|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
090707
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Alan Abramowitz and Ruy Teixeira document the dramatic decline in the white working class and discuss the complicated ways this decline has transformed American politics. They also discuss the emergence of a mass upper-middle class whose effects on American politics may be similarly complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
099443
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A Referendum Law took effect in Japan in May 2010. Since a referendum is a prerequisite to any change to the Japanese 'Peace Constitution', this is an event with potentially far-reaching consequences. By gauging the Democratic Party of Japan's views on the issue of revision of the constitution-particularly revision of the famous Article 9, with remains a foundation of Japanese security policy-and by extrapolating on the findings, this article aims to further the understanding of the new government's security policy more generally. After finding that the probability that the Japanese government will capitalise on the coming into force of the Referendum Law to reopen the constitutional debate is currently low, the article advances a number of hypotheses as to why this is the case, and discusses scenarios under which the status quo could change. Finally, it draws out the implications (a) of the preceding analysis for DPJ security policy, and (b) of DPJ security policy for the interpretation of the constitution where Article 9 is concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
095128
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
153463
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
U.S. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP has inherited large strategic and tactical nuclear arsenals from his predecessor, Barack Obama, and a strategy of "unconditional offensive nuclear deterrence," which allows for the possibility of a preemptive nuclear strike against practically any country that is not an ally, friend or partner of the United States.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
117467
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Asks why it was possible for Congress to enact regulation of tobacco manufacture in 2009 after many years of indulging the industry. She finds the explanation in the rise of opposition to the industry in the Democratic Party and the embrace of regulation by Philip Morris, the major manufacturer, which was seeking safety and stability after repeated assaults from an array of public and private actors in legislatures, courts, and the media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
110922
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A Feb. 29 update to the print story from the March/April issue: In the wake of the Great Recession it would seem natural that the 2012 election would be fought over economic issues. Yet so far in the Republican primaries, we have seen social issues, and religion especially, move to the forefront. Rick Santorum is only the latest in a series of Republicans who have infused their campaigns with talk about God. Even Mitt Romney, a Mormon who has generally tried to avoid discussing religion, has recently pledged to defend "religious liberty" against the Obama administration. Increasingly, the rhetoric of the leading Republican contenders echoes the Republican fringe of twenty years ago. Then, we heard Pat Buchanan -- the quintessential protest candidate -- bombastically declare that America was in the midst of a culture war. Today, the frontrunners all play to the Republican base by describing the White House's "war on religion."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
098172
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
089549
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The 2008 United States presidential election compaign presented a sharp contrast in the study of political discourse.The Democratic Party was represented by a candidate who owed his meteoric Political rise to his remarkably skillful and inspiring plitical oratory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
156319
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
090230
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The current method for selecting presidential nominees by the two major parties went into place mostly in 1972 and certainly by 1976, after Buckely v. Valeo. It was the natural culmination of reform efforts over the history of the republic in that, while prior reforms consistently invoked greater openness and democratic governance as rationales for their adoption, this method actually empowered voters as the central figures in determining who would be nominated (see Aldrich 1987). This fact became fully evident almost at once. The selection via primaries of senator George McGovern in 1972 and governor Jimmy Carter in 1976 as the Democratic presidential nominees arguably not only would not have happened, they would not have even come close to winning nomination without successful appeal to the voting public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
174044
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Is there a left-wing foreign policy emerging in the United States? The rise of an energized and assertive left wing of the Democratic Party, and a receptive constituency within the electorate, has opened space for new political possibilities at home. In the foreign policy realm, leftist internationalism is making compelling arguments about new directions. However, there are limitations to the possible realization of a left-wing foreign policy in the US. While candidates like Sanders and Warren are distinctive in a left-wing foreign policy worldview, the practical implications of their foreign policies are consistent with post-Cold War practice. There are two important exceptions: in trade policy and in their positions on the use of military force. Here they mark a sharp break from the liberal internationalist mainstream. This paper outlines five broad principles of left internationalism, assesses the foreign policy positions of leading Democratic candidates for the 2020 nomination, and explores the long-term prospects of left-wing foreign policy in the US after 2020.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
125030
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
ON FEBRUARY 24-25, Italy held an early parliamentary election, which saw the center-left coalition headed by Democratic Party leader Pier Luigi Bersani win the race and gain 55% of the seats in the Chamber of Deputies. But their slight lead in the Senate, with just five seats more than the center-right bloc's, has called into question the political survivability of the legislature, as well as the government to be formed by Bersani. For Italy, political instability is a familiar and ordinary phenomenon. During the past sixty-five years, 50 governments have succeeded one another there due to political crises. But for all that, the current early election may well prove to be a turning point in the country's political process, which in the last 18 years proceeded, according to Italian experts, under the banner of "Berlusconi-ism."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
121591
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Few transformations have been as important in American politics as the incorporation of African Americans into the Democratic Party over the course of the 1930s-60s and the Republican Party's growing association with more conservative positions on race-related policies. This paper traces the relationship between New Deal economic liberalism and racial liberalism in the mass public. A key finding is that by about 1940, economically-liberal northern white Democratic voters were substantially more pro-civil rights than were economically-conservative northern Republican voters. While partisanship and civil rights views were unrelated among southern whites, economic conservatives were more racially conservative than their economically liberal counterparts, even in the south. These findings suggest that there was a connection between attitudes towards the economic programs of the New Deal and racial liberalism early on, well before national party elites took distinct positions on civil rights. Along with grassroots pressure from African American voters who increasingly voted Democratic in the 1930s-40s, this change among white voters likely contributed to northern Democratic politicians' gradual embrace of civil rights liberalism and Republican politicians' interest in forging a coalition with conservative white southerners. In attempting to explain these linkages, I argue that the ideological meaning of New Deal liberalism sharpened in the late 1930s due to changes in the groups identified with Roosevelt's program and due to the controversies embroiling New Dealers in 1937-38.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
138617
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
AS THE 2016 U.S. presidential race begins to take shape, would-be Republican candidates have begun to outline their foreign-policy agendas. But little remains known officially of the foreign-policy agenda of the current favorite to win the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, who just recently launched her bid for the presidency. As terrorism, cybersecurity, communicable diseases and other global concerns remain in the forefront of Americans’ minds, and with no incumbent running, the race presents an opportunity for a healthy—and perhaps heated—discussion of foreign policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
108458
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The commitment to the procedural rules of democracy, particularly to the electoral mechanism, on the part of political leadership is considered necessary for the establishment and survival of democracy. However, the political actors' commitment to the electoral mechanism does not guarantee the well-being of the democratic regime. In newly established democracies, the electoral mechanism itself can also function as a disadvantage to democracy if it is manipulated by the political elite. Based on this assumption, this article analyzes the case of Turkey's Democratic Party (DP, Demokrat Parti) under the leadership of Celal Bayar and Adnan Menderes between 1946 and 60 and demonstrates that political actors can exploit the electoral mechanism by either rescheduling elections or amending the electoral regulations despite their acceptance of it as one of the basic procedural rules of democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
040517
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Washington, Executive Intelligence Review, 1987.
|
| Description |
xviii, 331p.Pbk
|
| Standard Number |
0943235006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 028582 | 923.573/LAR 028582 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
117579
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
We examine the role and potential impact of gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) voters in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. We look at trend data from 1990 to 2010 to assess the fluctuations in support for the Democratic Party by GLB voters, specifically a substantial decrease in support during the 2010 midterm elections. We use data from the 2008 election to assess the estimated contribution the GLB vote made toward President Obama's margin of victory in key battleground states. Looking at the Obama administration's record on gay rights, specifically the failure to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), we argue that the Democratic Party could be held accountable in the 2012 election for their failure to provide protection from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Potentially the 2012 election will be closer than the 2008 race, highlighting the importance of the GLB vote to President Obama's reelection in key states. We argue that if President Obama incorporates strong support for ENDA into his reelection platform, the Democratic Party has the chance to recapture the GLB votes it lost in 2010 and maintain enough of the 2008 electoral votes that led to President Obama's victory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 18 |
ID:
125312
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Dynamic of Indonesian politics have intensified in the anticipation of the largest dance of democracy on 2014: the legislative and presidential elections. The public` entertained' by how boisterous the big political parties are in announcing their presidential candidate ; such as Partai Golongan Karya/ Golkar with Aburizal Bakrie, Great Indonesia Movement Party (Partai Gerakan Inonesia Raya/ Gerindra) with Prabowo Subianto, People`s Conscience Party (Partai Hati Nurani Rakyat/ Hanura) with Wiranto, National Mandate Party (Partai Amanat Nasional/ PAN) with Hatta Rajasa, and United development Party (Partai Persatuan Pembangunan/ PPP) With Suryadharma Ali.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 19 |
ID:
095402
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Administration of Franklin Pierce has frequently been the object of study for historians of antebellum domestic politics, but few have examined the contribution of the Administration's foreign policy initiatives and objectives. This paper demonstrates that Pierce's foreign policy drew from the same partisan well as his domestic politics: a strict interpretation of power under the Constitution and a strong sense of racial paternalism that had come to define the ideological core of Democratic Party by the 1850s. In the arena of foreign affairs, these two ideological principles worked at cross-purposes, as the adherence to small government hampered efforts to exercise paternalism abroad. Whilst Pierce and his lieutenants thus claimed few actual foreign policy achievements, they nonetheless provided a blueprint for an American empire founded upon racial paternalism that would emerge with a much larger and stronger American government at the close of the nineteenth-century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 20 |
ID:
131525
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Democratic and Republican Parties both make strong claims that their policies benefit racial and ethnic minorities. These claims have, however, received little systematic empirical assessment. This is an important omission, because democracy rests on the ability of the electorate to evaluate the responsiveness of those who govern. We assess Democrats' and Republicans' claims by compiling census data on annual changes in income, poverty, and unemployment over the last half century for each of America's racial and ethnic groups. Judged by the empirical record, it is clear which party truly benefits America's communities of color. When the nation is governed by Democrats, racial and ethnic minority well-being improves dramatically. By contrast, under Republican administrations, blacks, Latinos, and Asian Americans generally suffer losses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|