Introduction in Response to the Class's Interest in Having a More Diverse
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
THE ELECTION of 1912 Library of Congress of Library
Bill of Rights Constitutional Rights in Action Foundation SPRING 2016 Volume 31 No 3 THE ELECTION OF 1912 Library of Congress of Library The four candidates in the 1912 election, from L to R: William H. Taft, Theodore Roosevelt, Eugene V. Debs, and Woodrow Wilson. The 1912 presidential election was a race between four leaders Not surprisingly, the 1912 presidential election be- who each found it necessary to distinguish their own brand of came a contest over progressive principles. Theodore progressive reform. The election and its outcome had far reach- Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson, and ing social, economic, and political consequences for the nation. Eugene Debs campaigned to convince the electorate Rapid industrialization in the 19th century led to a that their vision for change would lead America into a variety of American economic and social problems. new age of progress and prosperity. Among them were child labor; urban poverty; bribery and political corruption; unsafe factories and indus- Roosevelt, Taft, and the Republican Party tries; and jobs with low wages and long hours. Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919) committed him- Beginning as a social movement, progressivism self early in life to public service and progressive re- was an ideology (set of beliefs) aimed at addressing in- forms. After attending Harvard University and a year at dustrialism’s problems. It focused on protecting the Columbia Law School, Roosevelt was elected to the people from excessive power of private corporations. New York State Assembly. He subsequently served in a Progressives emphasized a strong role for government number of official posts, including the United States Civil to remedy social and economic ills by exposing cor- Service Commission, president of the board of New York ruption and regulating big business. -
Republican Strategy and Winning and Losing Voters
Unintended Consequences: Republican Strategy and Winning and Losing Voters Rebekah E. Liscio Department of Political Science Maxwell School, Syracuse University And Jeffrey M. Stonecash Department of Political Science Maxwell School, Syracuse University Prepared for the 2009 State of the Parties Conference, the University of Akron, October 1 “McCain’s losing to Obama among college graduates and voters who have attended some college underscores how much the GOP franchise is in trouble. My hunch is that the Republican Party’s focus on social, cultural, and religious issues – most notably, fights over embryonic stem-cell research and Terri Schiavo – cost its candidates dearly among upscale voters.”1 “Suggestions that we abandon social conservatism, including our pro-life agenda, should be ignored. These values are often more popular than the GOP itself.”2 The struggle of the Republican Party in the late 1900s to become the majority party was lengthy, but by 2000 it was finally successful. In the 1994 elections Republicans won control of the House of Representatives for the first time since 1952. In the 1990s the percentage of Americans identifying as Republican twice surpassed the Democratic percentage, a rare occurrence in the last 50 years. In 2000 George W. Bush won the presidency and identification with the Republican Party once again equaled that for Democrats (Pew Research Center, 2008). Following 9/11 President George W. Bush had remarkably high approval ratings (Jacobson, 2006) and in the 2002 elections Republicans increased their number of seats in the House. They also held the Senate (Jeffers?) George Bush won re-election in 2004. -
Vachudova + Zilovic APSA Paper CWG September 2015
Party Positions, State Capture and EU Enlargement in the Western Balkans Milada Anna Vachudova University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Marko Zilovic George Washington University Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association, San Francisco, September 2015. The study of EU conditionality has focused on how the governments of candidate states have changed domestic policies, laws and institutions in order to qualify for EU membership. However, political parties are arguably the most important and most proximate source of domestic policy change – and thus of compliance or noncompliance with EU requirements. Scholars have shown that ruling political parties rarely comply with the EU’s external requirements if the costs of compliance are too high and threaten to undermine the domestic sources of their political power. After twenty-five years of observing post-communist party systems, we also know that extremist and nationalist parties rarely fade away. Consequently, it is important to understand how parties construct and change their agendas, and how these agendas are translated into government policies if they win power. EU enlargement, meanwhile, has been under the spotlight: It has been called the most successful democracy promotion program ever implemented by an international actor. Yet it has also been held liable for weak rule of law in new EU members, and lately for the dismantling of liberal democracy by the Hungarian and also Polish governments. It is therefore also important to understand how and under what conditions the key instrument of EU leverage – using conditionality to moderate parties and shape government policies – has been successful. -
