Corporate personnel experts led the adoption & expansion of affirmative action recruitment & evaluation, diversity training, work/life balance policies, & harassment grievance procedures, with law & movements following
Who codified Affirmative Action policies & procedures? Lockheed Martin
Companies with federal contracts were vaguely pushed to improve & they developed the recruiting, hiring, & supervisor assessment tools, diffusing them so they were accepted by law as key good faith efforts 2/n
The personnel profession found new uses for their union-era procedures as private unions declined, vastly increasing their workforce (& with more women). In turn, they became advocates & institutional homes for more equal opportunity programs & enlarging their focus to women 3/n
When Affirmative Action came under attack, personnel managers rebranded efforts & made business cases for diversity management, networking, & training; they responded to family leave legal threats with broad work/life balance programs & separate managers & task forces
4/n
Companies institutionalized sexual harassment procedures to get ahead of court rulings, using grievance procedures from union days; their procedures eventually shaped the law as they diffused widely & were accepted as defenses; they again broadened training & staff
5/n
They 1st drew on social science in scientific management & institutional design & then on the cognitive revolution in addressing biases & customs; but the actual programs & trainings they developed often had much less evidentiary support & did not solve discrimination
6/n
These corporate procedures helped to diffuse social science ideas in the minds of educated Americans, increasing support for diversity & belief in structural discrimination; but also may have provided grounds for backlash from some & disappointment in low efficacy from others
7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Our new paper "Building Back with Partial Praise: Public Opinion on the Biden Agenda" for #SPSA2024
Build Back Better's modest popularity was mostly but not entirely a product of mixed views on its provisions. The Inflation Reduction Act was more popular.matthewg.org/IRA_BBB_Southe…
The eventual law (IRA) was more popular than BBB while it was being debated. Describing BBB only with Biden & name was less popular than outlining its provisions, but not after voters evaluated provisions. Provision information did not affect IRA opinion. matthewg.org/IRA_BBB_Southe…
Support for both BBB & IRA was higher when voters supported more of their provisions. But voters appeared to hold BBB to a higher standard, needing to support most of its provisions to support the package as a whole matthewg.org/IRA_BBB_Southe…
Biden is not preparing to act alone & default is very unlikely, as is a long-term clean debt limit lift. Whatever the posturing, we are mostly waiting on the terms of Dems' concessions. That likely includes budget caps & more. We may get no hints today but structure is mostly set
Potential but not probable hints today would include: 1) assignment of people to spearhead budget caps dissuasion 2) Dem comments on Rep concessions with varying degrees of disdain (eg non-starter vs we can work on) 3) talk of debt limit extension timing with further budget talks
Possible Dems may be able to delay concessions (or give some now & more later), but won't get limit past election without concessions. Even (unlikely) unilateral action would really be a delay; they'd still be negotiating under threat:
State government policy becomes consistent with state public opinion as conservative & liberal states elect Republican & Democratic officials & as officials adjust policy to public opinion
State public opinion has grown more liberal over the long-term on racial issues, more liberal over the short term on cultural issues, & moved up & down on economic issues after a move right
State public policy has grown consistently more liberal on economic & cultural policies over time, but states have begun to diverge more in recent years & to be relatively more liberal or conservative based on their partisanship & public opinion
Highly recommend “The Bitter End” by @johnmsides@vavreck@CTausanovitch
on the 2020 election, a campaign where not much changed opinions despite lots of big news
Here is the relatively stable horse race & consistent Biden favorability advantage 1/n
The primary race was, by the end, less stable. But Biden & Sanders drew most coverage & public support for most of the campaign. & Biden won with a similar coalition as Clinton: older & more partisan voters & Black voters
Biden was judged ideologically closer to Dem voters. But many voters weren’t judging candidates ideologically. Only 52% placed both candidates & had Sanders to left of Biden; 21% saw no difference: 10% reversed it; rest couldn’t place
Americans increasingly perceive the Republican Party as the more conservative party but some Americans remain ideologically confused isr-anesweb.isr.umich.edu/ANES_Data_Tool…
Americans are also reporting more frequent conversations about politics since Trump, with only 9% of Americans saying they are not talking at all about politics with friends or family
@NiskanenCenter@j_kalla@cantstopkevin Testing 100s of messages on 1000s of voters in the 2020 presidential election, voters can be persuaded, especially with specific information about Biden: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111…
Even Republicans change their vote choice, suggesting that campaign information can shift votes: