This paper examines the career trajectories of new health policy elites in the American federal government, identifying areas of expertise, partisan alignments, relationships to interest groups, and institutional constraints. We demonstrate that, in both the American and French cases, policy elites who have risen through prestigious educational institutions and undertaken extensive professionalization in government, have in fact developed comparable characteristics that blend broad knowledge of social, institutional, and partisan issues with technical skills. We argue that, benefiting from extensive experience in the back offices of power, deeply entrenched in the health policy sector, and promoting a programmatic reform agenda that reaffirms the regulatory powers of government, the new American health policy elites worked behind the scenes to draft and implement the final ACA legislation. Their ambitious, far-reaching reform effort succeeded where many advocates of comprehensive reform had failed, anchoring the political and institutional framework of the U.S. health care system.

In 1890, Congress passed the Second Morrill Land-Grant Act, which provided federal resources to support the creation of nineteen Black land-grant colleges. At a historical and political moment when Black Americans faced a violently repressive backlash against what progress they had achieved during Reconstruction, the successful passage and implementation of this legislation was unlikely. How did congressional lawmakers successfully pass the Morrill Land-Grant Act of 1890, and was the expansion of educational opportunity for African Americans a clearly expressed objective? Using historical analysis of primary sources, this analysis suggests that the 1890 legislation’s investment in Black colleges reflected a politically expedient compromise between northern Radical Republicans who supported greater educational access for Black citizens and Southern Democrats who wished to expand higher educational opportunity in their region while also maintaining the segregated racial order of southern educational institutions.

Equating the U.S. government with the national government, historians of the AIDS epidemic have hitherto ignored the role of the states in shaping the early policy response to the disease. Responding to this historiographical lacuna, this article argues that California acted as a policy innovator during the initial years of the epidemic, intervening more effectively than the federal government in the areas of AIDS health care, antibody testing, and prevention education. California’s policy leadership drew significant impetus from a group of gay policy makers, who entered state employment in the early 1980s and relied extensively on clandestine and illicit strategies, particularly a network of “closeted” bureaucrats. Charting the career arcs of these gay policy makers shines a spotlight on the organizational growth of state LGBTQ groups in the 1980s and the evolving role of the “closet” in the modern gay rights movement.

This article presents case studies of pardons in the presidencies of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson. In doing so, the article moves away from the idea in existing scholarship that pardons of the past were largely noble acts of statecraft, untouched by ideological, partisan, or personal political motivations. Instead, it develops an account of how and why these pardons should be understood as both enabling presidents to achieve certain political objectives and, simultaneously, operating in an inherited environment in which presidents used existing resources to legitimate their pardons. In so doing, presidents refashioned those inherited resources and, thereby, created new resources for future presidents. The picture that emerges is of pardons as both sources of political innovation and political constraint.

The Kerner Commission’s report is regarded as one of the nation’s most important works on race. However, the earlier rejection of an internal staff paper (“The Harvest of American Racism”) because it was “too radical” left a “gaping hole” in the Commission’s plans (“Harvest,” which sought to use social science to explain why only some cities encountered rioting, was to have been the report’s “core chapter”) and caused a staff split that threatened its work. Much has been written about the challenges of incorporating social science and public policy with references about them being in separate worlds with different languages, schedules, values, etc. This article examines to what extent any of these challenges was present as “Harvest” was being written and reviewed. It then seeks to determine what influence any complicating factor may have had and what, if anything, could have been done to produce a different outcome.