Podcast appearances and mentions of heath brown

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 13, 2025 41:39

Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship 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

Postscript: How Trump's Executive Order Contradicts Birthright Citizenship

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 13, 2025 41:39

Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Postscript: How Trump's Executive Order Contradicts Birthright Citizenship

New Books in Law

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 13, 2025 41:39

Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Postscript: How Trump's Executive Order Contradicts Birthright Citizenship

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 13, 2025 41:39

Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Postscript: All talk and no action? How political scientists respond to racism and authoritarianism?

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 10, 2025 64:43

After the murder of George Floyd, the United States had the largest protests in the nation's history. Other public and private responses included corporations, organizations, and communities making policies, issuing statements, and engaging in conversations. Some political science departments issued statements. My guests today are three political scientists who looked at the substance of those statements – and reflected on what it means about the discipline of political science. Their article “An Incomplete Recognition: An Analysis of Political Science Department Statements after the Murder of George Floyd” appeared in the prestigious APSR (American Political Science Review) published by Cambridge University Press. In the podcast, the authors analyze what political scientists did – and did not do – and what their statements might tell us about how political scientists understand race, racism, and power. We also reflect on how political scientists have reacted to the second Trump presidency in a joint statement. Dr. Nadia E. Brown is Professor of Government and Director of the Women's and Gender Studies Program at Georgetown University. Dr. Brown's research interests lie broadly in identity politics, legislative studies, and Black women's studies. While trained as a political scientist, her scholarship on intersectionality seeks to push beyond disciplinary constraints to think more holistically about the politics of identity. She previously discussed in one of her books on the NBN: Sister Style: The Politics of Appearance for Black Women Political Elites (co-authored with Danielle Casarez Lemi). Dr. Fernando Tormos-Aponte is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Pittsburgh and Policy Lead for the Just Transition Alliance. Dr. Tormos-Aponte specializes in environmental and racial justice, intersectional solidarity, identity politics, social policy, and transnational politics. Dr. Tormos-Aponte's research on social movements focuses on how social movements cope with internal divisions and gain political influence. Tormos-Aponte also investigates civil society claims about the uneven government response across communities. His work in this area examines the causes and consequences of government neglect of socially vulnerable communities during disaster recoveries. Dr. Janelle Wong is Professor of Government and Politics and Professor of American Studies at the University of Maryland, College Park. She is also the Director of the Asian American Studies Program. Dr. Wong's research focuses on race, immigration, and political mobilization. As a scholar and teacher, Wong has worked closely with social service, labor, civil rights, and media organizations that serve the Asian American population. She has talked about her book on the NBN Immigrants, Evangelicals, and Politics in an Era of Demographic Change and also her work on The Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey as part of Heath Brown's Co-Authored series. Mentioned: Brown, Tormos-Aponte, and Wong, “An Incomplete Recognition: An Analysis of Political Science Department Statements after the Murder of George Floyd” in APSR, Cambridge APSA Letter with 1202 signatures from political science PhDs expressing urgent concern about threats to the basic design of American government and democracy. Add your name here. 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

Postscript: All talk and no action? How political scientists respond to racism and authoritarianism?

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 10, 2025 64:43

After the murder of George Floyd, the United States had the largest protests in the nation's history. Other public and private responses included corporations, organizations, and communities making policies, issuing statements, and engaging in conversations. Some political science departments issued statements. My guests today are three political scientists who looked at the substance of those statements – and reflected on what it means about the discipline of political science. Their article “An Incomplete Recognition: An Analysis of Political Science Department Statements after the Murder of George Floyd” appeared in the prestigious APSR (American Political Science Review) published by Cambridge University Press. In the podcast, the authors analyze what political scientists did – and did not do – and what their statements might tell us about how political scientists understand race, racism, and power. We also reflect on how political scientists have reacted to the second Trump presidency in a joint statement. Dr. Nadia E. Brown is Professor of Government and Director of the Women's and Gender Studies Program at Georgetown University. Dr. Brown's research interests lie broadly in identity politics, legislative studies, and Black women's studies. While trained as a political scientist, her scholarship on intersectionality seeks to push beyond disciplinary constraints to think more holistically about the politics of identity. She previously discussed in one of her books on the NBN: Sister Style: The Politics of Appearance for Black Women Political Elites (co-authored with Danielle Casarez Lemi). Dr. Fernando Tormos-Aponte is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Pittsburgh and Policy Lead for the Just Transition Alliance. Dr. Tormos-Aponte specializes in environmental and racial justice, intersectional solidarity, identity politics, social policy, and transnational politics. Dr. Tormos-Aponte's research on social movements focuses on how social movements cope with internal divisions and gain political influence. Tormos-Aponte also investigates civil society claims about the uneven government response across communities. His work in this area examines the causes and consequences of government neglect of socially vulnerable communities during disaster recoveries. Dr. Janelle Wong is Professor of Government and Politics and Professor of American Studies at the University of Maryland, College Park. She is also the Director of the Asian American Studies Program. Dr. Wong's research focuses on race, immigration, and political mobilization. As a scholar and teacher, Wong has worked closely with social service, labor, civil rights, and media organizations that serve the Asian American population. She has talked about her book on the NBN Immigrants, Evangelicals, and Politics in an Era of Demographic Change and also her work on The Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey as part of Heath Brown's Co-Authored series. Mentioned: Brown, Tormos-Aponte, and Wong, “An Incomplete Recognition: An Analysis of Political Science Department Statements after the Murder of George Floyd” in APSR, Cambridge APSA Letter with 1202 signatures from political science PhDs expressing urgent concern about threats to the basic design of American government and democracy. Add your name here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Postscript: All talk and no action? How political scientists respond to racism and authoritarianism?

New Books in Politics

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 10, 2025 64:43

After the murder of George Floyd, the United States had the largest protests in the nation's history. Other public and private responses included corporations, organizations, and communities making policies, issuing statements, and engaging in conversations. Some political science departments issued statements. My guests today are three political scientists who looked at the substance of those statements – and reflected on what it means about the discipline of political science. Their article “An Incomplete Recognition: An Analysis of Political Science Department Statements after the Murder of George Floyd” appeared in the prestigious APSR (American Political Science Review) published by Cambridge University Press. In the podcast, the authors analyze what political scientists did – and did not do – and what their statements might tell us about how political scientists understand race, racism, and power. We also reflect on how political scientists have reacted to the second Trump presidency in a joint statement. Dr. Nadia E. Brown is Professor of Government and Director of the Women's and Gender Studies Program at Georgetown University. Dr. Brown's research interests lie broadly in identity politics, legislative studies, and Black women's studies. While trained as a political scientist, her scholarship on intersectionality seeks to push beyond disciplinary constraints to think more holistically about the politics of identity. She previously discussed in one of her books on the NBN: Sister Style: The Politics of Appearance for Black Women Political Elites (co-authored with Danielle Casarez Lemi). Dr. Fernando Tormos-Aponte is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Pittsburgh and Policy Lead for the Just Transition Alliance. Dr. Tormos-Aponte specializes in environmental and racial justice, intersectional solidarity, identity politics, social policy, and transnational politics. Dr. Tormos-Aponte's research on social movements focuses on how social movements cope with internal divisions and gain political influence. Tormos-Aponte also investigates civil society claims about the uneven government response across communities. His work in this area examines the causes and consequences of government neglect of socially vulnerable communities during disaster recoveries. Dr. Janelle Wong is Professor of Government and Politics and Professor of American Studies at the University of Maryland, College Park. She is also the Director of the Asian American Studies Program. Dr. Wong's research focuses on race, immigration, and political mobilization. As a scholar and teacher, Wong has worked closely with social service, labor, civil rights, and media organizations that serve the Asian American population. She has talked about her book on the NBN Immigrants, Evangelicals, and Politics in an Era of Demographic Change and also her work on The Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey as part of Heath Brown's Co-Authored series. Mentioned: Brown, Tormos-Aponte, and Wong, “An Incomplete Recognition: An Analysis of Political Science Department Statements after the Murder of George Floyd” in APSR, Cambridge APSA Letter with 1202 signatures from political science PhDs expressing urgent concern about threats to the basic design of American government and democracy. Add your name here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

Postscript: All talk and no action? How political scientists respond to racism and authoritarianism?

education political shift driving republicans radical gop homeschooling republican party heath brown

