COURSE SYLLABUS

U.S. Politics and Foreign Policy in the Age of Trump

Central European University Fall 2020 4 Credits (8 ECTS Credits)

Co-Instructors

Erin Jenne, PhD Professor, International Relations Dept. [email protected]

Levente Littvay, PhD Professor, Political Science Dept. [email protected]

Teaching Assistants

Michael Zeller, Doctoral Candidate, Political Science Dept. [email protected]

Semir Dzebo Doctoral Candidate, International Relations Dept. [email protected]

Important Note About the Course Format

This course is designed for online delivery. It includes pre-recorded lectures, individual and group activities, a discussion forum where all class related questions can be discussed amongst the students and with the team of instructors. There is 1 hour and 40 minutes set aside each week for synchronous group activities. For these, if necessary, students will be grouped into a European morning (11 am - 12:40 pm CET) and evening (17:20 - 19:00 pm CET) session to accommodate potential timezone issues. (Around the time of the election, we may schedule more. And forget timezones, or sleep, on November 2, 3 and 4.) This course does not meet in person, but, nonetheless, the goal is to make it useful and fun. The course is open to CEU students on-site in Vienna or scattered anywhere across the globe. We welcome MA and PhD students from any department who wish to see the political science perspective on the elections and would like to get some hands on American Politics research experience.

Course Description

While most courses focus on either the domestic or the foreign policy aspect of U.S. politics, our starting assumption is that it is impossible to have a sound grasp of either without also taking the other into account. By integrating domestic politics and foreign policy, the course seeks to achieve a more holistic understanding of America’s role in the world since the end of the Cold War, while plotting out potential future trajectories - with a special focus on the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election. With this in mind, this course is divided into three main parts. We begin with a brief review of the different traditions or schools of thought concerning U.S. politics and foreign policy, mapping out the political institutions on the domestic level with a special focus on federalism versus states’ rights; separation of powers; sectional conflict and major Supreme Court cases that have shaped U.S. politics over the course of its history. The second part examines how U.S. politics plays out in elections and voter choice, political participation, electoral irregularities, political parties, and election campaigning. We also look at the broader context of U.S. domestic politics, including populism and nationalism; social conservatism and religion; economic inequality; race, gender, and age; and changing American demographics—examining how these features of society have changed st moving into the 21 ​ Century. As part of the course, students will engage in extensive training in the ​ recognition of populism, nationalism and social conservatism in US Governors’ political speeches and other texts in order to engage in original data collection and content analysis. This offers the students an invaluable opportunity for hands-on research experience, a great thing to put in their CV and a potentially rich letter of recommendation with concrete content, as part of an original data collection project from which the data will become a public resource with all the participants’ names on it. In the third part of the course, we turn to foreign policy—analyzing the backward and forward linkages between U.S. domestic politics and foreign policy and highlighting the ways in which these factors shape and are shaped by the 2020 elections. Students are encouraged to reflect on the extent to which the U.S. stands apart from previous (and future) global hegemons in its politics and foreign policy. The final seminar will be spent reflecting on what all of these elements mean for US politics and foreign policy in the age of Trump: do we see more continuity or change?

Aims

The course’s main aim is to provide students with a sound understanding of:

1. The main political debates that animate contemporary U.S. politics and foreign policy;

2. The main theoretical frameworks in social science used to explain U.S. politics and foreign policy;

3. How to test these competing explanations using evidence;

4. The policy ramifications of these different explanations;

5. The principal trends in U.S. politics and foreign policy.

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this course, students will be able to:

· Make reasoned and informed arguments about events in U.S. politics and foreign policy and critically evaluate them;

· Distinguish between political debates and social science debates concerning U.S. politics and foreign policy;

· Identify what is unique about American politics versus what is common to all major countries or great powers;

· Make an informed estimate of future trends in U.S. politics and/or foreign policy based on existing theories and evidence;

· Argue convincingly for different sides of each major political debate in U.S. politics;

· Identify interconnections between U.S. politics and foreign policy;

· Conduct informed political analysis of U.S. elections and discuss the impact of elections on U.S. domestic and foreign policy;

· Evaluate the relative effects of public opinion, demographic trends, geopolitical pressures, the media, and special interests and/or campaign finance on U.S. domestic and foreign policy.

Course Requirements

1. Staying Informed and Active in the General Discussion - 10% 2. Reflection on Readings (Perusall) - 30% 3. Presentations - 20% 4. Peer feedback - 10% 5. Speech coding - 30%

1. As the course is heavily grounded in current events that relate to U.S. politics and foreign policy, with a particular focus on the upcoming presidential election in November, the students are expected to stay informed and actively discuss US Politics on our course forum. Potential information sources include online newspapers so as to keep up with current events Good sources include The New York ​ Times, Financial Times, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ The Chicago Sun-Times, The Boston Globe, The Guardian, The Independent, and others. Additional ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ sources (including both right and left) include Harper’s, Mother Jones, The Nation, The New Republic, ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ The American Spectator, The American Prospect, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, The National ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Interest, Policy Review, The Cato Journal, The Washington Times, and The Weekly Standard. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ (V/B)logs include The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, The Red State, Newsmax, Crooks and Liars, ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Democracy Now, and Media Matters. See OpenSecrets.org and Source Watch for information on ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ campaign finance and lobby dollars. FactCheck.org is particularly useful in assessing the truth of ​ ​ claims by politicians and pundits on either side of the aisle. Nate Silver’s fivethirtyeight website offers ​ ​ invaluable polling data on upcoming elections. (10%)

