A Discussion of Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum’s A Lot of People Are Saying: The New Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1150-1151
Author(s):  
James A. Morone

Charge: More than a half-century ago, Richard Hofstadter identified the “paranoid style” as an important feature of American politics. However, in A Lot of People are Saying, Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum argue that a “new” form of conspiracism has begun to infect contemporary American political life. Whereas “old” conspiracy theorists sought hidden evidence to describe why things are not as they seem, Muirhead and Rosenblum argue that purveyors of the new conspiracism make no attempt to substantiate their theories. In light of this fact-free approach, the authors thus warn that contemporary conspiracy theorists pose an unprecedented danger to foundational elements of American democracy, including political parties and knowledge-producing institutions. Moreover, Muirhead and Rosenblum assert, “The new conspiracism moved into the White House with the inauguration of Donald Trump” (p. 1), “the conspiracist in chief” (p. ix). If there is merit to this argument, then the fate of Trump’s reelection bid carries monumental consequences for the future of American democracy, as well as the way in which the United States responds to the unprecedented coronavirus pandemic. We therefore asked a range of scholars to comment on Muirhead’s and Rosenblum’s bold set of claims.

2020 ◽  
pp. 216747952095077
Author(s):  
Evan L. Frederick ◽  
Ann Pegoraro ◽  
Samuel Schmidt

When asked if she would go to the White House if invited, Megan Rapinoe stated, “I’m not going to the fucking White House.” The next morning, President Donald Trump posted a series of tweets in which he criticized Rapinoe’s statements. In his tweets, Trump introduced issues around race in the United States and brought forth his own notion of nationalism. The purpose of this study was to conduct an analysis of users’ tweets to determine how individuals employed Twitter to craft a narrative and discuss the ongoing Rapinoe and Trump feud within and outside the bounds of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and nationalism. An inductive analysis of 16,137 users’ tweets revealed three primary themes: a) Refuse, Refute, & Redirect Racist Rhetoric b) Stand Up vs. Know your Rights, and c) #ShutUpAndBeALeader. Based on the findings of this study, it appears that the dialogue regarding racism in the United States is quickly evolving. Instead of reciting the same refrain (i.e., racism no longer exists and systematic racism is constructed by Black people) seen in previous works, individuals in the current dataset refuted those talking points and clearly labeled the President as a racist. Additionally, though discussions of nationalism were evident in this dataset, the Stand Up vs. Know Your Rights theme was on the periphery in comparison to discussions of race. Perhaps, this indicates that some have grown tired of Trump utilizing nationalism as a means to stoke racism.


2021 ◽  
Vol VI (III) ◽  
pp. 59-71
Author(s):  
Muhammad Nadeem Mirza ◽  
Lubna Abid Ali ◽  
Irfan Hasnain Qaisrani

This study intends to explore the rise of Donald Trump to the White House. Why was Donald Trump considered a populist leader, and how did his populist rhetoric and actions impact the contours of American domestic and foreign policies? The study adopted qualitative exploratory and explanatory research techniques. Specific methods utilised to conduct the study remained political personality profiling. It finds that the populist leaders construct the binaries in the society by dividing the nation into two groups: �us� the people, against �them� the corrupt elite or other groups presented as a threat to the lives and livelihood of the nation. Though populism as a unique brand of politics remained active through most of the US history, yet these were only two occasions that populists were successful in winning the American presidential elections � Andrew Jackson in 1828 and Donald Trump in 2016. Structural and historical reasons became the biggest cause behind the election of Donald Trump, who successfully brought a revolution in American domestic and foreign policies. And if structural issues in the United States are not addressed, there is a clear chance that Trump � who is not withering away � will come back to contest and challenge any competitors in the 2024 presidential elections.


2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (4) ◽  
pp. 1027-1035

In June 2017, President Donald Trump announced a plan to roll back various steps taken by his predecessor toward normalizing relations between the United States and Cuba. A senior official for the administration announced the plan in a White House press briefing:The President vowed to reverse the Obama administration policies toward Cuba that have enriched the Cuban military regime and increased the repression on the island. It is a promise that President Trump made, and it's a promise that President Trump is keeping.With this is a readjustment of the United States policy towards Cuba. And you will see that, going forward, the new policy under the Trump administration, will empower the Cuban people. To reiterate, the new policy going forward does not target the Cuban people, but it does target the repressive members of the Cuban military government.


Subject The Erdogan-Trump meeting on May 16. Significance Turkey yesterday blamed US officials for "security lapses" during President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's visit to Washington last week, which turned into a media disaster when the Turkish president’s guards beat up demonstrators in front of the TV cameras, with Erdogan looking on. The visit to meet President Donald Trump failed to produce any breakthrough on the issues dividing them, despite a friendly meeting at the White House. Although Trump is outwardly much more sympathetic to Erdogan than his predecessor was, the two countries are still far apart on Syria, where the United States remains the protector and ally of the Syrian Kurds. Impacts Turkey will continue to fortify the strip of land it occupies in northern Syria. It will step up training and support for the Sunni Arab rebel Free Syrian Army. Erdogan will respond to his increased international isolation by further clampdowns on remaining critics in Turkey.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 40-45
Author(s):  
Paulina Sefrinta Indah Ivana ◽  
Suprayogi Suprayogi

