To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: American Politics.
Journal articles on the topic 'American Politics'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'American Politics.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Huddle, David. "American Politics." Appalachian Heritage 32, no. 4 (2004): 86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/aph.2004.0020.
Full text
2
Kamal, Rabia. "Race and Arab Americans Before and After 9/11." American Journal of Islam and Society 26, no. 4 (October 1, 2009): 131–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.35632/ajis.v26i4.1375.
Full textAbstract:
The present American moment has been hailed by some as inaugurating anera of “post-black” politics with the candidacy and election of PresidentBarack Obama. Obama’s election, in the words of Manning Marable, indicatesthe possibility that America has entered “an age of post-racial politics,in which leadership and major public policy debates would not be distortedby factors of race and ethnicity” (“Racializing Obama: The Enigmaof Post-Black Politics and Leadership,” Souls 11, no. 1 [2009]: 1-15). Whilehis campaign and victory heralded the message of hope in a “post-racial”landscape, the dangers of stumbling blindly onto the bandwagon could, andin some cases have, result(ed) in erasing race’s enduring presence in contemporaryAmericanpolitics.Thus, there is perhaps no better time for the publication of Race andArab Americans Before and After 9/11, as it counters contemporary publicamnesia by reminding us that race and inequality still permeate the lives ofminority populations. Speaking to an interdisciplinary audience and seekingto fill a critical gap in the field ofAmerican racial and ethnic studies, this collectionof essays highlights the complex and slippery ways in which race permeatesArab andArab-American engagements with the American socialhierarchy.Foregrounding the complexities of Arab-American racial formationas a critical site of inquiry in the introduction, Nadine Naber calls formoving beyond the usual liberal multiculturalist “add on” approach in orderto consider “the shifting and contradictory historical contexts throughwhichArabAmericans have engaged with immigration, assimilation, andracialization” (p. 4). In a concise but evocative historical précis, she showshow “anti-Arab racism represents a recurring process of the constructionof the Other within U.S. liberal politics in which long-term trends of racialexclusion become intensifiedwithinmoments of crisis in the body politic…”(p. 31) ...
3
De Graaf, Lawrence. "Henry, Culture And African American Politics." Teaching History: A Journal of Methods 17, no. 1 (April 1, 1992): 35–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.33043/th.17.1.35-36.
Full textAbstract:
When W.E.B. Dubois observed the "two-ness" of the African-American he brought attention to a theme that would pervade writings in black studies to the present day. While a majority of works have considered blacks as Americans and focused upon their inequitable treatment or condition compared to other segments of the population, a growing literature has sought to portray African American moral and social life as distinctive from that of other Americans. This work summarizes some of this thinking and attempts to extrapolate from it a political ideology unique to black Americans.
4
Betzig, Laura, and Samantha Weber. "Polygyny in American Politics." Politics and the Life Sciences 12, no. 1 (February 1993): 45–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0730938400011230.
Full textAbstract:
Biographical data were collected on members of the U.S. executive, legislative, and judicial branches, in George Washington's first through Ronald Reagan's last administration, fromWho Was Who in America,theBiographical Dictionary of the United States Congress, Vice Presidents and Cabinet Members,andBurke's Presidential Families of the United States of America.They suggest that serial polygyny in this sample has declined over the last two hundred years. Census data on average American men suggest that the number of wives per man has stayed the same or increased at the same time. These trends imply that mating equality may have increased over the last two centuries of American history. What sketchy evidence exists on extramarital opportunities tentatively suggests a similar trend.
5
Aronowitz, Stanley. "American Politics on the Edge La politica americana en la encrucijada." Societies Without Borders 1, no. 1 (2006): 139–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187219106777304304.
Full text
6
Pasquier, Michael. "Savage, Your Spirits Walk Beside Us - The Politics Of Black Religion." Teaching History: A Journal of Methods 34, no. 1 (April 1, 2009): 50–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.33043/th.34.1.50-51.
Full textAbstract:
Today it is common to hear people speak of the "African American community" and the "Black Church" as if they were cohesive, clearly-defined institutions. Barbara Dianne Savage, professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania, looks at the complex history of such terms in her book Your Spirits Walk Beside Us: The Politics of Black Religion, effectively chronicling the debates of African Americans over the role of religion in political activism and social reform in twentieth-century America. Specifically, Savage identifies three "paradoxes" present at "the nexus between black religion and black politics," namely, the rich diversity and idiosyncratic manifestations of religion among individual African Americans that elude clear demarcation, the largely localized and decentralized organization of predominantly African American churches that confound any notion of an all-inclusive Black Church, and the tendency within African American churches toward male leadership and female dominance.
7
Brown, Michael K. "Black and Multiracial Politics in America Edited by Yvette M. Alex-Assensoh and Lawrence J. Hanks. New York: New York University Press, 2000. 404p. $55.00 cloth, $21.00 paper." American Political Science Review 96, no. 3 (September 2002): 629–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0003055402420369.
Full textAbstract:
The waves of immigrants arriving in the United States over the last 20 years, largely from Latin America and Asia, have settled in a few states—mainly California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey—and in big cities in those states. Like the migration of African Americans to northern cities in the twentieth century and the suburbanization of whites, this demographic transformation is remaking urban politics. Black and Multiracial Politics in America, a collection of original essays, addresses the implications of this change for “the practice and process of black and multiracial politics in American society” (p. xiii). The authors seek to forge a new link between the study of black and the study of multiracial politics.
8
Joseph, Ronald Raju. ""Machine Town": Panethnic Asian American Identity in Philadelphia Politics." Perceptions 4, no. 2 (May 24, 2018): 17. http://dx.doi.org/10.15367/pj.v4i2.107.
