Podcast appearances and mentions of Eric Schickler

Checks and balances are at the absolute core of our governmental workings. The framers designed a system that was directly opposed to one person or one group of people having all the power, and we see that through the myriad ways Congress can check the president. So what are those checks? How have they waned over the last few decades? And finally, why would Congress opt to use (or not use) them?Joining us today is Eric Schickler, professor of Political Science at UC Berkeley and author of Investigating the President: Congressional Checks on Presidential Power.Referenced in this episode:Our Starter Kit series. Our episode on impeachment from 2019.  CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO THE SHOW AND CHECK OUT OUR NEW TOTE BAG!CLICK HERE: Visit our website to see all of our episodes, donate to the podcast, sign up for our newsletter, get free educational materials, and more!To see Civics 101 in book form, check out A User's Guide to Democracy: How America Works by Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice, featuring illustrations by Tom Toro.Check out our other weekly NHPR podcast, Outside/In - we think you'll love it!

American democracy is in trouble. At the heart of the contemporary crisis is a mismatch between America's Constitution and today's nationalized, partisan politics. Although American political institutions remain federated and fragmented, the ground beneath them has moved, with the national subsuming and transforming the local.  In Partisan Nation: The Dangerous New Logic of American Politics in a Nationalized Era (U Chicago Press, 2024), political scientists Paul Pierson and Eric Schickler bring today's challenges into new perspective. Attentive to the different coalitions, interests, and incentives that define the Democratic and Republican parties, they show how contemporary polarization emerged in a rapidly nationalizing country and how it differs from polarization in past eras. In earlier periods, three key features of the political landscape-state parties, interest groups, and media-varied locally and reinforced the nation's stark regional diversity. They created openings for new policy demands and factional divisions that disrupted party lines. But this began to change in the 1960s as the two parties assumed clearer ideological identities and the power of the national government expanded, raising the stakes of conflict. Together with technological and economic change, these developments have reconfigured state parties, interest groups, and media in self-reinforcing ways. Now thoroughly integrated into a single political order and tightly coupled with partisanship, they no longer militate against polarization. Instead, they accelerate it. Precisely because today's polarization is different, it is self-perpetuating and, indeed, intensifying. With the precision and acuity characteristic of both authors' earlier work, Pierson and Schickler explain what these developments mean for American governance and democracy. They show that America's political system is distinctively, and acutely, vulnerable to an authoritarian movement emerging in the contemporary Republican Party, which has both the motive and the means to exploit America's unusual Constitutional design. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

American democracy is in trouble. At the heart of the contemporary crisis is a mismatch between America's Constitution and today's nationalized, partisan politics. Although American political institutions remain federated and fragmented, the ground beneath them has moved, with the national subsuming and transforming the local.  In Partisan Nation: The Dangerous New Logic of American Politics in a Nationalized Era (U Chicago Press, 2024), political scientists Paul Pierson and Eric Schickler bring today's challenges into new perspective. Attentive to the different coalitions, interests, and incentives that define the Democratic and Republican parties, they show how contemporary polarization emerged in a rapidly nationalizing country and how it differs from polarization in past eras. In earlier periods, three key features of the political landscape-state parties, interest groups, and media-varied locally and reinforced the nation's stark regional diversity. They created openings for new policy demands and factional divisions that disrupted party lines. But this began to change in the 1960s as the two parties assumed clearer ideological identities and the power of the national government expanded, raising the stakes of conflict. Together with technological and economic change, these developments have reconfigured state parties, interest groups, and media in self-reinforcing ways. Now thoroughly integrated into a single political order and tightly coupled with partisanship, they no longer militate against polarization. Instead, they accelerate it. Precisely because today's polarization is different, it is self-perpetuating and, indeed, intensifying. With the precision and acuity characteristic of both authors' earlier work, Pierson and Schickler explain what these developments mean for American governance and democracy. They show that America's political system is distinctively, and acutely, vulnerable to an authoritarian movement emerging in the contemporary Republican Party, which has both the motive and the means to exploit America's unusual Constitutional design. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

American democracy is in trouble. At the heart of the contemporary crisis is a mismatch between America's Constitution and today's nationalized, partisan politics. Although American political institutions remain federated and fragmented, the ground beneath them has moved, with the national subsuming and transforming the local.  In Partisan Nation: The Dangerous New Logic of American Politics in a Nationalized Era (U Chicago Press, 2024), political scientists Paul Pierson and Eric Schickler bring today's challenges into new perspective. Attentive to the different coalitions, interests, and incentives that define the Democratic and Republican parties, they show how contemporary polarization emerged in a rapidly nationalizing country and how it differs from polarization in past eras. In earlier periods, three key features of the political landscape-state parties, interest groups, and media-varied locally and reinforced the nation's stark regional diversity. They created openings for new policy demands and factional divisions that disrupted party lines. But this began to change in the 1960s as the two parties assumed clearer ideological identities and the power of the national government expanded, raising the stakes of conflict. Together with technological and economic change, these developments have reconfigured state parties, interest groups, and media in self-reinforcing ways. Now thoroughly integrated into a single political order and tightly coupled with partisanship, they no longer militate against polarization. Instead, they accelerate it. Precisely because today's polarization is different, it is self-perpetuating and, indeed, intensifying. With the precision and acuity characteristic of both authors' earlier work, Pierson and Schickler explain what these developments mean for American governance and democracy. They show that America's political system is distinctively, and acutely, vulnerable to an authoritarian movement emerging in the contemporary Republican Party, which has both the motive and the means to exploit America's unusual Constitutional design. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

