Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Asserting that American checks and balances have broken down, Lawrence Jacobs asserts that parties must filter out dangerous candidates such as Donald Trump. To do so requires a number of reforms to undo several wrong turns in the evolution of the party system. Ambitious political elites including Jefferson, Jackson, LaFollette, and McGovern introduced changes in the name of greater equality that served their own interests but also had a number of harmful consequences. Reforms are needed to expand and reinvigorate citizen political participation along many dimensions and curb elite influence. In his book Democracy Under Fire: Donald Trump and the Breaking of American History, Lawrence Jacobs offers a robust vision of democracy and argues democracy is incompatible with entrenching minority control of electoral outcomes or political decision-making. Yet some of the failures and changes that gave rise to current threats to democracy, including authoritarian candidates, have affected other nations and have causes that go beyond remedies considered here. Some of the modest reforms proposed by Jacobs seem unlikely to achieve the purposes he envisions. However, reforms that do not require constitutional amendments and broader citizen political engagement that extends beyond election season are welcome proposals.

This article aims to illuminate how non-state actors participate in forging public institutions and in establishing public agendas. It also sets out to identify novel mechanisms of state building. It does so by examining the historical experience of the Immigrants' Protective League (IPL) from its founding in 1908 through 1924. The history of the IPL highlights the role of organized, networked women in generating new boundary stories and doing boundary work; in conducting research and enhancing legibility; in incubating new policy experiments; and in moving the national, state, and local governments to take up new tasks in the progressive era. Focusing on women's activism in this period, and efforts to link immigrants to categories of the vulnerable, reveals that porous boundaries, hybrid power-sharing arrangements, and public-private collaborations may be more typical in forging new American institutions and public agendas than is generally recognized—and insufficiently captured by a narrative of a weak state borrowing temporary capacity from private actors.