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 10, 2025 64:43

After the murder of George Floyd, the United States had the largest protests in the nation's history. Other public and private responses included corporations, organizations, and communities making policies, issuing statements, and engaging in conversations. Some political science departments issued statements. My guests today are three political scientists who looked at the substance of those statements – and reflected on what it means about the discipline of political science. Their article “An Incomplete Recognition: An Analysis of Political Science Department Statements after the Murder of George Floyd” appeared in the prestigious APSR (American Political Science Review) published by Cambridge University Press. In the podcast, the authors analyze what political scientists did – and did not do – and what their statements might tell us about how political scientists understand race, racism, and power. We also reflect on how political scientists have reacted to the second Trump presidency in a joint statement. Dr. Nadia E. Brown is Professor of Government and Director of the Women's and Gender Studies Program at Georgetown University. Dr. Brown's research interests lie broadly in identity politics, legislative studies, and Black women's studies. While trained as a political scientist, her scholarship on intersectionality seeks to push beyond disciplinary constraints to think more holistically about the politics of identity. She previously discussed in one of her books on the NBN: Sister Style: The Politics of Appearance for Black Women Political Elites (co-authored with Danielle Casarez Lemi). Dr. Fernando Tormos-Aponte is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Pittsburgh and Policy Lead for the Just Transition Alliance. Dr. Tormos-Aponte specializes in environmental and racial justice, intersectional solidarity, identity politics, social policy, and transnational politics. Dr. Tormos-Aponte's research on social movements focuses on how social movements cope with internal divisions and gain political influence. Tormos-Aponte also investigates civil society claims about the uneven government response across communities. His work in this area examines the causes and consequences of government neglect of socially vulnerable communities during disaster recoveries. Dr. Janelle Wong is Professor of Government and Politics and Professor of American Studies at the University of Maryland, College Park. She is also the Director of the Asian American Studies Program. Dr. Wong's research focuses on race, immigration, and political mobilization. As a scholar and teacher, Wong has worked closely with social service, labor, civil rights, and media organizations that serve the Asian American population. She has talked about her book on the NBN Immigrants, Evangelicals, and Politics in an Era of Demographic Change and also her work on The Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey as part of Heath Brown's Co-Authored series. Mentioned: Brown, Tormos-Aponte, and Wong, “An Incomplete Recognition: An Analysis of Political Science Department Statements after the Murder of George Floyd” in APSR, Cambridge APSA Letter with 1202 signatures from political science PhDs expressing urgent concern about threats to the basic design of American government and democracy. Add your name here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

#189 What's Driving the Republican Party's Radical Shift on Education?

Have You Heard

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 19, 2024 39:36

For decades the Republican mantra on public schools has been to make them ‘business like,' driven by the belief that strong schools = a strong economy. No more. Today's top priorities for the GOP are moving students into private religious schools and home schools, and infusing religion into public schools. How did such a dramatic shift occur? Political scientist Heath Brown, author of Homeschooling the Right, joins us to talk about the transformation of the Republican Party and its implications for education policy. The financial support of listeners like you keeps this podcast going. Subscribe on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/HaveYouHeardPodcast

What the Trump nominations and transition foretell

The Science of Politics

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 8, 2024 76:49

President Trump has made his picks for his second term cabinet more quickly and the transition is more organized and ready for Executive Branch action. Will hopes and fears of an executive reinvention be born out or will the difficulties of the first term show their face again? David Lewis finds that Trump's first term choices did not go over well with career civil servants but that there was not as much change as sometimes implied. Heath Brown went in-depth into the last transition from Trump to Biden and foresees problems ahead from chaotic transitions and the major ambitions of Trump's second term appointees. They are both looking ahead to more radical shifts in Trump's second term, with more appointees at odds with the agencies they are directing.

donald trump joe biden transition nominations executive branch david lewis foretell heath brown

Heath Brown, "Roadblocked: Joe Biden's Rocky Transition to the Presidency" (UP of Kansas, 2024)

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 16, 2024 59:09

Political Scientist Heath Brown's new book, Roadblocked: Joe Biden's Rocky Transition to the Presidency (UP of Kansas, 2024), examines the presidential transition between the Trump Administration and the Biden Administration in late 2020 and into 2021. Presidential transitions are not all that frequent, since presidents who are re-elected do not need to go through a transition to their second term. Thus, while there have been over forty presidents, there have been far fewer transitions. And until January 6, 2021, the history of transitions has been marked by the peaceful change of power between presidents and parties. While Brown is not focusing on January 6, 2021, he is analyzing the unique transition between Donald J. Trump and Joe Biden, and their respective administrations, and how that particular transition did not necessarily reflect the institutional norms of previous presidential transitions. Roadblocked tells two stories about the roadblocks. There were the external roadblocks, which came from the various ways in which the transition from Trump to Biden was stymied by members of the Executive branch, including the Director of the Government Services Administration (GSA) and the legal process of ascertainment, as well as principals who were uncooperative with the incoming team. There were also internal roadblocks within the Biden transition team itself, which also contributed to the rocky start of the new administration. Brown delineates the oddity of how the transition itself works—which is generally secretive and private. There are general discussions of transitions in political science and history, in terms of what is supposed to happen during this process, when those leaving positions and those entering positions generally sit side by side to learn the ins and outs of the position from the person holding that position. But the Biden transition also took place during the depths of the COVID-19 crisis, before vaccines were available, so much of the transition was virtual, another twist to the already complicated process. The areas where the Biden transition team met with the most difficulty from the outgoing administration was with regard to the budgeting process and the Office of Management and Budget, and with the Intelligence, Foreign Policy, and Defense sectors. The appointees who ran these parts of the Executive branch were the least cooperative, and generally dismissive of the incoming Biden appointees. For the rest of the Executive branch, which is vast, there was generally good cooperation at most levels. In terms of the internal difficulties, there were great concerns about technological vulnerabilities and the potential for hacking. This led to a kind of fragmented dynamic within the transition team, since there was a lot of siloing and not a lot of coordination. Given the abbreviated timeline, the general secrecy that goes on with presidential transitions, and the fact that much of this transition was taking place virtually, with members of the team distributed around the country (as well as in other countries), this all contributed to an internal discombobulation in terms of the transition. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social 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

Heath Brown, "Roadblocked: Joe Biden's Rocky Transition to the Presidency" (UP of Kansas, 2024)

New Books in History

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 16, 2024 59:09

Political Scientist Heath Brown's new book, Roadblocked: Joe Biden's Rocky Transition to the Presidency (UP of Kansas, 2024), examines the presidential transition between the Trump Administration and the Biden Administration in late 2020 and into 2021. Presidential transitions are not all that frequent, since presidents who are re-elected do not need to go through a transition to their second term. Thus, while there have been over forty presidents, there have been far fewer transitions. And until January 6, 2021, the history of transitions has been marked by the peaceful change of power between presidents and parties. While Brown is not focusing on January 6, 2021, he is analyzing the unique transition between Donald J. Trump and Joe Biden, and their respective administrations, and how that particular transition did not necessarily reflect the institutional norms of previous presidential transitions. Roadblocked tells two stories about the roadblocks. There were the external roadblocks, which came from the various ways in which the transition from Trump to Biden was stymied by members of the Executive branch, including the Director of the Government Services Administration (GSA) and the legal process of ascertainment, as well as principals who were uncooperative with the incoming team. There were also internal roadblocks within the Biden transition team itself, which also contributed to the rocky start of the new administration. Brown delineates the oddity of how the transition itself works—which is generally secretive and private. There are general discussions of transitions in political science and history, in terms of what is supposed to happen during this process, when those leaving positions and those entering positions generally sit side by side to learn the ins and outs of the position from the person holding that position. But the Biden transition also took place during the depths of the COVID-19 crisis, before vaccines were available, so much of the transition was virtual, another twist to the already complicated process. The areas where the Biden transition team met with the most difficulty from the outgoing administration was with regard to the budgeting process and the Office of Management and Budget, and with the Intelligence, Foreign Policy, and Defense sectors. The appointees who ran these parts of the Executive branch were the least cooperative, and generally dismissive of the incoming Biden appointees. For the rest of the Executive branch, which is vast, there was generally good cooperation at most levels. In terms of the internal difficulties, there were great concerns about technological vulnerabilities and the potential for hacking. This led to a kind of fragmented dynamic within the transition team, since there was a lot of siloing and not a lot of coordination. Given the abbreviated timeline, the general secrecy that goes on with presidential transitions, and the fact that much of this transition was taking place virtually, with members of the team distributed around the country (as well as in other countries), this all contributed to an internal discombobulation in terms of the transition. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Heath Brown, "Roadblocked: Joe Biden's Rocky Transition to the Presidency" (UP of Kansas, 2024)