2. Readings are posted to Perusall, a community reading forum where students can comment and discuss all course readings. Your engagement in the discussion is a necessity as a substitute to in person meetings to make the social component of the reading and learning a reality. (30%)

3. and 4. A group of students will be responsible for researching a swing state about the local issues driving electoral politics. The research and predictions about the outcomes will be presented to the whole class (20%), in the form of a 10-12 minute video lecture close before the election. At the subsequent peer review and discussion about the presentation everyone is expected to be active (10%).

5. One of the goals of the class is to produce a resource based on original research, a dataset of Governor’s populism, nationalism and conservativism. We are going to train everyone in the class how to assess the level of populism, nationalism and conservatism of a political speech. Together with students at Brigham Young University we aim to code four speeches per each 4 year governance cycle by each governor going back to at least 2014 (two cycles), where two people will independently code every speech. To make this activity successful, we will need to find governor’s speeches based on a strict set of criteria (10%) and code their level of nationalism, conservatism and populism (20%). Once we are done with this activity, we will publish the dataset as a free resource to the general research community with credit given to all the coders. This exercise will offer invaluable research and data collection experience to all students involved. (Also, for anyone who did a good job which I expect everyone will, we can confidently offer everyone a solid letter of recommendation based on all this, in case it would ever be needed. It will not read like “the person took our course; they got a B+.”)

Important note

CEU is an American university that applies American standards of academic honesty. This means that beyond de jure stipulations in the University’s regulations, academic honesty standards are also, de facto applied. This is also graduate school where we are in the business of creating new knowledge. It is my personal firm conviction that knowledge creation cannot be based on theft or other inappropriate conduct. For these reasons, complete academic honesty is expected of everyone. Failure to comply with this requirement will result in automatic failure in this course and additional disciplinary action on higher levels.

All assignments are to be done individually unless otherwise specified. This means, you may talk about how to do it. If this conversation takes place online, I recommend you use the course’s public forum for the benefit of everyone. But none of the actual work can be done in a group. Any evidence to the contrary will be investigated.

Assessment On a 100 point scale, the grading would be as follows: A 94.00 - 100 A- 87.00 - 93.99 B+ 80.00 - 86.99 B 73.00 - 79.99 B- 66.00 - 72.99 C+ 59.00 - 65.99 F 0 - 58.99

Before the first week of the course, please read ​ ​ · The Declaration of Independence. Available at: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html; ​ · Read Peltason, J. W. 2004. About America: The Constitution of the United States of America ​ with Explanatory Notes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of ​ International Information Programs. Available at: http://photos.state.gov/libraries/amgov/30145/publications-english/constitution.pdf (Skip pages 19-43);

· Read the Federalist Papers #10, #39, #51, #64, #69, #75. Available at: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text; ​ · Review the basics of the following court cases: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101289.html; ​ U.S. National Security Strategy, 2017. ​ ​

COURSE SCHEDULE

Mandatory readings for weeks 1-12

Discussion of Pre-Course Materials on Historical Origins, American Exceptionalism and US Hegemony (Week 1: September 29, Tuesday)

Mandatory readings: ​ Nye, Joseph S. “The Rise and Fall of American Hegemony from Wilson to Trump.” International Affairs 95, no. 1 (January 1, 2019): 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiy212. ​ Gilmore, Jason, Charles M. Rowling, Jason A. Edwards, and Nicole T. Allen. “Exceptional ‘We’ or Exceptional ‘Me’? Donald Trump, American Exceptionalism, and the Remaking of the Modern Jeremiad.” Presidential Studies Quarterly (April 20, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12657. ​ And what is listed above under “Before the first week of the course, please read” ​ ​ ​ ​

Parties, Populism and Voting Behavior (Week 2: October 6, Tuesday) Mandatory readings: ​ Hawkins, K., & Littvay, L. (2019). Contemporary US populism in comparative perspective. Cambridge ​ ​ University Press. Chapters 1-3 (pp. 1-46). Utych, S. M. (2020). Man bites blue dog: are moderates really more electable than ideologues?. The ​ Journal of Politics, 82(1), 392-396. ​ ​ ​ https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/706054?casa_token=NTmozOUqVLMA AAAA:gjDjm-ewrnzkFrPJUrQgHVHLFTYVA2CHeAnLlmXGlOsAYrXOtcM0g2lfzETj9WdUCD5Cn OGbaFWW Albert, Z., & Barney, D. J. (2019). The Party Reacts: The Strategic Nature of Endorsements of Donald Trump. American Politics Research, 47(6), 1239-1258. ​ ​ ​ ​ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1532673X18808022?casa_token=dNk57rIv6 YwAAAAA%3AN9LGFqhqDWptYLQV3bBZhbfko_l44BifxAtZ8yJrzIDTBjWGlbz_SMTQsYo0nFU_ 1ySOXMN6KJ2wUQ