American democracy is in trouble. At the heart of the contemporary crisis is a mismatch between America's Constitution and today's nationalized, partisan politics. Although American political institutions remain federated and fragmented, the ground beneath them has moved, with the national subsuming and transforming the local.  In Partisan Nation: The Dangerous New Logic of American Politics in a Nationalized Era (U Chicago Press, 2024), political scientists Paul Pierson and Eric Schickler bring today's challenges into new perspective. Attentive to the different coalitions, interests, and incentives that define the Democratic and Republican parties, they show how contemporary polarization emerged in a rapidly nationalizing country and how it differs from polarization in past eras. In earlier periods, three key features of the political landscape-state parties, interest groups, and media-varied locally and reinforced the nation's stark regional diversity. They created openings for new policy demands and factional divisions that disrupted party lines. But this began to change in the 1960s as the two parties assumed clearer ideological identities and the power of the national government expanded, raising the stakes of conflict. Together with technological and economic change, these developments have reconfigured state parties, interest groups, and media in self-reinforcing ways. Now thoroughly integrated into a single political order and tightly coupled with partisanship, they no longer militate against polarization. Instead, they accelerate it. Precisely because today's polarization is different, it is self-perpetuating and, indeed, intensifying. With the precision and acuity characteristic of both authors' earlier work, Pierson and Schickler explain what these developments mean for American governance and democracy. They show that America's political system is distinctively, and acutely, vulnerable to an authoritarian movement emerging in the contemporary Republican Party, which has both the motive and the means to exploit America's unusual Constitutional design. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

American democracy is in trouble. At the heart of the contemporary crisis is a mismatch between America's Constitution and today's nationalized, partisan politics. Although American political institutions remain federated and fragmented, the ground beneath them has moved, with the national subsuming and transforming the local.  In Partisan Nation: The Dangerous New Logic of American Politics in a Nationalized Era (U Chicago Press, 2024), political scientists Paul Pierson and Eric Schickler bring today's challenges into new perspective. Attentive to the different coalitions, interests, and incentives that define the Democratic and Republican parties, they show how contemporary polarization emerged in a rapidly nationalizing country and how it differs from polarization in past eras. In earlier periods, three key features of the political landscape-state parties, interest groups, and media-varied locally and reinforced the nation's stark regional diversity. They created openings for new policy demands and factional divisions that disrupted party lines. But this began to change in the 1960s as the two parties assumed clearer ideological identities and the power of the national government expanded, raising the stakes of conflict. Together with technological and economic change, these developments have reconfigured state parties, interest groups, and media in self-reinforcing ways. Now thoroughly integrated into a single political order and tightly coupled with partisanship, they no longer militate against polarization. Instead, they accelerate it. Precisely because today's polarization is different, it is self-perpetuating and, indeed, intensifying. With the precision and acuity characteristic of both authors' earlier work, Pierson and Schickler explain what these developments mean for American governance and democracy. They show that America's political system is distinctively, and acutely, vulnerable to an authoritarian movement emerging in the contemporary Republican Party, which has both the motive and the means to exploit America's unusual Constitutional design. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

American democracy is in trouble. At the heart of the contemporary crisis is a mismatch between America's Constitution and today's nationalized, partisan politics. Although American political institutions remain federated and fragmented, the ground beneath them has moved, with the national subsuming and transforming the local.  In Partisan Nation: The Dangerous New Logic of American Politics in a Nationalized Era (U Chicago Press, 2024), political scientists Paul Pierson and Eric Schickler bring today's challenges into new perspective. Attentive to the different coalitions, interests, and incentives that define the Democratic and Republican parties, they show how contemporary polarization emerged in a rapidly nationalizing country and how it differs from polarization in past eras. In earlier periods, three key features of the political landscape-state parties, interest groups, and media-varied locally and reinforced the nation's stark regional diversity. They created openings for new policy demands and factional divisions that disrupted party lines. But this began to change in the 1960s as the two parties assumed clearer ideological identities and the power of the national government expanded, raising the stakes of conflict. Together with technological and economic change, these developments have reconfigured state parties, interest groups, and media in self-reinforcing ways. Now thoroughly integrated into a single political order and tightly coupled with partisanship, they no longer militate against polarization. Instead, they accelerate it. Precisely because today's polarization is different, it is self-perpetuating and, indeed, intensifying. With the precision and acuity characteristic of both authors' earlier work, Pierson and Schickler explain what these developments mean for American governance and democracy. They show that America's political system is distinctively, and acutely, vulnerable to an authoritarian movement emerging in the contemporary Republican Party, which has both the motive and the means to exploit America's unusual Constitutional design. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

American democracy is in trouble. At the heart of the contemporary crisis is a mismatch between America's Constitution and today's nationalized, partisan politics. Although American political institutions remain federated and fragmented, the ground beneath them has moved, with the national subsuming and transforming the local.  In Partisan Nation: The Dangerous New Logic of American Politics in a Nationalized Era (U Chicago Press, 2024), political scientists Paul Pierson and Eric Schickler bring today's challenges into new perspective. Attentive to the different coalitions, interests, and incentives that define the Democratic and Republican parties, they show how contemporary polarization emerged in a rapidly nationalizing country and how it differs from polarization in past eras. In earlier periods, three key features of the political landscape-state parties, interest groups, and media-varied locally and reinforced the nation's stark regional diversity. They created openings for new policy demands and factional divisions that disrupted party lines. But this began to change in the 1960s as the two parties assumed clearer ideological identities and the power of the national government expanded, raising the stakes of conflict. Together with technological and economic change, these developments have reconfigured state parties, interest groups, and media in self-reinforcing ways. Now thoroughly integrated into a single political order and tightly coupled with partisanship, they no longer militate against polarization. Instead, they accelerate it. Precisely because today's polarization is different, it is self-perpetuating and, indeed, intensifying. With the precision and acuity characteristic of both authors' earlier work, Pierson and Schickler explain what these developments mean for American governance and democracy. They show that America's political system is distinctively, and acutely, vulnerable to an authoritarian movement emerging in the contemporary Republican Party, which has both the motive and the means to exploit America's unusual Constitutional design. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

Professor of Political Science Paul Pierson, discusses his new book Partisan Nation. Co-authored with Eric Schickler, this book explores the roots of America's democratic crisis, highlighting how the mismatch between the Constitution and today's nationalized, partisan politics has destabilized American democracy. Pierson offers a fresh perspective on contemporary polarization, explaining how it has evolved from past eras and become self-perpetuating. Pierson and Schickler's work dives into the changing dynamics of state parties, interest groups, and media since the 1960s, showing how these shifts have intensified political conflict. They also caution about the vulnerability of the American political system to authoritarian movements, particularly within the contemporary Republican Party. This talk is for anyone seeking to understand the current challenges facing American governance and democracy. Paul Pierson is the John Gross Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, and director of the Berkeley Economy and Society Initiative. He is the author or coauthor of six books, including Winner-Take-All Politics, Let Them Eat Tweets and Politics in Time. Megan Ming Francis is the G. Alan and Barbara Delsman Associate Professor of Political Science and an Associate Professor of Law, Societies, and Justice at the University of Washington. Francis specializes in the study of American politics, with broad interests in criminal punishment, Black political activism, philanthropy, and the post-Civil War South. Buy the Book Partisan Nation: The Dangerous New Logic of American Politics in a Nationalized Era Third Place Books