New Books in American Studies

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 16, 2024 59:09

Political Scientist Heath Brown's new book, Roadblocked: Joe Biden's Rocky Transition to the Presidency (UP of Kansas, 2024), examines the presidential transition between the Trump Administration and the Biden Administration in late 2020 and into 2021. Presidential transitions are not all that frequent, since presidents who are re-elected do not need to go through a transition to their second term. Thus, while there have been over forty presidents, there have been far fewer transitions. And until January 6, 2021, the history of transitions has been marked by the peaceful change of power between presidents and parties. While Brown is not focusing on January 6, 2021, he is analyzing the unique transition between Donald J. Trump and Joe Biden, and their respective administrations, and how that particular transition did not necessarily reflect the institutional norms of previous presidential transitions. Roadblocked tells two stories about the roadblocks. There were the external roadblocks, which came from the various ways in which the transition from Trump to Biden was stymied by members of the Executive branch, including the Director of the Government Services Administration (GSA) and the legal process of ascertainment, as well as principals who were uncooperative with the incoming team. There were also internal roadblocks within the Biden transition team itself, which also contributed to the rocky start of the new administration. Brown delineates the oddity of how the transition itself works—which is generally secretive and private. There are general discussions of transitions in political science and history, in terms of what is supposed to happen during this process, when those leaving positions and those entering positions generally sit side by side to learn the ins and outs of the position from the person holding that position. But the Biden transition also took place during the depths of the COVID-19 crisis, before vaccines were available, so much of the transition was virtual, another twist to the already complicated process. The areas where the Biden transition team met with the most difficulty from the outgoing administration was with regard to the budgeting process and the Office of Management and Budget, and with the Intelligence, Foreign Policy, and Defense sectors. The appointees who ran these parts of the Executive branch were the least cooperative, and generally dismissive of the incoming Biden appointees. For the rest of the Executive branch, which is vast, there was generally good cooperation at most levels. In terms of the internal difficulties, there were great concerns about technological vulnerabilities and the potential for hacking. This led to a kind of fragmented dynamic within the transition team, since there was a lot of siloing and not a lot of coordination. Given the abbreviated timeline, the general secrecy that goes on with presidential transitions, and the fact that much of this transition was taking place virtually, with members of the team distributed around the country (as well as in other countries), this all contributed to an internal discombobulation in terms of the transition. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Heath Brown, "Roadblocked: Joe Biden's Rocky Transition to the Presidency" (UP of Kansas, 2024)

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 16, 2024 59:09

Political Scientist Heath Brown's new book, Roadblocked: Joe Biden's Rocky Transition to the Presidency (UP of Kansas, 2024), examines the presidential transition between the Trump Administration and the Biden Administration in late 2020 and into 2021. Presidential transitions are not all that frequent, since presidents who are re-elected do not need to go through a transition to their second term. Thus, while there have been over forty presidents, there have been far fewer transitions. And until January 6, 2021, the history of transitions has been marked by the peaceful change of power between presidents and parties. While Brown is not focusing on January 6, 2021, he is analyzing the unique transition between Donald J. Trump and Joe Biden, and their respective administrations, and how that particular transition did not necessarily reflect the institutional norms of previous presidential transitions. Roadblocked tells two stories about the roadblocks. There were the external roadblocks, which came from the various ways in which the transition from Trump to Biden was stymied by members of the Executive branch, including the Director of the Government Services Administration (GSA) and the legal process of ascertainment, as well as principals who were uncooperative with the incoming team. There were also internal roadblocks within the Biden transition team itself, which also contributed to the rocky start of the new administration. Brown delineates the oddity of how the transition itself works—which is generally secretive and private. There are general discussions of transitions in political science and history, in terms of what is supposed to happen during this process, when those leaving positions and those entering positions generally sit side by side to learn the ins and outs of the position from the person holding that position. But the Biden transition also took place during the depths of the COVID-19 crisis, before vaccines were available, so much of the transition was virtual, another twist to the already complicated process. The areas where the Biden transition team met with the most difficulty from the outgoing administration was with regard to the budgeting process and the Office of Management and Budget, and with the Intelligence, Foreign Policy, and Defense sectors. The appointees who ran these parts of the Executive branch were the least cooperative, and generally dismissive of the incoming Biden appointees. For the rest of the Executive branch, which is vast, there was generally good cooperation at most levels. In terms of the internal difficulties, there were great concerns about technological vulnerabilities and the potential for hacking. This led to a kind of fragmented dynamic within the transition team, since there was a lot of siloing and not a lot of coordination. Given the abbreviated timeline, the general secrecy that goes on with presidential transitions, and the fact that much of this transition was taking place virtually, with members of the team distributed around the country (as well as in other countries), this all contributed to an internal discombobulation in terms of the transition. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Heath Brown, "Roadblocked: Joe Biden's Rocky Transition to the Presidency" (UP of Kansas, 2024)

american joe biden transition presidency heath brown

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 16, 2024 59:09

Political Scientist Heath Brown's new book, Roadblocked: Joe Biden's Rocky Transition to the Presidency (UP of Kansas, 2024), examines the presidential transition between the Trump Administration and the Biden Administration in late 2020 and into 2021. Presidential transitions are not all that frequent, since presidents who are re-elected do not need to go through a transition to their second term. Thus, while there have been over forty presidents, there have been far fewer transitions. And until January 6, 2021, the history of transitions has been marked by the peaceful change of power between presidents and parties. While Brown is not focusing on January 6, 2021, he is analyzing the unique transition between Donald J. Trump and Joe Biden, and their respective administrations, and how that particular transition did not necessarily reflect the institutional norms of previous presidential transitions. Roadblocked tells two stories about the roadblocks. There were the external roadblocks, which came from the various ways in which the transition from Trump to Biden was stymied by members of the Executive branch, including the Director of the Government Services Administration (GSA) and the legal process of ascertainment, as well as principals who were uncooperative with the incoming team. There were also internal roadblocks within the Biden transition team itself, which also contributed to the rocky start of the new administration. Brown delineates the oddity of how the transition itself works—which is generally secretive and private. There are general discussions of transitions in political science and history, in terms of what is supposed to happen during this process, when those leaving positions and those entering positions generally sit side by side to learn the ins and outs of the position from the person holding that position. But the Biden transition also took place during the depths of the COVID-19 crisis, before vaccines were available, so much of the transition was virtual, another twist to the already complicated process. The areas where the Biden transition team met with the most difficulty from the outgoing administration was with regard to the budgeting process and the Office of Management and Budget, and with the Intelligence, Foreign Policy, and Defense sectors. The appointees who ran these parts of the Executive branch were the least cooperative, and generally dismissive of the incoming Biden appointees. For the rest of the Executive branch, which is vast, there was generally good cooperation at most levels. In terms of the internal difficulties, there were great concerns about technological vulnerabilities and the potential for hacking. This led to a kind of fragmented dynamic within the transition team, since there was a lot of siloing and not a lot of coordination. Given the abbreviated timeline, the general secrecy that goes on with presidential transitions, and the fact that much of this transition was taking place virtually, with members of the team distributed around the country (as well as in other countries), this all contributed to an internal discombobulation in terms of the transition. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Heath Brown, "ROADBLOCKED, Joe Biden's Rocky Transition to the Presidency"

CUNY TV's Eldridge & Co.

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 24, 2024 24:03

Every presidential candidate, always assuming that he/she will win the election, must prepare and present a transition plan. A transfer of power plan, to be presented every four years was formalized in 1963 and is a characteristic of American democracy.

Robert G. Boatright, "Reform and Retrenchment: A Century of Efforts to Fix Primary Elections" (Oxford UP, 2024)

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 10, 2024 59:46

Until 1900, most political parties in the United States chose their leaders – either in back rooms with a few party elites making decisions or in conventions. The direct primary, in which voters select party nominees for state and federal offices, was one of the most widely adopted political reforms of the early twentieth century Progressive movement. Intuitively, the direct primary sounds democratic. Voters directly select the candidates. They have more of say over who will ultimately represent or govern them. But decades of scholarship suggests that direct primaries might not have changed the outcomes of party nominations. The conventional wisdom is that as the strength of the Progressive movement declined and voters paid attention to other issues. Party leaders were able to reassert control over candidate selection. In Reform and Retrenchment: A Century of Efforts to Fix Primary Elections (Oxford UP, 2024), Dr. Robert G. Boatright insists this narrative is incorrect and misleading for contemporary efforts to reform the primary election system in the U.S. because some of the early concerns about primaries are still with us today. The book presents data from 1928-1970 explaining the type of reforms states implemented and their success or failure. Dr. Boatright argues that the introduction of the indirect primary created more chaos than scholars have previously documented. Political parties, factions, and reform groups manipulated primary election laws to gain advantage, often under the guise of enhancing democracy. How does this history impact contemporary plans for reform of the primary system? Many suggested reforms were tried – and failed – during the 20th century. Boatright concludes that despite the clear flaws in the direct primary system, little can be done to change the primary system. Reformers should instead focus on elections and governance. The end of the podcast features his suggestions. During the podcast, Rob mentions Dr. Jack Santucci's More Parties or No Parties: The Politics of Electoral Reform in America (Oxford 2022). Dr. Robert G. Boatright is Professor of Political Science at Clark University in Worcester, MA and the Director of Research for the National Institute for Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona. His research focuses on the effects of campaign and election laws on the behavior of politicians and interest groups with a particular emphasis on primary elections and campaign finance laws. He is the author or editor of 9 books. Heath Brown and I have interviewed Rob previously on New Books in Political Science: Trumping Politics as Usual:Masculinity, Misogyny, and the 2016 Elections (with co-author Valerie Sperling) and The Deregulatory Moment?: A Comparative Perspective on Changing Campaign Finance Laws. 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

