Suchergebnisse

Putting Donald Trump in historical perspective : racial politics and social movements from the 1960s to today / Doug McAdam -- Populism, democracy, and resistance : the United States in comparative perspective / Kenneth Roberts -- Who made the Women's March? / Erica Chenoweth and Marie Berry -- Mobilizing for immigrant and Latino rights under Trump / Chris Zepeda and Sophia Wallace -- Climate of resistance : how the climate movement connects to the resistance / Dana R. Fisher -- Lawyers as activists : from the airport to the courtroom / Michael C. Dorf and Michael S. Chu -- The many faces of resistance media / David Karpf -- Indivisible : invigorating and redirecting the grassroots / Megan Brooker -- The rhythms of resistance / Sidney Tarrow -- Generational dynamics in the resistance / Nancy Whittier -- Invigorating and redirecting the grassroots / Hahrie Han & Michelle Oyakawa -- Trumpism, the resistance, and the future of American democracy / David S. Meyer

The electoral base of the Democratic Party has been transformed over the past generation. Democrats have lost ground in rural America while adding strength in cities and, more recently, suburbs. A major consequence of this shift has been the creation of a "U-shaped" Democratic voting base, with both poorer metro voters and affluent suburbanites siding with the party. This spatial alliance overlays a multi-racial one, as Democrats rely more heavily on voters of color than any other major party in American history. Many analysts have argued that the Democratic Party has managed this sea change by shifting from economic to cultural and identity appeals. This claim is consistent with leading models of two-dimensional party competition, as well as a fair amount of cross-national research on parties of the left and center-left in contemporary knowledge economies. However, we find little evidence for this claim in national Democrats' messaging (via party platforms and on Twitter), nor, more important, in their actual policy efforts. Instead, we show that even as Democrats have increasingly relied on affluent, educated voters, the party has embraced a more ambitious economic agenda. The national party has bridged the Blue Divide not by foreswearing redistribution or foregrounding cultural liberalism, but by formulating an increasingly bold economic program—albeit one that elides important inequalities within its metro-based multi-racial coalition. Understanding how and why Democrats have taken this path is central to understanding not just the party's response to its shifting electorate, but the way parties manage coalitional change more broadly.

Policy feedback in an age of polarization /Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson --Making what Government does apparent to citizens: policy feedback effects, their limitations, and how they might be facilitated /Suzanne Mettler --Limiting policy backlash: strategies for taming countercoalitions in an era of polarization/Eric M. Patashnik --Asymmetric partisan polarization, labor policy, and cross-state political power-building /Alexander Hertel-Fernandez --A new path for U.S. climate politics: choosing policies that mobilize business for decarbonization /Jonas Meckling --Building climate policy in the states /Samuel Trachtman --Medicaid and the policy feedback foundations for universal healthcare /Jamila Michener --Medicare expansion as a path as well as a destination: achieving universal insurance through a new politics of medicare /Jacob S. Hacker --Antitrust enforcement as federal policy to reduce regional economic disparities /Robert Manduca --Rebuilding labor power in the postindustrial United States /Andrew Schrank --De-policing American's youth: disrupting criminal justice policy feedbacks that distort power and derail prospects /Vesla M. Weaver and Amanda Geller --Feedback effects and the criminal justice bureaucracy: officer attitudes and the future of correctional reform /Amy E. Lerman and Jessie Harney

This article provides an overview of the emerging field of American political economy (APE). Methodologically eclectic, this field seeks to understand the interaction of markets and government in America's unequal and polarized polity. Though situated within American politics research, APE draws from comparative political economy to develop a broad approach that departs from the American politics mainstream in two main ways. First, APE focuses on the interaction of markets and governance, a peripheral concern in much American politics research. Second, it invokes a theoretical orientation attentive to what we call meta politics—the processes of institution shaping, agenda setting, and venue shopping that unfold before and alongside the more visible processes of mass politics that figure so centrally in American politics research. These substantive and theoretical differences expand the study of American politics into neglected yet vital domains, generating fresh insights into the United States' distinctive mix of capitalism and democracy.