Trumpism, Tea Party, Conservatism and Nationalism (Week 3: October 13, Tuesday) Mandatory readings: ​ Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. Sage. (excerpts) Lakoff, Don’t Think of an Elephant (excerpts) Medzihorsky, Juraj, Levente Littvay and Erin Jenne (2014) “Has the Tea Party Era Radicalized the ​ Republican Party? Evidence from Text Analysis of the 2008 and 2012 Republican Primary Debates” PS: Political Science 47(4):806-812 ​ ​ ​ ​

Institutions and Elections (Week 4: October 20, Tuesday) Mandatory readings: ​ Grofman, B., & Feld, S. L. (2005). Thinking about the political impacts of the Electoral College. Public ​ Choice, 123(1-2), 1-18. ​ ​ ​ https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11127-005-3210-4.pdf Binder, S. (2018). Dodging the rules in Trump’s Republican Congress. The Journal of Politics, 80(4), ​ ​ ​ ​ 1454-1463. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/699334 ​ ​ Epperly, B., Witko, C., Strickler, R., & White, P. (2019). Rule by violence, rule by law: Lynching, Jim Crow, and the continuing evolution of voter suppression in the US. Perspectives on Politics, ​ ​ 1-14. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/rule-by-violence -rule-by-law-lynching-jim-crow-and-the-continuing-evolution-of-voter-suppression-in-the-us /CBC6AD86B557A093D7E832F8D821978B

Media and Campaigns / Money and Interest Groups (Week 5: October 27, Tuesday) Mandatory readings: ​ Abdul-Razzak, Nour, Carlo Prato, and Stephane Wolton. “After Citizens United: How Outside Spending Shapes American Democracy.” Electoral Studies 67 (October 1, 2020): 102190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102190. ​

Wells, C., Shah, D. V., Pevehouse, J. C., Yang, J., Pelled, A., Boehm, F., ... & Schmidt, J. L. (2016). How Trump drove coverage to the nomination: Hybrid media campaigning. Political Communication, 33(4), 669-676. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10584609.2016.1224416?casa_token=04y6 3bNq2owAAAAA%3AV0eFNVdIK6w4b1dwPZsWG96A3VK-Pf5k0U3CrjeDmKXO2wh0otHmLg 4lajrjGs-I9fwqMV8USHpsFg

Azari, J. R. (2016). How the news media helped to nominate Trump. Political Communication, 33(4), 677-680. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10584609.2016.1224417?casa_token=nzbm Mg3E_m0AAAAA:kSoOXsFAfNYkZvi-xLHyp-YSQQiFZ7CdKncGJSdGlHX-kK0qFWZiCZymoEtRq Esy2osS8jyV5h8s2Q

Ryan, Timothy, and Amanda Aziz. “Is the Political Right More Credulous?: Experimental Evidence Against Asymmetric Motivations to Believe False Political Information.” The Journal of Politics, August 3, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1086/711133. ​ ​

Election day (Week 6: November 3, Tuesday) Readings: NONE! Read the news! (Read ahead as next week we have more than usual.) ​

Cleavages -- Race, Class and Gender. (Week 7: November 10, Tuesday) Mandatory readings: ​ Matakos, K., & Xefteris, D. (2020). Class versus Identity: Candidates' Race and the Inequality–Redistribution Nexus. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 15. ​ ​ ​ ​ https://www.nowpublishers.com/article/Details/QJPS-18138 Castle, J. J., Jenkins, S., Ortbals, C. D., Poloni-Staudinger, L., & Strachan, J. C. (2020). The Effect of the# MeToo Movement on Political Engagement and Ambition in 2018. Political Research Quarterly, ​ ​ 1065912920924824. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1065912920924824 ​ ​ Wasow, Omar. “Agenda Seeding: How 1960s Black Protests Moved Elites, Public Opinion and Voting.” American Political Science Review 114, no. 3 (August 2020): 638–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305542000009X. ​

Social Movements (Week 8: November 17, Tuesday) Mandatory readings: ​ Piazza, James A. “The Determinants of Domestic Right-Wing Terrorism in the USA: Economic Grievance, Societal Change and Political Resentment.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 34, no. 1 (January 1, 2017): 52–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894215570429. ​ ​ Williamson, Vanessa, Kris-Stella Trump, and Katherine Levine Einstein. “Black Lives Matter: Evidence That Police-Caused Deaths Predict Protest Activity.” Perspectives on Politics 16, no. 2 (June 2018): 400–415. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592717004273. ​ ​ Goldenberg, Alex, and Joel Finkelstein. “CYBER SWARMING, MEMETIC WARFARE AND VIRAL INSURGENCY: How Domestic Militants Organize on Memes to Incite Violent Insurrection and Terror Against Government and Law Enforcement.” Ruthers: Miller Center for Community Protection and Resilience, February 7, 2020. Link. ​ ​ The readings below are from the Society Special Issue after Charlottesville: ​ ​ Phillips, Joe, and Joseph Yi. “Charlottesville Paradox: The ‘Liberalizing’ Alt-Right, ‘Authoritarian’ Left, and Politics of Dialogue.” Society 55, no. 3 (June 1, 2018): 221–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-018-0243-0. ​ Pyrooz, David C., and James A. Densley. “On Public Protest, Violence, and Street Gangs.” Society 55, no. 3 (June 1, 2018): 229–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-018-0242-1. ​ ​ Piquero, Alex R. “Linking Race-Based Perceptions of Gangs to Criminals and Athletes.” Society 55, no. 3 (June 1, 2018): 237–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-018-0244-z. ​ ​ Copsey, Nigel. “Militant Antifascism: An Alternative (Historical) Reading.” Society 55, no. 3 (June 1, 2018): 243–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-018-0245-y. ​ ​ LaFree, Gary. “Is Antifa a Terrorist Group?” Society 55, no. 3 (June 1, 2018): 248–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-018-0246-x. ​ Short, James F., and Lorine A. Hughes. “Antifa, Street Gangs, and the Importance of Group Processes.” Society 55, no. 3 (June 1, 2018): 253–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-018-0247-9. ​ ​