Time Line of the Progressive Era from the Idea of America™
Time Line of The Progressive Era From The Idea of America™ Date Event Description March 3, Pennsylvania Mine Following an 1869 fire in an Avondale mine that kills 110 1870 Safety Act of 1870 workers, Pennsylvania passes the country's first coal mine safety passed law, mandating that mines have an emergency exit and ventilation. November Woman’s Christian Barred from traditional politics, groups such as the Woman’s 1874 Temperance Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) allow women a public Union founded platform to participate in issues of the day. Under the leadership of Frances Willard, the WCTU supports a national Prohibition political party and, by 1890, counts 150,000 members. February 4, Interstate The Interstate Commerce Act creates the Interstate Commerce 1887 Commerce act Commission to address price-fixing in the railroad industry. The passed Act is amended over the years to monitor new forms of interstate transportation, such as buses and trucks. September Hull House opens Jane Addams establishes Hull House in Chicago as a 1889 in Chicago “settlement house” for the needy. Addams and her colleagues, such as Florence Kelley, dedicate themselves to safe housing in the inner city, and call on lawmakers to bring about reforms: ending child labor, instituting better factory working conditions, and compulsory education. In 1931, Addams is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. November “White Caps” Led by Juan Jose Herrerra, the “White Caps” (Las Gorras 1889 released from Blancas) protest big business’s monopolization of land and prison resources in the New Mexico territory by destroying cattlemen’s fences. The group’s leaders gain popular support upon their release from prison in 1889. -
Codebook Indiveu – Party Preferences
Codebook InDivEU – party preferences European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies December 2020 Introduction The “InDivEU – party preferences” dataset provides data on the positions of more than 400 parties from 28 countries1 on questions of (differentiated) European integration. The dataset comprises a selection of party positions taken from two existing datasets: (1) The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File contains party positions for three rounds of European Parliament elections (2009, 2014, and 2019). Party positions were determined in an iterative process of party self-placement and expert judgement. For more information: https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/65944 (2) The Chapel Hill Expert Survey The Chapel Hill Expert Survey contains party positions for the national elections most closely corresponding the European Parliament elections of 2009, 2014, 2019. Party positions were determined by expert judgement. For more information: https://www.chesdata.eu/ Three additional party positions, related to DI-specific questions, are included in the dataset. These positions were determined by experts involved in the 2019 edition of euandi after the elections took place. The inclusion of party positions in the “InDivEU – party preferences” is limited to the following issues: - General questions about the EU - Questions about EU policy - Questions about differentiated integration - Questions about party ideology 1 This includes all 27 member states of the European Union in 2020, plus the United Kingdom. How to Cite When using the ‘InDivEU – Party Preferences’ dataset, please cite all of the following three articles: 1. Reiljan, Andres, Frederico Ferreira da Silva, Lorenzo Cicchi, Diego Garzia, Alexander H. -
Jens Gmeiner: from the “Old” to the “New” Moderates. Conditions for Success and Change Processes of the Swedish Conserva
Jens Gmeiner: From the “old” to the “new” moderates. Conditions for success and change processes of the Swedish Conservatives from 2002 to 2010, Books on Demand (BoD) 2020 Submitted as: Conditions for success for the Swedish Conservatives. Structures, actors and processes of change of the Moderate Party from 2002 to 2010 Brief overview of the structure: 1. INTRODUCTION: SUBJECT MATTER AND INTEREST IN THE STUDY 2. STATE OF RESEARCH IN THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND OWN LEVELS OF EXAMINATION 2.1 Research status and research gap on the Moderate Party 2.2 Party change – Clarification of terms, preliminary considerations and approaches 2.3 Theoretical framework – Parties between agency and structure 2.4 On the mission statement, content and trends of the Swedish model 2.5 Own approach: Levels of analysis and concrete questions of the work 3. RESEARCH DESIGN, METHODS, AND STUDY STRUCTURE 3.1 Research design and case selection 3.2 Material and methods 3.3 Structure of the study 4. IDEOLOGICAL AND WELFARE CONTEXT: THE “POLICY OF MARKET ADAPTATION” 4.1 Criticism and diagnosis of the Swedish model since the “long 1990s” 4.2 The new welfare compromise in the 1990s 4.3 The Swedish model between “people's home nostalgia” and market adaptation 5. HISTORY: FOUNDATION, RISE AND LIMITS OF THE MODERATE PARTY (1904–1999) 5.1 Origin, development of ideas, organization and electoral milieu of the Swedish conservatives 5.2 From the marginalized right-wing party to the leading party in the bourgeois bloc (1970–1999) 6. THE MODERATE PARTY IN THE OPPOSITION – THE TRANSITION -