Guest: Eric Schickler is the Jeffrey & Ashley McDermott Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author or co-author of several books, including Racial Realignment, Investigating the President, and Filibuster. His latest is Partisan Nation: The Dangerous New Logic of American Politics in a Nationalized Era coauthored with Paul Pierson. Guest: Paul Pierson is the John Gross Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, and director of the Berkeley Economy and Society Initiative. He is the author or co-author of many books, including Winner-Take-All Politics, Let Them Eat Tweets and Politics in Time.  His latest, Partisan Nation: The Dangerous New Logic of American Politics in a Nationalized Era coauthored with Eric Schickler. The post Polarization in the US: Past and Present appeared first on KPFA.

Dr. Eric Schickler is the Co-director of the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, and he joins Lester Kiewit to bring context to the political reality in the USA after Donald Trump's final speech at the 2024 Republican National Convention last night.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Recorded on November 14, 2023 at UC Berkeley's Social Science Matrix, this "Authors Meet Critics" panel is focused on Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights, by Dylan Penningroth, Professor of Law and Alexander F. and May T. Morrison Professor of History at UC Berkeley, and Associate Dean, Program in Jurisprudence and Social Policy / Legal Studies at Berkeley Law. Professor Penningroth was joined in conversation by Ula Yvette Taylor, Professor and 1960 Chair of Undergraduate Education in the UC Berkeley Department of African American Studies and African Diaspora Studies; and Eric Schickler, Professor, Jeffrey & Ashley McDermott Endowed Chair in the Charles and Louise Travers Department of Political Science at UC Berkeley. The panel was moderated by Waldo E. Martin Jr., the Alexander F. and May T. Morrison Professor of American History and Citizenship at UC Berkeley. The Social Science Matrix “Authors Meet Critics” book series features lively discussions about recently published books authored by social scientists at UC Berkeley. For each event, the author discusses the key arguments of their book with fellow scholars. The panel was co-sponsored by the UC Berkeley Jurisprudence and Social Policy (JSP) graduate program, Berkeley School of Law, the Center for the Study of Law and Society (CSLS), the Center for Race and Gender (CRG), and the UC Berkeley Department of History. About the Book The familiar story of civil rights goes something like this: Once, the American legal system was dominated by racist officials who shut Black people out and refused to recognize their basic human dignity. Then, starting in the 1940s, a few brave lawyers ventured south, bent on changing the law—and soon, everyday African Americans joined with them to launch the Civil Rights Movement. In Before the Movement, historian Dylan C. Penningroth overturns this story, demonstrating that Black people had long exercised “the rights of everyday use,” and that this lesser-known private-law tradition paved the way for the modern vision of civil rights. Well-versed in the law, Black people had used it to their advantage for nearly a century to shape how they worked, worshiped, learned, and loved. Based on long-forgotten sources found in the basements of county courthouses, Before the Movement recovers a vision of Black life allied with, yet distinct from, “the freedom struggle.” A transcript of this conversation can be found at https://matrix.berkeley.edu/research-article/penningroth/.

Mike returns from the ISTE Live Conference in Philadelphia to bring fresh takes on AI, Sustainability, and Affirmative Action in light of the recent Supreme Court Decisions. He's rejoined by virtual cohosts Ruth and Nancy to dig into the key trends we're tracking heading into the Summer of 2023. First Ruth joins us as we reflect on the Supreme Court Affirmative Action decision referencing Dahlia Lithwick's article on the topic before bringing in highlights from our recent conversation with Eric Schickler about polarization in higher education. What are we missing when we think about affirmative action? Then Nancy hops on board as we explore topics and themes about AI and emerging technology following Mike's attendance at ISTE. We run the gamut of analogies for AI as we continue to chart new waters. Finally, we conclude with reflections on the climate crisis and sustainability incorporating an excerpt from our recent episode with Bryan Alexander on the topic. It's a wide-ranging survey of the topics and themes top of mind for us as we head into the Summer of 2023. Don't miss it. Subscribe to Trending in Education wherever you get your podcasts. Visit us at TrendinginEd.com for more sharp takes on what's emerging in the world of learning.

Dr. Eric Schickler is a Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley where he is currently working on a book about polarization in American politics. He joins host and fellow New College alum, Mike Palmer, in a discussion about what's happening at New College, what it says about the current state of higher education and politics in America, and what we can do about it. We begin by hearing Eric's origin story which in many ways began with his experiences at New College. That's where he discovered his passion for teaching and engaging with other students and faculty. This ultimately led to him earning his doctorate at Yale before landing at Berkeley where he's spent the majority of his academic career. Then Eric describes how a trend towards political polarization has taken root across America using the case of New College as an example. At a time when scoring political points on the national stage is more important than defending local institutions that are good for the community, it's difficult to find folks who will stand up to their party to defend a place like New College. This hasn't always been the case. Eric and Mike share their recollections of their experiences at the school and counter the portrayal of it as a place where "woke" indoctrination happens. Instead, they remember it as a vibrant, diverse, and scholarly environment that has produced a wide range of professionals who have contributed to society in meaningful and various ways. It's a critical look at how the challenges of the culture wars are pushing many colleges like New College to the brink. Don't miss it. Subscribe to Trending in Education wherever you get your podcasts. Visit us at TrendinginEd.com for more sharp takes on the future of education.

The unprecedented drama of Tuesday's arrest and arraignment of formerpresident Donald Trump is behind us, and now the criminal case against him willproceed in the typically sluggish fashion of the U.S. justice system, with motionsand hearings that are likely to drag on for the rest of this year and into 2024.Meanwhile, as his attorneys fight that legal proceeding and gird themselves formore that could still come from Georgia and from federal prosecutors, Mr. Trumpis already running for president again, seeking to reclaim the office he lost in2020. Even if he's convicted in New York, in fact even if he goes to jail on thosefelony charges, he can still run for, and be elected, president. And so far, thiscriminal prosecution seems to be helping him, in terms of fundraising andpopular support. For more, Doug Sovern spoke with politicalscientist Eric Schickler, co-director of the UC Berkeley Institute forGovernmental Studies.