Religion, Diasporas and Immigration Between Domestic and Foreign Policy (Week 9: November 24, Tuesday)

Mandatory readings: ​ Saideman, Stephen M, Erin K Jenne, and Kathleen Gallagher Cunningham. “Diagnosing Diasporas: Understanding the Conditions Fostering or Blocking Mobilization, Preliminary Analyses,” n.d., 24. Link to the paper. ​ ​ O’Donnell, S. Jonathon. “Antisemitism under Erasure: Christian Zionist Anti-Globalism and the Refusal of Cohabitation.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 0, no. 0 (January 23, 2020): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2019.1704042. ​ Gutierrez, A., Ocampo, A. X., Barreto, M. A., & Segura, G. (2019). Somos Más: how racial threat and anger mobilized Latino voters in the Trump era. Political Research Quarterly, 72(4), 960-975. ​ ​ ​ ​ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1065912919844327

The Trump Presidency versus the “Deep State”: Three Branches under Siege (Week 10: December 1, Tuesday)

Mandatory readings: ​ Drezner, Daniel W. “Present at the Destruction: The Trump Administration and the Foreign Policy Bureaucracy.” The Journal of Politics 81, no. 2 (March 5, 2019): 723–30. https://doi.org/10.1086/702230. ​ Gills, B., Patomäki, H., & Morgan, J. (2019). President Trump as status dysfunction. Organization, 26(2), ​ ​ ​ ​ 291-301. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1350508418815419?casa_token=1qhhXPfKJ -AAAAAA%3AYl8zZar9DVmM6kwV60iKSKRv69rgKBj2hdvT3RjNgAMe77xEtEpYBCQyrCtkXG YQ3O1hH5_SEPyANw Clarke, Michael, and Anthony Ricketts. “Donald Trump and American Foreign Policy: The Return of the Jacksonian Tradition.” Comparative Strategy 36, no. 4 (August 8, 2017): 366–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/01495933.2017.1361210. ​

U.S. in the Global Economy and Multilateral Organizations (Week 11: December 8, Tuesday) Mandatory readings: ​ Boucher, Jean-Christophe, and Cameron G. Thies. “‘I Am a Tariff Man’: The Power of Populist Foreign Policy Rhetoric under President Trump.” The Journal of Politics 81, no. 2 (March 7, 2019): 712–22. https://doi.org/10.1086/702229. ​ ​ Beeson, Mark. “Donald Trump and Post-Pivot Asia: The Implications of a ‘Transactional’ Approach to Foreign Policy.” Asian Studies Review 44, no. 1 (January 2, 2020): 10–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357823.2019.1680604. ​ https://academic.oup.com/ia/article/93/2/251/2996077?fbclid=IwAR00n5ejd1L-R-J9TGfjuql6_v-11 7tNgMM0pLQXPiI5T2PnKMs-TB4MAbo

A Declining Superpower at Home and Abroad (Week 12: December 15, Tuesday) Mandatory readings: ​ Lieberman, R. C., Mettler, S., Pepinsky, T. B., Roberts, K. M., & Valelly, R. (2019). The Trump presidency and American democracy: a historical and comparative analysis. Perspectives on Politics, 17(2), ​ ​ ​ ​ 470-479. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/trump-presidenc y-and-american-democracy-a-historical-and-comparative-analysis/E157E9BBA8D3E531A7D D4FD1A01E0478 Harris, Peter. “Why Trump Won’t Retrench: The Militarist Redoubt in American Foreign Policy.” Political Science Quarterly 133, no. 4 (2018): 611–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/polq.12835. ​ ​ Walt, Stephen M. The Hell of Good Intentions: America’s Foreign Policy Elite and the Decline of U.S. Primacy. New York: Macmillan, 2018.