Framework Agreement Between the Swedish Social Democratic Party, the Moderate Party, the Swedish Green Party, the Centre Party and the Christian Democrats
Framework agreement between the Swedish Social Democratic Party, the Moderate Party, the Swedish Green Party, the Centre Party and the Christian Democrats Pillars Sweden’s energy policy should build on the same three pillars as energy cooperation in the EU. The policy therefore aims to combine: • ecological sustainability • competitiveness • security of supply Sweden must have a robust electricity network with high security of supply and low environmental impact, and offer electricity at competitive prices. This creates a long- term perspective and clarity for actors in the market and helps generate new jobs and investment in Sweden. The energy policy is based on the fact that Sweden is closely linked to its neighbours in northern Europe, and aims to find joint solutions to challenges in the common electricity market. Targets By 2045, Sweden is to have no net emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and should thereafter achieve negative emissions. The target by 2040 is 100 per cent renewable electricity production. This is a target, not a deadline for banning nuclear power, nor does mean closing nuclear power plants through political decisions. An energy-efficiency target for the period 2020 to 2030 will be produced and adopted no later than 2017. Conditions on the Swedish electricity market Better conditions are needed for investments in renewable energy, energy technologies and energy efficiency. Development of the energy system should be based on a variety of large- and small-scale renewable production that is tailored to local and industrial needs. One major challenge is converting energy policy from focusing almost exclusively on the amount of energy delivered (TWh) to also ensuring sufficient output (MW). -
Coalition Formation and the Regime Divide in Central Europe
Program on Central & Eastern Europe Working Paper Series #52, j\Tovember 1999 Coalition Formation and the Regime Divide in Central Europe Anna Grzymala-Busse· Weatherhead Center for International Affairs Harvard University Cambridge, lvlA 02138 Abstract The study examines the formation of coalitions in East Central Europe after the democratic transi tions of 1989. Existing explanations of coalition formations, which focus on either office-seeking and minimum wmning considerations, or on policy-seeking and spatial ideological convergence. However, they fail to account for the coalition patterns in the new democracies of East Central Europe. Instead, these parties' flrst goal is to develop clear and consistent reputations. To that end, they will form coalitions exclusively within the two camps of the regime divide: that is, amongst par ties stemming from the former communist parties, and those with roots in the former opposition to the communist regimes. The two corollaries are that defectors are punished at unusually high rates, and the communist party successors seek, rather than are sought for, coalitions. This model explains 85% of the coalitions that formed in the region after 1989. The study then examines the communist successor parties, and how their efforts illustrate these dynamics . • I would like to thank Grzegorz Ekiert, Gary King, Kenneth Shepsle, Michael Tomz, and the participants ofthe Faculty Workshop at Yale University for their helpful comments. 2 I. Introduction The patterns of coalition fonnation in East Central Europe are as diverse as they are puzzling. Since the ability to fonn stable governing coalitions is a basic precondition of effective democratic governance in multi-party parliamentary systems, several explanations have emerged of how political parties fonn such coalitions. -
The Mainstream Right, the Far Right, and Coalition Formation in Western Europe by Kimberly Ann Twist a Dissertation Submitted In
The Mainstream Right, the Far Right, and Coalition Formation in Western Europe by Kimberly Ann Twist A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Jonah D. Levy, Chair Professor Jason Wittenberg Professor Jacob Citrin Professor Katerina Linos Spring 2015 The Mainstream Right, the Far Right, and Coalition Formation in Western Europe Copyright 2015 by Kimberly Ann Twist Abstract The Mainstream Right, the Far Right, and Coalition Formation in Western Europe by Kimberly Ann Twist Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science University of California, Berkeley Professor Jonah D. Levy, Chair As long as far-right parties { known chiefly for their vehement opposition to immigration { have competed in contemporary Western Europe, scholars and observers have been concerned about these parties' implications for liberal democracy. Many originally believed that far- right parties would fade away due to a lack of voter support and their isolation by mainstream parties. Since 1994, however, far-right parties have been included in 17 governing coalitions across Western Europe. What explains the switch from exclusion to inclusion in Europe, and what drives mainstream-right parties' decisions to include or exclude the far right from coalitions today? My argument is centered on the cost of far-right exclusion, in terms of both office and policy goals for the mainstream right. I argue, first, that the major mainstream parties of Western Europe initially maintained the exclusion of the far right because it was relatively costless: They could govern and achieve policy goals without the far right. -