Robert G. Boatright, "Reform and Retrenchment: A Century of Efforts to Fix Primary Elections" (Oxford UP, 2024)

New Books in History

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 10, 2024 59:46

Until 1900, most political parties in the United States chose their leaders – either in back rooms with a few party elites making decisions or in conventions. The direct primary, in which voters select party nominees for state and federal offices, was one of the most widely adopted political reforms of the early twentieth century Progressive movement. Intuitively, the direct primary sounds democratic. Voters directly select the candidates. They have more of say over who will ultimately represent or govern them. But decades of scholarship suggests that direct primaries might not have changed the outcomes of party nominations. The conventional wisdom is that as the strength of the Progressive movement declined and voters paid attention to other issues. Party leaders were able to reassert control over candidate selection. In Reform and Retrenchment: A Century of Efforts to Fix Primary Elections (Oxford UP, 2024), Dr. Robert G. Boatright insists this narrative is incorrect and misleading for contemporary efforts to reform the primary election system in the U.S. because some of the early concerns about primaries are still with us today. The book presents data from 1928-1970 explaining the type of reforms states implemented and their success or failure. Dr. Boatright argues that the introduction of the indirect primary created more chaos than scholars have previously documented. Political parties, factions, and reform groups manipulated primary election laws to gain advantage, often under the guise of enhancing democracy. How does this history impact contemporary plans for reform of the primary system? Many suggested reforms were tried – and failed – during the 20th century. Boatright concludes that despite the clear flaws in the direct primary system, little can be done to change the primary system. Reformers should instead focus on elections and governance. The end of the podcast features his suggestions. During the podcast, Rob mentions Dr. Jack Santucci's More Parties or No Parties: The Politics of Electoral Reform in America (Oxford 2022). Dr. Robert G. Boatright is Professor of Political Science at Clark University in Worcester, MA and the Director of Research for the National Institute for Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona. His research focuses on the effects of campaign and election laws on the behavior of politicians and interest groups with a particular emphasis on primary elections and campaign finance laws. He is the author or editor of 9 books. Heath Brown and I have interviewed Rob previously on New Books in Political Science: Trumping Politics as Usual:Masculinity, Misogyny, and the 2016 Elections (with co-author Valerie Sperling) and The Deregulatory Moment?: A Comparative Perspective on Changing Campaign Finance Laws. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Robert G. Boatright, "Reform and Retrenchment: A Century of Efforts to Fix Primary Elections" (Oxford UP, 2024)

New Books in American Studies

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 10, 2024 59:46

Until 1900, most political parties in the United States chose their leaders – either in back rooms with a few party elites making decisions or in conventions. The direct primary, in which voters select party nominees for state and federal offices, was one of the most widely adopted political reforms of the early twentieth century Progressive movement. Intuitively, the direct primary sounds democratic. Voters directly select the candidates. They have more of say over who will ultimately represent or govern them. But decades of scholarship suggests that direct primaries might not have changed the outcomes of party nominations. The conventional wisdom is that as the strength of the Progressive movement declined and voters paid attention to other issues. Party leaders were able to reassert control over candidate selection. In Reform and Retrenchment: A Century of Efforts to Fix Primary Elections (Oxford UP, 2024), Dr. Robert G. Boatright insists this narrative is incorrect and misleading for contemporary efforts to reform the primary election system in the U.S. because some of the early concerns about primaries are still with us today. The book presents data from 1928-1970 explaining the type of reforms states implemented and their success or failure. Dr. Boatright argues that the introduction of the indirect primary created more chaos than scholars have previously documented. Political parties, factions, and reform groups manipulated primary election laws to gain advantage, often under the guise of enhancing democracy. How does this history impact contemporary plans for reform of the primary system? Many suggested reforms were tried – and failed – during the 20th century. Boatright concludes that despite the clear flaws in the direct primary system, little can be done to change the primary system. Reformers should instead focus on elections and governance. The end of the podcast features his suggestions. During the podcast, Rob mentions Dr. Jack Santucci's More Parties or No Parties: The Politics of Electoral Reform in America (Oxford 2022). Dr. Robert G. Boatright is Professor of Political Science at Clark University in Worcester, MA and the Director of Research for the National Institute for Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona. His research focuses on the effects of campaign and election laws on the behavior of politicians and interest groups with a particular emphasis on primary elections and campaign finance laws. He is the author or editor of 9 books. Heath Brown and I have interviewed Rob previously on New Books in Political Science: Trumping Politics as Usual:Masculinity, Misogyny, and the 2016 Elections (with co-author Valerie Sperling) and The Deregulatory Moment?: A Comparative Perspective on Changing Campaign Finance Laws. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Robert G. Boatright, "Reform and Retrenchment: A Century of Efforts to Fix Primary Elections" (Oxford UP, 2024)

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 10, 2024 59:46

Until 1900, most political parties in the United States chose their leaders – either in back rooms with a few party elites making decisions or in conventions. The direct primary, in which voters select party nominees for state and federal offices, was one of the most widely adopted political reforms of the early twentieth century Progressive movement. Intuitively, the direct primary sounds democratic. Voters directly select the candidates. They have more of say over who will ultimately represent or govern them. But decades of scholarship suggests that direct primaries might not have changed the outcomes of party nominations. The conventional wisdom is that as the strength of the Progressive movement declined and voters paid attention to other issues. Party leaders were able to reassert control over candidate selection. In Reform and Retrenchment: A Century of Efforts to Fix Primary Elections (Oxford UP, 2024), Dr. Robert G. Boatright insists this narrative is incorrect and misleading for contemporary efforts to reform the primary election system in the U.S. because some of the early concerns about primaries are still with us today. The book presents data from 1928-1970 explaining the type of reforms states implemented and their success or failure. Dr. Boatright argues that the introduction of the indirect primary created more chaos than scholars have previously documented. Political parties, factions, and reform groups manipulated primary election laws to gain advantage, often under the guise of enhancing democracy. How does this history impact contemporary plans for reform of the primary system? Many suggested reforms were tried – and failed – during the 20th century. Boatright concludes that despite the clear flaws in the direct primary system, little can be done to change the primary system. Reformers should instead focus on elections and governance. The end of the podcast features his suggestions. During the podcast, Rob mentions Dr. Jack Santucci's More Parties or No Parties: The Politics of Electoral Reform in America (Oxford 2022). Dr. Robert G. Boatright is Professor of Political Science at Clark University in Worcester, MA and the Director of Research for the National Institute for Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona. His research focuses on the effects of campaign and election laws on the behavior of politicians and interest groups with a particular emphasis on primary elections and campaign finance laws. He is the author or editor of 9 books. Heath Brown and I have interviewed Rob previously on New Books in Political Science: Trumping Politics as Usual:Masculinity, Misogyny, and the 2016 Elections (with co-author Valerie Sperling) and The Deregulatory Moment?: A Comparative Perspective on Changing Campaign Finance Laws. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Robert G. Boatright, "Reform and Retrenchment: A Century of Efforts to Fix Primary Elections" (Oxford UP, 2024)

New Books in Public Policy

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 10, 2024 59:46

Until 1900, most political parties in the United States chose their leaders – either in back rooms with a few party elites making decisions or in conventions. The direct primary, in which voters select party nominees for state and federal offices, was one of the most widely adopted political reforms of the early twentieth century Progressive movement. Intuitively, the direct primary sounds democratic. Voters directly select the candidates. They have more of say over who will ultimately represent or govern them. But decades of scholarship suggests that direct primaries might not have changed the outcomes of party nominations. The conventional wisdom is that as the strength of the Progressive movement declined and voters paid attention to other issues. Party leaders were able to reassert control over candidate selection. In Reform and Retrenchment: A Century of Efforts to Fix Primary Elections (Oxford UP, 2024), Dr. Robert G. Boatright insists this narrative is incorrect and misleading for contemporary efforts to reform the primary election system in the U.S. because some of the early concerns about primaries are still with us today. The book presents data from 1928-1970 explaining the type of reforms states implemented and their success or failure. Dr. Boatright argues that the introduction of the indirect primary created more chaos than scholars have previously documented. Political parties, factions, and reform groups manipulated primary election laws to gain advantage, often under the guise of enhancing democracy. How does this history impact contemporary plans for reform of the primary system? Many suggested reforms were tried – and failed – during the 20th century. Boatright concludes that despite the clear flaws in the direct primary system, little can be done to change the primary system. Reformers should instead focus on elections and governance. The end of the podcast features his suggestions. During the podcast, Rob mentions Dr. Jack Santucci's More Parties or No Parties: The Politics of Electoral Reform in America (Oxford 2022). Dr. Robert G. Boatright is Professor of Political Science at Clark University in Worcester, MA and the Director of Research for the National Institute for Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona. His research focuses on the effects of campaign and election laws on the behavior of politicians and interest groups with a particular emphasis on primary elections and campaign finance laws. He is the author or editor of 9 books. Heath Brown and I have interviewed Rob previously on New Books in Political Science: Trumping Politics as Usual:Masculinity, Misogyny, and the 2016 Elections (with co-author Valerie Sperling) and The Deregulatory Moment?: A Comparative Perspective on Changing Campaign Finance Laws. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