Additional recommended readings

Discussion of Pre-Course Materials on Historical Origins, American Exceptionalism and US Hegemony (Week 1: September 29, Tuesday) Recommended readings: Hartz, Louis. 1955. The Liberal Tradition in America: An Interpretation of American Political Thought ​ since the Revolution. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Chapter 1. [CEU Library Call ​ ​ ​ Number: 320.5/109/73 HAR; will be placed on reserve for the class] Mead, Walter Russell. 1999/2000. “The Jacksonian Tradition and American Foreign Policy.” The ​ ​ ​ National Interest 58: 5-29. ​ ​ ​ Mead, Walter Russell. 2011. “The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy.” Foreign Affairs 90(2): ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 28-44. Nau, Henry R. 2008. “Conservative Internationalism: Jefferson to Polk to Truman to Reagan.” Policy ​ ​ ​ Review 150(July 30). ​ ​ ​ Smith, Rogers M. 1988. “The ‘American Creed’ and American Identity: The Limits of Liberal ​ Citizenship in the United States.” Western Political Quarterly 41(2): 225-251. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Smith, Rogers M. 1993. “Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal and Hartz: The Multiple Traditions in America.” ​ ​ American Political Science Review 87(3): 549-565. ​ ​ ​

Parties, Populism and Voting Behavior (Week 2: October 6, Tuesday) Recommended readings: Lee, F. E. (2020). Populism and the American party system: Opportunities and constraints. Perspectives on Politics, 18(2), 370-388. ​ ​ ​ https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/80267F1481 932B2D381F456BA397153A/S1537592719002664a.pdf/populism_and_the_american_party_ system_opportunities_and_constraints.pdf Bartels, Larry M. 2000. “Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996.” American Journal of Political ​ ​ ​ Science 44(1): 35-50. ​ ​ Bartels, Larry M. “Partisanship in the Trump Era.” The Journal of Politics 80, no. 4 (August 6, 2018): 1483–94. https://doi.org/10.1086/699337. ​ ​ Hayes, Danny, and Seth C. McKee. 2008. “Toward a One-Party South?” American Politics Research ​ ​ ​ 36(1): 3-32. ​ McKee, Seth C. 2008. “Rural Voters and the Polarization of American Presidential Elections.” PS: ​ ​ ​ Political Science & Politics 41(1): 101-108. ​ ​ ​ Mayhew, David R. 2000. “Electoral Realignments.” Annual Review of Political Science 3: 449-474. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Saunders, Kyle L., and Alan I. Abramowitz. 2004. “Ideological Realignment and Active Partisans in the ​ American Electorate.” American Politics Research 32(3): 285-309. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Merrill III, Samuel, Bernard Grofman, and Thomas L. Brunell. 2008. “Cycles in American National ​ Electoral Politics, 1854-2006: Statistical Evidence and an Explanatory Model.” American ​ ​ Political Science Review 102(1): 1-17. ​ ​ Caraley, Demetrios James. 2009. “Three Trends Over Eight Presidential Elections, 1980-2008: Toward ​ the Emergence of a Democratic Majority Realignment?” Political Science Quarterly 124(3): ​ ​ ​ ​ 423-442.

Trumpism, Tea Party, Conservatism and Nationalism (Week 3: October 13, Tuesday) Recommended readings: Skocpol, Theda, and Vanessa Williamson. 2012. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican ​ ​ Conservatism. New York: Oxford University Press. Introduction and Ch 1-2, pp. 3-82. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Hibbing, J. R. (2020). “The Securitarian Personality: What Really Motivates Trump’s Base and Why It Matters for the Post-Trump Era.” New York: Oxford University Press (excerpts) Rohlinger, Deana A., and Leslie Bunnage. “Did the Tea Party Movement Fuel the Trump-Train? The Role of Social Media in Activist Persistence and Political Change in the 21st Century.” Social Media + Society 3, no. 2 (April 1, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117706786. ​ ​ Gose, Leah E., Theda Skocpol, and Vanessa Williamson. Saving America Once Again, from the Tea Party to the Anti-Trump Resistance. Upending American Politics. Oxford University Press. Accessed September 3, 2020. https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190083526.001.000 1/oso-9780190083526-chapter-9. ​