Full textAbstract:
This paper investigated the topic of panethnic Asian American political coalition-building in Philadelphia politics, to determine if efforts to forge such a coalition succeeded. This paper traced the scholarship accumulated across multiple spheres of Asian American studies ranging from the emergence of panethnic Asian American identity, Asian American involvement in American politics before and after the civil rights movement, and the continuing ethnic divisions within the Asian American community. Further research on urban politics and its intersection with ethnic identity was also investigated, yielding insights into the nature of the potential of and obstacles to successful panethnic political organizing across ethnic lines in the urban areas of the United States. Upon investigating data on the voting patterns of Asian Americans, the socioeconomic statistics on various Asian American ethnic groups, the organizational landscape of organizations--panethnic or ethnic--serving the Asian American community, and the political clout of Asian American political activists and groups in Philadelphia politics, the conclusion was reached that efforts to forge a panethnic Asian American coalition in Philadelphia politics have not succeeded. While the topic of panethnic Asian American politics in the urban context remains a relatively understudied topic in political science, the existing evidence points that there remain significant obstacles to panethnic political organizing in Asian American communities.
9
Singh, Robert. "Teaching American Politics." Politics 21, no. 2 (May 2001): 130–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.00144.
Full textAbstract:
This article examines some of the hurdles that confront teachers of American government and politics in the United Kingdom. It argues that whilst the problems associated with teaching American politics are hardly unique within the politics discipline, they do pose substantial challenges. In particular, confronting students' stereotypes and prejudices about the United States is a key task of a successful teaching programme. To do this, and to make the study of US politics an ‘active’ one, some suggestions are made as to how the standard ‘textbook approach’ can be supplemented and enhanced.
10
Leonard, Karen. "American Muslim Politics." Ethnicities 3, no. 2 (June 2003): 147–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468796803003002001.
Full text
11
Cooper, Richard N., and I. M. Destler. "American Trade Politics." Foreign Affairs 84, no. 6 (2005): 137. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20031789.
Full text
12
McClintock, C. "Latin American Politics." Radical History Review 1995, no. 61 (January 1, 1995): 148–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/01636545-1995-61-148.
Full text
13
Sehat, David. "Religion and American Public Life." Perspectives on Politics 10, no. 1 (March 2012): 110–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592711004324.
Full textAbstract:
In his 2000 best seller Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Civic Community, Robert Putnam analyzed the links between social capital and civic engagement. Lamenting the decline of “civic America,” he called for a Tocquevillean renewal of voluntary association in the United States. In American Grace, Putnam and coauthor David Campbell—who also helped with the preparation of Bowling Alone—return to the analysis of American civil society, focusing their attention on America's changing religious landscape and its implications for democracy. Their basic argument is that while the United States is religiously diverse and pluralistic to a profound degree, and while in recent years it has witnessed growing religious polarization, it has also succeeded in muting religious tensions and hostilities. As they conclude: “How has America solved the puzzle of religious pluralism—the coexistence of religious diversity and devotion? And how has it done so in the wake of growing religious polarization? By creating a web of interlocking personal relationships among people of many different faiths. This is America's grace” (p. 550).Given the importance of religion in American life and the influence of Putnam's broad agenda on much current social science research on social capital and civic engagement, we have decided to organize a symposium around the book, centered on three questions: 1) How is American Grace related to Putnam's earlier work, particularly Bowling Alone, and what are the implications of the continuities and/or discontinuities between these works? 2) What kind of a work of political science is American Grace, and how does it compare to other important recent work dealing with religion and politics in the United States? 3) What are the strengths and weaknesses of Putnam and Campbell's account of “how religion divides and unites us,” and what is the best way of thinking about the contemporary significance of religion and politics in the United States and about the ways that the religious landscape challenges U.S. politics and U.S. political science?
14
Olson, Laura R. "Religion and American Public Life." Perspectives on Politics 10, no. 1 (March 2012): 103–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592711004348.
Full textAbstract:
In his 2000 best seller Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Civic Community, Robert Putnam analyzed the links between social capital and civic engagement. Lamenting the decline of “civic America,” he called for a Tocquevillean renewal of voluntary association in the United States. In American Grace, Putnam and coauthor David Campbell—who also helped with the preparation of Bowling Alone—return to the analysis of American civil society, focusing their attention on America's changing religious landscape and its implications for democracy. Their basic argument is that while the United States is religiously diverse and pluralistic to a profound degree, and while in recent years it has witnessed growing religious polarization, it has also succeeded in muting religious tensions and hostilities. As they conclude: “How has America solved the puzzle of religious pluralism—the coexistence of religious diversity and devotion? And how has it done so in the wake of growing religious polarization? By creating a web of interlocking personal relationships among people of many different faiths. This is America's grace” (p. 550).Given the importance of religion in American life and the influence of Putnam's broad agenda on much current social science research on social capital and civic engagement, we have decided to organize a symposium around the book, centered on three questions: 1) How is American Grace related to Putnam's earlier work, particularly Bowling Alone, and what are the implications of the continuities and/or discontinuities between these works? 2) What kind of a work of political science is American Grace, and how does it compare to other important recent work dealing with religion and politics in the United States? 3) What are the strengths and weaknesses of Putnam and Campbell's account of “how religion divides and unites us,” and what is the best way of thinking about the contemporary significance of religion and politics in the United States and about the ways that the religious landscape challenges U.S. politics and U.S. political science?
15
Shields, Jon A. "Religion and American Public Life." Perspectives on Politics 10, no. 1 (March 2012): 114–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s153759271100435x.
Full textAbstract:
In his 2000 best seller Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Civic Community, Robert Putnam analyzed the links between social capital and civic engagement. Lamenting the decline of “civic America,” he called for a Tocquevillean renewal of voluntary association in the United States. In American Grace, Putnam and coauthor David Campbell—who also helped with the preparation of Bowling Alone—return to the analysis of American civil society, focusing their attention on America's changing religious landscape and its implications for democracy. Their basic argument is that while the United States is religiously diverse and pluralistic to a profound degree, and while in recent years it has witnessed growing religious polarization, it has also succeeded in muting religious tensions and hostilities. As they conclude: “How has America solved the puzzle of religious pluralism—the coexistence of religious diversity and devotion? And how has it done so in the wake of growing religious polarization? By creating a web of interlocking personal relationships among people of many different faiths. This is America's grace” (p. 550).Given the importance of religion in American life and the influence of Putnam's broad agenda on much current social science research on social capital and civic engagement, we have decided to organize a symposium around the book, centered on three questions: 1) How is American Grace related to Putnam's earlier work, particularly Bowling Alone, and what are the implications of the continuities and/or discontinuities between these works? 2) What kind of a work of political science is American Grace, and how does it compare to other important recent work dealing with religion and politics in the United States? 3) What are the strengths and weaknesses of Putnam and Campbell's account of “how religion divides and unites us,” and what is the best way of thinking about the contemporary significance of religion and politics in the United States and about the ways that the religious landscape challenges U.S. politics and U.S. political science?
