Fifteen years ago this month, I made my first visit to Idaho. I knew very little about the state and had met only one person in my life from Idaho. Before my visit, I would never have thought I would spend such an extended portion of my life in this state and happily call it home.

The reason behind this change in attitude is the best institution for higher learning in the state that I have gratefully been connected with for all of these years.

In 1993, I was working on finishing my dissertation for my PhD from Temple University in Philadelphia. Over the past couple of years, I had been teaching at Temple while finishing my degree. I had progressed to having taught six different courses and seventeen sections when I went on the job market. My dissertation advisor thought it would be a good experience to apply for positions even if I wasn’t finished my degree and probably would not get any offers.

With the 2008 presidential campaign droning on for what seems like forever, it may be a good idea to study elections of the past. I saw the author of this book, Donald Ritchie, on CSPAN speaking to an audience and found his comments about the 1932 election to be quite interesting. The problem is that his book does not always live up to the prequel served up in his in-person commentary.

Why should one read the history of an election from seventy six years ago? As Mark Twain said, and Ritchie repeats, “History doesn’t repeat itself, at best it sometimes rhymes.” Looking back to 1932, we can hear some lyrics that rhyme with the current campaign for president.

Part of the work of my sabbatical has been to study interest groups in the state of Idaho. By using various measures, I am attempting to determine which groups in the state are the most effective in getting policies implemented for their constituents. In a pluralist world, interest groups are an important factor in how our political system operates. What I have found is that who the group represents is only one factor in determining whether the group is effective or not.

The study of interest groups in the United States begins with James Madison. He saw groups as applying the “Mischief of Faction” to civic society. The various “auxiliary precautions” included in the Constitution, that were to have ambition counteract ambition, were designed not to eliminate groups, which Madison considered worse than their mischief, but to control their effects. The pluralists of the political science community in the middle of the twentieth century saw the virtues of having a multitude of groups competing against each other to produce a compromise that would be in the best interests of the whole country. Though there are obvious empirical and normative problems with the pluralist model, including, quoting E.E. Schattschneider, that, ”the flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent,” the importance and influence of interest groups in our society should not be overlooked.

In the most recent edition of the American Political Science Review, there is a study on factors that affect voter turnout. It provides a new variable into the equation of voter behavior. I will write about voter turnout research in general before turning to the study. The article does not provide specific policy options but may help us better understand the motivation of voters.

Most researchers look at voting in a manner similar to other decisions people make in their lives. A voter is choosing a candidate the same way he or she chooses an automobile or pizza. For those products, it is simple to see how the economic calculus of costs versus benefits is arrived at by the consumer. How can we put voters into this Economic Theory of Voting?

Some of you may feel that I am not a true expert on Idaho politics especially since I was not born here. I do believe that I am the best analyst of Pennsylvania politics in the state of Idaho since I spent most of my life there and keep close contacts to many people still in the state. With the Democratic nomination for president hinging on the results from the Keystone State, a better understand of the complex politics of the country’s second state is in order.

James Carville has been quoted as stating that Pennsylvania is Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Alabama in between. As with much that Carville says, there is some truth to the statement but it is overly simplistic.

Now that John McCain is the “presumptive” Republican nominee for president, we are to wonder what kind of president he might be. This book centers on McCain’s relationship with his grandfather, father, the Navy, the Naval Academy and his time as a prisoner of war. These formative years are very important to understanding one’s personality especially a president.

The most influential book on presidential personality was "The Presidential Character," written by James David Barber in 1972. Barber looks at the developmental stages of a person’s life to explain why presidents are Active or Passive, concerning how much energy they expend on the job, and whether they are Positive or Negative, concerning their attitude to the job as president. I do not want to go into the details of Barber’s methodology but only want to emphasize the importance of one’s upbringing as a determinant of one’s adult character and personality.

Some of you may be wondering about the name of my department at the College of Idaho. We do not have a political science department like most schools. Our decision to teach political economy is based upon the history of the discipline and how best to study the social phenomena of our world. We believe our approach is the best method to help our students understand how individuals relate to each other in the public realm.

Our department is not merely two majors, political science and economics, administratively combined in one department. We have tried to return to how society was studied more than two centuries ago. Modern thinkers like Adam Smith and John Locke were referred to as political economists: individuals who understood the intricate relationship between economics and politics. This view of the discipline extended through the 19th Century with Marx, Mill and Tocqueville until the advent of the modern American university system. This system, beginning in the early 20th century, included a push for specialization that led to a separation of the study of political economy into two distinct disciplines. This artificial separation is illogical and contrary to the interests of students.

How do you explain how Idahoans see the role of government in society and how individuals should participate in the political system? One approach to this subject is to use the typology of Political Culture as a means to answer these questions for Idaho and for other states.

The study of political culture in the US was pioneered by Daniel Elazar, former professor at Temple University, head of Center for the Study of Federalism, one of the most renowned political scholars in the world and my professor for a time. He defined Political Culture as: The citizens' attitudes, beliefs and expectations of what government should do and who should participate. Elazar understood political culture to have an enormous effect on both the structure of government and the behavior of public officials.

I found this term interesting when I saw it over an Associated Press story in the Idaho Statesman last Monday. I like goodies; who doesn’t? The problem with goodies is they make you fat and lazy. What is true for people is also true for government and businesses.

The state government is looking to provide tax incentives to a French company to construct a uranium enrichment plant in eastern Idaho, or at least allow local governments the ability to provide goodies. It is noted that Idaho must compete with other states for the plant and tax waivers are the medium for incentives. An administrator in the state Department of Commerce noted that this plant will create “250 high-paying jobs.” I can’t refute that statement but I am worried when he said, “Idaho should do everything it can” to attract this project. Everything? I am not willing to go that far Should we sell our children or live in caves to get this plant? I am sure he didn’t mean that but it may mean that the rest of the state’s taxpayers, including existing businesses, may have to pay more in taxes. I won’t discuss the qualities of uranium enrichment but instead concentrate on the balancing of business incentives for this plant versus the advantages the plant may provide to the people of Idaho.

Even though ISTARS and ISTARS Lite are dead, I don’t think it is too late to weigh in on the issue of merit pay for teachers. Theoretically, every one should be rewarded based upon merit, unless you agree with Marx and believe people should be compensated based upon need. Merit-based systems don’t always work the way they are intended and measuring the merits of teaching may be more difficult than it is for other professions. Remember, I am a teacher and will bring that perspective to this discussion.

Many support merit pay for teachers by pointing to the example of private businesses. “Government should be run like a business.” The problem with that statement is some businesses are not run very well. When one looks at compensation packages for top executives, many businesses would make a skewed example for local schools. How many CEOs have ruined their companies, laid off much of the work force or lead a firm to financial losses only to be provided big bonuses or golden parachutes? Many CEOs have their compensation tied to stock prices. This can lead to decisions that favor short-term profits over long-term growth and stability for the company. As difficult as it is to measure the success of business executives, it is even more difficult to measure the quality or effectiveness of a teacher.