The topic of this episode is, “How has Congress evolved as an institution?” My guest is https://polisci.berkeley.edu/people/person/eric-schickler (Eric Schickler), the author of the book, “https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691049267/disjointed-pluralism (Disjointed Pluralism): Institutional Innovation and the Development of the U.S. Congress”. It is the 20th anniversary of this classic text, which won the Richard F. Fenno, Jr. Prize for the best book on legislative politics. Eric is the Jeffrey and Ashley McDermott Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. He is also an Elected Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 

McCarthy and the "Political Terrorist" Jim Jordan's Trolling of the January 6 Select Committee | Already Fox's Tucker Carlson Has Slandered Tuesday's First Witness | Michael Bender on Frankly We Did Win This Election: The Inside Story of How Trump Lost backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies recently completed the largest survey of Californians to date regarding opinions and attitudes related to COVID-19. The results are fascinating and point to a wide range of potential political and societal impacts arising from our still-unfolding responses to the pandemic. This discussion with IGS Co-Directors Cristina Mora and Eric Schickler and Professor of Health Policy and Management Hector Rodriguez, who together devised and ran the poll, delves into the significance and meaning of the data, and what it all might portend for California and the nation in the current context of political polarization and racial inequality. Series: "Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley (IGS)" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 36047]

UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies recently completed the largest survey of Californians to date regarding opinions and attitudes related to COVID-19. The results are fascinating and point to a wide range of potential political and societal impacts arising from our still-unfolding responses to the pandemic. This discussion with IGS Co-Directors Cristina Mora and Eric Schickler and Professor of Health Policy and Management Hector Rodriguez, who together devised and ran the poll, delves into the significance and meaning of the data, and what it all might portend for California and the nation in the current context of political polarization and racial inequality. Series: "Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley (IGS)" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 36047]

UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies recently completed the largest survey of Californians to date regarding opinions and attitudes related to COVID-19. The results are fascinating and point to a wide range of potential political and societal impacts arising from our still-unfolding responses to the pandemic. This discussion with IGS Co-Directors Cristina Mora and Eric Schickler and Professor of Health Policy and Management Hector Rodriguez, who together devised and ran the poll, delves into the significance and meaning of the data, and what it all might portend for California and the nation in the current context of political polarization and racial inequality. Series: "Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley (IGS)" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 36047]

UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies recently completed the largest survey of Californians to date regarding opinions and attitudes related to COVID-19. The results are fascinating and point to a wide range of potential political and societal impacts arising from our still-unfolding responses to the pandemic. This discussion with IGS Co-Directors Cristina Mora and Eric Schickler and Professor of Health Policy and Management Hector Rodriguez, who together devised and ran the poll, delves into the significance and meaning of the data, and what it all might portend for California and the nation in the current context of political polarization and racial inequality. Series: "Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley (IGS)" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 36047]

UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies recently completed the largest survey of Californians to date regarding opinions and attitudes related to COVID-19. The results are fascinating and point to a wide range of potential political and societal impacts arising from our still-unfolding responses to the pandemic. This discussion with IGS Co-Directors Cristina Mora and Eric Schickler and Professor of Health Policy and Management Hector Rodriguez, who together devised and ran the poll, delves into the significance and meaning of the data, and what it all might portend for California and the nation in the current context of political polarization and racial inequality. Series: "Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley (IGS)" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 36047]

UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies recently completed the largest survey of Californians to date regarding opinions and attitudes related to COVID-19. The results are fascinating and point to a wide range of potential political and societal impacts arising from our still-unfolding responses to the pandemic. This discussion with IGS Co-Directors Cristina Mora and Eric Schickler and Professor of Health Policy and Management Hector Rodriguez, who together devised and ran the poll, delves into the significance and meaning of the data, and what it all might portend for California and the nation in the current context of political polarization and racial inequality. Series: "Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley (IGS)" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 36047]

UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies recently completed the largest survey of Californians to date regarding opinions and attitudes related to COVID-19. The results are fascinating and point to a wide range of potential political and societal impacts arising from our still-unfolding responses to the pandemic. This discussion with IGS Co-Directors Cristina Mora and Eric Schickler and Professor of Health Policy and Management Hector Rodriguez, who together devised and ran the poll, delves into the significance and meaning of the data, and what it all might portend for California and the nation in the current context of political polarization and racial inequality. Series: "Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley (IGS)" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 36047]

UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies recently completed the largest survey of Californians to date regarding opinions and attitudes related to COVID-19. The results are fascinating and point to a wide range of potential political and societal impacts arising from our still-unfolding responses to the pandemic. This discussion with IGS Co-Directors Cristina Mora and Eric Schickler and Professor of Health Policy and Management Hector Rodriguez, who together devised and ran the poll, delves into the significance and meaning of the data, and what it all might portend for California and the nation in the current context of political polarization and racial inequality. Series: "Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley (IGS)" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 36047]

UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies recently completed the largest survey of Californians to date regarding opinions and attitudes related to COVID-19. The results are fascinating and point to a wide range of potential political and societal impacts arising from our still-unfolding responses to the pandemic. This discussion with IGS Co-Directors Cristina Mora and Eric Schickler and Professor of Health Policy and Management Hector Rodriguez, who together devised and ran the poll, delves into the significance and meaning of the data, and what it all might portend for California and the nation in the current context of political polarization and racial inequality. Series: "Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley (IGS)" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 36047]

UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies recently completed the largest survey of Californians to date regarding opinions and attitudes related to COVID-19. The results are fascinating and point to a wide range of potential political and societal impacts arising from our still-unfolding responses to the pandemic. This discussion with IGS Co-Directors Cristina Mora and Eric Schickler and Professor of Health Policy and Management Hector Rodriguez, who together devised and ran the poll, delves into the significance and meaning of the data, and what it all might portend for California and the nation in the current context of political polarization and racial inequality. Series: "Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley (IGS)" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 36047]

UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies recently completed the largest survey of Californians to date regarding opinions and attitudes related to COVID-19. The results are fascinating and point to a wide range of potential political and societal impacts arising from our still-unfolding responses to the pandemic. This discussion with IGS Co-Directors Cristina Mora and Eric Schickler and Professor of Health Policy and Management Hector Rodriguez, who together devised and ran the poll, delves into the significance and meaning of the data, and what it all might portend for California and the nation in the current context of political polarization and racial inequality. Series: "Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley (IGS)" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 36047]

UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies recently completed the largest survey of Californians to date regarding opinions and attitudes related to COVID-19. The results are fascinating and point to a wide range of potential political and societal impacts arising from our still-unfolding responses to the pandemic. This discussion with IGS Co-Directors Cristina Mora and Eric Schickler and Professor of Health Policy and Management Hector Rodriguez, who together devised and ran the poll, delves into the significance and meaning of the data, and what it all might portend for California and the nation in the current context of political polarization and racial inequality. Series: "Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley (IGS)" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 36047]

In the 2020 Presidential Election eyes been focussed on the early primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire. In Iowa, according to 538.com, the candidates are ranked as: Sanders 22.6%, Biden 22.3, Buttigieg, 17.1%, Warren, 14.0%. But perhaps more interesting, California polls ( see todays LA Times( have Sanders in lead in state’s presidential primary race. The poll shows Warren second and Biden running third. California is known to be a liberal state, but Sanders appears to have growing support from voters who label themselves “very liberal.” That very liberal group makes up about 1 in 3 Democratic primary voters in the state. The 2020 California Democratic primary will take place on Tuesday, March 3, 2020, as one of 14 contests scheduled on "Super Tuesday" in the Democratic Party presidential primaries, following the South Carolina primary the weekend before. The California primary is a semi-closed primary, with the state awarding 494 delegates, of which 415 are pledged delegates allocated on the basis of the results of the primary. The rest are elected officials and others who attend as un pledged so-called super-delegates. The rest of the state’s likely primary voters remain divided among several candidates. Former Vice President Joe Biden remains the front-runner nationally, but in third place in California with 15% in the poll. “California’s primary electorate is relatively liberal,” said Berkeley political science professor Eric Schickler, co-director of the institute. “The state is more conducive to one of the candidates on the left.” Biden narrowly trails Sanders among voters who call themselves somewhat liberal, moderate or conservative, but runs 33 percentage points behind him among the very liberal. California Democratic Party’s rules have delegates go to candidates who get at least 15% of the vote statewide or in a congressional district. Candidate Bloomberg gets 6% in the poll, up from 2% in November. He shares the second tier of candidates with Pete Buttigieg, at 7%, Sen. Amy Klobuchar is at 5% and Andrew Yang,, at 4%. So what is good for Biden? He remains the candidate the state’s voters are most likely to say would beat President Trump. About a third of likely primary voters say so. Sanders comes in second on that score with about a quarter of voters — mostly his own supporters — calling him the one with the best chance of beating Trump in November. Back to Iowa, where the question of electability has dominated the debate and in New Hampshire. In California, the issue of how much of a priority to put on picking an electoral winner sharply divides voters. About two-thirds of Sanders’ supporters put priority on a candidate who agrees with them on issues. Biden supporters go the other way, There is a generational clash in voting preferences between Sanders and Biden. Sanders’ support among younger voters has been steadily growing over time. Because of this, turnout will be extraordinarily influential in determining the outcome.” In the broader picture, 13 other states will hold contests on March 3rd, with about 40% of the delegates to the nominating convention will be allocated that day. 538.com attempts to forecast who’s ahead in the national polls. They update the average for each Democratic candidate in 2020 primary polls, accounting for each poll’s quality, sample size and recency. The latest results are: Biden 26.7%Sanders 21.0% Warren 14.9% Bloomberg 8.3%Buttigieg 7.4% Yang 4.3% Klobuchar 3.2% Steyer 2.1% In summary, as the nation thinks ahead to the November election where the Democratic nomination race has tightened at the top, each Democratic candidate tested by a Fox poll bests Trump in hypothetical head-to-heads. Trump lags behind Biden by 9 points (50-41 percent) and Bloomberg by 8 (49-41). Those leads are outside the poll’s margin of error. Biden leads Trump by 17 points among women, while the two tie among men. And Trump is up by 14 points among white men,

In the 2020 Presidential Election eyes been focussed on the early primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire. In Iowa, according to 538.com, the candidates are ranked as: Sanders 22.6%, Biden 22.3, Buttigieg, 17.1%, Warren, 14.0%. But perhaps more interesting, California polls ( see todays LA Times( have Sanders in lead in state’s presidential primary race. The poll shows Warren second and Biden running third. California is known to be a liberal state, but Sanders appears to have growing support from voters who label themselves “very liberal.” That very liberal group makes up about 1 in 3 Democratic primary voters in the state. The 2020 California Democratic primary will take place on Tuesday, March 3, 2020, as one of 14 contests scheduled on "Super Tuesday" in the Democratic Party presidential primaries, following the South Carolina primary the weekend before. The California primary is a semi-closed primary, with the state awarding 494 delegates, of which 415 are pledged delegates allocated on the basis of the results of the primary. The rest are elected officials and others who attend as un pledged so-called super-delegates. The rest of the state’s likely primary voters remain divided among several candidates. Former Vice President Joe Biden remains the front-runner nationally, but in third place in California with 15% in the poll. “California’s primary electorate is relatively liberal,” said Berkeley political science professor Eric Schickler, co-director of the institute. “The state is more conducive to one of the candidates on the left.” Biden narrowly trails Sanders among voters who call themselves somewhat liberal, moderate or conservative, but runs 33 percentage points behind him among the very liberal. California Democratic Party’s rules have delegates go to candidates who get at least 15% of the vote statewide or in a congressional district. Candidate Bloomberg gets 6% in the poll, up from 2% in November. He shares the second tier of candidates with Pete Buttigieg, at 7%, Sen. Amy Klobuchar is at 5% and Andrew Yang,, at 4%. So what is good for Biden? He remains the candidate the state’s voters are most likely to say would beat President Trump. About a third of likely primary voters say so. Sanders comes in second on that score with about a quarter of voters — mostly his own supporters — calling him the one with the best chance of beating Trump in November. Back to Iowa, where the question of electability has dominated the debate and in New Hampshire. In California, the issue of how much of a priority to put on picking an electoral winner sharply divides voters. About two-thirds of Sanders’ supporters put priority on a candidate who agrees with them on issues. Biden supporters go the other way, There is a generational clash in voting preferences between Sanders and Biden. Sanders’ support among younger voters has been steadily growing over time. Because of this, turnout will be extraordinarily influential in determining the outcome.” In the broader picture, 13 other states will hold contests on March 3rd, with about 40% of the delegates to the nominating convention will be allocated that day. 538.com attempts to forecast who’s ahead in the national polls. They update the average for each Democratic candidate in 2020 primary polls, accounting for each poll’s quality, sample size and recency. The latest results are: Biden 26.7%Sanders 21.0% Warren 14.9% Bloomberg 8.3%Buttigieg 7.4% Yang 4.3% Klobuchar 3.2% Steyer 2.1% In summary, as the nation thinks ahead to the November election where the Democratic nomination race has tightened at the top, each Democratic candidate tested by a Fox poll bests Trump in hypothetical head-to-heads. Trump lags behind Biden by 9 points (50-41 percent) and Bloomberg by 8 (49-41). Those leads are outside the poll’s margin of error. Biden leads Trump by 17 points among women, while the two tie among men. And Trump is up by 14 points among white men,