16
Elshtain, Jean Bethke. "Religion and American Public Life." Perspectives on Politics 10, no. 1 (March 2012): 107–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592711004841.
Full textAbstract:
In his 2000 best seller Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Civic Community, Robert Putnam analyzed the links between social capital and civic engagement. Lamenting the decline of “civic America,” he called for a Tocquevillean renewal of voluntary association in the United States. In American Grace, Putnam and coauthor David Campbell—who also helped with the preparation of Bowling Alone—return to the analysis of American civil society, focusing their attention on America's changing religious landscape and its implications for democracy. Their basic argument is that while the United States is religiously diverse and pluralistic to a profound degree, and while in recent years it has witnessed growing religious polarization, it has also succeeded in muting religious tensions and hostilities. As they conclude: “How has America solved the puzzle of religious pluralism—the coexistence of religious diversity and devotion? And how has it done so in the wake of growing religious polarization? By creating a web of interlocking personal relationships among people of many different faiths. This is America's grace” (p. 550).Given the importance of religion in American life and the influence of Putnam's broad agenda on much current social science research on social capital and civic engagement, we have decided to organize a symposium around the book, centered on three questions: 1) How is American Grace related to Putnam's earlier work, particularly Bowling Alone, and what are the implications of the continuities and/or discontinuities between these works? 2) What kind of a work of political science is American Grace, and how does it compare to other important recent work dealing with religion and politics in the United States? 3) What are the strengths and weaknesses of Putnam and Campbell's account of “how religion divides and unites us,” and what is the best way of thinking about the contemporary significance of religion and politics in the United States and about the ways that the religious landscape challenges U.S. politics and U.S. political science?
17
Jiang, Zhuoxu. "Protestant Influence on American Elitism and Democracy." Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media 30, no. 1 (December 7, 2023): 46–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.54254/2753-7048/30/20231579.
Full textAbstract:
Protestantism is essential in US history and politics and predominantly affects how the American government and people behave. This paper focuses on how Protestant theology and churches affect the politics of the US by discussing the historical background of some denominations in America, the elitism in politics from church traditions, and the dual influence of Protestantism on democracy. Using literature research methodology, the paper concluded that Protestant Christianity, especially the Reformed church, has a considerable impact on US education, politics, and democracy that anyone who wants to analyze American politics cannot ignore. Also, the work ethic derived from Protestantism suggests that Protestant values have contributed to the development of capitalism and industrialization in the United States. Meanwhile, the research of different denominations can help people understand seperation of some states and parties. The research paper provides a perspective for readers to consider America a religiously affected country that cultures and policies are nearly all under Christian influences.
18
Kassem, Ramzi. "American Informant." Michigan Journal of Race & Law, no. 27.1 (2021): 171. http://dx.doi.org/10.36643/mjrl.27.1.american.
Full textAbstract:
Part of my childhood was spent in Baghdad, Iraq, during the rule of Saddam Hussein. At that time, the regime offered free and universal education and healthcare. Literacy rates in the country surpassed much of the Arabic-speaking world and, indeed, the Global South. As the celebrated Egyptian intellectual, Taha Hussein, famously put it: “Cairo writes; Beirut prints; and Baghdad reads.” Booksellers were everywhere in Baghdad. Its people read voraciously and passionately debated literature, poetry, and a range of other subjects. But what struck me, even as a child, was the absence of sustained talk about politics in bookshops, markets, and other public spaces. I knew that adults could not stay away from the topic of politics in more intimate, private settings, where a deeper level of trust usually reigned. Once you entered the public sphere, however, discretion about politics—and especially local politics—clearly became the better part of valor. Iraqi society had been so thoroughly infiltrated by elements of Hussein’s intelligence services that ordinary people knew to tread with extreme caution. After all, the person standing within earshot at a bustling Baghdad market, overhearing your conversation—or maybe even your direct interlocutor— could be an informant. And the stakes were high: incarceration, torture, or death. That was an early introduction to the valency of informants—their capacity to interact with the society that surrounds them and their distorting effect on it. The lesson has colored my subsequent work on surveillance, including this reflection on the contemporary role of informants in the United States.
19
King, Preston. "Being American (Politics of Identity – XI)." Government and Opposition 42, no. 4 (2007): 593–625. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2007.00237.x.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract‘Being American’ is a two-sided identity called ‘citizenship’. This involves a set (the state) and its members (citizens). The citizen (say Whitman) may be ‘fully’ American, just as some particular nation (say Native American, African, British, Jewish) may be so. But no one citizen (the patriot), or subset of citizens (perhaps the ethnic group), nor even the set of all citizens (past and present) reflects or symbolizes the whole of what ‘being American’ might mean. Nor can we reduce America's multitudes, and multitudinous practices, to one thickset/hotfoot Creed producing the sexy ‘American’/‘Un-American’ binary. Being American hangs upon a paramount constitutionalism that coolly reconciles, without melting, underlying identities. ‘Constitutionalism’ is informed by some abstract notion of justice, is grounded in mutual regard and equal liberty, and mere possession of ‘a constitution’ does not suffice to deliver it.
20
WILLIAMS, DANIEL K. "American Evangelical Politics before the Christian Right." Journal of Ecclesiastical History 69, no. 2 (August 29, 2017): 367–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0022046917000811.
Full textAbstract:
Is American Evangelicalism a politically progressive tradition? For contemporary observers who are familiar with American Evangelicalism only in its modern, politically conservative guise, the idea that many American Evangelicals have traditionally been on the left end of the political spectrum might come as a surprise. Yet, according to Randall Balmer's Evangelicalism in America and Frances Fitzgerald's The Evangelicals, both of which offer two-hundred-year surveys of Evangelical political activism in the United States, the Christian Right is an aberration in American Evangelicalism and not representative of the tradition's political orientation.