Speech plays an important role to shape public perception as it is delivered by an influential figure and reflects the points of view of its speaker. This study discusses a speech delivered by the United States President, Donald Trump, which discusses the conflict between Iran and America. This study was conducted to reveal the representation of Iran and the United States in one of Donald Trump’s speeches. The method used in this study is the descriptive qualitative method. The data in this study are in the form of words, phrases, clauses, and sentences that indicate the position of Iran and the United States taken from the speech transcript from the official website of The White House. Data were analyzed under the framework of Van Djik’s Socio-Cognitive Approach, consisting of text, socio-cognitive, and social context. Based on the analysis, it can be concluded that Iran is described as a country that has nuclear ambitions and acts of terror that support the existence of terrorists. On the other hand, America is described as having an invincible power. At a socio-cognitive level, Donald Trump is considered a knowledgeable figure on his country’s political condition because he knows the weaknesses of Iran and can properly take every decision. Donald Trump also has the authority as a President to make The United States and the countries of the world can work together for peace world. Thus, from the level of social context, countries in the world support the actions taken by America and are very alarming about what Iran has done. The finding suggests that the Socio-cognitive approach is practical to analyze the representation of an issue in speech reflected in linguistics expression and the discourse structure.


1991 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 137-150
Author(s):  
Harold F. Bass

The “realignment era” in American political science began thirtyfive years ago, when Key (1955) proposed “A Theory of Critical Elections.” In his wake, realignment scholarship has proliferated far and wide (Bass 1991). The concept of realignment pervades contemporary scholarship on American political parties. The “textbook” treatment of the history of party competition in the United States posits periodic realigning elections that substantially alter group bases of party coalitions and establish enduring party systems. The initial analytical focus of the party in the electorate now extends to the party in government, linking elections with public policy. Since political parties constitute central integrating institutions in the political process, realignment has become a key conceptual lens for viewing and interpreting the whole of American political life. Indeed, it has escaped the bounds of scholarship and entered into popular discourse. Further, as subjects of realignment studies, the United States and its component political units now compete with numerous non-American systems.


1997 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Gerring

Conventional wisdom states that where ideas and values have mattered in American political life they have usually been the product of a single, overarching political culture. The United States, it is argued, has had political conflict but not ideological conflict. Perhaps nowhere is this premise more noticeable than in the study of political parties. According to Du-verger, “[T]he two parties are rival teams, one occupying office, the other seeking to dislodge it. It is a struggle between the ins and the outs, which never becomes fanatical, and creates no deep cleavage in the country.” Everett Carll Ladd writes, “[T]he need to seek support within an overarching ideological consensus, has historically imposed certain characteristics on the major American parties – social group inclusiveness, accommodationism, a ‘non-ideological’ stance vis-a-vis their principal opponents (which, after all, accept the same ideology).”


Tripodos ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 51-69
Author(s):  
Blanca Nicasio Varea ◽  
Marta Pérez Gabaldón ◽  
Manuel Chavez

The proliferation of nationalist and nativist movements all over the world has capitalized on the broad impact of social media, especially on Twitter. In the case of the United States, as candidate and then as President, Donald Trump initiated an active use of Twitter to disseminate his views on migration and migrants. This paper analyzes the themes and the political implications of his tweets from Trump’s electoral win to the end of the first year of his presidency. The authors’ assumptions are that Trump’s rhetoric untapped a collective sentiment against migration as well as one which supported views to protect migrant communities. The findings show that some topics were retweeted massively fueling the perceptions that most Americans were against migrant communities and their protectors. We conducted content analysis of the tweets sent by President Trump during his first year in the White House. We used the personal account of Trump in Twitter @realDonaldTrump. Trump has used his personal account as a policy and political media instrument to convey his messages rather than to use the official account that all Presidents have traditionally used @POTUS. Since Trump ran on a nativist platform with strong negative sentiments against migrants and immigration in general, we examined the tweets that relate to these topics.


Author(s):  
Alexander Shumilin ◽  

The very phrase «Euro-Atlantic solidarity» primarily presupposes an appeal to the foreign policy activities of the states of North America (USA and Canada) and the European Union. A priori, it is aimed at coordinating national and global strategies designed to determine the relations of the countries of this community with the outside world. Most analysts agree that it was this solidarity that was the first and perhaps the biggest and most sensitive victim of the Donald Trump administration's policies. The author of the article believes that after the 45th president leaves the White House, transatlantic solidarity will receive a tangible impetus for its renewal. While maintaining its basic foundations in the form of liberal-democratic values, however, relations between the two shores of the Atlantic are likely to be restructured in a somewhat different paradigm than before. During the Trump presidency, both the United States and Western Europe have practically formed two visions of the correctness of the foundations of transatlantic solidarity. In some aspects, they coincide, while in others they may diverge.


2021 ◽  
Vol 115 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-119

In September and October 2020, Kosovo, Serbia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, and Sudan normalized relations with Israel in a flurry of agreements brokered by the United States. President Donald Trump suggested that, in addition to being valuable on their own terms, the agreements were part of a broader diplomatic effort to pressure the Palestinians into negotiating a peace deal with Israel. In December, the White House announced normalization of relations between Israel and Morocco in apparent exchange for U.S. recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over the disputed territory of Western Sahara.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document