Robert G. Boatright, "Reform and Retrenchment: A Century of Efforts to Fix Primary Elections" (Oxford UP, 2024)

New Books in Law

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 10, 2024 59:46

Until 1900, most political parties in the United States chose their leaders – either in back rooms with a few party elites making decisions or in conventions. The direct primary, in which voters select party nominees for state and federal offices, was one of the most widely adopted political reforms of the early twentieth century Progressive movement. Intuitively, the direct primary sounds democratic. Voters directly select the candidates. They have more of say over who will ultimately represent or govern them. But decades of scholarship suggests that direct primaries might not have changed the outcomes of party nominations. The conventional wisdom is that as the strength of the Progressive movement declined and voters paid attention to other issues. Party leaders were able to reassert control over candidate selection. In Reform and Retrenchment: A Century of Efforts to Fix Primary Elections (Oxford UP, 2024), Dr. Robert G. Boatright insists this narrative is incorrect and misleading for contemporary efforts to reform the primary election system in the U.S. because some of the early concerns about primaries are still with us today. The book presents data from 1928-1970 explaining the type of reforms states implemented and their success or failure. Dr. Boatright argues that the introduction of the indirect primary created more chaos than scholars have previously documented. Political parties, factions, and reform groups manipulated primary election laws to gain advantage, often under the guise of enhancing democracy. How does this history impact contemporary plans for reform of the primary system? Many suggested reforms were tried – and failed – during the 20th century. Boatright concludes that despite the clear flaws in the direct primary system, little can be done to change the primary system. Reformers should instead focus on elections and governance. The end of the podcast features his suggestions. During the podcast, Rob mentions Dr. Jack Santucci's More Parties or No Parties: The Politics of Electoral Reform in America (Oxford 2022). Dr. Robert G. Boatright is Professor of Political Science at Clark University in Worcester, MA and the Director of Research for the National Institute for Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona. His research focuses on the effects of campaign and election laws on the behavior of politicians and interest groups with a particular emphasis on primary elections and campaign finance laws. He is the author or editor of 9 books. Heath Brown and I have interviewed Rob previously on New Books in Political Science: Trumping Politics as Usual:Masculinity, Misogyny, and the 2016 Elections (with co-author Valerie Sperling) and The Deregulatory Moment?: A Comparative Perspective on Changing Campaign Finance Laws. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Robert G. Boatright, "Reform and Retrenchment: A Century of Efforts to Fix Primary Elections" (Oxford UP, 2024)

In Conversation: An OUP Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 10, 2024 59:46

Until 1900, most political parties in the United States chose their leaders – either in back rooms with a few party elites making decisions or in conventions. The direct primary, in which voters select party nominees for state and federal offices, was one of the most widely adopted political reforms of the early twentieth century Progressive movement. Intuitively, the direct primary sounds democratic. Voters directly select the candidates. They have more of say over who will ultimately represent or govern them. But decades of scholarship suggests that direct primaries might not have changed the outcomes of party nominations. The conventional wisdom is that as the strength of the Progressive movement declined and voters paid attention to other issues. Party leaders were able to reassert control over candidate selection. In Reform and Retrenchment: A Century of Efforts to Fix Primary Elections (Oxford UP, 2024), Dr. Robert G. Boatright insists this narrative is incorrect and misleading for contemporary efforts to reform the primary election system in the U.S. because some of the early concerns about primaries are still with us today. The book presents data from 1928-1970 explaining the type of reforms states implemented and their success or failure. Dr. Boatright argues that the introduction of the indirect primary created more chaos than scholars have previously documented. Political parties, factions, and reform groups manipulated primary election laws to gain advantage, often under the guise of enhancing democracy. How does this history impact contemporary plans for reform of the primary system? Many suggested reforms were tried – and failed – during the 20th century. Boatright concludes that despite the clear flaws in the direct primary system, little can be done to change the primary system. Reformers should instead focus on elections and governance. The end of the podcast features his suggestions. During the podcast, Rob mentions Dr. Jack Santucci's More Parties or No Parties: The Politics of Electoral Reform in America (Oxford 2022). Dr. Robert G. Boatright is Professor of Political Science at Clark University in Worcester, MA and the Director of Research for the National Institute for Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona. His research focuses on the effects of campaign and election laws on the behavior of politicians and interest groups with a particular emphasis on primary elections and campaign finance laws. He is the author or editor of 9 books. Heath Brown and I have interviewed Rob previously on New Books in Political Science: Trumping Politics as Usual:Masculinity, Misogyny, and the 2016 Elections (with co-author Valerie Sperling) and The Deregulatory Moment?: A Comparative Perspective on Changing Campaign Finance Laws. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Robert G. Boatright, "Reform and Retrenchment: A Century of Efforts to Fix Primary Elections" (Oxford UP, 2024)

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 10, 2024 59:46

Until 1900, most political parties in the United States chose their leaders – either in back rooms with a few party elites making decisions or in conventions. The direct primary, in which voters select party nominees for state and federal offices, was one of the most widely adopted political reforms of the early twentieth century Progressive movement. Intuitively, the direct primary sounds democratic. Voters directly select the candidates. They have more of say over who will ultimately represent or govern them. But decades of scholarship suggests that direct primaries might not have changed the outcomes of party nominations. The conventional wisdom is that as the strength of the Progressive movement declined and voters paid attention to other issues. Party leaders were able to reassert control over candidate selection. In Reform and Retrenchment: A Century of Efforts to Fix Primary Elections (Oxford UP, 2024), Dr. Robert G. Boatright insists this narrative is incorrect and misleading for contemporary efforts to reform the primary election system in the U.S. because some of the early concerns about primaries are still with us today. The book presents data from 1928-1970 explaining the type of reforms states implemented and their success or failure. Dr. Boatright argues that the introduction of the indirect primary created more chaos than scholars have previously documented. Political parties, factions, and reform groups manipulated primary election laws to gain advantage, often under the guise of enhancing democracy. How does this history impact contemporary plans for reform of the primary system? Many suggested reforms were tried – and failed – during the 20th century. Boatright concludes that despite the clear flaws in the direct primary system, little can be done to change the primary system. Reformers should instead focus on elections and governance. The end of the podcast features his suggestions. During the podcast, Rob mentions Dr. Jack Santucci's More Parties or No Parties: The Politics of Electoral Reform in America (Oxford 2022). Dr. Robert G. Boatright is Professor of Political Science at Clark University in Worcester, MA and the Director of Research for the National Institute for Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona. His research focuses on the effects of campaign and election laws on the behavior of politicians and interest groups with a particular emphasis on primary elections and campaign finance laws. He is the author or editor of 9 books. Heath Brown and I have interviewed Rob previously on New Books in Political Science: Trumping Politics as Usual:Masculinity, Misogyny, and the 2016 Elections (with co-author Valerie Sperling) and The Deregulatory Moment?: A Comparative Perspective on Changing Campaign Finance Laws.

480 | Heath Brown: Did Biden's Rocky Transition to the Presidency Set His Administration Up for Failure?

The Realignment

Play Episode Listen Later May 23, 2024 65:02

Subscribe to The Realignment to access our exclusive Q&A episodes and support the show: https://realignment.supercast.com/REALIGNMENT NEWSLETTER: https://therealignment.substack.com/PURCHASE BOOKS AT OUR BOOKSHOP: https://bookshop.org/shop/therealignmentEmail Us: realignmentpod@gmail.comFoundation for American Innovation: https://www.thefai.org/posts/lincoln-becomes-faiHeath Brown, author of Roadblocked: Joe Biden's Rocky Transition to the Presidency and Associate Professor CUNY's John Jay College of Criminal Justice, joins The Realignment. Marshall and Heath discuss the increasing political significance and attention paid to presidential transitions, why the transition from Trump to Biden went poorly, how outside interests groups influence incoming administrations, the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, and whether Biden should have aimed for a "transformational" presidency in the first place?

donald trump project joe biden failure transition administration presidency criminal justice realignment heritage foundation john jay college american innovations heath brown

Prof. Heath Brown, Author, Homeschooling the Right

CUNY TV's Eldridge & Co.