The inseparable tie between identity politics and economic justice.  The troubling tie between charter schools and segregation. And Bill Press talks with Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR).     Author Raynard Sanders explains how charter schools are bringing back racial segregation. Political scientist Eric Schickler calls on progressive democrats to embrace racial justice. And Bill Press talks with Congressman Earl Blumenauer about his battle to legalize marijuana. (D-OR).   Raynard Sanders Scholar and author Raynard Sanders has committed his career to equity in education.  In a new book, he explains how that vision is being set back and why charter schools are to blame.   Eric Schickler Eric Schickler is a political scientist who writes about party politics.  He says that racial justice energized the democratic party in the past and can do so again today.   Earl Blumenauer Bill Press talks with Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) on his prediction that marijuana will become legal in the United States .   Jim Hightower Doctor Trump Prescribes a Sugar-Coated Nothing Pill

Investigating the President: Congressional Checks on Presidential Power (Princeton University Press, 2016) is an important analysis of both congressional and presidential power, and how these two branches interact, especially within polarized political periods. Reflecting the way this book examines both of these branches of government and the exercise of their respective powers, Investigating the President garnered two impressive book awards, from the Presidents and Executive Politics Section (Richard E. Neustadt Book Award) and from the Legislative Studies Section (Richard F. Fenno Book Award) of the American Political Science Association. Douglas Kriner and Eric Schickler explore the precedent for congressional investigations into the conduct of and within the Executive branch, while they also amassed over 100 years of data surrounding congressional investigations to discern the impact of these kinds of investigations, even when they do not result, necessarily, in articles of impeachment or indictments of presidential appointees. Investigating the President notes the patterns of impact, from curbing presidential military engagement abroad to shifting the media focus and grabbing the narrative away from the president. The fascinating conclusion points to this under-researched area of congressional power and oversight that may have a more significant impact on presidential conduct and power than has generally been anticipated. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Investigating the President: Congressional Checks on Presidential Power (Princeton University Press, 2016) is an important analysis of both congressional and presidential power, and how these two branches interact, especially within polarized political periods. Reflecting the way this book examines both of these branches of government and the exercise of their respective powers, Investigating the President garnered two impressive book awards, from the Presidents and Executive Politics Section (Richard E. Neustadt Book Award) and from the Legislative Studies Section (Richard F. Fenno Book Award) of the American Political Science Association. Douglas Kriner and Eric Schickler explore the precedent for congressional investigations into the conduct of and within the Executive branch, while they also amassed over 100 years of data surrounding congressional investigations to discern the impact of these kinds of investigations, even when they do not result, necessarily, in articles of impeachment or indictments of presidential appointees. Investigating the President notes the patterns of impact, from curbing presidential military engagement abroad to shifting the media focus and grabbing the narrative away from the president. The fascinating conclusion points to this under-researched area of congressional power and oversight that may have a more significant impact on presidential conduct and power than has generally been anticipated. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Investigating the President: Congressional Checks on Presidential Power (Princeton University Press, 2016) is an important analysis of both congressional and presidential power, and how these two branches interact, especially within polarized political periods. Reflecting the way this book examines both of these branches of government and the exercise of their respective powers, Investigating the President garnered two impressive book awards, from the Presidents and Executive Politics Section (Richard E. Neustadt Book Award) and from the Legislative Studies Section (Richard F. Fenno Book Award) of the American Political Science Association. Douglas Kriner and Eric Schickler explore the precedent for congressional investigations into the conduct of and within the Executive branch, while they also amassed over 100 years of data surrounding congressional investigations to discern the impact of these kinds of investigations, even when they do not result, necessarily, in articles of impeachment or indictments of presidential appointees. Investigating the President notes the patterns of impact, from curbing presidential military engagement abroad to shifting the media focus and grabbing the narrative away from the president. The fascinating conclusion points to this under-researched area of congressional power and oversight that may have a more significant impact on presidential conduct and power than has generally been anticipated. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Investigating the President: Congressional Checks on Presidential Power (Princeton University Press, 2016) is an important analysis of both congressional and presidential power, and how these two branches interact, especially within polarized political periods. Reflecting the way this book examines both of these branches of government and the exercise of their...