21
Ong, Paul, Melany Dela Cruz-Viesca, and Don Nakanishi. "Awakening the New “Sleeping Giant”?: Asian American Political Engagement." AAPI Nexus Journal: Policy, Practice, and Community 6, no. 1 (2008): 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.36650/nexus6.1_1-10_ongetal.
Full textAbstract:
The 2008 election was a milestone in the emergence of Asian Americans as a factor in American politics, with national television news networks openly discussing and analyzing California’s Asian American voters. Most mainstream analysis, however, had very little in-depth understanding of the population. This essay provides some insights into the absolute and relative size of the Asian American population, along with key demographic characteristics, their participation in electoral politics, some of the barriers the encounter, and future prospects. The brief is based on analyzing the most recently available data, the 2006 American Community Survey (ACS) and the 2006 November Current Population Survey (CPS). This analysis builds on a previous analytical brief which examined the emergence of Asian Americans as California politics’ new “sleeping giant,” a term that was applied to Hispanics in the 1980s and 1990s because of their rapid growing numbers.
22
Stern, Steve J. "Paradigms of Conquest: History, Historiography, and Politics." Journal of Latin American Studies 24, S1 (March 1992): 1–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0022216x00023750.
Full textAbstract:
The Quandary of 1492The year 1492 evokes a powerful symbolism.1The symbolism is most charged, of course, among peoples whose historical memory connects them directly to the forces unleashed in 1492. For indigenous Americans, Latin Americans, minorities of Latino or Hispanic descent, and Spaniards and Portuguese, the sense of connection is strong. The year 1492 symbolises a momentous turn in historical destiny: for Amerindians, the ruinous switch from independent to colonised history; for Iberians, the launching of a formative historical chapter of imperial fame and controversy; for Latin Americans and the Latino diaspora, the painful birth of distinctive cultures out of power-laden encounters among Iberian Europeans, indigenous Americans, Africans, and the diverse offspring who both maintained and blurred the main racial categories.But the symbolism extends beyond the Americas, and beyond the descendants of those most directly affected. The arrival of Columbus in America symbolises a historical reconfiguration of world magnitude. The fusion of native American and European histories into one history marked the beginning of the end of isolated stagings of human drama. Continental and subcontinental parameters of human action and struggle, accomplishment and failure, would expand into a world stage of power and witness. The expansion of scale revolutionised cultural and ecological geography. After 1492, the ethnography of the humanoid other proved an even more central fact of life, and the migrations of microbes, plants and animals, and cultural inventions would transform the history of disease, food consumption, land use, and production techniques.2In addition, the year 1492 symbolises the beginnings of the unique world ascendance of European civilisation.
23
Iqbal, Nasir, Umar Hayat, and Muhammad Asif Nadeem. "Subverting the Politics of Discourse in Gerald Vizenor's Heirs of Columbus." Global Language Review VI, no. II (June 30, 2021): 101–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/glr.2021(vi-ii).12.
Full textAbstract:
Vizenor is an illustrious novelist whose works, especially The Heirs of Columbus, dwells upon some of the substantial and significant issues facing the modern-day Native American nationals of America and Canada as the majority of the Native American tribes straddle along the borders between the two countries. Victor believes in Saidian terms that the white Euro-American colonizers, after making inroads into the native people's land, established their stranglehold by maintaining and perpetuating the policy of the misrepresentation of the native people. Through a body of specialized writings about the colonized people, the Europeans in the first place and Americans afterward- after the center was shifted from Britain to America as a result of far-reaching political and economic changes in the world scenario- grossly misrepresented the indigenous people by portraying them as uncivilized, ignorant, brutes, inferior, born to be ruled over and, thus, by implication defined themselves as civilized, democratic, knowledgeable having the divine sanction to rule. They had this cultural/anthropological theory of their innate superiority over the non-white to ideologically support and legitimize their exploitative agenda.
24
Tam CHO, Wendy K. "Foreshadowing Strategic Pan-Ethnic Politics: Asian American Campaign Finance Activity in Varying Multicultural Contexts." State Politics & Policy Quarterly 1, no. 3 (September 2001): 273–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/153244000100100303.
Full textAbstract:
Research on Asian American politics is hampered by data limitations. Asian Americans comprise a small proportion of the population, and few political candidates are of Asian descent. However, because the Asian American population is growing quickly, interest in the group's political behavior has grown. One source of data that can be exploited to understand Asian American political behavior is the state of Hawaii. Hawaii provides a natural experiment since the majority of its citizens are Asian American and Asian political candidates are commonplace. This study of Hawaiian politics focuses on Asian American campaign finance behavior. I find that as Asian Americans locate themselves in more multicultural settings, they become more politically strategic, less focused on national-origin groupings, and more inclined to embrace a pan-ethnic identity.
25
Kaufmann, Eric. "White Identity and Ethno-Traditional Nationalism in Trump’s America." Forum 17, no. 3 (October 25, 2019): 385–402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/for-2019-0026.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract As the white share of America continues to decline, white identity is becoming more important for politics. I show that white identity is considerably stronger among whites who are attached to their ancestry, i.e. Irish, ‘American’ or Italian. Accordingly, we should see it as more reflective of cultural attachment than a desire for politico-economic advantage. In addition, a separate dynamic I term ethno-traditional American nationalism, is important. This is not white nationalism, but a form of American national identity in which ethnocultural elements form an important part but do not, like the American accent, form a condition of equal national membership. Ethno-traditional nationalism is about the ‘what is American’ question of symbolic attachment, rather than the ‘who is American’ question of which groups belong and are excluded, that has received the lion’s share of academic attention.
26
Yeboah, Amy. "Would You Send Your Daughter to Howard? Historically Black Colleges and Universities Advancing Black Women in Leadership." Advancing Women in Leadership Journal 40, no. 1 (December 21, 2021): 56–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.21423/awlj-v40.a356.