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 1, 2022 33:56

John Jay College professor Heath Brown, author of "Homeschooling the Right: How Conservative Education Activism Erodes the State," discusses the homeschooling movement: conservative political groups/religious groups, educating children as they wish.

state prof homeschooling john jay college heath brown

Episode 503: Blood Tracking with Hounds to Save Meat

Harvesting Nature’s Wild Fish and Game Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later May 12, 2022 63:38

Justin chats with Lance Brantley and Heath Brown, both dog handlers and downed game trackers. They discuss the importance of blood tracking, saving meat, downed game, tracking dogs, how the environment affects tracking, the process of tracking, tips for preparing for a tracker, and so much more! - Leave a Review for a chance to win a hat! - Love our content? Buy us a cup of coffee to say thanks! - Subscribe to the Harvesting Nature Magazine! Special Guests: Lance Brantley: Owner of On Track K9 Deer Recovery, Dog Handler, Game Tracker Heath Brown: Dog Handler, Game Tracker, Owner OnTrack Rocky Mountain division Visit On Track K9 Deer Recovery on Instagram: @ontrackk9deerrecoveryservices (719) 251-0419 - text or call Heath for your tracking needs in Colorado and Wyoming (270) 952-2459 - text or call Lance for your Midwest tracking needs Show Notes: Harvesting Nature Magazine BHA Rendezvous Hunting camp Big Game Blend Introducing Heath and Lance The formation of a friendship Bavarian Mountain Hound Using family dogs Tracking downed game (not running dogs on live game) Differences from state to state What questions Heath asks The difference between tracking in CO vs. KY Why is the altitude a factor Difference between tracking elk and deer with dogs What's needed to track in other states The accountability of a tracker The mile push Justin's mule deer Silver linings and closure Tracking from start to finish When to back out Shot placement, time, temperature, elevation - what to consider How fast the dog works Dry hot and windy = enemy Moisture is your friend Instagram: @ontrackk9deerrecoveryservices (719) 251-0419 - text for your tracking needs (270) 952-2459 - text or call for your midwest tracking needs Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

love colorado blood midwest meat differences tracking wyoming hounds dog handler heath brown

On Track : K-9 Big Game Recovery Services

Kifarucast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 30, 2022 55:00 Very Popular

On todays episode, our own Cullen Frazier sits down with Heath Brown and Lyndsey Knudtso from On Track: K-9 Big Game Recovery Services. They talk about tracking and recovering of big game animals with the use of dogs. Awesome conversation around the use of dogs to assist in the recovery of wounded big game. If you are interested in more information about blood trailing with dogs be sure to visit United Blood Trackers.org and Rocky Mountain Big Game Recovery on Facebook. Did you like this episode? If you like what you hear go over to our Patreon and check out our levels of support, it helps up keep the lights on.

track big game recovery services heath brown united blood trackers

Last Ditch Effort - RECOVER your Elk!!!

ElkShape

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 21, 2022 57:38

The use of dogs to help recover big game is something that doesn't get talked about much here out west. Today we are recording with Heath Brown and breaking down which states allow dogs and when to call for help. Here are the resources mentioned on the cast: Heath Brown Instagram Instagram @ontrackdeerrecovery Website is www.ontrackdeerrecovery.com Facebook Group is Rocky Mountain Big Game Recovery And of course the quickest spot to find a tracker is www.United blood trackers.org Listeners of the ElkShape Podcast Exclusives: The Elk Collective - $25 off our Digital Elk Hunting Course - elkshapepodcast Wilderness Athlete 30% off your first purchase, discount code elkshape30 Vortex Wear - elkshape - 20% off Apparel Pnuma Outdoors - elkshape20 - 20% off first order Bakcou eBikes - elkshape - $300 off any bike order Northwest Retention Systems - elkshape - ElkShape Scout Model Only - free shipping & handling, 5 Day Lead Time Black Ovis - elkshape - 10% off (some exclusions apply) Black Rifle Coffee Company - elkshape - 15% off onXhunt - elkshape - 20% off Elite Membership Buck Knives Spypoint Trail Cameras Sheep Feet - elkshape - 10% off Jimmy Kits First Aid - elkshape - 10% off Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

recover black rifle coffee company last ditch effort heath brown

How to Write a Better Book: The Minority-Serving Institution Virtual Book Workshop Project

New Books in Higher Education

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 18, 2021 26:25

Book workshops produce great books, but too few scholars have access to the resources needed to organize and execute one, especially scholars at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Asian American and Pacific Islander Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities. The 2021 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting in Seattle, launched a new initiative, The Minority-Serving Institution Virtual Book Workshop Project, to provide book workshops for scholars (tenured, untenured, VAP, term appointments) at Minority-Serving Institutions. In the podcast, the co-directors of the Project discuss the importance of supporting MSI faculty, how to successfully apply, and what other authors, editors, and administrators can do to make this project a success. Niambi M. Carter, Associate Professor of Political Science at Howard University, published American While Black: African Americans, Immigration, and the Limits of Citizenship (Oxford 2019) and listeners may remember her New Books in Political Science podcast. Heath Brown, Associate Professor of Public Policy at John Jay College of Criminal Justice City University of New York (and former host of New Books Political Science), published Homeschooling the Right: How Conservative Education Activism Erodes the State (Columbia 2021) and Lilly Goren interviewed him for NBPS. Minority-Serving Institution Virtual Book Workshop | Deadline: January 14, 2022 | Apply Now! Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How to Write a Better Book: The Minority-Serving Institution Virtual Book Workshop Project

Scholarly Communication

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 18, 2021 26:25

Book workshops produce great books, but too few scholars have access to the resources needed to organize and execute one, especially scholars at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Asian American and Pacific Islander Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities. The 2021 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting in Seattle, launched a new initiative, The Minority-Serving Institution Virtual Book Workshop Project, to provide book workshops for scholars (tenured, untenured, VAP, term appointments) at Minority-Serving Institutions. In the podcast, the co-directors of the Project discuss the importance of supporting MSI faculty, how to successfully apply, and what other authors, editors, and administrators can do to make this project a success. Niambi M. Carter, Associate Professor of Political Science at Howard University, published American While Black: African Americans, Immigration, and the Limits of Citizenship (Oxford 2019) and listeners may remember her New Books in Political Science podcast. Heath Brown, Associate Professor of Public Policy at John Jay College of Criminal Justice City University of New York (and former host of New Books Political Science), published Homeschooling the Right: How Conservative Education Activism Erodes the State (Columbia 2021) and Lilly Goren interviewed him for NBPS. Minority-Serving Institution Virtual Book Workshop | Deadline: January 14, 2022 | Apply Now! Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How to Write a Better Book: The Minority-Serving Institution Virtual Book Workshop Project

New Books in Education

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 18, 2021 26:25

Book workshops produce great books, but too few scholars have access to the resources needed to organize and execute one, especially scholars at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Asian American and Pacific Islander Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities. The 2021 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting in Seattle, launched a new initiative, The Minority-Serving Institution Virtual Book Workshop Project, to provide book workshops for scholars (tenured, untenured, VAP, term appointments) at Minority-Serving Institutions. In the podcast, the co-directors of the Project discuss the importance of supporting MSI faculty, how to successfully apply, and what other authors, editors, and administrators can do to make this project a success. Niambi M. Carter, Associate Professor of Political Science at Howard University, published American While Black: African Americans, Immigration, and the Limits of Citizenship (Oxford 2019) and listeners may remember her New Books in Political Science podcast. Heath Brown, Associate Professor of Public Policy at John Jay College of Criminal Justice City University of New York (and former host of New Books Political Science), published Homeschooling the Right: How Conservative Education Activism Erodes the State (Columbia 2021) and Lilly Goren interviewed him for NBPS. Minority-Serving Institution Virtual Book Workshop | Deadline: January 14, 2022 | Apply Now! Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/education

Heath Brown, "Homeschooling the Right: How Conservative Education Activism Erodes the State" (Columbia UP, 2021)

Off the Page: A Columbia University Press Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later May 6, 2021 56:14

Political Scientist Heath Brown's new book, Homeschooling the Right: How Conservative Education Activism Erodes the State (Columbia UP, 2021) is an excellent overview of the homeschooling movement in the United States, but it is much more than an exploration of that movement, since it centers on the way that this movement developed into a parallel political structure within states and localities with substantial capacity to influence policy and politics. Brown notes that initially the homeschool movement was ideologically diverse, but that over the past forty years it has become much more directly connected to conservative politics and the Religious Right. As parents chose to opt out of public education and provide education for their children at home, an entire industry grew up around this undertaking, providing, in the pre-internet days, support, content, approaches, and the means to help parents negotiate this at home. Along the way, as this movement continued to grow and expand, even though it was composed of only a fraction of school-age children, it also became a politically vocal movement, with lobbyists who worked on behalf of homeschoolers to keep government intrusion and regulation at bay. These threads came together and helped to mobilize the members of the homeschool movement. Brown argues that the ideology and the political dimensions of the homeschool movement ultimately migrated over to the Tea Party Movement that takes root in the first decade of the 21st century, since the homeschool ideas are pulling together conservative libertarianism in the anti-government, anti-regulatory vein, and the reintegration of Christian beliefs within academic settings. As we discussed the book, Brown noted that every Republican presidential candidate over the past two decades has paid attention to the homeschool movement, and that President George W. Bush made a point of thanking the homeschool parents and children who had worked so diligently on his campaign and with the GOP Get Out The Vote efforts, since the homeschool students were able to fold these experiences into their curriculum and assignments. The Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), which developed to provide legal support for home school advocates across the states, had initially become a key player in conservative politics, but has now refocused much more narrowly, specifically on homeschool policy. Homeschooling the Right also gets at the complicated position of the homeschool movement within a democracy, since the movement itself is a way of removing the individual or the family from the public sphere. What is ironic, and important to understand, as Brown notes, is that this political movement has a louder, heightened political voice because of the capacity to mobilize many of its adherents, thus it is both actively inside and outside the political sphere. This is a wonderfully written book and so accessible to readers—and it will be of interest to many across a broad spectrum of disciplines. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj.

