Window on freedom: race, civil rights, and foreign affairs, 1945-1988

2003 ◽  
Vol 41 (02) ◽  
pp. 41-1211-41-1211
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Foreign Affairs

After Obama

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Healthcare Reform ◽  
Black Politics ◽  
Vantage Point ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Black America ◽  
Linked Fate ◽  
Criminal Justice Reform ◽  
Black President ◽  
Quantitative And Qualitative Methods

This book engages the reader in a wide-ranging assessment of the legacy of Barack Obama—the “first Black president”—relative to Black politics. It uses its vantage point of being written during Donald Trump’s presidency to understand what Black politics has and has not inherited from the Obama administration. It is comprehensive in the number of constituencies and policy topics it covers. Its co-editors frame its chapters by explaining how both “inverted linked fate” and an “inclusionary dilemma” shaped the Obama presidency and legacy for Black politics. Nearly twenty prominent or emerging political scientists provide this book’s interior chapters, using quantitative and qualitative methods to draw conclusions. The first group of scholars examines the Obama administration’s impact upon the attitudes and perceived group interests of various Black constituencies, including voters, partisans, civil rights leaders, lobbyists, women, church leaders and members, and LGBTQ persons. The second group examines Obama’s impact upon Black policy interests, including civil rights, criminal justice reform, antipoverty, women’s welfare, healthcare reform, housing, immigration, and foreign affairs. In the conclusion, the co-editors consider what may confront the “next Black president” and the “next Black America.”

scholarly journals Kennedy, Congress and Civil Rights

1979 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Hart
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Political Leadership ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Election Campaign ◽  
White House ◽  
Elite Politics ◽  
The Sixties ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Relationship

President Kennedy's assassination in November 1963 was quickly followed by a wave of instant history, mainly produced by those who worked closely with him in the White House. Sorensen, Schlesinger and Salinger all published their memoirs in the mid-sixties, while O'Donnell and O'Brien followed suit in the early seventies. It was inevitable that their assessment of the Kennedy Presidency would be a favourable one and it was equally inevitable that it would generate a reaction from those who believed that the Kennedy myth needed to be destroyed. The instant history of the sixties has now given way to the instant revisionism of the seventies and John F. Kennedy is getting a distinctly unfavourable press. Leaving aside foreign affairs, it is Kennedy's handling of civil rights to which the revisionists are most antagonistic. Here the relationship between the President and Congress is brought sharply into focus. It is argued that Kennedy did not put before the legislature the wide-ranging and bold commitments on civil rights made during the election campaign; that his approach to the problem was tailored to suit the sensibilities of the southern Democrats in the House and Senate, and that he studiously avoided offering moral and political leadership to the country at large. Thus Henry Fairlie blames Kennedy for “ procrastination and tokenism”; Lewis Paper argues that Kennedy's handling of civil rights “ did not speak well of his success as a public educator ” and Bruce Miroff, perhaps the most outspoken of all the critics, places Kennedy's performance in the context of “ pragmatic liberalism rooted in elite politics ” — an approach which he unhesitatingly condemns.

Electoral Choice and Popular Control of Public Policy: The Case of the 1966 House Elections

1972 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 1256-1268 ◽  
Author(s):  
John L. Sullivan ◽  
Robert E. O'Connor
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Roll Call ◽  
Congressional Districts ◽  
Use Of Data ◽  
Elective Office ◽  
Electoral Choice ◽  
House Election ◽  
Subsequent Behavior

This paper examines two neglected conditions of the linkage process between public opinion and public policy, in an effort to evaluate an explanation, other than voter apathy and ignorance, of why the linkage appears to be so weak. These conditions are: (1) Opposing candidates for the same elective office must differ in their issue-related attitudes. (2) The winners' subsequent behavior vis-à-vis public policy must be consonant with their pre-election issue-related attitudes.By the use of data collected before the 1966 House election, the amount of choice, or issue-related differences between candidates for the same House seat, is examined in all 435 Congressional districts. Sufficient differences were found in three policy areas—foreign affairs, civil rights, and domestic welfare—to imply that the electorate was given the opportunity to determine the direction of public policy.Adding data collected on the roll-call behavior of the 435 winners allowed us to examine the second condition. Although in some cases there were substantial differences between pre-election attitude and postelection roll-call behavior on the same issue, this is clearly the exception rather than the rule. As a generalization, the second condition appears to be true.

Window on Freedom: Race, Civil Rights, and Foreign Affairs, 1945-1988

2004 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 471
Author(s):  
Renee Romano ◽  
Brenda Gayle Plummer
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Foreign Affairs

Window on Freedom: Race, Civil Rights, and Foreign Affairs, 1945-1988

2003 ◽  
Vol 82 (3) ◽  
pp. 165
Author(s):  
Gail M. Gerhart ◽  
Brenda Gayle Plummer
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Foreign Affairs
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document