Institutions and Elections (Week 4: October 20, Tuesday) Recommended readings: Marc J. Hetherington (2009) “Putting Polarization in Perspective” British Journal of Political Science ​ ​ ​ 39(2): 413-448. ​ Katzenstein, Mary Fainsod, Leila Mohsen Ibrahim, and Katherine D. Rubin. 2010. “The Dark Side of ​ American Liberalism and Felony Disenfranchisement.” Perspectives on Politics 8(4): ​ ​ ​ ​ 1035-1054. Whittington, Keith E., and Daniel P. Carpenter. 2003. “Executive Power in American Institutional ​ Development.” Perspectives on Politics 1(3): 495-513. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Gervais, Bryan T., and Irwin L. Morris. 2012. “Reading the Tea Leaves: Understanding Tea Party ​ Caucus Membership in the US House of Representatives.” PS: Political Science & Politics 45(2): ​ ​ ​ ​ 245-250. Stoker, Laura, and M. Kent Jennings. 2008. “Of Time and the Development of Partisan Polarization.” ​ ​ American Journal of Political Science 52(3): 619-635. ​ ​ ​ Abramowitz, Alan I. 2010. “Transformation and Polarization: The 2008 Presidential Election and the ​ New American Electorate.” Electoral Studies 29(4): 594-603. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Media and Campaigns / Money and Interest Groups (Week 5: October 27, Tuesday) Recommended readings: Thompson, J. (2020). White Media Attitudes in the Trump Era. American Politics Research, 1532673X20943566. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1532673X20943566 ​ Dorsch, Michael. 2013. “Bailout for Sale? The Vote to Save Wall Street.” Public Choice, DOI: ​ ​ ​ ​ 10.1007/s11127-011-9888-6. Gerrity, Jessica C., Nancy S. Hardt, and Kathryn C. Lavelle. 2008. “The Interest Group - Staff Connection ​ in Congress: Access and Influence in Personal, Committee, and Leadership Offices.” PS: ​ ​ Political Science & Politics 41(4): 913-917. ​ ​ ​ Kalla, Joshua L. and Jason Broockman (2016) “Campaign Contributions Facilitate Access to ​ Congressional Officials: A Randomized Field Experiment” American Journal of Political Science ​ ​ 60(3): 545-558. ​ Mann, Thomas E. 2003. “Linking Knowledge and Action: Political Science and Campaign Finance ​ Reform.” Perspectives on Politics 1(1): 69-83. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Smith, Rodney A. 2006. Money, Power, and Elections: How Campaign Finance Reform Subverts American ​ Democracy. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press. Chapter 1, Chapters 11-13. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Toobin, Jeffrey. 2012. “Money Unlimited: How Chief Justice John Roberts Orchestrated the Citizens ​ United Decision.” The New Yorker. May 21 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Lau, Richard R., and Ivy Brown Rovner. 2009. “Negative Campaigning.” Annual Review of Political Science 12: 285-306. Mutz, Diana C. 2007. “Effects of ‘In-Your-Face’ Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition.” American Political Science Review 101(4): 621-635. Prior, Markus (2013) “Media and Political Polarization” Annual Review of Political Science 16:101-127

Election day (Week 6: November 3, Tuesday) Readings: NONE! Read the news! ​

Cleavages -- Race, Class and Gender. (Week 7: November 10, Tuesday) Recommended readings: Race and Ethnicity in America Special Issue of Social Science Quarterly: ​ ​ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/15406237/2018/99/2 Hansen, Michael A., and Kathleen Dolan. “Voter Sex, Party, and Gender-Salient Issues: Attitudes about Sexual Harassment and Brett Kavanaugh in the 2018 Elections.” American Politics Research 48, no. 5 (September 1, 2020): 532–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X20939502. ​ Banks, Antoine J., and Heather M. Hicks. “The Effectiveness of a Racialized Counterstrategy.” American Journal of Political Science 63, no. 2 (2019): 305–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12410. ​ Junn, Jane, and Natalie Masuoka. “The Gender Gap Is a Race Gap: Women Voters in US Presidential Elections.” Perspectives on Politics, undefined/ed, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592719003876. ​ Yadon, Nicole, and Mara C. Ostfeld. “Shades of Privilege: The Relationship Between Skin Color and Political Attitudes Among White Americans.” Political Behavior, July 18, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09635-0. ​ Bracic, Ana, Mackenzie Israel-Trummel, and Allyson F. Shortle. “Is Sexism for White People? Gender Stereotypes, Race, and the 2016 Presidential Election.” Political Behavior 41, no. 2 (June 1, 2019): 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9446-8. ​ ​ Fisher, Patrick. 2008. “Is There an Emerging Age Gap in US Politics?” Society 45(6): 504-511 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Charles Tien. 2009. “Race Blunts the Economic Effect? The 2008 Obama ​ Forecast.” PS: Political Science & Politics 42(1): 21-21. ​ ​ ​ ​

Social Movements (Week 8: November 17, Tuesday) Recommended readings: Updegrove, Alexander H., Maisha N. Cooper, Erin A. Orrick, and Alex R. Piquero. “Red States and Black Lives: Applying the Racial Threat Hypothesis to the Black Lives Matter Movement.” Justice Quarterly 37, no. 1 (January 2, 2020): 85–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1516797. ​ Fahey, Susan, and Pete Simi. “Pathways to Violent Extremism: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of the US Far-Right.” Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict 12, no. 1 (January 2, 2019): 42–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/17467586.2018.1551558. ​ Jensen, Michael A., Anita Atwell Seate, and Patrick A. James. “Radicalization to Violence: A Pathway Approach to Studying Extremism.” Terrorism and Political Violence 32, no. 5 (July 3, 2020): 1067–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2018.1442330. ​ ​ Fisher, Daren G., Laura Dugan, and Erica Chenoweth. “Does US Presidential Rhetoric Affect Asymmetric Political Violence?” Critical Studies on Terrorism 12, no. 1 (January 2, 2019): 132–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2018.1494120. ​ ​ Dennis, Rutledge, and Kimya Dennis. “Confrontational Politics.” In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism, 11–27. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119430452.ch1. ​ Clark, Meredith D. “White Folks’ Work: Digital Allyship Praxis in the #BlackLivesMatter Movement.” Social Movement Studies 18, no. 5 (September 3, 2019): 519–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2019.1603104. ​ Hsiao, Yuan, and Scott Radnitz. “Allies or Agitators? How Partisan Identity Shapes Public Opinion about Violent or Nonviolent Protests.” Political Communication 0, no. 0 (August 18, 2020): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1793848. ​ ​ O’Connell, Heather A. “Monuments Outlive History: Confederate Monuments, the Legacy of Slavery, and Black-White Inequality.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 43, no. 3 (February 19, 2020): 460–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2019.1635259. ​ Wiggins, Bradley E. “Boogaloo and Civil War 2: Memetic Antagonism in Expressions of Covert Activism.” New Media & Society, August 1, 2020, 1461444820945317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820945317. ​ Lawson, Edward. “TRENDS: Police Militarization and the Use of Lethal Force.” Political Research Quarterly 72, no. 1 (March 1, 2019): 177–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912918784209. Towler, Christopher C., Nyron N. Crawford, and Robert A. Bennett. “Shut Up and Play: Black Athletes, Protest Politics, and Black Political Action.” Perspectives on Politics 18, no. 1 (March 2020): 111–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592719002597. ​ ​ Mislán, Cristina, and Amalia Dache-Gerbino. “The Struggle for ‘Our Streets’: The Digital and Physical Spatial Politics of the Ferguson Movement.” Social Movement Studies 17, no. 6 (November 2, 2018): 676–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2018.1533810. ​ ​ Arora, Maneesh, and Christopher T. Stout. “Letters for Black Lives: Co-Ethnic Mobilization and Support for the Black Lives Matter Movement.” Political Research Quarterly 72, no. 2 (June 1, 2019): 389–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912918793222. ​ ​

