Political Ambivalence as Praxis: The Limits of Consensus in Habermas's Theory of the Public Sphere

This paper argues that ambivalence can serve as a proxy for consensus-based debates in public discourse as it allows for individuals to maintain flexible and analytic perspectives on matters that otherwise appear contradictory. In particular, an affirmative understanding of ambivalence will be presented to supplement the highly influential Habermasian approach by drawing from sociological theories of ambivalence found in the work of Simmel, Bauman and Ko?akowski. While the theme of ambivalence is not completely absent from Habermas’s work on the public sphere, it is typically described as a structural consequence of contradiction rather than a form of action that is capable of working with and around inconsistencies in ethics, knowledge and social values. This allows for participation to be sustained through contradiction, rather than being withdrawn in frustration, while also encouraging open-minded judgements capable of avoiding forms of fanaticism.     

Americans’ Knowledge of Their Local Judges

What do Americans know about their local judges and how do they know it? One of the central arguments in the debate over judicial elections is whether voters know enough about judicial candidates to make an informed democratic choice. The vast majority of criminal and civil matters in the U.S. begin with and filter through the local state courts. But judicial scholars know little about what explains the variance in voters’ knowledge of their courts and judges. This paper draws on survey data from the 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study to investigate the origins of voter knowledge of local judges. A central finding of this study is that rural voters are a lot more knowledgeable about their local judges than are urban voters, ceteris paribus. This finding has significant consequences for the debate over the ways in which states structure their elections for local judges.     

Reactions to Affirmative Action: Group Membership and Social Justice

A program designed for either women, visible minorities, or disabled persons was rated by 264 women and men respondents. An analysis of variance revealed that reactions to affirmative action varied according to the sex of the respondent and the group targeted by the policy. Further analyses were conducted to examine the effects of two social justice concerns on support for affirmative action, that is, scope of justice (extending fair treatment onto others) and perceived threat on behalf of nondesignated groups. According to findings, the link between social justice concerns and reactions to the policy was affected by the group targeted by affirmative action. Furthermore, both social justice concerns were not equally important predictors of attitudes toward affirmative action for women and men respondents.     

Suing the Alma Mater: What loss has been suffered?

The commercialisation of the university sector has introduced a real possibility of litigation by dissatisfied students. Various difficulties occur, however, in the analysis of the element of a case in negligence. This article considers the existence of compensable harm suffered by a student suing for generalised 'failure to teach'. It considers recent cases in Australia and the United Kingdom within and outside the context of educational negligence to conclude that compensable damage is a theoretical possibility. It also considers problems of causation, and concludes that the cumulative difficulties of establishing compensable harm and causation provide a significant disincentive to sue in negligence for generalised failure to teach.     

Federal administrative health courts are unconstitutional: a reply to Elliott, Narayan, and Nasmith

This commentary responds to the essay by Elliott, Narayan, and Nasmith wherein they propose that the federal government may preclude plaintiffs with medically inflicted injuries from bringing state common-law tort claims against those whose negligence caused their injury. The administrative system championed by Elliott and other proponents is a radical departure from the current civil justice system. Specifically, we argue that the administrative health courts, as proposed, violate the commerce clause, the spending clause, the Seventh Amendment, and separation of powers principles. The commentary concludes that such a system is fatally flawed and cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. Moreover, we are not persuaded that Congress will be able to ground such a radical constitutional restructuring in any sound public policy, as the majority of studies do not evidence Elliott, Narayan, and Nasmith's presumption that the civil justice system has failed in the medical malpractice context.     

How big is the displaced worker problem?

A subsequent version of this article appears in his new book, The American Job Machine,published by Universe Books. His other books include The Fairness of Marketsand, with Gordon Tullock, The New World of Economics.