 5,635 par- ticipants to the Washington Hilton. The previous record for attendance was the 1991 meeting, also in Wash- ington, which drew 5,179 people. Featured at the meeting was the Presidential Address by Lucius J. Barker, Stanford University, titled "Limits of Political Strategy: A Sys- temic View of the African-American Experience." President Barker was introduced by Jack Peltason, Presi- dent of the University of California. The James Madison Lecture was given by Sidney Verba, APSA's President-Elect; and the John Gaus APSA President Lucius Barker and Univer- sity of California President Jack Peltason. President Barker and President-Elect Jones with Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala. Lecture was presented by Francis E. Rourke, Johns Hopkins University. Barker's address will appear in the March 1994 issue of APSR and Verba's and Rourke's are featured in this issue of PS. The meeting also included two experimental activities—Poster Ses- sions and Hyde Park Sessions. The former were display presentations in which key elements of papers were posted, and presenters stood by to discuss them individually with view- ers; the latter were open assemblies guided by a chairperson addressing timely political topics. Attendance at both formats was strong—the Hyde Park sessions in particular were attractive, drawing 24 participants to the discussion on humanitarian inter- vention in Bosnia and Somalia led by Miles Kahler, University of Cali- fornia, San Diego, and 52 to Gays in the Military—What Is to be Done, led by Theodore Lowi, Cornell Uni- versity. APSA was also able to dis- tribute a large block of tickets to members, on a first-come-first-served basis, to visit the newly opened Holocaust Museum during the meeting. The meeting was co-organized by Peter Gourevitch, University of Cali- fornia, San Diego, and Paula McClain, University of Virginia, and a 42-member program committee, 828 PS: Political Science & Politics