Suchergebnisse

Less than two years ago, Barack Obama was sworn in as president amidst proclamations of a partisan realignment. But in this fall's midterms, scores of his fellow Democrats lost their jobs. The best evidence suggests that Obama's signature accomplishment—passage of a healthcare reform bill that had long eluded progressives—played a key role in the historic defeat. It also highlighted the delicacy of partisan regimes, particularly those prematurely designated as realignments by academic or popular observers.

The critical and interconnected role that international events -- and particularly wars -- have played in the development of party ideology has not been fully recognized. In one sense, this omission is not surprising because, as David R. Mayhew and Ira Katznelson have recently noted, many scholars studying the United States limit their causal variables to those that can be found within the nation's borders. Regrettably, this narrow approach leaves out an enormous explanatory factor: foreign wars. The underappreciation of major U.S. wars as a causal variable in the domestic realm limits our understanding of American politics and government. What follows is, in part, an attempt to take up the scholarly call to arms by Mayhew, Katznelson, and others. I do so by exploring the relationship between international influences and party ideology. Wars, offering the most profound kind of foreign influence, are an obvious place to begin. I argue here that World War II offers a prime case study of this relationship and that it was a major contributing factor in the Democratic Party's ideological shift away from economic populism and toward inclusion and solidarity. Adapted from the source document.

Less than two years ago, Barack Obama was sworn in as president amidst proclamations of a partisan realignment. But in this fall's midterms, scores of his fellow Democrats lost their jobs. The best evidence suggests that Obama's signature accomplishment—passage of a healthcare reform bill that had long eluded progressives—played a key role in the historic defeat. It also highlighted the delicacy of partisan regimes, particularly those prematurely designated as realignments by academic or popular observers

Realignment theory has long offered the primary framework for understanding American political history, particularly as it relates to the party system. The ''System of 1896'' is central to the theory and holds that William McKinley's victory in that year ushered in a Republican-dominated era lasting until Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt's election in 1932. The 10 years of partial—and six years of total—Democratic control of Congress and the White House (1910–20) during this 36-year stretch (1896–1932) remains an anomaly among realignment theorists. I conduct content analyses of Democratic and Republican party documents and media commentary and find that World War I played a crucial role in the GOP's resurgence in 1920. This conclusion highlights realignment theory's failure to account for the important role of international events and contingency in general.

Less than two years ago, Barack Obama was sworn in as president amidst proclamations of a partisan realignment. But in this fall's midterms, scores of his fellow Democrats lost their jobs. The best evidence suggests that Obama's signature accomplishment -- passage of a healthcare reform bill that had long eluded progressives -- played a key role in the historic defeat. It also highlighted the delicacy of partisan regimes, particularly those prematurely designated as realignments by academic or popular observers. Adapted from the source document.

Much of the commentary in the wake of last month's presidential election has focused on the magnitude and historic aspects of Barack Obama's victory and the deteriorating economic environment in which it played out. Little thought has been given to the influence of foreign affairs in the election. Yet even in this year's contest, which appears to lend considerable support to economic-based theories of elections, international events clearly played an important role by shaping the nomination process for both major parties and in Obama's selection of Joseph Biden as his running mate.

The United States is currently in the midst of a war in Iraq and a
broader "war on terror." What will be the long-term consequences of
these conflicts on the American state?

In Never Trump, Robert P. Saldin and Steven M. Teles argue that the influence of the movement turned out to be much larger than its disappointing impact on the election. Never Trump examines the reasons for this widespread and unprecedented intra-party opposition to Trump, why it took the form it did, and its longer-term consequences.