Religion, Diasporas and Immigration Between Domestic and Foreign Policy (Week 9: November 24, Tuesday)

Recommended readings: Kovács, Eszter. “The Power of Second-Generation Diaspora: Hungarian Ethnic Lobbying in the United States in the 1970–1980s.” Diaspora Studies, November 8, 2017. ​ ​ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09739572.2017.1398374?needAccess=true. ​ Newhouse, John. 2009. “Diplomacy, Inc.: The Influence of Lobbies on U.S. Foreign Policy.” Foreign ​ ​ ​ Affairs 88(3): 73-92. ​ ​ ​ Kirk, Jason A. 2008. “Indian-Americans and the U.S.-India Nuclear Agreement: Consolidation of an Ethnic Lobby?” Foreign Policy Analysis 4(3): 275-300. Aswar, Hasbi. 2018. “The U.S. Foreign Policy under Trump Administration to Recognize Jerusalem as the State Capital of Israel”. Nation State: Journal of International Studies Vol. 1 No. 2. https://jurnal.amikom.ac.id/index.php/nsjis/article/download/136/65/154 Durbin, Sean. “From King Cyrus to Queen Esther: Christian Zionists’ Discursive Construction of Donald Trump as God’s Instrument.” Critical Research on Religion 8, no. 2 (August 1, 2020): 115–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050303220924078. ​ Whitehead, Andrew L., Samuel L. Perry, and Joseph O. Baker. “Make America Christian Again: Christian Nationalism and Voting for Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Sociology of Religion 79, no. 2 (May 19, 2018): 147–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/srx070. ​ ​ Scala, Dante J. “Polls and Elections: The Skeptical Faithful: How Trump Gained Momentum among Evangelicals.” Presidential Studies Quarterly n/a, no. n/a. Accessed September 8, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12642. ​ Margolis, Michele F. “Who Wants to Make America Great Again? Understanding Evangelical Support for Donald Trump.” Politics and Religion 13, no. 1 (March 2020): 89–118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755048319000208. ​ Amit Gupta. 2016. “Demographic Change and US Foreign Policy,” Orbis 60(3): 353-65. (in Dropbox folder) Uslaner Eric M. 2007. “American Interests in the Balance? Do Ethnic Groups Dominate Foreign Policy ​ Making?” In Allan J. Cigler and Burdette A. Loomis, eds. Interest Group Politics, 7th edition. ​ ​ ​ Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, pp. 301-322. Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. 2006. “The Israel Lobby.” The London Review of Books ​ ​ ​ 28(6): 3-12. ​ Lieberman, Robert C. 2009. “The ‘Israel Lobby’ and American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 7(2): ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 235-257. Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. 2009. “The Blind Man and the Elephant in the Room: ​ Robert Lieberman and the Israel Lobby.” Perspectives on Politics 7(2): 259-273. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Lieberman, Robert C. 2009. “Rejoinder to Mearsheimer and Walt.” Perspectives on Politics 7(2): ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 275-281. Mearsheimer, John J. 2011. “Imperial by Design.” The National Interest 111: 16-34. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Wald, Kenneth D., and Bryan D. Williams. 2006. “American Jews and Israel: The Sources of Politicized ​ Ethnic Identity.” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 12(2): 205-237. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Smith, Tony. 2000. Foreign Attachments: The Power of Ethnic Groups in the Making of American Foreign ​ Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [CEU Library Call Number 327./73 SMI] ​ Wald, Kenneth D., and Bryan D. Williams. 2006. “American Jews and Israel: The Sources of Politicized ​ Ethnic Identity.” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 12(2): 205-237. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Wald, Kenneth D., and Allison Calhoun-Brown. 2011. Religion and Politics in the United States. Lanham, ​ ​ ​ MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Chapters 8-10, pp. 201-307. [A 1992 edition is available from the ​ ​ CEU Library, with the Call Number 322.1/09/73 WAL] Wilcox, Clyde, and Carin Larson. 2006. Onward Christian Soldiers: The Christian Right in American ​ Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Chapter 3, pp. 67-122. ​ ​ ​ Mead, Walter Russell. 2006. “God’s Country?” Foreign Affairs 85(5): 24-45. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Wolfe, Alan. 2006. “Religious Diversity: The American Experiment that Worked.” In Michael Kazin and Joseph A. McCartin, eds. Americanism: New Perspectives on the History of an Ideal. Chapel Hill, ​ ​ ​ NC: The University of North Carolina Press, pp. 153-166. Jones, Bradford and Danielle Joesten Martin (2016) “Path-to-Citizenship or Deportation? How Elite ​ Cues Shaped Opinion on Immigration in the 2010 U.S. House Elections” Political Behavior ​ Wald, Kenneth D., Richard K. Scher, Matthew DeSantis, and Susan Orr. 2006. “Florida: So Close and Yet ​ So Far.” In John C. Green, Mark J. Rozell, and Clyde Wilcox, eds. The Values Campaign: The ​ ​ Christian Right and the 2004 Elections. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. ​ 158-178.