Full textAbstract:
In this article, we address the influence of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) on Black women’s participation in American politics. Focusing on the rise and record number of Black women running and winning political office in 2018, a remarkable list of over 400 Black women candidates were collected. Focusing on lives of three Black women whose dedication, determination, leadership, and activism are shifting the American political; Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, Lucy McBath, its evident that HBCUs have empowered Black women to continue to lead, make a change and break barriers in American politics. These results highlight some of the long-term impacts supporting HBCU environments has created for Black women in politics and America. Keywords: black women, politics, underpresented, gender, leadership, historically black colleges and universitites
27
Oakerson, Ronald J. "The Study of American Local Governance: A Need for More and Better ‘Backyard‘ Scholarship." Political Science Teacher 1, no. 4 (1988): 11–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0896082800000386.
Full textAbstract:
Occasional references to the old radical teaching that “all politics is local” notwithstanding, American political scientists have by and large treated the study of local politics as a subject of much lesser importance than national politics. The standard introductory course in “American democracy” has a national focus—often it is exclusively national. Briefly, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the study of “urban politics” occupied a more prominent place in the discipline, but interest has waned. The priority concern in both teaching and research continues to be American national government and politics.This narrow focus leads to a distorted and truncated view of American democracy. Despite increased nationalization, state and local government has been and remains a basic element in the practice of American politics. The productivity and creativity of democracy in America are outcomes, not simply of a national political process, but of a complex system of governance in which local collective action provides much of the energy and initiative for addressing public problems. A vast amount of political activity in the United States is channeled through state and local institutions, where much of the work of public problem solving is done.
28
Cahuas, Madelaine C. "The struggle and (im)possibilities of decolonizing Latin American citizenship practices and politics in Toronto." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 38, no. 2 (April 2020): 209–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263775820915998.
Full textAbstract:
This paper explores the tensions racialized migrants negotiate when politically organizing and enacting citizenship within the context of the Canadian white settler state. I focus on the experiences of Latin Americans in Toronto and the politics surrounding a cultural celebration – Hispanic Heritage Month. While some Latin Americans sought to use this event to gain recognition and assert their belonging to Canadian society, others opposed its naming, objectives and organization, and opted to create an alternative celebration – the Latin-America History Collective’s Día de la Verdad/Day of Truth Rally. I demonstrate that the narratives and practices mobilized around Hispanic Heritage Month and Latin-America History Collective’s Rally reveal how different forms of migrant political organizing can internalize, reproduce and contest white settler colonial social relations. Overall, this paper aims to contribute to and complicate debates on the fraught nature of racialized migrants’ citizenship, politics and identity formation in Canada, by emphasizing the vast heterogeneity of Latin American communities and decolonizing possibilities.
29
Isaac, Jeffrey C. "Immigration Politics." Perspectives on Politics 9, no. 3 (September 2011): 501–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s153759271100288x.
Full textAbstract:
“You are a Greek Jew? I thought all Greeks were Orthodox?” As a Jewish-American growing up in New York City, whose paternal grandparents were Jews who had emigrated from Greece in the 1920s, I was frequently asked this question by well-meaning—if confused—friends and acquaintances. Indeed, while “Greek Jew” has always been a central aspect of my multiply-hyphenated American identity, in fact my grandfather Morris Isaac, né Izaki, was from Salonika and, it turns out, he himself grew up as a Turkish Jew under the Ottoman Empire, only to discover after World War I that he was in fact (now) not a Turkish but a Greek Jew (which was not, in the parlance of his time, synonymous with being an authentic “Greek”). Greek (Orthodox) or Jewish? Greek or Turkish? Pogroms, wars, “ethnic cleansings,” and sometimes even genocides have been undertaken to resolve such questions, and indeed my ancestors experienced all of these things in the opening decades of the twentieth century. For my family, such traumas are part of the story of how my grandparents came to leave Greece and migrate to the US and become Americans and US citizens (alas, many of their relatives were not able to leave, and most ultimately perished at the hands of the Nazis).
30
Casanova, José. "The politics of nativism." Philosophy & Social Criticism 38, no. 4-5 (May 2012): 485–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0191453711435643.
Full textAbstract:
The politics of nativism directed at Catholic immigrants in 19th-century America offer a fruitful comparative perspective through which to analyze the discourse and the politics of Islam in contemporary Europe. Anti-Catholic nativism constituted a peculiar North American version of the larger and more generalized phenomenon of anti-immigrant populist xenophobic politics which one finds in many countries and in different historical contexts. What is usually designated as Islamo-phobia in contemporary Europe, however, manifests striking resemblances with the original phenomenon of American nativism that emerged in the middle of the 19th century in the United States. In both cases one finds the fusion of anti-immigrant xenophobic attitudes, perennial inter-religious prejudices, and an ideological construct setting a particular religious-civilizational complex in essential opposition to Western modernity. Although an anti-Muslim discourse emerged also in the United States after 11 September, it had primarily a geo-political dimension connected with the ‘war on terror’ and with American global imperial policies. But it lacked the domestic anti-immigrant populist as well as the modern secularist anti-Muslim dimensions. This explains why xenophobic anti-Muslim nativism has been much weaker in the United States than in Europe.
31
Miller, Worth Robert. "The Lost World of Gilded Age Politics." Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 1, no. 1 (January 2002): 49–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537781400000098.
Full textAbstract:
The rambunctious world of Gilded Age politics, with its boisterous partisan rallies and three-hour long declamations on the finer points of tariff schedules and monetary policy, passed from the scene of American politics rather abruptly about a century ago. Despite its superficial similarities with politics today — sex scandals, corporate influence, and partisan gridlock in Washington — the spirit and substance of Gilded Age politics was quite different from political discourse today. Politics was a national obsession to nineteenth century Americans. Partisanship was open and vigorous because common people believed the issues were important and political parties represented divergent viewpoints. Men (and in a few places women) of every ethnic and racial background, and from every walk of life, overwhelmingly participated in America's democratic experiment. This made Gilded Age politicians some of the greatest heroes and villains of the era.
32
Arnold, Kathleen R. "Class Politics, American-Style." Perspectives on Politics 9, no. 3 (September 2011): 639–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592711002337.
