Not Another Politics Podcast

We're off this week for a much-needed spring break, but we wanted to re-share this episode that feels more relevant than ever. Infrastructure in the U.S. now costs dramatically more than in countries like Germany or Croatia—without clear signs of higher quality or better environmental outcomes. Why has infrastructure spending spiraled out of control? Could democracy itself—through litigation, regulations, and empowered citizen voices—be driving costs sky-high? George Washington University Professor of Public Policy Leah Brooks investigates why the U.S. pays so much more per mile of highway compared to other nations in her paper “Infrastructure Costs”. Brooks reveals shocking findings: from the late 1960s onward, the cost to build highways in America surged dramatically, not because of higher wages or materials, but because of legal battles, environmental reviews, and citizen demands. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Are Americans really polarized along party lines? Today, we discuss a new paper from our co-host Anthony Fowler, about one of the most common tools researchers use to measure public opinion: simple yes-or-no survey questions. Most political surveys ask people to choose between two options—support or oppose, yes or no. But Fowler’s research shows that these binary questions can hide important nuance in how people actually think about policy. When researchers analyze these responses, it can make voters appear more polarized—or more ideologically inconsistent—than they really are.   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Shaoda Wang, Assistant Professor at UChicago Harris who studies academic dishonesty and political selection, discusses using dissertation plagiarism and experiments to link cheating with career paths. Short segments cover measuring plagiarism, links to civil service and judges, bias toward powerful litigants, livestreaming as a check, and how institutions and mentors amplify dishonesty.

Andy Hall, a Stanford political scientist who used Claude and Claude Code to replicate and extend a vote-by-mail study. He recounts prompting strategies, how Claude mostly reproduced results, where automated code stumbled, the audit process that caught data and legal-timing errors, and wider implications for research speed, oversight, and how AI might reshape empirical social science.

In this conversation, Anthony Fowler, a political scientist and author, explores the intricate dynamics of primary elections and their impact on congressional polarization. He reveals that primaries influence lawmakers' votes only slightly, contributing about 1% to polarization. Anthony discusses how variations in primary timing affect voting behavior, the limited role of primaries versus other polarization forces, and how electability concerns can moderate extreme positions. His insights challenge common assumptions about the significance of primary elections in driving ideological extremes.

Do politicians really understand what drives voters—or are they relying on flawed assumptions that could shape democracy in troubling ways?As we take some time off for the holidays, we wanted to re-share our episode with University of Calgary political scientist Jack Lucas, whose paper “Politicians’ Theories of Voting Behavior,” reveals striking gaps between how politicians perceive voters and how voters see themselves. While politicians often hold a cynical, “democratic realist” view of voters, citizens are far more optimistic about their own behavior. But who’s right—and does it even matter? Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode, we speak with Cory Clark, behavioral scientist and Associate Professor of Psychology at New College of Florida. We discuss her paper, “Taboos and Self-Censorship Among U.S. Psychology Professors," which explores how controversial topics in science are perceived, debated, and sometimes suppressed, and the psychological dynamics of taboo beliefs and self-censorship in academia. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Kosuke Imai, a political scientist affiliated with Princeton and Harvard, dives into the controversial world of partisan gerrymandering. He shares his innovative simulation methodology, revealing surprising results about its national effects, which largely cancel out but diminish electoral competitiveness. Imai discusses how map-drawing often prioritizes incumbent safety at the expense of competitive districts and explores implications for polarization and potential reforms. His insights challenge common perceptions about the impact of gerrymandering in the political landscape.

What happens when a political party nominates a candidate in its primary who is ideologically extreme? Do donors, especially those outside the party’s base, react — and if so, how? That question is explored in a new paper by Andy Christopher Wayne Myers, Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science at Stanford University. He uncovers how donors respond when a relative “moderate” is replaced by a more extreme nominee and if the force of donors is actually weaker than it once was. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Christoph Trebesch, a Professor of Economics at Kiel University, shares his insights on the global rise of populism and its economic repercussions. He highlights how populist governments are linked to slower GDP growth, undermined democratic institutions, and increased vulnerability to future populism. Trebesch contrasts left and right populism, discussing their distinct policy focuses. He also examines the mechanisms behind lower economic performance, such as policy unpredictability and institutional damage, providing a compelling look at populism's complex legacy.