The Trump Presidency versus the “Deep State”: Three Branches under Siege (Week 10: December 1, Tuesday) Recommended readings: Graham Allison. 1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., chaps. 1, 5.

Porter, Patrick. “Why America’s Grand Strategy Has Not Changed: Power, Habit, and the U.S. Foreign Policy Establishment.” International Security 42, no. 04 (May 2018): 9–46. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00311. ​ Rife, (Lt. Col.) Rickey L. 1998. “Defense is from Mars, State is from Venus”. Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War ​ ​ College. Mitchell, David, and Tansa George Massoud. 2009. “Anatomy of Failure: Bush’s Decision-making ​ Process and the Iraq War.” Foreign Policy Analysis 5(3): 265-286. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Alex Mintz and Herzliya Carly Wayne. 2016. “The Polythink Syndrome and Elite Group Decision-Making,”Advances in Political Psychology, Vol. 37, Suppl. 1. (in dropbox folder) ​ ​ Daalder, Ivo H., and I. M. Destler. 2009. “In the Shadow of the Oval Office: The Next National Security ​ Advisor.” Foreign Affairs 88(1): 114-129. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Gates, Robert M. 2009. “A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age.” Foreign ​ ​ ​ Affairs 88(1): 28-40. ​ ​ ​ Betts, Richard K. 1978. “Analysis, War, and Decision: Why Intelligence Failures Are Inevitable.” World ​ ​ ​ Politics 31(1): 61-89. ​ ​ ​ Zegart, Amy. 2006. “An Empirical Analysis of Failed Intelligence Reforms Before September 11.” ​ ​ Political Science Quarterly 121(1): 33-60. ​ ​ ​ Goldgeier, James M., and Elizabeth N. Saunders. “The Unconstrained Presidency: Checks and Balances Eroded Long Before Trump.” Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed September 3, 2020. https://www.cfr.org/article/unconstrained-presidency-checks-and-balances-eroded-long-tru mp. ​ Howell, William G., and Jon C. Pevehouse. 2005. “Presidents, Congress, and the Use of Force.” International Organization 59(1): 209-232. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3877883?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

U.S. in the Global Economy and Multilateral Organizations (Week 11: December 8, Tuesday) Recommended readings: Edwards, Jason A. “Make America Great Again: Donald Trump and Redefining the U.S. Role in the World.” Communication Quarterly 66, no. 2 (March 15, 2018): 176–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2018.1438485. ​ Rothgeb Jr., John M. 2001. U.S. Trade Policy: Balancing Economic Dreams and Political Realities. ​ ​ Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. Fordham, Benjamin O., and Katja B. Kleinberg. 2011. “International Trade and US Relations with ​ China.” Foreign Policy Analysis 7(3): 217-236. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Mastanduno, Michael. 2008. “Economic Statecraft.” In Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, Tim Dunne, eds. Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 171-188. [CEU ​ Library Call Number 327./1/01 SMIT]

A Declining Superpower at Home and Abroad (Week 12: December 15, Tuesday) Recommended readings: Halperin, Sandra. 2011. “The Political Economy of Anglo-American War: The Case of Iraq.” ​ ​ International Politics 48(2/3): 207–228. ​ ​ ​ Milner, Helen V., and Dustin H. Tingley. 2011. “Who Supports Global Economic Engagement? The ​ Sources of Preferences in American Foreign Economic Policy.” International Organization ​ ​ 65(1): 37-68. ​ Mearsheimer, John J. 2011. “Imperial by Design.” The National Interest 111: 16-34. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Lieberman, Robert C. 2009. “What to Read on Lobbying.” Foreign Affairs (May 26). ​ ​ ​ ​ McCormick, James M. 2011. “Interest Groups and Foreign Policy Decision Making.” In Allan J. Cigler and Burdette A. Loomis, eds. Interest Group Politics, 8th Edition. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. ​ ​ [The 7th edition can be found under the CEU Library Call Number 324./409/73 CIG] Schweller, Randall L., and Xiaoyu Pu. 2011. “After Unipolarity: China’s Visions of International Order in an Era of U.S. Decline.” International Security 36(1): 41-72.