Full textAbstract:
Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson's Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class is both a work of political science and a contribution to broad public discussion of distributive politics. Its topic could not be more relevant to a US polity wracked by bitter partisan disagreements about taxes, social spending, financial regulation, social insecurity, and inequality. The political power of “the rich” is a theme of widespread public attention. The headline on the cover of the January–February 2011 issue of The American Interest—“Inequality and Democracy: Are Plutocrats Drowning Our Republic?”—is indicative. Francis Fukuyama's lead essay, entitled “Left Out,” clarifies that by “plutocracy,” the journal means “not just rule by the rich, but rule by and for the rich. We mean, in other words, a state of affairs in which the rich influence government in such a way as to protect and expand their own wealth and influence, often at the expense of others.” Fukuyama makes clear that he believes that this state of affairs obtains in the United States today.Readers of Perspectives on Politics will know that the topic has garnered increasing attention from political scientists in general and in our journal in particular. In March 2009, we featured a symposium on Larry Bartels's Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. And in December 2009, our lead article, by Jeffrey A. Winters and Benjamin I. Page, starkly posed the question “Oligarchy in the United States?” and answered it with an equally stark “yes.” Winner-Take-All Politics thus engages a broader scholarly discussion within US political science, at the same time that it both draws upon and echoes many “classic themes” of US political science from the work of Charles Beard and E. E. Schattschneider to Ted Lowi and Charles Lindblom.In this symposium, we have brought together a group of important scholars and commentators who offer a range of perspectives on the book and on the broader themes it engages. While most of our discussants are specialists on “American politics,” we have also sought out scholars beyond this subfield. Our charge to the discussants is to evaluate the book's central claims and evidence, with a focus on three related questions: 1) How compelling is its analysis of the “how” and “why” of recent US public policy and its “turn” in favor of “the rich” and against “the middle class”? 2) How compelling is its critique of the subfield of “American politics” for its focus on the voter–politician linkage and on “politics as spectacle” at the expense of an analysis of “politics as organized combat”? 3) And do you agree with its argument that recent changes in US politics necessitate a different, more comparative, and more political economy–centered approach to the study of US politics?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor
33
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M. "Class Politics, American-Style." Perspectives on Politics 9, no. 3 (September 2011): 643–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592711002349.
Full textAbstract:
Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson's Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class is both a work of political science and a contribution to broad public discussion of distributive politics. Its topic could not be more relevant to a US polity wracked by bitter partisan disagreements about taxes, social spending, financial regulation, social insecurity, and inequality. The political power of “the rich” is a theme of widespread public attention. The headline on the cover of the January–February 2011 issue of The American Interest—“Inequality and Democracy: Are Plutocrats Drowning Our Republic?”—is indicative. Francis Fukuyama's lead essay, entitled “Left Out,” clarifies that by “plutocracy,” the journal means “not just rule by the rich, but rule by and for the rich. We mean, in other words, a state of affairs in which the rich influence government in such a way as to protect and expand their own wealth and influence, often at the expense of others.” Fukuyama makes clear that he believes that this state of affairs obtains in the United States today.Readers of Perspectives on Politics will know that the topic has garnered increasing attention from political scientists in general and in our journal in particular. In March 2009, we featured a symposium on Larry Bartels's Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. And in December 2009, our lead article, by Jeffrey A. Winters and Benjamin I. Page, starkly posed the question “Oligarchy in the United States?” and answered it with an equally stark “yes.” Winner-Take-All Politics thus engages a broader scholarly discussion within US political science, at the same time that it both draws upon and echoes many “classic themes” of US political science from the work of Charles Beard and E. E. Schattschneider to Ted Lowi and Charles Lindblom.In this symposium, we have brought together a group of important scholars and commentators who offer a range of perspectives on the book and on the broader themes it engages. While most of our discussants are specialists on “American politics,” we have also sought out scholars beyond this subfield. Our charge to the discussants is to evaluate the book's central claims and evidence, with a focus on three related questions: 1) How compelling is its analysis of the “how” and “why” of recent US public policy and its “turn” in favor of “the rich” and against “the middle class”? 2) How compelling is its critique of the subfield of “American politics” for its focus on the voter–politician linkage and on “politics as spectacle” at the expense of an analysis of “politics as organized combat”? 3) And do you agree with its argument that recent changes in US politics necessitate a different, more comparative, and more political economy–centered approach to the study of US politics?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor
34
Carmines, Edward G. "Class Politics, American-Style." Perspectives on Politics 9, no. 3 (September 2011): 645–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592711002350.
Full textAbstract:
Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson's Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class is both a work of political science and a contribution to broad public discussion of distributive politics. Its topic could not be more relevant to a US polity wracked by bitter partisan disagreements about taxes, social spending, financial regulation, social insecurity, and inequality. The political power of “the rich” is a theme of widespread public attention. The headline on the cover of the January–February 2011 issue of The American Interest—“Inequality and Democracy: Are Plutocrats Drowning Our Republic?”—is indicative. Francis Fukuyama's lead essay, entitled “Left Out,” clarifies that by “plutocracy,” the journal means “not just rule by the rich, but rule by and for the rich. We mean, in other words, a state of affairs in which the rich influence government in such a way as to protect and expand their own wealth and influence, often at the expense of others.” Fukuyama makes clear that he believes that this state of affairs obtains in the United States today.Readers of Perspectives on Politics will know that the topic has garnered increasing attention from political scientists in general and in our journal in particular. In March 2009, we featured a symposium on Larry Bartels's Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. And in December 2009, our lead article, by Jeffrey A. Winters and Benjamin I. Page, starkly posed the question “Oligarchy in the United States?” and answered it with an equally stark “yes.” Winner-Take-All Politics thus engages a broader scholarly discussion within US political science, at the same time that it both draws upon and echoes many “classic themes” of US political science from the work of Charles Beard and E. E. Schattschneider to Ted Lowi and Charles Lindblom.In this symposium, we have brought together a group of important scholars and commentators who offer a range of perspectives on the book and on the broader themes it engages. While most of our discussants are specialists on “American politics,” we have also sought out scholars beyond this subfield. Our charge to the discussants is to evaluate the book's central claims and evidence, with a focus on three related questions: 1) How compelling is its analysis of the “how” and “why” of recent US public policy and its “turn” in favor of “the rich” and against “the middle class”? 2) How compelling is its critique of the subfield of “American politics” for its focus on the voter–politician linkage and on “politics as spectacle” at the expense of an analysis of “politics as organized combat”? 3) And do you agree with its argument that recent changes in US politics necessitate a different, more comparative, and more political economy–centered approach to the study of US politics?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor
35
Dean, Jodi. "Class Politics, American-Style." Perspectives on Politics 9, no. 3 (September 2011): 648–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592711002362.
