Corporate Elites and American Politics

Author(s):  
Darren R. Halpin ◽  
Anthony J. Nownes

The book begins by introducing the Silicon Valley 150+, the 175 biggest public and private firms in Silicon Valley, and discusses the intent of the book: to examine the political engagement of those individuals who founded and are CEOs of the SV150+ firms. This chapter introduces the main themes of the book, positioning the book against literatures covering business lobbying, political donations by firms, philanthropy and public policy, and the formation of new advocacy organizations. The chapter also includes three important lists: (1) the SV150+ firm list—the list of Silicon Valley firms the book studies; (2) the SV150+ CEO list—the list of CEOs the book studies; and (3) the SV150+ founder list—the list of founders the book studies. The chapter concludes with an overview of the chapters to come.

Author(s):  
Darren R. Halpin ◽  
Anthony J. Nownes

Chapter 2 examines the firm-level form of corporate elite political engagement. It asks: Just how active are Silicon Valley companies in American (mostly national) politics? And what issues do they work on? The answers to these questions provide a context for founder and CEO activities (explored in later chapters). To be sure, these are important questions in and of themselves. But we ask them primarily to gather information that will allow us to address other questions about the behavior of Silicon Valley corporate elites. Among these questions are: Do politically active leaders come from politically active companies? Do Silicon Valley corporate leaders act like their companies—for example, do they address the same issues? Are corporate leaders simply extensions of the companies they run, or are they “free agents” who inject their own, personal views into the political process? Or are they a mixture of both of these? Chapter 2 presents data that help address these questions and others.


1983 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
pp. 690-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frances Kahn Zemans

This article argues thai the role of the law in the political system has been construed much too narrowly. A review of the political science literature demonstrates an interest in the law that is largely confined to the making of new laws, social change, and social control. That view implies an acceptance of the legal profession's distinction between public and private law as a reasonable guide for political scientists in the study of law.A more interactive view of the law is presented, characterizing legal mobilization (invoking legal norms) as a form of political activity by which the citizenry uses public authority on its own behalf. Further, the legal system, structured to consider cases and controversies on an individual basis, provides access to government authority unencumbered by the limits of collective action. This form of public power, although contingent, is widely dispersed.Consideration of the factors that influence legal mobilization is important not only to understanding who uses the law, but also as predictors to the implementation of public policy; with very few exceptions, the enforcement of the laws depends upon individual citizens to initiate the legal process. By virtue of this dependence, an aggregation of individual citizens acting largely in their own interests strongly influences the form and extent of the implementation of public policy and thereby the allocation of power and authority.


2019 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 123-136
Author(s):  
Lyubov V. Ulyanova

The article analyzes the political discourse of the officials of the main political surveillance structure, – the Police Department, – in the period of 1880s (organization of the Department) and until October, 1905, when the Western-type Constitution project finally prevailed. The comparative analysis of the conceptual instruments (“Constitutionalists”, “Oppositionists”, “Radicals”, “Liberals”) typically used in the Police Department allows one to come o the conclusion that the leaders of the Russian empire political police did not follow the “reactionary and protective” discourse, did not share its postulates, but preferred the moderate-liberal-conservative path of political development. Along with that, the Police Department also demonstrated loyal attitude to zemsky administration and zemsky figures, covert criticism of “bureaucratic mediastinum”, the tendency to come to an agreement with public figures through personal negotiations, intentional omittance of reactionary and protective repressive measures in preserving autocracy. All this allows to come to the conclusion that the officials of the Police Department shares Slavophil public and political doctrine.


1983 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 13-13
Author(s):  
Avery Leiserson

This essay addresses the problem of teachers and students who have reached the point of trying to find a common ground for perceiving (seeing) politics. This may occur almost any time during any social science course, but it cannot be assumed to happen automatically the first day of class in government, citizenship, or public affairs. Hopefully, the signal is some variant of the question: “What do we mean by politics, or the political aspect of human affairs?” A parade of definitions — taking controversial positions on public policy issues; running for elective office; who gets what, when and how; and manipulating people—is not a mutually-satisfying answer if it produces the Queen of Hearts’ attitude in students that the word politics means what they choose it to mean and nothing more.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1097184X2110085
Author(s):  
Sofia Aboim ◽  
Pedro Vasconcelos

Confronted with the centrality of the body for trans-masculine individuals interviewed in the United Kingdom and Portugal, we explore how bodily-reflexive practices are central for doing masculinity. Following Connell’s early insight that bodies needed to come back to the political and sociological agendas, we propose that bodily-reflexive practice is a concept suited to account for the production of trans-masculinities. Although multiple, the journeys of trans-masculine individuals demonstrate how bodily experiences shape and redefine masculinities in ways that illuminate the nexus between bodies, embodiments, and discursive enactments of masculinity. Rather than oppositions between bodily conformity to and transgression of the norms of hegemonic masculinity, often encountered in idealizations of the medicalized transsexual against the genderqueer rebel, lived bodily experiences shape masculinities beyond linear oppositions. Tensions between natural and technological, material and discursive, or feminine and masculine were keys for understanding trans-masculine narratives about the body, embodiment, and identity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document