A strong case can be made that the South has had the greatest impact of any region on the transformation of U.S. politics and government. Since 1968, we have seen the demise of the "solid (Democratic) South" and the rise of the Republican-dominated South; the rise of the largely southern white evangelical religious right movement; and demographic changes that have vastly altered the political landscape of the region and national politics. Overriding all of these changes is the major constant of southern politics: race. Since the 1990s, the Republican Party has dominated politics in the Southern United States. Race relations were a large factor in this shift that began about a half century ago, but nonetheless, race and demographic change are once again realigning party politics in the region, this time back toward an emergent Democratic Party. Membership in the Southern Democratic Party is majority African American, Latino, and Asian, and rapidly expanding with an influx of immigrants, primarily Latino. While race continues to shape politics in the region, population growth is, as this book argues, the major factor affecting politics in the South. In fact, the populations of Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia have grown more rapidly than the population of the nation as a whole over the past half century--and each of these states has gained at least one seat in Congress. These growth states are the ones in which populations are diversifying, economies are surging, and Democrats are making headway. They, along with Florida and Texas, are also among the most competitive states with the largest numbers of Electoral College votes in the region. It is likely, therefore, that among the key battlegrounds for determining the presidency will be the southern states with the fastest growing populations. This will especially be the case once the Latino population in Texas mobilizes. This book describes and analyzes the ways in which demographic change has shaped politics in the South since the late 1960s and may enable the Democratic Party in the future to re-take politics in the region, and even shut out Republicans from the nation's highest office.
Introduction : Black statewide candidacies in the South -- Georgia : Stacey Abrams's bid to become America's first Black woman governor comes up short -- Florida : Andrew Gillum narrowly loses bid to become state's first black governor -- Virginia : African American statewide candidates navigate a complicated past (and present) -- South Carolina : Jaime Harrison comes up well short -- Raphael Warnock : Black Democratic breakthrough -- How African American candidates navigate the Southern Democratic primaries : from Chisholm and Jackson, to Obama and today -- Conclusion : the future for African American statewide candidates in the South.
The phenomenal growth of minority populations in the South, particularly Latinos and Asians, is quickly transforming the region's politics. Some argue that demography is destiny, and yet the analyses presented in The Changing Political South demonstrate little such certainty about the future competitiveness of the two major parties in the South. This volume substantiates the strong and persistent Democratic leanings of Black voters and a majority of women, yet it finds that the rising minority populations' votes are increasingly "up for grabs" by the two major parties. How the two parties fare in the future of Southern politics will be driven largely by their abilities to reach these new voters.
In this volume Rozell and Peterson bring together a collection of new essays exploring the unparalleled impact of Franklin D. Roosevelt on the modern presidency. Of all the modern presidents, FDR looms largest. Indeed, most scholars date the origins of the modern presidency to FDR, and many assert that no one since has achieved his level of greatness in office. The essays are organized into two broad sections: The first examines FDR's impact on the creation and development of the administrative presidency and the legacy of the New Deal; the second looks at FDR's legacy to presidential leadership and the exercise of presidential powers. An important volume for scholars and other researchers of the FDR era and the modern American presidency.
Early Americans were suspicious of centralized authority and executive power. Casting away the yoke of England and its king, the founding fathers shared in this distrust as they set out to pen the Constitution. Weighing a need for consolidated leadership with a demand for states' rights, they established a large federal republic with limited dominion over the states, leaving most of the governing responsibility with the former colonies. With this dual system of federalism, the national government held the powers of war, taxation, and commerce, and the ability to pass the laws necessary to uphold these functions. Although the federal role has grown substantially since then, states and local governments continue to perform most of the duties in civil and criminal law, business and professional licensing, the management of infrastructure and public services: roads, schools, libraries, sanitation, land use and development, and etc. Despite the critical roles of state and local governments, there is little awareness-or understanding-of the nature and operations of the federal system. This Very Short Introduction provides a concise overview of federalism, from its origins and evolution to the key events and constitutional decisions that have defined its framework. Although the primary focus is on the United States, other federal systems, including Brazil, Canada, India, Germany, Russia, South Africa, Switzerland, and the EU, are addressed.