Full textAbstract:
Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson's Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class is both a work of political science and a contribution to broad public discussion of distributive politics. Its topic could not be more relevant to a US polity wracked by bitter partisan disagreements about taxes, social spending, financial regulation, social insecurity, and inequality. The political power of “the rich” is a theme of widespread public attention. The headline on the cover of the January–February 2011 issue of The American Interest—“Inequality and Democracy: Are Plutocrats Drowning Our Republic?”—is indicative. Francis Fukuyama's lead essay, entitled “Left Out,” clarifies that by “plutocracy,” the journal means “not just rule by the rich, but rule by and for the rich. We mean, in other words, a state of affairs in which the rich influence government in such a way as to protect and expand their own wealth and influence, often at the expense of others.” Fukuyama makes clear that he believes that this state of affairs obtains in the United States today.Readers of Perspectives on Politics will know that the topic has garnered increasing attention from political scientists in general and in our journal in particular. In March 2009, we featured a symposium on Larry Bartels's Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. And in December 2009, our lead article, by Jeffrey A. Winters and Benjamin I. Page, starkly posed the question “Oligarchy in the United States?” and answered it with an equally stark “yes.” Winner-Take-All Politics thus engages a broader scholarly discussion within US political science, at the same time that it both draws upon and echoes many “classic themes” of US political science from the work of Charles Beard and E. E. Schattschneider to Ted Lowi and Charles Lindblom.In this symposium, we have brought together a group of important scholars and commentators who offer a range of perspectives on the book and on the broader themes it engages. While most of our discussants are specialists on “American politics,” we have also sought out scholars beyond this subfield. Our charge to the discussants is to evaluate the book's central claims and evidence, with a focus on three related questions: 1) How compelling is its analysis of the “how” and “why” of recent US public policy and its “turn” in favor of “the rich” and against “the middle class”? 2) How compelling is its critique of the subfield of “American politics” for its focus on the voter–politician linkage and on “politics as spectacle” at the expense of an analysis of “politics as organized combat”? 3) And do you agree with its argument that recent changes in US politics necessitate a different, more comparative, and more political economy–centered approach to the study of US politics?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor
36
McClain, Paula D. "Class Politics, American-Style." Perspectives on Politics 9, no. 3 (September 2011): 651–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592711002374.
Full textAbstract:
Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson's Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class is both a work of political science and a contribution to broad public discussion of distributive politics. Its topic could not be more relevant to a US polity wracked by bitter partisan disagreements about taxes, social spending, financial regulation, social insecurity, and inequality. The political power of “the rich” is a theme of widespread public attention. The headline on the cover of the January–February 2011 issue of The American Interest—“Inequality and Democracy: Are Plutocrats Drowning Our Republic?”—is indicative. Francis Fukuyama's lead essay, entitled “Left Out,” clarifies that by “plutocracy,” the journal means “not just rule by the rich, but rule by and for the rich. We mean, in other words, a state of affairs in which the rich influence government in such a way as to protect and expand their own wealth and influence, often at the expense of others.” Fukuyama makes clear that he believes that this state of affairs obtains in the United States today.Readers of Perspectives on Politics will know that the topic has garnered increasing attention from political scientists in general and in our journal in particular. In March 2009, we featured a symposium on Larry Bartels's Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. And in December 2009, our lead article, by Jeffrey A. Winters and Benjamin I. Page, starkly posed the question “Oligarchy in the United States?” and answered it with an equally stark “yes.” Winner-Take-All Politics thus engages a broader scholarly discussion within US political science, at the same time that it both draws upon and echoes many “classic themes” of US political science from the work of Charles Beard and E. E. Schattschneider to Ted Lowi and Charles Lindblom.In this symposium, we have brought together a group of important scholars and commentators who offer a range of perspectives on the book and on the broader themes it engages. While most of our discussants are specialists on “American politics,” we have also sought out scholars beyond this subfield. Our charge to the discussants is to evaluate the book's central claims and evidence, with a focus on three related questions: 1) How compelling is its analysis of the “how” and “why” of recent US public policy and its “turn” in favor of “the rich” and against “the middle class”? 2) How compelling is its critique of the subfield of “American politics” for its focus on the voter–politician linkage and on “politics as spectacle” at the expense of an analysis of “politics as organized combat”? 3) And do you agree with its argument that recent changes in US politics necessitate a different, more comparative, and more political economy–centered approach to the study of US politics?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor
37
Waddell, Brian. "Class Politics, American-Style." Perspectives on Politics 9, no. 3 (September 2011): 659–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592711002441.
Full textAbstract:
Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson's Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class is both a work of political science and a contribution to broad public discussion of distributive politics. Its topic could not be more relevant to a US polity wracked by bitter partisan disagreements about taxes, social spending, financial regulation, social insecurity, and inequality. The political power of “the rich” is a theme of widespread public attention. The headline on the cover of the January–February 2011 issue of The American Interest—“Inequality and Democracy: Are Plutocrats Drowning Our Republic?”—is indicative. Francis Fukuyama's lead essay, entitled “Left Out,” clarifies that by “plutocracy,” the journal means “not just rule by the rich, but rule by and for the rich. We mean, in other words, a state of affairs in which the rich influence government in such a way as to protect and expand their own wealth and influence, often at the expense of others.” Fukuyama makes clear that he believes that this state of affairs obtains in the United States today.Readers of Perspectives on Politics will know that the topic has garnered increasing attention from political scientists in general and in our journal in particular. In March 2009, we featured a symposium on Larry Bartels's Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. And in December 2009, our lead article, by Jeffrey A. Winters and Benjamin I. Page, starkly posed the question “Oligarchy in the United States?” and answered it with an equally stark “yes.” Winner-Take-All Politics thus engages a broader scholarly discussion within US political science, at the same time that it both draws upon and echoes many “classic themes” of US political science from the work of Charles Beard and E. E. Schattschneider to Ted Lowi and Charles Lindblom.In this symposium, we have brought together a group of important scholars and commentators who offer a range of perspectives on the book and on the broader themes it engages. While most of our discussants are specialists on “American politics,” we have also sought out scholars beyond this subfield. Our charge to the discussants is to evaluate the book's central claims and evidence, with a focus on three related questions: 1) How compelling is its analysis of the “how” and “why” of recent US public policy and its “turn” in favor of “the rich” and against “the middle class”? 2) How compelling is its critique of the subfield of “American politics” for its focus on the voter–politician linkage and on “politics as spectacle” at the expense of an analysis of “politics as organized combat”? 3) And do you agree with its argument that recent changes in US politics necessitate a different, more comparative, and more political economy–centered approach to the study of US politics?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor
38
Resnick, David, and Norman C. Thomas. "Cycling through American Politics." Polity 23, no. 1 (September 1990): 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3235140.