SS.7.C.2.8 Low Level of Complexity Sample Item Explanation
SS.7.C.2.8 Low Level of Complexity Sample Item Explanation Question What are the names of the two major political parties in the The correct answer should identify the two current and United States today? main political parties in the United States. A Democratic and Republican Correct – The Democrats and Republicans are currently the two major political parties in the United States. B Democratic and Libertarian Incorrect – The Libertarian Party is a minor, or third party. C Socialist and Republican Incorrect – The Socialist Party is a minor, or third party. D Socialist and Libertarian Incorrect – Both parties are minor, or third parties. SS.7.C.2.8 Moderate Level of Complexity Sample Item Explanation Question The statement below is from a political party platform. The passage describes the ideas of a modern political party. We, the workers and our allies, need to take power from the hands of the wealthy few, their The correct answer should identify the current political corporations, and their political operatives. party that the passage describes. Which political party’s position is represented in the statement? A Communist Correct – The Communist Party supports workers controlling all governmental power. B Democratic Incorrect – The Democratic Party supports a stronger federal government and more government services but does not support a worker-controlled government. C Republican Incorrect – The Republican Party supports a weaker federal government, lower taxes, and fewer government services. D Socialist Incorrect – The Socialist Party supports cooperative ownership of private industry but does not support taking all power from the rich and giving it to the working class. -
MACEDONIA UPDATE: Challenges and Choices for the New Government
MACEDONIA UPDATE: Challenges and Choices for the New Government ICG Balkans Report N°60 Skopje-Brussels, 29 March 1999 Foreword This latest ICG report on Macedonia was written during March, as the new humanitarian catastrophe in neighbouring Kosovo unfolded and reached a new scale. Because of the recent events in Kosovo and the region at large, parts of this report have been overtaken by new developments. In particular, this concerns issues relating to the amount of aid reaching Macedonia, actions taken to alleviate the refugee situation in Macedonia and, most importantly, the Government’s ability to deal with the increasing number of refugees. Indeed, events in the last few days may well have reached a point beyond the Government’s capacity to respond. On the whole however, the analysis and conclusions of this report are still valid and still merit consideration despite the fact that local and international attention is now focusing on developments in Kosovo and their effect on neighbouring countries. Skopje–Brussels, 6th April, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... i I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1 II. THE GOVERNMENT’S FIRST 100 DAYS IN OFFICE — ..................................... A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT........................................................................ 1 III. TOO MANY PROMISES, TOO LITTLE TIME ..................................................... -
Recognized Political Parties in Alaska
Recognized Political Party Status Attained by Alaska Statutory Requirements Alaska Democratic Party (D) Alaskan Independence Party (A) Casey Steinau, Chair Robert M. Bird - Chair 2602 Fairbanks Street 50615 Shemya Way Anchorage, AK 99503 Kenai, AK 99611 Phone: (907) 258-3050 907-398-9373 Fax: (907) 258-1626 [email protected] Email: [email protected] Alaska Republican Party (R) Glenn Clary, Chair 1000 O’Malley Rd. Suite 8 PO Box 201049 Anchorage, AK 99520-1049 Phone: (907) 868-1093 Email: [email protected] Political Groups Seeking Recognized Political Party Status Alaska Constitution Party (C) Alliance Party of Alaska (K) J.R. Myers, Chair Hezekiah R. “Ky” Holland - Chair P.O. Box 2164 14020 Stover Place Cut Bank, MT 59427 Anchorage, AK 99516 Phone: (907) 690-5200 Phone: (907) 727-2735 Email: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Green Party of Alaska (G) Alaska Libertarian Party (L) Robert Shields, Chair Jon Briggs Watts, Chair 145 Marten Dr. P.O. Box 85075 Fairbanks, AK 99712 Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone: (907) 799-7045 Phone: (907) 642-3245 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Moderate Party of Alaska (E) OWL Party (H) Danny Alkasmi - Chair James Jarrett – Chair 2248 450th Avenue P.O. Box 140343 Wallinford, IA 51365 Anchorage, AK 99514 Phone: (712) 260-1755 Phone: (907) 764-3960 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Patriot’s Party of Alaska (P) Progressive Party of Alaska (O) Nick Philo – Chair Soni Biehl - Chair 2521 E. Mtn Village Drive 351 Wilcox Road Ste. B PMB 756 Trescott Township, ME 04652 Wasilla, AK 99654 Phone:(207) 733-1095 Phone: (907) 521-3447 E-mail: [email protected] Email: [email protected] UCES' Clowns Party (W) Veterans Party of Alaska (V) David Fluhart - Chair Steve Harrison, Chair P.O.