#24: Falcon and Winter Soldier Episode #4 Reaction! Guest: Heath Brown

Captain America Comic Book Fans

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 11, 2021 40:08

Reacting to Falcon and Winter Soldier Episode #4 "The Whole World is Watching!" Heath Brown joins Rick & Bob to discuss their reaction to this episode (WOWZERS!), how the story compares to the comics, as well as predictions for what happens next! SPOILER ALERT - You should watch the forth episode before listening to this podcast! Connect with Rick & Bob and fellow Captain America fans at https://www.facebook.com/groups/captainamericacomicbookfans Enjoy this podcast series? Please help by donating at: https://anchor.fm/capcomicbookfans/support Please subscribe, rate and review! Want to be part of the show? Leave a recorded message at https://anchor.fm/capcomicbookfans --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/capcomicbookfans/support

spoilers watching soldiers falcon captain america reacting whole world falcon and winter soldier wowzers winter soldier episode heath brown

Homeschooling the Right: Conservative Education and Political Activism (with Heath Brown)

MindShift Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 23, 2020 43:41

This week's episode features Heath Brown, associate professor at CUNY and author of the upcoming book Homeschooling the Right: How Conservative Education Activism Erodes the State, which is expected to drop in early 2021. Heath has done a tremendous amount of research into not just homeschooling, but specifically the world of Christian homeschooling. What he has uncovered in the ultra-secretive world is that while they don't want to be studied or monitored by state or government controls, at the same time they are having an increasingly outsized political influence in terms of legislation. Moreover, conservative homeschooling groups are increasingly making use of homeschooled children and young people both to influence, and work as free labor for, conservative political campaigns. Learn more about these trends in this fascinating discussion with Heath Brown! Support MindShift Podcast on Patreon! Contact Information Follow Heath on Twitter @HeathBrown Follow me on Twitter @MindShift2018 Like the MindShift Podcast Facebook Page

education state conservatives homeschooling cuny political activism rushdoony heath brown

Co-Authored: Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones on American Politics and Policy

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 5, 2020 37:41

The Co-Authored podcast takes you behind the major academic collaborations in the study of politics. The first episode of the Co-Authored podcast focuses the multiple decade collaboration between Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones. This study initially focused on American politics and policy change, but it grew and grew to encompass new questions about information and new places stretched out across the world. Listen to the co-authors, collaborators, and former student share all the inside secrets. The Co-Authored podcast is supported by the American Political Science Association Centennial Center and the New Books Network. It is written and produced by Heath Brown and edited by Sam Anderson. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

american policy american politics new books network co authored sam anderson bryan jones heath brown frank baumgartner

Cyril Ghosh, "De-Moralizing Gay Rights: Some Queer Remarks on LGBT+ Rights Politics in the US" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018)

New Books in Human Rights

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 9, 2019 38:20

In his book, De-Moralizing Gay Rights: Some Queer Remarks on LGBT+ Rights Politics in the US(Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), Cyril Ghosh interrogates three arenas of debate over LGBT+ rights in the contemporary American landscape—debates over and critiques of pinkwashing, the recent US Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), and Kenji Yoshino's concept of gay covering. Ghosh is associate professor of political science at Wagner College and was the original host of the New Books in Political Science podcast. In each case, Ghosh identifies a tension in the promotion of LGBT+ rights, from both liberal and radical perspectives, demonstrating that these discourses often (re/)produce their own assimilationist logics. Drawing on queer theoretical frameworks, Ghosh ultimately argues for an approach to theorizing rights that takes seriously the project of resisting and dismantling assimilationist demands. The podcast is co-hosted by Heath Brown and Emily Crandall. Heath Brown is associate professor of public policy at the City University of New York, John Jay College and The Graduate Center. You can follow him on Twitter @heathbrown Emily K. Crandall holds a PhD in Political Science from the Graduate Center, CUNY. She is a fellow at the Center for Global Ethics and Politics in the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Cyril Ghosh, "De-Moralizing Gay Rights: Some Queer Remarks on LGBT+ Rights Politics in the US" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018)

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 9, 2019 38:20

In his book, De-Moralizing Gay Rights: Some Queer Remarks on LGBT+ Rights Politics in the US(Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), Cyril Ghosh interrogates three arenas of debate over LGBT+ rights in the contemporary American landscape—debates over and critiques of pinkwashing, the recent US Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), and Kenji Yoshino's concept of gay covering. Ghosh is associate professor of political science at Wagner College and was the original host of the New Books in Political Science podcast. In each case, Ghosh identifies a tension in the promotion of LGBT+ rights, from both liberal and radical perspectives, demonstrating that these discourses often (re/)produce their own assimilationist logics. Drawing on queer theoretical frameworks, Ghosh ultimately argues for an approach to theorizing rights that takes seriously the project of resisting and dismantling assimilationist demands. The podcast is co-hosted by Heath Brown and Emily Crandall. Heath Brown is associate professor of public policy at the City University of New York, John Jay College and The Graduate Center. You can follow him on Twitter @heathbrown Emily K. Crandall holds a PhD in Political Science from the Graduate Center, CUNY. She is a fellow at the Center for Global Ethics and Politics in the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

B. T. Gervais and I. L. Morris, “Reactionary Republicans: How the Tea Party in the House Paved the Way for Trump's Victory” (Oxford UP, 2018)

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 10, 2018 23:55

There's been a lot written about the Tea Party, but nothing focused on members of Congress like the new book, Reactionary Republicans: How the Tea Party in the House Paved the Way for Trump's Victory (Oxford University Press, 2018) by Bryan T. Gervais and Irwin L. Morris. Gervais is assistant professor in the Department of Political Science and Geography at the University of Texas at San Antonio; Morris is professor and chair of the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland, College Park. In the book, Gervais and Morris disentangle what it meant to be affiliated with the Tea Party in the 112th and 113th congresses. What they suggest is that members of Congress fall into several categories based on self-identification and endorsements by Tea Party interest groups. Using these categories, the authors show the ways that Tea Party members of Congress vote and communicate. They find that Tea Party members resemble other Republican members except when it comes to certain social issues. They also examine social media communications and find that Tea Party members shared messages that were less civil and angrier than other members. These patterns show some of the ways that the Tea Party paved the way for Donald Trump's campaign and presidential victory in 2016. This podcast was hosted by Heath Brown, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, John Jay College and the Graduate Center at the City University of New York. You can follow him on Twitter @heathbrown. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

new york university texas donald trump politics government victory congress maryland republicans san antonio assistant professor morris political science public policy geography city university tea party college park gervais john jay college graduate center reactionary oxford up heath brown house paved bryan t gervais reactionary republicans how

Suzanne Mettler, “The Government-Citizen Disconnect” (Russell Sage Foundation Press, 2018)

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 9, 2018 24:37

One of the paradoxes of US politics today is the widely dispersed benefits, but overall distrust, of government. Citizens enjoy many types of social policy, yet reject the process that provides for much aid to individual health, income, and education. What explains this paradox? In The Government-Citizen Disconnect (Russell Sage Foundation Press 2018), Suzanne Mettler finds several answers. Metter is the Clinton Rossiter Professor of American Institutions in the Government Department at Cornell University. Relying on original survey data, Mettler finds that nearly all Americans participate in some form of social policy, though many are largely unaware of it. This unawareness reflects the design of policies within the “submerged state” which hides several public benefits provided through intricacies of the tax code. In part a result, many Americans reject government programs in general as not directly beneficial to them, and support an anti-social policy agenda in Congress. In a period of increasing polarization, this long-standing pattern of American public opinion has been exacerbated and has the potential to undermine social equality and democracy. This podcast was hosted by Heath Brown, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, John Jay College and the Graduate Center at the City University of New York. You can follow him on Twitter @heathbrown. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Thomas Ogorzalek, “The Cities on the Hill: How Urban Institutions Transformed National Politics” (Oxford UP, 2018)