“I have an Article II,” Donald Trump has announced, citing the US Constitution, “where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” Though this statement would have come as a shock to the framers of the Constitution, it fairly sums up the essence of “the unitary executive theory.” This theory, which emerged during the Reagan administration and gathered strength with every subsequent presidency, counters the system of checks and balances that constrains a president’s executive impulses. It also, the authors of this book contend, counters the letter and spirit of the Constitution. In their account of the rise of unitary executive theory over the last several decades, the authors refute the notion that this overweening view of executive power has been a common feature of the presidency from the beginning of the Republic. Rather, they show, it was invented under the Reagan Administration, got a boost during the George W. Bush administration, and has found its logical extension in the Trump administration. This critique of the unitary executive theory reveals it as a misguided model for understanding presidential powers. While its adherents argue that greater presidential power makes government more efficient, the results have shown otherwise. Dismantling the myth that presidents enjoy unchecked plenary powers, the authors advocate for principles of separation of powers—of checks and balances—that honor the Constitution and support the republican government its framers envisioned. A much-needed primer on presidential power, from the nation’s founding through Donald Trump’s impeachment, The Unitary Executive Theory: A Danger to Constitutional Government makes a robust and persuasive case for a return to our constitutional limits.
Executive Privilege—called “the definitive contemporary work on the subject” by the Journal of Politics—is widely considered the best in-depth history and analysis of executive privilege and its relation to the proper scope and limits of presidential power. This fourth edition is revised and updated to include the two Obama administrations and the first three years of the Trump administration. The new edition includes President Obama’s failure to live up to the high expectations of his campaign promises, and, President Trump’s controversies, including the investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, the proposed addition of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census, and the ongoing inquiry into White House security clearances.
This study is a revision of my doctoral dissertation written at the University of Virginia. As a student of the American presidency I became interested in how presidential leadership is defined, analyzed and assessed. Students of the presidency spend a great deal of time studying leadership theory and debating the merits of different measures of leadership "success." These students draw inspiration for their ideas from noted presidency scholars such as Edward S. Corwin, Clinton Rossiter, and Richard Neustadt.
This essay collection is a retrospective analysis of the Washington administration's importance to the understanding of the modern presidency. Contemporary presidential scholarship gives little attention to the enormous impact that Washington's actions had on establishing the presidency. Most contemporary literature starts with 1933 and, although FDR's impact on the development of the modern institution of the presidency is undeniable, Washington's actions in office also established standards for practices that continue to this day. This analysis of the Washington presidency begins with an examination of Washington's leadership and its relevance to the modern presidency. The second group of essays looks at different aspects of presidential powers and the precedents established by the Washington administration. The third section examines Washington's press coverage, looking at the origins of Washington's image and the various myths in the press as well as the president's difficult relations with his contemporary press. A thoughtful and important corrective that will be of interest to scholars, students, and researchers involved with the American presidency and its history.
Dynamics of American Political Parties examines the process of gradual change that inexorably shapes and reshapes American politics. Parties and the politicians that comprise them seek control of government in order to implement their visions of proper public policy. To gain control parties need to win elections, and winning elections requires assembling an electoral coalition that is larger than that crafted by the opposition. Uncertainty rules and intra-party conflict rages as different factions and groups within the parties debate the proper course(s) of action and battle it out for control of the party. Parties can never be sure how their strategic maneuvers will play out, and, even when it appears that a certain strategy has been successful, party leaders are unclear about how long apparent success will last. Change unfolds slowly, in fits and starts.
Faced with crises that would challenge any president, Barack Obama authorized "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg to oversee the $20 billion fund for victims of the BP oil spill and to establish—and enforce—executive pay guidelines for companies that received $700 billion in federal bailout money. Feinberg's office comes with vastly expansive policy powers along with seemingly deep pockets; yet his position does not formally fit anywhere within our government's constitutional framework. The very word "czar" seems inappropriate in a constitutional republic, but it has come to describe any executive branch official who has significant authority over a policy area, works independently of agency or Department heads, and is not confirmed by the Senate-or subject to congressional oversight. Mitchel Sollenberger and Mark Rozell provide the first comprehensive overview of presidential czars, tracing the history of the position from its origins through its initial expansion under FDR and its dramatic growth during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. The President's Czars shows how, under pressure to act on the policy front, modern presidents have increasingly turned to these appointed officials, even though by doing so they violate the Appointments Clause and can also run into conflict with the nondelegation doctrine and the principle that a president cannot unilaterally establish offices without legislative support. Further, Sollenberger and Rozell contend that czars not only are ill-conceived but also disrupt a governing system based on democratic accountability. A sobering overview solidly grounded in public law analysis, this study serves as a counter-argument to those who would embrace an excessively powerful presidency, one with relatively limited constraints. Among other things, it proposes the restoration of accountability—starting with significant changes to Title 3 of the U.S. Code, which authorizes the president to appoint White House employees "without regard to any other provision of law." Ultimately, the authors argue that czars have generally not done a good job of making the executive branch bureaucracy more effective and efficient. Whatever utility presidents may see in appointing czars, Sollenberger and Rozell make a strong case that the overall damage to our constitutional system is great-and that this runaway practice has to stop.
In this volume Rozell and Peterson bring together a collection of new essays exploring the unparalleled impact of Franklin D. Roosevelt on the modern presidency. Of all the modern presidents, FDR looms largest. Indeed, most scholars date the origins of the modern presidency to FDR, and many assert that no one since has achieved his level of greatness in office. The essays are organized into two broad sections: The first examines FDR's impact on the creation and development of the administrative presidency and the legacy of the New Deal; the second looks at FDR's legacy to presidential leadership and the exercise of presidential powers. An important volume for scholars and other researchers of the FDR era and the modern American presidency.
Executive Privilege—called “the definitive contemporary work on the subject” by the Journal of Politics—is widely considered the best in-depth history and analysis of executive privilege and its relation to the proper scope and limits of presidential power. This fourth edition is revised and updated to include the two Obama administrations and the first three years of the Trump administration. The new edition includes President Obama’s failure to live up to the high expectations of his campaign promises, and, President Trump’s controversies, including the investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, the proposed addition of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census, and the ongoing inquiry into White House security clearances.
Faced with crises that would challenge any president, Barack Obama authorized "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg to oversee the $20 billion fund for victims of the BP oil spill and to establish—and enforce—executive pay guidelines for companies that received $700 billion in federal bailout money. Feinberg's office comes with vastly expansive policy powers along with seemingly deep pockets; yet his position does not formally fit anywhere within our government's constitutional framework. The very word "czar" seems inappropriate in a constitutional republic, but it has come to describe any executive branch official who has significant authority over a policy area, works independently of agency or Department heads, and is not confirmed by the Senate-or subject to congressional oversight. Mitchel Sollenberger and Mark Rozell provide the first comprehensive overview of presidential czars, tracing the history of the position from its origins through its initial expansion under FDR and its dramatic growth during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. The President's Czars shows how, under pressure to act on the policy front, modern presidents have increasingly turned to these appointed officials, even though by doing so they violate the Appointments Clause and can also run into conflict with the nondelegation doctrine and the principle that a president cannot unilaterally establish offices without legislative support. Further, Sollenberger and Rozell contend that czars not only are ill-conceived but also disrupt a governing system based on democratic accountability. A sobering overview solidly grounded in public law analysis, this study serves as a counter-argument to those who would embrace an excessively powerful presidency, one with relatively limited constraints. Among other things, it proposes the restoration of accountability—starting with significant changes to Title 3 of the U.S. Code, which authorizes the president to appoint White House employees "without regard to any other provision of law." Ultimately, the authors argue that czars have generally not done a good job of making the executive branch bureaucracy more effective and efficient. Whatever utility presidents may see in appointing czars, Sollenberger and Rozell make a strong case that the overall damage to our constitutional system is great-and that this runaway practice has to stop.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.