Investigating the President: Congressional Checks on Presidential Power (Princeton University Press, 2016) is an important analysis of both congressional and presidential power, and how these two branches interact, especially within polarized political periods. Reflecting the way this book examines both of these branches of government and the exercise of their respective powers, Investigating the President garnered two impressive book awards, from the Presidents and Executive Politics Section (Richard E. Neustadt Book Award) and from the Legislative Studies Section (Richard F. Fenno Book Award) of the American Political Science Association. Douglas Kriner and Eric Schickler explore the precedent for congressional investigations into the conduct of and within the Executive branch, while they also amassed over 100 years of data surrounding congressional investigations to discern the impact of these kinds of investigations, even when they do not result, necessarily, in articles of impeachment or indictments of presidential appointees. Investigating the President notes the patterns of impact, from curbing presidential military engagement abroad to shifting the media focus and grabbing the narrative away from the president. The fascinating conclusion points to this under-researched area of congressional power and oversight that may have a more significant impact on presidential conduct and power than has generally been anticipated. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Investigating the President: Congressional Checks on Presidential Power (Princeton University Press, 2016) is an important analysis of both congressional and presidential power, and how these two branches interact, especially within polarized political periods. Reflecting the way this book examines both of these branches of government and the exercise of their respective powers, Investigating the President garnered two impressive book awards, from the Presidents and Executive Politics Section (Richard E. Neustadt Book Award) and from the Legislative Studies Section (Richard F. Fenno Book Award) of the American Political Science Association. Douglas Kriner and Eric Schickler explore the precedent for congressional investigations into the conduct of and within the Executive branch, while they also amassed over 100 years of data surrounding congressional investigations to discern the impact of these kinds of investigations, even when they do not result, necessarily, in articles of impeachment or indictments of presidential appointees. Investigating the President notes the patterns of impact, from curbing presidential military engagement abroad to shifting the media focus and grabbing the narrative away from the president. The fascinating conclusion points to this under-researched area of congressional power and oversight that may have a more significant impact on presidential conduct and power than has generally been anticipated. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Investigating the President: Congressional Checks on Presidential Power (Princeton University Press, 2016) is an important analysis of both congressional and presidential power, and how these two branches interact, especially within polarized political periods. Reflecting the way this book examines both of these branches of government and the exercise of their... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Investigating the President: Congressional Checks on Presidential Power (Princeton University Press, 2016) is an important analysis of both congressional and presidential power, and how these two branches interact, especially within polarized political periods. Reflecting the way this book examines both of these branches of government and the exercise of their respective powers, Investigating the President garnered two impressive book awards, from the Presidents and Executive Politics Section (Richard E. Neustadt Book Award) and from the Legislative Studies Section (Richard F. Fenno Book Award) of the American Political Science Association. Douglas Kriner and Eric Schickler explore the precedent for congressional investigations into the conduct of and within the Executive branch, while they also amassed over 100 years of data surrounding congressional investigations to discern the impact of these kinds of investigations, even when they do not result, necessarily, in articles of impeachment or indictments of presidential appointees. Investigating the President notes the patterns of impact, from curbing presidential military engagement abroad to shifting the media focus and grabbing the narrative away from the president. The fascinating conclusion points to this under-researched area of congressional power and oversight that may have a more significant impact on presidential conduct and power than has generally been anticipated. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When and how did racial liberalism find its way onto the liberal – and Democratic Party – agenda? Rather than seeing the 1960s as the critical moment in the partisan realignment on race, Eric Schickler claims that the process of connecting civil rights support to the liberal project began in the late 1930s, thanks to the rise of the CIO, the efforts of African American activists, and the reaction of southern Democrats. (Encore presentation.) Eric Schickler, Racial Realignment: The Transformation of American Liberalism, 1932–1965 Princeton University Press, 2016 The post Race, Labor, and the Liberal Project appeared first on KPFA.

When and how did racial liberalism find its way onto the liberal – and Democratic Party – agenda? Rather than seeing the 1960s as the critical moment in the partisan realignment on race, Eric Schickler claims that the process of connecting civil rights support to the liberal project began in the late 1930s, thanks to the rise of the CIO, the efforts of African American activists, and the reaction of southern Democrats. Eric Schickler, Racial Realignment: The Transformation of American Liberalism, 1932–1965 Princeton University Press, 2016 The post Race, Labor, and the Liberal Project appeared first on KPFA.

We are nearing the end of the year and have for you a best-of-2016 podcast featuring an array of American politics books. Some of these books were featured on the podcast this year, but most are just new and really interesting. Another best-of is underway for political science books in other subfields. Julia Azari from Marquette University starts us out with two books: Michael Tesler’s, Post-Racial or Most-Racial (University of Chicago Press, 2016), and Katherine Cramer’s, The Politics of Resentment (University of Chicago Press, 2016). Cramer came on the podcast to talk about her book on Wisconsin when it came out. Sean McElwee from Demos then describes Eric Schickler’s book, Racial Realignment (Princeton, 2016). Schickler also visited the podcast in August to talk about his book. Next up is Lee Drutman from New America, who describes Democracy for Realists by Christopher Achen and (Princeton, 2016), and then Lilly Goren of Carroll University discusses Asymmetric Politics (Oxford, 2016) by Dave Hopkins and Matt Grossmann. Later in the podcast, Candis Watts Smith from the University of North Carolina talks about The Race Whisperer (NYU Press, 2016) by Melanye Price. And, Jason McDaniel from San Francisco State University finishes off this episode of the podcast talking about White Backlash by Marisa Abrajano & Zoltan L. Hajnal (Princeton, 2015). I hope you enjoy and please share your favorite new books in political science with me on Twitter @heathbrown with #fav2016poliscibooks. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We are nearing the end of the year and have for you a best-of-2016 podcast featuring an array of American politics books. Some of these books were featured on the podcast this year, but most are just new and really interesting. Another best-of is underway for political science books in other subfields. Julia Azari from Marquette University starts us out with two books: Michael Tesler’s, Post-Racial or Most-Racial (University of Chicago Press, 2016), and Katherine Cramer’s, The Politics of Resentment (University of Chicago Press, 2016). Cramer came on the podcast to talk about her book on Wisconsin when it came out. Sean McElwee from Demos then describes Eric Schickler’s book, Racial Realignment (Princeton, 2016). Schickler also visited the podcast in August to talk about his book. Next up is Lee Drutman from New America, who describes Democracy for Realists by Christopher Achen and (Princeton, 2016), and then Lilly Goren of Carroll University discusses Asymmetric Politics (Oxford, 2016) by Dave Hopkins and Matt Grossmann. Later in the podcast, Candis Watts Smith from the University of North Carolina talks about The Race Whisperer (NYU Press, 2016) by Melanye Price. And, Jason McDaniel from San Francisco State University finishes off this episode of the podcast talking about White Backlash by Marisa Abrajano & Zoltan L. Hajnal (Princeton, 2015). I hope you enjoy and please share your favorite new books in political science with me on Twitter @heathbrown with #fav2016poliscibooks. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We are nearing the end of the year and have for you a best-of-2016 podcast featuring an array of American politics books. Some of these books were featured on the podcast this year, but most are just new and really interesting. Another best-of is underway for political science books in other subfields. Julia Azari from Marquette University starts us out with two books: Michael Tesler’s, Post-Racial or Most-Racial (University of Chicago Press, 2016), and Katherine Cramer’s, The Politics of Resentment (University of Chicago Press, 2016). Cramer came on the podcast to talk about her book on Wisconsin when it came out. Sean McElwee from Demos then describes Eric Schickler’s book, Racial Realignment (Princeton, 2016). Schickler also visited the podcast in August to talk about his book. Next up is Lee Drutman from New America, who describes Democracy for Realists by Christopher Achen and (Princeton, 2016), and then Lilly Goren of Carroll University discusses Asymmetric Politics (Oxford, 2016) by Dave Hopkins and Matt Grossmann. Later in the podcast, Candis Watts Smith from the University of North Carolina talks about The Race Whisperer (NYU Press, 2016) by Melanye Price. And, Jason McDaniel from San Francisco State University finishes off this episode of the podcast talking about White Backlash by Marisa Abrajano & Zoltan L. Hajnal (Princeton, 2015). I hope you enjoy and please share your favorite new books in political science with me on Twitter @heathbrown with #fav2016poliscibooks. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In one of the most powerful transformations in the history of American politics, African Americans shifted loyalties to the Democratic Party while Republicans became the party of racial conservatism. How and why did this happen? Did certain moments in history cause this bipartisan ‘racial realignment?’ How has this realignment led to the political polarization of 2016? In episode 10 of Politics and Polls, professors Julian Zelizer and Sam Wang interview Eric Schickler, a political scientist at University of California, Berkeley, about his new book, “Racial Realignment: The Transformation of American Liberalism, 1932-1965” (Princeton University Press). Schickler challenges the conventional argument that this realignment occurred in the 1960s, dating the change to several decades earlier following the aftermath of the New Deal. Drawing upon rich data sources and original historic research, Schickler shows that top party leaders were among the last to move, and their choices were dictated by changes that had occurred beneath them — not unlike this year's presidential race.