New Books in Urban Studies

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 3, 2018 24:53

Urban politics scholars have long studied what makes cities interesting. Rarely, however, have these unique qualities of cities been studied in the national context. How do representatives of cities advocate for urban interests in Washington? Do they work together for cities, as a whole, or individually, for district needs within each city? Thomas Ogorzalek's new book, The Cities on the Hill: How Urban Institutions Transformed National Politics (Oxford University Press, 2018) takes on these questions. Ogorzalek is assistant professor of political science and urban studies at Northwestern University. Studying the “long” New Deal, Ogorzalek finds that on certain issues, especially the provision of public goods and redistribution, city representatives stick together. Members of Congress who represent districts based in cities vote as one, even controlling for other factors, such as partisanship, and diversity of ideology. Supporting this consensus are institutions working to advocate for cities, including local political parties and newly formed interest groups, such as the US Conference of Mayors. This podcast was hosted by Heath Brown, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, John Jay College and the Graduate Center at the City University of New York. You can follow him on Twitter @heathbrown. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Thomas Ogorzalek, “The Cities on the Hill: How Urban Institutions Transformed National Politics” (Oxford UP, 2018)

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 3, 2018 24:53

Urban politics scholars have long studied what makes cities interesting. Rarely, however, have these unique qualities of cities been studied in the national context. How do representatives of cities advocate for urban interests in Washington? Do they work together for cities, as a whole, or individually, for district needs within each city? Thomas Ogorzalek's new book, The Cities on the Hill: How Urban Institutions Transformed National Politics (Oxford University Press, 2018) takes on these questions. Ogorzalek is assistant professor of political science and urban studies at Northwestern University. Studying the “long” New Deal, Ogorzalek finds that on certain issues, especially the provision of public goods and redistribution, city representatives stick together. Members of Congress who represent districts based in cities vote as one, even controlling for other factors, such as partisanship, and diversity of ideology. Supporting this consensus are institutions working to advocate for cities, including local political parties and newly formed interest groups, such as the US Conference of Mayors. This podcast was hosted by Heath Brown, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, John Jay College and the Graduate Center at the City University of New York. You can follow him on Twitter @heathbrown. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jeffrey Dudas, “Raised Right: Fatherhood in Modern American Conservatism” (Stanford UP, 2018)

New Books In Public Health

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 27, 2018 26:05

With the rise of President Donald Trump as the head of the Republican Party, once a Democrat and liberal on many social issues, what does it mean to be a conservative today? What is the glue that connects Trump to other figures and ideas central to the conservative movement, both historical and contemporary? Jeffrey Dudas has an answer to this question: paternalism. Dudas has written Raised Right: Fatherhood in Modern American Conservatism (Stanford University Press, 2018). He is Associate Professor of Political Science and Affiliate Faculty of American Studies at the University of Connecticut. For Dudas, what links corporate interests, small-government libertarians, social and racial traditionalists, and evangelical Christians together is a paternal rights discourse that centers around the importance of fatherhood and the family. Raised Right focuses on three conservative figures: National Review editor William F. Buckley, Jr., President Ronald Reagan, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Through extensive analysis of their writing and speeches, Dudas argues that conservatives have focused on paternal discipline as an organizing principle of their worldview since the post-World War II period. Though Trump is not the focus of the book, it is hard to read Raised Right without thinking about the President's style, rhetoric, and current policy agenda as illustrative of Dudas' thesis. This podcast was hosted by Heath Brown, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, John Jay College and the Graduate Center at the City University of New York. You can follow him on Twitter @heathbrown. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jonathan Engel, “Unaffordable: American Healthcare from Johnson to Trump” (U Wisconsin Press, 2018)

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 19, 2018 29:49

Earlier this year, Jamila Michener visited the podcast to talk about her new book, Fragmented Democracy, about Medicaid and the state-based structure that results in very different experiences of Medicaid recipients from state to state. We return to the topic of health care this week. Jonathan Engel has recently written Unaffordable: American Healthcare from Johnson to Trump (University of Wisconsin Press, 2018). Engel is a professor in the School of Public Affairs at Baruch College and an adjunct professor of health policy and management at the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University. In Unaffordable, we read a fifty-year history of the adoption of a variety of health care programs, from Medicare to Obamacare. Engel unravels the implications of health policy design for the delivery of services. He pays particular attention to the ways that health policy design have resulted in rising health care costs and the unaffordability of health care for many Americans. This podcast was hosted by Heath Brown, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, John Jay College and the Graduate Center at the City University of New York. You can follow him on Twitter @heathbrown. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

new york donald trump school americans columbia university public health assistant professor medicare public policy medicaid public affairs engel obamacare city university john jay college baruch college graduate center mailman school wisconsin press trump university trump u heath brown jamila michener jonathan engel fragmented democracy unaffordable american healthcare

Andrew R. Lewis, “The Rights Turn in Conservative Christian Politics: How Abortion Transformed the Culture Wars” (Cambridge UP, 2017)

Exchanges: A Cambridge UP Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 6, 2017 28:22

Andrew R. Lewis is the author of the new book, The Rights Turn in Conservative Christian Politics: How Abortion Transformed the Culture Wars (Cambridge University Press, 2017). Lewis is assistant professor of political science at the University of Cincinnati and is the book review editor at the journal of Politics & Religion. Following up on recent podcasts with Daniel Bennett and Christopher Baylor, The Rights Turn demonstrates a transformation of American politics with the waning of Christian America. As opposed to conservatives focusing on morality and liberals on rights, both sides now emphasize rights-based arguments to win policy battles and build support. Based on historical and quantitative data, Lewis analyzes evangelical advocacy and public opinion related to abortion, free speech, and the death penalty. He shows how rights claims have been used to protect evangelicals, whose cultural positions are increasingly in the minority. Heath Brown, associate professor, City University of New York, John Jay College and CUNY Grad Center, hosted this podcast. Please rate the podcast on iTunes and share it on social media. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

american new york university politics religion rights wars cincinnati abortion conservatives transformed culture war city university john jay college conservative christians christian america cambridge up daniel bennett heath brown cuny grad center andrew r lewis christopher baylor conservative christian politics rights turn

Andrew R. Lewis, “The Rights Turn in Conservative Christian Politics: How Abortion Transformed the Culture Wars” (Cambridge UP, 2017)

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 6, 2017 28:22

Andrew R. Lewis is the author of the new book, The Rights Turn in Conservative Christian Politics: How Abortion Transformed the Culture Wars (Cambridge University Press, 2017). Lewis is assistant professor of political science at the University of Cincinnati and is the book review editor at the journal of Politics & Religion. Following up on recent podcasts with Daniel Bennett and Christopher Baylor, The Rights Turn demonstrates a transformation of American politics with the waning of Christian America. As opposed to conservatives focusing on morality and liberals on rights, both sides now emphasize rights-based arguments to win policy battles and build support. Based on historical and quantitative data, Lewis analyzes evangelical advocacy and public opinion related to abortion, free speech, and the death penalty. He shows how rights claims have been used to protect evangelicals, whose cultural positions are increasingly in the minority. Heath Brown, associate professor, City University of New York, John Jay College and CUNY Grad Center, hosted this podcast. Please rate the podcast on iTunes and share it on social media.

american new york university politics religion rights wars cincinnati abortion conservatives transformed culture war city university john jay college conservative christians christian america cambridge up daniel bennett heath brown cuny grad center andrew r lewis christopher baylor conservative christian politics rights turn

Christopher Baylor, “First to the Party: The Group Origins of Political Transformations” (Penn Press, 2017)

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 30, 2017 22:41

Christopher Baylor is the author of First to the Party: The Group Origins of Political Transformations (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017). Baylor is an American Political Science Association Congressional Fellow. Based on substantial archival research, Baylor's book positions interest groups at the center of what makes parties change. Using the case of civil rights organizations and the Democratic Party in the 1940s and cultural conservative organizations and the Republican Party in the 1980s and 90s, First to the Party shows how groups gain influence within existing political parties and foment transformation. He argues that parties respond less to public opinion and voters than to powerful groups, especially during the nomination process. Baylor deepens what we know about political parties, interest groups, and their interactions. Heath Brown, associate professor, City University of New York, John Jay College and CUNY Grad Center, hosted this podcast. Please rate the podcast on iTunes and share it on social media. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

new york baylor democratic party republican party city university john jay college pennsylvania press penn press heath brown cuny grad center political transformations christopher baylor party the group origins

Timothy LaPira, “Revolving Door Lobbying: Public Service, Private Influence, and the Unequal Representation of Interests” (U Press of Kansas, 2017)