Full text
39
Bowles, Nigel. "Developments in American politics." International Affairs 69, no. 2 (April 1993): 406. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2621708.
Full text
40
Marquez, Benjamin, Rodolfo O. de la Garza, Louis DeSipio, F. Chris Garcia, John Garcia, Angelo Falcon, Rodney E. Hero, et al. "Reconceptualizing Mexican American Politics." Political Research Quarterly 46, no. 3 (September 1993): 691. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448954.
Full text
41
Desposato, Scott. "Latin American Legislative Politics." Latin American Politics and Society 48, no. 4 (2006): 163–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-2456.2006.tb00369.x.
Full text
42
Shafer, Byron E. "'Exceptionalism' in American Politics?" PS: Political Science and Politics 22, no. 3 (September 1989): 588. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/419626.
Full text
43
Noll, Mark, and Charles Dunn. "Religion in American Politics." Journal of Law and Religion 8, no. 1/2 (1990): 449. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1051302.
Full text
44
Ribuffo, Leo P. "Conservatism and American Politics." Journal of The Historical Society 3, no. 2 (March 2003): 163–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-5923.00053.
Full text
45
Cochran, Gus. "American Politics Heads South." New Labor Forum 13, no. 2 (June 1, 2004): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/748900118.
Full text
46
Desposato, Scott. "Latin American Legislative Politics." Latin American Politics & Society 48, no. 4 (2006): 163–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lap.2006.0044.
Full text
47
Marquez, Benjamin. "Reconceptualizing Mexican American Politics." Political Research Quarterly 46, no. 3 (September 1993): 691–701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591299304600313.
Full text
48
King, Ronald F., and Thomas S. Langston. "Narratives of American Politics." Perspectives on Politics 6, no. 2 (June 2008): 235–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592708080584.
Full textAbstract:
This article is an extended review essay that classifies the main literatures on American politics, somewhat unconventionally, in terms of four distinct narrative modes: comedy, romance, tragedy, and irony. The four modes are differentiated by their internal construction and external social message. The central assertion is that there are standardized trajectories inherent to many of the empirical analyses we advance, which can be used to understand ongoing debates in the field. Perceiving inherent harmony or discord, emphasizing the exalted or the mundane, projecting achievement or frustration, the various narratives of American politics present contrasting interpretations regarding regime tensions and prospects. The more that political scientists become conscious of the forms and limits of the models employed, the more sophisticated we can be at developing and debating them.
49
Frymer, Paul. "Labor and American Politics." Perspectives on Politics 8, no. 2 (June 2010): 609–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592710001271.
Full textAbstract:
The State of Working America, 2008/2009. By Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, and Heidi Shierholz. An Economic Policy Institute Book. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009. 461 p. $59.95 cloth, $24.95 paper.
50
Pontusson, Jonas. "Class Politics, American-Style." Perspectives on Politics 9, no. 3 (September 2011): 654–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s153759271100243x.
Full textAbstract:
Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson'sWinner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Classis both a work of political science and a contribution to broad public discussion of distributive politics. Its topic could not be more relevant to a US polity wracked by bitter partisan disagreements about taxes, social spending, financial regulation, social insecurity, and inequality. The political power of “the rich” is a theme of widespread public attention. The headline on the cover of the January–February 2011 issue ofThe American Interest—“Inequality and Democracy: Are Plutocrats Drowning Our Republic?”—is indicative. Francis Fukuyama's lead essay, entitled “Left Out,” clarifies that by “plutocracy,” the journal means “not just rule by the rich, but rule by and for the rich. We mean, in other words, a state of affairs in which the rich influence government in such a way as to protect and expand their own wealth and influence, often at the expense of others.” Fukuyama makes clear that he believes that this state of affairs obtains in the United States today.Readers ofPerspectives on Politicswill know that the topic has garnered increasing attention from political scientists in general and in our journal in particular. In March 2009, we featured a symposium on Larry Bartels'sUnequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. And in December 2009, our lead article, by Jeffrey A. Winters and Benjamin I. Page, starkly posed the question “Oligarchy in the United States?” and answered it with an equally stark “yes.”Winner-Take-All Politicsthus engages a broader scholarly discussion within US political science, at the same time that it both draws upon and echoes many “classic themes” of US political science from the work of Charles Beard and E. E. Schattschneider to Ted Lowi and Charles Lindblom.In this symposium, we have brought together a group of important scholars and commentators who offer a range of perspectives on the book and on the broader themes it engages. While most of our discussants are specialists on “American politics,” we have also sought out scholars beyond this subfield. Our charge to the discussants is to evaluate the book's central claims and evidence, with a focus on three related questions: 1) How compelling is its analysis of the “how” and “why” of recent US public policy and its “turn” in favor of “the rich” and against “the middle class”? 2) How compelling is its critique of the subfield of “American politics” for its focus on the voter–politician linkage and on “politics as spectacle” at the expense of an analysis of “politics as organized combat”? 3) And do you agree with its argument that recent changes in US politics necessitate a different, more comparative, and more political economy–centered approach to the study of US politics?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor