Who Voted with Hopkins? Institutional Politics and the WPA

2001 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwin Amenta ◽  
Drew Halfmann

Scholars of the politics of public social policy have engaged in contentious debates over “institutional” and “political” theories. Institutional theories hold that U.S. social policy is inhibited by fragmented political institutions and weak executive state organizations. Political theories hold that the United States lacks a left-wing political party and a strong labor movement to push for social policy. Both theories are thus pessimistic about and cannot account for advances in U.S. social policy.

2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter A. Swenson

Current wisdom about the American welfare state's laggard status among advanced industrial societies, by attributing it to the weakness of the Left and organized labor, poses a historical puzzle. In the 1930s, the United States experienced a dramatically progressive turn in social policy-making. New Deal Democrats, dependent on financing from capitalists, passed landmark social insurance reforms without backing from a well-organized and electorally successful labor movement like those in Europe, especially Scandinavia. Sweden, by contrast, with the world's strongest Social Democratic labor movement, did not pass important social insurance legislation until the following two decades.


2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-85
Author(s):  
Michael Haman ◽  
Milan Školník

In our research, we focus on the image of the United States in Latin America. We use mainly data from Latinobarómetro, and we analyse Obama’s last year and Trump’s first year in the presidency in 18 countries in Latin America. We use logistic regression to reach conclusions. We also analyse Trump’s tweets to see his Twitter rhetoric. We find that Trump’s election has strongly worsened the image of the United States in the public opinion of Latin America. However, we find that people that believe more in democracy, the free market and national political institutions are more likely to have a positive opinion of the United States. Also, we find that the more left-wing citizens are, the more likely they have a bad opinion of the United States. This article contributes to the theory of trust and research on the public opinion across nations. Also, this article offers insights into the topical research agenda concerning the influence of political ideology on public opinion.


Author(s):  
A. Bunina

The article examines the evolution of right-wing radicalism and extremism in the United States during the period from 2015 to January 2021 and their destructive impact on elections and power transit. The main drivers of radicalization are explored, with special attention paid to the role of conspiracy theories, in particular the QAnon phenomenon. The article analyzes how the Internet in general and social networks in particular created echo chambers and accelerated the spread of radical ideas. Distinctions are made between the more traditional forms of radicalism and the new generation of radicals (that flourished under the Donald Trump administration). Righ-wing radicalism of the new generation is dominated by cultural libertarianism, comprised of “alt-right” and “alt-light” movements, antagonistic towards left-wing radicalism. While the Trump administration underplayed the rise in right-wing extremism, it considerably overstated the threat of left-wing radicalism. Special attention is paid to thе role of the media, including its growing lack of neutrality and emergence of the ecosphere for conservative viewers where fakes and conspiracy mindsets thrive. Anti-democratic behavior of the president and the Republican Party are explored, including deliberate misleading of voters and denial of the presidential election results. The storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021 is interpreted as a natural progression of the above-mentioned trends. In conclusion, the forecast of future trends is made. These trends include persistence of populist sentiments, the increasing role of the alt-right, persistence of street violence, and the growing acceptance of anti-democratic behavior. All of this presents a serious challenge not only for the Republican Party, but also for the U.S. political institutions in general.


Author(s):  
Edwin Amenta ◽  
Amber Celina Tierney

United States political institutions provide a compelling account of American exceptionalism in social policy: why the United States has a social insurance system that was late to develop and remains incomplete; spends relatively little on direct social policy; and relies on indirect and private social policy that is relatively ineffective in addressing poverty, insecurity, and inequality. Formal political institutions—including the tardiness of universal suffrage, many institutional veto points, federalism, the underdevelopment of domestic administrative authority, and a political party system founded on patronage and skewed to the right—go far to explain the formation of this unusual welfare state. Feedbacks from policies, political institutions themselves, help to explain why a few U.S. social programs, notably Social Security, remain strong, and why the U.S welfare state generally remains mired in the residual liberal model and is subject to drift. Feedbacks related to the world’s most extensive military and imprisonment policies also harm social policy.


1992 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 367-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Strang

This paper argues that metropolitan political theories and institutions grounded in popular sovereignty help to produce decolonization. Radical distinctions between metropolis and dependency only arise when communities, and not rulers, are the theoretical source of political authority. Metropoles organized around popular sovereignty tend to legitimate peripheral claims to autonomy, and to construct political institutions (most importantly colonial legislatures) that voice such claims. An analysis of Western empires shows that, where political models were based on popular sovereignty (Great Britain, the United States, and France), decolonization resulted from internal tensions between theory and practice. Where empire was organized around dynastic principles (Spain and Portugal), empires dissolved as a result of external pressures. Dominant global models have additional effects, blurring differences between empires when popular sovereignty is widely accepted.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document