Eric Schickler is the author of Racial Realignment: The Transformation of American Liberalism, 1932-1965 (Princeton University Press, 2016). Schickler is the Jeffrey and Ashley McDermott Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. Much scholarship on the racial realignment of U.S. political parties argues for an elite based explanation focused on Washington and national figures. Schickler’s new book challenges this notion with a deep-dive into the archives. He argues that rather than a top-down explanation, party realignment happened from the bottom-up. He credits the long history of the Civil Rights movement, emergence of new players in organized labor, and state and local forces. Realignment, then, is a gradual process that occurred over decades, rather than primarily in the 1960s. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Eric Schickler is the author of Racial Realignment: The Transformation of American Liberalism, 1932-1965 (Princeton University Press, 2016). Schickler is the Jeffrey and Ashley McDermott Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. Much scholarship on the racial realignment of U.S. political parties argues for an elite based explanation focused on Washington and national figures. Schickler’s new book challenges this notion with a deep-dive into the archives. He argues that rather than a top-down explanation, party realignment happened from the bottom-up. He credits the long history of the Civil Rights movement, emergence of new players in organized labor, and state and local forces. Realignment, then, is a gradual process that occurred over decades, rather than primarily in the 1960s. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Eric Schickler is the author of Racial Realignment: The Transformation of American Liberalism, 1932-1965 (Princeton University Press, 2016). Schickler is the Jeffrey and Ashley McDermott Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. Much scholarship on the racial realignment of U.S. political parties argues for an elite based explanation focused on Washington and national figures. Schickler’s new book challenges this notion with a deep-dive into the archives. He argues that rather than a top-down explanation, party realignment happened from the bottom-up. He credits the long history of the Civil Rights movement, emergence of new players in organized labor, and state and local forces. Realignment, then, is a gradual process that occurred over decades, rather than primarily in the 1960s. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Eric Schickler is the author of Racial Realignment: The Transformation of American Liberalism, 1932-1965 (Princeton University Press, 2016). Schickler is the Jeffrey and Ashley McDermott Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. Much scholarship on the racial realignment of U.S. political parties argues for an elite based explanation focused on Washington and national figures. Schickler’s new book challenges this notion with a deep-dive into the archives. He argues that rather than a top-down explanation, party realignment happened from the bottom-up. He credits the long history of the Civil Rights movement, emergence of new players in organized labor, and state and local forces. Realignment, then, is a gradual process that occurred over decades, rather than primarily in the 1960s. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Eric Schickler is the author of Racial Realignment: The Transformation of American Liberalism, 1932-1965 (Princeton University Press, 2016). Schickler is the Jeffrey and Ashley McDermott Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. Much scholarship on the racial realignment of U.S. political parties argues for an elite based explanation focused on Washington and national figures. Schickler’s new book challenges this notion with a deep-dive into the archives. He argues that rather than a top-down explanation, party realignment happened from the bottom-up. He credits the long history of the Civil Rights movement, emergence of new players in organized labor, and state and local forces. Realignment, then, is a gradual process that occurred over decades, rather than primarily in the 1960s. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Eric Schickler is the author of Racial Realignment: The Transformation of American Liberalism, 1932-1965 (Princeton University Press, 2016). Schickler is the Jeffrey and Ashley McDermott Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. Much scholarship on the racial realignment of U.S. political parties argues for an elite based explanation focused on Washington and national figures. Schickler’s new book challenges this notion with a deep-dive into the archives. He argues that rather than a top-down explanation, party realignment happened from the bottom-up. He credits the long history of the Civil Rights movement, emergence of new players in organized labor, and state and local forces. Realignment, then, is a gradual process that occurred over decades, rather than primarily in the 1960s. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Eric Schickler is the author of Racial Realignment: The Transformation of American Liberalism, 1932-1965 (Princeton University Press, 2016). Schickler is the Jeffrey and Ashley McDermott Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. Much scholarship on the racial realignment of U.S. political parties argues for an elite based...